No, no. A physicist would calculate how much water was required; a mathematician would only demonstrate that the fire would go out after a suffient quantify of water was poured on it.
Helicopters stay in the air by blowing air down, but airplanes don't, and ballons certainly do not. It definitely requires energy to gain altitude, but it isn't clear that it takes much to maintain it.
I am dubious it could be competitive with ground transport for fuel efficiency, though.
Presumably older equipment would produce less fumes than newer, yes? It's perfectly possible to get a 15-year-old IBM Model M PC keyboard off Ebay or elsewhere, and it's a fabulous keyboard - will last pretty much forever.
Well, it wasn't me that linked to that paper. But try this for an overview.
With a reversible machine you aren't changing its state in that sense; it will still use energy, but it's not clear there's a hard lower bound.
Now, actually building one of these and getting it to do anything useful is a whole other issue; to date as far as I know reversible computers are research toys and simulations, not practical compute engines.
No, the point is that, strangely, it isn't computing per se that necessarily takes energy, it's *forgetting*. A computer that can be run backwards to reverse the calculation has no thermodymanic limit on its minimum power consumption.
If you really want to block the WiFi, mightn't it be cheaper just to use a plain-vanilla faraday cage and pay for an extra cellphone base station inside?
No, he's right. If you're paying the RHAS subscription, Sun hardware is definately cheaper at the low end; it's close otherwise.
This makes me think the RHAS scheme is stupid, and is trading marketshare for short-term profit. Which is ok for a short-term plan, but they have to somehow get marketshare up to a critical level (20%?) long-term... they may be eating seedcorn here.
The DRI page seems to say that Intel is publishing the specs on these chipsets, and they are supported.
Unfortunately, this is still a low-end part and significantly slower than an ATI 9100 or 9200. On the other hand, Intel is shipping a jillion of these, so I'd figure they'll be reasonably well-supported and many games will run tolerably well on them for a few years.
If you want new open-source 3D, this may be the way to go. Worst case, if it's too slow, you can probably add a video card later...
Slashdot Mirror
Well, that's why you need a HDTV set at home, so you can use this to rip DVDs. Let's see CSS block that!
No, no. A physicist would calculate how much water was required; a mathematician would only demonstrate that the fire would go out after a suffient quantify of water was poured on it.
Helicopters stay in the air by blowing air down, but airplanes don't, and ballons certainly do not. It definitely requires energy to gain altitude, but it isn't clear that it takes much to maintain it.
I am dubious it could be competitive with ground transport for fuel efficiency, though.
Presumably older equipment would produce less fumes than newer, yes? It's perfectly possible to get a 15-year-old IBM Model M PC keyboard off Ebay or elsewhere, and it's a fabulous keyboard - will last pretty much forever.
A change in press coverage?
Well, it wasn't me that linked to that paper. But try this for an overview.
With a reversible machine you aren't changing its state in that sense; it will still use energy, but it's not clear there's a hard lower bound.
Now, actually building one of these and getting it to do anything useful is a whole other issue; to date as far as I know reversible computers are research toys and simulations, not practical compute engines.
No, the point is that, strangely, it isn't computing per se that necessarily takes energy, it's *forgetting*. A computer that can be run backwards to reverse the calculation has no thermodymanic limit on its minimum power consumption.
Yeah, there was some speculation back about 3 years ago Apple was going to introduce a thin-client-wireless-tablet and a headless desktop.
Obviously there's also a docking station with, eg, tablet stand and keyboard...
Would be nifty. Not sure it's wouldn't cost a jillion $.
Perhaps this will clarify:
Physicist Paul Dirac
Sure, the compression is really good, but the problem is that it makes everybody look like they have really bad hair...
(Only physics geeks will get this. Why am I bothering?)
"There's no set architecture in Linux. All roads lead to madness".
The penguins alone could not have saved us, but in conjunction with the mist they seem to have done so.
H.P. Lovecraft
"At the Mountains of Madness"
If you really want to block the WiFi, mightn't it be cheaper just to use a plain-vanilla faraday cage and pay for an extra cellphone base station inside?
Anymore?
Exactly when do you think the US ever has?
Of course, they'll need to post officers in your livingroom to prevent you from making illicit copies of your DVDs with camcorders...
No, he's right. If you're paying the RHAS subscription, Sun hardware is definately cheaper at the low end; it's close otherwise.
This makes me think the RHAS scheme is stupid, and is trading marketshare for short-term profit. Which is ok for a short-term plan, but they have to somehow get marketshare up to a critical level (20%?) long-term... they may be eating seedcorn here.
And I thought it was Itanium that was the gigaflop...
I believe their current design uses 50% H2O2 (semiconductor-production grade) mixed with alcohol to improve thrust/performance.
So if I run this exploint in a user-mode-linux instance, do I crash the UML or does it get the host OS also?
Would a working quantum computer be equivalent to a nondeterministic Turing machine?
Yeah, I'd like to see Apple's answer to Microsoft's XP Media Center. Something along those lines has to be in the works... Tivomac... mmm, tasty.
Now I want a cast-iron laptop. I don't care if it would weigh 20 pounds, that would rock. :)
f1rst p4t3nt!
The DRI page seems to say that Intel is publishing the specs on these chipsets, and they are supported.
Unfortunately, this is still a low-end part and significantly slower than an ATI 9100 or 9200. On the other hand, Intel is shipping a jillion of these, so I'd figure they'll be reasonably well-supported and many games will run tolerably well on them for a few years.
If you want new open-source 3D, this may be the way to go. Worst case, if it's too slow, you can probably add a video card later...
What is appropriate for the master is not appropriate for the student. Once the building is complete, we tear down the scaffolding.
Or 5000 (ok, maybe 500) manuals and reference works?