the block is a chunk of metal.
on
Hack Your Car
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
For someone who knows so much about BMW's F1 racing habits, you should know better than this...
There were no similarities between the engine parts aside from the block. The pistons, connectors, cylinder heads etc. are all substantially beefed up and radically different in the F1 engine, obviously.
Similarly, in NHRA racing, they use big block engines that probably ran 200 hp in their stock version, but are quite capable of running multi-thousand in NHRA.
And.02% life? That sounds pretty generous. Lets assume the average BMW engine block can run 30 years (with proper maintenance). At 2 hours per day for those 30 years (thats probably really low) that is 43800 hours of use..02% of that 8.76 hours. I doubt most F1 engines will run that long without a major overhaul or replacement.
with many of these chip mods, your car will no longer pass emissions inspections.
A car engine is a complex, finely tuned piece of equipment where every variable is carefully thought through - and tested the hell out of over several years by their engineers.
You can't expect to go modifying things willy-nilly and expect only gains without losses in other areas - particularly environmental and reliability. This is especially true where you're modifying things like engine tables.
unlike the moon, mars is so far away that driving the rover in real-time isn't very feasible (you tell it to move, then 30-40 minutes later you'll get your image back showing the result).
So the latest mars rovers are semi-autonomous. Mission control gives them a destination, and the rover finds its own way there.
Now the reason for the slow speed has a bit to do with control theory. One of the most accurate ones we've developed to date works like this: Plot a path to the destination using currently available data (from your cameras, range finders etc). Take the first step on that path. Halt. Look at your data, plot a new path to the ultimate destination. Take step. Halt. And so on.
This system allows the rovers to navigate on their own pretty well and deal with obstacles as they come across them (which may not have been obvious in the first path plot).
Humans do essentially the same thing as we navigate in our world except we call it "reflexes".
The slowness with the rovers has to do with their low power consumption limiting both motor power and processing power and just plain ole' caution. Mars has alot less sun than the moon does so solar panels aren't as efficient. And when you've got an $800 million pair of machines... you want them to take their time to get to their destinations. Especially since getting results takes so long anyway.
early computers often worked in decimal (!) at the hardware level. They did this by having different voltages on the lines representing different values, and then reading those voltages.
Getting this right is difficult though because of the hardware involved is slow, complicated and has a tendency to fail. Errors are more difficult to correct and more common...
at that speed air becomes very different due to frictional heating. the aerodynamics are also somewhat different than supersonic flight which are much different than subsonic.
the main problems are heat though. the SR-71 flew around mach 3 and heat was its biggest enemy. also keeping the engines going at that speed was a challenge - few jet engines operate with those air speeds without self destructing.
using programs like neatimage... other higher end cameras automatically subtract CCD noise patterns during processing.
the left turns were always illegal
on
Superbowling
·
· Score: 1
thats not new, nor are they legal when the train isn't coming.
However, having lived in houston for 18 years and returning there at least once a month, I can say that houston drivers are the most incompetent, impatient and downright insane drivers ive ever encountered. They would rather make illegal turns than circle around a couple of blocks with legal right turns as downtown requires to save themselves 30 seconds (which will probably be eaten up waiting at light anyway)
It doesnt help that HPD didn't really enforce the no left turns laws downtown before the rail was built.
"Programming! Programming!" - Any quality CS program is only about 1/3rd programming related. 1/3rd is theory, and the other 1/3rd is hardware architecture. Usually you'll have a few advanced classes which bring it all together (like operating systems design). A well educated computer scientist can switch languages with ease depending on the needs of the work and learn new ones quickly. In the CS world, programming is just a means to an end. I'm 1 semester shy of graduating with a degree in it and doing the programming is perhaps the least interesting part that I thankfully, spend little time in. I'm more interested in solving problems with *design* than typing away lines of code.
"There's no jobs!" - Yeah. Maybe if you don't have a CS degree which focuses on the *SCIENCE* part of it. There is a quite a demand for people in the engineering and scientific world who can design (as opposed to simply "program") advanced algorithms and computation software. Even if your speciality isn't scientific computing there is still a large number of jobs waiting for people with CS degrees out of well known schools in a variety of areas. IBM's making a big push for CS grads.
"*somethingsomething* IT! " - CS is *not* IT. Its like comparing the doctor's receptionist to the doctor. I'm not belittling the receptionist or the IT people - both the doctors and the CS folks need their records/networks organized and maintained with skill - but they do fundamentally different things.
There's a huge difference in being a sysadmin and being a computer scientist.
It's like comparing a receptionist to the doctor. Both have their own skills which are related (and necessary to each other's jobs) but they do vastly different jobs.
The computer scientist will require much more theory and math and knowledge of the logical and electrical architecture of the system at hand.
That would be one sad little lab. At the time the 286 was around, there were plenty of (dozens in fact) of scientific computing architectures vastly more advanced than the 286. They cost quite a bit more, too.
It wasn't really until the Pentium Pro came around that the processor architecture in 'mainstream' PC computing had caught up to the big boys. Since then, intel and AMD have largely been driving the cutting edge. This drove alot of them out of business, but even today there are niche markets who need serious I/O performance that intel machines don't deliver.
However, I'm a little sad that NASA puts all the hype on Mars alone. Sure, exploring Mars is cool and potentially useful for future colonisation programs, but I reckon that planets such as Venus (to understand how the runaway greehouse gas effect happened), Europa (to map whatever's under the ice, possibly an ocean teeming with life) or Io are much more interesting from a science point of view.
There are missions in the works for these planets. It takes several years to build and test probes. There are also missions to one of the least studied planets in the system, Mercury, on the drawing board.
its considerably darker and smoother than the usual dusty red rust we're used to seeing and what spirit sent pictures back of. Take a look at the smoothness of it and the peculiar channels and grooves that have been carved into it.
On mars at least, we've never seen anything like it.
I do not understand Intel nor other companies that do not try to develop anything besides x86
There are lots of architectures in use besides x86 from many different companies...macs don't use x86, nor do most embedded devices or really anything besides intel (and their clones) PCs. On the other hand, there are millions of PCs out there in a variety of applications and not just as desktops.
instead of coming up with something new, Intel tries to patch its products with more crap.
Backwards compatability is why intel has stayed in business. This is why x86 is still around. The sheer number of programs written for x86 would cost hundreds of billions to change architectures. It isn't just a matter of recompiling - many programs, especially older ones, rely on certain features and issues that are found only in x86.
When Apple realized that MOS Technolgies' clone of 6800 was not the best solution, the architecture was replaced with a new one that better suited Apple's goals.
Apple has nowhere near the market share as intel does and their hardware has been tailored to a different crowd - mainly the home and graphic arts niche. x86 is everywhere - not just under your desk. There are billions of processes relying on it. To dump it outright would wreak havoc.
I should never say "no" or "nothing" when it comes to chip architecture... somewhere in the world there is a family of niche devices that do things in weird ways for their own reasons.
and is now common. These days it usually works by maintaining a history table of past branch behavior. Generally if you've had alot of branches before, you're in a loop, and statistically are likely to stay in the loop.
You can also go back and "fix" instructions to an extent (and not in all cases) while in the pipeline in case of incorrect branching. x86 sort of sucks for this though because of the variable length instructions.
Alot of computer science is based on those kind of statistics. You see it in memory management as well. Most data structures are created and quickly destroyed. But those that aren't tend to stay around for a very long time and not point to quickly created and destroyed ones.
Are you referring to "clock speed" perhaps? Clock speed is only one part of what determines performance, along with about a dozen other things I can think of.
No processor, barring a complete architecture change (in which case its a different processor entirely) will double its performance simply by doubling the clock speed.
It really depends on how you define performance too and what your software is doing. Doing heavy I/O? Processor has little to nothing to do with I/O - it just hands it off to the bus and I/O controllers to take care of and then does something else while waiting for the interrupt.
Generally one of the best processor architecture books out there is Computer Organization and Design. It does assume an amount of digital logic design (flipflops, clock, multiplexors and other basics) though it does have an appendix which briefly glosses over those. Honestly, to really "get" it you need an education in it.
they've developed a mobile data forensics lab where technicians download your harddrives, copy your CDs and everything else to their own systems and then return the equipment to you. The process takes time, obviously, but the van is loaded with equipment.
That's not unusual. Many countries with religious foundings often consider an attack on the State to be an attack on the religion. Israel is a Jewish state so a criticism of its policies may well be viewed as an attack on judaism by many citizens who view israel and judaism to be the same thing.
Similarly, countries with a strictly muslim government often view an attack on their government as an attack on islam. In the middle east, religion is government and government is religion - an attack on either will affect the other just as much.
This is an unusual concept in the west where religion and government separate themselves more or less, so you have to view it with some cultural and historical context.
Slashdot Mirror
For someone who knows so much about BMW's F1 racing habits, you should know better than this...
.02% life? That sounds pretty generous. Lets assume the average BMW engine block can run 30 years (with proper maintenance). At 2 hours per day for those 30 years (thats probably really low) that is 43800 hours of use. .02% of that 8.76 hours. I doubt most F1 engines will run that long without a major overhaul or replacement.
There were no similarities between the engine parts aside from the block. The pistons, connectors, cylinder heads etc. are all substantially beefed up and radically different in the F1 engine, obviously.
Similarly, in NHRA racing, they use big block engines that probably ran 200 hp in their stock version, but are quite capable of running multi-thousand in NHRA.
And
with many of these chip mods, your car will no longer pass emissions inspections.
A car engine is a complex, finely tuned piece of equipment where every variable is carefully thought through - and tested the hell out of over several years by their engineers.
You can't expect to go modifying things willy-nilly and expect only gains without losses in other areas - particularly environmental and reliability. This is especially true where you're modifying things like engine tables.
unlike the moon, mars is so far away that driving the rover in real-time isn't very feasible (you tell it to move, then 30-40 minutes later you'll get your image back showing the result).
So the latest mars rovers are semi-autonomous. Mission control gives them a destination, and the rover finds its own way there.
Now the reason for the slow speed has a bit to do with control theory. One of the most accurate ones we've developed to date works like this: Plot a path to the destination using currently available data (from your cameras, range finders etc). Take the first step on that path. Halt. Look at your data, plot a new path to the ultimate destination. Take step. Halt. And so on.
This system allows the rovers to navigate on their own pretty well and deal with obstacles as they come across them (which may not have been obvious in the first path plot).
Humans do essentially the same thing as we navigate in our world except we call it "reflexes".
The slowness with the rovers has to do with their low power consumption limiting both motor power and processing power and just plain ole' caution. Mars has alot less sun than the moon does so solar panels aren't as efficient. And when you've got an $800 million pair of machines... you want them to take their time to get to their destinations. Especially since getting results takes so long anyway.
early computers often worked in decimal (!) at the hardware level. They did this by having different voltages on the lines representing different values, and then reading those voltages.
Getting this right is difficult though because of the hardware involved is slow, complicated and has a tendency to fail. Errors are more difficult to correct and more common...
at that speed air becomes very different due to frictional heating. the aerodynamics are also somewhat different than supersonic flight which are much different than subsonic.
the main problems are heat though. the SR-71 flew around mach 3 and heat was its biggest enemy. also keeping the engines going at that speed was a challenge - few jet engines operate with those air speeds without self destructing.
Like Visual Torture++? Then I would agree.
to provide fodder for ignorant slashdotters to question the value of research by people who have far more knowledge about a topic than they do.
using programs like neatimage... other higher end cameras automatically subtract CCD noise patterns during processing.
However, having lived in houston for 18 years and returning there at least once a month, I can say that houston drivers are the most incompetent, impatient and downright insane drivers ive ever encountered. They would rather make illegal turns than circle around a couple of blocks with legal right turns as downtown requires to save themselves 30 seconds (which will probably be eaten up waiting at light anyway)
It doesnt help that HPD didn't really enforce the no left turns laws downtown before the rail was built.
There's some issues I read over and over...
"Programming! Programming!" - Any quality CS program is only about 1/3rd programming related. 1/3rd is theory, and the other 1/3rd is hardware architecture. Usually you'll have a few advanced classes which bring it all together (like operating systems design). A well educated computer scientist can switch languages with ease depending on the needs of the work and learn new ones quickly. In the CS world, programming is just a means to an end. I'm 1 semester shy of graduating with a degree in it and doing the programming is perhaps the least interesting part that I thankfully, spend little time in. I'm more interested in solving problems with *design* than typing away lines of code.
"There's no jobs!" - Yeah. Maybe if you don't have a CS degree which focuses on the *SCIENCE* part of it. There is a quite a demand for people in the engineering and scientific world who can design (as opposed to simply "program") advanced algorithms and computation software. Even if your speciality isn't scientific computing there is still a large number of jobs waiting for people with CS degrees out of well known schools in a variety of areas. IBM's making a big push for CS grads.
"*somethingsomething* IT! " - CS is *not* IT. Its like comparing the doctor's receptionist to the doctor. I'm not belittling the receptionist or the IT people - both the doctors and the CS folks need their records/networks organized and maintained with skill - but they do fundamentally different things.
There's a huge difference in being a sysadmin and being a computer scientist.
It's like comparing a receptionist to the doctor. Both have their own skills which are related (and necessary to each other's jobs) but they do vastly different jobs.
The computer scientist will require much more theory and math and knowledge of the logical and electrical architecture of the system at hand.
all you had was a 286 @ 16 MHz to use
That would be one sad little lab. At the time the 286 was around, there were plenty of (dozens in fact) of scientific computing architectures vastly more advanced than the 286. They cost quite a bit more, too.
It wasn't really until the Pentium Pro came around that the processor architecture in 'mainstream' PC computing had caught up to the big boys. Since then, intel and AMD have largely been driving the cutting edge. This drove alot of them out of business, but even today there are niche markets who need serious I/O performance that intel machines don't deliver.
Because some of these are in the "build phase". Like Mercury Messenger which will spend time around venus before moving on.
Messenger's Site
However, I'm a little sad that NASA puts all the hype on Mars alone. Sure, exploring Mars is cool and potentially useful for future colonisation programs, but I reckon that planets such as Venus (to understand how the runaway greehouse gas effect happened), Europa (to map whatever's under the ice, possibly an ocean teeming with life) or Io are much more interesting from a science point of view.
There are missions in the works for these planets. It takes several years to build and test probes. There are also missions to one of the least studied planets in the system, Mercury, on the drawing board.
its considerably darker and smoother than the usual dusty red rust we're used to seeing and what spirit sent pictures back of. Take a look at the smoothness of it and the peculiar channels and grooves that have been carved into it.
On mars at least, we've never seen anything like it.
it has apparently landed on its side petal. That's okay, because it was designed to flip itself to an upright position no matter how it lands.
I do not understand Intel nor other companies that do not try to develop anything besides x86
There are lots of architectures in use besides x86 from many different companies...macs don't use x86, nor do most embedded devices or really anything besides intel (and their clones) PCs. On the other hand, there are millions of PCs out there in a variety of applications and not just as desktops.
instead of coming up with something new, Intel tries to patch its products with more crap.
Backwards compatability is why intel has stayed in business. This is why x86 is still around. The sheer number of programs written for x86 would cost hundreds of billions to change architectures. It isn't just a matter of recompiling - many programs, especially older ones, rely on certain features and issues that are found only in x86.
When Apple realized that MOS Technolgies' clone of 6800 was not the best solution, the architecture was replaced with a new one that better suited Apple's goals.
Apple has nowhere near the market share as intel does and their hardware has been tailored to a different crowd - mainly the home and graphic arts niche. x86 is everywhere - not just under your desk. There are billions of processes relying on it. To dump it outright would wreak havoc.
I should never say "no" or "nothing" when it comes to chip architecture... somewhere in the world there is a family of niche devices that do things in weird ways for their own reasons.
Stay away from x86 if you're just starting out...
You can also go back and "fix" instructions to an extent (and not in all cases) while in the pipeline in case of incorrect branching. x86 sort of sucks for this though because of the variable length instructions.
Alot of computer science is based on those kind of statistics. You see it in memory management as well. Most data structures are created and quickly destroyed. But those that aren't tend to stay around for a very long time and not point to quickly created and destroyed ones.
No processor, barring a complete architecture change (in which case its a different processor entirely) will double its performance simply by doubling the clock speed.
It really depends on how you define performance too and what your software is doing. Doing heavy I/O? Processor has little to nothing to do with I/O - it just hands it off to the bus and I/O controllers to take care of and then does something else while waiting for the interrupt.
Generally one of the best processor architecture books out there is Computer Organization and Design. It does assume an amount of digital logic design (flipflops, clock, multiplexors and other basics) though it does have an appendix which briefly glosses over those. Honestly, to really "get" it you need an education in it.
Besides, there's no way they can prove that anyway unless you give them a receipt for the receipt.
It's called a signature
they've developed a mobile data forensics lab where technicians download your harddrives, copy your CDs and everything else to their own systems and then return the equipment to you. The process takes time, obviously, but the van is loaded with equipment.
news story about it
That's not unusual. Many countries with religious foundings often consider an attack on the State to be an attack on the religion. Israel is a Jewish state so a criticism of its policies may well be viewed as an attack on judaism by many citizens who view israel and judaism to be the same thing.
Similarly, countries with a strictly muslim government often view an attack on their government as an attack on islam. In the middle east, religion is government and government is religion - an attack on either will affect the other just as much.
This is an unusual concept in the west where religion and government separate themselves more or less, so you have to view it with some cultural and historical context.