i'm 40. i don't ever recall nostalgia hitting the mainstream so hard as it did in the early 2000's with all the vh1 nonsense. it was fun, i was part of it. i'm burned out on it.
i spent a lot of time play apple//e emulated games on my laptop, but the fun is pretty much worn out.
i think i need a few more decades before i start feeling the urge to be nostalgic again.
maybe in 2032 i'll fire up WoW and look at my old characters.
...He still used a microprocessor in an integrated circuit. In college back in the 1980's some ubernerds built a 4004 with discrete transistors.
But still, i give this person _HUGE_ props, breadboarding a circuit that complex is very, very, VERY time consuming amount of debug. it would drive most people insane, literally, it would break their brains to try and debug this.
I understand your attempt to think of the possible reasons behind their decisions, but remember something: it has been three years since the request was made, and lawyers were allowed to comb through all 26k+ mails and even withhold and redact them. Seems to me the Alaska gov't had no trouble accommodating the needs of the lawyers (who were in fact loyalists to Palin), but for some reason want to drag their feat for a few media outlets. I would be interested how you reconcile these facts with your theory.
I think you are projecting. The people reporting on Palin's gaffs [largely] don't have their panties in a bunch (except for the far-left liberal rags who are clueless enough to think she could actually win a major office).
If I may do some projecting of my own, I think for the most part watching Palin speak is liking watching scenes edited out of Idiocracy. If you can stand to hear her heavily sarcastic inflection, her gaffs seem almost scripted by Matt Judge himself. If it weren't for her history and the length of time she has spent raising money for GOP/Tea Party politicians, I would swear she was deliberately invented by the left. (Although that would be giving the left FAR too much credit.)
Just a salesman? Lee Iaccoca was a salesman. Ronald Reagan was a salesman. Gods, it's like you completely forgot the early 1980's...
Look, I get it, it's hip to pick sides on/. and argue relentlessly and demonize the opposition, just like red/blue states and the fabricated divide that draws eyeballs to cable news.
The inventions that formed the premise of Apple's initial success laid the groundwork, but Apple didn't become famous because of Altair or Xerox.
You might not be old enough, but stop and look at the decisions and risks the man took at his company, how he read the ecosystem and made decisions that shaped the direction of the technology when anyone barely had an idea where it was heading (the IBM was futzing around with the PC Jr while the mac was decades ahead in GUI land; Wang and Rainbow were just ripping off IBM; TI, Tandy/TRS and Commodore were ripping off Apple!). Eventually you will have to make your own very tough decisions at work you'll appreciate the brilliance of visionaries. Don't squander the opportunity to learn from Jobs' history because you've already built your identity by despising him.
*listens to another enumeration of precursor technology*
*sighs*
Yes, and if we go far back enough, the dude that invented fire is really the only genius.
All of those lovely technologies you mentioned were just hobbyist toys spinning in circles going nowhere... because there was no vision. It took the visionary genius of Jobs to make it happen.
Unlike you fanboys, I'm not upset by other companies innovating, but no one has pulled it off as well as Apple. Period. And that took the visionary genius of Jobs.
I think it is great that you all are exercising your adolescent rebellion genes, keep it up, that's what put Jobs on top. Maybe some day one of you kids is really a genius who just hasn't bloomed yet.
Yeah, but... he IS a a visionary genius / hero, and there is no way to refute that. The facts support it. He and Woz birthed the PC market. And when Scully drove Apple into the ground, and crappy PCs with crappy Windows software were spreading through the 1990's like E.Coli on a warm turd, Jobs stepped in again and completely re-invented the PC paradigm, and continues to push the industry into new realms of usability and ubiquity that makes everyone else look like a copycat.
For years, I've been trying to un-brainwash myself out of the early models of the electron as a little ball whirring around a nucleus, and convert to the probabilistic electron cloud model, as well as the wave/particle hybrid nature.
My head is about to explode. Can someone who is a physicist please chime in?
another person that doesn't know wtf an atheist is.
*sigh*
there is no leap of faith in atheism.
none.
at all.
atheism is actually "lazy" to follow your leaping metaphor. you show me proof that fits better than existing models and blammo, I take the new model, even if it involves a divine creator. done and done. but it doesn't end there, it never does, because we don't have all the answers, and that's the key point that you clearly miss: and i'll continue to question the creator model you gave me if it has holes that don't fit observations, until someone comes up with a better one, and again, and again, and again.
that is vastly different than any known theism.
don't be scared, we don't bite, just some of us are dickwads.
if you're delivering energy to a CPU at some # of Watts, you have to remove it just as fast... and it doesn't just vanish. how is it removed? heat transfer. also watts.
Is this getting boring, should I go back to moving more than -2 meters in QWOP now?
You supply 100W of power to black box. If less than 100W of heat transfers out (minus entropy), you've just observed a violation of physics or made a huge discovery.
Voltage regulator pumps in the energy in, heat sink sucks it out (well, so does the board); energy in energy out over time = watts.
Heat transfer = electrical energy transfer = power
There is no measure of "efficiency" because if a CPU demands 100W, it will expel 100W in heat, there's no way around that (minus entropy). (I'm also assuming a closed boundary around the cpu here, for the sake of the visual.)
I think what you're after when you say "Efficiency" is how much computation is done per Watt. But that's whole 'nother ball o' wax. If you are still thinking Carnot Efficiency, remember that is only a measure of the transfer of energy between two opposing mechanisms in a cycle: the boundary around the entire system remains constant (minus entropy).
its a complex equation, but you're safe assuming the cube of voltage. you can be a little more specific: only switching power is proportional to the square of voltage. leakage is proportional just a little over the cube, and rushthrough is a little more than squared with power due to the dependency of transition time in th linear region (slope) on voltage. plus there's also frequency and its dependency on voltage, and temperature affect on leakage and Idsat. but the OP has a valid point, power density does increase, so the cooling solution has to be beefed up regardless because even less watts, over a smaller area, requires much more cooling capacity. it's the hot spot that you need to defend against.
i was being neither. i think both of you are focusing too specifically on one domain or the other and not realizing physics as a whole is the same.
even in your equation Q + W, you only gave half of the equation dU is part of the heat transfer equation, but you ignored the transferring part, you know, the part that takes time, the dt.
Try this on: are you telling me that you can put 100W into a processor and less than that comes out as heat? because it all comes out as heat. hence they are the same physical property. if you disagree, congratulations on your nobel prize!
i think you are hung up on car engines vs. transistors, when in reality the heat transfer and power are the same thing in both cases.
this is a huge problem in engineering schools. the concepts are taught too rigidly, and the relationships are never fully explored which leads to misconceptions like the one you are arguing.
when you refer to heat in a cpu system, you are referring to heat flux, which is joules per second, which is power. i'm not just playing with units. conceptually they are the same: the amount of heat transfer is identical to the amount of work done.
Slashdot Mirror
mmm... overpopulation. once we fix sanitation, another nasty side effect of unregulated breeding will take its place...
i'm 40. i don't ever recall nostalgia hitting the mainstream so hard as it did in the early 2000's with all the vh1 nonsense. it was fun, i was part of it. i'm burned out on it.
i spent a lot of time play apple //e emulated games on my laptop, but the fun is pretty much worn out.
i think i need a few more decades before i start feeling the urge to be nostalgic again.
maybe in 2032 i'll fire up WoW and look at my old characters.
my bad, i meant to say that he used "just" integrated circuits not a microprocessor.
still, that's a big "just"
calm down: i meant to say he "just" used integrated circuits.
...He still used a microprocessor in an integrated circuit. In college back in the 1980's some ubernerds built a 4004 with discrete transistors.
But still, i give this person _HUGE_ props, breadboarding a circuit that complex is very, very, VERY time consuming amount of debug. it would drive most people insane, literally, it would break their brains to try and debug this.
One anecdotal datapoint for me:
I've had my iPhone 3GS for two years, and I'm reasonably nerdy but I only use data-heavy modes when connected to WiFi.
My data rates over cellular service: sent 371MB received 2.3GB for ~24 months.
That puts me in the $15~$25 range.
I understand your attempt to think of the possible reasons behind their decisions, but remember something: it has been three years since the request was made, and lawyers were allowed to comb through all 26k+ mails and even withhold and redact them. Seems to me the Alaska gov't had no trouble accommodating the needs of the lawyers (who were in fact loyalists to Palin), but for some reason want to drag their feat for a few media outlets. I would be interested how you reconcile these facts with your theory.
I think you are projecting. The people reporting on Palin's gaffs [largely] don't have their panties in a bunch (except for the far-left liberal rags who are clueless enough to think she could actually win a major office).
If I may do some projecting of my own, I think for the most part watching Palin speak is liking watching scenes edited out of Idiocracy. If you can stand to hear her heavily sarcastic inflection, her gaffs seem almost scripted by Matt Judge himself. If it weren't for her history and the length of time she has spent raising money for GOP/Tea Party politicians, I would swear she was deliberately invented by the left. (Although that would be giving the left FAR too much credit.)
Just a salesman? Lee Iaccoca was a salesman. Ronald Reagan was a salesman. Gods, it's like you completely forgot the early 1980's...
Look, I get it, it's hip to pick sides on /. and argue relentlessly and demonize the opposition, just like red/blue states and the fabricated divide that draws eyeballs to cable news.
The inventions that formed the premise of Apple's initial success laid the groundwork, but Apple didn't become famous because of Altair or Xerox.
You might not be old enough, but stop and look at the decisions and risks the man took at his company, how he read the ecosystem and made decisions that shaped the direction of the technology when anyone barely had an idea where it was heading (the IBM was futzing around with the PC Jr while the mac was decades ahead in GUI land; Wang and Rainbow were just ripping off IBM; TI, Tandy/TRS and Commodore were ripping off Apple!). Eventually you will have to make your own very tough decisions at work you'll appreciate the brilliance of visionaries. Don't squander the opportunity to learn from Jobs' history because you've already built your identity by despising him.
Plus, Jobs shaves his pubes.
*listens to another enumeration of precursor technology*
*sighs*
Yes, and if we go far back enough, the dude that invented fire is really the only genius.
All of those lovely technologies you mentioned were just hobbyist toys spinning in circles going nowhere... because there was no vision. It took the visionary genius of Jobs to make it happen.
Unlike you fanboys, I'm not upset by other companies innovating, but no one has pulled it off as well as Apple. Period. And that took the visionary genius of Jobs.
I think it is great that you all are exercising your adolescent rebellion genes, keep it up, that's what put Jobs on top. Maybe some day one of you kids is really a genius who just hasn't bloomed yet.
Yeah, but... he IS a a visionary genius / hero, and there is no way to refute that. The facts support it. He and Woz birthed the PC market. And when Scully drove Apple into the ground, and crappy PCs with crappy Windows software were spreading through the 1990's like E.Coli on a warm turd, Jobs stepped in again and completely re-invented the PC paradigm, and continues to push the industry into new realms of usability and ubiquity that makes everyone else look like a copycat.
Deal with it.
Thanks! You must be a teacher, yes?
Thank you!
So.... it's a sphere when it is a particle?
For years, I've been trying to un-brainwash myself out of the early models of the electron as a little ball whirring around a nucleus, and convert to the probabilistic electron cloud model, as well as the wave/particle hybrid nature.
My head is about to explode. Can someone who is a physicist please chime in?
again, another person that ditches a philosophy because of how others act.
seriously, kids, don't comment if you're picking an ideology based on peer pressure.
another person that doesn't know wtf an atheist is.
*sigh*
there is no leap of faith in atheism.
none.
at all.
atheism is actually "lazy" to follow your leaping metaphor. you show me proof that fits better than existing models and blammo, I take the new model, even if it involves a divine creator. done and done. but it doesn't end there, it never does, because we don't have all the answers, and that's the key point that you clearly miss: and i'll continue to question the creator model you gave me if it has holes that don't fit observations, until someone comes up with a better one, and again, and again, and again.
that is vastly different than any known theism.
don't be scared, we don't bite, just some of us are dickwads.
You became agnostic because atheists can be dickwads?
That's the worst argument for agnosticism ever.
Plus I don't think you realize what a burden being an agnostic is: you have to accept that anything is possible, unicorns, Thor, Spaghetti monster.
Being agnostic is more work than being religious!
nothing geeks love more than talking about how special geeks are.
especially when they pride themselves on being so unique and different and quirky from all the other geeks.
cue the jello biafra...
Agreed on both counts!
exactly!
"the processor is meant to change the entropy in the system"?
I'm not sure what the parent was trying to claim with this indecipherable statement.
"you only have to remove heat if you want the processor to remain at a constant temperature"
which is ... ALL THE TIME!
thought of another example:
if you're delivering energy to a CPU at some # of Watts, you have to remove it just as fast... and it doesn't just vanish. how is it removed? heat transfer. also watts.
Is this getting boring, should I go back to moving more than -2 meters in QWOP now?
I think you're getting hung up on the equations.
Let's keep it simple:
You supply 100W of power to black box. If less than 100W of heat transfers out (minus entropy), you've just observed a violation of physics or made a huge discovery.
Voltage regulator pumps in the energy in, heat sink sucks it out (well, so does the board); energy in energy out over time = watts.
Heat transfer = electrical energy transfer = power
There is no measure of "efficiency" because if a CPU demands 100W, it will expel 100W in heat, there's no way around that (minus entropy). (I'm also assuming a closed boundary around the cpu here, for the sake of the visual.)
I think what you're after when you say "Efficiency" is how much computation is done per Watt. But that's whole 'nother ball o' wax. If you are still thinking Carnot Efficiency, remember that is only a measure of the transfer of energy between two opposing mechanisms in a cycle: the boundary around the entire system remains constant (minus entropy).
its a complex equation, but you're safe assuming the cube of voltage. you can be a little more specific: only switching power is proportional to the square of voltage. leakage is proportional just a little over the cube, and rushthrough is a little more than squared with power due to the dependency of transition time in th linear region (slope) on voltage. plus there's also frequency and its dependency on voltage, and temperature affect on leakage and Idsat. but the OP has a valid point, power density does increase, so the cooling solution has to be beefed up regardless because even less watts, over a smaller area, requires much more cooling capacity. it's the hot spot that you need to defend against.
i was being neither. i think both of you are focusing too specifically on one domain or the other and not realizing physics as a whole is the same.
even in your equation Q + W, you only gave half of the equation dU is part of the heat transfer equation, but you ignored the transferring part, you know, the part that takes time, the dt.
Try this on: are you telling me that you can put 100W into a processor and less than that comes out as heat? because it all comes out as heat. hence they are the same physical property. if you disagree, congratulations on your nobel prize!
i think you are hung up on car engines vs. transistors, when in reality the heat transfer and power are the same thing in both cases.
this is a huge problem in engineering schools. the concepts are taught too rigidly, and the relationships are never fully explored which leads to misconceptions like the one you are arguing.
when you refer to heat in a cpu system, you are referring to heat flux, which is joules per second, which is power. i'm not just playing with units. conceptually they are the same: the amount of heat transfer is identical to the amount of work done.