Re:Backlight normally
on
Goodbye, VGA
·
· Score: 1
Thanks, sounds like the tube. Have an original MacBook Pro with a very dim screen. Found the tubes for ~$10 but the inverter will cost a small fortune. Just replaced the battery so I'll have to give it a try..
Re:Splitters/Extenders work better on VGA
on
Goodbye, VGA
·
· Score: 2
Ok, here is a price check from Monoprice.
3' cables: VGA: $2.47 - DVI: $3.64 - DispP: $4.05
Those are obviously economy cables - but they still work fine. DisplayPort is the most expensive, by an entire $1.58. As DisplayPort becomes more popular the price will come down. In addition, because DisplayPort uses fewer* conductors then DVI, the cost of longer cables should be less then DVI. VGA has even fewer conductors but, because of the analog signals, has to use cables with better shielding.
The big advantage for DisplayPort is to drive screens that dont even exist yet. Resolutions that DVI cannot handle. But what needs those 1080p+ resolutions yet?
Well, my iMac has a 2560x1440 display. I think you'll find that there are plenty of screens available that are 1080p+. But regardless, that is not the real advantage for DisplayPort. The real advantage is that it allows the internal components of a laptop to be standardized. Previously, all laptops had to have proprietary display connectors to connect to the specific LCD used in that laptop. DisplayPort allows things to be standardized thereby greatly reducing costs. And once a laptop supports DisplayPort internally, it is relatively easy to route it to an external connector. Supporting VGA, DVI, and HDMI simply add to the cost and complexity of the laptop. Complexity is not a big deal with laptops of today but as these devices get smaller those extra chips will have an impact.
Another promise of DisplayPort is that one cable can be used to fully connect your monitor to your computer. I say fully connect because it also allows for audio, USB, and other monitor features such as touch-screens. Currently, no other standard has this sort of simplicity and support.
DisplayPort is here today and is not going away. It is here because it reduces cost. The other standards are only added to new computers for backwards compatibility - and Apple doesn't even bother with that. Most adapters sell for under $8 (with VGA being the exception.)
* Depends on what parts of the standard are supported - a stripped down DVI could use less.
Re:And just to further that
on
Goodbye, VGA
·
· Score: 1
What's more, other than lower brightness due to the backlight fading, LCDs don't lose image quality with time.
Quick question, is the fading because of the backlight or the ballast?
Sorry, I don't see how APIs being inconsistent would ever become intuitive, and no amount of documentation is an excuse for inconsistency.
I did not say it was inconsistent. If fact, it is very consistent. You just have to understand the reasoning behind it - and that takes time and practice. The same can be said for any API.
Yes, I have indeed conflated the language and Cocoa. This is perhaps unfair to the language. But when Cocoa is by far the most common framework used with this language, can you really fault me for the mistake? (Not saying I wasn't wrong to do so, just that it's hopefully an understandable error.)
Yes, it is an understandable error - and yes, it is your fault. If you are making such an error then you obviously lack the experience required to make comments about the language/framework. You do not understand it - fine, I'm sure you are good at plenty of other things.
However, one specific complaint (using "+" and "-" as keywords in method definitions) is enough to make me choose another language (any other language!) if given a choice. Neither of those keywords is remotely intuitive in meaning.
Actually, this is one of the things that I like about the language. Object method calls and Class method calls are distinct. This lends to separating object allocation and initialization routines - hell of a lot better then C++ (in my opinion). If anything, it makes things more intuitive - not less. But anyway, if you do not see this then you lack experience in the language. You are likely approaching it from a C++ perspective - ObjC is not C++.
So learn the language if you want to make meaningful comments. As it stands, your comments were... painful. Do not be surprised if people correct you if you make erroneous statements.
and only use two types of ports: USB 2.0 for the low-cost/low-bandwidth stuff and LightPeak for everything else.
No, only one type of physical port - LightPeak. You can still plug in a standard USB cable and it will act as a standard USB port. The only thing LightPeak does is it adds 4 little fiber optic transceivers into a standard sized USB port. So new LightPeak cables will enable the new LightPeak devices but USB cables will still work as they did before.
But you do not have to have every class extend from NSObject - you can write your own.
I didn't say you have to, I said you'd never not want to.
Your words: "Why do you have to manually derive all interfaces as children of NSObject?"
If reference counting were unrelated to the language's garbage collection, there would be no need to turn "retain" and "release" into no-ops, so clearly they are not unrelated.
Well, you generally do not want to release memory twice - hence the reason why the garbage collector messes with the retains/releases - this is the extent of their relation. The methods actually used by the garbage collector are of little significance and would likely change if a better method is found. All I know for certain is that it does not use reference counting to get the job done.
but the fact that various APIs and @property tags are inconsistent about which things retain objects and which things don't
Fair enough, I also had this problem in the beginning. Once you figure it out you find that it is very intuitive and fully documented.
prefixing your string constants with @ turns the string constant into an NSString, so clearly the compiler assumes that at least some portion of the NextStep framework is available.
You are assuming that when you import Cocoa/Cocoa.h you are not setting a pile of macros that take care of this for you. Try looking at the examples in the wiki link you provided. You will see that they do not prefix strings with the '@' character and they compile fine without the Cocoa/GNUStep frameworks. In fact, gcc (the same version that is used by Apple) would fail if it saw a '@' in front of a string - but it is still Objective-C.
It appears that you are confusing the language with the framework.
Ok, this was hard to read. It appears that you do not really know anything about objectiveC.
Why do you have to manually derive all interfaces as children of NSObject? That would be like Java requiring you to explicitly derive every class from Object. You're never not going to want your class to be derived from NSObject, so it should be assumed.
But you do not have to have every class extend from NSObject - you can write your own. The ObjectiveC language manual is very small and even though I read it ~15 years ago, I still know this. They have a section dedicated to the topic. Did you not read it?
No, it's not particularly difficult to understand, but that's not my point; Objective-C's garbage collection only collects objects whose reference counts are zero. That's the whole reason you have to properly handle your reference counting. In other words, Objective-C gives you all the downsides of being forced to manage memory, combined with all the downsides of garbage collection.
Ok, ObjectiveC first got garbage collection in V2.0 - a very recent version. It has nothing to do with reference counting so I don't know what you are talking about in that respect.
Now reference counting has nothing to do with the ObjectiveC language. That's right, nothing. It is one of the reasons why all objects inherit from the NSObject object - that is where the reference counting takes place. It's part of the Cocoa/NextStep framework - not the language.
I could go on, but I'm not going to. You obviously know nothing about the language. Had your comments been negative and reflected that you were knowledgable about the language - then they would have been very insightful. But they are not because you are simply commenting on something that you do not know..
You know what they say. Those who can do, do. Those who can't, teach.
Ha!! My father, who works in education, always told me this one; "Teaching is what you do if you can't get a real job." Guess the phrase was popular back in the 60s.
But the point should be that the real world and the theoretical are not always the same. I took an electronics program at BCIT (British Columbia Institute of Technology) and they made a point of hiring professors from industry. So when you were taught about generating power from hydroelectric dams, it was from people who designed / built such dams... I later attended university - the experience was quite different.
But I was under the impression that Android devices already utilized a different scheduler. In addition, phones have different requirements - for example, some might require a real-time kernel in order to operate on a cell network. Long story short, messing with the scheduler could have serious repercussions on an Android device. Only those who really know what they are doing should attempt it. The rest of us should simply wait - unless you don't care if your phone is reliable or not.
And for the record, no Federal law can override state criminal statutes. If it's illegal to touch a child's genitals the DHS and TSA can't make a regulation that says it's OK
What about doctors? Surely there are plenty of examples where it is appropriate for the genitals of a child to be touched for medical reasons. And if there are exceptions in the state laws to allow for this, you can bet that there will be additional exceptions to allow for airport security. And if there are not, all it takes is one incident and those exceptions will be added.
So nice try, but I seriously doubt many parents would put there kids through this just to make a point. Overall, it would have no impact.
The original Apple laptops with DisplayPort also did not route audio through the displayport. This is why there were no displayport to hdmi converters available from Apple (other people offered them but they lacked audio). So there might be some hardware design limitations to think about - or it might just be software.
But the new Apple computers do support audio through the displayport - so they have obviously thought about the problem. And it is not some hack like what you see with your ATI card. So some fundamental hardware/software changes are required to get it to work - so be it. It makes sense that a company like Apple, who designs both hardware and software, would be among the first to implement it. But I don't think Intel and Microsoft will be far behind. And considering that light peak is Intel's baby, you can bet that their chipsets and reference designs will make the required changes to ensure it works correctly - probably by the time it launches.
so the only connection between the graphics card and the motherboard is PCIe
Perfect, because that is all you need. Now the sound card has to be smart enough to DMA the audio to the video card. And the video card has to be smart enough to accept this audio and send it out through the displayport. Also, protocols have to be established that allow the audio and video cards to discover each other - but this would likely be done by the OS and not in hardware. So it can all be done but the makers of audio cards, video cards, and operating systems have to get together to ensure that everything works well together. ATI likely included an audio card in their video card because it was simpler then working with everyone else.
but there is a threshold of efficiency necessary to offset fixed installation costs.
Very true, but we really don't know what it is. The installation costs on existing structures would likely be excessive, but if future architectural designs are changed to accommodate for such panels, installation costs would be greatly reduced.
There are lots of things they could do. For example, run aluminium strips underneath the siding to allow for all the windows (on that story) to easily connect together. Now I'm no architect and there are likely far better ways to do this - but my point is that such designs could make the described solar panels relevant even if they are not for existing architecture.
So step one is to develop the panels. Even if they don't look efficient enough, it is still a good subject of research. And your points are well noted - a good dose of reality.
also light peak only works with intel video and if you want to use your usb keyboard or mouse $30 cable or hub that needs a wall wart as light peak may not pass power.
Not really, light peak complements USB as they share the same physical port. You can still use your cheap USB cables at USB speeds. If you want "light peak" speeds then you need to use a more expensive cable - one with 4 fiber optic lines in addition to the 4 regular USB electrical lines. Passing power will work just like with USB.
want Ethernet $30 cable
Possibly, but only in those rare situations where your device is so small that there is no room for a regular ethernet port.
want to use a ati or nvidia video chip you may need a piggy back cable to make it tie into the light peak network.
Unlikely, just look at displayport. Displayport can cannel both USB and audio despite the fact both signals do not originate from the graphics card. It would be safe to assume that Light Peak can do something similar.
If you want pixel perfect rendering of fonts and graphics, use PDF or a related technology. The whole idea behind HTML is that the content can be rendered differently on different devices. As such, a proper design should never rely on exact font sizes.
(I'm not clear what the "assisted" part is in the assisted HCCI. Perhaps there's a spark plug that's only used during low-power, lean burn conditions?)
Just guessing here, but there appears to be no place for a spark plug or glow plug/heater element. But what if they heated the fuel before being injected? It sufficiently heated, it should ignite even if the engine is cold.
But what I was wondering is how do they lubricate the pistons? With the pistons traversing the intake/outtake ports, one can not lubricate the pistons as one would in a traditional 4 cycle engine. And they are obviously not adding oil to the fuel as that would never be accepted in a modern automobile engine. So how are they doing it?
Emissions have been reduced. In fact, a catalytic converter is no longer required on the new Mazda rotary motors. What they did is they run the motor a little rich so that some fuel makes it through the engine (but only a little). After the combustion cycle they add air to the exhaust and burn a second time to ensure all the fuel is burned. The second burn does not generate any power - this is why the fuel efficiency of the motor is lacking. But for the market they are designed for, it does not matter.
But look it up on Wikipedia to be sure. It was some time ago that I read about it and the facts might have changed or my memory might be bad. I would get you link but my internet is horribly slow..
So why is Carmack talking about 60 fps on a graphics engine designed for phones?
Generating graphics is not the only task given to the CPU*. There are many other parts to a game that all require CPU time. So if a game can get high frame rates it implies that there will be some CPU available for the other important parts of a game.
*And I realize that the GPU does most of the work with graphics but the CPU is also an important part of the equation.
The American Wire Gauge only goes up to OOOO according to this table.
When a thicker wire is required one typically runs multiple conductors. The reason for this is that when one goes beyond 4/0 the cable becomes far too difficult to handle.
You are aware of what the term jailbreak refers to, yes? How about the long running battles to keep alternative OSes off of iPods or keeping iTunes as the dominant force for managing them?
Apple is aggressively attempting to prevent people from modifying their OS - this fact is obvious. But as long as you are not using their OS, Apple doesn't care what you are doing. You purchase a physical product and are free to do whatever you want with that product. But you are not purchasing their OS, just a license to use it. So if you are going to modify the software make sure you remove everything that belongs to Apple.
And I am not aware of any battles regarding keeping alternative OSes off of iOS devices. Lots of battles regarding modifying iOS, but this is a different issue. The two issues should not be confused.
I looked up the price for a 27" IPS display from DELL - ouch, $1250CND. It's the same display that is found in the new 27" iMac. Pricey, but amazing image quality. The high price of the DELL helped validate my purchase of the iMac as an extra $750 got me an i7 based computer (and a free iPod - educational promo). The glare is annoying but only a concern if you have no control of your work environment.
So as prices and availability come down, you should be able to pick up a display that will still look good when rotated. Just make sure it is an IPS display - they really are good.
Now back to the original article, the reason why screens are getting wider is because they are getting bigger. We do not naturally look up/down as much as we look side to side. So a 4:3 ratio works great when focused in on a small screen. Expand the screen and it makes more sense to expand the width then it does the height. But you can only make a screen so wide before it is annoying due to it being flat (a 27" screen is about at that limit). Future screens might have to have a concave shape. Or possibly screens that can bend allowing them to be bent around the user or be left flat - essential if multiple people are using it for entertainment. I would like to point out that a concave 5120 x 1440 display would make for an amazing FPS experience.
All very true, but also irrelevant. The real question is how does one respond to such situations. The techs should be there to monitor for intrusions and offer possible solutions or explanations for what is happening. But they do not decide what is important or how to respond. Those decisions are made by people with military / foreign policy experience.
The only time Nickleback was cool was in their pre-label days. I still have a ticket stub for a concert at a Nanaimo bar where Nickleback was opening for Noise Therapy - another Vancouver band.. Ticket cost me $6.
Your example does that and a whole lot more. I remember it being useful for speeding up the mouse. But you are wrong with respect to your correction.
Support for right-clicking was built into the OS when Apple added support USB - well before OSX. I can not remember when Apple added support, but jo_ham was correct in that by OS 8.6 it was standard.
As far as I know, 0 terrorist attacks on air planes have truly been thwarted by passenger action.
Shoe bomber.. And the Pennsylvania incident does count because the passengers prevented the plane from destroying the white house. And as others have noted, reenforced doors like those now present on planes would have saved the plane.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks, sounds like the tube. Have an original MacBook Pro with a very dim screen. Found the tubes for ~$10 but the inverter will cost a small fortune. Just replaced the battery so I'll have to give it a try..
Ok, here is a price check from Monoprice.
3' cables: VGA: $2.47 - DVI: $3.64 - DispP: $4.05
Those are obviously economy cables - but they still work fine. DisplayPort is the most expensive, by an entire $1.58. As DisplayPort becomes more popular the price will come down. In addition, because DisplayPort uses fewer* conductors then DVI, the cost of longer cables should be less then DVI. VGA has even fewer conductors but, because of the analog signals, has to use cables with better shielding.
The big advantage for DisplayPort is to drive screens that dont even exist yet. Resolutions that DVI cannot handle. But what needs those 1080p+ resolutions yet?
Well, my iMac has a 2560x1440 display. I think you'll find that there are plenty of screens available that are 1080p+. But regardless, that is not the real advantage for DisplayPort. The real advantage is that it allows the internal components of a laptop to be standardized. Previously, all laptops had to have proprietary display connectors to connect to the specific LCD used in that laptop. DisplayPort allows things to be standardized thereby greatly reducing costs. And once a laptop supports DisplayPort internally, it is relatively easy to route it to an external connector. Supporting VGA, DVI, and HDMI simply add to the cost and complexity of the laptop. Complexity is not a big deal with laptops of today but as these devices get smaller those extra chips will have an impact.
Another promise of DisplayPort is that one cable can be used to fully connect your monitor to your computer. I say fully connect because it also allows for audio, USB, and other monitor features such as touch-screens. Currently, no other standard has this sort of simplicity and support.
DisplayPort is here today and is not going away. It is here because it reduces cost. The other standards are only added to new computers for backwards compatibility - and Apple doesn't even bother with that. Most adapters sell for under $8 (with VGA being the exception.)
* Depends on what parts of the standard are supported - a stripped down DVI could use less.
What's more, other than lower brightness due to the backlight fading, LCDs don't lose image quality with time.
Quick question, is the fading because of the backlight or the ballast?
Problem is that when the used fuel is not returned, no new fuel is delivered. So overall, it can be safe.
Sorry, I don't see how APIs being inconsistent would ever become intuitive, and no amount of documentation is an excuse for inconsistency.
I did not say it was inconsistent. If fact, it is very consistent. You just have to understand the reasoning behind it - and that takes time and practice. The same can be said for any API.
Yes, I have indeed conflated the language and Cocoa. This is perhaps unfair to the language. But when Cocoa is by far the most common framework used with this language, can you really fault me for the mistake? (Not saying I wasn't wrong to do so, just that it's hopefully an understandable error.)
Yes, it is an understandable error - and yes, it is your fault. If you are making such an error then you obviously lack the experience required to make comments about the language/framework. You do not understand it - fine, I'm sure you are good at plenty of other things.
However, one specific complaint (using "+" and "-" as keywords in method definitions) is enough to make me choose another language (any other language!) if given a choice. Neither of those keywords is remotely intuitive in meaning.
Actually, this is one of the things that I like about the language. Object method calls and Class method calls are distinct. This lends to separating object allocation and initialization routines - hell of a lot better then C++ (in my opinion). If anything, it makes things more intuitive - not less. But anyway, if you do not see this then you lack experience in the language. You are likely approaching it from a C++ perspective - ObjC is not C++.
So learn the language if you want to make meaningful comments. As it stands, your comments were... painful. Do not be surprised if people correct you if you make erroneous statements.
and only use two types of ports: USB 2.0 for the low-cost/low-bandwidth stuff and LightPeak for everything else.
No, only one type of physical port - LightPeak. You can still plug in a standard USB cable and it will act as a standard USB port. The only thing LightPeak does is it adds 4 little fiber optic transceivers into a standard sized USB port. So new LightPeak cables will enable the new LightPeak devices but USB cables will still work as they did before.
But you do not have to have every class extend from NSObject - you can write your own.
I didn't say you have to, I said you'd never not want to.
Your words: "Why do you have to manually derive all interfaces as children of NSObject?"
If reference counting were unrelated to the language's garbage collection, there would be no need to turn "retain" and "release" into no-ops, so clearly they are not unrelated.
Well, you generally do not want to release memory twice - hence the reason why the garbage collector messes with the retains/releases - this is the extent of their relation. The methods actually used by the garbage collector are of little significance and would likely change if a better method is found. All I know for certain is that it does not use reference counting to get the job done.
but the fact that various APIs and @property tags are inconsistent about which things retain objects and which things don't
Fair enough, I also had this problem in the beginning. Once you figure it out you find that it is very intuitive and fully documented.
prefixing your string constants with @ turns the string constant into an NSString, so clearly the compiler assumes that at least some portion of the NextStep framework is available.
You are assuming that when you import Cocoa/Cocoa.h you are not setting a pile of macros that take care of this for you. Try looking at the examples in the wiki link you provided. You will see that they do not prefix strings with the '@' character and they compile fine without the Cocoa/GNUStep frameworks. In fact, gcc (the same version that is used by Apple) would fail if it saw a '@' in front of a string - but it is still Objective-C.
It appears that you are confusing the language with the framework.
Why do you have to manually derive all interfaces as children of NSObject? That would be like Java requiring you to explicitly derive every class from Object. You're never not going to want your class to be derived from NSObject, so it should be assumed.
But you do not have to have every class extend from NSObject - you can write your own. The ObjectiveC language manual is very small and even though I read it ~15 years ago, I still know this. They have a section dedicated to the topic. Did you not read it?
No, it's not particularly difficult to understand, but that's not my point; Objective-C's garbage collection only collects objects whose reference counts are zero. That's the whole reason you have to properly handle your reference counting. In other words, Objective-C gives you all the downsides of being forced to manage memory, combined with all the downsides of garbage collection.
Ok, ObjectiveC first got garbage collection in V2.0 - a very recent version. It has nothing to do with reference counting so I don't know what you are talking about in that respect.
Now reference counting has nothing to do with the ObjectiveC language. That's right, nothing. It is one of the reasons why all objects inherit from the NSObject object - that is where the reference counting takes place. It's part of the Cocoa/NextStep framework - not the language.
I could go on, but I'm not going to. You obviously know nothing about the language. Had your comments been negative and reflected that you were knowledgable about the language - then they would have been very insightful. But they are not because you are simply commenting on something that you do not know..
You know what they say. Those who can do, do. Those who can't, teach.
Ha!! My father, who works in education, always told me this one; "Teaching is what you do if you can't get a real job." Guess the phrase was popular back in the 60s.
But the point should be that the real world and the theoretical are not always the same. I took an electronics program at BCIT (British Columbia Institute of Technology) and they made a point of hiring professors from industry. So when you were taught about generating power from hydroelectric dams, it was from people who designed / built such dams... I later attended university - the experience was quite different.
But I was under the impression that Android devices already utilized a different scheduler. In addition, phones have different requirements - for example, some might require a real-time kernel in order to operate on a cell network. Long story short, messing with the scheduler could have serious repercussions on an Android device. Only those who really know what they are doing should attempt it. The rest of us should simply wait - unless you don't care if your phone is reliable or not.
And for the record, no Federal law can override state criminal statutes. If it's illegal to touch a child's genitals the DHS and TSA can't make a regulation that says it's OK
What about doctors? Surely there are plenty of examples where it is appropriate for the genitals of a child to be touched for medical reasons. And if there are exceptions in the state laws to allow for this, you can bet that there will be additional exceptions to allow for airport security. And if there are not, all it takes is one incident and those exceptions will be added.
So nice try, but I seriously doubt many parents would put there kids through this just to make a point. Overall, it would have no impact.
The original Apple laptops with DisplayPort also did not route audio through the displayport. This is why there were no displayport to hdmi converters available from Apple (other people offered them but they lacked audio). So there might be some hardware design limitations to think about - or it might just be software.
But the new Apple computers do support audio through the displayport - so they have obviously thought about the problem. And it is not some hack like what you see with your ATI card. So some fundamental hardware/software changes are required to get it to work - so be it. It makes sense that a company like Apple, who designs both hardware and software, would be among the first to implement it. But I don't think Intel and Microsoft will be far behind. And considering that light peak is Intel's baby, you can bet that their chipsets and reference designs will make the required changes to ensure it works correctly - probably by the time it launches.
so the only connection between the graphics card and the motherboard is PCIe
Perfect, because that is all you need. Now the sound card has to be smart enough to DMA the audio to the video card. And the video card has to be smart enough to accept this audio and send it out through the displayport. Also, protocols have to be established that allow the audio and video cards to discover each other - but this would likely be done by the OS and not in hardware. So it can all be done but the makers of audio cards, video cards, and operating systems have to get together to ensure that everything works well together. ATI likely included an audio card in their video card because it was simpler then working with everyone else.
but there is a threshold of efficiency necessary to offset fixed installation costs.
Very true, but we really don't know what it is. The installation costs on existing structures would likely be excessive, but if future architectural designs are changed to accommodate for such panels, installation costs would be greatly reduced.
There are lots of things they could do. For example, run aluminium strips underneath the siding to allow for all the windows (on that story) to easily connect together. Now I'm no architect and there are likely far better ways to do this - but my point is that such designs could make the described solar panels relevant even if they are not for existing architecture.
So step one is to develop the panels. Even if they don't look efficient enough, it is still a good subject of research. And your points are well noted - a good dose of reality.
also light peak only works with intel video and if you want to use your usb keyboard or mouse $30 cable or hub that needs a wall wart as light peak may not pass power.
Not really, light peak complements USB as they share the same physical port. You can still use your cheap USB cables at USB speeds. If you want "light peak" speeds then you need to use a more expensive cable - one with 4 fiber optic lines in addition to the 4 regular USB electrical lines. Passing power will work just like with USB.
want Ethernet $30 cable
Possibly, but only in those rare situations where your device is so small that there is no room for a regular ethernet port.
want to use a ati or nvidia video chip you may need a piggy back cable to make it tie into the light peak network.
Unlikely, just look at displayport. Displayport can cannel both USB and audio despite the fact both signals do not originate from the graphics card. It would be safe to assume that Light Peak can do something similar.
If you want pixel perfect rendering of fonts and graphics, use PDF or a related technology. The whole idea behind HTML is that the content can be rendered differently on different devices. As such, a proper design should never rely on exact font sizes.
(I'm not clear what the "assisted" part is in the assisted HCCI. Perhaps there's a spark plug that's only used during low-power, lean burn conditions?)
Just guessing here, but there appears to be no place for a spark plug or glow plug/heater element. But what if they heated the fuel before being injected? It sufficiently heated, it should ignite even if the engine is cold.
But what I was wondering is how do they lubricate the pistons? With the pistons traversing the intake/outtake ports, one can not lubricate the pistons as one would in a traditional 4 cycle engine. And they are obviously not adding oil to the fuel as that would never be accepted in a modern automobile engine. So how are they doing it?
Emissions have been reduced. In fact, a catalytic converter is no longer required on the new Mazda rotary motors. What they did is they run the motor a little rich so that some fuel makes it through the engine (but only a little). After the combustion cycle they add air to the exhaust and burn a second time to ensure all the fuel is burned. The second burn does not generate any power - this is why the fuel efficiency of the motor is lacking. But for the market they are designed for, it does not matter.
But look it up on Wikipedia to be sure. It was some time ago that I read about it and the facts might have changed or my memory might be bad. I would get you link but my internet is horribly slow..
So why is Carmack talking about 60 fps on a graphics engine designed for phones?
Generating graphics is not the only task given to the CPU*. There are many other parts to a game that all require CPU time. So if a game can get high frame rates it implies that there will be some CPU available for the other important parts of a game.
*And I realize that the GPU does most of the work with graphics but the CPU is also an important part of the equation.
The American Wire Gauge only goes up to OOOO according to this table.
When a thicker wire is required one typically runs multiple conductors. The reason for this is that when one goes beyond 4/0 the cable becomes far too difficult to handle.
You are aware of what the term jailbreak refers to, yes? How about the long running battles to keep alternative OSes off of iPods or keeping iTunes as the dominant force for managing them?
Apple is aggressively attempting to prevent people from modifying their OS - this fact is obvious. But as long as you are not using their OS, Apple doesn't care what you are doing. You purchase a physical product and are free to do whatever you want with that product. But you are not purchasing their OS, just a license to use it. So if you are going to modify the software make sure you remove everything that belongs to Apple.
And I am not aware of any battles regarding keeping alternative OSes off of iOS devices. Lots of battles regarding modifying iOS, but this is a different issue. The two issues should not be confused.
I looked up the price for a 27" IPS display from DELL - ouch, $1250CND. It's the same display that is found in the new 27" iMac. Pricey, but amazing image quality. The high price of the DELL helped validate my purchase of the iMac as an extra $750 got me an i7 based computer (and a free iPod - educational promo). The glare is annoying but only a concern if you have no control of your work environment.
So as prices and availability come down, you should be able to pick up a display that will still look good when rotated. Just make sure it is an IPS display - they really are good.
Now back to the original article, the reason why screens are getting wider is because they are getting bigger. We do not naturally look up/down as much as we look side to side. So a 4:3 ratio works great when focused in on a small screen. Expand the screen and it makes more sense to expand the width then it does the height. But you can only make a screen so wide before it is annoying due to it being flat (a 27" screen is about at that limit). Future screens might have to have a concave shape. Or possibly screens that can bend allowing them to be bent around the user or be left flat - essential if multiple people are using it for entertainment. I would like to point out that a concave 5120 x 1440 display would make for an amazing FPS experience.
All very true, but also irrelevant. The real question is how does one respond to such situations. The techs should be there to monitor for intrusions and offer possible solutions or explanations for what is happening. But they do not decide what is important or how to respond. Those decisions are made by people with military / foreign policy experience.
The only time Nickleback was cool was in their pre-label days. I still have a ticket stub for a concert at a Nanaimo bar where Nickleback was opening for Noise Therapy - another Vancouver band.. Ticket cost me $6.
Your example does that and a whole lot more. I remember it being useful for speeding up the mouse. But you are wrong with respect to your correction.
Support for right-clicking was built into the OS when Apple added support USB - well before OSX. I can not remember when Apple added support, but jo_ham was correct in that by OS 8.6 it was standard.
As far as I know, 0 terrorist attacks on air planes have truly been thwarted by passenger action.
Shoe bomber.. And the Pennsylvania incident does count because the passengers prevented the plane from destroying the white house. And as others have noted, reenforced doors like those now present on planes would have saved the plane.