I've been to Sandia and I've seen the prototype. The heat is drawn away from the chip die by a conventional spreader (could be aluminum or copper), which would likely be coupled to the chip die with thermal paste. The base plate is one half of the air bearing, and the rotor/impeller is the other half. There's a hub in the middle consisting of a stator and rotor. The air bearing is kept in a dynamic stasis by magnets (probably as part of the motor, but I didn't ask about this detail). This ensures that the air bearing gap is maintained within the required close tolerances and also means that the cooler is attitude-insensitive. You can run it upside-down. I do not know how shock-sensitive the air-bearing is, but I would be surprised if it were especially delicate.
As for the efficiency of the air bearing as a thermal couple, I would refer you to the official scientifical wordage at: http://prod.sandia.gov/techlib/access-control.cgi/2010/100258.pdf. The bottom line is that stagnant air (like on a static heat sink) is a pretty effective thermal insulator. Air moving around (as over whirling blades, or in the air bearing itself) is pretty good at conducting heat. If the fluid dynamics and thermal analyses they've done are correct (and "they," meaning Dr. Koplow, are not prone to being wrong about such matters), both the cooling effect and the heat transfer across the air bearing are quite favorable.
I asked Dr. Koplow about the "grinding" effect when the air bearing is not established (powering up and down), and he explained that while this is not a significant issue (both surfaces are pretty smooth and won't be in contact for long, if at all) it is going to be managed in a production context. I can tell you that the solution is obvious and intuitive, but I'm not sure that I'm at liberty to discuss exactly how they licked this problem, so I'm going to have to hold the line at, "ya gotta believe me, it works."
As for the reappearance of this story at present, the news peg is that they've actually licensed the technology now (but aren't saying to whom). I heard rumors of interest from very large players, but note that only two licenses have been granted, apparently for lighting and chip cooling applications. I am dying to find out who.
Brooks's entire argument appears based on his eagerness to generalize about all Americans based on an average income. This method is blind to the possibility that the "great wealth" he's reporting is falling on a very few people who skew the curve.
The median income (the income level below which half the people live) can drop while the average income rises. Thus, the rich get richer, and spending on consumer items falls, meaning we, as a nation, become virtuously "undecadent," spending less on clothes and shoes and whatnot.
From the US Census bureau: http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/mednhhld/p23text . tml
"MEASURING THE LEVEL AND DISTRIBUTION OF INCOME
From 1969 to 1996, median household income rose a very modest 6.3 percent in constant dollars (from $33,072 to $35,172). At the same time, per capita income rose by a robust 51 percent in constant dollars (from $11,975 to $18,136). The two data series are not inconsistent, because the median simply identifies the income level of the household in the middle of the income distribution while per capita income is calculated by dividing aggregate income by the total number of individuals in the universe. Although the two series are not inconsistent, the difference between the two is sufficiently large that an attempt to identify the reasons behind the difference seems useful. The material below will focus on changes in income inequality and changes in the size and composition of households as factors that help explain the different growth rates in the two income series.
The fact that median household income showed only a small gain during the same time period that per capita income rose sharply suggests that a major change occurred in income inequality. The distribution of income changed dramatically over the period, but it changed in such a way as to have a small effect on the median."
Must be why that 48-hour shutoff notice next to my keyboard makes me feel so goddamned rich and yet delightfully undecadent, what with all this money sloshing around in my environment.
Hey. America runs the show because we're the biggest badasses on the planet. A hudred years ago, the English ran the show, because they were the biggest planetary badasses. Germany gave it a couple of shots and we put the smackdown on 'em. Prior to the english were the Spaniards, back to the Romans for what--1200 years?--and Alexander the Great before them.
I think the Chinese get their turn next. The worst part of it is the arrogance, I know. Like we run the show, and this is proof that God Himself intended it. But guess what? All glory is fleeting.
All this talk about the Moon and Mars -- whoever gets there first is going to make the rules, treaty or no treaty. Eventually, when they can make it without a monthly shipment of beans from Earth, the Lunans or Martians will get sick of our crap and strike out on their own.
Leaving aside the issue of whether or not I can sue you for something you made on your off-hours, warned me was imperfect, and charged me nothing for (after all, I could sue you for any frivolous old reason...) this sort of legislation will still fall harder on commercial vendors over open source/free geex. Why? Because lawyers, like bank robbers, go where the money is.
Let's say the lemon law goes into effect. Am I, as a plaintiff's attorney, going to spend my energy going after a big fat corporation whose liability is clear, or should I instead try to round up and name as a defendant class a bunch of sympthetic-looking nerds, many of whom live in foreign countries, and who have maybe a million bucks of personal assets between the lot of them? Simply put, attorneys' sense of righteous moral indignation moves in a linear correlation to: (amount of dollars that can be shaken out of your ass pocket)*(the cost required to shake you down). Geographically-separated volunteer programmers are lean, bony pickin's, and rounding them up is more trouble than it's worth, especially compared to taking periodic chomps out of fat, slow-moving corporations. Nuisance suits might occur under such a law, but they could just as easily happen today.
A: Keeping the original parts with the vehicle is not just a great benefit - it is a legal requirement. Use of non-GM parts (often referred to as "deadly aftermarket assault parts") or hiring non-GM-certified mechanics will not only void your warranty, but may result in prosecution, injury, or death.
If you think about using aftermarket assault parts, think again -- for the kids.
[16] And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: [17] And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
Not that I'm religious or anything. I think it's kinda cute, though...
"BioPassword is probably going to eclipse other biometrics, because it is ADA compliant (ever try taking a fingerprint from someone without a hand?)"
Nope. but it sounds kind of fun, in a cruel sort of way.
So if the ADA is a problem for fingerprint biometrics (hey, some people might not have hands!), how is a keystroke-based biometric like BioPassword going to be any different? Having no hands cuts into your typing speed as well.
If a civil engineer can certify that a dam design is safe to be built with "found" materials (dirt, gravel, logs, e.g.), a software engineer can certify the safety of software built with "found" code. There are no mysteries in open source code, and nothing magical about it that makes it immune from being subjected to rigorous testing, analysis, and QA.
There's no conflict between open source code and accountable software engineering. Code without an engineer's signature on it carries an implied risk on a par with its disclaimer of warranty. If an engineer signs off on the code, that signature represents an assumption of professional risk, and a concomittant addition of value. Software consumers should have three axes on which to base their decision: cost, warranty support, and risk. Currently, they have a choice between zero-cost code with no warranty and unassessed risks, and expensive code with no warranty and unassessable risks. In time, the value of a nominated risk and/or a warranty will rise and, I suspect, represent the real value of a particular software "solution."
The downside to all the title inflation that software developers have enjoyed is that along with the prestige of the title "engineer" comes concommittant responsibility. What's being asked of software engineers is that they live up to the pointy end of their job title, which is the assumption of liablity. If you are a mechanical, civil, aerospace or automotive engineer, or if you're a real-life architect and you sign off on a job, you are certifying that: it will work, it won't break and kill people, and you bet your license to call yourself an engineer or architect on your word. There are legal structures of liablility and accountability built around that. If you sign off on a job, and it breaks, you, or your employer gets sued. If you screw up badly enough, you lose your license and go pick up leaves. There is no excuse for the software business to live up to a lower standard, or to kid itself that it lives in a liability-free fantasy world.
Despite protestations that this would fall with undue burden on "the little guy," there remain plenty of engineers in high-stakes fields who work in small groups or as independent contractors. They manage their liability through a clever invention called insurance which, for a fee, indemnifies them from potential harm caused by their errors and omissions.
To get this insurance, the insurer must be certain that the insured engineer is qualified, and is operating to currently recognized standards of quality assurance, including rigorous testing and debugging. Sometimes things go wrong, and lawyers get to decide who screwed up and whose insurance company must pay. Such is the way of the world.
As software becomes increasingly integral to our daily lives, expect more, not less liability to enter your world. If a Boeing plane, for example, were to crash due to a software-generated avionics failure, the company could not go to the victims' families and say "Hey, it was a software bug. We're not responsible." Consequently, they have to have a rigorous method for deploying software including all sorts of oppressive things that 1337 h^x0rz detest, like code review, documentation, and testing. To my knowledge, there aren't a lot of pizza parties, all-nighters, or dogs in the office, either.
The only reasons liability hasn't been a more integral aspect of software engineering as we know it have been A) that the stakes have been so very low (nobody sues Microsoft because of the Blue Screen Of Death or LL Bean because they can't order that sweater in taupe), and B) consumers have shown an appalling willingness to sign licenses that require they sign away their rights. As consumers grow more sophisticated, this will change.
As for the assignation of liability on open source projects, a rigorous process of procurement for any software should include code review, either by the purchaser (or his agent) and the rest of the developer community (open source/free model) or via a trusted third party auditor working with escrowed secret code (closed/proprietary model). If an auditor signs off on the code, they get the liability for any failures due to bugs they don't catch. That's why they make the big bucks. In fact, that's why anyone does.
My AT&T service cut out Saturday morning. I got the (incredibly self-serving) AT&T recorded message that afternoon. It said that AT&T would call me "in the next week" with further information as they transitioned to a different provider.
About ten minutes ago, (about 13:00 PST) I saw a little bit of flashing at the NIC and tried renewing my leases, and bang! service came back up. I live in El Cerrito, CA, just over the border from actual DSL service, so I'm really happy to be back up, as I have no broadband alternatives. I'd be even happier if there were someplace other than AT&T I could take my business, but it looks like it's not in the cards...
Anyway, it sort of feels like someone just took their boot off my windpipe.
Survival Research Labs has used one for years
on
DIY Railgun Projects
·
· Score: 1
The machine art maniacs at Survival Research Labs (http://www.srl.org) have deployed a functioning rail gun for years. I have only seen it in action once, but it was configured to shoot welding rod at great speed. I am less than certain about the physics of the contraption, but I recall that the welding rod was more or less converted to molten steel and assorted gobbets of high-energy plasma by the force of the acceleration. Gives me a boner just thinking about it.
This may be an image of it
right here.
On the other hand, I just might be talking out of my ass.
About ten years ago, I and the rest of my coworkers took one of these at the urging of my boss. It seemed to help the boss out immensely in coming to understand that she was a really truly helpful and thoughtful and caring manager. I have no idea how much money the thing cost, but the tester seemed preternaturally elated to help administer the test and to counsel us later, so she must have been a few grand into us.
You can take the Meyers-Briggs online at:
http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes1.htm and a bunch of other places. This is just the first one I could find.
The Meyers-Briggs is based on self-reporting of mental dispositions, which makes it immediately dubious psychometry. It can only be safely said that the Meyers-Briggs describes what people THINK they are like, rather than being a good indicator of any true nature. (This being said, while people are frequently unreliable self-reporters, they often get it right.) Likewise, the simple fact that it's based on the work of Carl Jung causes a hail of red flags as well.
The Meyers-Briggs gives you four attributes with polar axes. If your boss is keen to discriminate against you because you're an ESTJ or an INFP, you have bigger problems than personality tests. Take the test for the sole purpose of humoring your boss. If you don't like the process, wrench the data. If you think you're going to be reassigned based on the results of the test, do yourself a favor and reassign yourself to another employer.
You write them for both the geek crowd *and* for mom. The trick is in your basic assumptions and in intelligently laying out the information for each reader/user. Whoever gets to the README knows how to ftp or at the very least how to steer a browser. With a browser, you can hyperlink to other tutorials for daunting technical problems like how to run make (obviously, we're already out of man country). Present succinctly the obvious-to-geeks stuff right up front, reassure, and unpack and provide details as the user demands them. HTML affords a tremendous advantage if you can grab it by the horns: the user gets to pick and choose a meaningful "narrative," and doesn't get a wash of useless info up front if he/she doesn't understand it, want it, or need it.
KDE has gotten halfway there by having online help files on many of their apps. Unfortunately, the help files aren't particularly helpful. If I'm trying to get help, I don't want to know who designed the software or how to use its nifty features--I'm here because I can't get the nifty features to work! Obviously, every system is different, and no interactive troubleshoot interface is going to be able to address every problem, but an interactive, problem-to-solution based FAQ would be a nice documentary standard for ostensibly user-friendly interfaces.
This stuff is important: if Linux is ever going to make a serious dent on Bill's OS at the desktop, K (and Gnome, and Enlightenment/AfterStep, etc.) are going to have to pull up their socks in the documentation department. Good writing should be regarded as an integral aspect of good interface design.
Slashdot Mirror
I've been to Sandia and I've seen the prototype. The heat is drawn away from the chip die by a conventional spreader (could be aluminum or copper), which would likely be coupled to the chip die with thermal paste. The base plate is one half of the air bearing, and the rotor/impeller is the other half. There's a hub in the middle consisting of a stator and rotor. The air bearing is kept in a dynamic stasis by magnets (probably as part of the motor, but I didn't ask about this detail). This ensures that the air bearing gap is maintained within the required close tolerances and also means that the cooler is attitude-insensitive. You can run it upside-down. I do not know how shock-sensitive the air-bearing is, but I would be surprised if it were especially delicate.
As for the efficiency of the air bearing as a thermal couple, I would refer you to the official scientifical wordage at: http://prod.sandia.gov/techlib/access-control.cgi/2010/100258.pdf. The bottom line is that stagnant air (like on a static heat sink) is a pretty effective thermal insulator. Air moving around (as over whirling blades, or in the air bearing itself) is pretty good at conducting heat. If the fluid dynamics and thermal analyses they've done are correct (and "they," meaning Dr. Koplow, are not prone to being wrong about such matters), both the cooling effect and the heat transfer across the air bearing are quite favorable.
I asked Dr. Koplow about the "grinding" effect when the air bearing is not established (powering up and down), and he explained that while this is not a significant issue (both surfaces are pretty smooth and won't be in contact for long, if at all) it is going to be managed in a production context. I can tell you that the solution is obvious and intuitive, but I'm not sure that I'm at liberty to discuss exactly how they licked this problem, so I'm going to have to hold the line at, "ya gotta believe me, it works."
As for the reappearance of this story at present, the news peg is that they've actually licensed the technology now (but aren't saying to whom). I heard rumors of interest from very large players, but note that only two licenses have been granted, apparently for lighting and chip cooling applications. I am dying to find out who.
Big dog: Wwwooof!
Imperious nerd: Fetch me a business model!
Big dog: Wwwooof! [Whooshing noise as faithful LYCOS rushes off into the jungles of cyberspace (oooooh!) to fetch his master a business model.]
[Dead air]
Imperious nerd: Lycos? LYCOS?
Event photos at Laughing Squid: http://www.laughingsquid.org/pix/2003_05/power_too l_drag_races/
Kimric's flaming Kirby Vac: http://qbox.org/ (1 can of propane = 45 secs of intermittent flameout)
It was a good day, even though my weed whacker bike (plate 4) refused to start.
Brooks's entire argument appears based on his eagerness to generalize about all Americans based on an average income. This method is blind to the possibility that the "great wealth" he's reporting is falling on a very few people who skew the curve.
t . tml
The median income (the income level below which half the people live) can drop while the average income rises. Thus, the rich get richer, and spending on consumer items falls, meaning we, as a nation, become virtuously "undecadent," spending less on clothes and shoes and whatnot.
From the US Census bureau: http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/mednhhld/p23tex
"MEASURING THE LEVEL AND DISTRIBUTION OF INCOME
From 1969 to 1996, median household income rose a very modest 6.3 percent in constant dollars (from $33,072 to $35,172). At the same time, per capita income rose by a robust 51 percent in constant dollars (from $11,975 to $18,136). The two data series are not inconsistent, because the median simply identifies the income level of the household in the middle of the income distribution while per capita income is calculated by dividing aggregate income by the total number of individuals in the universe. Although the two series are not inconsistent, the difference between the two is sufficiently large that an attempt to identify the reasons behind the difference seems useful. The material below will focus on changes in income inequality and changes in the size and composition of households as factors that help explain the different growth rates in the two income series.
The fact that median household income showed only a small gain during the same time period that per capita income rose sharply suggests that a major change occurred in income inequality. The distribution of income changed dramatically over the period, but it changed in such a way as to have a small effect on the median."
Must be why that 48-hour shutoff notice next to my keyboard makes me feel so goddamned rich and yet delightfully undecadent, what with all this money sloshing around in my environment.
Hey. America runs the show because we're the biggest badasses on the planet. A hudred years ago, the English ran the show, because they were the biggest planetary badasses. Germany gave it a couple of shots and we put the smackdown on 'em. Prior to the english were the Spaniards, back to the Romans for what--1200 years?--and Alexander the Great before them.
I think the Chinese get their turn next.
The worst part of it is the arrogance, I know. Like we run the show, and this is proof that God Himself intended it. But guess what? All glory is fleeting.
All this talk about the Moon and Mars -- whoever gets there first is going to make the rules, treaty or no treaty. Eventually, when they can make it without a monthly shipment of beans from Earth, the Lunans or Martians will get sick of our crap and strike out on their own.
Not in any of our lifetimes, though.
Leaving aside the issue of whether or not I can sue you for something you made on your off-hours, warned me was imperfect, and charged me nothing for (after all, I could sue you for any frivolous old reason...) this sort of legislation will still fall harder on commercial vendors over open source/free geex. Why? Because lawyers, like bank robbers, go where the money is.
Let's say the lemon law goes into effect. Am I, as a plaintiff's attorney, going to spend my energy going after a big fat corporation whose liability is clear, or should I instead try to round up and name as a defendant class a bunch of sympthetic-looking nerds, many of whom live in foreign countries, and who have maybe a million bucks of personal assets between the lot of them? Simply put, attorneys' sense of righteous moral indignation moves in a linear correlation to: (amount of dollars that can be shaken out of your ass pocket)*(the cost required to shake you down). Geographically-separated volunteer programmers are lean, bony pickin's, and rounding them up is more trouble than it's worth, especially compared to taking periodic chomps out of fat, slow-moving corporations. Nuisance suits might occur under such a law, but they could just as easily happen today.
A: Keeping the original parts with the vehicle is not just a great benefit - it is a legal requirement. Use of non-GM parts (often referred to as "deadly aftermarket assault parts") or hiring non-GM-certified mechanics will not only void your warranty, but may result in prosecution, injury, or death.
If you think about using aftermarket assault parts, think again -- for the kids.
Presto!
Revelations 13:
[16] And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
[17] And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
Not that I'm religious or anything. I think it's kinda cute, though...
Nope. but it sounds kind of fun, in a cruel sort of way.
So if the ADA is a problem for fingerprint biometrics (hey, some people might not have hands!), how is a keystroke-based biometric like BioPassword going to be any different? Having no hands cuts into your typing speed as well.
If a civil engineer can certify that a dam design is safe to be built with "found" materials (dirt, gravel, logs, e.g.), a software engineer can certify the safety of software built with "found" code. There are no mysteries in open source code, and nothing magical about it that makes it immune from being subjected to rigorous testing, analysis, and QA.
There's no conflict between open source code and accountable software engineering. Code without an engineer's signature on it carries an implied risk on a par with its disclaimer of warranty. If an engineer signs off on the code, that signature represents an assumption of professional risk, and a concomittant addition of value. Software consumers should have three axes on which to base their decision: cost, warranty support, and risk. Currently, they have a choice between zero-cost code with no warranty and unassessed risks, and expensive code with no warranty and unassessable risks. In time, the value of a nominated risk and/or a warranty will rise and, I suspect, represent the real value of a particular software "solution."
Despite protestations that this would fall with undue burden on "the little guy," there remain plenty of engineers in high-stakes fields who work in small groups or as independent contractors. They manage their liability through a clever invention called insurance which, for a fee, indemnifies them from potential harm caused by their errors and omissions.
To get this insurance, the insurer must be certain that the insured engineer is qualified, and is operating to currently recognized standards of quality assurance, including rigorous testing and debugging. Sometimes things go wrong, and lawyers get to decide who screwed up and whose insurance company must pay. Such is the way of the world.
As software becomes increasingly integral to our daily lives, expect more, not less liability to enter your world. If a Boeing plane, for example, were to crash due to a software-generated avionics failure, the company could not go to the victims' families and say "Hey, it was a software bug. We're not responsible." Consequently, they have to have a rigorous method for deploying software including all sorts of oppressive things that 1337 h^x0rz detest, like code review, documentation, and testing. To my knowledge, there aren't a lot of pizza parties, all-nighters, or dogs in the office, either.
The only reasons liability hasn't been a more integral aspect of software engineering as we know it have been A) that the stakes have been so very low (nobody sues Microsoft because of the Blue Screen Of Death or LL Bean because they can't order that sweater in taupe), and B) consumers have shown an appalling willingness to sign licenses that require they sign away their rights. As consumers grow more sophisticated, this will change.
As for the assignation of liability on open source projects, a rigorous process of procurement for any software should include code review, either by the purchaser (or his agent) and the rest of the developer community (open source/free model) or via a trusted third party auditor working with escrowed secret code (closed/proprietary model). If an auditor signs off on the code, they get the liability for any failures due to bugs they don't catch. That's why they make the big bucks. In fact, that's why anyone does.
My AT&T service cut out Saturday morning. I got the (incredibly self-serving) AT&T recorded message that afternoon. It said that AT&T would call me "in the next week" with further information as they transitioned to a different provider.
About ten minutes ago, (about 13:00 PST) I saw a little bit of flashing at the NIC and tried renewing my leases, and bang! service came back up. I live in El Cerrito, CA, just over the border from actual DSL service, so I'm really happy to be back up, as I have no broadband alternatives. I'd be even happier if there were someplace other than AT&T I could take my business, but it looks like it's not in the cards...
Anyway, it sort of feels like someone just took their boot off my windpipe.
This may be an image of it right here. On the other hand, I just might be talking out of my ass.
You can take the Meyers-Briggs online at: http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes1.htm and a bunch of other places. This is just the first one I could find.
The Meyers-Briggs is based on self-reporting of mental dispositions, which makes it immediately dubious psychometry. It can only be safely said that the Meyers-Briggs describes what people THINK they are like, rather than being a good indicator of any true nature. (This being said, while people are frequently unreliable self-reporters, they often get it right.) Likewise, the simple fact that it's based on the work of Carl Jung causes a hail of red flags as well.
The Meyers-Briggs gives you four attributes with polar axes. If your boss is keen to discriminate against you because you're an ESTJ or an INFP, you have bigger problems than personality tests. Take the test for the sole purpose of humoring your boss. If you don't like the process, wrench the data. If you think you're going to be reassigned based on the results of the test, do yourself a favor and reassign yourself to another employer.
KDE has gotten halfway there by having online help files on many of their apps. Unfortunately, the help files aren't particularly helpful. If I'm trying to get help, I don't want to know who designed the software or how to use its nifty features--I'm here because I can't get the nifty features to work! Obviously, every system is different, and no interactive troubleshoot interface is going to be able to address every problem, but an interactive, problem-to-solution based FAQ would be a nice documentary standard for ostensibly user-friendly interfaces.
This stuff is important: if Linux is ever going to make a serious dent on Bill's OS at the desktop, K (and Gnome, and Enlightenment/AfterStep, etc.) are going to have to pull up their socks in the documentation department. Good writing should be regarded as an integral aspect of good interface design.