Ah, you mean in a year or two when the machine is upgraded.
Around 6 years ago we went from a 4 year replacement policy to a 6 year one. Some of our machines are even older - we wait until somebody complains before replacing, it's just that 'over 4/6 years' was/is a valid excuse for replacement. If they don't complain, they don't get a new computer.
Fact of the matter is, except for bloat modern machines are typically vastly overpowered for what we use them for. Heck, even the bloat hasn't kept up all that well.
The new machines? I think the latest lot cost $300 each.
I almost replied before I saw the GP's post explaining it, but was hesitant because I was wondering if you were trolling.
'googling it', in this instance, or looking it up on wiki is fairly logical because it will give you a well written description without us going through the effort of writing it ourselves.
I didn't realize it was essentially a random, unrecoverable number.
It's deliberate that you're not able to recover the original message from the MD5 sum, but 'random' is very much NOT true. It's used as data verification - a small change, even just a bit, in the message stream will result in a vastly different number. But feed it the same data, and you'll get the same number back, every time.
This allows you to verify things like messages and binaries haven't been altered from their original verified state.
I've been waiting for a while. Is there any good news from the hydrocarbon fuel cell front?
I haven't heard anything lately, unfortuantly.
The latest about a NG 'fuel cell' turned out to be a device for producing hydrogen that was also a cogenerator for electricity and heat. It was intended to be installed next to the garage where the hydrogen car would be parked. It fed off of natural gas.
A number of the shows I've watched semi-recently were showtime ones. That's most definitly not a 'free tv' channel.
By actually getting them from Netflix legally, I am supporting the producers of the show and showing that there are secondary revenue sources for other similar shows.
If you are dumb enough not to know better I understand, but an intelligent person can surely see past the paycheck.
Or maybe they're smart enough to realize that as long as they follow the rules they'll be fine and don't care about the human rights violations otherwise?
Or perhaps they're hoping to do their own little bit to change the way things work by actually going there. See the issues for themselves, while earning a paycheck so they don't screw up their finances or have to do the tourist thing.
Smart doesn't automatically equal ethical, or even 'progressive'.
It's a chinese company; they're still trying to figure some of this stuff out. Besides, with the number of applicants they have they can afford to be picky even beyound the 140 requirement.
I mean, here in the USA you'll get bad sorting processes as well.
Remember google's experience? Good performance in a job interview != good performance in the job.
Sorry to burst your little bubble, but bio fuels derived from crops take more energy to produce than you get out of them
Are you including solar inputs or not? If you're only counting man introduced energy sources such as electricity, fossil fuels, and such, then the answer is actually 'it depends'.
The study that said that ethanol wasn't energy positive was rather pessimistic, and assumed inefficient plants. Newer designs are more efficient and flip back to the positive side.
Just, well, not enough to justify the amount of land it'd take, which is why I support the ideas for cellulosic ethanol and the fuels made from algae grown in trays filled with seawater out in the desert.
Well, that and saving the ethanol, biodiesel, and biogasoline for uses that suit them, not short trips to work or the mall - use an EV for that.
It's simple enough. While hydrogen has the most potential chemical energy by mass, it's also one of the least dense by volume.
An easy solution to this is to bind the hydrogen with carbon. The resulting chemicals lose little energy by weight, but gain huge advantages in density.
In the right chains, the resulting chemicals are even liquid, making storage and transportation far easier.
As mentioned, these chains are called hydrocarbons. Not the most inventive, but descriptive.;)
Besides, unlike the petrol engines, an electrical engine has it's maximum torque at 0 rpm - this is why a properly-sized electrical car will beat pants-down any thermal-engine drag racer.
As another bonus - higher power electric motors also tend to be more efficient. I say 'tend' because there's still lots of factors, but on average a 100hp motor of the same design as a 50hp version will be a few percentage points more efficient.
Non-all inclusive list of advantages of Electric motors over IC engines: * Engines are rated in MAX horsepower, motors in sustained horsepower **heat is normally their limiting factor. You can drive a heavy duty motor at something like 4X it's rating for a few seconds * As stated, 100% torque at 0 RPM. ** Combined with the first, it means that a motor of like 1/3rd the horsepower can give most of the same performance as an engine, except for sustained top speed. * Increase the voltage, increase the power of the motor ** well, at least up until it starts sparking through the insulation. Efficiency generally goes up as well. * Longevity: There are electric motors out there that are perfectly happy running 24x7 for 20 years. ** Maintenance is less as well. Generally the only thing you might have to do is replace some brushes. * Efficiency: The quality motors you'd look at using for an EV are generally above 90% efficient. * Regeneration: The right design allows a motor to also be a generator, enabling regenerative braking, which if you use it right, will make your brake pads effectively last the life of the car.
Electric = Great motor, horrible power source.:( Internal combustion - lousy motor, great power source.
I wait until they're available on netflix or some such before I watch them. Haven't watched 'live' TV at home in ages. I get the most boob tube time at the gym, even then I often shut it off.
I think they were probably trying to say that some SSDs are remarkably better deals than other SSDs.
Their chart doesn't put any SSDs to the left of any HDs, after all. Maybe if you count in the sense of '5X the price per gig, more than 5X the performance!'.
Actually, I just built a low voltage ultra-portable notebook using an X25-V (CULV CPU, no optical drive, 8+ hour battery life).
Now this sounds like an excellent reason for using an SSD instead of spinning platters. You have the additional issues of battery life and shock resistance to favor SSDs, and laptop HDs are typically smaller, more expensive and slower than desktop models.
Otherwise, well, IOPS isn't a complete metric, and realworld tasks that hammer storage in a way optimal for SSDs over HDs are pretty rare.
Yes, dollars per gig is a very bad metric for SSDs. Lets compare dollars per unit throughput. SSDs would fare much better then.
That would disadvantage larger SSDs though. It's like the controller firmware is $10, the rest is the flash.
I suppose you could have a sort of sliding scale where you set how many gigs you need/want.
Personally, I think that capacity is still the primary metric for storage - throughput is secondary for most applications. Thus performance per $/gig seems appropriate.
His point wasn't that you get better $/GB in a smaller ssd -- it was that the very metric of $/GB is completely and utterly stupid when evaluating the usefulness of an ssd as an upgrade.
I'll disagree here. Personally, I think it to be a very valid metric. After all, you can't just ignore capacity, otherwise that $110 40 gig SSD starts looking really good price/performance wise up against a $200 2TB 7200RPM HD, even though it has 1/50th the capacity.
Capacity is a form of performance metric. Especially when it's really difficult to compare similar capacities - the highest performing hard drives are also the ones with the most capacity, and SSDs with those levels of capacity either don't exist or cost stupidly huge amounts of money.
Take another approach - backwards - Look at your datasets. At this level, even installed programs are data.
Let's say I look at my data and decide I need 80 GB*. I can spend $40 for an 80 gig HD, or $220 for an SSD. At that point I simply have to decide whether the performance improvement is worth paying 5.5 times the price. Or, for the same price, I can get a 2TB drive instead of the SSD, and not NEED a secondary drive for storing my stuff.
My gaming system has a SSD for the system partition. Is performance improved? Yes. Was it worth the extra money? Iffy.
I've gone so far as to write a batch script for moving my games to the secondary drive and making a symbolic link so everything works right, and played games before and after the move - performance difference in real life has been minimal. Windows boots refreshingly quick, but was that worth the extra price?
A SSD is not an upgrade that buys you more space. It's an upgrade that makes your computer faster. In that, practically all of them are great value; for normal desktop use I'd much rather have an Intel ssd and the crappiest still-in-production dualcore from AMD than no ssd and the most expensive available quadcore from Intel. And I have actually used both kinds of systems. That is how awesome the difference is.
What sort of user are you? I'm primarily a web browser/gamer, and find SSD gains to be minimal, to my experience.
*In my case this would be for Operating system and commonly used programs, couple games.
IDK, I've got three netbooks with SSDs, one of those died during/after a power-outage (I blame line transients at failure or turn-on, combined with a cheap power-supply and brittle SSD controller design, but I'll never know for sure), none of them have died from old age, and the runcore SSD I replaced that one with is still doing fine as well.
You blame this, but it could have been happenstance. Still, you've experienced a 25% failure rate over the course of 2 years, which exceeds that of hard drives by a considerable margin. Still, the sample size is low. For example, I have a 0% failure rate, but with 1 SSD that's less than 6 months old, I'm not a good sample either.
The test is very unfair on small SSDs like the Intel X25-V because it doesn't look at overall price, only $/Gb. Hardly anybody is going to install a small SSD as the only drive in a machine. Most people would combine them with a big hard disk so the final score would be a blend of the scores for the SSD and the second hard disk.
Does it, really? A 'big' X25 @ 160 GB is $2.68/GB vs your 'disadvantaged' 40GB at $2.75. I wouldn't call a 3% price difference major when hard drives are hanging around a tenth of the price of SSD.
From my personal price checking, while with hard drives the highest non-cutting edge capacity tends to be the cheapest, SSD prices tend to level off very quickly with regards to price. From newegg: Intel X25-V 40GB 2.5": $110 $2.75 Intel X25-M 80GB 2.5": $220, $2.75/gb Intel X25-M 160GB 2.5": $430 $2.68
Was going to post some HD prices, but gotta go to work. 80GB HD =.50 cents/gig, 2 TB =.065 cents/gig for the two first examples I found.
If they just breach, give them a warning and/or a ticket depending on how bad.
If they knowingly endanger people, THEN charge them with that.
This was discussed elsewhere, and it was pointed out that journalists CAN call(they even have their own number to call now), the rules apply to everybody, and besides, even the old 300 foot rule isn't an obstacle to a properly set up photographer. 65 is easily within the reach of even pro-sumer devices, while still giving workers space to work safely.
I'd hardly say that government regulations that are artificially deflating the price of helium is 'libertarian'.
Given the description, the helium is a natural resource 'owned' by the government. A proper libertarian response is that the government should get the maximum price it can get for it. IE the most benefit.
As mentioned, 20X the price might be a little less money in our pocket now, but it's much more later. Fusion plants aren't going to provide sufficient quantities any time soon.
What is the expense of those self correcting glasses? You can make basic non-adjusting glasses extremely cheap if you're willing to. I'm willing to bet that those 'self adjusting' ones are a lot more expensive per set. What is the durability?
With the app and a good smartphone, it sounds like a volunteer would be able to get an actual prescription out of the screening, perhaps so far as to simply pull the common prescription out of a box($2 lens going into a predetermined frame) vs a $100 adjustable set.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, you mean in a year or two when the machine is upgraded.
Around 6 years ago we went from a 4 year replacement policy to a 6 year one. Some of our machines are even older - we wait until somebody complains before replacing, it's just that 'over 4/6 years' was/is a valid excuse for replacement. If they don't complain, they don't get a new computer.
Fact of the matter is, except for bloat modern machines are typically vastly overpowered for what we use them for. Heck, even the bloat hasn't kept up all that well.
The new machines? I think the latest lot cost $300 each.
It does actually add value though. It had a shaky start but I've genuinely started enjoying certain movies in 3D more than I would have done in 2D.
I've tried several 3D movies, unfortuantly the 3D aspect is outweighed by the headache. :(
I don't pay extra to see 3D movies anymore.
I almost replied before I saw the GP's post explaining it, but was hesitant because I was wondering if you were trolling.
'googling it', in this instance, or looking it up on wiki is fairly logical because it will give you a well written description without us going through the effort of writing it ourselves.
I didn't realize it was essentially a random, unrecoverable number.
It's deliberate that you're not able to recover the original message from the MD5 sum, but 'random' is very much NOT true. It's used as data verification - a small change, even just a bit, in the message stream will result in a vastly different number. But feed it the same data, and you'll get the same number back, every time.
This allows you to verify things like messages and binaries haven't been altered from their original verified state.
I've been waiting for a while. Is there any good news from the hydrocarbon fuel cell front?
I haven't heard anything lately, unfortuantly.
The latest about a NG 'fuel cell' turned out to be a device for producing hydrogen that was also a cogenerator for electricity and heat. It was intended to be installed next to the garage where the hydrogen car would be parked. It fed off of natural gas.
A number of the shows I've watched semi-recently were showtime ones. That's most definitly not a 'free tv' channel.
By actually getting them from Netflix legally, I am supporting the producers of the show and showing that there are secondary revenue sources for other similar shows.
You do realize I was trying to continue the joke, right?
If you are dumb enough not to know better I understand, but an intelligent person can surely see past the paycheck.
Or maybe they're smart enough to realize that as long as they follow the rules they'll be fine and don't care about the human rights violations otherwise?
Or perhaps they're hoping to do their own little bit to change the way things work by actually going there. See the issues for themselves, while earning a paycheck so they don't screw up their finances or have to do the tourist thing.
Smart doesn't automatically equal ethical, or even 'progressive'.
It's a chinese company; they're still trying to figure some of this stuff out. Besides, with the number of applicants they have they can afford to be picky even beyound the 140 requirement.
I mean, here in the USA you'll get bad sorting processes as well.
Remember google's experience? Good performance in a job interview != good performance in the job.
Sorry to burst your little bubble, but bio fuels derived from crops take more energy to produce than you get out of them
Are you including solar inputs or not? If you're only counting man introduced energy sources such as electricity, fossil fuels, and such, then the answer is actually 'it depends'.
The study that said that ethanol wasn't energy positive was rather pessimistic, and assumed inefficient plants. Newer designs are more efficient and flip back to the positive side.
Just, well, not enough to justify the amount of land it'd take, which is why I support the ideas for cellulosic ethanol and the fuels made from algae grown in trays filled with seawater out in the desert.
Well, that and saving the ethanol, biodiesel, and biogasoline for uses that suit them, not short trips to work or the mall - use an EV for that.
It's simple enough. While hydrogen has the most potential chemical energy by mass, it's also one of the least dense by volume.
An easy solution to this is to bind the hydrogen with carbon. The resulting chemicals lose little energy by weight, but gain huge advantages in density.
In the right chains, the resulting chemicals are even liquid, making storage and transportation far easier.
As mentioned, these chains are called hydrocarbons. Not the most inventive, but descriptive. ;)
Besides, unlike the petrol engines, an electrical engine has it's maximum torque at 0 rpm - this is why a properly-sized electrical car will beat pants-down any thermal-engine drag racer.
As another bonus - higher power electric motors also tend to be more efficient. I say 'tend' because there's still lots of factors, but on average a 100hp motor of the same design as a 50hp version will be a few percentage points more efficient.
Non-all inclusive list of advantages of Electric motors over IC engines:
* Engines are rated in MAX horsepower, motors in sustained horsepower
**heat is normally their limiting factor. You can drive a heavy duty motor at something like 4X it's rating for a few seconds
* As stated, 100% torque at 0 RPM.
** Combined with the first, it means that a motor of like 1/3rd the horsepower can give most of the same performance as an engine, except for sustained top speed.
* Increase the voltage, increase the power of the motor
** well, at least up until it starts sparking through the insulation. Efficiency generally goes up as well.
* Longevity: There are electric motors out there that are perfectly happy running 24x7 for 20 years.
** Maintenance is less as well. Generally the only thing you might have to do is replace some brushes.
* Efficiency: The quality motors you'd look at using for an EV are generally above 90% efficient.
* Regeneration: The right design allows a motor to also be a generator, enabling regenerative braking, which if you use it right, will make your brake pads effectively last the life of the car.
Electric = Great motor, horrible power source. :(
Internal combustion - lousy motor, great power source.
I wait until they're available on netflix or some such before I watch them. Haven't watched 'live' TV at home in ages. I get the most boob tube time at the gym, even then I often shut it off.
A $100 SSD represents immense value for money as a performance upgrade.
Depends on the user. Mine was ~$160 when I bought it, and I'm not entirely sure it was worth it.
I think they were probably trying to say that some SSDs are remarkably better deals than other SSDs.
Their chart doesn't put any SSDs to the left of any HDs, after all. Maybe if you count in the sense of '5X the price per gig, more than 5X the performance!'.
Falling a bit short. By some 4 orders of magnitude.
I'd argue that you pretty quickly reach a different bottleneck when it comes to SSDs and IOPS.
10k more IOPS doesn't equal 10k faster performance, after all.
Matter of fact, to hit that many IOPS you'd be looking at a rather busy database, wouldn't you?
Actually, I just built a low voltage ultra-portable notebook using an X25-V (CULV CPU, no optical drive, 8+ hour battery life).
Now this sounds like an excellent reason for using an SSD instead of spinning platters. You have the additional issues of battery life and shock resistance to favor SSDs, and laptop HDs are typically smaller, more expensive and slower than desktop models.
Otherwise, well, IOPS isn't a complete metric, and realworld tasks that hammer storage in a way optimal for SSDs over HDs are pretty rare.
Yes, dollars per gig is a very bad metric for SSDs. Lets compare dollars per unit throughput. SSDs would fare much better then.
That would disadvantage larger SSDs though. It's like the controller firmware is $10, the rest is the flash.
I suppose you could have a sort of sliding scale where you set how many gigs you need/want.
Personally, I think that capacity is still the primary metric for storage - throughput is secondary for most applications. Thus performance per $/gig seems appropriate.
His point wasn't that you get better $/GB in a smaller ssd -- it was that the very metric of $/GB is completely and utterly stupid when evaluating the usefulness of an ssd as an upgrade.
I'll disagree here. Personally, I think it to be a very valid metric. After all, you can't just ignore capacity, otherwise that $110 40 gig SSD starts looking really good price/performance wise up against a $200 2TB 7200RPM HD, even though it has 1/50th the capacity.
Capacity is a form of performance metric. Especially when it's really difficult to compare similar capacities - the highest performing hard drives are also the ones with the most capacity, and SSDs with those levels of capacity either don't exist or cost stupidly huge amounts of money.
Take another approach - backwards - Look at your datasets. At this level, even installed programs are data.
Let's say I look at my data and decide I need 80 GB*. I can spend $40 for an 80 gig HD, or $220 for an SSD. At that point I simply have to decide whether the performance improvement is worth paying 5.5 times the price. Or, for the same price, I can get a 2TB drive instead of the SSD, and not NEED a secondary drive for storing my stuff.
My gaming system has a SSD for the system partition. Is performance improved? Yes. Was it worth the extra money? Iffy.
I've gone so far as to write a batch script for moving my games to the secondary drive and making a symbolic link so everything works right, and played games before and after the move - performance difference in real life has been minimal. Windows boots refreshingly quick, but was that worth the extra price?
A SSD is not an upgrade that buys you more space. It's an upgrade that makes your computer faster. In that, practically all of them are great value; for normal desktop use I'd much rather have an Intel ssd and the crappiest still-in-production dualcore from AMD than no ssd and the most expensive available quadcore from Intel. And I have actually used both kinds of systems. That is how awesome the difference is.
What sort of user are you? I'm primarily a web browser/gamer, and find SSD gains to be minimal, to my experience.
*In my case this would be for Operating system and commonly used programs, couple games.
Good point. As I mentioned, I needed to get to work so I didn't proofread like I normally do.
IDK, I've got three netbooks with SSDs, one of those died during/after a power-outage (I blame line transients at failure or turn-on, combined with a cheap power-supply and brittle SSD controller design, but I'll never know for sure), none of them have died from old age, and the runcore SSD I replaced that one with is still doing fine as well.
You blame this, but it could have been happenstance. Still, you've experienced a 25% failure rate over the course of 2 years, which exceeds that of hard drives by a considerable margin. Still, the sample size is low. For example, I have a 0% failure rate, but with 1 SSD that's less than 6 months old, I'm not a good sample either.
He was probably exaggerating though.
The test is very unfair on small SSDs like the Intel X25-V because it doesn't look at overall price, only $/Gb. Hardly anybody is going to install a small SSD as the only drive in a machine. Most people would combine them with a big hard disk so the final score would be a blend of the scores for the SSD and the second hard disk.
Does it, really? A 'big' X25 @ 160 GB is $2.68/GB vs your 'disadvantaged' 40GB at $2.75. I wouldn't call a 3% price difference major when hard drives are hanging around a tenth of the price of SSD.
From my personal price checking, while with hard drives the highest non-cutting edge capacity tends to be the cheapest, SSD prices tend to level off very quickly with regards to price.
From newegg:
Intel X25-V 40GB 2.5": $110 $2.75
Intel X25-M 80GB 2.5": $220, $2.75/gb
Intel X25-M 160GB 2.5": $430 $2.68
Was going to post some HD prices, but gotta go to work. 80GB HD = .50 cents/gig, 2 TB =.065 cents/gig for the two first examples I found.
If they just breach, give them a warning and/or a ticket depending on how bad.
If they knowingly endanger people, THEN charge them with that.
This was discussed elsewhere, and it was pointed out that journalists CAN call(they even have their own number to call now), the rules apply to everybody, and besides, even the old 300 foot rule isn't an obstacle to a properly set up photographer. 65 is easily within the reach of even pro-sumer devices, while still giving workers space to work safely.
I'd hardly say that government regulations that are artificially deflating the price of helium is 'libertarian'.
Given the description, the helium is a natural resource 'owned' by the government. A proper libertarian response is that the government should get the maximum price it can get for it. IE the most benefit.
As mentioned, 20X the price might be a little less money in our pocket now, but it's much more later. Fusion plants aren't going to provide sufficient quantities any time soon.
Another sources says $4...
However - 'Cannot yet help with astigmatism', '80% of refractive errors can be fixed'.
Given that I have astigmatisms, I'd be out of luck with these, and I'm even outside of the 80% of people needing refraction correction (-8+).
-Ah, article mentions 'AdSpecs' - $30k at $19/pair, vs 'Focusspec' for $4.
In the end - this made me examine the article more closely - the device mentioned DOES compute astigmatism, which the 'self setting' glasses don't do.
My thoughts:
What is the expense of those self correcting glasses? You can make basic non-adjusting glasses extremely cheap if you're willing to. I'm willing to bet that those 'self adjusting' ones are a lot more expensive per set.
What is the durability?
With the app and a good smartphone, it sounds like a volunteer would be able to get an actual prescription out of the screening, perhaps so far as to simply pull the common prescription out of a box($2 lens going into a predetermined frame) vs a $100 adjustable set.