There are two distinct scenarios: upgrades and repairs.
If you end up replacing every component in your PC over time, it's legitimate to say that it's a new computer. In practice, it's tied to the motherboard.
On the other hand, if you just replace the motherboard with an identical model (or similar, they don't care about those details), you can speak to a support person and they'll activate the new board for you in a minute.
To be fair, many entries boil down to precompiler shenanigans. Impressive, but not particularly interesting.
The underhanded C contest is, in my opinion, more interesting. Obfuscating something into a mess that is impossible to understand is relatively easy. Writing code that passes a decent examination of the source but is actually designed to fail in a very specific way is much harder.
I'd prefer an unequivocal standard. Lacking one, we all just have to do our best to make things unequivocal. That means spaces as digit separators and a single character as decimal separator. Simple enough that even a computer can trivially figure it out and everyone gets to use their own favorite decimal separator.
Single-Link DVI only does 1920x1200. Dual-Link is a very large cable and only does 2560x1600.
In comparison, HDMI does 4k. DisplayPort does 4k or 4x 1920x1200 (DP1.3 even does 2x 4k @60Hz). Both of them use much thinner cables and both support audio. HDMI does some consumer electronics integration supposedly, but compatibility is hit and miss.
DisplayPort has every reason to completely eliminate DVI. It's faster, works with USB Type-C, supports MST (for all sorts of cool things like several monitors from one interface) and is easily converted to HDMI, DVI or VGA.
Essentially arbitrary numbers of monitors, even, limited only by the bandwidth of the interface. DP1.2 can do up to four 1920x1200 displays or two 2560x1600 or a single 4k, all at 60Hz.
DisplayPort is easily converted into VGA or HDMI with reasonably cheap converters. HDMI 1.3 or so/DVI are even doable with passive adapters if the source supports them.
DisplayPort can be carried by the USB Type C infrastructure.
Literally, the only consumer-facing advantage of HDMI is that it's a lot more popular.
ISO 31 specifically states that both "," and "." are valid separators.
If one cannot infer what the number is in this particular case, they have no business writing anything at all. Confusing 12€ with 12 523€ is a new level of stupidity.
*De facto acquiring deeply-troubled airlines to use as a means to circumvent EU airline ownership laws Not sure what this means, but they spy on the manufacturors (who also spy)
Maybe you shouldn't comment, then, since it's clear you're talking out of your ass.
*Promoting slavery Working extra hours without pay. Being allowed to pay people below minimum wage. People who work still needing help. Opposing unions in any way possible.
That's not slavery, that's an unpleasant working environment.
*Organizing huge events to pretend they're a civilized country (see "slavery" and "FIFA") World championchips where only the USA is a contestant. (See USA! USA! USA!)
I'm not even sure what kind of idiotic comment that is...
*Funding wars and terrorism *De facto acquiring deeply-troubled airlines to use as a means to circumvent EU airline ownership laws *Promoting slavery *Bribing everyone at FIFA *Pissing matches with fellow Arabs to see who has the most expensive $_item, the tallest vaguely-phallic architectural piece, largest airline, etc *Organizing huge events to pretend they're a civilized country (see "slavery" and "FIFA")
So if there isn't enough water shut the thing down preemptively. It's a pain, but that's what you get for stalling and not cutting greenhouse gas emissions. In the interim, if you really must, just have additional combined-cycle (you might not be able to sustain the combined cycle due to the lack of water, but it'll be usable after nuclear shuts down, for a while longer) natural gas generation on standby. It ramps up quickly and is leaps and bounds better than coal.
Or, you know, don't build nuclear plants in places likely to experience severe drought.
Just because there are problems with it, doesn't mean it's not the right solution. Nothing is perfect, I'm afraid.
Sounds mostly like green fantasies. It's also very limited in scope (no, the US is not the whole world, get over it).
Energy consumption is not going to decrease. At best, it will stay stable due to efficiency improvements counteracting population growth and increased usage in developing countries.
Planning a solution that relies on reduced power consumption is unrealistic and irresponsible.
Of course cooling is critical. It does not address my criticism.
Using nuclear power reduces global warming, avoiding this scenario of unavailable cooling.
The quote also has nothing to do with the issue at hand, it's just an incident caused by hardware failure. There's nothing spectacular about it, nor does it relate to unavailable external cooling.
I think you've made a few too many assumptions to justify your position. After burning coal and oil, the energy used in the production of concrete is the third biggest contributor to greenhouse gasses which is the biggest construction input to Nuclear power plants.
The biggest carbon input to the nuclear fuel cycle is mining, where you need to process roughly 500 tons of rock to get a kilo of uranium and IIRC the carbon energetic input here is in the 100TW range to fuel the reactor over it's lifetime. The alternative, using of in-situ acid leach mining, highlights the problems of carbon capture as a process that is based on a set of flawed assumptions. If geological storage of these materials was viable then you would see it in use in the US, where in-situ acid leech mining was made illegal for the same liability issues that carbon capture will also face.
1970's era vehicle technology is a interesting comparison (since where would a discussion on this subject be without another car analogy) that drew engine power to spin air pumps that injected pressured fresh air into the exhaust stream so that the overall vehicle emissions measured less at the tailpipe, even though the vehicle used more fuel to drive the pump to create the measurement. Carbon capture will require energetic inputs.
If geological storage of hydrocarbons was viable, we would just leave them in the ground, but we can't because we've designed our economy around them and our main issue is changing the course of those massive entities.
Too many assumptions? They're all conservative. If I didn't assume what I did, my point would be *strengthened*.
Several additional points:
With nuclear power, you don't need the vast majority of that carbon output. That's the thing, we're *replacing* it.
Carbon trapping requires energy. Of course! Just build more plants and you can do it in a carbon-negative way.
Geological storage is not going to happen that soon. The idea is long-term, once a major part of the world's energy consumption is shifted to nuclear power. Claiming it won't happen because we're using oil is circular reasoning, since the goal is to not use oil (as much as possible).
100TW is not a unit of energy. So I have no idea what your number is supposed to mean. TWh? That is just not a credible number. TWs? TWm?
A forestation campaign would help a lot in this regard, but converting carbon dioxide into hydrocarbons is also a valid solution - the catch is that it requires the development of better processes. The advantage is that it also allows for traditional fuels to be synthesized in a carbon-neutral way, making this an easy transition for the big sector that needs them, aviation.
This statement is why I have given you the benefit of the doubt. This is unexplored technology and itself would yield massive industry that, for once, might have a positive impact on the environment. One suggestion I would make is that it would be an ideal for rail and truck fuel. Turn your intellect to this - don't bother wasting your effort on nuclear.
It's also only viable with a dense, carbon-neutral or better energy source. The only thing that fits the bill is nuclear power.
The first being geological safe storage of spent nuclear fuel and before anyone points out *breeder* reactor technology, remember that these reactors *create* plutonium. Burner reactors could work *if* we solved the problem of storage and logistics and, *if* we solved the problems of energetic expenditure involved in disposing of these reactors. Funding exists for this reactor technology exists in the 2005 US Energy Act.
The energy expenditure for *one* reactor decommissioning is around the 30-70TW range (citing Vattenfal *and* Storm) so with 400 odd reactors around the world we have a roughly 2800TW energy *debt* pending from existing nuclear reactors in the nuclear industry a decade or two after they are decommiss
Assuming there is a cooling bottleneck, that bottleneck is relieved by the much reduced CO2 output. Local concentrations of heat bothering you? Build plants next to the ocean. Instant giant heatsink. Lack of greenhouse heating compensates for the additional heat input.
Let me preempt the next point: "It's dangerous to build them there!"
Nope. It clearly isn't. Fukushima is pretty much the worst case scenario. That thing handled a massive quake *and* a massive tsunami. What brought it down? The fact that the emergency generators were at ground level. It's also ancient in every regard.
Now, a question: What kind of fucking energy solution do you propose that does not involve localized heating? Photovoltaics? That's not an industrial-scale solution. It's cool to take advantage of wasted area, like rooftops and stuff, but it does not scale well. Wind? Temperamental, dubious environmental impact and probably not nearly enough to solve the problem.
It boils down to this (no pun intended): Unless you come up with some magic way to directly convert heat to electricity efficiently (thermoelectric effects are woefully inefficient), you will have to cool things down. No amount of handwaving is going to fix that.
Slashdot Mirror
Or just do whatever they are doing now, but don't accept fingerprint input from compromised readers - instead of bricking the whole phone.
Sure, but bricking the phone instead of just disabling the sensor is quite evil.
I must disagree.
There are two distinct scenarios: upgrades and repairs.
If you end up replacing every component in your PC over time, it's legitimate to say that it's a new computer. In practice, it's tied to the motherboard.
On the other hand, if you just replace the motherboard with an identical model (or similar, they don't care about those details), you can speak to a support person and they'll activate the new board for you in a minute.
To be fair, many entries boil down to precompiler shenanigans. Impressive, but not particularly interesting.
The underhanded C contest is, in my opinion, more interesting. Obfuscating something into a mess that is impossible to understand is relatively easy. Writing code that passes a decent examination of the source but is actually designed to fail in a very specific way is much harder.
I'd prefer an unequivocal standard. Lacking one, we all just have to do our best to make things unequivocal. That means spaces as digit separators and a single character as decimal separator. Simple enough that even a computer can trivially figure it out and everyone gets to use their own favorite decimal separator.
DVI suffers from being bulky and slow.
Single-Link DVI only does 1920x1200. Dual-Link is a very large cable and only does 2560x1600.
In comparison, HDMI does 4k. DisplayPort does 4k or 4x 1920x1200 (DP1.3 even does 2x 4k @60Hz). Both of them use much thinner cables and both support audio. HDMI does some consumer electronics integration supposedly, but compatibility is hit and miss.
DisplayPort has every reason to completely eliminate DVI. It's faster, works with USB Type-C, supports MST (for all sorts of cool things like several monitors from one interface) and is easily converted to HDMI, DVI or VGA.
Essentially arbitrary numbers of monitors, even, limited only by the bandwidth of the interface. DP1.2 can do up to four 1920x1200 displays or two 2560x1600 or a single 4k, all at 60Hz.
DisplayPort does audio.
DisplayPort is easily converted into VGA or HDMI with reasonably cheap converters. HDMI 1.3 or so/DVI are even doable with passive adapters if the source supports them.
DisplayPort can be carried by the USB Type C infrastructure.
Literally, the only consumer-facing advantage of HDMI is that it's a lot more popular.
ISO 31 specifically states that both "," and "." are valid separators.
If one cannot infer what the number is in this particular case, they have no business writing anything at all. Confusing 12€ with 12 523€ is a new level of stupidity.
Clearly someone has never worked with Oracle nor has met someone who has worked with Oracle.
That's unfair.
Everyone at Oracle is extremely competent. How else would they manage to so consistently screw people over?
My thoughts precisely.
"Oh, can't choose between antennas and antennae. I'll do both!"
That's rich, stupid AC assumes I'm American.
Fuckin' moron.
*De facto acquiring deeply-troubled airlines to use as a means to circumvent EU airline ownership laws
Not sure what this means, but they spy on the manufacturors (who also spy)
Maybe you shouldn't comment, then, since it's clear you're talking out of your ass.
*Promoting slavery
Working extra hours without pay. Being allowed to pay people below minimum wage. People who work still needing help. Opposing unions in any way possible.
That's not slavery, that's an unpleasant working environment.
*Organizing huge events to pretend they're a civilized country (see "slavery" and "FIFA")
World championchips where only the USA is a contestant. (See USA! USA! USA!)
I'm not even sure what kind of idiotic comment that is...
Sure, play the victim card.
Why, many exciting activities:
*Funding wars and terrorism
*De facto acquiring deeply-troubled airlines to use as a means to circumvent EU airline ownership laws
*Promoting slavery
*Bribing everyone at FIFA
*Pissing matches with fellow Arabs to see who has the most expensive $_item, the tallest vaguely-phallic architectural piece, largest airline, etc
*Organizing huge events to pretend they're a civilized country (see "slavery" and "FIFA")
And I'm sure I missed a few.
Whoosh.
So if there isn't enough water shut the thing down preemptively. It's a pain, but that's what you get for stalling and not cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
In the interim, if you really must, just have additional combined-cycle (you might not be able to sustain the combined cycle due to the lack of water, but it'll be usable after nuclear shuts down, for a while longer) natural gas generation on standby. It ramps up quickly and is leaps and bounds better than coal.
Or, you know, don't build nuclear plants in places likely to experience severe drought.
Just because there are problems with it, doesn't mean it's not the right solution. Nothing is perfect, I'm afraid.
Wind replacing anything on a large enough scale is a green fantasy.
Sounds mostly like green fantasies. It's also very limited in scope (no, the US is not the whole world, get over it).
Energy consumption is not going to decrease. At best, it will stay stable due to efficiency improvements counteracting population growth and increased usage in developing countries.
Planning a solution that relies on reduced power consumption is unrealistic and irresponsible.
Of course cooling is critical. It does not address my criticism.
Using nuclear power reduces global warming, avoiding this scenario of unavailable cooling.
The quote also has nothing to do with the issue at hand, it's just an incident caused by hardware failure. There's nothing spectacular about it, nor does it relate to unavailable external cooling.
I think you've made a few too many assumptions to justify your position. After burning coal and oil, the energy used in the production of concrete is the third biggest contributor to greenhouse gasses which is the biggest construction input to Nuclear power plants.
The biggest carbon input to the nuclear fuel cycle is mining, where you need to process roughly 500 tons of rock to get a kilo of uranium and IIRC the carbon energetic input here is in the 100TW range to fuel the reactor over it's lifetime. The alternative, using of in-situ acid leach mining, highlights the problems of carbon capture as a process that is based on a set of flawed assumptions. If geological storage of these materials was viable then you would see it in use in the US, where in-situ acid leech mining was made illegal for the same liability issues that carbon capture will also face.
1970's era vehicle technology is a interesting comparison (since where would a discussion on this subject be without another car analogy) that drew engine power to spin air pumps that injected pressured fresh air into the exhaust stream so that the overall vehicle emissions measured less at the tailpipe, even though the vehicle used more fuel to drive the pump to create the measurement. Carbon capture will require energetic inputs.
If geological storage of hydrocarbons was viable, we would just leave them in the ground, but we can't because we've designed our economy around them and our main issue is changing the course of those massive entities.
Too many assumptions? They're all conservative. If I didn't assume what I did, my point would be *strengthened*.
Several additional points:
With nuclear power, you don't need the vast majority of that carbon output. That's the thing, we're *replacing* it.
Carbon trapping requires energy. Of course! Just build more plants and you can do it in a carbon-negative way.
Geological storage is not going to happen that soon. The idea is long-term, once a major part of the world's energy consumption is shifted to nuclear power. Claiming it won't happen because we're using oil is circular reasoning, since the goal is to not use oil (as much as possible).
100TW is not a unit of energy. So I have no idea what your number is supposed to mean. TWh? That is just not a credible number. TWs? TWm?
A forestation campaign would help a lot in this regard, but converting carbon dioxide into hydrocarbons is also a valid solution - the catch is that it requires the development of better processes. The advantage is that it also allows for traditional fuels to be synthesized in a carbon-neutral way, making this an easy transition for the big sector that needs them, aviation.
This statement is why I have given you the benefit of the doubt. This is unexplored technology and itself would yield massive industry that, for once, might have a positive impact on the environment. One suggestion I would make is that it would be an ideal for rail and truck fuel. Turn your intellect to this - don't bother wasting your effort on nuclear.
It's also only viable with a dense, carbon-neutral or better energy source. The only thing that fits the bill is nuclear power.
The first being geological safe storage of spent nuclear fuel and before anyone points out *breeder* reactor technology, remember that these reactors *create* plutonium. Burner reactors could work *if* we solved the problem of storage and logistics and, *if* we solved the problems of energetic expenditure involved in disposing of these reactors. Funding exists for this reactor technology exists in the 2005 US Energy Act.
The energy expenditure for *one* reactor decommissioning is around the 30-70TW range (citing Vattenfal *and* Storm) so with 400 odd reactors around the world we have a roughly 2800TW energy *debt* pending from existing nuclear reactors in the nuclear industry a decade or two after they are decommiss
It's still circular logic.
Assuming there is a cooling bottleneck, that bottleneck is relieved by the much reduced CO2 output. Local concentrations of heat bothering you? Build plants next to the ocean. Instant giant heatsink. Lack of greenhouse heating compensates for the additional heat input.
Let me preempt the next point: "It's dangerous to build them there!"
Nope. It clearly isn't. Fukushima is pretty much the worst case scenario. That thing handled a massive quake *and* a massive tsunami. What brought it down? The fact that the emergency generators were at ground level. It's also ancient in every regard.
Now, a question: What kind of fucking energy solution do you propose that does not involve localized heating? Photovoltaics? That's not an industrial-scale solution. It's cool to take advantage of wasted area, like rooftops and stuff, but it does not scale well. Wind? Temperamental, dubious environmental impact and probably not nearly enough to solve the problem.
It boils down to this (no pun intended): Unless you come up with some magic way to directly convert heat to electricity efficiently (thermoelectric effects are woefully inefficient), you will have to cool things down. No amount of handwaving is going to fix that.
Spreading disinformation is FUD (in this case, at least).
Accuse me of whatever you want, people like you are going to doom us all, one way or another.
Nobody is claiming that this is the cheapest solution. It's the *best* solution.