The success of Atom shows you don't need to use all the fancy tricks in your CPU to make a commercially successful x86 processor. NVidia might just be trying to create a low-power CPU or SoC for the netbook market. Perhaps the SoC could be a Cell-type thing with one x86 core and a couple of dozen GPU-like cores, usable as a SoC in a netbook or as one of many in a supercomputer.
Judging by their coverage maps, Thuraya use geostationary satellites. That means latency will suck, hard. Iridium uses satellites in LEO, so the latency isn't quite as bad (though since they cut down on the number of ground stations the signal still goes a long way, so it's not as good as it used to be).
hence the statement "scientists are agreed" is not true, assuming the statement is meaning "all scientists" as opposed to "most scientists".
Nobody without an agenda (or a fondness for excessive pedantry[1]) uses the "absolutely all X" definition of "agreed" when talking about large groups of people, because you never get 100.00000000% agreement. If a large majority of scientists and an overwhelming majority of specialist scientists agree it's both reasonable and accurate to say that "scientists are agreed".
[1] I do have a fondness for excessive pedantry, but I try to keep it under control.
I'm 33 and have lived in the UK all my life. It snows several times every year, but there hasn't been snow like this since I was a kid. We had over six inches here and it's stayed for a week, in the past decade the most we've had is 3 or 4 inches and it's been gone in two or three days.
"Sustainable" isn't ill-defined, it's clearly defined every English dictionary and it is in the dictionary sense that the word is used in the environmental debate. Something is sustainable if it can continue indefinitely - energy sources which won't run out before the end of the world, for example.
Plants use solar, but very few natural things use wind or tidal power. Nature has had a very long time to try and fill these energy niches, so it is a safe guess that they can't produce enough energy to sustain a large population at a reasonable standard of living.
Nature had a long time to come up with efficient methods of locomotion too, does that mean it is a safe guess that cars with legs would be more efficient than cars with wheels?
Yup, the only thing that brought peace in Northern Ireland was doing exactly what governments everywhere say they will never, ever do - negotiating with the terrorists.
If the government agencies and large corporations already knew everything that Google Latitude reveals, and they do, then I didn't lose any privacy.
They don't know as much as Google Latitude. They will be able to do the cellular network triangulation stuff, absolutely, but they haven't installed software which will locate you based on GPS or WiFi signals. Latitude can know where you are with much greater precision than the spooks - the difference between you being in an area and being at one end of a particular street can be significant.
Of course as it's not mandatory to use it at all, or to turn it on all the time or publish an accurate location if you do use it, the privacy arguments are a little pointless.
Also by default it does not use the gps so it's always about 2500 feet off from where you really are.
Hope you don't have WiFi. I tried Latitude, it was a few hundred metres out when I used it on my phone and just a few metres out when I used my GPS - exactly what you'd expect.
What freaked me out was when I noticed it said it could work on my laptop. So I tried it. Equivalent accuracy to the GPS, with no GPS and no phone plugged in. WTF? Do they know where my IP address is? Hop in the car and start driving around - still within 20m everywhere I went in this city. Turn the WiFi off and it loses track. The only way that could work is if Google have mapped the physical location of every WiFi network and are using them to do the locating. I knew that was theoretically possible, but I didn't know Google had actually done it. For some reason, I found that slightly creepy.
that is actually a lie. Professor Michi Okaku has done some rather interesting experiments into the human perception of time. Results suggest that at moments of extreme risk to life (or more simply, VERY EXCITING times), ones brain activity speeds up, and conversely their perception of time actually slows down.
The results of a very similar sounding experiment had the opposite result to the one you suggest: Time does not "slow down" in moments of peril. There was a Slashot story about it.
If only movies all had motion blur. I found Saving Private Ryan virtually unwatchable, there was no motion blur at all in the action scenes so it looked like they were fighting under a strobe light.
It's not pressed, it's sputtered - vaporised and deposited in a vacuum. At least it is according to the descriptions I found in a non-exhaustive search for a description of the process, like the one I linked to. I wouldn't be surprised if there were different processes in use though.
I have the benefit of not only being absurdly pedantic, but also working freelance and being childless, so I'm free to research irrelevant trivia at any time of the day or night.
Wow, it looks like you had over a week to do your research and still failed. You're still wrong according to the descriptions of CD manufacturing I could find (like this one). The plastic is pressed, sputtered with aluminium (sputtering with aluminium to produce a reflective surface is "silvering"), then the aluminium surface is coated with a varnish.
If the CPU dissipates 130w of heat and only uses 130w, then that means the CPU itself requires 0w for anything else ? Perpetual motion patent, here we come.
In what other form does a CPU emit or store significant amounts of power then? If you know it's not heat you must have some idea. It will be sending a little power out of its interconnects, but it will be receiving power that way too.
"A high percentage of kids who aren't very bright" is what I meant by "deprived area". The government targets mean if you have lots of not-very-bright kids no matter how much your improve them you might not meet the targets, so your school will be classed as a failure. Getting a bright kid with supportive parents top marks in their SATs is valued more highly than getting a kid with foetal alcohol syndrome who pisses in the classroom, smashes things and hits people to learn to read and behave reasonably well.
As an IT professional, I actually am against computers in schools. Typing is all well and good, but kids these days already know Google and Word, anything they actually need for modern business is pretty much self-taught or taught at their first place of employment.
Not having computers in schools would be a great way to exclude the kids from families who don't have a home computer from society and fail to prepare them for the world of work. Yes, kids without computers at home really do exist in the UK; some are poor, some just have weird parents.
The questioner doesn't suggest that it would educate them "better" than a teacher. Good IT and good teaching aren't mutually exclusive, as you seem to be suggesting.
* Professors teach at universities and specialise in being incredibly knowledgeable in their field and getting grant money, being good at teaching is pretty much optional. Teachers on the other hand teach in schools and specialise in being good at teaching.
Slashdot Mirror
Did you write COBOL in the 70s?
To me that logic makes it obvious there is a close(ish) to 50/50 chance, as you don't know where in the day the boundary will fall.
The success of Atom shows you don't need to use all the fancy tricks in your CPU to make a commercially successful x86 processor. NVidia might just be trying to create a low-power CPU or SoC for the netbook market. Perhaps the SoC could be a Cell-type thing with one x86 core and a couple of dozen GPU-like cores, usable as a SoC in a netbook or as one of many in a supercomputer.
He he, good catch. Of course, I meant anthropogenic. That'll teach me to use big words at 3am after a bottle of wine.
Judging by their coverage maps, Thuraya use geostationary satellites. That means latency will suck, hard. Iridium uses satellites in LEO, so the latency isn't quite as bad (though since they cut down on the number of ground stations the signal still goes a long way, so it's not as good as it used to be).
hence the statement "scientists are agreed" is not true, assuming the statement is meaning "all scientists" as opposed to "most scientists".
Nobody without an agenda (or a fondness for excessive pedantry[1]) uses the "absolutely all X" definition of "agreed" when talking about large groups of people, because you never get 100.00000000% agreement. If a large majority of scientists and an overwhelming majority of specialist scientists agree it's both reasonable and accurate to say that "scientists are agreed".
[1] I do have a fondness for excessive pedantry, but I try to keep it under control.
I'm 33 and have lived in the UK all my life. It snows several times every year, but there hasn't been snow like this since I was a kid. We had over six inches here and it's stayed for a week, in the past decade the most we've had is 3 or 4 inches and it's been gone in two or three days.
"Sustainable" isn't ill-defined, it's clearly defined every English dictionary and it is in the dictionary sense that the word is used in the environmental debate. Something is sustainable if it can continue indefinitely - energy sources which won't run out before the end of the world, for example.
Plants use solar, but very few natural things use wind or tidal power. Nature has had a very long time to try and fill these energy niches, so it is a safe guess that they can't produce enough energy to sustain a large population at a reasonable standard of living.
Nature had a long time to come up with efficient methods of locomotion too, does that mean it is a safe guess that cars with legs would be more efficient than cars with wheels?
They are NOT agreed.
Yes. They. Are.
According to this recent study, 97% of specialists and 82% of scientists in general agree with anthropomorphic climate change.
So, what's your evidence that scientists do not agree? Put up or shut up.
Copyright is automatic in the US too. Oh, and there are lots of software patents in Europe too. Not as many, but not zero either.
Yup, the only thing that brought peace in Northern Ireland was doing exactly what governments everywhere say they will never, ever do - negotiating with the terrorists.
If the government agencies and large corporations already knew everything that Google Latitude reveals, and they do, then I didn't lose any privacy.
They don't know as much as Google Latitude. They will be able to do the cellular network triangulation stuff, absolutely, but they haven't installed software which will locate you based on GPS or WiFi signals. Latitude can know where you are with much greater precision than the spooks - the difference between you being in an area and being at one end of a particular street can be significant.
Of course as it's not mandatory to use it at all, or to turn it on all the time or publish an accurate location if you do use it, the privacy arguments are a little pointless.
Also by default it does not use the gps so it's always about 2500 feet off from where you really are.
Hope you don't have WiFi. I tried Latitude, it was a few hundred metres out when I used it on my phone and just a few metres out when I used my GPS - exactly what you'd expect.
What freaked me out was when I noticed it said it could work on my laptop. So I tried it. Equivalent accuracy to the GPS, with no GPS and no phone plugged in. WTF? Do they know where my IP address is? Hop in the car and start driving around - still within 20m everywhere I went in this city. Turn the WiFi off and it loses track. The only way that could work is if Google have mapped the physical location of every WiFi network and are using them to do the locating. I knew that was theoretically possible, but I didn't know Google had actually done it. For some reason, I found that slightly creepy.
that is actually a lie. Professor Michi Okaku has done some rather interesting experiments into the human perception of time. Results suggest that at moments of extreme risk to life (or more simply, VERY EXCITING times), ones brain activity speeds up, and conversely their perception of time actually slows down.
The results of a very similar sounding experiment had the opposite result to the one you suggest: Time does not "slow down" in moments of peril. There was a Slashot story about it.
If only movies all had motion blur. I found Saving Private Ryan virtually unwatchable, there was no motion blur at all in the action scenes so it looked like they were fighting under a strobe light.
Eve is an MMO you know, these things matter.
Get. A. Life.
It's not pressed, it's sputtered - vaporised and deposited in a vacuum. At least it is according to the descriptions I found in a non-exhaustive search for a description of the process, like the one I linked to. I wouldn't be surprised if there were different processes in use though.
I have the benefit of not only being absurdly pedantic, but also working freelance and being childless, so I'm free to research irrelevant trivia at any time of the day or night.
This is relevant.
Wow, it looks like you had over a week to do your research and still failed. You're still wrong according to the descriptions of CD manufacturing I could find (like this one). The plastic is pressed, sputtered with aluminium (sputtering with aluminium to produce a reflective surface is "silvering"), then the aluminium surface is coated with a varnish.
If the CPU dissipates 130w of heat and only uses 130w, then that means the CPU itself requires 0w for anything else ? Perpetual motion patent, here we come.
In what other form does a CPU emit or store significant amounts of power then? If you know it's not heat you must have some idea. It will be sending a little power out of its interconnects, but it will be receiving power that way too.
Define "best". The manufacturers will have selected FAT32 based on compatibility. The test shows that it's a good choice for performance too.
"A high percentage of kids who aren't very bright" is what I meant by "deprived area". The government targets mean if you have lots of not-very-bright kids no matter how much your improve them you might not meet the targets, so your school will be classed as a failure. Getting a bright kid with supportive parents top marks in their SATs is valued more highly than getting a kid with foetal alcohol syndrome who pisses in the classroom, smashes things and hits people to learn to read and behave reasonably well.
*sigh* You really are a pedantic tosser. Try this definition, or this one.
As an IT professional, I actually am against computers in schools. Typing is all well and good, but kids these days already know Google and Word, anything they actually need for modern business is pretty much self-taught or taught at their first place of employment.
Not having computers in schools would be a great way to exclude the kids from families who don't have a home computer from society and fail to prepare them for the world of work. Yes, kids without computers at home really do exist in the UK; some are poor, some just have weird parents.
The questioner doesn't suggest that it would educate them "better" than a teacher. Good IT and good teaching aren't mutually exclusive, as you seem to be suggesting.
* Professors teach at universities and specialise in being incredibly knowledgeable in their field and getting grant money, being good at teaching is pretty much optional. Teachers on the other hand teach in schools and specialise in being good at teaching.