The problem is a 133 MHz 64-bit PCI slot will max out at 8 Gb/s and you're looking at replacing the 3 Gb/s ports. You can only get two full-speed 3 Gb/s ports out of an 8 Gb/s slot.
Your PCI on your motherboard is not 64 bit, either, unless you have a server. It's 32 bit. It's also not going to be 133 MHz, or even 66 MHz on a stock desktop motherboard. It's going to be 33 MHz.
So you're running four 3 Gb/s ports from your 1 Gb/s slot. That is not without problems.
You're going to need to step up to PCI Express, abbreviated PCI-E, or at least PCI-X or the faster wide/fast PCI found on some servers before PCI-E. Don't confuse PCI-X and PCI-E, either. They are not the same.
PCI-E 1.0 will transfer about 2 Gb/s per lane, and 4 and 8 lane cards are available for drive controllers. PCI-E 2.0 and 2.1 will transfer 4 Gb/s per lane if both the slot and the card are 2.x compatible. PCI-E 3.0 is recently finalized and when you can get motherboards and add-in cards its 60% higher transfers per second and 90% or so lower overheard per transfer will enable about twice the bandwidth again. So a one-lane PCI-E 3.0 card in the proper slot will transfer about 8 Gb/s per lane.
Motherboards for desktop PCs often offer PCI Express slots of 16 lanes for a video card (and sometimes two, three, or even four of these) with a few one-lane slots. Sometimes a four-lane or eight-lane slot will be featured on the motherboard as well. I've even seen some boards with two x16, two x4, and two x1 slots or some similar configuration.
It can take a little care to get a PCI Express card and motherboard combination that properly handles full SATA speeds, and it'd take a little luck if you didn't spec such out beforehand. It'd take a lot more than that to find a PCI combination to do it.
Funnily enough, the 6Gb/s ports are reported to be fine. it's the 3 Gb/s ports that degrade. If you only need as many ports as the highest speed the chipset supports you may be fine.
Unfortunately it's not over time during a session. This problem is degradation over the life of the machine, with as high as 15% complete failure of the SATA 3Gb/s ports after three years.
You do know that two systems are in mechanical equilibrium when their pressures are the same, right? How are you going to experimentally determine the exact same pressures are being exerted in your closed system by the three states of water? Are you going to measure the pressure? Measure the distance some membrane is displaced? Are you going to use the torr or the millimeter of mercury (which are measures of pressure as well) instead of the pascal?
If you use mmHg, at what temperature and gravity do you use it? How do you measure the temperature without pressure measurements and how do you measure the gravity without a mass reference?
So, get me some water and put it in the same pressure, temperature, at a steady temperature within the closed system with no net exchange of temperature between the different states across the system as a whole, in which no net chemical changes are happening. Do this without being able to measure the pressure accurately because you're using the pressure to calibrate your pressure. Also, do it without being sure you can measure the temperature accurately enough because you're probably using pressure and volume to measure the temperature.
BTW, make sure you're using chemically pure water made from the right specific mix of protium, deuterium, tritium and the right mix of oxygen 16 and oxygen 18 such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Standard_Mean_Ocean_Water">Vienna Standard Mean Ocean Waterso that your triple point isn't off by several hundred microKelvins in temperature. Be sure you're figuring out they're the right mixture without a reference mass with which to calibrate your equipment to find the ratio of differences in their atomic masses.
BTW, to make sure you're really not doing anything circular, make sure you use something to measure your temperature which isn't defined from the triple point of water, such as the Celsius and Kelvin scales, to set up your triple point.
Let's talk a bit about the definitions of temperature at their core:
Temperature by its own definition users moles (mass, defined in terms of grams) under the zeroth law of thermodynamics. Grams are a defined fraction of the kilogram.
Temperature defined under the second law of thermodynamics includes work, energy, or entropy as one of its terms. Work is defined either in terms of heat (a type of energy measured by temperature), a pressure/volume relationship change, or the movement of a mass over a distance. Energy is defined as an ability to do work, and units of energy are defined as being able to do a certain amount of work. Entropy is a factor, but units of entropy are defined in terms of energy (in turn energy is in terms of force it can cause, and force in terms of a mass and acceleration) and mass.
Temperature defined under the kinetic theory of gases includes a mass as one of the terms.
You are not likely, it would seem, to find the triple point of water measured using single-particle statistics.
Everything does come back to the very basic terms of distance, time, and mass. We have better standards for distance and time. Finding a better one for mass is the point.
Do you have some way to directly perceive the triple point as it is achieved? You can get really close. Is it close enough? Close enough that you can really base the kilogram on it? How do y
I read the PDF. They do not directly control for an unattended computer during the testing. Their numbers are statistically significant when averaged across their pool of users, though. It won't help with personalizing the results, but it seems it will help with overall ranking of results for particular queries over time and across the average pool of users.
One thing that is more interesting than anything mentioned in the/. summary is the idea of "good abandonment" of the search engine results. They made an attempt at determining when an answer was found in the results page itself rather than requiring a click to a result page. They actually found that, on average, mouse movement was less and slower when things like stock prices, unit conversions, weather conditions, etc. are displayed directly at the top of the page than when someone closes the browser or leaves the page because they just didn't find any results that looked relevant. This means they can work on better choosing what kind of searches to return final results for above the organic results.
Now, the population is selected from an exiting selected population, which they admit is not ideal. They address that. What they don't address is that they only worked with one search engine. One might assume that since they are all Microsoft employees in the large study group that they'll all use Bing because it's their dog food. Yet there's something to be said for different personalities using different search engines, and the behavior of users of a different search engine would be interesting to compare and contrast to see how the statistics hold.
Not so much. People are just used to "client" meaning "local", which isn't always the case. In the case of X, the graphics acceleration and rendering are a service provided by one software system to many other software systems, which are your applications. The applications are therefore the clients consuming a service provided by X, which is the server.
There is some minor confusion in that you can use the computing resources of the same system on which X resides to run the applications or you can use the computing resources of a remote system to run the applications and the local system to display them. Still, from the software view, it's the X server servicing the applications. The remote machine(s) might be considered "servers" because you're using their resources remotely, and in fact they are probably SSH servers. You'd use their SSH service to log in and tunnel back to your local X server, but the applications you run on that other system or group of systems are still clients when it comes to using the services of the X server.
Guess what's a popular use of that rare element gold? Electronics is a common use for gold. So if we can afford to use gold, you're saying molybdenite should be not only not a problem, but really makes no sense not to use it for this kind of energy savings.
It would also have to be water of the right mix of hydrogen isotopes and the right mix of oxygen isotopes since both have more than one stable isotope. You'd also need to define the pressure. Pressure is measured in pascals, which is derived of a newton (a measurement of force) and a square meter ( a measure of area). The newton in turn is derived from the kilogram and and an acceleration of that mass at a rate of one meter per second per second.
So besides precision, it's also a circular definition.
Yes, but we have mostly urban temperature readings taken with may different thermometers over the last 150 years. As the local temperature rises due to pavement heat capture and such and the thermometers are replaced with more accurate ones, comparing the temperatures can be problematic.
Not that there's no reason to be concerned about climate change. Still, we seldom see answers to this kind of uncertainty.
Water's triple point assumes a temperature and a pressure. The pressure is in pascals. Pascals are derived from newtons. Newtons are derived from kilograms.
Also, you'd have to be as specific as Vienna Standard Mean Ocean Water or some other water made from a specific mix of hydrogen isotopes and a specific mix of oxygen isotopes that was absolutely free from impurities.
Also, how do you measure the temperature? Are you using a specified accurate way to measure temperature which does not consider the mass, volume, and pressure of something in some instrument?
So you want to use the pascal to define the kilogram? I'll let you in on a widely-known secret: the pascal is a derived unit. It is defined as one newton per square meter. The newton is also a derived unit. It is defined as the amount of net force required to accelerate a mass of one kilogram at a rate of one meter per second squared.
Now, how would you like to define your kilogram so you can define your newton so you can define your pascal so you can define your triple point of water?
I have news for you: the former is the molecular formula, but the latter is the systematic name of the same compound. ChemSpider entry for THC
So yes, I think nature has already figured out how to make it look like itself and it would still get you high. No, I'm not the AC that posted the above.
The original was slightly funny. The funnier part is that you were correcting the AC and you're wrong to do so.
So I walk away to, oh, I don't know take a piss or something, and when I come back wherever I bumped my mouse getting up is the most relevant thing in my search? Riiight.
kW/expected life of vehicle is even better. How many people retire a working car to a junk yard rather than recycle it just to buy a slightly more fuel-efficient model that cost energy at the mine, the foundry, the factory, in overseas shipment of parts, in delivery to the dealer, and only then starts to actually use fuel on its own?
The wording in the definition of liter is actually that's it's one cubic decimeter, which is the same thing as 1000 cubic centimeters. It's odd that nobody seems to use the decimeter, which is an SI unit, but will use the non-SI (but still considered metric) measurement the liter which is defined in terms of the decimeter. This isn't quite on the topic, but speaking of intuitive terms of measurement and the liter made me think of it.
The PSP has a MIPS R4000 CPU. A MIPS R4000 was not specially designed for gaming. The PSP (the original) also had only 32 MB of RAM.
The 3DS is rumored to have (I haven't seen official specs yet, maybe they're handy online somewhere though) two ARM 11 CPUs. The ARM 11 is not specially designed for gaming.
The PowerPC in the Wii, the PowerPC-based processor in the XBox 360, and the Cell (PowerPC main core with eight specialized media-processing cores) of the PlayStation 3 are not especially designed from the ground up for gaming, either.
These are all general-purpose cores. Some of them, especially in newer units, have been tweaked a bit towards gaming. The real bonuses these things have, though, are high throughput I/O, high throughput memory, and specialized media (audio, video, etc) processors besides the CPU. Games are computer applications. Most of them require lots of processing of video and audio. Some also require lots of number crunching for accurate physics. Many newer titles require sophisticated handling of data from several nodes for fair network play. These are all things workstations. servers, supercomputers, mainframes, and clusters have been doing for years.
What gaming hardware companies do is design products and engineer technology to be mass produced so it is affordable for a mass market. Very little of it is brand new technology that is invented just for gamers.
Gamers think of themselves as the high-end market, and for home-model PCs that's true. In a bigger picture, though, gamers are the segment between professional workstations and business office PCs. Most gamers don't have the system budget for the type of rig used for product design engineering, architectural drafting, film editing, special effects, a financial analysis, remote vehicle piloting, computational geology, bioinformatics, electronic trading, or medical imaging. Stuff that filters down from professional computers gets put into gaming PCs, then into consoles, then into mass-market PCs, then into phones.
This is Slashdot. You may have to explain "reasonable" to some folks here if you want them to understand what you wrote. I do not envy anyone who takes on such a task, though.
Slashdot Mirror
Way to read the thread, fucktard. Notice my reply to a reply was already posted an hour before you replied. Read it. Fucking asshole.
Way to read a thread, fucktard.
The problem is a 133 MHz 64-bit PCI slot will max out at 8 Gb/s and you're looking at replacing the 3 Gb/s ports. You can only get two full-speed 3 Gb/s ports out of an 8 Gb/s slot.
Your PCI on your motherboard is not 64 bit, either, unless you have a server. It's 32 bit. It's also not going to be 133 MHz, or even 66 MHz on a stock desktop motherboard. It's going to be 33 MHz.
So you're running four 3 Gb/s ports from your 1 Gb/s slot. That is not without problems.
You're going to need to step up to PCI Express, abbreviated PCI-E, or at least
PCI-X or the faster wide/fast PCI found on some servers before PCI-E. Don't confuse PCI-X and PCI-E, either. They are not the same.
PCI-E 1.0 will transfer about 2 Gb/s per lane, and 4 and 8 lane cards are available for drive controllers. PCI-E 2.0 and 2.1 will transfer 4 Gb/s per lane if both the slot and the card are 2.x compatible. PCI-E 3.0 is recently finalized and when you can get motherboards and add-in cards its 60% higher transfers per second and 90% or so lower overheard per transfer will enable about twice the bandwidth again. So a one-lane PCI-E 3.0 card in the proper slot will transfer about 8 Gb/s per lane.
Motherboards for desktop PCs often offer PCI Express slots of 16 lanes for a video card (and sometimes two, three, or even four of these) with a few one-lane slots. Sometimes a four-lane or eight-lane slot will be featured on the motherboard as well. I've even seen some boards with two x16, two x4, and two x1 slots or some similar configuration.
It can take a little care to get a PCI Express card and motherboard combination that properly handles full SATA speeds, and it'd take a little luck if you didn't spec such out beforehand. It'd take a lot more than that to find a PCI combination to do it.
Funnily enough, the 6Gb/s ports are reported to be fine. it's the 3 Gb/s ports that degrade. If you only need as many ports as the highest speed the chipset supports you may be fine.
Unfortunately it's not over time during a session. This problem is degradation over the life of the machine, with as high as 15% complete failure of the SATA 3Gb/s ports after three years.
You do know that the triple point is defined, right?
You do know that the definition is when solid, liquid, and gaseous water exist in thermodynamic equilibrium , right?
You do know that thermodynamic equilibrium means is is in thermal equilibrium, mechanical equilibrium , radiative equilibrium , and chemical equilibrium , right?
You do know that two systems are in mechanical equilibrium when their pressures are the same, right? How are you going to experimentally determine the exact same pressures are being exerted in your closed system by the three states of water? Are you going to measure the pressure? Measure the distance some membrane is displaced? Are you going to use the torr or the millimeter of mercury (which are measures of pressure as well) instead of the pascal?
If you use mmHg, at what temperature and gravity do you use it? How do you measure the temperature without pressure measurements and how do you measure the gravity without a mass reference?
So, get me some water and put it in the same pressure, temperature, at a steady temperature within the closed system with no net exchange of temperature between the different states across the system as a whole, in which no net chemical changes are happening. Do this without being able to measure the pressure accurately because you're using the pressure to calibrate your pressure. Also, do it without being sure you can measure the temperature accurately enough because you're probably using pressure and volume to measure the temperature.
BTW, make sure you're using chemically pure water made from the right specific mix of protium, deuterium, tritium and the right mix of oxygen 16 and oxygen 18 such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Standard_Mean_Ocean_Water">Vienna Standard Mean Ocean Waterso that your triple point isn't off by several hundred microKelvins in temperature. Be sure you're figuring out they're the right mixture without a reference mass with which to calibrate your equipment to find the ratio of differences in their atomic masses.
BTW, to make sure you're really not doing anything circular, make sure you use something to measure your temperature which isn't defined from the triple point of water, such as the Celsius and Kelvin scales, to set up your triple point.
Let's talk a bit about the definitions of temperature at their core:
Everything does come back to the very basic terms of distance, time, and mass. We have better standards for distance and time. Finding a better one for mass is the point.
Do you have some way to directly perceive the triple point as it is achieved? You can get really close. Is it close enough? Close enough that you can really base the kilogram on it? How do y
I read the PDF. They do not directly control for an unattended computer during the testing. Their numbers are statistically significant when averaged across their pool of users, though. It won't help with personalizing the results, but it seems it will help with overall ranking of results for particular queries over time and across the average pool of users.
One thing that is more interesting than anything mentioned in the /. summary is the idea of "good abandonment" of the search engine results. They made an attempt at determining when an answer was found in the results page itself rather than requiring a click to a result page. They actually found that, on average, mouse movement was less and slower when things like stock prices, unit conversions, weather conditions, etc. are displayed directly at the top of the page than when someone closes the browser or leaves the page because they just didn't find any results that looked relevant. This means they can work on better choosing what kind of searches to return final results for above the organic results.
Now, the population is selected from an exiting selected population, which they admit is not ideal. They address that. What they don't address is that they only worked with one search engine. One might assume that since they are all Microsoft employees in the large study group that they'll all use Bing because it's their dog food. Yet there's something to be said for different personalities using different search engines, and the behavior of users of a different search engine would be interesting to compare and contrast to see how the statistics hold.
Not so much. People are just used to "client" meaning "local", which isn't always the case. In the case of X, the graphics acceleration and rendering are a service provided by one software system to many other software systems, which are your applications. The applications are therefore the clients consuming a service provided by X, which is the server.
There is some minor confusion in that you can use the computing resources of the same system on which X resides to run the applications or you can use the computing resources of a remote system to run the applications and the local system to display them. Still, from the software view, it's the X server servicing the applications. The remote machine(s) might be considered "servers" because you're using their resources remotely, and in fact they are probably SSH servers. You'd use their SSH service to log in and tunnel back to your local X server, but the applications you run on that other system or group of systems are still clients when it comes to using the services of the X server.
All those people still using IE, apparently.
Guess what's a popular use of that rare element gold? Electronics is a common use for gold. So if we can afford to use gold, you're saying molybdenite should be not only not a problem, but really makes no sense not to use it for this kind of energy savings.
It would also have to be water of the right mix of hydrogen isotopes and the right mix of oxygen isotopes since both have more than one stable isotope. You'd also need to define the pressure. Pressure is measured in pascals, which is derived of a newton (a measurement of force) and a square meter ( a measure of area). The newton in turn is derived from the kilogram and and an acceleration of that mass at a rate of one meter per second per second.
So besides precision, it's also a circular definition.
Yes, but we have mostly urban temperature readings taken with may different thermometers over the last 150 years. As the local temperature rises due to pavement heat capture and such and the thermometers are replaced with more accurate ones, comparing the temperatures can be problematic.
Not that there's no reason to be concerned about climate change. Still, we seldom see answers to this kind of uncertainty.
Water's triple point assumes a temperature and a pressure. The pressure is in pascals. Pascals are derived from newtons. Newtons are derived from kilograms.
Also, you'd have to be as specific as Vienna Standard Mean Ocean Water or some other water made from a specific mix of hydrogen isotopes and a specific mix of oxygen isotopes that was absolutely free from impurities.
Also, how do you measure the temperature? Are you using a specified accurate way to measure temperature which does not consider the mass, volume, and pressure of something in some instrument?
Less flavorful but also less stringy. Unless you have a definite texture preference, I'd say it's a wash and variety in meals is good.
So you want to use the pascal to define the kilogram? I'll let you in on a widely-known secret: the pascal is a derived unit. It is defined as one newton per square meter. The newton is also a derived unit. It is defined as the amount of net force required to accelerate a mass of one kilogram at a rate of one meter per second squared.
Now, how would you like to define your kilogram so you can define your newton so you can define your pascal so you can define your triple point of water?
And what is force? Does F = ma not still apply when you use force for pressure?
BTW, if you pull out that F = dp / dt equation, you might want to figure out the definition of momentum.
On how much mass? A kilogram, perhaps?
I have news for you: the former is the molecular formula, but the latter is the systematic name of the same compound.
ChemSpider entry for THC
So yes, I think nature has already figured out how to make it look like itself and it would still get you high. No, I'm not the AC that posted the above.
The original was slightly funny. The funnier part is that you were correcting the AC and you're wrong to do so.
So I walk away to, oh, I don't know take a piss or something, and when I come back wherever I bumped my mouse getting up is the most relevant thing in my search? Riiight.
Where do we send our bids?
kW/expected life of vehicle is even better. How many people retire a working car to a junk yard rather than recycle it just to buy a slightly more fuel-efficient model that cost energy at the mine, the foundry, the factory, in overseas shipment of parts, in delivery to the dealer, and only then starts to actually use fuel on its own?
The wording in the definition of liter is actually that's it's one cubic decimeter, which is the same thing as 1000 cubic centimeters. It's odd that nobody seems to use the decimeter, which is an SI unit, but will use the non-SI (but still considered metric) measurement the liter which is defined in terms of the decimeter. This isn't quite on the topic, but speaking of intuitive terms of measurement and the liter made me think of it.
I'll tell you why not. The OP probably isn't being given sufficient money by ambulance chasers to falsify the data like Wakefield was.
The PSP has a MIPS R4000 CPU. A MIPS R4000 was not specially designed for gaming. The PSP (the original) also had only 32 MB of RAM.
The 3DS is rumored to have (I haven't seen official specs yet, maybe they're handy online somewhere though) two ARM 11 CPUs. The ARM 11 is not specially designed for gaming.
The PowerPC in the Wii, the PowerPC-based processor in the XBox 360, and the Cell (PowerPC main core with eight specialized media-processing cores) of the PlayStation 3 are not especially designed from the ground up for gaming, either.
These are all general-purpose cores. Some of them, especially in newer units, have been tweaked a bit towards gaming. The real bonuses these things have, though, are high throughput I/O, high throughput memory, and specialized media (audio, video, etc) processors besides the CPU. Games are computer applications. Most of them require lots of processing of video and audio. Some also require lots of number crunching for accurate physics. Many newer titles require sophisticated handling of data from several nodes for fair network play. These are all things workstations. servers, supercomputers, mainframes, and clusters have been doing for years.
What gaming hardware companies do is design products and engineer technology to be mass produced so it is affordable for a mass market. Very little of it is brand new technology that is invented just for gamers.
Gamers think of themselves as the high-end market, and for home-model PCs that's true. In a bigger picture, though, gamers are the segment between professional workstations and business office PCs. Most gamers don't have the system budget for the type of rig used for product design engineering, architectural drafting, film editing, special effects, a financial analysis, remote vehicle piloting, computational geology, bioinformatics, electronic trading, or medical imaging. Stuff that filters down from professional computers gets put into gaming PCs, then into consoles, then into mass-market PCs, then into phones.
This is Slashdot. You may have to explain "reasonable" to some folks here if you want them to understand what you wrote. I do not envy anyone who takes on such a task, though.