I once worked for a company called Great Bridge, which attempted to make money selling a boxed version of PostgreSQL. We employed/contracted with several key PostgreSQL developers, and I distinctly remember discussions with management and at least one of those developers about this very topic. The developers had agreed amongst themselves and with Great Bridge management to limit the number of key committers who took money from Great Bridge in order to ensure the company didn't exert too much control over the project (I'm sure we would have been happy to have every one of them on the payroll). History proves Monty wrong on this one.
There are many instances where OpenBSD developers indicated that a bug found in one port led to discovery of problems that affected several other platforms. It seems in this case that multiplatform support is beneficial, and the larger the number of platforms, the greater the likelihood that such bugs will be found and fixed.
Why is heat reclamation not worth it?
on
The Not-So-Cool Future
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I'd like to hear from some engineering types about why we can't use the excess heat from CPUs to do useful work. I know virtually all large-scale methods of generating electricity involve generating large amounts of heat through some process (nuclear reactions, burning coal or oil, etc), using it to create a hot gas, which turns a turbine, generating electricity.
I also have some vague handwaving idea that there are processes for generating electricity that have to do with harnessing temperature differentials, but I really don't know what I'm talking about.
Anyway, why can't we have little gas turbine generators (or some other method) in our machines that reclaim some of this lost energy, instead of wasting it? Seems like the aggregate energy amounts would be pretty large.
My wife (working on her PhD in psychology) was part of a program where children diagnosed with Attention Deficit Disorder would play PlayStation games with a special controller in order to teach them how to strengthen their focusing skills.
The controller was tied to a machine which monitored the level of a certain brainwave (I don't remember which) and if the levels fell outside predetermined parameters the controller would cease to function properly. This helped teach the kids how to maintain focus while performing a task that required constant attention. The 'brain interface' part looked like a baseball cap with lots of little sensors inside, no neurosurgery required.
I tried it myself (I do not have ADD) and it was interesting how difficult it seemed at first to 'grasp' the required level, and how second hand it became after a few minutes of play (obviously the patients took quite a bit longer). It was a neat alternative / addition to drug therapy. I'd bet there is a lot of value in this more accurate control interface for future treatment.
Corporations, especially those with a ever-present hand in politics, tend to be mealy mouthed about things like this, but I have to say that after reading that statement the RIAA has gained a measure of respect in my eyes:
"What's worse - we were accused of equating Internet piracy with terrorism. We may take Internet piracy seriously, but we're not insane."
That's about the most intelligent and non-legalistic thing I think I've heard come from the RIAA.
And barring illegal acts like breaking into people's machines, the RIAA statement that they 'use technological solutions to technological problems' sounds about exactly the way I want them to operate.
Let them have a technological arms race with Napster/Gnutella/Whatever, and hopefully the judges will have more time to address real crimes. Plus someone has to write this code for the RIAA, so a fellow geek gets to feed his family. Cool with me.
Slashdot Mirror
I once worked for a company called Great Bridge, which attempted to make money selling a boxed version of PostgreSQL. We employed/contracted with several key PostgreSQL developers, and I distinctly remember discussions with management and at least one of those developers about this very topic. The developers had agreed amongst themselves and with Great Bridge management to limit the number of key committers who took money from Great Bridge in order to ensure the company didn't exert too much control over the project (I'm sure we would have been happy to have every one of them on the payroll). History proves Monty wrong on this one.
There are many instances where OpenBSD developers indicated that a bug found in one port led to discovery of problems that affected several other platforms. It seems in this case that multiplatform support is beneficial, and the larger the number of platforms, the greater the likelihood that such bugs will be found and fixed.
I'd like to hear from some engineering types about why we can't use the excess heat from CPUs to do useful work. I know virtually all large-scale methods of generating electricity involve generating large amounts of heat through some process (nuclear reactions, burning coal or oil, etc), using it to create a hot gas, which turns a turbine, generating electricity.
I also have some vague handwaving idea that there are processes for generating electricity that have to do with harnessing temperature differentials, but I really don't know what I'm talking about.
Anyway, why can't we have little gas turbine generators (or some other method) in our machines that reclaim some of this lost energy, instead of wasting it? Seems like the aggregate energy amounts would be pretty large.
My wife (working on her PhD in psychology) was part of a program where children diagnosed with Attention Deficit Disorder would play PlayStation games with a special controller in order to teach them how to strengthen their focusing skills.
The controller was tied to a machine which monitored the level of a certain brainwave (I don't remember which) and if the levels fell outside predetermined parameters the controller would cease to function properly. This helped teach the kids how to maintain focus while performing a task that required constant attention. The 'brain interface' part looked like a baseball cap with lots of little sensors inside, no neurosurgery required.
I tried it myself (I do not have ADD) and it was interesting how difficult it seemed at first to 'grasp' the required level, and how second hand it became after a few minutes of play (obviously the patients took quite a bit longer). It was a neat alternative / addition to drug therapy. I'd bet there is a lot of value in this more accurate control interface for future treatment.
Corporations, especially those with a ever-present hand in politics, tend to be mealy mouthed about things like this, but I have to say that after reading that statement the RIAA has gained a measure of respect in my eyes:
"What's worse - we were accused of equating Internet piracy with terrorism. We may take Internet piracy seriously, but we're not insane."
That's about the most intelligent and non-legalistic thing I think I've heard come from the RIAA.
And barring illegal acts like breaking into people's machines, the RIAA statement that they 'use technological solutions to technological problems' sounds about exactly the way I want them to operate.
Let them have a technological arms race with Napster/Gnutella/Whatever, and hopefully the judges will have more time to address real crimes. Plus someone has to write this code for the RIAA, so a fellow geek gets to feed his family. Cool with me.