Errors != security issues. Buffer overflow and underrun errors are serious issues (mostly mitigated by modern libraries and safer coding practices), but security issues that arise from them are mainly the OS fault. 1:1 mapping of code and data segments is dumb securitywise. It's not we were lacking in linear address space in popular architectures all these years (today maybe). Long story short - the shortcomings of a given language are only a part of the shortcomings of the whole system.
Substantial amounts of things that come on a windows disc these days are written in C#.
I'd say you didn't try a disk since Longhorn. Very few MS apps require.NET at all (yes, they don't eat their own dogfood), and you can certainly install a MS operating system without a vaguely modern.NET runtime.
Haswell should be a Tock - a BIG performance improvement.
Don't expect a raw BIG performance improvement. Not like p4 vs core2. But Haswell DOES implement a breaktrough - Transactional Synchronization Extensions. It translates to "transactional memory for threads". An addition of couple of new instructions (may even be available on current CPUs, as they are already documented in the development manuals) to control thread context. Check http://software.intel.com/file/41604 for details.
That is whishful thinking. Take the last 10 years as an example - CFL are the most common type of light available, they provide typical 5x savings (we're talking about saving way over those 5W you're trying to save, on an actual common household item that everybody has). Now tell me about all those powerstations that weren't built because CFL savings...
I have no experience at 3rd word country power grids. And while I may be flaming a bit, doesn't make it less true - the US grid system is crap.
In a simplified case, if Bob will sell you 100MW at $0.04 and Tom will sell you 80MW at $0.06, but 150MW is needed, then you buy all of Bob's power and then 50MW of Tom's. If the load drops to just 80MW, then you stop buying from Tom altogether, and Tom probably shuts his machine down. There are complications to this scheme including power-purchasing agreements, spinning reserve requirements, etc, but that is basically how it works.
That's how it is on the US. Not how it works. The US probably have the shittiest energy regulation of all civilized countries, and it doesn't work. Week-long outages in some regions isn't my definition of "working".
The grid operator knows how much power they will need to within a pretty good margin of error. It is very predictable depending on the outside temperature and the time of day. Most people have a daily routine of electricity use and in the aggregate, the electricity use of a population is very stable and predictable. 10,000 people going home at 5PM and turning on their electric stove is predictable.
Oh yes. You are absolutely right. How does that contradict what I said? It doesn't. Those 10k people could turn the oven on, there would be no spike. Because electricity is already being produced in excess. All those 10k people switching off a lightbulb? (about 5x the savings of white vs black background on an lcd)? No effect. Turning off the PC? no effect.
Hydro plants aren't as restricted in water flow as you might think.
Did I say they were restricted in water flow? What I said is that isn't just throwing a switch and bam! you have power. The most common dams (on small rivers) have usually upto a dozen turbines, but almost never running at capacity. The bigger the turbines, more water they need to work at production levels. But if it rains a lot, you'll have all those dams running at full capacity generating electricity that won't be spent anyway. Also, if it is a navigated river, you'll always keep the water running.
Nuclear power stations don't really fit into your argument
Didn't I said that?
so it makes no sense to shut a nuclear machine down unless maintenance is required.
So why would you be worried with "the environment" and trying to save some KWh if your energy is produced by a nuclear powerplant? Did you actually read what I posted?
If people suddenly started consuming 10% less gas, probably most oil companies would keep the same production values as of today. Because 1) refined oil can be stored (unlike moving electrons) and 2) 10% is lower than the high-mark - low-mark consuming threshold 3) it would be cheaper to keep producing gas at current levels than having the refinery structure running at sub-optimal level.
Btw, a home vacuum cleaner consumption is about 300x the difference measured between a white page and a black page on an lcd. Don't even get me started on what _actually_ spends electricity (industrial machines).
The amount of fuel your power plant uses is proportional to the power it is supplying.
Only to a certain extent. You don't turn on and off furnaces on a coal/gas plant just because demand dropped. Most of those plants burn fuel (a ton of it) regardless of their production being in active use or not.
Hydro plants are more dynamical, but you still have a baseline water consumption value (the minimum needed to keep a turbine working), and turning them on and off isn't instantaneous either. Most hydro generation is done in dams, so you usually need to maintain a minimum flow of water (usually enough to generate electricity) regardless of electricity consumption. Again, a few KWh won't make a difference.
I'm not familiarized with the nuclear powerplants, but I'd guess they are somewhat similar to hydro.
Electricity production is done by provisioning i.e.there is an expected average consumption, to which is added a safety margin. Transformers and conductors in general aren't very good at working in stress, and that is what usually happens when there is a peak in demand and the grid is unable to respond quickly enough, so it's not a good idea to break those just to save fuel. There are also losses in transport, and those are difficult to calculate (yeah, I know, you can calculate them _exactly_ at 25C), because cable impedance varies with temperature and environment humidity.
While hydro is somewhat more dynamic at scaling power than thermal, it's not as easy as you say (duty cycles, base provisioning, etc), and certainly some KWh don't make any difference production-wise. The cost of scaling power in thermal centrals (excluding nuclear ones) is very high - there was an old coal central nearby, and it took a month from igniting a furnace to be ready for electricity production, so, as you may imagine, they did not turned them off each time consumption dropped.
There also also technical factors to why it is a bad idea to produce electricity near the average consumption level - One of them is that most electrical equipment tend to deteriorate under stress, so having a safe production margin minimizes transformer damage and conductor damage.
You're not, because the energy you saved won't stop being produced anyway. You can pay less electricity (the right kind of savings), but the coal/CO2/whatever is bad nowadays analogy is always wrong. And, at least where I live, 20% of the electricity comes from certified renewable sources (and that's why it's so expensive).
Many modern lcd screens have dynamic contrast, so inefficient dimming of the backlight can be blamed for the differences measured. Also, most LCD panels implement tricks for color composition (specially those so-popular-so-fast 6 bit TN panels), so additional processing may be done on specific colors/tones, and that could explain the increased consumption.
Saved as in not paid directly. Electricity won't suddenly stop being produced because the average consumption dropped a few KWh, and this is one of the most ignored factors by "the green people". Electricity is generated regardless and must be spent almost immediatly - there is no efficient way of storing it (and no, batteries aren't that efficient), specially when considering the sheer requisites of the high values (both voltage and current) involved.
That said, it's always good for the consumers to save a few cents. But take it for what it is (a money question) and not as an "environment-friendly" approach.
Yeah, and how many fakes are today on display as the original works of art? It's not like the public (and the experts, btw) are that much demanding. And I'd prefer to see an actual replica of a roman house than those rock-piled ruins that end on my knee. How did it look like? Was it painted? Did it have clay walls? How was the lighting? How were the ceilings? Do they used doors, or just curtains?
Today, you don't have that much of a choice when you want to produce a specific product. There are only a bunch of major manufacturers worldwide. The case of apple is mostly the marketing department washing out the hypocrisy. Foxconn is a major worldwide player, and Apple products are actually a somewhat small fraction of business. From what I've seen, it's not even half bad - good salaries, good worl environment, quality production, and demanding customers. If you think they're bad, you should check working conditions in many other chinese factories - you'll see soldering without exhaust pipes or masks, daily exposure to corrosive chemicals, etc.
The modern "traditional" american manufacturing industry is a post-WW2 creation, and has thrived on a local and foreign market without competition. The "american dream" is based on the concept that there is no foreign competition, so every piece of crap is good because it's american. Well, the world has changed. Europe doesn't need any more US money or raw products, and some of the pillars of the american industry (such as the auto industry) were largely outpaced by everyone else. Even in I&D, the last big american bastion, they're being challenged by EU and Asian companies and universities.
You get what you paid for. It's the same everywhere else - cheap production is crap. China is a milenar culture, with very famous monuments that had endured the test of time, Can you say the same about the place you live?
Because probably they'll be doing a single copy of each, using some hard material that substitutes whatever you pour into moulds. Moulds themselves are frequently done by casting a 3D-printed copy with the mould material.
What I was saying is, that instead of spec'ing eg. the Legrand crappy and expensive outlets, you can use other cheaper (but good) brands, keeping the global installation cost the same.
I really don't know where you got the idea that I even suggested that the client wouldn't be aware, or that I'd endorse any kind of ethics violation. I was just pointing out that you can do more and better for the same price.
You want to run 2x as many lines as you need to so some people can get gig to the desktop?
Yes I do. Network cable is somewhat cheap, and having redundancy is always a good thing. A cable will break, an outlet will break. This is not the kind of stuff you want to cut on - it's usually the backbone of your network for at least a decade. When I have a say on the matter, usually each working seat has at least 2 ethernet connectors, and sometimes an extra one (for video over Cat5, network printer, whatever). The price difference between good qualtiy ethernet outlets from lesser known brands and those of popular brands will easily pay the extra cable, and if you factor in the extra switches you'll probably add in one room or another to satisfy demand will usually cover the extra price.
Most "modern" (3 year old and newer) machines do have Gigabit connectors, so why not use them? On local networks, there are several advantages:
1) reduced latency (someone else has mentioned it) - it really helps a lot some applications;
2) less time loading roaming profiles / less time spent refreshing network shares;
3) increased bandwidth (even at 100Mbit) - Gigabit gear is usually more error-resistant, and implement smarter and faster error correction;
4) inter-departament high-speed sychronization - good for replicating storage, machine snapshotting/CDP, distributed filesystems and such;
5) instant 10x speed upgrade on recent infrastructure, since 1000T is Cat5-based (no scrapping except the switches)
My internet connection alone has 120Mbps downstream. And yes, I use it.
We wouldn't be able to pay de debt anyway.Can you cite a relevant western country with a growth over 4.5% the last year? Because that's about the growth rate we need to cover the almost-six-percent loan on the amount 3/4 of the government budget. The cuts are adjustments to reduce the need for additional loans to cover the hole, The shrinking economy will only aggravate the problem, since the government will need even more money to compensate the break in tax returns.
Is your country that much better? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15748696
The problem isn't borrowing itself, but the interest rates. Countries that hold control over their currency (such as the USA) will try to solve any liquidity problem by printing money - that will increase the interest rate of future loans. The truth is, there is no country with real "excess of cash" - and that's exactly how the system works.
Slashdot Mirror
Errors != security issues. Buffer overflow and underrun errors are serious issues (mostly mitigated by modern libraries and safer coding practices), but security issues that arise from them are mainly the OS fault. 1:1 mapping of code and data segments is dumb securitywise. It's not we were lacking in linear address space in popular architectures all these years (today maybe). Long story short - the shortcomings of a given language are only a part of the shortcomings of the whole system.
Substantial amounts of things that come on a windows disc these days are written in C#.
I'd say you didn't try a disk since Longhorn. Very few MS apps require .NET at all (yes, they don't eat their own dogfood), and you can certainly install a MS operating system without a vaguely modern .NET runtime.
Ha! I remember waiting for KDE4 to "do the switch". Still running Windows :D
Haswell should be a Tock - a BIG performance improvement.
Don't expect a raw BIG performance improvement. Not like p4 vs core2. But Haswell DOES implement a breaktrough - Transactional Synchronization Extensions. It translates to "transactional memory for threads". An addition of couple of new instructions (may even be available on current CPUs, as they are already documented in the development manuals) to control thread context. Check http://software.intel.com/file/41604 for details.
That is whishful thinking. Take the last 10 years as an example - CFL are the most common type of light available, they provide typical 5x savings (we're talking about saving way over those 5W you're trying to save, on an actual common household item that everybody has). Now tell me about all those powerstations that weren't built because CFL savings...
In many jurisdictions in the US
I have no experience at 3rd word country power grids. And while I may be flaming a bit, doesn't make it less true - the US grid system is crap.
In a simplified case, if Bob will sell you 100MW at $0.04 and Tom will sell you 80MW at $0.06, but 150MW is needed, then you buy all of Bob's power and then 50MW of Tom's. If the load drops to just 80MW, then you stop buying from Tom altogether, and Tom probably shuts his machine down. There are complications to this scheme including power-purchasing agreements, spinning reserve requirements, etc, but that is basically how it works.
That's how it is on the US. Not how it works. The US probably have the shittiest energy regulation of all civilized countries, and it doesn't work. Week-long outages in some regions isn't my definition of "working".
The grid operator knows how much power they will need to within a pretty good margin of error. It is very predictable depending on the outside temperature and the time of day. Most people have a daily routine of electricity use and in the aggregate, the electricity use of a population is very stable and predictable. 10,000 people going home at 5PM and turning on their electric stove is predictable.
Oh yes. You are absolutely right. How does that contradict what I said? It doesn't. Those 10k people could turn the oven on, there would be no spike. Because electricity is already being produced in excess. All those 10k people switching off a lightbulb? (about 5x the savings of white vs black background on an lcd)? No effect. Turning off the PC? no effect.
Hydro plants aren't as restricted in water flow as you might think.
Did I say they were restricted in water flow? What I said is that isn't just throwing a switch and bam! you have power. The most common dams (on small rivers) have usually upto a dozen turbines, but almost never running at capacity. The bigger the turbines, more water they need to work at production levels. But if it rains a lot, you'll have all those dams running at full capacity generating electricity that won't be spent anyway. Also, if it is a navigated river, you'll always keep the water running.
Nuclear power stations don't really fit into your argument
Didn't I said that?
so it makes no sense to shut a nuclear machine down unless maintenance is required.
So why would you be worried with "the environment" and trying to save some KWh if your energy is produced by a nuclear powerplant? Did you actually read what I posted?
If people suddenly started consuming 10% less gas, probably most oil companies would keep the same production values as of today. Because 1) refined oil can be stored (unlike moving electrons) and 2) 10% is lower than the high-mark - low-mark consuming threshold 3) it would be cheaper to keep producing gas at current levels than having the refinery structure running at sub-optimal level.
Btw, a home vacuum cleaner consumption is about 300x the difference measured between a white page and a black page on an lcd. Don't even get me started on what _actually_ spends electricity (industrial machines).
The amount of fuel your power plant uses is proportional to the power it is supplying.
Only to a certain extent. You don't turn on and off furnaces on a coal/gas plant just because demand dropped. Most of those plants burn fuel (a ton of it) regardless of their production being in active use or not.
Hydro plants are more dynamical, but you still have a baseline water consumption value (the minimum needed to keep a turbine working), and turning them on and off isn't instantaneous either. Most hydro generation is done in dams, so you usually need to maintain a minimum flow of water (usually enough to generate electricity) regardless of electricity consumption. Again, a few KWh won't make a difference.
I'm not familiarized with the nuclear powerplants, but I'd guess they are somewhat similar to hydro.
Electricity production is done by provisioning i.e.there is an expected average consumption, to which is added a safety margin. Transformers and conductors in general aren't very good at working in stress, and that is what usually happens when there is a peak in demand and the grid is unable to respond quickly enough, so it's not a good idea to break those just to save fuel. There are also losses in transport, and those are difficult to calculate (yeah, I know, you can calculate them _exactly_ at 25C), because cable impedance varies with temperature and environment humidity.
While hydro is somewhat more dynamic at scaling power than thermal, it's not as easy as you say (duty cycles, base provisioning, etc), and certainly some KWh don't make any difference production-wise. The cost of scaling power in thermal centrals (excluding nuclear ones) is very high - there was an old coal central nearby, and it took a month from igniting a furnace to be ready for electricity production, so, as you may imagine, they did not turned them off each time consumption dropped.
There also also technical factors to why it is a bad idea to produce electricity near the average consumption level - One of them is that most electrical equipment tend to deteriorate under stress, so having a safe production margin minimizes transformer damage and conductor damage.
You're not, because the energy you saved won't stop being produced anyway. You can pay less electricity (the right kind of savings), but the coal/CO2/whatever is bad nowadays analogy is always wrong. And, at least where I live, 20% of the electricity comes from certified renewable sources (and that's why it's so expensive).
Many modern lcd screens have dynamic contrast, so inefficient dimming of the backlight can be blamed for the differences measured. Also, most LCD panels implement tricks for color composition (specially those so-popular-so-fast 6 bit TN panels), so additional processing may be done on specific colors/tones, and that could explain the increased consumption.
(...)of electricity that could be saved (...)
Saved as in not paid directly. Electricity won't suddenly stop being produced because the average consumption dropped a few KWh, and this is one of the most ignored factors by "the green people". Electricity is generated regardless and must be spent almost immediatly - there is no efficient way of storing it (and no, batteries aren't that efficient), specially when considering the sheer requisites of the high values (both voltage and current) involved.
That said, it's always good for the consumers to save a few cents. But take it for what it is (a money question) and not as an "environment-friendly" approach.
Actual as in "real", not as in "modern".
Or using togas. Bitches back then loved togas.
Yeah, and how many fakes are today on display as the original works of art? It's not like the public (and the experts, btw) are that much demanding. And I'd prefer to see an actual replica of a roman house than those rock-piled ruins that end on my knee. How did it look like? Was it painted? Did it have clay walls? How was the lighting? How were the ceilings? Do they used doors, or just curtains?
Today, you don't have that much of a choice when you want to produce a specific product. There are only a bunch of major manufacturers worldwide. The case of apple is mostly the marketing department washing out the hypocrisy. Foxconn is a major worldwide player, and Apple products are actually a somewhat small fraction of business. From what I've seen, it's not even half bad - good salaries, good worl environment, quality production, and demanding customers. If you think they're bad, you should check working conditions in many other chinese factories - you'll see soldering without exhaust pipes or masks, daily exposure to corrosive chemicals, etc.
The modern "traditional" american manufacturing industry is a post-WW2 creation, and has thrived on a local and foreign market without competition. The "american dream" is based on the concept that there is no foreign competition, so every piece of crap is good because it's american. Well, the world has changed. Europe doesn't need any more US money or raw products, and some of the pillars of the american industry (such as the auto industry) were largely outpaced by everyone else. Even in I&D, the last big american bastion, they're being challenged by EU and Asian companies and universities.
You get what you paid for. It's the same everywhere else - cheap production is crap. China is a milenar culture, with very famous monuments that had endured the test of time, Can you say the same about the place you live?
Because probably they'll be doing a single copy of each, using some hard material that substitutes whatever you pour into moulds. Moulds themselves are frequently done by casting a 3D-printed copy with the mould material.
What I was saying is, that instead of spec'ing eg. the Legrand crappy and expensive outlets, you can use other cheaper (but good) brands, keeping the global installation cost the same.
I really don't know where you got the idea that I even suggested that the client wouldn't be aware, or that I'd endorse any kind of ethics violation. I was just pointing out that you can do more and better for the same price.
I remember my first Linux box - i486 at about 90MHz. Those were the days..
Was it overclocked? Because I only recall versions near that value at 80Mhz (DX2) and 100Mhz(DX4).
You want to run 2x as many lines as you need to so some people can get gig to the desktop?
Yes I do. Network cable is somewhat cheap, and having redundancy is always a good thing. A cable will break, an outlet will break. This is not the kind of stuff you want to cut on - it's usually the backbone of your network for at least a decade. When I have a say on the matter, usually each working seat has at least 2 ethernet connectors, and sometimes an extra one (for video over Cat5, network printer, whatever). The price difference between good qualtiy ethernet outlets from lesser known brands and those of popular brands will easily pay the extra cable, and if you factor in the extra switches you'll probably add in one room or another to satisfy demand will usually cover the extra price.
Most "modern" (3 year old and newer) machines do have Gigabit connectors, so why not use them? On local networks, there are several advantages:
1) reduced latency (someone else has mentioned it) - it really helps a lot some applications;
2) less time loading roaming profiles / less time spent refreshing network shares;
3) increased bandwidth (even at 100Mbit) - Gigabit gear is usually more error-resistant, and implement smarter and faster error correction;
4) inter-departament high-speed sychronization - good for replicating storage, machine snapshotting/CDP, distributed filesystems and such;
5) instant 10x speed upgrade on recent infrastructure, since 1000T is Cat5-based (no scrapping except the switches)
My internet connection alone has 120Mbps downstream. And yes, I use it.
We wouldn't be able to pay de debt anyway.Can you cite a relevant western country with a growth over 4.5% the last year? Because that's about the growth rate we need to cover the almost-six-percent loan on the amount 3/4 of the government budget. The cuts are adjustments to reduce the need for additional loans to cover the hole, The shrinking economy will only aggravate the problem, since the government will need even more money to compensate the break in tax returns.
Is your country that much better? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15748696 The problem isn't borrowing itself, but the interest rates. Countries that hold control over their currency (such as the USA) will try to solve any liquidity problem by printing money - that will increase the interest rate of future loans. The truth is, there is no country with real "excess of cash" - and that's exactly how the system works.