You make a diesel sound like a panacea. It's not. There are clear benefits, but ignoring the negatives doesn't do us any good.
Even the best diesels emit particulates, which aggravates breathing problems. Then you're putting in all sorts of crap that's not really intended to be burned in a diesel engine and might contain additive compounds that might have toxic combustion byproducts, who knows what sort of pollution you're putting out.
The figures promoted by people that make, tinker or promote alternative fuels rarely factor in taxes and distribution costs. You really have to nail them down and make them specify "at the pump" prices in clear writing or you're being bamboozled by a weasel. Then, you have to nail them down in terms of comparing the amount of energy you get out of a gallon of this alternative vs. it's typical gasoline or diesel counterpart.
Not many tax breaks end up being good enough to pay for the entire investment. Usually all it does is reduce your taxable income by $X, not reduce your taxes by $X. So it might reduce their taxes by Y% of X, maybe it's 5% or 25%.
Heat may be a problem because it's being emitted from a much smaller case, probably needs to get rid of twice as much power per unit of surface area even if it consumes less power than a 3.5" drive.
It's not the same areal density. It's higher. I think the Raptor X uses like 4-6 platters, and I think this story says they use 2 platters.
As it is, the 2.5" server drives do get faster access times than the closest 3.5" drives of the same RPM, I think in part because the head arm is shorter (less rotational inertia) and doesn't need to swing as far. Higher areal density helps get higher transfer rates.
It's NOT a notebook drive. It's a 2.5" server hard drive put into a funky heat sink, presumably so it would work fine in desktop systems where the system designer or the owner might not have considered proper cooling, or to simplify cooling requirements.
I don't think it's about *making* consumers buy widescreen displays. In a way, I see it as consumer demand deciding what they want. Consumers were offered a choice for many years, and maybe it is they that made the choice. Economies of scale make it difficult to support niche demands as well.
That said, I'd prefer a large 4:3 computer monitor, but there really aren't any larger than something like 21" so I get a widescreen.
As a movie-fan, I just wish they had the same Aspect Ratio as in the Cinema (which people seem to forget, is NOT 16:9).
There is no single movie aspect ratio. They vary all over the place, but more or less have settled on 1.85:1 and 2.35:1 for theatrical movie distribution. 16:9 is close enough to 1.85:1 that most people don't notice. 2.35:1 is too wide for most portable and home devices.
Supposedly 16:10 was chosen so that you can show two letter sized pages side-by-side at the same time. It's not quite right, and with small screens it has to be scaled down, but close enough. I really don't think everything has to be a particular aspect ratio, especially computers. Computers can work with 4:3, 5:4, 3:2, 16:10 and 16:9 aspect ratios, when set up properly, without stretching and distortion. Maybe there are more aspect ratios in use. The 4:3 allows space for multihead more easily, as the width for two 16:10 displays is quite wide, I'd rather trade the width for height in that case.
Perhaps in consumerist societies, but I bet they take more care of stuff when they know it can't/won't be replaced.
Even the best care doesn't necessarily mean it's not going to fail. A single stray speck of sand might get into a key mechanism and wear them out in a blink.
I think the fact that it costs money to replace, as well as lost use while waiting for a replacement, should be enough. Somehow, I thought the XO was supposed to be designed such that it's field serviceable because of the projected circumstances that authorized service may be hard to get.
Have you use the pinch to zoom? It's quite intuitive on an iPhone or iPod touch, where your fingers are right on the image. It's slightly less so on the touchpad, but still fine. WAY better than the other way.
I don't have any device that uses pinch to do anything.
What they were talking was pinch zoom in / unpinch to zoom out, which I thought that's the opposite of the way the iDevices do it, pinch makes the picture and everything in the picture smaller and not larger.
I thought some of the recycling ends up meaning that they have a large quantity of material with a low level of radiation. IIRC, France recycles their material, but Scandinavian countries complain because they're upstream from where France dumps their slightly "hot" water from their nuclear recycling facility.
The pressure to get a scoop out is higher now, as well as the pressure to cut costs. Fact checking takes time and money. People generally don't seem to remember the goofups either. Sometimes it comes to light and rips through the "blogosphere", but I think it's likely that the circumstances of most errors just fade away and people remember the incorrect fact, not any corrections that might have been silently done.
Not sure whether you realise but, as of recently, you can control exactly who can see what of your profile. Risks should be minimised if you have a private profile and don't let anyone but your proper friends see your drunken photographs and so on.
But there are potential security concerns here. Much like that MySpace crack where it spidered all the pictures marked "private" from thousands of accounts and posted them for everyone to see. Basically, you have to assume that anything you post on the Internet will be visible by everyone, that way you aren't surprised when it actually does happen. As such, don't post pictures and information online that can be identified as you.
Another issue is that someone could post undesirable pictures OF you and tag it with your name. No amount of privacy settings on your account can hide that picture. So you should be careful when you allow yourself to be photographed, you can't get it back if it gets out there.
Really? Makes sense to me- you're reducing the field of view, so you move your fingers inwards (your fingers representing the field of view). The opposite sounds awkward to me.
I suppose, if you have the photographic mindset. I think most people can deal better with the idea of resizing the image, not a more abstract concept of FOV, especially when it's actually resizing an image on a display.
Then again, I think the entire deal is a little silly- just add a scroll wheel.
The two finger scrolling is pretty nice though. I really don't see the point in adding a scroll wheel. It's an unnecessary addition of a mechanical component when existing electronic components should do the job for most people. And it's easier to deal with as a scroll wheel would need to be accompanied with another keystroke to tell the computer that it's a resize and not a scrolling action.
If you'll notice, they said that revenue and user base increased. They didn't say that it was profitable. That's a very important distinction, because real businesses are concerned with actual profit, whereas businesses that harken to the dot-bomb try to ignore profitability and wave flags of distraction about revenue and traffic, hoping people ignore the fact that it's unprofitable and there's little hope of becoming profitable.
If the value of Skype is worth more in terms of selling off to some other sucker investors than it is keeping it in the hopes that it might be worth something some day, then it's better to sell it off.
I did open the article and skim it, but didn't fully read it. There are times when returning satellites might be useful, but I think it's only been done a few times, the last time I counted, twice. The one time I remember is bringing back LDEF, they wanted to see how different things withstood long term exposure to space, and examine them in detail.
I saw this in part when adding an app means that the app has access to all your profile information. It's either all or nothing, no way to add restrictions.
OK, Facebook has access to my information, but I don't see why third party developers have to have it. I also don't put much information on there. I just have to assume that any information in my profile is going to be available to anyone, even if I put up restrictions and limitations, so I'm careful what I put up there.
I think the reusable spacecraft is a dubious idea, at least having the final stage be reusable. The weight added to be able to survive reentry and land is still significant. Even if you don't have a passenger compartment, there's still the weight of the wings, as well as the weight of all the thermal protection materials to protect the entire spacecraft. Then there's the structure needed to handle that extra weight, and the extra fuel needed to lift that extra weight.
The problem with that argument is that Wikipedia might have articles good enough of a starting point, but if you want more detailed information, even the citation links usually aren't enough, at least for me. Wikipedia is fine if all I want is a factoid. Wikipedia also is scrubbed relatively cleanly of opinion, sometimes I need opinions about something rather than just its facts.
The "left over" silver was clearly stolen (unless it's a normal part of contracts like these that such material becomes the property of the silversmith).
It also depends on whether the smith was responsible for buying it, or the company that bought the contract. At least in the machine shop world, which I'm a bit more familiar, the machine shop often handles their own materials purchases.
It's an interesting argument, and somewhat applicable, but in another way, it's not.
That's because jewelry really doesn't need support, and in your example, they know the original silversmith. But electronics, should it fail, you'll want it fixed, or you'll want BIOS or driver updates. The real drivers might or might not work.
Slashdot Mirror
You make a diesel sound like a panacea. It's not. There are clear benefits, but ignoring the negatives doesn't do us any good.
Even the best diesels emit particulates, which aggravates breathing problems. Then you're putting in all sorts of crap that's not really intended to be burned in a diesel engine and might contain additive compounds that might have toxic combustion byproducts, who knows what sort of pollution you're putting out.
The figures promoted by people that make, tinker or promote alternative fuels rarely factor in taxes and distribution costs. You really have to nail them down and make them specify "at the pump" prices in clear writing or you're being bamboozled by a weasel. Then, you have to nail them down in terms of comparing the amount of energy you get out of a gallon of this alternative vs. it's typical gasoline or diesel counterpart.
I don't really understand that though. What is it about a border that makes the constitution not apply?
Not many tax breaks end up being good enough to pay for the entire investment. Usually all it does is reduce your taxable income by $X, not reduce your taxes by $X. So it might reduce their taxes by Y% of X, maybe it's 5% or 25%.
Heat may be a problem because it's being emitted from a much smaller case, probably needs to get rid of twice as much power per unit of surface area even if it consumes less power than a 3.5" drive.
It's not the same areal density. It's higher. I think the Raptor X uses like 4-6 platters, and I think this story says they use 2 platters.
As it is, the 2.5" server drives do get faster access times than the closest 3.5" drives of the same RPM, I think in part because the head arm is shorter (less rotational inertia) and doesn't need to swing as far. Higher areal density helps get higher transfer rates.
It's NOT a notebook drive. It's a 2.5" server hard drive put into a funky heat sink, presumably so it would work fine in desktop systems where the system designer or the owner might not have considered proper cooling, or to simplify cooling requirements.
The enterprise WDs don't seem to have that problem.
I have a couple desktop WDs that are over 1.5 years old and they're still running fine.
I don't think it's about *making* consumers buy widescreen displays. In a way, I see it as consumer demand deciding what they want. Consumers were offered a choice for many years, and maybe it is they that made the choice. Economies of scale make it difficult to support niche demands as well.
That said, I'd prefer a large 4:3 computer monitor, but there really aren't any larger than something like 21" so I get a widescreen.
As a movie-fan, I just wish they had the same Aspect Ratio as in the Cinema (which people seem to forget, is NOT 16:9).
There is no single movie aspect ratio. They vary all over the place, but more or less have settled on 1.85:1 and 2.35:1 for theatrical movie distribution. 16:9 is close enough to 1.85:1 that most people don't notice. 2.35:1 is too wide for most portable and home devices.
Supposedly 16:10 was chosen so that you can show two letter sized pages side-by-side at the same time. It's not quite right, and with small screens it has to be scaled down, but close enough. I really don't think everything has to be a particular aspect ratio, especially computers. Computers can work with 4:3, 5:4, 3:2, 16:10 and 16:9 aspect ratios, when set up properly, without stretching and distortion. Maybe there are more aspect ratios in use. The 4:3 allows space for multihead more easily, as the width for two 16:10 displays is quite wide, I'd rather trade the width for height in that case.
Perhaps in consumerist societies, but I bet they take more care of stuff when they know it can't/won't be replaced.
Even the best care doesn't necessarily mean it's not going to fail. A single stray speck of sand might get into a key mechanism and wear them out in a blink.
I think the fact that it costs money to replace, as well as lost use while waiting for a replacement, should be enough. Somehow, I thought the XO was supposed to be designed such that it's field serviceable because of the projected circumstances that authorized service may be hard to get.
Have you use the pinch to zoom? It's quite intuitive on an iPhone or iPod touch, where your fingers are right on the image. It's slightly less so on the touchpad, but still fine. WAY better than the other way.
I don't have any device that uses pinch to do anything.
What they were talking was pinch zoom in / unpinch to zoom out, which I thought that's the opposite of the way the iDevices do it, pinch makes the picture and everything in the picture smaller and not larger.
"you'll not see that stuff on the el-cheapo $1500 laptops for a really long time."
It's been a LONG time since I've seen "el-cheapo" associated with a $1500 notebook. These days, it's at least mid-range if not high end.
I thought some of the recycling ends up meaning that they have a large quantity of material with a low level of radiation. IIRC, France recycles their material, but Scandinavian countries complain because they're upstream from where France dumps their slightly "hot" water from their nuclear recycling facility.
The pressure to get a scoop out is higher now, as well as the pressure to cut costs. Fact checking takes time and money. People generally don't seem to remember the goofups either. Sometimes it comes to light and rips through the "blogosphere", but I think it's likely that the circumstances of most errors just fade away and people remember the incorrect fact, not any corrections that might have been silently done.
Not sure whether you realise but, as of recently, you can control exactly who can see what of your profile. Risks should be minimised if you have a private profile and don't let anyone but your proper friends see your drunken photographs and so on.
But there are potential security concerns here. Much like that MySpace crack where it spidered all the pictures marked "private" from thousands of accounts and posted them for everyone to see. Basically, you have to assume that anything you post on the Internet will be visible by everyone, that way you aren't surprised when it actually does happen. As such, don't post pictures and information online that can be identified as you.
Another issue is that someone could post undesirable pictures OF you and tag it with your name. No amount of privacy settings on your account can hide that picture. So you should be careful when you allow yourself to be photographed, you can't get it back if it gets out there.
Really? Makes sense to me- you're reducing the field of view, so you move your fingers inwards (your fingers representing the field of view). The opposite sounds awkward to me.
I suppose, if you have the photographic mindset. I think most people can deal better with the idea of resizing the image, not a more abstract concept of FOV, especially when it's actually resizing an image on a display.
Then again, I think the entire deal is a little silly- just add a scroll wheel.
The two finger scrolling is pretty nice though. I really don't see the point in adding a scroll wheel. It's an unnecessary addition of a mechanical component when existing electronic components should do the job for most people. And it's easier to deal with as a scroll wheel would need to be accompanied with another keystroke to tell the computer that it's a resize and not a scrolling action.
If you'll notice, they said that revenue and user base increased. They didn't say that it was profitable. That's a very important distinction, because real businesses are concerned with actual profit, whereas businesses that harken to the dot-bomb try to ignore profitability and wave flags of distraction about revenue and traffic, hoping people ignore the fact that it's unprofitable and there's little hope of becoming profitable.
If the value of Skype is worth more in terms of selling off to some other sucker investors than it is keeping it in the hopes that it might be worth something some day, then it's better to sell it off.
I did open the article and skim it, but didn't fully read it. There are times when returning satellites might be useful, but I think it's only been done a few times, the last time I counted, twice. The one time I remember is bringing back LDEF, they wanted to see how different things withstood long term exposure to space, and examine them in detail.
I saw this in part when adding an app means that the app has access to all your profile information. It's either all or nothing, no way to add restrictions.
OK, Facebook has access to my information, but I don't see why third party developers have to have it. I also don't put much information on there. I just have to assume that any information in my profile is going to be available to anyone, even if I put up restrictions and limitations, so I'm careful what I put up there.
I think the reusable spacecraft is a dubious idea, at least having the final stage be reusable. The weight added to be able to survive reentry and land is still significant. Even if you don't have a passenger compartment, there's still the weight of the wings, as well as the weight of all the thermal protection materials to protect the entire spacecraft. Then there's the structure needed to handle that extra weight, and the extra fuel needed to lift that extra weight.
The problem with that argument is that Wikipedia might have articles good enough of a starting point, but if you want more detailed information, even the citation links usually aren't enough, at least for me. Wikipedia is fine if all I want is a factoid. Wikipedia also is scrubbed relatively cleanly of opinion, sometimes I need opinions about something rather than just its facts.
The "left over" silver was clearly stolen (unless it's a normal part of contracts like these that such material becomes the property of the silversmith).
It also depends on whether the smith was responsible for buying it, or the company that bought the contract. At least in the machine shop world, which I'm a bit more familiar, the machine shop often handles their own materials purchases.
It's an interesting argument, and somewhat applicable, but in another way, it's not.
That's because jewelry really doesn't need support, and in your example, they know the original silversmith. But electronics, should it fail, you'll want it fixed, or you'll want BIOS or driver updates. The real drivers might or might not work.