This may be anecdotal, but Asus have delivered on most of their battery-life claims consistently so far. Most reviews of their laptops, especially the netbooks, have shown that they don't exaggerate their operation time to any significant extent. Personally I have an Eee-1005HA and I don't think I can think of a reasonable usage scenario in which it would last for less than 7 hours. If I keep the CPU at forced maximum, and have it do video playback for the entire time, it still gets over 6 hours. If I keep it at forced powersave mode and only do Flash-free browsing, I've seen close to 8 hours (which is the claim).
If they deliver even 8 to 10 hours of reasonable usage, it would be a very big leap for a full-power laptop.
On the one hand, you're probably right. The 12 hours may only be achieved if you use the computer for basic office tasks, and/or browsing without Flash (or any other GPU-requiring extension). It's possible (probable) that if you kept GPU-intensive *and* CPU-intensive apps running all the time, like CAD/3D apps and/or most games, that you'd, at best, get half that battery life. But the point is that the majority of users will *not* do this. I think the point is that most users will at least see 10 hours of battery life, between browsing (with GPU-enabled Flash), "low-cost browsing" (google apps / wikipedia), playing media files (GPU-assisted, some of which may be HD), and relatively modest gaming.
Personally, I'd love to get even 8 hours of heavy usage out of a full-power laptop, as long as it doesn't weigh a ton, and have so many optimization mechanisms that it crashes every couple of hours.
While the availability of seamless switching between the two subsystems would be very convenient, I think that the original question that Enderandrew asked is still valid: Why not just lean on the one heavier GPU exclusively, and re-clock *that* GPU in the same manner that the CPU is re-clocked, on-the-fly?
I think that the answer is that the current GPUs *can't* be re-clocked as easily, or as flexibly, as the new i7 CPUs are designed to be. Because if they were, it would seem that re-clocking should involve less risk, less complexity, and fewer components than the method of switching between two completely independent subsystems (especially since the two systems are manufactured by different companies, and you're going to need to update the drivers for each of them individually).
What if, for example, NVIDIA decides to release a driver down the road that interferes with the way that Asus designed the switching mechanism? If that happens, who gets the blame? NVIDIA would probably say that the drivers were meant to be used with their GPU in the manner that the GPU was *designed* to be implemented, and Asus may not have enough leverage to "force" NVIDIA to manage a branch of the driver implementation which still supports their switching mechanism. This is all speculative, of course.
the Monarch is the head of state.. and commander in chief?
It's more than that, the Monarch is the Sovereign.
From Wikipedia:
"An important factor of sovereignty is its degree of absoluteness. A sovereign power has absolute sovereignty if it has the unlimited right to control everything and every kind of activity in its territory. This means that it is not restricted by a constitution, by the laws of its predecessors, or by custom, and no areas of law or behavior are reserved as being outside its control."
That's far more than "Head of State" and "Commander in Chief".
Re:From an American Point of View
on
Sir Patrick Stewart
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Perhaps it's like Captain Carrot - a king should remain hidden in the background
That's Captain Ironfoundersson to you, Lance-Constable!
Or when she's really pissed, she can "Off" people's heads.
Obviously, in Britain, "pissed" means drunk. She wouldn't order somebody's head off just because she was angry. I think.
In English We spell it with a 'K', so "I now dub thee Knight" is correct (but We don't pronounce the "K" -- go figure).
Who are you to say what he was dubbed? Maybe he was dubbed "Night", it may be a new designation or rank. Obviously someone may be also dubbed "Day", but there also may be "Dawn" and "Dusk", as in: "His Grace, the Dawn of Westminster".
I think this is a positive turn of events. Knights are getting old, and there are too many of them around. It's also no fun "dubbing" if the only thing you're ever realistically going to dub someone is "Knight".
I congratulate Sir Patrick Stewart, Night!
I also started looking up past winners, Johns explanation/justification code was brilliant. I had no idea such evilness could be so cleverly concealed.
What, we actually need to write code for something that happens by nature?
Their logic is sound:
Code written not to make this mistake will make it. How do you solve the problem? Write code that does make the mistake. The resulting software will then, logically, avoid making the mistake.
These are good points. I've just replied to the post above -- see the part about "fatigue". There are countless absurd laws that I think are harmful and have serious ramifications later on, but there's only so much I can do about it, especially when I'm wondering what the next threat will be, who it will involve, and recently -- where my paycheck will come from.
It's Maslow's hierarchy of needs: breathe and eat first, ask questions later...
I must say that it's been a long while since something made me think and debate my own reasoning as your post did. I've re-written this reply twice already, just trying to get my thoughts (and opinions) in order.
I'll need to address the issues in a different order from the one in which they were brought up:
When I said that the original quote regarding the conflict was "a separate and extremely involved issue", my intention was to completely detach any of my personal opinions about the conflict from the post. I meant to say that the conflict *exists*, and isn't going away any time soon, and so things should indeed be considered within that context.
Because of this, the response from citizens is going to go in two separate directions:
A) I'm tired of trying to live my life only to have it interrupted -- not by accidents -- but by intentional, malicious attacks by fundamentalists and religious zealots. If by erecting the West Bank Barrier lives were saved (and there's not much debate about that), then I'm not that concerned about the inconvenience caused, mostly to the other side. Therefor, in turn, I'm willing to sacrifice some of my freedoms in order to save additional lives (the effectiveness of this *is* debatable, but even the possibility of success is worth the sacrifice).
B) People living in fear will give up quite a bit to whomever offers them hope. In this case, it's a sacrifice of personal freedoms. At some point, however, the life you get after all the sacrifices have been made is an unacceptable compromise. This is a particular sacrifice that is far too fundamental for a free society to make.
I suppose that my mind isn't made up, but the opinion of most of the people around me was "easy enough to accept", and it always seems like there are bigger issues to worry about, so I went with it.
Specific arguments:
Hi, I'm also an Israeli.
This law is "risky, superfluous, and expensive" and your apathy (and the apathy of all others with the same "don't care" attitude around you) saddens me deeply.
The argument Israel never regarded my personal information with care, so who cares if I give it some more to play around with carelessly is a really stupid argument. The premise of that argument should lead you to the opposite conclusion. You should worry more when such a careless regime asks for more power from the citizens instead of passing laws that limit such malpractices.
Logically, this is sound. However there's also a practical aspect -- some of the milk has already been spilled. The census already provides anyone with the information they need to construct a photo database (certainly anyone with government resources, but also private entities). Fingerprints are/will be handled by the same organization that handle the census information, so they probably already have a large piece of the puzzle, they're just filling the rest in. This is, as you say, saddening. But the pragmatic aspect means that since we can't get back the milk that has already been spilled, and the possibility that spilling some more milk will solve some problems, makes for a passable (if depressing) argument.
Did I just say that the "regime asks" for more power? I just made myself laugh. The issue of the ID cards and the central biometric database were never openly on the table, were never debated in any elections and the only coverage in the media was in small Sci/Tech sections for geeks and nerds. Most of the paragraphs in the law were voted for "unanimously" by one person (Meir Sheetrit) who managed and supervised the comity as a self pleasing theater.
True.
Your apathy (and the apathy of those like you) is not a reasonable response to the situation in Israel in any way or form. On the contrary. There are many dangers to the state of Israel, and the outside threats are negligible compared to what the 120 idiots in the Knesset are doing to our democracy for the last decade.
Slashdot Mirror
This may be anecdotal, but Asus have delivered on most of their battery-life claims consistently so far. Most reviews of their laptops, especially the netbooks, have shown that they don't exaggerate their operation time to any significant extent. Personally I have an Eee-1005HA and I don't think I can think of a reasonable usage scenario in which it would last for less than 7 hours. If I keep the CPU at forced maximum, and have it do video playback for the entire time, it still gets over 6 hours. If I keep it at forced powersave mode and only do Flash-free browsing, I've seen close to 8 hours (which is the claim).
If they deliver even 8 to 10 hours of reasonable usage, it would be a very big leap for a full-power laptop.
On the one hand, you're probably right. The 12 hours may only be achieved if you use the computer for basic office tasks, and/or browsing without Flash (or any other GPU-requiring extension). It's possible (probable) that if you kept GPU-intensive *and* CPU-intensive apps running all the time, like CAD/3D apps and/or most games, that you'd, at best, get half that battery life. But the point is that the majority of users will *not* do this. I think the point is that most users will at least see 10 hours of battery life, between browsing (with GPU-enabled Flash), "low-cost browsing" (google apps / wikipedia), playing media files (GPU-assisted, some of which may be HD), and relatively modest gaming.
Personally, I'd love to get even 8 hours of heavy usage out of a full-power laptop, as long as it doesn't weigh a ton, and have so many optimization mechanisms that it crashes every couple of hours.
As Ant P. points out below, Asus Eee PCs have a powersave mode which is 2. That means that in binary it's mode "11". Ta-da!
(oh, the pain)
While the availability of seamless switching between the two subsystems would be very convenient, I think that the original question that Enderandrew asked is still valid: Why not just lean on the one heavier GPU exclusively, and re-clock *that* GPU in the same manner that the CPU is re-clocked, on-the-fly?
I think that the answer is that the current GPUs *can't* be re-clocked as easily, or as flexibly, as the new i7 CPUs are designed to be. Because if they were, it would seem that re-clocking should involve less risk, less complexity, and fewer components than the method of switching between two completely independent subsystems (especially since the two systems are manufactured by different companies, and you're going to need to update the drivers for each of them individually).
What if, for example, NVIDIA decides to release a driver down the road that interferes with the way that Asus designed the switching mechanism? If that happens, who gets the blame? NVIDIA would probably say that the drivers were meant to be used with their GPU in the manner that the GPU was *designed* to be implemented, and Asus may not have enough leverage to "force" NVIDIA to manage a branch of the driver implementation which still supports their switching mechanism. This is all speculative, of course.
No. The bone goes where it is Bushy not wooded.
That depends. Grooming habits vary.
Damn it man, place an "NSFW" before that!!
Says_who ? Boner = Woody : Boner = 0; // ( = means equals, you programming language nazis)
There, that's better.
There's one crucial difference: I'm not wooding your mom right now.
Look up the time and day of the week. Then look at what you're doing right now. You're not wooding *anyone* anytime soon.
This has been disproved by Twittter, the Wikipedia article isn't up to date. The new number is the number of people following ashton kutcher.
the Monarch is the head of state.. and commander in chief?
It's more than that, the Monarch is the Sovereign.
From Wikipedia:
"An important factor of sovereignty is its degree of absoluteness. A sovereign power has absolute sovereignty if it has the unlimited right to control everything and every kind of activity in its territory. This means that it is not restricted by a constitution, by the laws of its predecessors, or by custom, and no areas of law or behavior are reserved as being outside its control."
That's far more than "Head of State" and "Commander in Chief".
Perhaps it's like Captain Carrot - a king should remain hidden in the background
That's Captain Ironfoundersson to you, Lance-Constable!
Or when she's really pissed, she can "Off" people's heads.
Obviously, in Britain, "pissed" means drunk. She wouldn't order somebody's head off just because she was angry. I think.
The Borg Queen only dubs people as "Drone". She can also use a proxy to do so, as seen here.
Here's Sir Patrick Stewart being "Droned"
In English We spell it with a 'K', so "I now dub thee Knight" is correct (but We don't pronounce the "K" -- go figure).
Who are you to say what he was dubbed? Maybe he was dubbed "Night", it may be a new designation or rank. Obviously someone may be also dubbed "Day", but there also may be "Dawn" and "Dusk", as in: "His Grace, the Dawn of Westminster".
I think this is a positive turn of events. Knights are getting old, and there are too many of them around. It's also no fun "dubbing" if the only thing you're ever realistically going to dub someone is "Knight".
I congratulate Sir Patrick Stewart, Night!
Yeah, this would also avoid the issue of prior art.
Though I think some have already tried directing/deflecting signals using spoons...
Such fun with pots and puns.
I've seen better. It's spicy, but it lacks bouquet. It'd go well with fish.
I also started looking up past winners, Johns explanation/justification code was brilliant. I had no idea such evilness could be so cleverly concealed.
So you're new to C?
Hardly. It is supposed to be "short, readable, clear and innocent". What are the odds that any of the airline production code meets that description?
Hardly. It is supposed to be "short, readable, clear and innocent". What are the odds that any software written in C meets that description?
There, fixed.
What, we actually need to write code for something that happens by nature?
Their logic is sound:
Code written not to make this mistake will make it. How do you solve the problem? Write code that does make the mistake. The resulting software will then, logically, avoid making the mistake.
From IMDB re Yes Man: "...A guy challenges himself to say "yes" to everything for an entire year".
I would be looking at this with tongue firmly in cheek.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1068680/
(yeah, that was the best I could come up with...)
Higher precision, please.
You people and your "math speak"... Maybe he was just excited to type the number 300? Did you ever consider that? Huh?
Also, he could have meant the bitwise operation. Which means it could have been interpreted as "300... NOT!".
Broaden your horizon, dude.
These are good points. I've just replied to the post above -- see the part about "fatigue". There are countless absurd laws that I think are harmful and have serious ramifications later on, but there's only so much I can do about it, especially when I'm wondering what the next threat will be, who it will involve, and recently -- where my paycheck will come from.
It's Maslow's hierarchy of needs: breathe and eat first, ask questions later...
I'll need to address the issues in a different order from the one in which they were brought up:
When I said that the original quote regarding the conflict was "a separate and extremely involved issue", my intention was to completely detach any of my personal opinions about the conflict from the post. I meant to say that the conflict *exists*, and isn't going away any time soon, and so things should indeed be considered within that context.
Because of this, the response from citizens is going to go in two separate directions:
A) I'm tired of trying to live my life only to have it interrupted -- not by accidents -- but by intentional, malicious attacks by fundamentalists and religious zealots. If by erecting the West Bank Barrier lives were saved (and there's not much debate about that), then I'm not that concerned about the inconvenience caused, mostly to the other side. Therefor, in turn, I'm willing to sacrifice some of my freedoms in order to save additional lives (the effectiveness of this *is* debatable, but even the possibility of success is worth the sacrifice).
B) People living in fear will give up quite a bit to whomever offers them hope. In this case, it's a sacrifice of personal freedoms. At some point, however, the life you get after all the sacrifices have been made is an unacceptable compromise. This is a particular sacrifice that is far too fundamental for a free society to make.
I suppose that my mind isn't made up, but the opinion of most of the people around me was "easy enough to accept", and it always seems like there are bigger issues to worry about, so I went with it.
Specific arguments:
Hi, I'm also an Israeli.
This law is "risky, superfluous, and expensive" and your apathy (and the apathy of all others with the same "don't care" attitude around you) saddens me deeply.
The argument Israel never regarded my personal information with care, so who cares if I give it some more to play around with carelessly is a really stupid argument. The premise of that argument should lead you to the opposite conclusion. You should worry more when such a careless regime asks for more power from the citizens instead of passing laws that limit such malpractices.
Logically, this is sound. However there's also a practical aspect -- some of the milk has already been spilled. The census already provides anyone with the information they need to construct a photo database (certainly anyone with government resources, but also private entities). Fingerprints are/will be handled by the same organization that handle the census information, so they probably already have a large piece of the puzzle, they're just filling the rest in. This is, as you say, saddening. But the pragmatic aspect means that since we can't get back the milk that has already been spilled, and the possibility that spilling some more milk will solve some problems, makes for a passable (if depressing) argument.
Did I just say that the "regime asks" for more power? I just made myself laugh. The issue of the ID cards and the central biometric database were never openly on the table, were never debated in any elections and the only coverage in the media was in small Sci/Tech sections for geeks and nerds. Most of the paragraphs in the law were voted for "unanimously" by one person (Meir Sheetrit) who managed and supervised the comity as a self pleasing theater.
True.
Your apathy (and the apathy of those like you) is not a reasonable response to the situation in Israel in any way or form. On the contrary. There are many dangers to the state of Israel, and the outside threats are negligible compared to what the 120 idiots in the Knesset are doing to our democracy for the last decade.