"LOL, I could run a Core i7 fanless outside in the arctic circle if i really wanted to. Application is everything."
In other words, you have no idea what you're talking about but want to pretend you know something by throwing useless platitudes around?
"I hate to break this to you but computers have fans for one reason, economics. Im sure i could rig up a self contained cooling system that filtered out all dust and dirt, but it would cost alot. Its FAR more economical to build all comps with fans and then pay some grease monkey like you to clean them out."
If you had any clue what you were talking about, that'd be a great little paragraph. Sadly, existing fanless solutions don't filter, they just use passive cooling. With proper design it's not that hard. (I design stuff for a living LOL)
"One last thing, no matter what you do the electronics are going to heat up causing warm air currents to flow through your machine. While less then a fan, it will still accumulate dust over time and require maint."
Convection currents and fan currents are fundamentally different beasts. If you knew what you were talking about, you'd realise that simple evidence proves my point
You lack experience. I've been building and repairing PCs for close to 20 years now, so I know exactly where the dust builds up, and I know in particular where it builds up now compared to when I started.
Your theory of electric and magnetic charge causing a build-up predicts that power cables will gain the same build-up as fan-blown areas. Simple empirical data shows this isn't the case.
By your logic, netbooks don't exist because the market that bought expensive ultralight laptops already existed.
The netbook market came out of nowhere, remember. Consumers didn't buy small inexpensive laptops because they didn't exist. Similarly, inexpensive yet robust PCs don't exist(But could). Until consumers actually have that choice, you can't can't blame them for not buying the product that doesn't exist.
It used to be that small laptops were expensive niche products too, but these days you can pick up an Aspire One pretty much anywhere for 300 bucks. The problem isn't the consumers, it's the producers, who have an incentive to build a product that'll self-destruct every couple years.
Common air filters require regular (about annual) maintenance. No other piece of digital(or analogue, for that matter) electronics I own requires regular maintenance of this sort.
Since it's possible to create PCs that won't burn themselves out with fan lint within an arbitrary time period, I consider it a design error that we continue to refuse to do so.
It's not analogous at all. All practical internal combustion engines require lubrication. The engine in a weed whacker or a lawnmower or a quad will require lubrication just like an automobile. PCs, by contrast, are the only piece of digital technology in any of our lives that absolutely require this piece of routine maintenance, especially with the dire consequences PCs have.
Ford ignition modules had a tendency to overheat, die and leave you stranded on the side of the road. The mitigation was to carry a spare module with you. It's widely accepted that this failure was an error on their part to properly manage heat.
Even disregarding that you're wrong about the heatsink requirement -- there are plenty of mac-mini sized Core 2 Duo fanless PCs -- what's the problem with having a big heatsink?
Using passive cooling will eliminate the dominant failure mode of PC hardware. From where I'm standing, that failure mode is a design defect.
Actually, active cooling which actively destroys PCs does make sense for vendors -- it turns into a planned obsolescence scheme, because perfectly good PCs die prematurely because poorly designed air coolers get plugged up.
It isn't really a 'classic' mistake, but the biggest PC design problem today from where I'm standing is over-reliance on fans. High volume fans will result in fuzzy lint growing on the devices which can least afford a layer of fuzzy lint.
In the past year, I've revived dozens of computers, and nearly every failure can be directly attributed to lint induced by fans.
But it's not pointlessly. The point is that you already own that vehicle.
The problem is you folks don't think. How much fuel do you think it takes to create tonnes of plastic, steel, glass, and various semiconductors?
The energy required in manufacturing a vehicle is about 73GJ[1], and a litre of gasoline contains about 32MJ of energy[2].
Assuming 14.5 combined mpg(16.222l/100km), assuming a regular car will get about 35mpg combined(6.71l/100km), this means You'd need to displace 23,985km to justify the energy expense of creating a second car.
So this sounds great, right? You pay back the energy cost in just one year, then after that you're good.
Wait, do you hear that? (OBJECTION!)
Ah, these are rig workers. They need their trucks to get to far-off work sites. Most of them work 3 weeks on 1 week off or schemes like that because of just how far-off their work sites are.
Well, suddenly they've got a much smaller window of opportunity to displace truck miles with car miles. You're looking at 4 years before the car breaks even, energy-wise. Economically, it will never break even. Even over the entire (10 year) effective life of the vehicle, you're only going to displace another 2300l or so of gasoline. Therefore, it barely makes sense from an environmental perspective (And in the grander scheme of things, the extra space for all these extra vehicles will contribute to urban sprawl, causing more pollution than any single truck), and simply doesn't make sense from an economic one(You never make back the cost of the vehicle)
Efficiency is the amount of energy you get out of a process compared to the energy you put in.
Now, do you have any idea whatsoever just how unsustainable the food you eat is? From the fertilizer made from natural gas to the fact that practically no farming happens on your island, it's just one mass of fossil fuels after another.
So instead of taking a fuel and directly burning it, you're taking fuel and using it to create another product, then transporting that bulky, energy sparse product(using more energy to make sure it doesn't spoil) to a series of distribution facilities, after which more energy is used preparing it.
International society can only exist due to fossil fuels, and food is the poster-boy for this fact. Sustainable it is not.
The idea that an SUV will get worse mileage than a similarly sized pick-up as an axiom is ridiculous.
I was just shopping for a new vehicle about a month ago, to replace my ancient and busted Bronco II. I went with a Ford(Small towns sometimes give you crappy choices, ford was the best of these choices), and among my options were an Escape and a Ranger. The Ranger got horrible mileage, about as good as a F150. The Escape got passable mileage.
In the end I went with a Focus. Looking at what I actually use my vehicles for it was the best option, and the fully loaded model cost less than the base model Escape. Ranger was never in the running because of the horrible gas milage.
You start getting into a new discussion. If you've got to car around all these outfits and do all this changing just so you don't have a big brown stripe up your back (God help you if it's raining but hot -- you're sealing all that perspiration in), is it really worth the effort to save 2 dollars on gasoline?
For me to reach the next city, I need to drive 100km for 7 hours. The population of my country is half of the UK, with ten times the surface area.(Same surface area as the entire EU, 4% of the population)
Different circumstances require different solutions.
Europeans shouldn't talk about weather they don't understand.
Canadians were considered superhuman during the World Wars because Europeans were so used to mild weather. Why? Because Canadians know bad weather.
Come on, hop on a bike in -40C with high winds and 2 feet of snow anywhere a bike should be and tell me you're just under-dressed. Have you ever felt the inside of your nose or mouth freezing? No sane person would want to be gasping for air in this climate.
More importantly, I could see the body panels themselves not existing after 20 years. Ever seen a Toyota truck that's about 20 years old? There's nothing left to it.
I wasn't arguing with you, just responding. I was arguing with the original post that pinned the bailouts completely on Obama. You won't get argument from me that there's plenty of blame to go around.
My problem is with this idea that the bailouts are a partisan thing, that you can be against the bailouts by being for the republicans. The Republicans are just as bad socialists as the Democrats. True capitalists wouldn't EVER draft a bill giving a trillion taxpayer dollars to a company just because they're not doing well. They'd NEVER sign such a bill into law.
These companies made a fortune on bad assumptions, then lost a fortune on the same bad assumptions. Why the hell should companies that made the right choices be penalised?
So how about the fact that TARP was drafted and introduced by Treasury Secretary Paulson, a Bush nominee confirmed by a Republican dominated senate?
It seems incredible to me that one party can be entirely responsible for drafting a bill, introducing it, then signing it into law, but dodge any responsibility for it later because they managed to get it through congress. "Oh, it was our idea and our bill, but it's the Democrats who wanted all that stuff!!"
Again, I'd like to point to the contrast between TARP and Obama's later bailouts, which were much smaller, and carried much greater burden on those receiving them. I'm against any bailouts, but given a choice between the two sets of bailouts, I know which I'd choose.
You don't have to tell me twice there. I'm a strong fiscal conservative.
But Republicans have been big spenders since Nixon took the currency of the last vestiges of a gold standard to make it easier to borrow and inflate. Going ahead and signing a bill that's basically handing a trillion bucks to various industries is suicide for the Republicans, who now have to deal with the fact that it's not Obama who gave out the first trillion.
Slashdot Mirror
"LOL, I could run a Core i7 fanless outside in the arctic circle if i really wanted to. Application is everything."
In other words, you have no idea what you're talking about but want to pretend you know something by throwing useless platitudes around?
"I hate to break this to you but computers have fans for one reason, economics. Im sure i could rig up a self contained cooling system that filtered out all dust and dirt, but it would cost alot. Its FAR more economical to build all comps with fans and then pay some grease monkey like you to clean them out."
If you had any clue what you were talking about, that'd be a great little paragraph. Sadly, existing fanless solutions don't filter, they just use passive cooling. With proper design it's not that hard. (I design stuff for a living LOL)
"One last thing, no matter what you do the electronics are going to heat up causing warm air currents to flow through your machine. While less then a fan, it will still accumulate dust over time and require maint."
Convection currents and fan currents are fundamentally different beasts. If you knew what you were talking about, you'd realise that simple evidence proves my point
You lack experience. I've been building and repairing PCs for close to 20 years now, so I know exactly where the dust builds up, and I know in particular where it builds up now compared to when I started.
Your theory of electric and magnetic charge causing a build-up predicts that power cables will gain the same build-up as fan-blown areas. Simple empirical data shows this isn't the case.
By your logic, netbooks don't exist because the market that bought expensive ultralight laptops already existed.
The netbook market came out of nowhere, remember. Consumers didn't buy small inexpensive laptops because they didn't exist. Similarly, inexpensive yet robust PCs don't exist(But could). Until consumers actually have that choice, you can't can't blame them for not buying the product that doesn't exist.
It used to be that small laptops were expensive niche products too, but these days you can pick up an Aspire One pretty much anywhere for 300 bucks. The problem isn't the consumers, it's the producers, who have an incentive to build a product that'll self-destruct every couple years.
There are fanless Core 2 Duos, so yes. I'm willing to take THAT far a step back in processing power.
Common air filters require regular (about annual) maintenance. No other piece of digital(or analogue, for that matter) electronics I own requires regular maintenance of this sort.
Since it's possible to create PCs that won't burn themselves out with fan lint within an arbitrary time period, I consider it a design error that we continue to refuse to do so.
It's not analogous at all. All practical internal combustion engines require lubrication. The engine in a weed whacker or a lawnmower or a quad will require lubrication just like an automobile. PCs, by contrast, are the only piece of digital technology in any of our lives that absolutely require this piece of routine maintenance, especially with the dire consequences PCs have.
Ford ignition modules had a tendency to overheat, die and leave you stranded on the side of the road. The mitigation was to carry a spare module with you. It's widely accepted that this failure was an error on their part to properly manage heat.
Even disregarding that you're wrong about the heatsink requirement -- there are plenty of mac-mini sized Core 2 Duo fanless PCs -- what's the problem with having a big heatsink?
Using passive cooling will eliminate the dominant failure mode of PC hardware. From where I'm standing, that failure mode is a design defect.
Actually, active cooling which actively destroys PCs does make sense for vendors -- it turns into a planned obsolescence scheme, because perfectly good PCs die prematurely because poorly designed air coolers get plugged up.
It isn't really a 'classic' mistake, but the biggest PC design problem today from where I'm standing is over-reliance on fans. High volume fans will result in fuzzy lint growing on the devices which can least afford a layer of fuzzy lint.
In the past year, I've revived dozens of computers, and nearly every failure can be directly attributed to lint induced by fans.
But it's not pointlessly. The point is that you already own that vehicle.
The problem is you folks don't think. How much fuel do you think it takes to create tonnes of plastic, steel, glass, and various semiconductors?
The energy required in manufacturing a vehicle is about 73GJ[1], and a litre of gasoline contains about 32MJ of energy[2].
Assuming 14.5 combined mpg(16.222l/100km), assuming a regular car will get about 35mpg combined(6.71l/100km), this means You'd need to displace 23,985km to justify the energy expense of creating a second car.
So this sounds great, right? You pay back the energy cost in just one year, then after that you're good.
Wait, do you hear that? (OBJECTION!)
Ah, these are rig workers. They need their trucks to get to far-off work sites. Most of them work 3 weeks on 1 week off or schemes like that because of just how far-off their work sites are.
Well, suddenly they've got a much smaller window of opportunity to displace truck miles with car miles. You're looking at 4 years before the car breaks even, energy-wise. Economically, it will never break even. Even over the entire (10 year) effective life of the vehicle, you're only going to displace another 2300l or so of gasoline. Therefore, it barely makes sense from an environmental perspective (And in the grander scheme of things, the extra space for all these extra vehicles will contribute to urban sprawl, causing more pollution than any single truck), and simply doesn't make sense from an economic one(You never make back the cost of the vehicle)
Ah, yes. Toyota, that quintessential American brand.
Do you know anything about efficiency?
Efficiency is the amount of energy you get out of a process compared to the energy you put in.
Now, do you have any idea whatsoever just how unsustainable the food you eat is? From the fertilizer made from natural gas to the fact that practically no farming happens on your island, it's just one mass of fossil fuels after another.
So instead of taking a fuel and directly burning it, you're taking fuel and using it to create another product, then transporting that bulky, energy sparse product(using more energy to make sure it doesn't spoil) to a series of distribution facilities, after which more energy is used preparing it.
International society can only exist due to fossil fuels, and food is the poster-boy for this fact. Sustainable it is not.
Hold it.
The idea that an SUV will get worse mileage than a similarly sized pick-up as an axiom is ridiculous.
I was just shopping for a new vehicle about a month ago, to replace my ancient and busted Bronco II. I went with a Ford(Small towns sometimes give you crappy choices, ford was the best of these choices), and among my options were an Escape and a Ranger. The Ranger got horrible mileage, about as good as a F150. The Escape got passable mileage.
In the end I went with a Focus. Looking at what I actually use my vehicles for it was the best option, and the fully loaded model cost less than the base model Escape. Ranger was never in the running because of the horrible gas milage.
Wait, so instead of using the vehicle they need for work anyway, people should have a second vehicle built for them?
There aren't many ways you could justify that without sounding like a prius-driving, organic-food-eating, tree-protesting hypocritical smug-factory.
You start getting into a new discussion. If you've got to car around all these outfits and do all this changing just so you don't have a big brown stripe up your back (God help you if it's raining but hot -- you're sealing all that perspiration in), is it really worth the effort to save 2 dollars on gasoline?
For me to reach the next city, I need to drive 100km for 7 hours. The population of my country is half of the UK, with ten times the surface area.(Same surface area as the entire EU, 4% of the population)
Different circumstances require different solutions.
Europeans shouldn't talk about weather they don't understand.
Canadians were considered superhuman during the World Wars because Europeans were so used to mild weather. Why? Because Canadians know bad weather.
Come on, hop on a bike in -40C with high winds and 2 feet of snow anywhere a bike should be and tell me you're just under-dressed. Have you ever felt the inside of your nose or mouth freezing? No sane person would want to be gasping for air in this climate.
When I lived in Winnipeg there were plenty of people who smoked crystal meth.
Doesn't mean it's a good idea.
More importantly, I could see the body panels themselves not existing after 20 years. Ever seen a Toyota truck that's about 20 years old? There's nothing left to it.
I wasn't arguing with you, just responding. I was arguing with the original post that pinned the bailouts completely on Obama. You won't get argument from me that there's plenty of blame to go around.
My problem is with this idea that the bailouts are a partisan thing, that you can be against the bailouts by being for the republicans. The Republicans are just as bad socialists as the Democrats. True capitalists wouldn't EVER draft a bill giving a trillion taxpayer dollars to a company just because they're not doing well. They'd NEVER sign such a bill into law.
These companies made a fortune on bad assumptions, then lost a fortune on the same bad assumptions. Why the hell should companies that made the right choices be penalised?
So how about the fact that TARP was drafted and introduced by Treasury Secretary Paulson, a Bush nominee confirmed by a Republican dominated senate?
It seems incredible to me that one party can be entirely responsible for drafting a bill, introducing it, then signing it into law, but dodge any responsibility for it later because they managed to get it through congress. "Oh, it was our idea and our bill, but it's the Democrats who wanted all that stuff!!"
Again, I'd like to point to the contrast between TARP and Obama's later bailouts, which were much smaller, and carried much greater burden on those receiving them. I'm against any bailouts, but given a choice between the two sets of bailouts, I know which I'd choose.
You don't have to tell me twice there. I'm a strong fiscal conservative.
But Republicans have been big spenders since Nixon took the currency of the last vestiges of a gold standard to make it easier to borrow and inflate. Going ahead and signing a bill that's basically handing a trillion bucks to various industries is suicide for the Republicans, who now have to deal with the fact that it's not Obama who gave out the first trillion.
Go back to Russia!
Americans constantly defame Canada.
And that's why now you can't cross the border without a passport.
FREE ORRIN HATCH POETRY!
"Orrin Hatch reminds of putrid old snatch."