One of my friends counters arguments about software being too sloppy with the point that there is practically no other field where a product is designed to be used on such a varying degree of ways and expected to still be robust.
But there is no other field where it is so straightforward to be robust: just check for error codes. I think that cancels the flexibility issue, and so software shouldn't be any less reliable than any other device.
The last time I used Word a drive filled during a save operation and left me with just a mutilated copy of the original file. (I will not use it again.)
How well do cars function when they run out of fuel?
I don't know about yours, but mine doesn't stop dead and leave the passengers mutilated.
Now, I'm not trying to excuse sloppy software development...
Yes you are.
but the fact of the matter is that software is constantly expected to work perfectly under situations completely outside its specifications yet we don't expect this from other items or appliances that we use.
No, but I think it's fair to expect that software can tell when it is beyond its specification and fail gracefully.
If you don't like checking the result of malloc, then write a function that does it for you. When you run out of memory, do your best to exit gracefully. It's not rocket science. It's just tedious, so people don't like it.
It's also hard to test, because some error conditions may be hard to reproduce. We may be able to take a hint from the hardware crowd, who have been using "design for testability" for some time now.
Consider the applications. If they are written in terms of DirectFB, you don't get network transparency. If they are written in terms of X, you don't get performance.
(Unless they are claiming that X-on-DirectFB will be faster than XFree86.)
Agreed, but that's not the same as intentionally making it bad. Open-source software doesn't breed unscrupulous programmers. You can have just as many assholes in closed-source projects.
current of 100 amps is adequate. A step-down transformer, a bridge rectifier, and a wall plug, and you're there.
Excuse my ignorance, but isn't passing 100 amps through a bridge rectifier going to be a problem? Do they make diodes with this kind of current capacity?
Look dude, I don't know where you got these rules from, but if you don't find it relevant, disregard it. Now that is a good habit to get into. Ignore it. Even tell me it's not a fair comparison. Just spare me the holier-than-thou "you should learn to write better" routine.
I included my boot times because I thought someone might say "well I have Linux on a Duron-700 and it boots in 15 seconds, so 90 seconds is slow". Or, they might say "I have Win2k on a Pentium IV-2GHz and it takes 12 minutes to boot, so please tell me how you get it to boot so fast". Or whatever. I didn't realize there were rules about this.
I promise, when I post to a referreed journal, I'll be more careful.
I wonder if they could eventually assemble carbon atoms in such a way as to trade-off the flexibility of this "buckywall" structure for the durability of diamond.
maybe I'm asking too much for a comparison between two *similar* systems?
I don't understand the problem. Even if the Duron is twice as fast, that would only account for a factor of two in the boot time, and I would still have a hard time seeing how that would be so universally derided as being slow.
If the comparison bothers you, forget the Celeron. On my Duron-700, W2K takes less than 90 seconds to boot, which seems quite resonable to me.
please, if you have a benchmark, don't even mention it if it isn't on similar hardware
I'm sorry my data isn't up to your standards, but it's all I have, and it was never intended to be a benchmark: just a data point. In fact, the numbers are from memory, since I don't boot very often, so the error margin is probably larger than that caused by the differing hardware anyway.
But surely the limiting factor here is how quickly the *air* (or other surrounding medium) can *accept* energy, not how fast the device can pump it out....right?
Yes and no. Your reasoning is clearly correct as it stands, but you forgot that they specified a certain temperature differential required to attain a 700-watt power dissipation. If the air temperature gains 1 degree, so does the CPU.
The heat-conducting ability of a cooler is proportional to the temperature differential. Recall that the CPU is hotter than the air. If the air temperature gains 1 degree, the power dissipation temporarily decreases because of the lower differential, causing the CPU temperature to start rising. The rising CPU temperature tends to restore the differential, and eventually the system reaches a new equilibrium with both the CPU and the air at a higher temperature. Eventually, the air gets so hot that whatever pitiful circulation it has is enough to remove the 700 watts of heat (though if properly insulated, the CPU could melt first).
If you're familiar with electricity, think of heat as current and temperature as voltage. A cooler, then, provides a thermal resistance (and the lower the better).
The release claimed that just a few dots of this material on a chip would replace (plus some!) a regular heat sink. How on earth could that be? What about the areas where dots aren't located?
Presumably the silicon itself would conduct that heat to the areas where the does are located. Or perhaps the heat would be conducted straight into the packaging material. Whatever happens, it doesn't matter much because, by definition, those areas aren't producing much hear.
Ok, this is off-topic, but my Win2k box boots just as quickly as my Linux box, and they are machines of comparable performance. Both boot in about a minute and a half. The W2K box is a Duron-700, and the Linux box is a dual Celeron-400. Yet I have heard repeatedly that Win2k is slow-booting.
What's going on? Is my IBM 7200rpm hard disk really that fast?
The body of this news item is misleading. This material can GENERATE 700 watts of electricity from only one square cm.
I'm not sure why you think this. The quote from the article is:
A thermoelectric module with just one square centimeter of RTI's new material can provide 700 watts of cooling, or nearly one horsepower, under a temperature gradient of 58 degrees F.
Well, when I do the treadmill at the gym, I typically do 90-100 watts. Thus, a 10-watt bulb would take 1/10 of my power. That seems like a heck of a lot, though perhaps those little bulbs aren't 10 watts.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, ok. I thought it was Silicon-On-Ensulator.
Ok, I give. What the hell is an SOE? And shouldn't stories expand the acronyms they use at least once?
If you don't like checking the result of malloc, then write a function that does it for you. When you run out of memory, do your best to exit gracefully. It's not rocket science. It's just tedious, so people don't like it.
It's also hard to test, because some error conditions may be hard to reproduce. We may be able to take a hint from the hardware crowd, who have been using "design for testability" for some time now.
Agreed. What does this have to do with my comment?
That's true. I gather that GTK is already being ported to DirectFB.
Consider the applications. If they are written in terms of DirectFB, you don't get network transparency. If they are written in terms of X, you don't get performance.
(Unless they are claiming that X-on-DirectFB will be faster than XFree86.)
The reality is that a different revenue system is needed. Of course, if I knew what that was, I'd be rich.
Agreed, but that's not the same as intentionally making it bad. Open-source software doesn't breed unscrupulous programmers. You can have just as many assholes in closed-source projects.
How does obeying a law constitute taking a stand against it? Someone has their principles in reverse gear.
You take a stand against unjust law by refusing to obey it. It's not rocket science.
This is insightful?
Well, posts like mine are why I usually wait ten minutes before replying to anything. It was hot-headed, and I appologize for it.
:-)
Thanks for being the bigger person and extending the olive branch.
Look dude, I don't know where you got these rules from, but if you don't find it relevant, disregard it. Now that is a good habit to get into. Ignore it. Even tell me it's not a fair comparison. Just spare me the holier-than-thou "you should learn to write better" routine.
I included my boot times because I thought someone might say "well I have Linux on a Duron-700 and it boots in 15 seconds, so 90 seconds is slow". Or, they might say "I have Win2k on a Pentium IV-2GHz and it takes 12 minutes to boot, so please tell me how you get it to boot so fast". Or whatever. I didn't realize there were rules about this.
I promise, when I post to a referreed journal, I'll be more careful.
I wonder if they could eventually assemble carbon atoms in such a way as to trade-off the flexibility of this "buckywall" structure for the durability of diamond.
I'd be happy with plain old warp drive.
If the comparison bothers you, forget the Celeron. On my Duron-700, W2K takes less than 90 seconds to boot, which seems quite resonable to me.
I'm sorry my data isn't up to your standards, but it's all I have, and it was never intended to be a benchmark: just a data point. In fact, the numbers are from memory, since I don't boot very often, so the error margin is probably larger than that caused by the differing hardware anyway.The heat-conducting ability of a cooler is proportional to the temperature differential. Recall that the CPU is hotter than the air. If the air temperature gains 1 degree, the power dissipation temporarily decreases because of the lower differential, causing the CPU temperature to start rising. The rising CPU temperature tends to restore the differential, and eventually the system reaches a new equilibrium with both the CPU and the air at a higher temperature. Eventually, the air gets so hot that whatever pitiful circulation it has is enough to remove the 700 watts of heat (though if properly insulated, the CPU could melt first).
If you're familiar with electricity, think of heat as current and temperature as voltage. A cooler, then, provides a thermal resistance (and the lower the better).
Presumably the silicon itself would conduct that heat to the areas where the does are located. Or perhaps the heat would be conducted straight into the packaging material. Whatever happens, it doesn't matter much because, by definition, those areas aren't producing much hear.Ok, this is off-topic, but my Win2k box boots just as quickly as my Linux box, and they are machines of comparable performance. Both boot in about a minute and a half. The W2K box is a Duron-700, and the Linux box is a dual Celeron-400. Yet I have heard repeatedly that Win2k is slow-booting.
What's going on? Is my IBM 7200rpm hard disk really that fast?
Darn, I was hoping to get a "funny" for this one.
Well, when I do the treadmill at the gym, I typically do 90-100 watts. Thus, a 10-watt bulb would take 1/10 of my power. That seems like a heck of a lot, though perhaps those little bulbs aren't 10 watts.
Are you really user 129189?