It's a good point that this seems to counter speedstep, but to some extent they work together. A 3.06 GHz frequency allows a particular computing task to be finished faster so the chip can fall back to the idle speedstep frequency (on my ~3 GHz desktop i-7 the idle speed is 1.2 GHz). Also, come to think of it, you mixed up the exponent in the CPU power equation. The power draw is proportional to frequency and to the square of voltage, not the other way around. So assuming CPU task completion time scales to the -1 power with frequency, which seems reasonable, the increased power draw for the higher frequency exactly cancels with the fact that processes will finish faster.
I agree with what you have said, but it appears that this new architecture puts another factor into the equation. That factor being the problem of leakage current.
From the power consumption graphs, it appears that Intel actually turns the various cores off when not in use. Previous generations of chips simply slowed the clock speed to minimize power usage. So now that Intel can turn cores off one has to factor leakage current into the equation. With a core turned off there is no leakage current. This implies that running at maximum speed and alternating between on and off stages will provide better power efficiency then running continuously at a lower speed.
Being able to turn parts of the CPU off comes at a price. There is no such thing as the perfect solid state switch - having a silicon switch in the circuit results in increased power usage when the circuit is active. The i7 architecture appears to use lots of power when in use - perhaps this is part of the reason why.
Solving this problem could easily result in a huge bump to the efficiency of chips. I can imagine it being solved with a tiny diamond based relays. Diamond is an excellent conductor and likely durable enough to not where out. Should nano-tech eventually evolve to the point where such devices could be affordably produced.....
A chinese friend of mine (from the mainland) said this about China - "China is not communist - it is a dictatorship." Of course others from China will have a different opinion but I thought his perspective was quite insightful.
The SUPPLY of gasoline was pretty much always fixed,and it's always going down.
The supply of gasoline is not fixed - not by a long shot. Should the demand for gasoline increase, the supply would increase to compensate. It could take some time for supply to catch up with demand, but it would happen. Of course, the selling price for gasoline would also increase to the point where the two curves cross.
Just look at the oil sands in Alberta, the oil that they are starting to dig for deep in the Gulf of Mexico (previously unobtainable), the ability to create syn-gas from coal, or the oil in Alaska. There is no lack of supply for gasoline - just a limit to the supply of cheap gas. In fact, even now the supply of oil is increasing globally.
The supply curve on the economics graph does not plot actual supply - it plots potential supply. If it were to plot actual supply then it would be a constant. So the way to reduce our use of fuel is to reduce the demand - partly accomplished through the adoption of electric vehicles. The other way to reduce our use of fuel is to artificially increasing the value of the supply curve - done via a carbon tax (or cap-and-trade). It looks like the Obama administration is pushing for both approaches.
P.S.=> Back on the wolf pup my Pop had? I feel I ought to note this - It NEVER attacked him or others in my family though, & I thought that is important to mention here... & this was actually quite a good article imo, because I often feel/think that many times? DOGS ARE BETTER PEOPLE THAN PEOPLE... pretty sad, but, it IS that way, sometimes... apk
What people have to understand is that dogs, like all other animals, often act on instinct. So you have to understand the underlying instincts of any animal you wish to make your pet.
Many breeds of dog are bred to be very gentle - companions dogs if you will. Labs are one of these breeds. Labs were bred to desire the company of their owner and to gently retrieve game birds and other objects. Being gentle is of great importance as one does not want to damage the objects being retrieved.
Now take a pit bull - bred for an entirely different purpose. Bred for strength and aggression while used for bull/bear-baiting or for hunting wild boar. Basically, the dog had to attack, bite, and not let go. Of course this made the breed perfect for dog fighting where these qualities were also reinforced.
Why is this important? Because under the right environment any animal can be "triggered" and those basic instincts come out. That lovely puppy that never hurt anyone can instantly turn into a killer. For example, my father owns sled dogs. His musher friend had his 4 year old son run out to see him in the dog lot. While passing one dog - a dog that had seen the boy several times before and had never shown any signs of aggression - the boy tripped, fell, and started crying. The sight of a small animal in distress combined with the sound of the screaming triggered the dog and the boy got his head chewed on - there was major damage.
So my point is this. Understand that your pet is an animal and will act accordingly. Should you have a breed of dog that was bred to be aggressive, do not let that dog get into a position where they might hurt someone. Extra care is required. My beef with owners of pit bulls is that they often do not acknowledge the true nature of the breed thereby putting others at risk. Possibly this is because pit bulls are "cool" and the owners are often young and irresponsible. But regardless, there is nothing wrong with the breed - just accept them for what they are and act accordingly.
Now with respect to wolfs as pets - you can be almost guaranteed that they will get out and kill things. It's simply their nature. Having a pet wolf is horribly irresponsible and disrespectful of anyone living within 20 miles of your residence.
An interesting note about dog attacks and German shepherds; On a national survey of dog attacks, German shepherds rank quite high as a breed that bites people. But there is a huge distinction between shepherds and, for example, pit bulls. Pit bulls tended to bite less frequently but when they did bite they caused massive damage. They are stronger and when they bite they don't stop until what they're biting has been torn to pieces. German shepherds have different instincts resulting in a different type of bite. The first type is a nip designed to herd sheep - but is also commonly applied to kids. These bites are fast and usually do not break skin. The second type is a "hold and pull" designed to move sheep. For example, if a sheep is stuck in a creek the shepherd would drag it out of the creek. Shepherds also apply this to kids, dragging them if they feel they are in danger (watched it happen to my sister).
Oh, and with respect to the whole "DOGS ARE BETTER PEOPLE THAN PEOPLE" thing, you are absolutely correct. We are also animals driven by instinct. We can be "triggered" to attack just like a dog. Just try endangering a child in front of their mother to see this in action. Anyway, we can selectively breed dogs to have the instincts we desire but we can't change ourselves...
These people are then arrested regardless of whether or not they show signs of actual impairment.
Now I'm not saying that MADD does not go too far, but just because someone can act sober it does not make it so. When people drink regularly they get better at hiding the effects of the alcohol - but it is still there. They might be able to drive without swerving but their reactions are still horrible. Should a pedestrian be crossing the road, the driver must be able to react. Alcohol interferes with this even when there are few signs of impairment.
I do not drink much, so when I have a couple beer I can really feel it. I feel drunk and it shows. But my blood alcohol content is low and I still have good reactions. If I were behind the wheel of a car it would be obvious that I was drinking - but I would still be able to react quickly. I guess my point is that what makes drunk drivers dangerous is not the swerving but the poor reflexes. Ok, the swerving is also dangerous and the two generally go hand in hand - but poor reflexes are a major concern.
The fact that my 19 year old brother can join the army but can't legally buy a beer is offensive the notion of free choice and liberty.
I agree - that is ridiculous. I am Canadian so I never had that problem.
the police tend to sit outside bars and pull everybody over
To be fair, they do this because it stops people from driving home drunk. If people know they are there then people will plan for an alternative way to get home before they even go to the bar. It works so they do it. And they test everyone because, like I mentioned earlier, some people are good at acting sober - but they still should not be driving.
Sorry to reply to myself, but it just occurred to me that those USB-to-serial adapters typically use dedicated hardware. Prolific makes a pile of these chips...
From my limited experience in programming USB AVR microcontrollers - there are two ways to load a new firmware via USB. One, you tie a specific pin to ground and then upload the firmware. Two, the existing firmware has to enable the uploading of a new firmware - basically a boot loader. There are specific registers in an AVR micro to enable Boot Loader (Read-While-Write Self-Programming) support.
So to program the USB-to-serial adaptor, it would have to be disassembled and modified according to what kind of chip is was. There is no way that Boot Loader support was enabled in such a device as it is significantly more complicated then simply leaving it disabled. But the Apple keyboards might need upgrades - likely for international support. These upgrades require Boot Loader support that any application can take advantage of.
The poster specifically said that he does not want to force the students to purchase Windows, which would be needed with VirtualBox.
Did you read that part about how those going to educational institutes can get free Microsoft software? I do not know if it applies to his students but there is a good chance that it does. In addition, VirtualBox does not require Windows - it requires an operating system. Should the instructor get a copy X software going via wine in Linux then the image could be released saving the students the trouble of getting wine working on their own.
So why run Windows in VirtualBox when the the user could just run Windows on the hardware?
So you can also check email, browse the web, and do all the other things you would normally do with your computer at the same time as using the specified software. Dual boot is only really good for games....
The real solution here is to contact the OrCAD developers and ask about Linux support
For a long term solution, fine. But it is not going to help out this professor come September. In addition, if you do not use Windows or MacOS it does not mean that you use Linux. Personally, I've always liked FreeBSD. Possibly the wine approach would be the better one in this situation.
Or you could try VirtualBox. I have tried all three and actually prefer VirtualBox even though it is free. On that note, many post-secondary schools have access to free Microsoft software. I know I can download just about anything for free via an MSDN portal on my university webpage - you just have to be registered in computer science.
In order to keep things easy for the students (they should be learning concepts and not software) just pick the best software for the job. Should it require Windows, so be it. Those who run other operating systems can work around it. And this is from a guy who hates Windows...
Larger drives generally do have more throughput for a few reasons. First, there are likely to be more platters / read + write heads that can work in parallel. Second, as the drive spins the rate at which the head traverses over sectors does increase - as you assumed.
But there are plenty of reasons why the actual increase will be reduced. First, the time taken to traverse an entire platter at a given RPM increases with denser platters. So if a platter can hold X bits and takes Y seconds to traverse, then a platter containing 2X bits will take a time T where Y -> T -> 2Y. (Just imagine that those are 'less then' signs.) Double the size != double the performance. Second, the seek time will be greater with a higher density platter. The head needs to be more accurate when placed above the platter - this accuracy costs time.
The performance of this drive will likely be better then any other 2.5" 5200 RPM drive on the market - specifically for large sequential transfers. However, the real world performance of this drive will likely be on par with a standard 7200 RPM drive - possibly even a bit slower.
There are plenty of other factors that effect performance - I just provided a couple of examples to give you something to think about. Only those at WD who are involved in the design of the drive and development of the firmware really know what is going on - and I believe they keep that info locked up real tight.
There's a lot more to come in 2009-10: Calpella, i.e. Core i7 Mobile, and the gradual, or possibly snowball-like, emergence of SSD drives in mainstream laptops.
Oh, you're just waiting to upgrade aren't you? Waiting for the next big jump in performance before the purchase. Smart... the best deals with Apple are generally right when a new model is released.
It's true that laptop chips haven't done very much - I have the same 2.16 chip as you, in a late 2006 15" MBP
Not exactly true. The original chips were Core Duo - not the Core 2 Duo that they have now. The differences would be the cache size, 64bit chip (ie, additional registers), and virtualization support. I believe the newer chips have at least 10% better performance per MHz. The newer chips can also run Java 1.6 where the Core Duo is only able to run Java 1.5 (assuming you are using MacOS).
But I guess your point is still valid. Three years is an awful long time to get an additional 10% performance.
The earlier burners were expensive and better quality so it's probably more of a burner issue than a disk issue in this case.
Not likely, burners do not affect the aging of disks. It is the dye on the Aluminum that ages and eventually kills the disk - typically a result of oxidization. Cheaper disks use cheaper dyes. The brand name disks are more expensive because they use dyes that are patented - and therefor more expensive to license. The plastic coating that protects the dye from oxidization is also likely to be different on the more expensive disks.
Personally, I've only noticed flaws in the cheap disks - the brand name disks appear to age well. But the cheap disks are still very useful. I use then when distributing files to friends and family - this way I do not have to worry about getting them back.
Why do we need a giant test facility to create what's out there already and is the final place these things will be operating in anyway?
A static environment is required to observe the effects of different designs. Tests in a real environment are also important - but they do not negate the need for a static test environment.
Mirrors are cheaper then solar cells. Being able to focus light onto a solar cell can be a cost effective way of generating electricity - if the solar cell is designed to handle the extra light. The other possible application would be for satellites. Thin reflective foil is much lighter then a solar cell. You would have a similar setup where the foil focuses the light onto a central solar cell.
However, I fail to see how Starcraft II would benefit from this if you've got a single digit cap on number of players in any given instance of the game.
At least one will no longer have to worry about people cheating when playing on a LAN. So long as they implement a method of easily finding your opponents and include free Battle.net for those who just want to play against their friends, it sounds reasonable to me.
Concrete would never survive the frost. Where I live, one routinely gets frost heaves up to 1'. For concrete to survive, one would have to prevent water from building up under the road. This is an almost impossible feat of engineering. The only reason bridges can use concrete is that they don't have to worry about frost heaves.
I always thought that the problem with MacOS X and ZFS was with removable devices. ZFS does not play well with devices that could be removed without first notifying the system. When it comes to desktop / notebook computers, ZFS just doesn't offer many advantages.
For the environmentalists -- don't spend cycles on forcing people to adopt stuff that doesn't work for them. People in general want to do the right thing. You just have to spend your cycles on making the green thing the right thing. Make the environmentally friendly option equal to or cheaper than the non-environmentally option, and people will automatically do the right thing.
Absolutely correct. But the problem is that being environmentally friendly will always be more expensive (as per the all mighty dollar) then being environmentally ignorant. The cost on the environment is difficult to put a price tag on. So what environmentalists should concentrate on is to artificially make environmentally friendly choices less expensive via applying appropriate taxes and tax breaks. But for the public to accept any sort of tax, the benefits of the tax must be understood. One can make this knowledge public but there will always be those industry leaders with deep pockets who will want to make other knowledge public. Just think of the "clean coal" commercials.
I like that Obama is setting stricter mileage requirements for vehicles in the US. But the strategy is flawed. As some conservatives have pointed out, if cars use less fuel then people will simply drive more. Overall fuel usage will not drop - at least not by much. The correct solution here is to apply a carbon tax on all fuels that derive there carbon from the earth's carbon reserves (coal, oil, natural gas.) For political correctness, the tax revenue should be applied to green initiatives - the labour intensive kind that produce jobs. People will drive less and purchase smaller cars. Overall carbon emissions will go down. The market will work it's wonder and solve the carbon problem for us.
I imagine that pressure could be inferred by looking at the point of contact on the screen. The larger the point the harder the person is pressing. Because different people have different sized fingers, the software would have to be very intelligent in order to work accurately for all people.
It sounds like your school administrator was a failure. One of two things should have happened: One, the students should not have the choice of which math course to attend, except in special circumstances. Two, an incompetent teacher should not be permitted to continue teaching. If the school system is foolish enough to sign a contract that flatly denies any possibility of firing incompetence, they deserve what they get.
Administration has no power in this situation. The union negotiates with the province as to what the rules are. Administration can not break the rules without risking a strike. And the union would strike.
On the other hand, of course, students are not rational. They may have avoided the other teacher because his course was more rigorous, and your mother's course emphasized "new math" and feelings. But then, that's the thing about anecdotes. They can mean anything you want them to mean.
Lets just look at results. There were twice as many people taking (and passing) the grade 12 provincial exams in mathematics while my mother was teaching grade 11 and 12 math. I do not know exactly why, but I know that these numbers were consistent for several years so it was not a fluke. I know that administration pleaded with her to stay and offered all the concessions they could think of. Things like first pick wrt classroom, encouraging her to take all her sick days, and approving all requests for time off with acceptable cause. But despite these concessions, it was still much better to move to a different school.
My original point was simply this: The unions prevent rewarding those who do good work and punishing those who do bad work. This is a significant cost that unions incur on an employer - and it is a hidden cost as it is not reflected in wage or benefits. When it comes to our public institutions, the public is hurt as a direct result of union greed because there generally exists no alternative source for the services offered by these institutions.
Thanks for the reply, I appreciate the answer. But I am fully aware of the fact the modern CPUs operate in a manner very different from our old processors. My only point was that the example you gave did nothing to prove your point. The only reason I found it necessary to point it out was because of the rude and immature nature of your response. Your reply to me was great, but I'm sure if you look at your previous post you will agree that it comes off as being the opposite of polite.
With respect to the content of your posts, I think we are both on the same page. But I do not totally agree with everything you have said. I believe that RISC was *faster then CISC - up until they essentially merged into one. Now the argument is moot. The overhead incurred by CISC and advantages offered by RISC are negligible in a modern processor.
*faster - By faster I am referring to the fact that given x transistors, a RISC architecture will generally outperform a CISC architecture. This assumes a similar R&D budget for both architectures. I am also referring to a previous point in time - around the 90s.
What you are claiming is that on Intel, you have to do this:
mov eax, [foo]
add eax, ebx
mov [foo], eax
Yeah... you CAN do that... but you can also do:
add [foo], ebx
Now I'm not saying that you are completely out to lunch, but an instruction does not make for a cycle. Any instruction in a CISC processor can take multiple cycles - so the example you provided is really not valid. In fact, when converted into micro-ops, the two examples could easily be the same (depending on the CPU.)
Not just in government - but unions can often result in the same type of ridiculous waste.
My mother was a teacher - high school math. She had two grade 11 classes and another teacher taught the third class. Both of my mother's classes were full while the other class was at half capacity. The reason for this was not scheduling - the students were simply avoiding the other teacher. The moral of the story is that if you do a good job and keep kids interested, you get to do more work. The other teacher did a poor job resulting in less work - oh, he also had more seniority which resulted in a higher wage.
My mother eventually quit to go to another job - a direct result of the unbalanced workload. The union would not let her get compensated for good performance. The school could not even give her a break with hallway supervision duties. A couple of years after leaving the school the number of grade 12 students taking math dropped by half.
I always hear union adds on the radio talking about how they are looking out for the kids by going on strike. Thank god those unions are looking out for our kids.
Do not imply it was the US. No, Israel is most likely to blame as the cannon could have been used to lob projectiles into Israel. Realistically speaking, it would have not been much of a threat. It would be too bit to be mobile and could easily be taken out by an air-strike.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a good point that this seems to counter speedstep, but to some extent they work together. A 3.06 GHz frequency allows a particular computing task to be finished faster so the chip can fall back to the idle speedstep frequency (on my ~3 GHz desktop i-7 the idle speed is 1.2 GHz). Also, come to think of it, you mixed up the exponent in the CPU power equation. The power draw is proportional to frequency and to the square of voltage, not the other way around. So assuming CPU task completion time scales to the -1 power with frequency, which seems reasonable, the increased power draw for the higher frequency exactly cancels with the fact that processes will finish faster.
I agree with what you have said, but it appears that this new architecture puts another factor into the equation. That factor being the problem of leakage current.
From the power consumption graphs, it appears that Intel actually turns the various cores off when not in use. Previous generations of chips simply slowed the clock speed to minimize power usage. So now that Intel can turn cores off one has to factor leakage current into the equation. With a core turned off there is no leakage current. This implies that running at maximum speed and alternating between on and off stages will provide better power efficiency then running continuously at a lower speed.
Being able to turn parts of the CPU off comes at a price. There is no such thing as the perfect solid state switch - having a silicon switch in the circuit results in increased power usage when the circuit is active. The i7 architecture appears to use lots of power when in use - perhaps this is part of the reason why.
Solving this problem could easily result in a huge bump to the efficiency of chips. I can imagine it being solved with a tiny diamond based relays. Diamond is an excellent conductor and likely durable enough to not where out. Should nano-tech eventually evolve to the point where such devices could be affordably produced.....
A chinese friend of mine (from the mainland) said this about China - "China is not communist - it is a dictatorship." Of course others from China will have a different opinion but I thought his perspective was quite insightful.
The SUPPLY of gasoline was pretty much always fixed,and it's always going down.
The supply of gasoline is not fixed - not by a long shot. Should the demand for gasoline increase, the supply would increase to compensate. It could take some time for supply to catch up with demand, but it would happen. Of course, the selling price for gasoline would also increase to the point where the two curves cross.
Just look at the oil sands in Alberta, the oil that they are starting to dig for deep in the Gulf of Mexico (previously unobtainable), the ability to create syn-gas from coal, or the oil in Alaska. There is no lack of supply for gasoline - just a limit to the supply of cheap gas. In fact, even now the supply of oil is increasing globally.
The supply curve on the economics graph does not plot actual supply - it plots potential supply. If it were to plot actual supply then it would be a constant. So the way to reduce our use of fuel is to reduce the demand - partly accomplished through the adoption of electric vehicles. The other way to reduce our use of fuel is to artificially increasing the value of the supply curve - done via a carbon tax (or cap-and-trade). It looks like the Obama administration is pushing for both approaches.
P.S.=> Back on the wolf pup my Pop had? I feel I ought to note this - It NEVER attacked him or others in my family though, & I thought that is important to mention here... & this was actually quite a good article imo, because I often feel/think that many times? DOGS ARE BETTER PEOPLE THAN PEOPLE... pretty sad, but, it IS that way, sometimes... apk
What people have to understand is that dogs, like all other animals, often act on instinct. So you have to understand the underlying instincts of any animal you wish to make your pet.
Many breeds of dog are bred to be very gentle - companions dogs if you will. Labs are one of these breeds. Labs were bred to desire the company of their owner and to gently retrieve game birds and other objects. Being gentle is of great importance as one does not want to damage the objects being retrieved.
Now take a pit bull - bred for an entirely different purpose. Bred for strength and aggression while used for bull/bear-baiting or for hunting wild boar. Basically, the dog had to attack, bite, and not let go. Of course this made the breed perfect for dog fighting where these qualities were also reinforced.
Why is this important? Because under the right environment any animal can be "triggered" and those basic instincts come out. That lovely puppy that never hurt anyone can instantly turn into a killer. For example, my father owns sled dogs. His musher friend had his 4 year old son run out to see him in the dog lot. While passing one dog - a dog that had seen the boy several times before and had never shown any signs of aggression - the boy tripped, fell, and started crying. The sight of a small animal in distress combined with the sound of the screaming triggered the dog and the boy got his head chewed on - there was major damage.
So my point is this. Understand that your pet is an animal and will act accordingly. Should you have a breed of dog that was bred to be aggressive, do not let that dog get into a position where they might hurt someone. Extra care is required. My beef with owners of pit bulls is that they often do not acknowledge the true nature of the breed thereby putting others at risk. Possibly this is because pit bulls are "cool" and the owners are often young and irresponsible. But regardless, there is nothing wrong with the breed - just accept them for what they are and act accordingly.
Now with respect to wolfs as pets - you can be almost guaranteed that they will get out and kill things. It's simply their nature. Having a pet wolf is horribly irresponsible and disrespectful of anyone living within 20 miles of your residence.
An interesting note about dog attacks and German shepherds; On a national survey of dog attacks, German shepherds rank quite high as a breed that bites people. But there is a huge distinction between shepherds and, for example, pit bulls. Pit bulls tended to bite less frequently but when they did bite they caused massive damage. They are stronger and when they bite they don't stop until what they're biting has been torn to pieces. German shepherds have different instincts resulting in a different type of bite. The first type is a nip designed to herd sheep - but is also commonly applied to kids. These bites are fast and usually do not break skin. The second type is a "hold and pull" designed to move sheep. For example, if a sheep is stuck in a creek the shepherd would drag it out of the creek. Shepherds also apply this to kids, dragging them if they feel they are in danger (watched it happen to my sister).
Oh, and with respect to the whole "DOGS ARE BETTER PEOPLE THAN PEOPLE" thing, you are absolutely correct. We are also animals driven by instinct. We can be "triggered" to attack just like a dog. Just try endangering a child in front of their mother to see this in action. Anyway, we can selectively breed dogs to have the instincts we desire but we can't change ourselves...
Guess what? Most downloadable/free stuff was Universal Binary only, and very few commercial products supported 10.4. Why? It's not that old.
The PPC version of 10.4 supports universal binary applications. Just make sure you have the 10.4 box fully patched via Software Update.
These people are then arrested regardless of whether or not they show signs of actual impairment.
Now I'm not saying that MADD does not go too far, but just because someone can act sober it does not make it so. When people drink regularly they get better at hiding the effects of the alcohol - but it is still there. They might be able to drive without swerving but their reactions are still horrible. Should a pedestrian be crossing the road, the driver must be able to react. Alcohol interferes with this even when there are few signs of impairment.
I do not drink much, so when I have a couple beer I can really feel it. I feel drunk and it shows. But my blood alcohol content is low and I still have good reactions. If I were behind the wheel of a car it would be obvious that I was drinking - but I would still be able to react quickly. I guess my point is that what makes drunk drivers dangerous is not the swerving but the poor reflexes. Ok, the swerving is also dangerous and the two generally go hand in hand - but poor reflexes are a major concern.
The fact that my 19 year old brother can join the army but can't legally buy a beer is offensive the notion of free choice and liberty.
I agree - that is ridiculous. I am Canadian so I never had that problem.
the police tend to sit outside bars and pull everybody over
To be fair, they do this because it stops people from driving home drunk. If people know they are there then people will plan for an alternative way to get home before they even go to the bar. It works so they do it. And they test everyone because, like I mentioned earlier, some people are good at acting sober - but they still should not be driving.
Sorry to reply to myself, but it just occurred to me that those USB-to-serial adapters typically use dedicated hardware. Prolific makes a pile of these chips...
From my limited experience in programming USB AVR microcontrollers - there are two ways to load a new firmware via USB. One, you tie a specific pin to ground and then upload the firmware. Two, the existing firmware has to enable the uploading of a new firmware - basically a boot loader. There are specific registers in an AVR micro to enable Boot Loader (Read-While-Write Self-Programming) support.
So to program the USB-to-serial adaptor, it would have to be disassembled and modified according to what kind of chip is was. There is no way that Boot Loader support was enabled in such a device as it is significantly more complicated then simply leaving it disabled. But the Apple keyboards might need upgrades - likely for international support. These upgrades require Boot Loader support that any application can take advantage of.
The poster specifically said that he does not want to force the students to purchase Windows, which would be needed with VirtualBox.
Did you read that part about how those going to educational institutes can get free Microsoft software? I do not know if it applies to his students but there is a good chance that it does. In addition, VirtualBox does not require Windows - it requires an operating system. Should the instructor get a copy X software going via wine in Linux then the image could be released saving the students the trouble of getting wine working on their own.
So why run Windows in VirtualBox when the the user could just run Windows on the hardware?
So you can also check email, browse the web, and do all the other things you would normally do with your computer at the same time as using the specified software. Dual boot is only really good for games....
The real solution here is to contact the OrCAD developers and ask about Linux support
For a long term solution, fine. But it is not going to help out this professor come September. In addition, if you do not use Windows or MacOS it does not mean that you use Linux. Personally, I've always liked FreeBSD. Possibly the wine approach would be the better one in this situation.
VMWare or Parallels
Or you could try VirtualBox. I have tried all three and actually prefer VirtualBox even though it is free. On that note, many post-secondary schools have access to free Microsoft software. I know I can download just about anything for free via an MSDN portal on my university webpage - you just have to be registered in computer science.
In order to keep things easy for the students (they should be learning concepts and not software) just pick the best software for the job. Should it require Windows, so be it. Those who run other operating systems can work around it. And this is from a guy who hates Windows...
Larger drives generally do have more throughput for a few reasons. First, there are likely to be more platters / read + write heads that can work in parallel. Second, as the drive spins the rate at which the head traverses over sectors does increase - as you assumed.
But there are plenty of reasons why the actual increase will be reduced. First, the time taken to traverse an entire platter at a given RPM increases with denser platters. So if a platter can hold X bits and takes Y seconds to traverse, then a platter containing 2X bits will take a time T where Y -> T -> 2Y. (Just imagine that those are 'less then' signs.) Double the size != double the performance. Second, the seek time will be greater with a higher density platter. The head needs to be more accurate when placed above the platter - this accuracy costs time.
The performance of this drive will likely be better then any other 2.5" 5200 RPM drive on the market - specifically for large sequential transfers. However, the real world performance of this drive will likely be on par with a standard 7200 RPM drive - possibly even a bit slower.
There are plenty of other factors that effect performance - I just provided a couple of examples to give you something to think about. Only those at WD who are involved in the design of the drive and development of the firmware really know what is going on - and I believe they keep that info locked up real tight.
There's a lot more to come in 2009-10: Calpella, i.e. Core i7 Mobile, and the gradual, or possibly snowball-like, emergence of SSD drives in mainstream laptops.
Oh, you're just waiting to upgrade aren't you? Waiting for the next big jump in performance before the purchase. Smart... the best deals with Apple are generally right when a new model is released.
It's true that laptop chips haven't done very much - I have the same 2.16 chip as you, in a late 2006 15" MBP
Not exactly true. The original chips were Core Duo - not the Core 2 Duo that they have now. The differences would be the cache size, 64bit chip (ie, additional registers), and virtualization support. I believe the newer chips have at least 10% better performance per MHz. The newer chips can also run Java 1.6 where the Core Duo is only able to run Java 1.5 (assuming you are using MacOS).
But I guess your point is still valid. Three years is an awful long time to get an additional 10% performance.
The earlier burners were expensive and better quality so it's probably more of a burner issue than a disk issue in this case.
Not likely, burners do not affect the aging of disks. It is the dye on the Aluminum that ages and eventually kills the disk - typically a result of oxidization. Cheaper disks use cheaper dyes. The brand name disks are more expensive because they use dyes that are patented - and therefor more expensive to license. The plastic coating that protects the dye from oxidization is also likely to be different on the more expensive disks.
Personally, I've only noticed flaws in the cheap disks - the brand name disks appear to age well. But the cheap disks are still very useful. I use then when distributing files to friends and family - this way I do not have to worry about getting them back.
Why do we need a giant test facility to create what's out there already and is the final place these things will be operating in anyway?
A static environment is required to observe the effects of different designs. Tests in a real environment are also important - but they do not negate the need for a static test environment.
Mirrors are cheaper then solar cells. Being able to focus light onto a solar cell can be a cost effective way of generating electricity - if the solar cell is designed to handle the extra light. The other possible application would be for satellites. Thin reflective foil is much lighter then a solar cell. You would have a similar setup where the foil focuses the light onto a central solar cell.
However, I fail to see how Starcraft II would benefit from this if you've got a single digit cap on number of players in any given instance of the game.
At least one will no longer have to worry about people cheating when playing on a LAN. So long as they implement a method of easily finding your opponents and include free Battle.net for those who just want to play against their friends, it sounds reasonable to me.
Concrete would never survive the frost. Where I live, one routinely gets frost heaves up to 1'. For concrete to survive, one would have to prevent water from building up under the road. This is an almost impossible feat of engineering. The only reason bridges can use concrete is that they don't have to worry about frost heaves.
I always thought that the problem with MacOS X and ZFS was with removable devices. ZFS does not play well with devices that could be removed without first notifying the system. When it comes to desktop / notebook computers, ZFS just doesn't offer many advantages.
For the environmentalists -- don't spend cycles on forcing people to adopt stuff that doesn't work for them. People in general want to do the right thing. You just have to spend your cycles on making the green thing the right thing. Make the environmentally friendly option equal to or cheaper than the non-environmentally option, and people will automatically do the right thing.
Absolutely correct. But the problem is that being environmentally friendly will always be more expensive (as per the all mighty dollar) then being environmentally ignorant. The cost on the environment is difficult to put a price tag on. So what environmentalists should concentrate on is to artificially make environmentally friendly choices less expensive via applying appropriate taxes and tax breaks. But for the public to accept any sort of tax, the benefits of the tax must be understood. One can make this knowledge public but there will always be those industry leaders with deep pockets who will want to make other knowledge public. Just think of the "clean coal" commercials.
I like that Obama is setting stricter mileage requirements for vehicles in the US. But the strategy is flawed. As some conservatives have pointed out, if cars use less fuel then people will simply drive more. Overall fuel usage will not drop - at least not by much. The correct solution here is to apply a carbon tax on all fuels that derive there carbon from the earth's carbon reserves (coal, oil, natural gas.) For political correctness, the tax revenue should be applied to green initiatives - the labour intensive kind that produce jobs. People will drive less and purchase smaller cars. Overall carbon emissions will go down. The market will work it's wonder and solve the carbon problem for us.
I imagine that pressure could be inferred by looking at the point of contact on the screen. The larger the point the harder the person is pressing. Because different people have different sized fingers, the software would have to be very intelligent in order to work accurately for all people.
It sounds like your school administrator was a failure. One of two things should have happened: One, the students should not have the choice of which math course to attend, except in special circumstances. Two, an incompetent teacher should not be permitted to continue teaching. If the school system is foolish enough to sign a contract that flatly denies any possibility of firing incompetence, they deserve what they get.
Administration has no power in this situation. The union negotiates with the province as to what the rules are. Administration can not break the rules without risking a strike. And the union would strike.
On the other hand, of course, students are not rational. They may have avoided the other teacher because his course was more rigorous, and your mother's course emphasized "new math" and feelings. But then, that's the thing about anecdotes. They can mean anything you want them to mean.
Lets just look at results. There were twice as many people taking (and passing) the grade 12 provincial exams in mathematics while my mother was teaching grade 11 and 12 math. I do not know exactly why, but I know that these numbers were consistent for several years so it was not a fluke. I know that administration pleaded with her to stay and offered all the concessions they could think of. Things like first pick wrt classroom, encouraging her to take all her sick days, and approving all requests for time off with acceptable cause. But despite these concessions, it was still much better to move to a different school.
My original point was simply this: The unions prevent rewarding those who do good work and punishing those who do bad work. This is a significant cost that unions incur on an employer - and it is a hidden cost as it is not reflected in wage or benefits. When it comes to our public institutions, the public is hurt as a direct result of union greed because there generally exists no alternative source for the services offered by these institutions.
Thanks for the reply, I appreciate the answer. But I am fully aware of the fact the modern CPUs operate in a manner very different from our old processors. My only point was that the example you gave did nothing to prove your point. The only reason I found it necessary to point it out was because of the rude and immature nature of your response. Your reply to me was great, but I'm sure if you look at your previous post you will agree that it comes off as being the opposite of polite.
With respect to the content of your posts, I think we are both on the same page. But I do not totally agree with everything you have said. I believe that RISC was *faster then CISC - up until they essentially merged into one. Now the argument is moot. The overhead incurred by CISC and advantages offered by RISC are negligible in a modern processor.
*faster - By faster I am referring to the fact that given x transistors, a RISC architecture will generally outperform a CISC architecture. This assumes a similar R&D budget for both architectures. I am also referring to a previous point in time - around the 90s.
What you are claiming is that on Intel, you have to do this:
mov eax, [foo]
add eax, ebx
mov [foo], eax
Yeah... you CAN do that... but you can also do:
add [foo], ebx
Now I'm not saying that you are completely out to lunch, but an instruction does not make for a cycle. Any instruction in a CISC processor can take multiple cycles - so the example you provided is really not valid. In fact, when converted into micro-ops, the two examples could easily be the same (depending on the CPU.)
Not just in government - but unions can often result in the same type of ridiculous waste.
My mother was a teacher - high school math. She had two grade 11 classes and another teacher taught the third class. Both of my mother's classes were full while the other class was at half capacity. The reason for this was not scheduling - the students were simply avoiding the other teacher. The moral of the story is that if you do a good job and keep kids interested, you get to do more work. The other teacher did a poor job resulting in less work - oh, he also had more seniority which resulted in a higher wage.
My mother eventually quit to go to another job - a direct result of the unbalanced workload. The union would not let her get compensated for good performance. The school could not even give her a break with hallway supervision duties. A couple of years after leaving the school the number of grade 12 students taking math dropped by half.
I always hear union adds on the radio talking about how they are looking out for the kids by going on strike. Thank god those unions are looking out for our kids.
Do not imply it was the US. No, Israel is most likely to blame as the cannon could have been used to lob projectiles into Israel. Realistically speaking, it would have not been much of a threat. It would be too bit to be mobile and could easily be taken out by an air-strike.