<sarcasm>Are you telling me electronics isn't malleable like Play-Doh? Huh, maybe that's also why my motherboard stopped working when I folded to fit in a mini-case.</sarcasm>
No, I'm serious. As near as I can tell, the ruler and a normal SSD are about the same thickness (about 10 mm). Thus, all Intel was doing was changing the other two (longer) dimensions, which shouldn't change the surface area by much.
Since my previous post clearly wasn't clear, let me be more specific. What it seems is Intel is doing is taking a 70x100 rectangle and slicing it into two 35mm x 100 mm slices. Those get slices re-arranged end to end instead of side to side. Through the magic of geometry, that isn't adding much surface area. It's adding a little but not much.
However, that leaves a 35x200mm long ruler. The real ruler is more like 45x300mm so there definitely is more surface area. But the surface area per unit volume doesn't seem like it's changing. For cooling, that's what I thought matters. So why does this form factor cool better?
One good thing about it is the length gives significantly more surface area for cooling than a 2.5" form factor does.
Could you explain that a bit? I'm not that familiar with SSD dimensions but I thought a typical 2.5" disk was about a third of an inch thick. To make it a ruler, all I have to do is cut it with a bandsaw into three strips and glue them all together. That shouldn't change the surface area so I don't see how it affects cooling.
If the companies would put up buildings and subsidize their own workers...
I'd much rather companies just paid me a higher salary and let me figure out where I want to live. For that matter, I'd rather they gave me a higher salary and got their nose out of my health care too.
As it is zoning laws and construction codes keep the number of houses limited. Doo goodnick liberal subsidized housing laws give crappy houses to people that would otherwise be blighting the neighborhoods of upper middle class liberals. We need to abolish zoning laws, construction codes and section 8 housing to fix the problem.
I was with you until you started ranting. Yes, relax zoning laws and make it easier to build new homes. Doing so will only reduce the price of housing (that pesky supply and demand thing). If rich gentry move in, they had to move from somewhere and now a house in that somewhere is available.
The second order effect is that if you start building more housing, you might also drive up demand ("Yay, more SF apartments, I can think of moving there now!"). I don't know which effect will dominate. Personally, I'd love to think about living in SF except (a) I'd hate my uber liberal neighbors and (b) I can't afford it now.
FWIW, I live 24 miles from my office and it averages 60 minutes to get there in traffic. 90 if it rains. That sounds better than DC but I'm still envious of my colleagues in Durham.
For all Apple's influence in Cupertino, I doubt they could get the city council to approve an apartment complex that size. The NYMBYism out here is pretty intense.
We seem to be building 5-story apartments and condos all over the place these days. I've watched three, or maybe four, high-rise apartments get built in downtown San Jose in the last few years. That's not enough but it's more housing than I've seen be built in years. The question on everyone's lips is traffic. The roads already seem crowded, will this make it worse? I wonder if the new homes will be filled with people who already work here. If so, this will just shorten their commute and traffic will get better. If this lets companies hire more workers, it's going to make traffic much worse.
Uh, yes he did. He voted with his feet. Every time he used a credit card, ATM, or just got cash back at the grocery store, he voted that those were choices he preferred over a physical branch office. There's no reason for him to be surprised the bank reacted.
Personally, I'm totally down with that. I use a bank branch maybe once every two years. I go to an actual ATM a few times a year, tops. And I'm an old coot, not a millenial.
The pilots I know say this is a long way off. Airplanes can do all sorts of wacky things and for now, you want a human pilot to handle the more-frequent-than-you-want-to-know cockpit glitches.
Starting wage for a major airline might be that much. For a regional airline, which is what TFA was talking about, it's much lower. I have niece who's a pilot and she really struggled to make ends meet when she started out.
Ice hockey recently introduced video review. There's no right and wrong, you're trading off flow of the game versus correctness.
Personally, I'd prefer having a time limit on the review. The refs get 60 seconds to review then must make a call, right or wrong. It's sort of like American elections: if there's a dispute (like the 2000 Presidential election), part of the legal logic behind the process is to quickly reach a conclusion and not let it drag on.
Seriously, you have to take those claims of "designed for 90 days of operation" with some big grains of salt....
Good point. I didn't see the project requirements. My guess is the actual requirement was something like "99% chance of operating for at least 90 days." It wasn't "10% chance of operating 90 days." That's a pretty big difference. I might be able to build the latter. I have no chance on the former.
Legally speaking, what gives the city council the authority to set prices and price limits?
Seriously, could a city council just decide they want to put a price floor or ceiling on anything they want? Let's say the Mayor wants to buy spam for a penny a can. Could the city council just decide spam must be sold for no more than 1 cent? Or is there any legal limit to what sorts of price controls a city can impose?
(Yes, I know, if they did this, there would not be any spam for sale within city limits. I'm trying to understand the legality here, not the likely outcome.)
IANAL but I'm guessing that since rights start with the people and flow upward, a city can pretty much do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't conflict with state or federal laws, or the Constitution. If none of those say a city can't restrict prices, well then they can.
This seems like a great dodge to ban items you don't want in the city: just impose an absurdly low price ceiling. You can sell all the pot you want but for no more than a penny a pound, with a $50 per ounce tax.
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, please. The copy editor at the Times ought to know this. Sheesh, the quality of journalism these days.
(Trivia contest time: how many other commonwealths are there and what are their names?)
OK, get back to ranting about NIMBYs, Kennedys (live or dead), wind farm subsidies, fossil fuel cronys, and how the Illuminati are poisoning the oceans.
Absolutely. Finding a 5 to 15% performance improvement in something as well-understood as CRCs is a pretty stunning microoptimization. I'd like to read the code, not that I have much chance of understanding why it's so much faster.
Yes, we can plant some farmland with this theoretical super crop... but the amount of land available for this has an upper bound, so the quantity of CO2 that can theoretically be fixed also has an upper bound. We’re basically talking about, at best, moving the clock back by some set number of years.
From TFA, they propose dedicating 5% of cropland to this plant and that removes 50% of the carbon dioxide we release (which seems like a remarkably high efficiency, high enough that I'm sceptical). That means, dedicate 10% and we would be in a carbon balance. Dedicate 15% and we start reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide. This, of course, depends on keeping our global carbon dioxide emissions constant, which may or may not be likely.
That would be expensive to do and would take a lot of arm-twisting. But the math looks like it would work. Assuming it's sustainable, this could be a long term solution.
I don't know how sustainable it would be. It seems the cork goop would eventually build up in the soil and I gotta believe that would cause problems. But first things first.
That was my thought too. The stuff the plants product, suberin, was described as a "waxy, carbon rich" substance. TFA says it typically doesn't break down for centuries to millennia (although that seems unlikely to me--surely some microbe likes to eat this stuff).
So you plan a ton of super garbanzos and have a hummispalooza. A few decades later, I'm wondering about your soil quality. It will start getting gummed up with suberin, won't it? Will it still be good crop soil? I'm hoping the professor has thought this through.
OTOH, if suberin is a waxy goop, maybe it can be collected and refined into a biofuel. That will re-release the carbon but at least it's a closed loop. That may be better than using fossil fuels.
Net Neutrality is a separate issue from the regional monopoly BS that most ISPs enjoy. That doesn't make it unimportant after we've already had blatant examples of both Verizon https://www.theverge.com/2017/... and Comcast https://consumerist.com/2014/0... throttling streaming video services like Netflix to try and get customers to subscribe to their services instead or to extort money from streaming video providers.
And that's where I think things get murky fast. I'll be the first to admit I don't understand the details of what happened between Verizon, Comcast, and Netflix. In general terms, I think it was basically a contract dispute about who was going to pay whom for what. I guarantee armies of lawyers and CxOs were involved in the negotiations and I'm not going to try to outguess them. I'm pretty sure Comcast and Verizon would find it a Pyrrhic victory if they really reduced the quality of Netfilx streams for no good reason other than to make their service look better. Anyway, we have ways to resolve contract disputes, they slug it out in courts and the court of public opinion and eventually settle. I, personally, am more comfortable depending on that process than FCC regulation.
You're not wrong about how congress is supposed to work and how fragile policy put in place solely by the executive branch is.
Wow, someone on Slashdot admitting another poster has a point! Thank you!
Maybe if we can accomplish goals like getting money out of politics, implement systems like ranked choice voting, stop voter suppression, make voting easier with early voting/no excuse needed absentee ballots or some other fix, and get a healthy five or six active political parties going we can have a truly representative democracy again. But that's a very big, and very long if.
Amen brother. I doubt you'll ever get money out of politics. At best, you and I can tell our representatives that we don't want them to "bring home the bacon", we want them to vote in the best interest of the city/state/country as a whole. And we can vote that way (which doesn't make much difference, not one vote, but get a million like thinking voters and now it's interesting).
OK, really off topic here. There's some actual science in Political Science. They can show how having winner-take-all, first-to-the-finish voting systems, like we tend to have in the US, basically guarantees we'll have two dominant and largely stable parties. So I can't agree more that we need to get rid of our intuitively obvious but flawed system of "one person, one vote, most votes wins, winner takes all". You think about it a bit and only something like a third of American voted for our current President, which means that minority gets a lot of power over the majority. How busted is that?
I live in California, a reliable Democratic state for the last 20 years. My vote in 2016 made absolutely no difference. No matter what I did, all our Electoral votes were going to Clinton. As a result, neither Trump nor Clinton had to give a rat's a** about anything Californians cared about, other than how it affected fund raising. I think it would be better for all Californians to divide our Electoral votes proportionally somehow (county by county, district by district, proportional to the popular vote state wide, there are many ways). That would be good for all Californians, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Green, Pirate, whatever. The Democratic leadership, however, will never go for this, they'd be crucified by the national party. The Republicans could get behind this but they have no say in how the state is run. I don't know how to break the logjam.
I'd also love to have a system other than plurality voting. Instant runoffs, approval votin
Slashdot Mirror
Funny, you expended many dozens of precious electrons when you could have simply not responded.
<sarcasm>Are you telling me electronics isn't malleable like Play-Doh? Huh, maybe that's also why my motherboard stopped working when I folded to fit in a mini-case.</sarcasm>
No, I'm serious. As near as I can tell, the ruler and a normal SSD are about the same thickness (about 10 mm). Thus, all Intel was doing was changing the other two (longer) dimensions, which shouldn't change the surface area by much.
Since my previous post clearly wasn't clear, let me be more specific. What it seems is Intel is doing is taking a 70x100 rectangle and slicing it into two 35mm x 100 mm slices. Those get slices re-arranged end to end instead of side to side. Through the magic of geometry, that isn't adding much surface area. It's adding a little but not much.
However, that leaves a 35x200mm long ruler. The real ruler is more like 45x300mm so there definitely is more surface area. But the surface area per unit volume doesn't seem like it's changing. For cooling, that's what I thought matters. So why does this form factor cool better?
Does that make my question clearer?
One good thing about it is the length gives significantly more surface area for cooling than a 2.5" form factor does.
Could you explain that a bit? I'm not that familiar with SSD dimensions but I thought a typical 2.5" disk was about a third of an inch thick. To make it a ruler, all I have to do is cut it with a bandsaw into three strips and glue them all together. That shouldn't change the surface area so I don't see how it affects cooling.
That assumes the 1971 minimum wage was reasonable. Do you have any reason to believe that?
...that a gaggle of emotionally infantile social misfits are making a robot with emotional intelligence? Quite possibly more than they have?
(He writes, being an emotional infant who can't read people to save his life...)
Amen brother. I'm with you on all of that.
If the companies would put up buildings and subsidize their own workers ...
I'd much rather companies just paid me a higher salary and let me figure out where I want to live. For that matter, I'd rather they gave me a higher salary and got their nose out of my health care too.
As it is zoning laws and construction codes keep the number of houses limited. Doo goodnick liberal subsidized housing laws give crappy houses to people that would otherwise be blighting the neighborhoods of upper middle class liberals. We need to abolish zoning laws, construction codes and section 8 housing to fix the problem.
I was with you until you started ranting. Yes, relax zoning laws and make it easier to build new homes. Doing so will only reduce the price of housing (that pesky supply and demand thing). If rich gentry move in, they had to move from somewhere and now a house in that somewhere is available.
The second order effect is that if you start building more housing, you might also drive up demand ("Yay, more SF apartments, I can think of moving there now!"). I don't know which effect will dominate. Personally, I'd love to think about living in SF except (a) I'd hate my uber liberal neighbors and (b) I can't afford it now.
FWIW, I live 24 miles from my office and it averages 60 minutes to get there in traffic. 90 if it rains. That sounds better than DC but I'm still envious of my colleagues in Durham.
For all Apple's influence in Cupertino, I doubt they could get the city council to approve an apartment complex that size. The NYMBYism out here is pretty intense.
We seem to be building 5-story apartments and condos all over the place these days. I've watched three, or maybe four, high-rise apartments get built in downtown San Jose in the last few years. That's not enough but it's more housing than I've seen be built in years. The question on everyone's lips is traffic. The roads already seem crowded, will this make it worse? I wonder if the new homes will be filled with people who already work here. If so, this will just shorten their commute and traffic will get better. If this lets companies hire more workers, it's going to make traffic much worse.
Yes, because land area, and area suitable for growing trees, is infinite.
And, of course, it's impossible to increase the productivity of arable land, or to reclaim land and make it arable.
Uh, yes he did. He voted with his feet. Every time he used a credit card, ATM, or just got cash back at the grocery store, he voted that those were choices he preferred over a physical branch office. There's no reason for him to be surprised the bank reacted.
Personally, I'm totally down with that. I use a bank branch maybe once every two years. I go to an actual ATM a few times a year, tops. And I'm an old coot, not a millenial.
The pilots I know say this is a long way off. Airplanes can do all sorts of wacky things and for now, you want a human pilot to handle the more-frequent-than-you-want-to-know cockpit glitches.
Starting wage for a major airline might be that much. For a regional airline, which is what TFA was talking about, it's much lower. I have niece who's a pilot and she really struggled to make ends meet when she started out.
Ice hockey recently introduced video review. There's no right and wrong, you're trading off flow of the game versus correctness.
Personally, I'd prefer having a time limit on the review. The refs get 60 seconds to review then must make a call, right or wrong. It's sort of like American elections: if there's a dispute (like the 2000 Presidential election), part of the legal logic behind the process is to quickly reach a conclusion and not let it drag on.
Magnify and enhance sector A5.
Once again, life imitates science fiction.
There was a book or movie about this. We need to ship Opportunity some potatoes and duct tape, something like that.
Seriously, you have to take those claims of "designed for 90 days of operation" with some big grains of salt....
Good point. I didn't see the project requirements. My guess is the actual requirement was something like "99% chance of operating for at least 90 days." It wasn't "10% chance of operating 90 days." That's a pretty big difference. I might be able to build the latter. I have no chance on the former.
Legally speaking, what gives the city council the authority to set prices and price limits?
Seriously, could a city council just decide they want to put a price floor or ceiling on anything they want? Let's say the Mayor wants to buy spam for a penny a can. Could the city council just decide spam must be sold for no more than 1 cent? Or is there any legal limit to what sorts of price controls a city can impose?
(Yes, I know, if they did this, there would not be any spam for sale within city limits. I'm trying to understand the legality here, not the likely outcome.)
IANAL but I'm guessing that since rights start with the people and flow upward, a city can pretty much do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't conflict with state or federal laws, or the Constitution. If none of those say a city can't restrict prices, well then they can.
This seems like a great dodge to ban items you don't want in the city: just impose an absurdly low price ceiling. You can sell all the pot you want but for no more than a penny a pound, with a $50 per ounce tax.
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, please. The copy editor at the Times ought to know this. Sheesh, the quality of journalism these days.
(Trivia contest time: how many other commonwealths are there and what are their names?)
OK, get back to ranting about NIMBYs, Kennedys (live or dead), wind farm subsidies, fossil fuel cronys, and how the Illuminati are poisoning the oceans.
Absolutely. Finding a 5 to 15% performance improvement in something as well-understood as CRCs is a pretty stunning microoptimization. I'd like to read the code, not that I have much chance of understanding why it's so much faster.
Yes, we can plant some farmland with this theoretical super crop... but the amount of land available for this has an upper bound, so the quantity of CO2 that can theoretically be fixed also has an upper bound. We’re basically talking about, at best, moving the clock back by some set number of years.
From TFA, they propose dedicating 5% of cropland to this plant and that removes 50% of the carbon dioxide we release (which seems like a remarkably high efficiency, high enough that I'm sceptical). That means, dedicate 10% and we would be in a carbon balance. Dedicate 15% and we start reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide. This, of course, depends on keeping our global carbon dioxide emissions constant, which may or may not be likely.
That would be expensive to do and would take a lot of arm-twisting. But the math looks like it would work. Assuming it's sustainable, this could be a long term solution.
I don't know how sustainable it would be. It seems the cork goop would eventually build up in the soil and I gotta believe that would cause problems. But first things first.
That was my thought too. The stuff the plants product, suberin, was described as a "waxy, carbon rich" substance. TFA says it typically doesn't break down for centuries to millennia (although that seems unlikely to me--surely some microbe likes to eat this stuff).
So you plan a ton of super garbanzos and have a hummispalooza. A few decades later, I'm wondering about your soil quality. It will start getting gummed up with suberin, won't it? Will it still be good crop soil? I'm hoping the professor has thought this through.
OTOH, if suberin is a waxy goop, maybe it can be collected and refined into a biofuel. That will re-release the carbon but at least it's a closed loop. That may be better than using fossil fuels.
The devil is in the details here.
Net Neutrality is a separate issue from the regional monopoly BS that most ISPs enjoy. That doesn't make it unimportant after we've already had blatant examples of both Verizon https://www.theverge.com/2017/... and Comcast https://consumerist.com/2014/0... throttling streaming video services like Netflix to try and get customers to subscribe to their services instead or to extort money from streaming video providers.
And that's where I think things get murky fast. I'll be the first to admit I don't understand the details of what happened between Verizon, Comcast, and Netflix. In general terms, I think it was basically a contract dispute about who was going to pay whom for what. I guarantee armies of lawyers and CxOs were involved in the negotiations and I'm not going to try to outguess them. I'm pretty sure Comcast and Verizon would find it a Pyrrhic victory if they really reduced the quality of Netfilx streams for no good reason other than to make their service look better. Anyway, we have ways to resolve contract disputes, they slug it out in courts and the court of public opinion and eventually settle. I, personally, am more comfortable depending on that process than FCC regulation.
You're not wrong about how congress is supposed to work and how fragile policy put in place solely by the executive branch is.
Wow, someone on Slashdot admitting another poster has a point! Thank you!
Maybe if we can accomplish goals like getting money out of politics, implement systems like ranked choice voting, stop voter suppression, make voting easier with early voting/no excuse needed absentee ballots or some other fix, and get a healthy five or six active political parties going we can have a truly representative democracy again. But that's a very big, and very long if.
Amen brother. I doubt you'll ever get money out of politics. At best, you and I can tell our representatives that we don't want them to "bring home the bacon", we want them to vote in the best interest of the city/state/country as a whole. And we can vote that way (which doesn't make much difference, not one vote, but get a million like thinking voters and now it's interesting).
OK, really off topic here. There's some actual science in Political Science. They can show how having winner-take-all, first-to-the-finish voting systems, like we tend to have in the US, basically guarantees we'll have two dominant and largely stable parties. So I can't agree more that we need to get rid of our intuitively obvious but flawed system of "one person, one vote, most votes wins, winner takes all". You think about it a bit and only something like a third of American voted for our current President, which means that minority gets a lot of power over the majority. How busted is that?
I live in California, a reliable Democratic state for the last 20 years. My vote in 2016 made absolutely no difference. No matter what I did, all our Electoral votes were going to Clinton. As a result, neither Trump nor Clinton had to give a rat's a** about anything Californians cared about, other than how it affected fund raising. I think it would be better for all Californians to divide our Electoral votes proportionally somehow (county by county, district by district, proportional to the popular vote state wide, there are many ways). That would be good for all Californians, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Green, Pirate, whatever. The Democratic leadership, however, will never go for this, they'd be crucified by the national party. The Republicans could get behind this but they have no say in how the state is run. I don't know how to break the logjam.
I'd also love to have a system other than plurality voting. Instant runoffs, approval votin