But do you end up with a nice stable temperature like you would with a sphericalish orbiting body getting its heat from a star?
I know some of the volcanically active moons get crushed in different ways during their long orbits round their body, but I'd have thought that'd lead to fairly major temperature variations.
It's all very nice, but it'll be doing that to my programs too, and I'd rather let the producers of the program control the volume levels there, rather than have my telly decide which bits are too loud or too quiet. I've got the option on my amp to do this, but I'm never really tempted to enable it.
Sure, and I wasn't even really meaning to say that this was always the practice, more that it was at least used; I should definitely have been clearer. I was specifically referring to experiences within Visualization. I've also seen this in eScience, although it's definitely not a universal practice. I'd question what it acheives, and it can be a pain for the author having to produce two versions of the paper, one for review, and one for print.
It is done as you've guessed, but it's still often obvious who the author is. Don't forget that sometimes a bad review has nothing to do with knowing who the author is. If you come across a paper that's done almost exactly the same work as you have done, or criticises your work, you could choose to give it a false bad review to try to prevent it from being published. I've seen papers that have received three reviews, two that say it's good, and one that says it's nowhere near worthy of being published. You often question the outliers.
I went to a talk from a fusion proponent recently who was involved with ITER, and had worked on fusion for most of his career. His view is that the media obsess over break even, and don't understand the reasons they've not hit it. His explanation was that they know how to get to break even now, but that wouldn't make for a usable reactor, as the cost of enegy production would be just too high if you're only just past that threshold. Also the cost of hitting break even now is considerably more than not hitting it. So instead of wasting lots of money hitting break even for a headline, they're trying to sort the issues they know to exist that are stopping them from being considerably more efficient than break even.
There were people on ITER who wanted it to be connected up to the grid, so that if they surpass break even (which they expect to), they'd be able to get a considerable PR coup. Problem is, hooking it up would have added considerably to the costs, which given how much it's overrun could have ended up killing the project.
I'd look at it differently. Is there any reason why transferring ownership of this work would lose you the right to pursue misuse of that work? The reality here is that the car crash has already happened.
Playing devil's advocate -- it's pretty trivial to make a Silverlight interface to pan and zoom around a giant image like this. It's less trivial to do the same thing with, say, JavaScript or Flash.
I'm just not sure it's true. ImageScope provides a workable flash interface to allow you to view 10,000 MPixel images just fine. It's not all that hard whatever you're writing it in. Pyramid tiled images make writing a front end pretty easy to be honest. I think the good work they've done is the image processing at the back end to get this data into nice shape in the first place.
Firstly, if you passed your test in the UK in the past five years then knowing how to change a wheel is actually part of the test. You don't have to actually do it on the test, you just have to demonstrate that you know how - so if, for example, you're disabled you could ask someone to help and tell them what to do.
No, you don't necessarily get asked. There's a randomly selected part that relates to that. You're expected to know where things are under the bonnet (so may be asked to show where things are), and there's a more practical test to walk through the steps to check your lights are working or to test if your power steering has failed. I can believe it's in the random list of things you're supposed to know, but you've probably only got a 25% chance of being asked about it. But having taken my test in the past five years, I can tell you that not only is it randomly selected, but it's seemingly optional.
Quite expensive, but very nice looking, thanks for the link. The USB support also sounds excellent with support for any device via a remote USB driver (which I assume is windows only).
If only it had built in ADSL it'd be the real deal. But as it is, I'm back up to having two boxes. I'm not saying that's a total deal breaker, but it certainly means it's not perfect. Belkin do models that cover all of this assuming you don't mind external USB storage. Also, Time Capsule 2Tb is £388.00 from the UK Apple store. Oucheroo. You'd be under £250 if you bought the top Belkin model and a 2Tb USB disk.
Certainly under linux ram used as disk cache is marked "free".
No it isn't.
I'm here sat on a machine with hardly anything running, and I've got less than 150Mbytes of 'free' memory. Ignoring anything else, I've got 2254596kB Cached and 365836kB buffers. That's disk cache/buffer, and it's not listed as Free.
Energy cost, perhaps, but I don't know about kinetic energy output. If you're saying you can use 500W for long periods (let's say a couple of hours), then match that to calorie intake. That's 860 kcal to replace the energy cost for that additional work. That's believeable right?
This is also true of any typical x86_64 node in an HPC. It's just a regular server board, often optimised for high density (so half-width 1U isn't uncommon) and with a better interconnect than gigabit (like Infiniband). Rack mount that'll fit double width PCIe cards used to be tricky. Now even Dell produces one (Precision rack mount).
Having code that it is a good fit for Tesla is a big problem. A lot of HPC work is code that's been tweaked since the 70s that is a mangle of Fortran 4/77/90/95 hacked on by every PhD along the way. Rewriting it would often reap huge rewards (never mind looking at GPGPU), but getting the funding and time to do it is another matter.
In which case I've lost my mind and apologise. I took the first RPM from rawhide 0xFFFF-0.3.9-4.fc12.x86_64.rpm and tested to see if it was signed. It was, but this doesn't seem to be universal, so you're right, and I'm entirely wrong.
Not that I have a Beta to hand to check this, but you're saying that they sign Rawhide packages, but don't sign Beta packages? I find this highly unlikely, to the extent I'd guess you just made this up.
Let's get your logic right here. 15Mbit x 60 seconds = 112.5Mbytes/minute, so nearly 7Gbytes / hour. That's just not the case. At most it's about 2Gbytes/hour on a high bitrate channel.
I'll just check a recording for you off my Humax PVR...
Bride and Prejudice recorded off Channel 4 which is one of the better bitrate channels (1.75 - 4.62Mbit). 704x576 @ 25Hz, with 192kbit 48kHz audio.
It's 140 minutes long and it's 3.07Gbytes, giving about 3Mbit I reckon. Right in line with what I'd said.
I think you need to stop loving it quite so much. Freeview varies in quality depending on the channel, but it's transmitted at 720x576 or less, and with 2-3Mbit average bandwidth. Compared to a good analogue signal it's typically inferior. Plenty of channels are 544x576 with a sub 1Mbit minimum bandwidth. The blocking this causes is inbelieveable.
DAB radio is also unambitious, offering 128kbit streams. It's alright, it's just that very few people see the point if they've got a good FM signal. At home you might as well just use the radio streams off freeview as they're the same bitrate, and a freeview tuner is cheaper than a DAB radio. Cars are perhaps the only place there's an advantage given (I presume) improved reception compared to freeview. For most people, it's just not that much better than FM. Radio 4 certainly sounds much the same...
All in, I'm much happier with DTV than analogue, for the easy access to PVR functionality that it enabled. But that doesn't mean I don't think it's got problems.
Slashdot Mirror
But do you end up with a nice stable temperature like you would with a sphericalish orbiting body getting its heat from a star?
I know some of the volcanically active moons get crushed in different ways during their long orbits round their body, but I'd have thought that'd lead to fairly major temperature variations.
I know remarkably little about astrophysics ;)
Hot moon orbiting a cold giant sounds potentially trixy. Orbit would also be fairly important, or else you'd freeze your nuts off behind the giant.
Absolutely, that makes perfect sense if you're talking about dedicated boxes, but that doesn't sound like it's the case here.
+1 for VirtualBox. Why you'd use ESX I have no idea. I'd probably second choice VMWare Server, which is also free and works equally well.
It's all very nice, but it'll be doing that to my programs too, and I'd rather let the producers of the program control the volume levels there, rather than have my telly decide which bits are too loud or too quiet. I've got the option on my amp to do this, but I'm never really tempted to enable it.
Sure, and I wasn't even really meaning to say that this was always the practice, more that it was at least used; I should definitely have been clearer. I was specifically referring to experiences within Visualization. I've also seen this in eScience, although it's definitely not a universal practice. I'd question what it acheives, and it can be a pain for the author having to produce two versions of the paper, one for review, and one for print.
It is done as you've guessed, but it's still often obvious who the author is. Don't forget that sometimes a bad review has nothing to do with knowing who the author is. If you come across a paper that's done almost exactly the same work as you have done, or criticises your work, you could choose to give it a false bad review to try to prevent it from being published. I've seen papers that have received three reviews, two that say it's good, and one that says it's nowhere near worthy of being published. You often question the outliers.
I went to a talk from a fusion proponent recently who was involved with ITER, and had worked on fusion for most of his career. His view is that the media obsess over break even, and don't understand the reasons they've not hit it. His explanation was that they know how to get to break even now, but that wouldn't make for a usable reactor, as the cost of enegy production would be just too high if you're only just past that threshold. Also the cost of hitting break even now is considerably more than not hitting it. So instead of wasting lots of money hitting break even for a headline, they're trying to sort the issues they know to exist that are stopping them from being considerably more efficient than break even.
There were people on ITER who wanted it to be connected up to the grid, so that if they surpass break even (which they expect to), they'd be able to get a considerable PR coup. Problem is, hooking it up would have added considerably to the costs, which given how much it's overrun could have ended up killing the project.
I'd look at it differently. Is there any reason why transferring ownership of this work would lose you the right to pursue misuse of that work? The reality here is that the car crash has already happened.
Playing devil's advocate -- it's pretty trivial to make a Silverlight interface to pan and zoom around a giant image like this. It's less trivial to do the same thing with, say, JavaScript or Flash.
I'm just not sure it's true. ImageScope provides a workable flash interface to allow you to view 10,000 MPixel images just fine. It's not all that hard whatever you're writing it in. Pyramid tiled images make writing a front end pretty easy to be honest. I think the good work they've done is the image processing at the back end to get this data into nice shape in the first place.
That's where the UK and the US differ. We recognise the existence of tax payers who aren't middle class...
Firstly, if you passed your test in the UK in the past five years then knowing how to change a wheel is actually part of the test. You don't have to actually do it on the test, you just have to demonstrate that you know how - so if, for example, you're disabled you could ask someone to help and tell them what to do.
No, you don't necessarily get asked. There's a randomly selected part that relates to that. You're expected to know where things are under the bonnet (so may be asked to show where things are), and there's a more practical test to walk through the steps to check your lights are working or to test if your power steering has failed. I can believe it's in the random list of things you're supposed to know, but you've probably only got a 25% chance of being asked about it. But having taken my test in the past five years, I can tell you that not only is it randomly selected, but it's seemingly optional.
Quite expensive, but very nice looking, thanks for the link. The USB support also sounds excellent with support for any device via a remote USB driver (which I assume is windows only).
If only it had built in ADSL it'd be the real deal. But as it is, I'm back up to having two boxes. I'm not saying that's a total deal breaker, but it certainly means it's not perfect. Belkin do models that cover all of this assuming you don't mind external USB storage. Also, Time Capsule 2Tb is £388.00 from the UK Apple store. Oucheroo. You'd be under £250 if you bought the top Belkin model and a 2Tb USB disk.
12. ish.
Well, not quite. I'd agree if it wasn't for an odd anomaly. SI unit for mass is kg, not g. Describe that as anything other than boneheaded.
Certainly under linux ram used as disk cache is marked "free".
No it isn't.
I'm here sat on a machine with hardly anything running, and I've got less than 150Mbytes of 'free' memory. Ignoring anything else, I've got 2254596kB Cached and 365836kB buffers. That's disk cache/buffer, and it's not listed as Free.
jh
Energy cost, perhaps, but I don't know about kinetic energy output. If you're saying you can use 500W for long periods (let's say a couple of hours), then match that to calorie intake. That's 860 kcal to replace the energy cost for that additional work. That's believeable right?
Muscle efficiency http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muscle#Efficiency
"The efficiency of human muscle has been measured (in the context of rowing and cycling) at 18% to 26%"
So if you were right, you'd actually need 3400 kcal to replace losses from that 2 hour exercise. That's waaay too much.
With my logic, that means you actual power output is actually more like 125W, almost perfectly inline with the motor being twice as powerful.
Yep, but the point is, action wouldn't have been possible, given current technology.
This is also true of any typical x86_64 node in an HPC. It's just a regular server board, often optimised for high density (so half-width 1U isn't uncommon) and with a better interconnect than gigabit (like Infiniband). Rack mount that'll fit double width PCIe cards used to be tricky. Now even Dell produces one (Precision rack mount).
Having code that it is a good fit for Tesla is a big problem. A lot of HPC work is code that's been tweaked since the 70s that is a mangle of Fortran 4/77/90/95 hacked on by every PhD along the way. Rewriting it would often reap huge rewards (never mind looking at GPGPU), but getting the funding and time to do it is another matter.
In which case I've lost my mind and apologise. I took the first RPM from rawhide 0xFFFF-0.3.9-4.fc12.x86_64.rpm and tested to see if it was signed. It was, but this doesn't seem to be universal, so you're right, and I'm entirely wrong.
Not that I have a Beta to hand to check this, but you're saying that they sign Rawhide packages, but don't sign Beta packages? I find this highly unlikely, to the extent I'd guess you just made this up.
http://dtt.me.uk/
Let's get your logic right here. 15Mbit x 60 seconds = 112.5Mbytes/minute, so nearly 7Gbytes / hour. That's just not the case. At most it's about 2Gbytes/hour on a high bitrate channel.
I'll just check a recording for you off my Humax PVR...
Bride and Prejudice recorded off Channel 4 which is one of the better bitrate channels (1.75 - 4.62Mbit). 704x576 @ 25Hz, with 192kbit 48kHz audio.
It's 140 minutes long and it's 3.07Gbytes, giving about 3Mbit I reckon. Right in line with what I'd said.
I think you need to stop loving it quite so much. Freeview varies in quality depending on the channel, but it's transmitted at 720x576 or less, and with 2-3Mbit average bandwidth. Compared to a good analogue signal it's typically inferior. Plenty of channels are 544x576 with a sub 1Mbit minimum bandwidth. The blocking this causes is inbelieveable.
DAB radio is also unambitious, offering 128kbit streams. It's alright, it's just that very few people see the point if they've got a good FM signal. At home you might as well just use the radio streams off freeview as they're the same bitrate, and a freeview tuner is cheaper than a DAB radio. Cars are perhaps the only place there's an advantage given (I presume) improved reception compared to freeview. For most people, it's just not that much better than FM. Radio 4 certainly sounds much the same...
All in, I'm much happier with DTV than analogue, for the easy access to PVR functionality that it enabled. But that doesn't mean I don't think it's got problems.
But this is obviously due to you being ever so slightly mental.