The primitive man who first discovered fire could not have known that his discovery would eventually destroy all life on the planet. Or did he? Was there someone else with him?
A good start, as far as the US is concerned, would be to reduce per-capita energy usage to levels found in other Western nations.
I don't care about a "start". Either you have a plan or you don't. And one (despised) country's plans are nearly irrelevant. As happy as it might make you to see something bad happen to the US it is still irrelevant. The whole world would have to agree on some VERY extreme measures if you want to stop our species dependence on combustion. I mean, not since the invention of fire has anyone tried to stop its use. It is a pretty fundamental task you are advocating: taking fire away from man. But I'm not sure that you appreciate that.
Either you are proposing a real solution to a real problem or you are just proposing some political solution that would make you feel good without actually solving 'the problem'.
But how? As a species we are pretty reliant on comubustion at this point. We are all pro-nuke here right? I guess we could try to go all electric for everything and rely completely on nuclear power. Next we need nuclear powered airplanes. Although, unless I am mistaken, the supply of uranium is not inexhaustable either. Eventually we will run out of that too. Although perhaps not in 40 years as with fossil fuels.
Reliable? Are you kidding? Those russians had super-thermometers that were accurate to +/-.01 degrees celsius even back in 1892. They were digital too and hooked up to fancy computers with dual core processors so that the data could be automatically logged. It's not like we were relying on some guy to actually have to check the meniscus in a fluid filled glass cylinder everyday, making sure that his results were accurate to.01 degrees so that people a hundred years hence would not see his errors as some kind of subtle climate change that would eventually destroy all life on the planet.
BTW, can anyone point me to some atmospheric thermometers that are accurate enough to show me temperature trends of less than 1 degree celsius in my own house? I have been looking for one for years. Seems like the most accurate ones are total immersion glass-mercury ones in long graduated cylinders that only measure in a 20 degree range or so. Hardly practical.
When the Dubya regime rejects the science behind global warming in order to justify rejection of the Kyoto Treaty,
Sorry but the Kyoto Treaty is an embarrassment. Have you actually read the thing? It is fracking ridiculous. It is a tiny, tiny, drop in what would be a huge ocean. It is worse than doing nothing because it makes everyone feel like they are doing something or taking it seriously.
Instead of getting mad at some idiot leader of only one country? Why not be angry at the morons who came up with the darn thing in the first place. Instead of coming up with the only realistic way of halting the alleged end of the world: an outright ban on all burning. If the chemical reaction known as 'burning' is in fact going to result in boiling oceans and the 'end of the world as we know it' then it would need to be outlawed by all nations on earth.
Because what you are proposing is to gamble with the lives of several billion people just so that people can drive around in SUVs for another few decades.
So your solution is to get rid of SUVs? Fine. I'm all for it. I hate the damn things. But if you think any resulting decline in CO2 would be measurable by anyone you are extremely deluded.
Let me give you a hint. Think nuclear and/or horses. You are pro-nuclear right? And don't mind having a nuclear power plant down the street from you right? And lots of horse manure in the streets.
but most people who've studied the data believe it to be a definite possibility.
Wow. Those folks sound really certain. Sounds like they have absolute proof of human CO2 induced Global Warming. So where is it?
Peer reviewed journals have printed article after article
Strange that they are never cited in discussions like these. I wonder why.
written by people actually in the Polar Regions
Well I live in a pretty cold climate too. Does that give what I am saying more weight?
taking measurements
Huh? The only 'proof' that pro-GW folks have is based on 20th century weather station data. Unfortunately using that data to reach any kind of conclusion is shaky at best. Current measurements can only help to show warming effects a decade from now. You can't actually measure what the temperature was last year or 10 years ago etc (unless you have a time machine of course).
that say that it's quite likely that the ice caps are melting fast enough.
That's what it always comes down to in these arguments: Argument by Authority. My expert is better than your expert! All of your experts have been paid by the oil companies and are cracks/whakos! All of our experts are currently employed. NONE of yours are!
I will admit that it is nearly impossible these days to remain an "expert" and also be skeptical of human induced global warming scenarios. I will admit that most of the experts on our side are now working at Walmart as cashiers or pumping gas instead of teaching at a university. So no one really cares about their opinions anymore.
In any case some people who have studied the data do not reach the same conclusions that you have. So who is right? We may as well be arguing about the existence of God. Oh wait...
One more thing. Let's assume for a second that your model is the correct one. That everything you say is true. What do you intend to do about it? And is the cure worse than the disease? Otherwise all this talk is just so much wanking.
Which is funny because if what they are claiming is true that is the only real solution, the only way to sufficiently reduce further CO2 production to stop the calamity. We might even be allowed to burn a little bit of wood. Hopefully we will have quota exemptions for the burning of witches and heretics, because humans are large scale 02->C02 factories. Presumably the loss of this C02 would balance the additional C02 created in burning the wood (and their bodies).
It would be interesting if we could all declare a few years of total non-burning. Just to see if it is a viable option. No burning of any fuel, not oil (not even vegetable oil) or gas or wood. No transportation except by pure electric vehicle or horse or bicycle. No electricity except by wind/solar/hydro/nuclear. Even minor violations like posession or use of matches, cigarettes or candles would be punishable by slow torture and violent death.
Air travel would be impossible except maybe for military fighter jets. So most people would travel by sailboat (or nuclear ship) for the few international trips.
Horses would again become the main form of transportation. Along with bicycles, including new four wheel, multi-person ones. The rich would be driving electric scooters. The super-rich would drive electric cars and heat their super-insulated homes with electric heaters. The rest of us would travel by horse and buggy or occasionally on expensive nuclear-electric trains (probably only for long distance travel between cities).
Electricity would become so expensive that only the truly rich would be able to afford it. Ironically people would probably be forced to move away from the poles toward the equator. Equatorial areas would become super-densely populated, every building an apartment building, every inch of land with a building on it, every tree cut down.
It is true that even today the cost of living is higher where there are cold winters, but after the first burning ban, workers would no longer be able to afford any heat at all. With electricity at $107/kwh even super-insulating the buildings would not be enough to pay for electric heat. And there would be no other kind.
The price of photovoltaic systems for homes would skyrocket. Even among those who could afford them, few would be able to afford the whole-roof systems made with the newest tech, and with enough power for electric resistance heaters. The northern cities of today would be thinned out. Only the rich could afford to live there. Although it would be extremely expensive for those remaining.
The only stores remaining open would presumably be general purpose ones providing food/necessities for the rich but being so expensive that the workers themselves could not afford to buy any of it. They would have to bring all their own food from the equatorial cities.
No manufacturing of any kind would be able to survive. All goods would have to be imported from the equatorial regions where the workers can actually afford to live. Obviously these warmer climates could not be within commuting distance. The only way for a cold climate economy to work would be to increase worker salaries dramatically. Enough to cover the ludicrously expensive electric heat or enough to justify being cold all the time. More likely the latter. Either way the salaries to work in the north/south would skyrocket until an equilibrium were achieved.
Most stores would not remain open all year round. Only in the summer and early fall/late spring. Because most workers would require huge salaries to justify having to be cold all the time.
It sounds like it would result in an interesting economy. Of course if we converted all of our power plants to nuclear before the ban, the cost of electricity would not rise so drastically and very little about our lives would change except for a higher risk of nuclear disaster and a lack of civilian air travel or long distance private car travel. All long distance trave
The irrational bullshit comes from people like you who demand absolute proof before acting.
The problem is that the only actions that would actually change anything involve a forced (meaning by armed government officials) return to 1600s techology. And not just be any one country. EVERY country on the planet would have to agree. Unless you want to talk in terms of world wars to convince the few skeptical countries not willing to go along. Think everyone driving a Prius or taking a train to work is going to do it? Think again. Life will be much much more uncomfortable for all of us and the lives that we do have will be shorter. Not to mention all future tech advancements will be stopped completely or at least kept 'underground'.
So, yes. I would like to have indisputable proof not only that Global Warming is happening but that it is happening due to our actions, that it is irreversible, and that it will in fact cause the 'end of the world', the destruction of the planet, the end of all life, or whatever it is that is supposed to happen. A rising sea level alone is not enough. If it happens, people on the coast have more than enough time to get out of the way. Or are you claiming that the additional water (from what used to be the Antarctic ice sheet) is in fact going to arrive as a tsunami?
More important is the temperature anomaly (which is global and indisputable)
No it is not indisputable. God, this is so tiresome having to show the same points over and over again. When you actually look at the evidence for global warming it is not very convincing, at least to an unbiased rational observer only concerned with facts. A global tempurature rise of 1 deg celsius over an entire century is nothing. Maybe next century we will have Global cooling of 1 degree based on the same kinds of measurements. Also, the temperature measuring stations around the world are not accurate enough to show such a small temperature change. And when you consider the modern urban heat island effect everything just falls apart. Which is why for many years during my lifetime Global Cooling is what we worried about. A lot of people thought we were headed toward another ice age. And no, it's not because the whole world was stupid at the that time. BTW, if this anomaly were due to global warming, then why haven't all lakes dried up? Although I am not certain how a infinitesimally higher than "average" temperature can cause lakes to dry up anywhere. Wouldn't lack of rain cause that?
While I do think Global Warming would be great (I live in a cold climate), and much better than Global Cooling, there isn't much that can be deduced from our very shaky evidence. I am no more convinced by said evidence (and yes I have actually looked at the data offered as proof) than by the evidence that was presented for Global Cooling. Perhaps 25 years from now everyone will be laughing about our silly belief in Global Warming since it is so obvious (except to rich oil comany executives of course) to everyone that we are on our way to another ice age.
if the use of this display prevents one $40,000 medical mistake,
If. There is no practical advantage too it. It's just cool. I don't want to have to walk around my 3D objects when I'm working. That's slow and tiring. I would rather just spin them around on my screen. Much faster and more efficient. Depth can be simulated with sequential field stereo and shutter glasses or two displays like with a HMD. There are also autostereo LCDs and projectors which are even more practical, although a bit more expensive.
Well I wouldn't exactly call 55c cool, even if it is within "design specifications". All it proves to me is that AMD makes some damn tough chips. The fact remains that you were probably dissipating around 67 watts for that 25 minutes. Didn't kill your chip or freeze your computer but how about trying it with Prime95 for 24 hours? Hey, you wanted to upgrade anyway, right? With cool'n'quiet and the thing idle the fan is not even needed.
Have you actually measured the CPU temps in the 1Ghz low state without a fan? Even a case fan? That would be an interesting test.
I run my GeForce4MX without a fan. I think it's only suppose to dissipate about 12 watts or so max.
I don't even run my PIII-S (Tualatin) without a fan and an excellent copper Thermaltake heatsink and that has a TDP of only 29.9W, less than half that of the Athlon64. However my heatsink isn't even warm to the touch let alone hot. It's kind of cold actually. I wouldn't run fanless at anything over 15 watts unless I didn't mind losing the chip at some point (desperately needed an excuse to upgrade).
Using C&Q, mine (only a 3000, but "close enough" to make my point) could probably get away with purely passive cooling.
Maybe, but you would need a truly MASSIVE heatsink or maybe passive water cooling. Even at the lowest CnQ setting at 1 Ghz you are still dissipating 22 watts. This is a bit much for practical passive air cooling. You would really need to be down to maybe half that, which is about where the passively cooled VIA CPUs are at.
Also, when CnQ decides to jump the CPU to 1.8 Ghz at 67 watts to run a stressful Java application, you may find that your computer freezes up unless you have a temp controlled fan that can spin up.
If you really want to go passive at 67 watts you might consider a geo-thermal, ground-based water cooling system. Still tough to do a truly passive one though (relying completely on convection to transfer the heated water).
People can also check out this article for an excellent primer on its use.
While over there don't miss Bryan Cassell's excellent article comparing the Athlon to Pentiums for 'quiet power'. He points out that Intel's TDP numbers are not maximums, but that AMD's numbers are. A very interesting read.
I am quite surprised that no one has leaked a copy of AMD's own PSTcheck as mentioned in this article. I have searched for it but to no avail. I would love to be able to play around with that one.
Silly question, but isn't the Pentium M just a tweaked P-III
Yes and no. I guess it depends on how would you define "tweaked"? The Pentium M was an entirely new core from the previous Tualatin. It was more like the next evolution of the PIII-S. It is not just like a mobile version of the Tualatin core.
As you can see from this white paper. AMD indicates that a 3500+ (Winchester core) has a TDP of 67W at 2200Mhz/1.4V, 56W at 2000/1.35, 46W at 1800/1.3, and 20W at 1000/1.1. Is there some kind of mystery here that I am missing? The numbers have been tested and published by AMD themselves (who would not exactly be inclined to post falsely high numbers).
only eats between 7 and 35W
Huh? Do you have a reference?
Pentium III line came in at the low 30s) with a theoretical max somewhere in the 60W range.
The TDP for a Pentium III-S is 29.97W even at 1.4 Ghz. Yes that is the maximum power. I realize you may have been referring to the older Coppermine core and not the newer Tualatin core. The numbers for the Coppermine core varied a lot depending on clock speed.
Unfortunately the transmeta is still too slow for most people. Even for quiet computer fanatics like myself. With the Pentium M and 90nm underclocked undervolted Athlon64s (or even a PIII-S) the transmeta does not have much of a niche on the desktop. Great for low power embedded systems though.
Meaning they can compete nicely with a 300 Mhz Celeron? Sorry but most people nowadays would not regard their performance as "decent". Go look at some benchmarks please.
Correction. The NEC Diamondtron RDF225WG has a 140khz refresh. But it is nearly $5000 new. Yikes. There is also the NEC MultiSync FP1375X and FP1370 with 130khz refresh but these have been discontinued and are not even currently available on Ebay.
I did manage to find a NEC DiamondPro DP2070SB with 140khz refresh for $730 supposedly new. I bet it is actually refurbished though. These monitors with 140khz refresh are suprisingly hard to track down. I still haven't found a currently manufactured one. I will post an update when I do. I have been inspired to make a list of all of these 140khz monitors so that I can search Ebay for them from time to time. Perhaps I will post that too since it seems relevant to the article.
Can you name any specific Iiyama, Mitsubishi or NEC model that actually has that horizontal refresh rate? I am finding many counter-examples that don't have it. In fact most of them are only 110-115khz. I found one NEC that has 121khz, but that is no better than the Samsung.
I predict, for example, that if the Soviet Union had not gotten nuclear weapons as quickly as they did, that there was a nontrivial probability that the US would have attacked the Soviet Union in the '50s.
Do you have any evidence of that? Any at all? There haven't been many wars that the US has initiated unprovoked. I see that scenario as EXTREMELY unlikely. With or without nukes Russia would have been a formidable opponent. The US was well aware of that.
If the US chose to invade conventionally, neither nation is likely to be able to stand for long.
Yeah. That makes a lot of sense. So I guess both sides would lose then?
One point you seem to be missing is that no country has ever used nuclear weapons in combat since their first use in Japan, when little was actually known about them. This is because most (sane) military leaders realize they are next to useless as weapons, even in defense.
In modern warfare, they are mostly a scorched earth civilian killer, which makes large areas of land uninhabitable for many years. Also, due to their rather crude nature, forces with sophisticated, high tech weapons at their disposal are by far less likely to be the first to use them. It is hard to imagine a scenario where the US for instance would benefit from using them. At this point they are really just terrorist weapons that have no real purpose except as a pseudo-deterrent.
The only plausible scenario for their use is with any country with a genuinely insane leader. I don't even think the North Korean leader qualifies. I don't think he would actually use a nuke. He (falsely) believes as do you that it would serve as a deterrent for an invasion. I don't believe that it would. He would not be stupid or crazy enough to actually use one and the US is well aware of that reality.
MAD may be useful in getting people to avoid the use of nuclear weapons. Since their only likely use by anyone in actual warfare is in retaliation for their use. It could be argued that even in retaliation it isn't very practical.
No no no. The problem with bittorrent is precisely longevity. Torrents tend to die off within a few weeks. A better solution (and one that I am planning) is to first store all your music in a lossless format like flac or ape. I prefer ape just because it compresses a little better at the highest settings. Then release each CD onto the ed2k network (with either Emule or Edonkey). Once it is widespread enough it should take on a life of its own and be self sustaining (and thus downloadable) for probably 6 months to a year. So just re-seed it annually. Some note like "please keep shared for as long as you can" may or may not help. Music in lossless archived CD format is actually starting to become noticeable on the ed2k network.
I found this easy explanation of horizontal refresh rate. For shutter glass use it is probably the most important spec. I am currently using a Philips 201B (which I don't recommend) I bought in the 90s. It has a 115khz maximum horizontal refresh rate (scanning frequency). I see that as the absolute minimum for sequential stereo display. You should really be looking for 120khz and higher
The Samsung 1100DF has a 121khz horizontal refresh rate and is only $449+$35 shipping at newegg. I'd recommend that one. According to the tomshardware article 121,000/1024*0.95 = 112 hz for a refresh rate (at 1280x1024) or 56 hz in sequential stereo mode. Ouch. That doesn't quite make it, does it? Anyone know of a currently manufactured monitor with a higher horizontal refresh rate?
The vendors have said that autostereo LCDs are on the way in 12 to 18 months, but what can I do in the meantime?
Autostereo LCDs are already here if you have the cash. They are just expensive and those dealers choose not to sell them.
I have several sets of shutter glasses myself (including a Revelator) and love them for gaming. The only problem is that I can only use them for 30 minutes or so before I have to rest or I will get a very severe headache. This can get tiresome for gaming. But images sticking out of (or into) your monitor are pretty addictive and it's hard to stop. So I end up with headaches. I presume you don't have this problem.
I recommend looking into a genuine HMD. I just checked and Christoph Bungert still has his siteup after all these years. It used to be the best site for news and information on stereo displays, especially shutter glasses. I don't know if it still is.
Furthermore, does this mean the end is near for CRTs? While there does still seem to be a market for CRTs, it seems to be dwindling to a narrow niche. Are LCDs ready to take over as the primary computer display or is the retirement of CRTs, premature?
I think it really is the beginning of the end for them as a mainstream consumer product. For that reason it is an especially good time to buy the best one we can afford to hold us over until new stereo display tech is introduced or HMDs drop in price and improve enough in quality to be a viable alternative.
There seem to still be quite a few suitable 21" CRT monitors for sale here for around half of what they cost when I last bought one in the 90s. And some of them have some very high refresh rates at 2048x1536. Hopefully that means 1280x1024 sequential stereo refresh rates will be high enough (60+). I don't know who your vendors are, but I would advise dumping them and just buying from Newegg.
Slashdot Mirror
The primitive man who first discovered fire could not have known that his discovery would eventually destroy all life on the planet. Or did he? Was there someone else with him?
A good start, as far as the US is concerned, would be to reduce per-capita energy usage to levels found in other Western nations.
I don't care about a "start". Either you have a plan or you don't. And one (despised) country's plans are nearly irrelevant. As happy as it might make you to see something bad happen to the US it is still irrelevant. The whole world would have to agree on some VERY extreme measures if you want to stop our species dependence on combustion. I mean, not since the invention of fire has anyone tried to stop its use. It is a pretty fundamental task you are advocating: taking fire away from man. But I'm not sure that you appreciate that.
Either you are proposing a real solution to a real problem or you are just proposing some political solution that would make you feel good without actually solving 'the problem'.
then we should change our lifestyles.
But how? As a species we are pretty reliant on comubustion at this point. We are all pro-nuke here right? I guess we could try to go all electric for everything and rely completely on nuclear power. Next we need nuclear powered airplanes. Although, unless I am mistaken, the supply of uranium is not inexhaustable either. Eventually we will run out of that too. Although perhaps not in 40 years as with fossil fuels.
Reliable? Are you kidding? Those russians had super-thermometers that were accurate to +/- .01 degrees celsius even back in 1892. They were digital too and hooked up to fancy computers with dual core processors so that the data could be automatically logged. It's not like we were relying on some guy to actually have to check the meniscus in a fluid filled glass cylinder everyday, making sure that his results were accurate to .01 degrees so that people a hundred years hence would not see his errors as some kind of subtle climate change that would eventually destroy all life on the planet.
BTW, can anyone point me to some atmospheric thermometers that are accurate enough to show me temperature trends of less than 1 degree celsius in my own house? I have been looking for one for years. Seems like the most accurate ones are total immersion glass-mercury ones in long graduated cylinders that only measure in a 20 degree range or so. Hardly practical.
unpredictable weather,
LOL. What a hoot. Damn this Global Warming! Isn't someone going to think of the children?
When the Dubya regime rejects the science behind global warming in order to justify rejection of the Kyoto Treaty,
Sorry but the Kyoto Treaty is an embarrassment. Have you actually read the thing? It is fracking ridiculous. It is a tiny, tiny, drop in what would be a huge ocean. It is worse than doing nothing because it makes everyone feel like they are doing something or taking it seriously.
Instead of getting mad at some idiot leader of only one country? Why not be angry at the morons who came up with the darn thing in the first place. Instead of coming up with the only realistic way of halting the alleged end of the world: an outright ban on all burning. If the chemical reaction known as 'burning' is in fact going to result in boiling oceans and the 'end of the world as we know it' then it would need to be outlawed by all nations on earth.
Because what you are proposing is to gamble with the lives of several billion people just so that people can drive around in SUVs for another few decades.
So your solution is to get rid of SUVs? Fine. I'm all for it. I hate the damn things. But if you think any resulting decline in CO2 would be measurable by anyone you are extremely deluded.
Let me give you a hint. Think nuclear and/or horses. You are pro-nuclear right? And don't mind having a nuclear power plant down the street from you right? And lots of horse manure in the streets.
but most people who've studied the data believe it to be a definite possibility.
Wow. Those folks sound really certain. Sounds like they have absolute proof of human CO2 induced Global Warming. So where is it?
Peer reviewed journals have printed article after article
Strange that they are never cited in discussions like these. I wonder why.
written by people actually in the Polar Regions
Well I live in a pretty cold climate too. Does that give what I am saying more weight?
taking measurements
Huh? The only 'proof' that pro-GW folks have is based on 20th century weather station data. Unfortunately using that data to reach any kind of conclusion is shaky at best. Current measurements can only help to show warming effects a decade from now. You can't actually measure what the temperature was last year or 10 years ago etc (unless you have a time machine of course).
that say that it's quite likely that the ice caps are melting fast enough.
That's what it always comes down to in these arguments: Argument by Authority. My expert is better than your expert! All of your experts have been paid by the oil companies and are cracks/whakos! All of our experts are currently employed. NONE of yours are!
I will admit that it is nearly impossible these days to remain an "expert" and also be skeptical of human induced global warming scenarios. I will admit that most of the experts on our side are now working at Walmart as cashiers or pumping gas instead of teaching at a university. So no one really cares about their opinions anymore.
In any case some people who have studied the data do not reach the same conclusions that you have. So who is right? We may as well be arguing about the existence of God. Oh wait...
One more thing. Let's assume for a second that your model is the correct one. That everything you say is true. What do you intend to do about it? And is the cure worse than the disease? Otherwise all this talk is just so much wanking.
Kinda takes me back to the 1200s!
Which is funny because if what they are claiming is true that is the only real solution, the only way to sufficiently reduce further CO2 production to stop the calamity. We might even be allowed to burn a little bit of wood. Hopefully we will have quota exemptions for the burning of witches and heretics, because humans are large scale 02->C02 factories. Presumably the loss of this C02 would balance the additional C02 created in burning the wood (and their bodies).
It would be interesting if we could all declare a few years of total non-burning. Just to see if it is a viable option. No burning of any fuel, not oil (not even vegetable oil) or gas or wood. No transportation except by pure electric vehicle or horse or bicycle. No electricity except by wind/solar/hydro/nuclear. Even minor violations like posession or use of matches, cigarettes or candles would be punishable by slow torture and violent death.
Air travel would be impossible except maybe for military fighter jets. So most people would travel by sailboat (or nuclear ship) for the few international trips.
Horses would again become the main form of transportation. Along with bicycles, including new four wheel, multi-person ones. The rich would be driving electric scooters. The super-rich would drive electric cars and heat their super-insulated homes with electric heaters. The rest of us would travel by horse and buggy or occasionally on expensive nuclear-electric trains (probably only for long distance travel between cities).
Electricity would become so expensive that only the truly rich would be able to afford it. Ironically people would probably be forced to move away from the poles toward the equator. Equatorial areas would become super-densely populated, every building an apartment building, every inch of land with a building on it, every tree cut down.
It is true that even today the cost of living is higher where there are cold winters, but after the first burning ban, workers would no longer be able to afford any heat at all. With electricity at $107/kwh even super-insulating the buildings would not be enough to pay for electric heat. And there would be no other kind.
The price of photovoltaic systems for homes would skyrocket. Even among those who could afford them, few would be able to afford the whole-roof systems made with the newest tech, and with enough power for electric resistance heaters. The northern cities of today would be thinned out. Only the rich could afford to live there. Although it would be extremely expensive for those remaining.
The only stores remaining open would presumably be general purpose ones providing food/necessities for the rich but being so expensive that the workers themselves could not afford to buy any of it. They would have to bring all their own food from the equatorial cities.
No manufacturing of any kind would be able to survive. All goods would have to be imported from the equatorial regions where the workers can actually afford to live. Obviously these warmer climates could not be within commuting distance. The only way for a cold climate economy to work would be to increase worker salaries dramatically. Enough to cover the ludicrously expensive electric heat or enough to justify being cold all the time. More likely the latter. Either way the salaries to work in the north/south would skyrocket until an equilibrium were achieved.
Most stores would not remain open all year round. Only in the summer and early fall/late spring. Because most workers would require huge salaries to justify having to be cold all the time.
It sounds like it would result in an interesting economy. Of course if we converted all of our power plants to nuclear before the ban, the cost of electricity would not rise so drastically and very little about our lives would change except for a higher risk of nuclear disaster and a lack of civilian air travel or long distance private car travel. All long distance trave
The irrational bullshit comes from people like you who demand absolute proof before acting.
The problem is that the only actions that would actually change anything involve a forced (meaning by armed government officials) return to 1600s techology. And not just be any one country. EVERY country on the planet would have to agree. Unless you want to talk in terms of world wars to convince the few skeptical countries not willing to go along. Think everyone driving a Prius or taking a train to work is going to do it? Think again. Life will be much much more uncomfortable for all of us and the lives that we do have will be shorter. Not to mention all future tech advancements will be stopped completely or at least kept 'underground'.
So, yes. I would like to have indisputable proof not only that Global Warming is happening but that it is happening due to our actions, that it is irreversible, and that it will in fact cause the 'end of the world', the destruction of the planet, the end of all life, or whatever it is that is supposed to happen. A rising sea level alone is not enough. If it happens, people on the coast have more than enough time to get out of the way. Or are you claiming that the additional water (from what used to be the Antarctic ice sheet) is in fact going to arrive as a tsunami?
More important is the temperature anomaly (which is global and indisputable)
No it is not indisputable. God, this is so tiresome having to show the same points over and over again. When you actually look at the evidence for global warming it is not very convincing, at least to an unbiased rational observer only concerned with facts. A global tempurature rise of 1 deg celsius over an entire century is nothing. Maybe next century we will have Global cooling of 1 degree based on the same kinds of measurements. Also, the temperature measuring stations around the world are not accurate enough to show such a small temperature change. And when you consider the modern urban heat island effect everything just falls apart. Which is why for many years during my lifetime Global Cooling is what we worried about. A lot of people thought we were headed toward another ice age. And no, it's not because the whole world was stupid at the that time. BTW, if this anomaly were due to global warming, then why haven't all lakes dried up? Although I am not certain how a infinitesimally higher than "average" temperature can cause lakes to dry up anywhere. Wouldn't lack of rain cause that?
While I do think Global Warming would be great (I live in a cold climate), and much better than Global Cooling, there isn't much that can be deduced from our very shaky evidence. I am no more convinced by said evidence (and yes I have actually looked at the data offered as proof) than by the evidence that was presented for Global Cooling. Perhaps 25 years from now everyone will be laughing about our silly belief in Global Warming since it is so obvious (except to rich oil comany executives of course) to everyone that we are on our way to another ice age.
if the use of this display prevents one $40,000 medical mistake,
If. There is no practical advantage too it. It's just cool. I don't want to have to walk around my 3D objects when I'm working. That's slow and tiring. I would rather just spin them around on my screen. Much faster and more efficient. Depth can be simulated with sequential field stereo and shutter glasses or two displays like with a HMD. There are also autostereo LCDs and projectors which are even more practical, although a bit more expensive.
Well I wouldn't exactly call 55c cool, even if it is within "design specifications". All it proves to me is that AMD makes some damn tough chips. The fact remains that you were probably dissipating around 67 watts for that 25 minutes. Didn't kill your chip or freeze your computer but how about trying it with Prime95 for 24 hours? Hey, you wanted to upgrade anyway, right?
With cool'n'quiet and the thing idle the fan is not even needed.
Have you actually measured the CPU temps in the 1Ghz low state without a fan? Even a case fan? That would be an interesting test.
I run my GeForce4MX without a fan. I think it's only suppose to dissipate about 12 watts or so max.
I don't even run my PIII-S (Tualatin) without a fan and an excellent copper Thermaltake heatsink and that has a TDP of only 29.9W, less than half that of the Athlon64. However my heatsink isn't even warm to the touch let alone hot. It's kind of cold actually. I wouldn't run fanless at anything over 15 watts unless I didn't mind losing the chip at some point (desperately needed an excuse to upgrade).
Using C&Q, mine (only a 3000, but "close enough" to make my point) could probably get away with purely passive cooling.
Maybe, but you would need a truly MASSIVE heatsink or maybe passive water cooling. Even at the lowest CnQ setting at 1 Ghz you are still dissipating 22 watts. This is a bit much for practical passive air cooling. You would really need to be down to maybe half that, which is about where the passively cooled VIA CPUs are at.
Also, when CnQ decides to jump the CPU to 1.8 Ghz at 67 watts to run a stressful Java application, you may find that your computer freezes up unless you have a temp controlled fan that can spin up.
If you really want to go passive at 67 watts you might consider a geo-thermal, ground-based water cooling system. Still tough to do a truly passive one though (relying completely on convection to transfer the heated water).
People can also check out this article for an excellent primer on its use.
While over there don't miss Bryan Cassell's excellent article comparing the Athlon to Pentiums for 'quiet power'. He points out that Intel's TDP numbers are not maximums, but that AMD's numbers are. A very interesting read.
I am quite surprised that no one has leaked a copy of AMD's own PSTcheck as mentioned in this article. I have searched for it but to no avail. I would love to be able to play around with that one.
Silly question, but isn't the Pentium M just a tweaked P-III
Yes and no. I guess it depends on how would you define "tweaked"? The Pentium M was an entirely new core from the previous Tualatin. It was more like the next evolution of the PIII-S. It is not just like a mobile version of the Tualatin core.
published numbers seem to vary a LOT
Interesting. I haven't noticed that myself.
and I'd love to see some hard data on the min, mean, and max draw of the 90nm Athlon 64s
Well you can start here.
As you can see from this white paper. AMD indicates that a 3500+ (Winchester core) has a TDP of 67W at 2200Mhz/1.4V, 56W at 2000/1.35, 46W at 1800/1.3, and 20W at 1000/1.1. Is there some kind of mystery here that I am missing? The numbers have been tested and published by AMD themselves (who would not exactly be inclined to post falsely high numbers).
only eats between 7 and 35W
Huh? Do you have a reference?
Pentium III line came in at the low 30s) with a theoretical max somewhere in the 60W range.
The TDP for a Pentium III-S is 29.97W even at 1.4 Ghz. Yes that is the maximum power. I realize you may have been referring to the older Coppermine core and not the newer Tualatin core. The numbers for the Coppermine core varied a lot depending on clock speed.
Unfortunately the transmeta is still too slow for most people. Even for quiet computer fanatics like myself. With the Pentium M and 90nm underclocked undervolted Athlon64s (or even a PIII-S) the transmeta does not have much of a niche on the desktop. Great for low power embedded systems though.
and yet still with decent performance.
Meaning they can compete nicely with a 300 Mhz Celeron? Sorry but most people nowadays would not regard their performance as "decent". Go look at some benchmarks please.
Correction. The NEC Diamondtron RDF225WG has a 140khz refresh. But it is nearly $5000 new. Yikes. There is also the NEC MultiSync FP1375X and FP1370 with 130khz refresh but these have been discontinued and are not even currently available on Ebay.
I did manage to find a NEC DiamondPro DP2070SB with 140khz refresh for $730 supposedly new. I bet it is actually refurbished though. These monitors with 140khz refresh are suprisingly hard to track down. I still haven't found a currently manufactured one. I will post an update when I do. I have been inspired to make a list of all of these 140khz monitors so that I can search Ebay for them from time to time. Perhaps I will post that too since it seems relevant to the article.
Can you name any specific Iiyama, Mitsubishi or NEC model that actually has that horizontal refresh rate? I am finding many counter-examples that don't have it. In fact most of them are only 110-115khz. I found one NEC that has 121khz, but that is no better than the Samsung.
I predict, for example, that if the Soviet Union had not gotten nuclear weapons as quickly as they did, that there was a nontrivial probability that the US would have attacked the Soviet Union in the '50s.
Do you have any evidence of that? Any at all? There haven't been many wars that the US has initiated unprovoked. I see that scenario as EXTREMELY unlikely. With or without nukes Russia would have been a formidable opponent. The US was well aware of that.
If the US chose to invade conventionally, neither nation is likely to be able to stand for long.
Yeah. That makes a lot of sense. So I guess both sides would lose then?
One point you seem to be missing is that no country has ever used nuclear weapons in combat since their first use in Japan, when little was actually known about them. This is because most (sane) military leaders realize they are next to useless as weapons, even in defense.
In modern warfare, they are mostly a scorched earth civilian killer, which makes large areas of land uninhabitable for many years. Also, due to their rather crude nature, forces with sophisticated, high tech weapons at their disposal are by far less likely to be the first to use them. It is hard to imagine a scenario where the US for instance would benefit from using them. At this point they are really just terrorist weapons that have no real purpose except as a pseudo-deterrent.
The only plausible scenario for their use is with any country with a genuinely insane leader. I don't even think the North Korean leader qualifies. I don't think he would actually use a nuke. He (falsely) believes as do you that it would serve as a deterrent for an invasion. I don't believe that it would. He would not be stupid or crazy enough to actually use one and the US is well aware of that reality.
MAD may be useful in getting people to avoid the use of nuclear weapons. Since their only likely use by anyone in actual warfare is in retaliation for their use. It could be argued that even in retaliation it isn't very practical.
No no no. The problem with bittorrent is precisely longevity. Torrents tend to die off within a few weeks. A better solution (and one that I am planning) is to first store all your music in a lossless format like flac or ape. I prefer ape just because it compresses a little better at the highest settings. Then release each CD onto the ed2k network (with either Emule or Edonkey). Once it is widespread enough it should take on a life of its own and be self sustaining (and thus downloadable) for probably 6 months to a year. So just re-seed it annually. Some note like "please keep shared for as long as you can" may or may not help. Music in lossless archived CD format is actually starting to become noticeable on the ed2k network.
I found this easy explanation of horizontal refresh rate. For shutter glass use it is probably the most important spec. I am currently using a Philips 201B (which I don't recommend) I bought in the 90s. It has a 115khz maximum horizontal refresh rate (scanning frequency). I see that as the absolute minimum for sequential stereo display. You should really be looking for 120khz and higher
The Samsung 1100DF has a 121khz horizontal refresh rate and is only $449+$35 shipping at newegg. I'd recommend that one. According to the tomshardware article 121,000/1024*0.95 = 112 hz for a refresh rate (at 1280x1024) or 56 hz in sequential stereo mode. Ouch. That doesn't quite make it, does it? Anyone know of a currently manufactured monitor with a higher horizontal refresh rate?
The vendors have said that autostereo LCDs are on the way in 12 to 18 months, but what can I do in the meantime?
Autostereo LCDs are already here if you have the cash. They are just expensive and those dealers choose not to sell them.
I have several sets of shutter glasses myself (including a Revelator) and love them for gaming. The only problem is that I can only use them for 30 minutes or so before I have to rest or I will get a very severe headache. This can get tiresome for gaming. But images sticking out of (or into) your monitor are pretty addictive and it's hard to stop. So I end up with headaches. I presume you don't have this problem.
I recommend looking into a genuine HMD. I just checked and Christoph Bungert still has his siteup after all these years. It used to be the best site for news and information on stereo displays, especially shutter glasses. I don't know if it still is.
Furthermore, does this mean the end is near for CRTs? While there does still seem to be a market for CRTs, it seems to be dwindling to a narrow niche. Are LCDs ready to take over as the primary computer display or is the retirement of CRTs, premature?
I think it really is the beginning of the end for them as a mainstream consumer product. For that reason it is an especially good time to buy the best one we can afford to hold us over until new stereo display tech is introduced or HMDs drop in price and improve enough in quality to be a viable alternative.
There seem to still be quite a few suitable 21" CRT monitors for sale here for around half of what they cost when I last bought one in the 90s. And some of them have some very high refresh rates at 2048x1536. Hopefully that means 1280x1024 sequential stereo refresh rates will be high enough (60+). I don't know who your vendors are, but I would advise dumping them and just buying from Newegg.