I remember that, it's what they used to plot the South Atlantic Anomaly and answer the question of what was causing HST to dip in its orbit every so often and why the ISS was being hit with unusually high plasma energies every time it passed over the same region. There were orbital anomalies, not least of which the SAO - which they were absolutely not expecting - and a glitch with the GPS system meant that the spacecraft apparently entered hyperspace (more than once) causing the onboard guidance and orientation system to crash.
oh, and up until 1928 paper money in England was almost exclusively hemp fibre, then the Bradbury was issued in 1914 which was a hemp/cotton mix. These days it's a mix of wood pulp, cotton and flax.
pretty much every public document printed before ~1893 was printed on vellum (animal hide) or hemp (and 90% of all paper sold up that point was made from hemp fibre). Statutes in the UK are actually still printed for archive on vellum. Galideo wrote on hemp. The first two drafts of the US Declaration of Independence were written on hemp, the copy that was signed was parchment.
Simply put, wood pulp paper needs some pretty nasty chemicals to process, that weren't available 100-odd years ago. Hemp? A shredder, a bottle of bleach (if you want white instead of yelow/green) and a press, that's it.
I can't see how that would work, there's only one geostationary track - and you only have to go a mile either side of it to be well out of sync (and no longer geostationary). The only way I can think of to keep relative station with a co-orbiting body is to lead or follow it in EXACTLY the same orbit. That would be a feat of orbital mechanics never before achieved. Even communication satellites have to carry propellant in order to correct their orbits periodically, and no two follow the exact same orbital track - as I think is what is being proposed in TFS.
yeah, modern Android phones have no chance in hell in keeping up with a dual core APU in a laptop, though - in benchmarks. They might be faster in specific use cases, like being phones, but database crunching? Hope you got a good fridge.
specific use cases which would be classed as mundane for a ten million Dollar rack of blades, easily done with a box of donated mobile phone parts otherwise destined for the landfill. I've been saying this for a couple days now, you're the first one to actually post something in agreement with what I've said.
ANRS can be left by the side of the road to happysnap every single vehicle that passes and process the number plate. In fact, Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Police use this very technique to issue random fixed penalties on a straight stretch of the A52 where it is so easy to break the speed limit, you're not even aware of having done it. That being said, how can you defend or fight something you're not even aware you've done (and those cameras only go off if you go too fast, right?
no, the problem is the pharmaceutical industry (in the case of opiates, which USED TO BE LEGAL) and the paper industry (WHICH USED TO BE MADE FROM HEMP) stifling competition with the weight of lobbying and propaganda - which you have swallowed hook, line and sinker.
somebody did, that was quickly legislated out. Now there's a prescribed layout and texture for number plates (at least in the UK), Photoblocker, Laserveil and similar products specifically designed to defeat flash photography (ie GATSO speed cameras) are strictly illegal.
From Wikipedia, links are valid:
Number plates must be displayed in accordance with The Road Vehicles (Display of Registration Marks) Regulations 2001.
All vehicles manufactured after 1 January 1973 must display number plates of reflex-reflecting material, white at the front and yellow at the rear, with black characters. This type of reflecting plate was permitted as an option from 1968: many vehicles first registered before 1973 may therefore carry the white/yellow reflective plates and, where they were first registered during or after 1968, they may have carried such plates since new.
In addition, characters on number plates purchased from 1 September 2001 must use a mandatory typeface and conform to set specifications as to width, height, stroke, spacing, and margins. The physical characteristics of the number plates are set out in British Standard BS AU 145d, which specifies visibility, strength, and reflectivity.
Number plates with smaller characters are only permitted on imported vehicles, and then only if they do not have European Community Whole Vehicle Type Approval and their construction/design cannot accommodate standard size number plates.
The industry standard size front number plate is 520 mm × 111 mm (20½" × 4"). Rear plates are either the same size, or 285 mm × 203 mm (approx 11"x8") or 533 mm × 152 mm (approx 21"x6"). There is no specified legal size for a number plate. For example, the rear number plate of a Rover 75 is 635 mm x 175 mm.
The material of UK number plates must either comply with British Standard BS AU 145d, which states BSI number plates must be marked on the plate with the BSI logo and the name and postcode of the manufacturer and the supplier of the plates or
"(b) any other relevant standard or specification recognised for use in an EEA State and which, when in use, offers a performance equivalent to that offered by a plate complying with the British Standard specification, and which, in either case, is marked with the number (or such other information as is necessary to permit identification) of that standard or specification."
as specified in http://www.legislation.gov.uk/... The Road Vehicles (Display of Registration Marks) Regulations 2001 (Statutory Instrument 2001 Number 561), Schedule 2.
Older British plates had white, grey or silver characters on a black background. This style of plate was phased out in 1972, and is now legal to be carried only on vehicles first registered before 1 January 1973. A vehicle which was first registered on or after 1 January 1973 shall be treated as if it was first registered before that date if it was constructed before 1 January 1973 (as specified in http://www.legislation.gov.uk/... PART IV MISCELLANEOUS).
they're nuking keys bought from them! They're not even trying to validate them as having been sold directly to end users, what they're doing is killing serial batches.
In 1999, the most recent year for which data are available, more than 6 million crashes occurred on U.S. highways, killing over 41,000 people and injuring nearly 3.4 million others. Rear-end collisions accounted for almost one-third of these crashes1 (1.848 million) and 11.8 percent of multivehicle fatal crashes (1,923). Commercial vehicles were involved in 40 percent of these fatal rear-end collisions (770), even though commercial vehicles only comprised 3 percent of vehicles and 7 percent of miles traveled on the Nation's highways. Between 1992 and 1998, the percentage of rear-end collisions involving all vehicles increased by 19 percent. In 1999, 114 fatal crashes in work zones involved rear-end collisions, about 30 percent of the multivehicle fatal work zone crashes. Of these, 71 collisions (62 percent) involved commercial vehicles.
In the past 2 years, the National Transportation Safety Board investigated nine rear-end collisions in which 20 people died and 181 were injured (three accidents involved buses and one accident involved 24 vehicles). Common to all nine accidents was the rear following vehicle driver's degraded perception of traffic conditions ahead. During its investigation of the rear-end collisions, the Safety Board examined the striking vehicles and did not find mechanical defects that would have contributed to the accidents. In each collision, the driver of the striking vehicle tested negative for alcohol or drugs. Some of these collisions occurred because atmospheric conditions, such as sun glare or fog and smoke, interfered with the driver's ability to detect slower moving or stopped traffic ahead. In other accidents, the driver did not notice that traffic had come to a halt due to congestion at work zones or to other accidents. Still others involved drivers who were distracted or fatigued.
Its the cops' job to put themselves into "dangerous" situations in order to protect the public.
What a load of bollocks. IT IS NOT a cops job to put his own life on the line to protect ANY member of the public. HIS JOB is to uphold the Law UP TO the point where he knowingly puts his own life in danger - at which point, his own life becomes his single priority.
YOU DO NOT have the right to be protected by anybody else. Your own personal safety is your own personal problem. Should you choose to employ someone else to protect you, they do so on the understanding between you, which usually precludes them taking a bullet for you and remains within the letter of the Law.
The fix here would be to issue a firmware update that disables that slow 500MB*, and update the labelling on the card to reflect the fact that it's a 3.5GB card not a 4GB.
*Ever run RAM of two different speeds in a desktop? Wonder where those crashes are coming from? It's not a case of the faster RAM waiting for the slower RAM, the slower stuff is tripping over trying to keep up with the faster stuff. It doesn't work in the same way as a PATA channel where the bus runs at the speed of the slowest device.
no, I did not say that. The claim is that these cards, in the first instance, are being sold as 4GB cards. That's as may be, but the top 500MB is deliberately crippled (to turn a 980 into a 970? I don't get the logic) to the point where it can and does cause repeated and repeatable crashes when the 3.5GB ceiling is met under certain conditions, which is ENTIRELY doable when you have a multiple screen setup. That is the issue.
depends, what's your data worth to you sitting on a drive that's not spinning while you wait for your shiny new WD Red?
(I use "obsolete" commodity components in building my NAS gear. My current one uses a 2-port SATA riser on a Via Eden board, mounted in a Shuttle XPC case (equipped with a 100W PSU) and running LAMP docuwiki headless. Total hardware worth: £12 for the SATA riser, total cost: + about £200 for the mainboard and case back in 2006. Just because it's obsolete doesn't mean I should simply bin it).
What about those users (more than one, anecdotes are data not anomalies!) whose use causes the GPUs to attempt to address more than 3.5GB VRAM causing them to crash out? If what NVidia are claiming here according to TFS is accurate, then this should not be happening. It is happening, the 3.5GB roof is being hit hard and people are feeling it. What say you, NVidia?
heat? We're talking about a technology reuse in places such as rural India and middle Africa where daytime temperatures often exceed 45C, I don't think they're going to be overly concerned about something they're a: not pushing that hard anyway - use cases for these things are going to be about as mundane as GDOs and routers - and b: costs them next to nothing to obtain and deploy. If your use case requires investment in fluid pumped cooling I would say that your use case also calls for something with a bit more pep than an ARM SOC.
I get the difference bwtween a 40W brick for a laptop and half a rack of isolators and switchgear delivering 17kW for a five Petabyte cluster, I've dealt with both. I don't imagine for one minute that TFA is talking about competing with Big Iron either in terms of power efficiency or in terms of raw computing power. It's talking about using existing hardware that would otherwise find its way into landfill simply because Johnny Facebook has no further use for it after buying his iPhone 20z, for processes where that hardware can be proven in its environment rather than $Third_World_Telecoms_Startup having to deal with seven-digit sums in maintenance contracts and leasing and IBM.
if compute efficiency were really an issue, we'd all be using RasPis and running RISC OS. As it is, we are all, each and every one of us, using what is available to us "until something we can afford which is in our own mind better comes along". Right now, personally speaking, the most efficient thing for me to do is keep my AMD APU until it burns out and THEN worrying about specifying my next hardware purchase. I'm not about to go buy the latest greatest >1.0-efficient process platform just because it's there because I simply CANNOT AFFORD IT. I'll use what is available to me NOW.
Slashdot Mirror
1 mile=1.6km
So you're way off the mark.
I remember that, it's what they used to plot the South Atlantic Anomaly and answer the question of what was causing HST to dip in its orbit every so often and why the ISS was being hit with unusually high plasma energies every time it passed over the same region. There were orbital anomalies, not least of which the SAO - which they were absolutely not expecting - and a glitch with the GPS system meant that the spacecraft apparently entered hyperspace (more than once) causing the onboard guidance and orientation system to crash.
oh, and up until 1928 paper money in England was almost exclusively hemp fibre, then the Bradbury was issued in 1914 which was a hemp/cotton mix. These days it's a mix of wood pulp, cotton and flax.
pretty much every public document printed before ~1893 was printed on vellum (animal hide) or hemp (and 90% of all paper sold up that point was made from hemp fibre). Statutes in the UK are actually still printed for archive on vellum. Galideo wrote on hemp. The first two drafts of the US Declaration of Independence were written on hemp, the copy that was signed was parchment.
Simply put, wood pulp paper needs some pretty nasty chemicals to process, that weren't available 100-odd years ago. Hemp? A shredder, a bottle of bleach (if you want white instead of yelow/green) and a press, that's it.
I can't see how that would work, there's only one geostationary track - and you only have to go a mile either side of it to be well out of sync (and no longer geostationary). The only way I can think of to keep relative station with a co-orbiting body is to lead or follow it in EXACTLY the same orbit. That would be a feat of orbital mechanics never before achieved. Even communication satellites have to carry propellant in order to correct their orbits periodically, and no two follow the exact same orbital track - as I think is what is being proposed in TFS.
yeah, modern Android phones have no chance in hell in keeping up with a dual core APU in a laptop, though - in benchmarks. They might be faster in specific use cases, like being phones, but database crunching? Hope you got a good fridge.
specific use cases which would be classed as mundane for a ten million Dollar rack of blades, easily done with a box of donated mobile phone parts otherwise destined for the landfill. I've been saying this for a couple days now, you're the first one to actually post something in agreement with what I've said.
no it's a demonstration that one hundred percent of rear end collisions are caused by the lead car going SLOWER than the traffic behind.
LEARN HOW TO FUCKING READ.
ANRS can be left by the side of the road to happysnap every single vehicle that passes and process the number plate. In fact, Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Police use this very technique to issue random fixed penalties on a straight stretch of the A52 where it is so easy to break the speed limit, you're not even aware of having done it. That being said, how can you defend or fight something you're not even aware you've done (and those cameras only go off if you go too fast, right?
Right?)?
no, the problem is the pharmaceutical industry (in the case of opiates, which USED TO BE LEGAL) and the paper industry (WHICH USED TO BE MADE FROM HEMP) stifling competition with the weight of lobbying and propaganda - which you have swallowed hook, line and sinker.
somebody did, that was quickly legislated out. Now there's a prescribed layout and texture for number plates (at least in the UK), Photoblocker, Laserveil and similar products specifically designed to defeat flash photography (ie GATSO speed cameras) are strictly illegal.
From Wikipedia, links are valid:
Number plates must be displayed in accordance with The Road Vehicles (Display of Registration Marks) Regulations 2001.
All vehicles manufactured after 1 January 1973 must display number plates of reflex-reflecting material, white at the front and yellow at the rear, with black characters. This type of reflecting plate was permitted as an option from 1968: many vehicles first registered before 1973 may therefore carry the white/yellow reflective plates and, where they were first registered during or after 1968, they may have carried such plates since new.
In addition, characters on number plates purchased from 1 September 2001 must use a mandatory typeface and conform to set specifications as to width, height, stroke, spacing, and margins. The physical characteristics of the number plates are set out in British Standard BS AU 145d, which specifies visibility, strength, and reflectivity.
Number plates with smaller characters are only permitted on imported vehicles, and then only if they do not have European Community Whole Vehicle Type Approval and their construction/design cannot accommodate standard size number plates.
The industry standard size front number plate is 520 mm × 111 mm (20½" × 4"). Rear plates are either the same size, or 285 mm × 203 mm (approx 11"x8") or 533 mm × 152 mm (approx 21"x6"). There is no specified legal size for a number plate. For example, the rear number plate of a Rover 75 is 635 mm x 175 mm.
The material of UK number plates must either comply with British Standard BS AU 145d, which states BSI number plates must be marked on the plate with the BSI logo and the name and postcode of the manufacturer and the supplier of the plates or
"(b) any other relevant standard or specification recognised for use in an EEA State and which, when in use, offers a performance equivalent to that offered by a plate complying with the British Standard specification, and which, in either case, is marked with the number (or such other information as is necessary to permit identification) of that standard or specification."
as specified in http://www.legislation.gov.uk/... The Road Vehicles (Display of Registration Marks) Regulations 2001 (Statutory Instrument 2001 Number 561), Schedule 2.
Older British plates had white, grey or silver characters on a black background. This style of plate was phased out in 1972, and is now legal to be carried only on vehicles first registered before 1 January 1973. A vehicle which was first registered on or after 1 January 1973 shall be treated as if it was first registered before that date if it was constructed before 1 January 1973 (as specified in http://www.legislation.gov.uk/... PART IV MISCELLANEOUS).
they're nuking keys bought from them! They're not even trying to validate them as having been sold directly to end users, what they're doing is killing serial batches.
When a publisher can revoke a legitimately (or at least, good-faith) purchased key, what hope does the consumer have when his OS goes subscription?
Fuck it. If Gearbox pull this shit with Homeworld I'll just stick with my original boxed copy and forego the new content.
In 1999, the most recent year for which data are available, more than 6 million crashes occurred on U.S. highways, killing over 41,000 people and injuring nearly 3.4 million others. Rear-end collisions accounted for almost one-third of these crashes1 (1.848 million) and 11.8 percent of multivehicle fatal crashes (1,923). Commercial vehicles were involved in 40 percent of these fatal rear-end collisions (770), even though commercial vehicles only comprised 3 percent of vehicles and 7 percent of miles traveled on the Nation's highways. Between 1992 and 1998, the percentage of rear-end collisions involving all vehicles increased by 19 percent. In 1999, 114 fatal crashes in work zones involved rear-end collisions, about 30 percent of the multivehicle fatal work zone crashes. Of these, 71 collisions (62 percent) involved commercial vehicles.
In the past 2 years, the National Transportation Safety Board investigated nine rear-end collisions in which 20 people died and 181 were injured (three accidents involved buses and one accident involved 24 vehicles). Common to all nine accidents was the rear following vehicle driver's degraded perception of traffic conditions ahead. During its investigation of the rear-end collisions, the Safety Board examined the striking vehicles and did not find mechanical defects that would have contributed to the accidents. In each collision, the driver of the striking vehicle tested negative for alcohol or drugs. Some of these collisions occurred because atmospheric conditions, such as sun glare or fog and smoke, interfered with the driver's ability to detect slower moving or stopped traffic ahead. In other accidents, the driver did not notice that traffic had come to a halt due to congestion at work zones or to other accidents. Still others involved drivers who were distracted or fatigued.
https://app.ntsb.gov/safety/sa... all you need.
Its the cops' job to put themselves into "dangerous" situations in order to protect the public.
What a load of bollocks. IT IS NOT a cops job to put his own life on the line to protect ANY member of the public. HIS JOB is to uphold the Law UP TO the point where he knowingly puts his own life in danger - at which point, his own life becomes his single priority.
YOU DO NOT have the right to be protected by anybody else. Your own personal safety is your own personal problem. Should you choose to employ someone else to protect you, they do so on the understanding between you, which usually precludes them taking a bullet for you and remains within the letter of the Law.
and just look for the cunts in dark blue uniforms with open-carry holsters. They'll be cops.
credible citations required. As in, direct links to pages in motherboard manuals that do NOT specify ECC memory modules.
uh, the fucking slashdot thread from yesterday?
The fix here would be to issue a firmware update that disables that slow 500MB*, and update the labelling on the card to reflect the fact that it's a 3.5GB card not a 4GB.
*Ever run RAM of two different speeds in a desktop? Wonder where those crashes are coming from? It's not a case of the faster RAM waiting for the slower RAM, the slower stuff is tripping over trying to keep up with the faster stuff. It doesn't work in the same way as a PATA channel where the bus runs at the speed of the slowest device.
no, I did not say that. The claim is that these cards, in the first instance, are being sold as 4GB cards. That's as may be, but the top 500MB is deliberately crippled (to turn a 980 into a 970? I don't get the logic) to the point where it can and does cause repeated and repeatable crashes when the 3.5GB ceiling is met under certain conditions, which is ENTIRELY doable when you have a multiple screen setup. That is the issue.
depends, what's your data worth to you sitting on a drive that's not spinning while you wait for your shiny new WD Red?
(I use "obsolete" commodity components in building my NAS gear. My current one uses a 2-port SATA riser on a Via Eden board, mounted in a Shuttle XPC case (equipped with a 100W PSU) and running LAMP docuwiki headless. Total hardware worth: £12 for the SATA riser, total cost: + about £200 for the mainboard and case back in 2006. Just because it's obsolete doesn't mean I should simply bin it).
What about those users (more than one, anecdotes are data not anomalies!) whose use causes the GPUs to attempt to address more than 3.5GB VRAM causing them to crash out? If what NVidia are claiming here according to TFS is accurate, then this should not be happening. It is happening, the 3.5GB roof is being hit hard and people are feeling it. What say you, NVidia?
heat? We're talking about a technology reuse in places such as rural India and middle Africa where daytime temperatures often exceed 45C, I don't think they're going to be overly concerned about something they're a: not pushing that hard anyway - use cases for these things are going to be about as mundane as GDOs and routers - and b: costs them next to nothing to obtain and deploy. If your use case requires investment in fluid pumped cooling I would say that your use case also calls for something with a bit more pep than an ARM SOC.
I get the difference bwtween a 40W brick for a laptop and half a rack of isolators and switchgear delivering 17kW for a five Petabyte cluster, I've dealt with both. I don't imagine for one minute that TFA is talking about competing with Big Iron either in terms of power efficiency or in terms of raw computing power. It's talking about using existing hardware that would otherwise find its way into landfill simply because Johnny Facebook has no further use for it after buying his iPhone 20z, for processes where that hardware can be proven in its environment rather than $Third_World_Telecoms_Startup having to deal with seven-digit sums in maintenance contracts and leasing and IBM.
if compute efficiency were really an issue, we'd all be using RasPis and running RISC OS. As it is, we are all, each and every one of us, using what is available to us "until something we can afford which is in our own mind better comes along". Right now, personally speaking, the most efficient thing for me to do is keep my AMD APU until it burns out and THEN worrying about specifying my next hardware purchase. I'm not about to go buy the latest greatest >1.0-efficient process platform just because it's there because I simply CANNOT AFFORD IT. I'll use what is available to me NOW.