Of course, you could have gone to the special menu (yes, it's a poor name... but it should take a little bit less than 'forever' to think of going there) and choosing 'eject disk.'
The only thing is, Apple would be much better off investing in an x86 to PowerPC JIT compiler and WINE, rather than Bochs (not saying that either is a good idea, mind you, but one is still better than the other). This would allow, with roughly the same amount of work (since the JIT would be needed to make Bochs run reasonably anyway) full emulation of Windows binaries within the Aqua LAF, or at least within Aqua-style windows in a rootless interface. With Bochs is nifty in terms of running any OS you can imagine (except colorForth, haven't made that work yet), VirtualPC's value to Apple is that allows almost-switchers to bring a few key Windows apps with them.
/.'ed, so I can't see for sure, but I'm confident that (a) this system does come with an LCD, contrary to what people suggest, (b) the system uses standard CPU's and SODIMM's (so power usage sucks) and (c) the total cost of a system is quite competitive if you really want a low-performance desktop replacement.
Right... but if you have memory rated for 175MHz x 4, who knows if it'll work at 225MHz x 4? It either means overspecifying the memory, or replacing memory with processor.
A high end mac today, with monitor, easily hits $7k. If you think a 970 will cost less than a G4, you're crazy. If you think the chipset design for a four-way machine is even close to as easy (and as cheap) as the design for a two-way, shared bus machine, you're crazy. If you think Apple could introduce quad-970s any time in the next three years for less than $10k, you're just dreaming.
I agree that a quad 2.5GHz G5 would be a drool-worthy system. But honestly, would you pay $10k for it? If not, then your opinion of it's attractiveness really shouldn't matter to apple at all.
Eh, us mac users have lived with a slow bus too long to not want a fast one... because it might not be improved significantly for another four years! But yes, you're correct about the multiplier math. I just seem to remember hearing someone from IBM refer to the 1.8GHz part as having a 2x multiplier, and saying the 1.4GHz would have the same multiplier for a 700MHz (175MHz) bus... and I got the impression, quite possibly incorrectly, that the phrase 'simple multiplier' (they didn't say integer multiplier, note) meant a multiple of four, pre-quad-pumping. But again, all I'm going on here is vague phrases and the fact that the 1.4GHz and 1.8GHz parts had such different bus speeds (which makes upgrading even more fun, come to think of it).
Honestly, as someone who'll probably buy a new mac between July and January... a 2.0GHz mac, then, with 5GHz intel chips, would get my cash. Speed isn't everything, and even at 1.5GHz G5 at the end of the year, Apple would be close enough that the downside of speed would not outweigh the other advantages of the architecture.
What's more interesting is that the frontside bus of the 970 was designed to scale with processor speed. So the 1.8GHz was supposed to have a 900MHz (well, presumably 225MHz quad-pumped) FSB, using a multiplier of 2. The 2.5GHz, then, has two options... either drop down a notch to use a multiplier of 3 (getting an 833MHz FSB, which is manageable)... or go full-hog and hit a 1.25GHz FSB. While I suspect that for the 2.5GHz chip the answer is, unfortunately, the former, the question is a bit hazier in the case of a 2GHz part... 1GHz is manageable but impressive, whereaz 666MHz simply isn't enough. Of course, they can allow non-simple multipliers and solve the issue, but I do recall that they were planning on supporting only integral multipliers.
This is the same 970 as before. No lengthened pipeline, although the 970 has a relatively long pipeline to begin with. And they probably hit 2.5ghz by selective testing... I haven't seen suggestions they can manufacture these chips in quantity yet. Keep in mind that Intel demos ~5GHz chips every few months or so. Even so, it's promising that the design seems to scale up that far without issues and without needing a process change.
Can the neutrinos provide enough force to overcome the wobble?
No idea. That's what the calculations are for. I suspect that you'd have to have a relatively magical material (considering how hard neutrinos are to absorb) to even begin to imagine it. On the other hand, the force behind the wobble is really surprisingly small, just building up over time with nothing to counter it. The problem is that a standard inverse square force does you nothing; what we're taking advantage of here is that neutrinos switch from one form to another, but not back. So if we absorb the original form, it has a higher-than-inverse-square fall-off (because you have both the inverse-square space dissipation plus the converting-to-another-neutrino time dissipation)... and even if the neutrino force was significant, this delta might be small.
Also, wouldn't the impulse of the thrust eventually slow down the rotation of the ring?
It shouldn't, as the force is perpendicular to the rotation of the ring. There may be strange effects that I'm not thinking of right now, but I doubt it would be more significant than the solar wind.
Re:The Ringworld is Stable!
on
Ask Larry Niven
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Yes, precisely, that's the argument. But the assumption there was that the ringworld and the star are effected only by gravity. For instance, solar wind has no stabilizing effect, because as the ring shifts along it's axis, the solar wind actually accelerates it away from the star; similarly, as the ring shifts perpendicular to it's axis, the solar wind's net force is zero. That is, there's the potential for small changes, and no force to restore them. On the other hand, the neutrino pressure provides the opportunity for negative feedback. Looking at the perpendicular-to-the-axis case (the parallel-to-the-axis case is more difficult, and may require treating the ringworld as a section of a sphere, with significant width, which the original didn't really have), as the ring shifts relative to the star the force can be made (by selective absorption) to push back against the shift; that is, to be greater against the portion of the ring closer to the star. I'd appreciate if you were to give some more feedback, before I get out the numbercrunchers, if I'm clear enough to make sense.
(Note: All of this is preliminary, I haven't done all the calculations yet. By coincidence, I actually started this project two days ago, so take what I say with a grain of salt.) We all know the story of the ringworld's instability, but it seems to me you may have been too hasty in introducing a plot device to fix the problem. It is possible that a material (no more magical than scrith) that selectively absorbs neutrinos could passively stablize a ringworld structure, as recent experiments have suggested that the flux of specific types of neutrinos is not a simple inverse square law. How do you feel about the necessity of defending your artistic works about scientific attack (even if the defense is another, quite successful book), and does the possibility that the physics of the attack were incomplete change your view at all?
Um, to find a spot in >= 2 dimensions, two baseballs is enough to triangulate. (The tri- in triangulate refers to the three points involved, two sensors and the object being located.) This is why your eyes work in three dimensions. Think about it... using your index fingers, you can point to any location in three dimensions, you don't need to use your nose.
I've been using EZ-Pass since the day (okay, the week) it came out, primarily in NY, and never had a single false positive or false negative... maybe your friends should learn to follow the directions? I don't mean to be rude, but I just don't see how you can make it not work. You go slowly until the light turns green. If the light never turns green (happens maybe once a year), you honk your horn once, a guy comes by within one minute, enters your number, and waves you on. All of this is on the guide that comes with the EZ-Pass. What am I missing?
For those of you more interested in the technical issues of RFID tags than the political issues, here are the books to read (associate links, feel free to avoid):
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, you could have gone to the special menu (yes, it's a poor name... but it should take a little bit less than 'forever' to think of going there) and choosing 'eject disk.'
The only thing is, Apple would be much better off investing in an x86 to PowerPC JIT compiler and WINE, rather than Bochs (not saying that either is a good idea, mind you, but one is still better than the other). This would allow, with roughly the same amount of work (since the JIT would be needed to make Bochs run reasonably anyway) full emulation of Windows binaries within the Aqua LAF, or at least within Aqua-style windows in a rootless interface. With Bochs is nifty in terms of running any OS you can imagine (except colorForth, haven't made that work yet), VirtualPC's value to Apple is that allows almost-switchers to bring a few key Windows apps with them.
On a similar note, I got just a pull-out monitor (1U, 15.1" LCD) on Ebay for $300. Still, you'll have to pay for the 1U of space.
Hm. Any way to get the mac diskdrives to work in a pc? Of course, loading the disk would still be difficult. :-)
This isn't at all what you want, but may work better for your purpose.
Mirror, in case it gets slashdotted:
\/
---
/\
HTH!
Yes, but the cartridges that come with the printer are usually half (or less) full.
Just sneak in. That's what I'll do.
/.'ed, so I can't see for sure, but I'm confident that (a) this system does come with an LCD, contrary to what people suggest, (b) the system uses standard CPU's and SODIMM's (so power usage sucks) and (c) the total cost of a system is quite competitive if you really want a low-performance desktop replacement.
Right... but if you have memory rated for 175MHz x 4, who knows if it'll work at 225MHz x 4? It either means overspecifying the memory, or replacing memory with processor.
A high end mac today, with monitor, easily hits $7k. If you think a 970 will cost less than a G4, you're crazy. If you think the chipset design for a four-way machine is even close to as easy (and as cheap) as the design for a two-way, shared bus machine, you're crazy. If you think Apple could introduce quad-970s any time in the next three years for less than $10k, you're just dreaming.
I agree that a quad 2.5GHz G5 would be a drool-worthy system. But honestly, would you pay $10k for it? If not, then your opinion of it's attractiveness really shouldn't matter to apple at all.
Eh, us mac users have lived with a slow bus too long to not want a fast one... because it might not be improved significantly for another four years! But yes, you're correct about the multiplier math. I just seem to remember hearing someone from IBM refer to the 1.8GHz part as having a 2x multiplier, and saying the 1.4GHz would have the same multiplier for a 700MHz (175MHz) bus... and I got the impression, quite possibly incorrectly, that the phrase 'simple multiplier' (they didn't say integer multiplier, note) meant a multiple of four, pre-quad-pumping. But again, all I'm going on here is vague phrases and the fact that the 1.4GHz and 1.8GHz parts had such different bus speeds (which makes upgrading even more fun, come to think of it).
Honestly, as someone who'll probably buy a new mac between July and January... a 2.0GHz mac, then, with 5GHz intel chips, would get my cash. Speed isn't everything, and even at 1.5GHz G5 at the end of the year, Apple would be close enough that the downside of speed would not outweigh the other advantages of the architecture.
What's more interesting is that the frontside bus of the 970 was designed to scale with processor speed. So the 1.8GHz was supposed to have a 900MHz (well, presumably 225MHz quad-pumped) FSB, using a multiplier of 2. The 2.5GHz, then, has two options... either drop down a notch to use a multiplier of 3 (getting an 833MHz FSB, which is manageable)... or go full-hog and hit a 1.25GHz FSB. While I suspect that for the 2.5GHz chip the answer is, unfortunately, the former, the question is a bit hazier in the case of a 2GHz part... 1GHz is manageable but impressive, whereaz 666MHz simply isn't enough. Of course, they can allow non-simple multipliers and solve the issue, but I do recall that they were planning on supporting only integral multipliers.
This is the same 970 as before. No lengthened pipeline, although the 970 has a relatively long pipeline to begin with. And they probably hit 2.5ghz by selective testing... I haven't seen suggestions they can manufacture these chips in quantity yet. Keep in mind that Intel demos ~5GHz chips every few months or so. Even so, it's promising that the design seems to scale up that far without issues and without needing a process change.
Can the neutrinos provide enough force to overcome the wobble?
No idea. That's what the calculations are for. I suspect that you'd have to have a relatively magical material (considering how hard neutrinos are to absorb) to even begin to imagine it. On the other hand, the force behind the wobble is really surprisingly small, just building up over time with nothing to counter it. The problem is that a standard inverse square force does you nothing; what we're taking advantage of here is that neutrinos switch from one form to another, but not back. So if we absorb the original form, it has a higher-than-inverse-square fall-off (because you have both the inverse-square space dissipation plus the converting-to-another-neutrino time dissipation)... and even if the neutrino force was significant, this delta might be small.
Also, wouldn't the impulse of the thrust eventually slow down the rotation of the ring?
It shouldn't, as the force is perpendicular to the rotation of the ring. There may be strange effects that I'm not thinking of right now, but I doubt it would be more significant than the solar wind.
Yes, precisely, that's the argument. But the assumption there was that the ringworld and the star are effected only by gravity. For instance, solar wind has no stabilizing effect, because as the ring shifts along it's axis, the solar wind actually accelerates it away from the star; similarly, as the ring shifts perpendicular to it's axis, the solar wind's net force is zero. That is, there's the potential for small changes, and no force to restore them. On the other hand, the neutrino pressure provides the opportunity for negative feedback. Looking at the perpendicular-to-the-axis case (the parallel-to-the-axis case is more difficult, and may require treating the ringworld as a section of a sphere, with significant width, which the original didn't really have), as the ring shifts relative to the star the force can be made (by selective absorption) to push back against the shift; that is, to be greater against the portion of the ring closer to the star. I'd appreciate if you were to give some more feedback, before I get out the numbercrunchers, if I'm clear enough to make sense.
Jesus of Nazareth did not die so we could enjoy eggs and chocolate bunnies!
Nope, he died so we can enjoy chocolate eggs and meaty bunnies!
(Note: All of this is preliminary, I haven't done all the calculations yet. By coincidence, I actually started this project two days ago, so take what I say with a grain of salt.) We all know the story of the ringworld's instability, but it seems to me you may have been too hasty in introducing a plot device to fix the problem. It is possible that a material (no more magical than scrith) that selectively absorbs neutrinos could passively stablize a ringworld structure, as recent experiments have suggested that the flux of specific types of neutrinos is not a simple inverse square law. How do you feel about the necessity of defending your artistic works about scientific attack (even if the defense is another, quite successful book), and does the possibility that the physics of the attack were incomplete change your view at all?
Free Porn
(see subject)
Um, to find a spot in >= 2 dimensions, two baseballs is enough to triangulate. (The tri- in triangulate refers to the three points involved, two sensors and the object being located.) This is why your eyes work in three dimensions. Think about it... using your index fingers, you can point to any location in three dimensions, you don't need to use your nose.
I've been using EZ-Pass since the day (okay, the week) it came out, primarily in NY, and never had a single false positive or false negative... maybe your friends should learn to follow the directions? I don't mean to be rude, but I just don't see how you can make it not work. You go slowly until the light turns green. If the light never turns green (happens maybe once a year), you honk your horn once, a guy comes by within one minute, enters your number, and waves you on. All of this is on the guide that comes with the EZ-Pass. What am I missing?
For those of you more interested in the technical issues of RFID tags than the political issues, here are the books to read (associate links, feel free to avoid):
Rf/I Application
RFID Handbook