yes but what if i already have a dual 939 system can i upgrade to a 4way system but updating my bios?
No, because there shouldn't such a thing as a dual S939 system;) However, if you have a dual socket S940 system, you should be able to do exactly what you are asking.
The reason that most geeks are going for the 'smaller team' is that they know stuff that J. Random End-Luser doesn't: they understand why Windows is a bad choice, and why [generic unix] is better.
Making a choice depends on the question being asked and for what criteria. It's difficult to say what is a "bad" choice and what is a "good" choice when there was no question/criteria stated.
Many of the Linux folks pick the platform (Linux) and see everything else as being built on top of it. Most users pick the applications and see the OS as just something necessary to get their applications to run. That is one of the main issues that some don't understand.
It's also about popularity. Most/. were probably picked on or socially outcast when younger by the popular crowd at school. For this, they typically rebel against anything popular and gravitate toward the underdog and embrace their "outcastness". They will tend to do things the opposite of what is popular. There have been many things that change over time. In the past (80s), geeks had to be fairly wealthy (have fairly wealthy parents) to afford a computer. Today, most seem strapped for cash. Geeks were typically highly educated back then, usually. Today, many morons think they are geeks. I think the number of geeks who were health-food nuts has declined, too. Geeks of the 80s were typically straight laced, today it's common to hear about geeks who enjoy... chemical entertainment.
It's mostly about the underdog. If/when Linux becomes dominant to the point Microsoft is today, there'll be some other underdog that the geeks will migrate towards because it's 'cool' to be in a smaller 'l33t' group that is somehow superior (in their own eyes) than the 'common masses'.
Assuming they release the part at 2.4GHz from the start. The part demo'd was an engineering sample, not the final released part.
The first engineering samples of the original Pentium that I ever saw were 75MHz parts. The first released Pentiums that I ever saw were 60/66MHz parts.
There's also been a rumor floated around that AMD's dual-core chips will claim to be 1 physical processor with 2 logical cores (a la hyperthreading). I haven't been able to verify the accuracy of that rumor though and I'm personally rather skeptical of it's accuracy.
I hope not because this may cause the scheduler to mis-handle the threads. Two compute intensive threads in HT is "bad". Two compute intensive threads on a dually(socket or core) is "ok".
What I want to know is how much money these processors will save in power consumption compared to how much more they will cost over their single core cousins... No one has said anything about that yet.
Intel has already announced pricing for dual-core Smithfields. They start at ~$250USD for the dual-core 2.8GHz part. Compare that to your favorite shopping spot to other single-core Intel parts.
Yes, a dual-core CPU is functionally equivalent to a dual processor CPU. One of the largest differences is cost. Last year, if you wanted a dual CPU machine, you had to buy a dual socket motherboard. Dual socket motherboards are more expensive to produce than single socket motherboards. The obvious difference in cost is that you have to buy (and charge for) another socket. But you also have to have all of the voltage regulator circuitry (x2) and the motherboard traces to memory, between CPUs and all of that. This makes dual socket motherboards more expensive... more traces running all over require more area, more area = more cost. It also makes the boards more complicated because there are lots more traces that can be bad when it's made. So, a dual socket motherboard can easily cost 2x that of a single socket motherboard and it is probably larger too.
For examples, go to the Tyan web site and look at their boards. The cheapest dual socket motherboards you'll find are in the $250 range and the better boards are around $500. They are also E-ATX (extended ATX) so they require bigger cases. Also, they have more power requirements so you have to buy big power supplies with special connectors. Pretty much, the cheapest you can put together a dual Opteron rig (with all new parts) with even slow CPUs is around $1500.
Now, with dual core, the motherboards are no more complicated or costly than single socket boards because, well, they *are* single socket boards. The power requirements are lower than dual socket boards so you can use "regular" power supplies with them. You can also use the regular ATX cases. The cost for having a dual core computer compared with a single is simply the difference in the costs of the two processors... Considering, say, $700 for all the parts minus the cost of the CPU. Suppose there's a $50 difference in the cost of the CPUs, so maybe $1000 will get you into a decent dual-core/single-socket machine.
Also, as many folks have pointed out, there's MUCH more stuff done on computers than play games. Currently, I'm working on a project that takes about 20 minutes to compile on this single processor machine. Having a dual(core|processor) machine would boost my productivity greatly during the times when I have to do a complete build because I could use 'make' with '-j #' where '#' would be 3 or 4 instead of 1 or 2 as we do now on single cpu machines.
A good way to try to sidestep the fact that they're all butt-ugly!:-) (It's a cute saying, and it's good for avoiding arguments, but it's not helpful in figuring out what's good.)
Are you saying that the measure of beauty is not subjective?
300+ cases mean *choice*. I want a case to match my purple with orange polkadot wallpaper? I bet I can find one.
If you have purple and orange polkadot wallpaper, I question your ability to judge beauty.
And sadly, in the PC world, "choice" means "I can find one butt-ugly enough to match my butt-ugly wallpaper".
No... you'd simply have a different set of aesthetics. Some people like to dress in clothes that have colors/patterns that are not "beautiful" to me. However, I assume that they think they are, otherwise they wouldn't be adorning their bodies with those clothes.
Personally, I think wasting time over a case is kinda silly because I can always put an ugly case in a closet or otherwise out of sight, as long as the case has other qualities I like, such as good airflow, nice mounting brackets, etc.
Translation: "Hey, this PC case isn't ugly! OK, this one is, but you have choice -- not all PC cases are ugly! I mean, OK, they're all ugly, but who cares?"
Nope, again... you have the choice to make your case as nice or as plain/ugly as you want. Also, what about the PC mods that are put into Mac cases. Does this somehow mean that those cases are no longer belovedly Apple beautiful?
Anybody who's banged his head on the desk trying to put a CD in an out-of-sight PC tower should realize that it matters. Tear up my geek membership card if you must, but being able to put a CD in the drive without (literally) hitting my head on my desk is far more important than "nice mounting brackets".
Most PC users are smart enough not to repeatedly bang their heads on a desk.
Sure they are... the committee decided those are the only cases you will get. No choice, you have to like them or love them.
Jonathan Ive (or was that Princell Leia?): "I am *not* a committee!"
Seriously, though, Apple computers aren't designed by committee. They're designed by Jonathan Ive, and his team. You can tell because they have what Fred Brooks and Alan Cooper call conceptual integrity. Dells and HPs don't -- they obviously *were* designed by committee.
Ok... Apple computers are designed by a [self-]constituted organization for the promotion of a common object, which happens to be the definition of "committee" as per Merriam Webster I guess in this case, it's a Steve-constituted organization though.
People do have a choice about what to like. Not all Apple products are loved. The first iBooks, for example, were hated by many (including me); the new design is much, much better.
This statement completely contradicts what you said above. You implied that beauty is not subjective and yet here you clearly say it is.
When it comes down to it, as an expression of personality, the modding scene is much, much more evident in the PC world than in the Mac world. There may be a number of reasons for this ranging from... PCs are initially ugly and modders make them 'beautiful' to their own tastes, PC modders simply have the artistic and mechanical skills to personalize things they already have, to Mac users are of a single mind-set and know no better than to embrace what the Great Steve blesses them with from time to time.
Honestly... since the Mac Mini was released and seeing the comments in this thread of Maclots claiming that the Mini is the "true SFF", form over function arguments, proclaiming that all PCs are ugly and Macs are embodied perfection... the more that "The Cult of Mac" makes sense. It's more of a religion to Mac users than anything else. As I saw elsewhere, The Great Steve could probably relieve himself in a Mac M
Welcome to software... coders can't resist adding that *one more feature*. Some features are nice, others aren't so much. The Linux in-memory image (including X because Windows has a GUI) is more resource intensive than Windows these days.
My Shuttles can do every single thing you just mentioned with the exception of running OSX. Plus, I can do lots more stuff if I decide to, which you specifically mention you have no use for.
Different strokes for different folks, but claiming that upgrading a CPU or graphics card is worthless simply because you have no need for it is simply a worthless argument.
I went through the tweaking phase back in college. I grew out of it. There are more important things in life than tweaking your motherboard to get a couple more megahertz, or running the latest super-duper graphics card.
Yep, me too. But I do continue to play games and do things where having a nice video card is good. I can upgrade parts of my Shuttles and continue the life of the box for many years (I already have... I've owned two Shuttles for over two years now and have upgraded video, processors, and memory at different times). I don't have to run out and buy a whole new box just to gain one piece of new functionality. Add a video compression board so I can do Tivo like things? no problem, go out and buy one and put it in my Shuttle. That's about $40. Try to the same to your Mac Mini without buying a whole new box.
And you'd be wrong because these are smaller than a mini-tower. Here's a picture of my two Shuttle G-series SFF boxes. The P-series is only a little taller. If you take a Mac Mini and stand it on edge, that's the size of the front of the case. If you then extrude the Mini back a ways, that's the Shuttle SFF G-series case.
Is 300 different cases enough, if they're all butt-ugly? Is 3 not enough, if they're all beautiful?
First, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The (lamp) iMac and eMac are ass ugly to me, for example. 300+ cases mean *choice*. I want a case to match my purple with orange polkadot wallpaper? I bet I can find one. I like the color green? I bet I can find a green case. I can personalize my computer to my own aesthetics, even if you think it is ugly. Personally, I think wasting time over a case is kinda silly because I can always put an ugly case in a closet or otherwise out of sight, as long as the case has other qualities I like, such as good airflow, nice mounting brackets, etc.
Apple's cases aren't cool because some committee told us we're supposed to think they're cool. They're cool because they'r beautiful, *in addition* to being practical: the hallmark of good design.
Sure they are... the committee decided those are the only cases you will get. No choice, you have to like them or love them.
I own two Shuttle SN41G2 (Athlon XP SFF). Originally, I bought one for a stereo system component but it proved unwieldy in my apartment because I didn't want to run wires and 802.11b was the only wireless available and it was too slow for my needs.
Eventually, I bought another as my main machine and pulled that one out and made it into a regular type machine.
Now, I'm married and my wife and I each use one for LAN parties. They aren't our main machines anymore, but we use them every week to go to friends' houses to play in groups.
My main SFF once had a GeForce 4 Ti 4600, a DVD/ROM, and two HDD in it and it ran off of the 200W PSU with no problems. Eventually, I built a server and took one of the HDD out.
Over the last two years or so, I've upgraded it first to a 9800Pro then downgraded to a 9600XT when I built a new machine and took the 9800 for the new machine.
Each of the SFF has 1G memory in them. Well... here is the list of stuff I have (names Grinder and Speedy)
Anyway, the Shuttles provide me with the following:
- Good CPU support (can put the CPU I want in it) - Upgradability through AGP/PCI slots (primarily to upgrade to newer/better graphics cards) - Upgradability for HDD/CD/DVD - Upgradability for memory (has two DIMM slots) - Small enough to be portable, I have Shuttle made bags to carry them around in. - Wide support for other hardware... has all the ports normally found on big boxes - USB, serial, etc. - Fairly lightweight - about as heavy as the heaviest desktop replacement laptops - my wife can carry hers around by herself with no problems though with the bag. - Pretty small - when I was using them as my main machines, I could put them on top of my desk and still have plenty of room to work - No (or almost no) performance penalties for going with a more "exotic" form factor. These things perform just as well as larger boxes with the same CPU/memory/graphics
Yes, but the main issue is spreading the heat over the area of the pan and avoiding hotspots. With one P4, you'd have one spot where heat was being introduced to the pan. With seven, you have more points of contact. This is why you'll see professional chefs prefer gas stoves instead of electric because flame heats a large area while the electric typically heats where the pan touches the element, which may only be a few spots if the pan and/or the element aren't perfectly flat.
Yes, but considering the problems they want to solve require the largest computers in existance... For example, it wasn't until ASCII Red (the ~10,000 processor PentiumPro machine) when there was enough compute power to come *close* to simulating an atomic bomb blast. So, you'd have to replicate machines of that order all over the place, each for a particular instance of simulation.
Yeah... like I heard on the radio this morning... it's like cigarettes...
Government says: Gas hog => BAD, Hybrid => GOOD
But then they start to lose tax dollars because less gas is being bought, so now they have to figure out how to get the tax dollars back.
Just like cigarettes... Cigarette => BAD, raise taxes on cigarettes and say that the money goes to a good cause of funding some programs and fund campaigns to get people to quit smoking...
Well, they work and people quit smoking, now the government is panicing because they get less tax money and you *can't have that* so they find something else to tax.
I have some friends who are big NASCAR fans (personally, I don't care for it) but they have an interesting anecdote along these lines.
There was a Formula1 racetrack (those cars that are like 1000lbs and have 850+ hp) where NASCAR wanted to race. The Formula folks didn't want them to race on it and said that the NASCAR cars, weighing in at around 3500lbs would tear up the track because of all of the extra weight. After doing some tests, the Formula1 cars were shown to have far more curb weight than the NASCAR cars because of the aerodynamics (basically, the Formula cars use wings to help push the cars down on the track really hard for more traction).
I dunno if true, but it's said that a Formula car generates enough downforce at high speeds to be able to drive on the ceiling of a tunnel.
Well... that would be told in confidentiality. If your solicitor then printed fliers with your admission and posted them all over town with the information, it would be something different altogether.
Slashdot Mirror
At least it's not this
I'm not a Mac fan but the amount of idiocy in that "article" pissed me off to the point I emailed the author and his bosses about it with a rebuttal.
yes but what if i already have a dual 939 system can i upgrade to a 4way system but updating my bios?
;) However, if you have a dual socket S940 system, you should be able to do exactly what you are asking.
No, because there shouldn't such a thing as a dual S939 system
The reason that most geeks are going for the 'smaller team' is that they know stuff that J. Random End-Luser doesn't: they understand why Windows is a bad choice, and why [generic unix] is better.
Making a choice depends on the question being asked and for what criteria. It's difficult to say what is a "bad" choice and what is a "good" choice when there was no question/criteria stated.
Many of the Linux folks pick the platform (Linux) and see everything else as being built on top of it. Most users pick the applications and see the OS as just something necessary to get their applications to run. That is one of the main issues that some don't understand.
It's also about popularity. Most /. were probably picked on or socially outcast when younger by the popular crowd at school. For this, they typically rebel against anything popular and gravitate toward the underdog and embrace their "outcastness". They will tend to do things the opposite of what is popular. There have been many things that change over time. In the past (80s), geeks had to be fairly wealthy (have fairly wealthy parents) to afford a computer. Today, most seem strapped for cash. Geeks were typically highly educated back then, usually. Today, many morons think they are geeks. I think the number of geeks who were health-food nuts has declined, too. Geeks of the 80s were typically straight laced, today it's common to hear about geeks who enjoy... chemical entertainment.
It's mostly about the underdog. If/when Linux becomes dominant to the point Microsoft is today, there'll be some other underdog that the geeks will migrate towards because it's 'cool' to be in a smaller 'l33t' group that is somehow superior (in their own eyes) than the 'common masses'.
Assuming they release the part at 2.4GHz from the start. The part demo'd was an engineering sample, not the final released part.
The first engineering samples of the original Pentium that I ever saw were 75MHz parts. The first released Pentiums that I ever saw were 60/66MHz parts.
There's also been a rumor floated around that AMD's dual-core chips will claim to be 1 physical processor with 2 logical cores (a la hyperthreading). I haven't been able to verify the accuracy of that rumor though and I'm personally rather skeptical of it's accuracy.
I hope not because this may cause the scheduler to mis-handle the threads. Two compute intensive threads in HT is "bad". Two compute intensive threads on a dually(socket or core) is "ok".
What I want to know is how much money these processors will save in power consumption compared to how much more they will cost over their single core cousins... No one has said anything about that yet.
Intel has already announced pricing for dual-core Smithfields. They start at ~$250USD for the dual-core 2.8GHz part. Compare that to your favorite shopping spot to other single-core Intel parts.
Yes, a dual-core CPU is functionally equivalent to a dual processor CPU. One of the largest differences is cost. Last year, if you wanted a dual CPU machine, you had to buy a dual socket motherboard. Dual socket motherboards are more expensive to produce than single socket motherboards. The obvious difference in cost is that you have to buy (and charge for) another socket. But you also have to have all of the voltage regulator circuitry (x2) and the motherboard traces to memory, between CPUs and all of that. This makes dual socket motherboards more expensive... more traces running all over require more area, more area = more cost. It also makes the boards more complicated because there are lots more traces that can be bad when it's made. So, a dual socket motherboard can easily cost 2x that of a single socket motherboard and it is probably larger too.
For examples, go to the Tyan web site and look at their boards. The cheapest dual socket motherboards you'll find are in the $250 range and the better boards are around $500. They are also E-ATX (extended ATX) so they require bigger cases. Also, they have more power requirements so you have to buy big power supplies with special connectors. Pretty much, the cheapest you can put together a dual Opteron rig (with all new parts) with even slow CPUs is around $1500.
Now, with dual core, the motherboards are no more complicated or costly than single socket boards because, well, they *are* single socket boards. The power requirements are lower than dual socket boards so you can use "regular" power supplies with them. You can also use the regular ATX cases. The cost for having a dual core computer compared with a single is simply the difference in the costs of the two processors... Considering, say, $700 for all the parts minus the cost of the CPU. Suppose there's a $50 difference in the cost of the CPUs, so maybe $1000 will get you into a decent dual-core/single-socket machine.
Also, as many folks have pointed out, there's MUCH more stuff done on computers than play games. Currently, I'm working on a project that takes about 20 minutes to compile on this single processor machine. Having a dual(core|processor) machine would boost my productivity greatly during the times when I have to do a complete build because I could use 'make' with '-j #' where '#' would be 3 or 4 instead of 1 or 2 as we do now on single cpu machines.
[in the vein of the In Russia...]
On Earth, invading aliens go out to bring deadly microbes back to their home planet? or something...
First, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
:-) (It's a cute saying, and it's good for avoiding arguments, but it's not helpful in figuring out what's good.)
A good way to try to sidestep the fact that they're all butt-ugly!
Are you saying that the measure of beauty is not subjective?
300+ cases mean *choice*. I want a case to match my purple with orange polkadot wallpaper? I bet I can find one.
If you have purple and orange polkadot wallpaper, I question your ability to judge beauty.
And sadly, in the PC world, "choice" means "I can find one butt-ugly enough to match my butt-ugly wallpaper".
No... you'd simply have a different set of aesthetics. Some people like to dress in clothes that have colors/patterns that are not "beautiful" to me. However, I assume that they think they are, otherwise they wouldn't be adorning their bodies with those clothes.
Personally, I think wasting time over a case is kinda silly because I can always put an ugly case in a closet or otherwise out of sight, as long as the case has other qualities I like, such as good airflow, nice mounting brackets, etc.
Translation: "Hey, this PC case isn't ugly! OK, this one is, but you have choice -- not all PC cases are ugly! I mean, OK, they're all ugly, but who cares?"
Nope, again... you have the choice to make your case as nice or as plain/ugly as you want. Also, what about the PC mods that are put into Mac cases. Does this somehow mean that those cases are no longer belovedly Apple beautiful?
Anybody who's banged his head on the desk trying to put a CD in an out-of-sight PC tower should realize that it matters. Tear up my geek membership card if you must, but being able to put a CD in the drive without (literally) hitting my head on my desk is far more important than "nice mounting brackets".
Most PC users are smart enough not to repeatedly bang their heads on a desk.
Sure they are... the committee decided those are the only cases you will get. No choice, you have to like them or love them.
Jonathan Ive (or was that Princell Leia?): "I am *not* a committee!"
Seriously, though, Apple computers aren't designed by committee. They're designed by Jonathan Ive, and his team. You can tell because they have what Fred Brooks and Alan Cooper call conceptual integrity. Dells and HPs don't -- they obviously *were* designed by committee.
Ok... Apple computers are designed by a [self-]constituted organization for the promotion of a common object, which happens to be the definition of "committee" as per Merriam Webster I guess in this case, it's a Steve-constituted organization though.
People do have a choice about what to like. Not all Apple products are loved. The first iBooks, for example, were hated by many (including me); the new design is much, much better.
This statement completely contradicts what you said above. You implied that beauty is not subjective and yet here you clearly say it is.
When it comes down to it, as an expression of personality, the modding scene is much, much more evident in the PC world than in the Mac world. There may be a number of reasons for this ranging from... PCs are initially ugly and modders make them 'beautiful' to their own tastes, PC modders simply have the artistic and mechanical skills to personalize things they already have, to Mac users are of a single mind-set and know no better than to embrace what the Great Steve blesses them with from time to time.
Honestly... since the Mac Mini was released and seeing the comments in this thread of Maclots claiming that the Mini is the "true SFF", form over function arguments, proclaiming that all PCs are ugly and Macs are embodied perfection... the more that "The Cult of Mac" makes sense. It's more of a religion to Mac users than anything else. As I saw elsewhere, The Great Steve could probably relieve himself in a Mac M
Welcome to software... coders can't resist adding that *one more feature*. Some features are nice, others aren't so much. The Linux in-memory image (including X because Windows has a GUI) is more resource intensive than Windows these days.
My Shuttles can do every single thing you just mentioned with the exception of running OSX. Plus, I can do lots more stuff if I decide to, which you specifically mention you have no use for.
Different strokes for different folks, but claiming that upgrading a CPU or graphics card is worthless simply because you have no need for it is simply a worthless argument.
I went through the tweaking phase back in college. I grew out of it. There are more important things in life than tweaking your motherboard to get a couple more megahertz, or running the latest super-duper graphics card.
Yep, me too. But I do continue to play games and do things where having a nice video card is good. I can upgrade parts of my Shuttles and continue the life of the box for many years (I already have... I've owned two Shuttles for over two years now and have upgraded video, processors, and memory at different times). I don't have to run out and buy a whole new box just to gain one piece of new functionality. Add a video compression board so I can do Tivo like things? no problem, go out and buy one and put it in my Shuttle. That's about $40. Try to the same to your Mac Mini without buying a whole new box.
And you'd be wrong because these are smaller than a mini-tower. Here's a picture of my two Shuttle G-series SFF boxes. The P-series is only a little taller. If you take a Mac Mini and stand it on edge, that's the size of the front of the case. If you then extrude the Mini back a ways, that's the Shuttle SFF G-series case.
I prefer SuperGlue and Duct Tape!!!
Is 300 different cases enough, if they're all butt-ugly? Is 3 not enough, if they're all beautiful?
First, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The (lamp) iMac and eMac are ass ugly to me, for example. 300+ cases mean *choice*. I want a case to match my purple with orange polkadot wallpaper? I bet I can find one. I like the color green? I bet I can find a green case. I can personalize my computer to my own aesthetics, even if you think it is ugly. Personally, I think wasting time over a case is kinda silly because I can always put an ugly case in a closet or otherwise out of sight, as long as the case has other qualities I like, such as good airflow, nice mounting brackets, etc.
Apple's cases aren't cool because some committee told us we're supposed to think they're cool. They're cool because they'r beautiful, *in addition* to being practical: the hallmark of good design.
Sure they are... the committee decided those are the only cases you will get. No choice, you have to like them or love them.
I own two Shuttle SN41G2 (Athlon XP SFF). Originally, I bought one for a stereo system component but it proved unwieldy in my apartment because I didn't want to run wires and 802.11b was the only wireless available and it was too slow for my needs.
Eventually, I bought another as my main machine and pulled that one out and made it into a regular type machine.
Now, I'm married and my wife and I each use one for LAN parties. They aren't our main machines anymore, but we use them every week to go to friends' houses to play in groups.
My main SFF once had a GeForce 4 Ti 4600, a DVD/ROM, and two HDD in it and it ran off of the 200W PSU with no problems. Eventually, I built a server and took one of the HDD out.
Over the last two years or so, I've upgraded it first to a 9800Pro then downgraded to a 9600XT when I built a new machine and took the 9800 for the new machine.
Each of the SFF has 1G memory in them. Well... here is the
list of stuff I have (names Grinder and Speedy)
Anyway, the Shuttles provide me with the following:
- Good CPU support (can put the CPU I want in it)
- Upgradability through AGP/PCI slots (primarily to upgrade to newer/better graphics cards)
- Upgradability for HDD/CD/DVD
- Upgradability for memory (has two DIMM slots)
- Small enough to be portable, I have Shuttle made bags to carry them around in.
- Wide support for other hardware... has all the ports normally found on big boxes - USB, serial, etc.
- Fairly lightweight - about as heavy as the heaviest desktop replacement laptops - my wife can carry hers around by herself with no problems though with the bag.
- Pretty small - when I was using them as my main machines, I could put them on top of my desk and still have plenty of room to work
- No (or almost no) performance penalties for going with a more "exotic" form factor. These things perform just as well as larger boxes with the same CPU/memory/graphics
Yes, but the main issue is spreading the heat over the area of the pan and avoiding hotspots. With one P4, you'd have one spot where heat was being introduced to the pan. With seven, you have more points of contact. This is why you'll see professional chefs prefer gas stoves instead of electric because flame heats a large area while the electric typically heats where the pan touches the element, which may only be a few spots if the pan and/or the element aren't perfectly flat.
Then this simply means he may be guilty of two crimes instead of one (software piracy and breaking a contract).
Yes, but considering the problems they want to solve require the largest computers in existance... For example, it wasn't until ASCII Red (the ~10,000 processor PentiumPro machine) when there was enough compute power to come *close* to simulating an atomic bomb blast. So, you'd have to replicate machines of that order all over the place, each for a particular instance of simulation.
Yeah... like I heard on the radio this morning... it's like cigarettes...
Government says:
Gas hog => BAD, Hybrid => GOOD
But then they start to lose tax dollars because less gas is being bought, so now they have to figure out how to get the tax dollars back.
Just like cigarettes...
Cigarette => BAD, raise taxes on cigarettes and say that the money goes to a good cause of funding some programs and fund campaigns to get people to quit smoking...
Well, they work and people quit smoking, now the government is panicing because they get less tax money and you *can't have that* so they find something else to tax.
I have some friends who are big NASCAR fans (personally, I don't care for it) but they have an interesting anecdote along these lines.
There was a Formula1 racetrack (those cars that are like 1000lbs and have 850+ hp) where NASCAR wanted to race. The Formula folks didn't want them to race on it and said that the NASCAR cars, weighing in at around 3500lbs would tear up the track because of all of the extra weight. After doing some tests, the Formula1 cars were shown to have far more curb weight than the NASCAR cars because of the aerodynamics (basically, the Formula cars use wings to help push the cars down on the track really hard for more traction).
I dunno if true, but it's said that a Formula car generates enough downforce at high speeds to be able to drive on the ceiling of a tunnel.
Yup... and it's pretty sad that this statement is a basic truth about people.
Well... that would be told in confidentiality. If your solicitor then printed fliers with your admission and posted them all over town with the information, it would be something different altogether.
Well... *I* think your GPS was right... of course, you also have antenae and drive a flying saucer.
They try to protect their crops by trying to keep some pests and diseases out. The same thing happens when you go to Hawaii.