I've wondered why some servers aren't made more like car audio amps. Just hang the guts in a rugged, densely-finned, extruded aluminum case that's used as a heatsink for anything needing one.
Put the warm bits on a PC board laid out so they all touch the case when installed, spooge 'em with thermal paste and bolt 'em in. Have a simple gasketed cover plate for maintenance.
I've often wondered about this, since I'm interested in quiet, passive-cooled systems. There's something seriously wrong about putting the most intense heat source in the middle of the case, and then adding all kinds of contraptions to deal with the heat.
For example, putting the CPU on the 'wrong' side of the motherboard would be a simple and effective solution.
The latancey is falling. It has to wait the same amount of cycles but is running at a faster clock.
Not according to my observations. When going from DDR to DDR2, the data transfer rate doubles. For simplicity, let's keep the base clock frequency the same. For a typical base of 166 MHz, DDR has a transfer rate of 333 MHz, and DDR2 has 667 MHz.
However, the latency numbers are also doubled, for example from 2.5 to 5. Thus the actual time of latency remains the same. The same kind of doubling happens when going from DDR2 to DDR3.
When you say "the same amount of cycles", please look at DDR figures such as 2-2-2-6, DDR2 figures such as 4-4-4-12, and DDR3 figures like 8-8-8-24. Then tell me if these mean the same amount of cycles.
Of course, the same number of cycles is there if you look at the base clock. I don't know the exact workings here, but I imagine the latencies are driven by the base clock, which is basically the same. DDR does 2 transfers per cycle, DDR2 does 4, and DDR3 does 8. But even if you only transfer one byte, you need to wait for the whole base cycle. It's the classical problem of latency vs. throughput once again.
DDR3 has a much higher clock frequency, so 8 cycles of latency isn't that bad. Broadly speaking, latencies have stayed the same since DDR, while throughput has increased.
One problem with these newer memory types is that latency isn't improving at all. Only throughput is. For example, 333 MHz DDR, 667 MHz DDR2, and 1333 MHz DDR3 generally have the same latencies, while theoretically the throughput is doubled for each new generation. This DDR3 latency of 8-8-8-24 corresponds to the same times as 2-2-2-6 on DDR, which doesn't sound too fancy.
Agreed, NAT is a particularly ugly solution whereas IPv6 is much more elegant. However, there seems to be a business case for NAT, in that it helps maintain the idea of consumers vs. producers. If you want Real Internet (TM), get a business account.
Actually, I'm probably spoiled, since many Finnish ISPs give you 5 public IP addresses. My current ISP doesn't even distinguish between private and business contracts, though they do provide higher-grade services as well.
Yes, because multiprocessor systems didn't exist until Intel innovated the Core. Which raises the question, how exactly did the earlier processor generations do any work if they didn't have any Cores.
What if they are recalling the story they made up previously?
I was also thinking about the reverse. You probably don't keep an exact mental log of your whereabouts, and you may need to do a little reconstruction of what happened. For example, interpolate based on meetings and other occasions with fixed time and place.
Ok, I will grant that psychics are real. It's just their supernatural abilities that are fake.
OT, but I urge everyone here to try and define 'supernatural'.
My impression of 'supernatural' is that which cannot be explained by current laws/theories of science. One thing with science is that it's progressive. For example, nuclear physics was mostly 'supernatural' a hundred years ago.
Science keeps progressing, and it's not like we know everything about the nature right now. People working in particle physics, for example, are occasionally faced with events that aren't fully explained by current theories. I wonder why these scientists aren't applying for Randi's prize.
OK, small speakers can sound great, especially with a subwoofer. What I don't get is the article's point on the lack of speakers in a projector. It's like complaining that a fishtank doesn't come with a bicycle.
I can't imagine why somebody willing to set up a projector for a home theatre, would be satisfied with crappy sound coming from a completely wrong direction. I can understand monitors and TVs with speakers, because they are usually in sensible locations with respect to the picture.
Yet most of the projectors I've encountered have some kind of speaker systems, naturally with the requisite preamp and power amp stages. Can somebody here tell me why?
Most likely it was a combination of low volume and pressure from Microsoft. If M/S keeps the pressure on and the sales don't make it worthwhile fighting then they drop the line.
Most likely it was an example of Boyle's law in action: the higher the pressure, the lower the volume.
Me too... I don't think we are unique snowflakes here. The traditional geek stereotype for decades has been skin and bones, with the fat pizza-and-coke eating kind a relatively new phenomenon.
99% of systems that use speakers have 2-conductor speaker wires per speaker.
99% of headphones have 3-conductor wires for the whole system.
joint stereo is such that when you turn the balance all the way to one side, you can still hear it in the other.
speaker systems usually don't do this.
Speaker systems also use a common ground. Only the cables between the amplifier and the speakers have separate ground wires, for obvious practical reasons. You might need to learn a bit more about electronics to understand what the ground actually does, and why a shared ground doesn't share the actual signals.
The problem with most headphones is that the signal wires are usually not shielded from each other. Instead, they are paired inside a common shield. There is inductive transfer between the two, which is why you can't silence one channel completely. It may also be that balance pots aren't perfect, as they are not usually designed for complete channel muting.
This is not a problem in practice, though. As I mentioned in the grandparent post, when you listen to speakers, both of your ears will pick up sounds from all speakers. Only relatively small differences are required to convey the stereo image. It's been estimated that a channel separation of about 20 dB is enough for headphones.
There are good reasons why 5.1 headphones are hard to get right. One is that 5.1 sounds are meant to be played from speakers well away from your ears. Both of your ears are receiving sounds from all speakers, and it's the differences in phase and timing (not so much volume) that tells your brain where the sound appears to come from.
Playing the same signals next to your ear, with right and left sides isolated, leads to very different results. In any case, you only have two input channels for sound, and you should be able to get good results with in-ear monitors and a decent transfer function.
one of the real problems that most of the 5.1 phones face is their common ground conductor. This leads to joint stereo and muddies up the positioning.
Seriously? Every audio system I know of uses a common ground. If you're interested in a lecture in electronics, I can probably explain more;)
And what the heck does "joint stereo" mean in this context?
Slashdot Mirror
Every cloud has a silverlightning.
> 2) Do you drink and / or drug?
I regularly drink and /. I used to drug and / but that was in my younger years.
If you're posting here, chances are that you /. regularly.
Yes, and you can use it to send a blessed +2 chain mail.
I've wondered why some servers aren't made more like car audio amps. Just hang the guts in a rugged, densely-finned, extruded aluminum case that's used as a heatsink for anything needing one.
Put the warm bits on a PC board laid out so they all touch the case when installed, spooge 'em with thermal paste and bolt 'em in. Have a simple gasketed cover plate for maintenance.
I've often wondered about this, since I'm interested in quiet, passive-cooled systems. There's something seriously wrong about putting the most intense heat source in the middle of the case, and then adding all kinds of contraptions to deal with the heat.
For example, putting the CPU on the 'wrong' side of the motherboard would be a simple and effective solution.
The latancey is falling. It has to wait the same amount of cycles but is running at a faster clock.
Not according to my observations. When going from DDR to DDR2, the data transfer rate doubles. For simplicity, let's keep the base clock frequency the same. For a typical base of 166 MHz, DDR has a transfer rate of 333 MHz, and DDR2 has 667 MHz.
However, the latency numbers are also doubled, for example from 2.5 to 5. Thus the actual time of latency remains the same. The same kind of doubling happens when going from DDR2 to DDR3.
When you say "the same amount of cycles", please look at DDR figures such as 2-2-2-6, DDR2 figures such as 4-4-4-12, and DDR3 figures like 8-8-8-24. Then tell me if these mean the same amount of cycles.
Of course, the same number of cycles is there if you look at the base clock. I don't know the exact workings here, but I imagine the latencies are driven by the base clock, which is basically the same. DDR does 2 transfers per cycle, DDR2 does 4, and DDR3 does 8. But even if you only transfer one byte, you need to wait for the whole base cycle. It's the classical problem of latency vs. throughput once again.
DDR3 has a much higher clock frequency, so 8 cycles of latency isn't that bad. Broadly speaking, latencies have stayed the same since DDR, while throughput has increased.
One problem with these newer memory types is that latency isn't improving at all. Only throughput is. For example, 333 MHz DDR, 667 MHz DDR2, and 1333 MHz DDR3 generally have the same latencies, while theoretically the throughput is doubled for each new generation. This DDR3 latency of 8-8-8-24 corresponds to the same times as 2-2-2-6 on DDR, which doesn't sound too fancy.
Agreed, NAT is a particularly ugly solution whereas IPv6 is much more elegant. However, there seems to be a business case for NAT, in that it helps maintain the idea of consumers vs. producers. If you want Real Internet (TM), get a business account.
Actually, I'm probably spoiled, since many Finnish ISPs give you 5 public IP addresses. My current ISP doesn't even distinguish between private and business contracts, though they do provide higher-grade services as well.
Yes, because multiprocessor systems didn't exist until Intel innovated the Core. Which raises the question, how exactly did the earlier processor generations do any work if they didn't have any Cores.
Not to mention sunk costs.
What if they are recalling the story they made up previously?
I was also thinking about the reverse. You probably don't keep an exact mental log of your whereabouts, and you may need to do a little reconstruction of what happened. For example, interpolate based on meetings and other occasions with fixed time and place.
Ok, I will grant that psychics are real. It's just their supernatural abilities that are fake.
OT, but I urge everyone here to try and define 'supernatural'.
My impression of 'supernatural' is that which cannot be explained by current laws/theories of science. One thing with science is that it's progressive. For example, nuclear physics was mostly 'supernatural' a hundred years ago.
Science keeps progressing, and it's not like we know everything about the nature right now. People working in particle physics, for example, are occasionally faced with events that aren't fully explained by current theories. I wonder why these scientists aren't applying for Randi's prize.
OK, small speakers can sound great, especially with a subwoofer. What I don't get is the article's point on the lack of speakers in a projector. It's like complaining that a fishtank doesn't come with a bicycle.
I can't imagine why somebody willing to set up a projector for a home theatre, would be satisfied with crappy sound coming from a completely wrong direction. I can understand monitors and TVs with speakers, because they are usually in sensible locations with respect to the picture.
Yet most of the projectors I've encountered have some kind of speaker systems, naturally with the requisite preamp and power amp stages. Can somebody here tell me why?
a really old house that's on the verge of falling down
Soap. Make and sell soap. Sell rich women their own fat asses back to them.
I've also used Minefield for a long time, without realizing that in Mozilla's case it means the legal kind.
"Hell, Word!"
Now that's a true Microsoft innovation...
Most likely it was a combination of low volume and pressure from Microsoft. If M/S keeps the pressure on and the sales don't make it worthwhile fighting then they drop the line.
Most likely it was an example of Boyle's law in action: the higher the pressure, the lower the volume.
Me too... I don't think we are unique snowflakes here. The traditional geek stereotype for decades has been skin and bones, with the fat pizza-and-coke eating kind a relatively new phenomenon.
99% of systems that use speakers have 2-conductor speaker wires per speaker. 99% of headphones have 3-conductor wires for the whole system.
joint stereo is such that when you turn the balance all the way to one side, you can still hear it in the other.
speaker systems usually don't do this.
Speaker systems also use a common ground. Only the cables between the amplifier and the speakers have separate ground wires, for obvious practical reasons. You might need to learn a bit more about electronics to understand what the ground actually does, and why a shared ground doesn't share the actual signals.
The problem with most headphones is that the signal wires are usually not shielded from each other. Instead, they are paired inside a common shield. There is inductive transfer between the two, which is why you can't silence one channel completely. It may also be that balance pots aren't perfect, as they are not usually designed for complete channel muting.
This is not a problem in practice, though. As I mentioned in the grandparent post, when you listen to speakers, both of your ears will pick up sounds from all speakers. Only relatively small differences are required to convey the stereo image. It's been estimated that a channel separation of about 20 dB is enough for headphones.
Is that 10, base 2?
With so much data to haul around, I'm sure Google has upgraded to at least 100, base T, by now.
There are good reasons why 5.1 headphones are hard to get right. One is that 5.1 sounds are meant to be played from speakers well away from your ears. Both of your ears are receiving sounds from all speakers, and it's the differences in phase and timing (not so much volume) that tells your brain where the sound appears to come from.
Playing the same signals next to your ear, with right and left sides isolated, leads to very different results. In any case, you only have two input channels for sound, and you should be able to get good results with in-ear monitors and a decent transfer function.
one of the real problems that most of the 5.1 phones face is their common ground conductor. This leads to joint stereo and muddies up the positioning.
Seriously? Every audio system I know of uses a common ground. If you're interested in a lecture in electronics, I can probably explain more ;)
And what the heck does "joint stereo" mean in this context?
Somebody who makes use of older hardware, such as my ancient and withered laptop from 2005.
JavaScript != Java
I guess the original version is "for the love of god", with s/god/FSM/.
Now if somebody is going to ask about FSM, please turn in your geek card.