The whole point of these chips is the built in Radeon, whether it's for GPU or GPGPU performance. I'm not even sure why you would compare it solely as a processor, and I'm quite sure that isn't a fair or reasonable comparison. Nor one anyone wants to make (who might actually buy a Llano). For high performance, you'll get a dedicated card anyways. Anyone looking at this will use the integrated Radeon, that's the point.
Yes. Link is to a flight test on Earth in as-close-as-we-can-get Mars-like atmospheric/gravitational tradeoff conditions of a prototype Mars aircraft. In fact, that is probably what NASA intends this design to be used for.
Where are you getting 438MB for Firefox 1 tab? The value listed is 42.3MB, and 475.3MB for 40 pages. I agree about the memory management thing (kinda). Firefox probably caches the pages to reload in case you open them immediately, though, so the fact it unloads that memory later but not immediately might be counting for it... IDK.
The problem isn't how well a browser behaves with properly coded sites and no addons. It's how it behaves with all the other sites, the ones that have crappy JS and Flash animations while the user has 15 addons loaded. You know, the real world? This test is interesting and gives some general idea about how a browser should behave... but should rarely equals does.
Umm, actually, no. It's 1) Firefox 7 2) Chrome 14 3 )Opera 4) IE 9 5) Safari. Might look like IE>Opera if you only glance at the results. Read closer.
However, as far as I can tell they don't seem to be weighting categories (page and browser load times, IMHO, are much more important than WebGL, for instance, which they seem to have counted as 0 for those which don't support it.) Silverlight, especially, should deserve practically no weight in the final results at all. That said, the main browser problem isn't benchmarks or tests, its how well the browser behaves on sites that are poorly coded and therefore far more resource intensive than they should be. In my experience, those are the only times I notice a browser actually slowing down on anything like a fairly recent machine. Well, that and interface/ addon support.
Short of discovering that each of Facebook's datacenters is actually a vast, nearly empty, mausoleum, lit only by the unhallowed glow of Masonic runes drawn in the blood of innocents and the blinding glare of the all-seeing-eye atop the pyramid in the center; could there be any revelation about their privacy practices worse than those that can already be inferred from prior activity?
I'm pretty sure that this revelation would be better than what we can already infer about Facebook, actually.
That would be tetrachromats, who can see richer colors (the fourth cone is somewhere between red and green) but not ultraviolet. It is however extremely rare. Totally different phenomenon AFAIK, and girls can have it due to having two X chromosomes. I've never heard of humans seeing into ultraviolet, but I suppose it is possible.
Parents are too busy making money to spend on toys like Xbox 360s to care for their kids. So they want some of the toys to do it for them. And Microsoft is happy to take their money to help.
Exactly. Whatever is causing these shelves to melt, the fact that they are melting at an unexpected rate means that our current model for climatology is broken in some way. Meaning the model that everyone is using isn't accounting for everything, whether the unknown factor is human or natural.
So what this story is really proving is that scientists really have no idea what is happening, because the Earth is really big and influence by far to many factors to be accounted for in the models. On the other hand, cutting back carbon emissions is a good idea in any case, but alarmism like this article is not going to help convince people of that.
A short term drop in temperature is different to a rapid rise in temperature
Oh yeah, totally different. One has a minus sign, the other a plus. If the first is perfectly natural, surely the only explanation for the other is mankind, right?/s
Seriously, though, I'm not a "denier" but I find the claim that this totally dispels any possibility that this is natural completely unscientific. Temperatures over small regions of the Earth change all the time, and often quite rapidly. Especially when the quoted article gives units of "Pyramids of Giza." I don't understand those units. How many Libraries of Congress would that be? (I know it also gives tonnes. It's a joke.) In fact, change that rapid almost doesn't even make sense, the global temperatures are rising slowly, they shouldn't have this dramatic an effect.
I suppose I could see that for netscape, but if the mail client adds no overhead, either in installation size, performance or screen estate, I can't imagine why you would still do that. Opera, for reference, has an install file size of 9.9MB, while Firefox is 13.4MB. That is with Opera's IRC chat, mail client, BotTorrent client, ad-blocker, and whole host of other built-in features.
Opera manages to incorporate a whole host of extra features at seemingly no overhead. That is why I never moved to Firefox, even before Opera had extensions. Most of the extensions I would need in Firefox came in Opera by default. And lets not even get into customization of the interface: no other browser comes even the tiniest bit close.
This was my reaction too. This isn't even a release, it's a beta. AFAIK Firefox constantly has a beta out, it shouldn't be news to anyone on this site.
Like which websites? I've used Opera consistently for about 7 years now. It used to not work with a few sites, but it's been a while since I've come across anything that is actually broken. And it still has a large number of uncopied features (like a mail client) which I've simply become used to having around. Ever since it added extensions, I really think there isn't a good reason to use Firefox anymore (aside maybe from an extension that hasn't been ported yet.)
So, what properties do Mercury and the Moon share? They're pretty close to the same size (I suppose, though not really), and don't have (much of) an atmosphere. Other than that, there is a massive difference in temperature, density, gravity, radiation, and composition (at the very least). The moon, for instance, it mostly silicate, while Mercury is more metallic.
Oh yeah, and one is a planet while the other is a moon. Slight difference, I know, just thought I'd point it out.
PS anyone else ever get annoyed by how Wikipedia is inconsistent in how it lists statistics for planetary bodies? Drives me nuts when trying to make comparisons, or even just get useful information.
Slashdot Mirror
The whole point of these chips is the built in Radeon, whether it's for GPU or GPGPU performance. I'm not even sure why you would compare it solely as a processor, and I'm quite sure that isn't a fair or reasonable comparison. Nor one anyone wants to make (who might actually buy a Llano). For high performance, you'll get a dedicated card anyways. Anyone looking at this will use the integrated Radeon, that's the point.
Already done: Powershell. Though it's more bash than DOS.
The fish eat you
P.S. Yes I got the reference.
No, it's not April 1st... no, the news story isn't from the Onion... oh, "cash in air miles", makes sense now.
You do realize that a camera and wireless card would significantly reduce this plane's efficiency, right?
Yes. Link is to a flight test on Earth in as-close-as-we-can-get Mars-like atmospheric/gravitational tradeoff conditions of a prototype Mars aircraft. In fact, that is probably what NASA intends this design to be used for.
Where are you getting 438MB for Firefox 1 tab? The value listed is 42.3MB, and 475.3MB for 40 pages. I agree about the memory management thing (kinda). Firefox probably caches the pages to reload in case you open them immediately, though, so the fact it unloads that memory later but not immediately might be counting for it... IDK.
The problem isn't how well a browser behaves with properly coded sites and no addons. It's how it behaves with all the other sites, the ones that have crappy JS and Flash animations while the user has 15 addons loaded. You know, the real world? This test is interesting and gives some general idea about how a browser should behave... but should rarely equals does.
Umm, actually, no. It's 1) Firefox 7 2) Chrome 14 3 )Opera 4) IE 9 5) Safari. Might look like IE>Opera if you only glance at the results. Read closer.
However, as far as I can tell they don't seem to be weighting categories (page and browser load times, IMHO, are much more important than WebGL, for instance, which they seem to have counted as 0 for those which don't support it.) Silverlight, especially, should deserve practically no weight in the final results at all. That said, the main browser problem isn't benchmarks or tests, its how well the browser behaves on sites that are poorly coded and therefore far more resource intensive than they should be. In my experience, those are the only times I notice a browser actually slowing down on anything like a fairly recent machine. Well, that and interface/ addon support.
Disclaimer: I use and love Opera.
Short of discovering that each of Facebook's datacenters is actually a vast, nearly empty, mausoleum, lit only by the unhallowed glow of Masonic runes drawn in the blood of innocents and the blinding glare of the all-seeing-eye atop the pyramid in the center; could there be any revelation about their privacy practices worse than those that can already be inferred from prior activity?
I'm pretty sure that this revelation would be better than what we can already infer about Facebook, actually.
After having his natural UV eye-filters removed, he might want to avoid sunlight too. Shouldn't be too hard for a /.'er...
That would be tetrachromats, who can see richer colors (the fourth cone is somewhere between red and green) but not ultraviolet. It is however extremely rare. Totally different phenomenon AFAIK, and girls can have it due to having two X chromosomes. I've never heard of humans seeing into ultraviolet, but I suppose it is possible.
I rather think that if your kids have convenient access to a blow-up doll, the TV is going to be a pretty small problem by comparison.
Good luck making a flat-cardboard silhouette look human to a 3d camera.
Parents are too busy making money to spend on toys like Xbox 360s to care for their kids. So they want some of the toys to do it for them. And Microsoft is happy to take their money to help.
Exactly. Whatever is causing these shelves to melt, the fact that they are melting at an unexpected rate means that our current model for climatology is broken in some way. Meaning the model that everyone is using isn't accounting for everything, whether the unknown factor is human or natural.
So what this story is really proving is that scientists really have no idea what is happening, because the Earth is really big and influence by far to many factors to be accounted for in the models. On the other hand, cutting back carbon emissions is a good idea in any case, but alarmism like this article is not going to help convince people of that.
Elephants? Pah, I only accept LoC (Libraries of Congress). Works for volume, mass, and information!
A short term drop in temperature is different to a rapid rise in temperature
Oh yeah, totally different. One has a minus sign, the other a plus. If the first is perfectly natural, surely the only explanation for the other is mankind, right? /s
Seriously, though, I'm not a "denier" but I find the claim that this totally dispels any possibility that this is natural completely unscientific. Temperatures over small regions of the Earth change all the time, and often quite rapidly. Especially when the quoted article gives units of "Pyramids of Giza." I don't understand those units. How many Libraries of Congress would that be? (I know it also gives tonnes. It's a joke.) In fact, change that rapid almost doesn't even make sense, the global temperatures are rising slowly, they shouldn't have this dramatic an effect.
Yeah, and it also makes a giant *WHOOOOSH* when it does so.
I suppose I could see that for netscape, but if the mail client adds no overhead, either in installation size, performance or screen estate, I can't imagine why you would still do that. Opera, for reference, has an install file size of 9.9MB, while Firefox is 13.4MB. That is with Opera's IRC chat, mail client, BotTorrent client, ad-blocker, and whole host of other built-in features.
Opera manages to incorporate a whole host of extra features at seemingly no overhead. That is why I never moved to Firefox, even before Opera had extensions. Most of the extensions I would need in Firefox came in Opera by default. And lets not even get into customization of the interface: no other browser comes even the tiniest bit close.
This was my reaction too. This isn't even a release, it's a beta. AFAIK Firefox constantly has a beta out, it shouldn't be news to anyone on this site.
Like which websites? I've used Opera consistently for about 7 years now. It used to not work with a few sites, but it's been a while since I've come across anything that is actually broken. And it still has a large number of uncopied features (like a mail client) which I've simply become used to having around. Ever since it added extensions, I really think there isn't a good reason to use Firefox anymore (aside maybe from an extension that hasn't been ported yet.)
So, what properties do Mercury and the Moon share? They're pretty close to the same size (I suppose, though not really), and don't have (much of) an atmosphere. Other than that, there is a massive difference in temperature, density, gravity, radiation, and composition (at the very least). The moon, for instance, it mostly silicate, while Mercury is more metallic.
Oh yeah, and one is a planet while the other is a moon. Slight difference, I know, just thought I'd point it out.
PS anyone else ever get annoyed by how Wikipedia is inconsistent in how it lists statistics for planetary bodies? Drives me nuts when trying to make comparisons, or even just get useful information.
I'm not trolling here, I seriously want to know what Chrome has over FF.
It's new and shiny.
I wouldn't mention abstinence on /. Most of the people around here are unwillingly abstinent and a little sore about it.