Try a liquid metal cooler. It's a proven technology, used in nuclear reactors for decades because it carries heat away much better than a heat sink, heat pipe, or water cooling./me picks jaw up off the floor.
Liquid metal cooling is used in reactors because of the *extreme temperatures*, not just because it's more efficient. The metal (usually Sodium, but sometimes lead) is maintained in a molten state as it passes through the reactor and on back to the heat exchanger. Are they *really* saying that a CPU is going to pump enough heat to maintain a molten state inside the cooling device? If yes, that's kind of scary.
Maybe it's time to rethink the approach of driving up power usage to 300 watts just to get an extra 2 frames per second on Doom? Either that or we should start installing nuclear reactors in computers!:-D
They don't. Tachyons were a weirdness created by some of the early attempts at String Theory. Later work at correcting the mathematical holes in the theory eliminated the possibility of tachyons.
Oh sorry, I should have twigged you were talking about virtual particles.
??? No, actually I was referring to the Quantum Tunnelling effect. A particle can temporarily steal sufficient energy from surrounding particles to break the speed of light. (And thus actually pass through objects unchecked!) The problem is that at the end of its journey, the particle must pay back the *entire* balance of energy, thus giving it a zero net gain in travel time.
Half right. Travel at precisely the speed of light is prohibited.
Light does it. And some particles are known to travel far faster than the speed of light for short periods. The problem with these methods are:
1. Light is more or less massless and is forever frozen in "time".
2. Any particle that travels faster than light must pay back that energy, thus arriving at its detination in a period consistant with travel below the speed of light.
In short, there's no problem with meeting or exceeding the speed of light. It's just that the universe conspires against us to make sure that the net result is not useful in any way.:-)
Not quite. The theories behind Wormholes suggest that a Wormhole could be used for a sort of timetravel. The only issue is that you couldn't travel back any further than the creations of the hole itself.
And you think code reviews don't happen in Linux, why now?
Because of the poor quality of much of the code that's checked in? I'm not saying that Linux doesn't have a review process, but it seems to be more focused on "does it (mostly) work?" rather than "does it work correctly in all situations AND is it easy to maintain?" The later style of review prevents things from advancing as fast as the former but keeps the code quality higher, while the former allows for a much quicker development cycle and more features at the expense of extra bugs and maintenece issues.
It's not that the former approach is "wrong" and the latter is "right". They're just different processes and have different results. Linux tends to use the "many eyes" procedure to attempt to make up for the shortcomings of their process, but it's not a complete solution. FreeBSD just accepts the slower development cycle of their choice. (Which I have no problem with personally.)
I am not fan of Blockbuster and their tactics which include blatant lying to their customers and potential customers about their "no late fees" crap.
I haven't entirely figured out why people got so worked up over this. As soon as they introduced the new policy, I went up to the counter and asked "So, what does this mean?" I got back the straight answer that it gives you up to two extra weeks to return your videos. I didn't even have to ask them to elaborate on what happens after that. It's just like the library: You pay for the item.
Now talk to me about their previous policy of staff failing to note the return of a 2 day item before 12 PM, and I'll happily dig in to the money grubbing bastards.:-)
The article suggests areas like exposition floors where they don't want to run extra wires. The problem is that this seems backwards. On an exposition floor you should have power first, then ethernet second. It makes more sense to wire things with WIFI in environments like that.
Honestly, the best solution for users that don't need that much horsepower is to switch to thin clients. With the thin clients, power consumption is easily under 12 watts per desktop, users can be centrally managed, and desktop horsepower can be upgraded in a single system replacement.
I used to admin a Citrix network, and I have to say that the idea makes a lot of sense. Most of the issues with the setup stemmed from the fact that we were on NT 3.51 and not from the fact that our users were on a shared system. Users *still* ran their little "bouncing sheep" and "frog in a blender" type of programs (not a good thing, but necessary to allow the users to be "happy" with their system), and we saved money on hardware, support costs, and power usage. Can't get much better than that!
Modern computers go into various power saving modes when not in use. As a result, I'm using the 100 watt figure as a baseline average. Peak power usage on today's machines can easily get as high as 200-300 watts (thanks to the "latest and greatest" video cards).
Not necessarily. As it stands today, power outlets are plentiful in homes, offices, conference centers, and other public locations. Ethernet ports are not so plentiful. So if I have WIFI at home, am I going to bother stretching my CAT5 cable across the living room so I can work on the couch? No! I'm going to plug into the wall next to the couch, and use WIFI for connectivity.
Same thing with conference centers and expositions. Why woould anyone install new ethernet equipment when the floor already has power plugs everywhere? It's much easier just to set up WIFI for the various kiosks.
I'm kind of going back and forth on this in my head. On one hand, reducing power to 12 watts sounds like a good thing. On another hand, a modern Pentium processor chews through way more than that on a medium load. Would the reduction is system performance be acceptable to the cost savings? Well, let's do some calcs. Let's assume that a modern PC with a CRT takes a constant 100 watts. (On the high side, I know.) Let's figure that out across 30 days:
30 * 24 * 100 / 1000 = 72 KWh/month
At the rates in California (some of the highest in the nation) we get a cost per computer at:
72 * $0.096 = $6.912
For 10,000 computers, that comes to:
10,000 * $6.912 = $69,120
Now let's say that we use PoE and get the computers down to 12 watts. Some of the energy is lost in transmission, so we'll say that we consume 20 watts per computer:
Those look like pretty nice savings, but are they actually sufficient to warrant the switch over to a slower machine? In a company with 10,000 PCs, the difference works out to the cost of a few employess on staff. Not pocket change, but not massive savings either. But what if you just go around and replace all the CRTs with LCDs? Well, then the gap probably won't look as interesting, and employers are doubtful to worry about the savings of further power reductions.
Considering that my iBook uses a 65 watt charger, I'd say that 35 is probably sufficient for anything short of the "Desktop Replacement Laptops" (relly more of a portable desktop). My guess is that the laptop will most often run below 35 watts, then trickle-charge the excess to the battery. If the computer needs extra power in the short term, the battery will provide it.
I was thinking that this had to be one of the most brilliant ideas ever, right up until I realized that users are moving toward WIFI for connectivity. If this had srrived two to three years ago, we might all be using it now. But at this juncture? Likely to be ignored.:-/
Doesn't matter. Apple's registration for "Tiger" is there, and TigerDirect's registration for "Tiger" isn't. I'd say that they don't have a leg to stand on.:-)
That is called a *sig*. You can turn it off in your preferences if it annoys you. But ignoring the opinion in favor of attacking the sig is considered poor form around here and will generally get you modded down. Now go back and read again.
Yep Apple has the tradmark of Tiger and a few other big cats.
You are correct sir. The registration can be seen a href="http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&s tate=53slb2.12.1">here.
Although one does have to wonder about this registration. Shouldn't that one also "overlap" with Tiger Direct's business?
This and other items prove we need better goverment checks on both IP and trademarks. Its a 19 century system trying to be used in the 21 century. It not working!
I don't know why people keep spouting this bit o' nonsense. How can you say the system is not working when it hasn't even been tested yet? Every time someone *threatens* to sue, everyone complains that the system is broken! Newsflash: Any idiot can threaten. If you back down, then you can't complain at the system, can you?
Highlights Generally: [...] In general, limits Internet service providers from copyright infringement liability for simply transmitting information over the Internet.
Registering a trademark is not a requirement to enforcing your mark, but it certainly does help make your case. The problem is that if they don't have "Tiger" registered (which it looks like they don't from my own search), then they have a burden of proof to show that they are deserving of the mark.
I wish there was something in between a $70 DSL and a $1000+ t1 line. Too bad there is not a $200 DSL package that guarenteed 750k/second upstream, like splitting a t1 line.
I've heard of full T1's at about $500/month, and fractional T1's for far less. Talk to your local providers and see who can give you the best deal. The setup will still cost you though.
Hey, is it possible to buy 2 DSL lines and double the bandwith?
Just go for a business class connection. Most phone companies have symetrical business DSL connections of 2MBits and up.
Re:The force is strong with this one.
on
The Darth Vader Blog
·
· Score: 3, Funny
Hes not really a bad guy, he just has issues that noone understands.
I get a kick out of this part in particular:
Ozzel just isn't the creative type.
The problem is solved now, however. I crushed his trachea with my mind, and promoted Piett to command the fleet. I have transmitted to following note to Ozzel's kin:
Dear House of Ozzel,
I regret to inform you that your son has been killed in the line of duty.
He was an incompetent, yammering boob and he will be missed by none. I have allowed the men to pillage his personal belongings, which is why we have enclosed nothing but the sole remaining item: a torn advertisements page from a magazine of midget pornography. May it shock and disturb you, and may you think of it always when you remember your dearly departed son, the ninny.
Know also that his limitations as a sub-par military professional caused the deaths of many of the Emperor's loyal soldiers, whose funeral expenses will appear on your next tax assessment.
Slashdot Mirror
Try a liquid metal cooler. It's a proven technology, used in nuclear reactors for decades because it carries heat away much better than a heat sink, heat pipe, or water cooling. /me picks jaw up off the floor.
:-D
Liquid metal cooling is used in reactors because of the *extreme temperatures*, not just because it's more efficient. The metal (usually Sodium, but sometimes lead) is maintained in a molten state as it passes through the reactor and on back to the heat exchanger. Are they *really* saying that a CPU is going to pump enough heat to maintain a molten state inside the cooling device? If yes, that's kind of scary.
Maybe it's time to rethink the approach of driving up power usage to 300 watts just to get an extra 2 frames per second on Doom? Either that or we should start installing nuclear reactors in computers!
tachyons , which (if they exist
They don't. Tachyons were a weirdness created by some of the early attempts at String Theory. Later work at correcting the mathematical holes in the theory eliminated the possibility of tachyons.
Oh sorry, I should have twigged you were talking about virtual particles.
;-)
??? No, actually I was referring to the Quantum Tunnelling effect. A particle can temporarily steal sufficient energy from surrounding particles to break the speed of light. (And thus actually pass through objects unchecked!) The problem is that at the end of its journey, the particle must pay back the *entire* balance of energy, thus giving it a zero net gain in travel time.
As usual, Google has more info. Watch out for Skynet, though...
Half right. Travel at precisely the speed of light is prohibited.
:-)
Light does it. And some particles are known to travel far faster than the speed of light for short periods. The problem with these methods are:
1. Light is more or less massless and is forever frozen in "time".
2. Any particle that travels faster than light must pay back that energy, thus arriving at its detination in a period consistant with travel below the speed of light.
In short, there's no problem with meeting or exceeding the speed of light. It's just that the universe conspires against us to make sure that the net result is not useful in any way.
Not quite. The theories behind Wormholes suggest that a Wormhole could be used for a sort of timetravel. The only issue is that you couldn't travel back any further than the creations of the hole itself.
Wikipedia has some info on the subject.
And you think code reviews don't happen in Linux, why now?
Because of the poor quality of much of the code that's checked in? I'm not saying that Linux doesn't have a review process, but it seems to be more focused on "does it (mostly) work?" rather than "does it work correctly in all situations AND is it easy to maintain?" The later style of review prevents things from advancing as fast as the former but keeps the code quality higher, while the former allows for a much quicker development cycle and more features at the expense of extra bugs and maintenece issues.
It's not that the former approach is "wrong" and the latter is "right". They're just different processes and have different results. Linux tends to use the "many eyes" procedure to attempt to make up for the shortcomings of their process, but it's not a complete solution. FreeBSD just accepts the slower development cycle of their choice. (Which I have no problem with personally.)
I am not fan of Blockbuster and their tactics which include blatant lying to their customers and potential customers about their "no late fees" crap.
:-)
I haven't entirely figured out why people got so worked up over this. As soon as they introduced the new policy, I went up to the counter and asked "So, what does this mean?" I got back the straight answer that it gives you up to two extra weeks to return your videos. I didn't even have to ask them to elaborate on what happens after that. It's just like the library: You pay for the item.
Now talk to me about their previous policy of staff failing to note the return of a 2 day item before 12 PM, and I'll happily dig in to the money grubbing bastards.
The article suggests areas like exposition floors where they don't want to run extra wires. The problem is that this seems backwards. On an exposition floor you should have power first, then ethernet second. It makes more sense to wire things with WIFI in environments like that.
Honestly, the best solution for users that don't need that much horsepower is to switch to thin clients. With the thin clients, power consumption is easily under 12 watts per desktop, users can be centrally managed, and desktop horsepower can be upgraded in a single system replacement.
I used to admin a Citrix network, and I have to say that the idea makes a lot of sense. Most of the issues with the setup stemmed from the fact that we were on NT 3.51 and not from the fact that our users were on a shared system. Users *still* ran their little "bouncing sheep" and "frog in a blender" type of programs (not a good thing, but necessary to allow the users to be "happy" with their system), and we saved money on hardware, support costs, and power usage. Can't get much better than that!
Poor little rover. We should send someone up to push it out. I volunteer!
Modern computers go into various power saving modes when not in use. As a result, I'm using the 100 watt figure as a baseline average. Peak power usage on today's machines can easily get as high as 200-300 watts (thanks to the "latest and greatest" video cards).
If you use WIFI - you are probably on batteries
Not necessarily. As it stands today, power outlets are plentiful in homes, offices, conference centers, and other public locations. Ethernet ports are not so plentiful. So if I have WIFI at home, am I going to bother stretching my CAT5 cable across the living room so I can work on the couch? No! I'm going to plug into the wall next to the couch, and use WIFI for connectivity.
Same thing with conference centers and expositions. Why woould anyone install new ethernet equipment when the floor already has power plugs everywhere? It's much easier just to set up WIFI for the various kiosks.
I'm kind of going back and forth on this in my head. On one hand, reducing power to 12 watts sounds like a good thing. On another hand, a modern Pentium processor chews through way more than that on a medium load. Would the reduction is system performance be acceptable to the cost savings? Well, let's do some calcs. Let's assume that a modern PC with a CRT takes a constant 100 watts. (On the high side, I know.) Let's figure that out across 30 days:
30 * 24 * 100 / 1000 = 72 KWh/month
At the rates in California (some of the highest in the nation) we get a cost per computer at:
72 * $0.096 = $6.912
For 10,000 computers, that comes to:
10,000 * $6.912 = $69,120
Now let's say that we use PoE and get the computers down to 12 watts. Some of the energy is lost in transmission, so we'll say that we consume 20 watts per computer:
30 * 24 * 20 / 1000 = 14.4 KWh/month
14.4 * $0.096 = $1.382 per computer
10,000 * $1.382 = $13,820
Those look like pretty nice savings, but are they actually sufficient to warrant the switch over to a slower machine? In a company with 10,000 PCs, the difference works out to the cost of a few employess on staff. Not pocket change, but not massive savings either. But what if you just go around and replace all the CRTs with LCDs? Well, then the gap probably won't look as interesting, and employers are doubtful to worry about the savings of further power reductions.
is 35 watts enough to run most laptops?
Considering that my iBook uses a 65 watt charger, I'd say that 35 is probably sufficient for anything short of the "Desktop Replacement Laptops" (relly more of a portable desktop). My guess is that the laptop will most often run below 35 watts, then trickle-charge the excess to the battery. If the computer needs extra power in the short term, the battery will provide it.
I was thinking that this had to be one of the most brilliant ideas ever, right up until I realized that users are moving toward WIFI for connectivity. If this had srrived two to three years ago, we might all be using it now. But at this juncture? Likely to be ignored. :-/
Sorry, ignore this. I misread the grandparent as saying that he couldn't afford Tiger. That'll teach me to post before coffee. :-)
If you just bought the Mac Mini, you may be able to get a free upgrade. Check Apple's website. If that doesn't work, check out the deal in my sig. :-)
Doesn't matter. Apple's registration for "Tiger" is there, and TigerDirect's registration for "Tiger" isn't. I'd say that they don't have a leg to stand on. :-)
That is called a *sig*. You can turn it off in your preferences if it annoys you. But ignoring the opinion in favor of attacking the sig is considered poor form around here and will generally get you modded down. Now go back and read again.
Yep Apple has the tradmark of Tiger and a few other big cats.
s tate=53slb2.12.1">here.
You are correct sir. The registration can be seen a href="http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&
Although one does have to wonder about this registration. Shouldn't that one also "overlap" with Tiger Direct's business?
This and other items prove we need better goverment checks on both IP and trademarks. Its a 19 century system trying to be used in the 21 century. It not working!
I don't know why people keep spouting this bit o' nonsense. How can you say the system is not working when it hasn't even been tested yet? Every time someone *threatens* to sue, everyone complains that the system is broken! Newsflash: Any idiot can threaten. If you back down, then you can't complain at the system, can you?
They've been using the name to sell computer products since 1987.
Have not. They've been using the mark "Tiger Direct", which legally isn't the same thing.
Google is wonderful for these types of things. Here's a top rated result:
Highlights Generally: [...] In general, limits Internet service providers from copyright infringement liability for simply transmitting information over the Internet.
Section 202 of the DMCA describes this.
Registering a trademark is not a requirement to enforcing your mark, but it certainly does help make your case. The problem is that if they don't have "Tiger" registered (which it looks like they don't from my own search), then they have a burden of proof to show that they are deserving of the mark.
I wish there was something in between a $70 DSL and a $1000+ t1 line. Too bad there is not a $200 DSL package that guarenteed 750k/second upstream, like splitting a t1 line.
I've heard of full T1's at about $500/month, and fractional T1's for far less. Talk to your local providers and see who can give you the best deal. The setup will still cost you though.
Hey, is it possible to buy 2 DSL lines and double the bandwith?
Just go for a business class connection. Most phone companies have symetrical business DSL connections of 2MBits and up.
I get a kick out of this part in particular: