Oh boy! You know a post is going to have some mind-bending insight when it starts with a clumsy personal attack!
10G supports optical PHY.
Yes, but so does every other competing standard. The only thing keeping Ethernet alive is the backward-compatibility of the RJ-45 connector. But the power consumption of the connector means it will never leave the data center. This means that Ethernet has lost all traces of "backward compatibility," which means it will lose tons of steam in the impending 10G optical battle.
Once we jump to optical, for short links (~100m), the cable can suddenly carry any standard you want. So it's the jump to optical that's important, and that's what Intel is trying to offer here: cheap optical. Eventually, one of them has to win, and 10G Ethernet is (for the moment) not really making any attempts to win that race to the consumer.
Today, 1000baseT is included on $500 laptops, and you can get a 5 port 1000baseT switch for $25. If you think similar things won't happen with 10G, you're wrong.
No. with 10GBASE-T over COPPER it's not a question of COST, it's a question of POWER.
10GBASE-T uses too much power, all because it takes more power to get a higher bandwidth signal over the same 100m of copper as Gigabit. Current estimates are about 6W for a controller, which is way too high for integration into chipsets. And you can only reduce the power required for the DSP logic on the controller - the amount of power it has to deliver to the line to meet 10GBASE-T signaling standards is a fixed quantity. Since the power numbers I quoted are for second-generation devices, you can bet your ass that the DSP power quotient has been reduced to almost nothing, so that 6w is almost entirely signaling power.
Hell, even low-power Gigabit controllers use over a watt - this is why a lot of low-power devices still ship with just Fast Ethernet. The industry is moving toward EEE (Energy Efficient Ethernet) to combat this, but it's really nothing more than an idle mode - peak power is unchanged.
Optical offers very low power consumption at 10G (less than 1w), but will require the adoption of a new connector standard regardless of what standard the market goes with. Intel sees the opportunity here: if people will have to buy a new infrastructure to use low-power 10G, they will buy whatever is cheapest, not whatever is used in the server room.
Doubtful, no one other then AMD is able to succesfully compete in the graphics market, also AMD does not have any GPU's or ultra mobile devices, and that market is simply enormous
So enormous that AMD was forced to sell the long-running ATI Imageon line just 8 months ago. If what you're claiming is true, they should have been making money hand-over-fist...but they weren't. All this despite that fact that the only other 3D player in the market is PowerVR!
and nvidia is hoping with their next gen mobile chip to get into everything from phones to portable video players, that is a growth market.
Portable video players are a saturated market. You know when Apple caves-in and adds video RECORDING to their dying iPod line, that video playback is already thoroughly entrenched. And don't give me the bullshit that HD video playback will somehow kick-off a new "revolution," when the devices are too small to gain any benefit whatsoever from HD video (screen is too small).
The Zune HD is the only HD-capable player on the market, and the screen can't take advantage of this. You need a clunky dock and a real monitor to see the difference, and the number of people who will buy it for that purpose is small indeed.
Back to the subject, every single competing smartphone-level chipset can already do video pretty well, so why are people going to spend money on Tegra (especially when you don't even get a Coretex A8)? For the 3D graphics, of course! And that means you're entering yet-another saturated market: portable 3D gaming. Good luck convincing buyers that they need better graphics than a PSP, DSi or iPhone 3GS can already offer.
Nvidia is late to the party by a decade, and they expect to find more than scraps left at the dinner table? They're nuts.
A middle-tier ARM SoC provider competing against TI, Freescale, Qualcomm and Samsung for the media player market, with a sideline in high-end compute and graphics boards that exist as a technology testbed for said SoC products?
Yeah, I have to agree: I don't see Nvidia dying anytime soon, but I have to say that (barring some impressive new market), their days of growth are over.
Intel has locked Nvidia completely out of the Intel chipset business, destroying one of Nvidia's major market segments (who buys Nvidia to run AMD processors anyway?) Clarksdale will close the door permanantly on LGA775, and simultaneously close the market for Nvidia's IGP chipsets. Yeah, there's still some money from selling SLI licenses and that silly PCIe bridge chip, but it's a pittance compared to the sales Nvidia used to see.
The only loophole remaining is Atom, and once that becomes a SoC offering, Nvidia will have nowhere to turn except Tegra.
And boy, is that going to be a competitive market! The ARM SoC field will be tough-going, and Tegra is not the only chipset out in the wild with high-end media capabilities. Oh, and if Intel delivers on it's promises with Atom SoC, Tegra will also have to compete with Atom. Sorry Nvidia, you just can't seem to get away from Intel:)
It turns out the card has the same power consumption as the 4870 at load (3dmark), not to mention exceptional idle power. Way to go ATI, I could have sworn TSMC's 40nm bulk CMOS (no metal gates) would have raised leakage, but this proves me wrong!
Yes, it's absolutely true I downgraded the amount of light in the process getting down to 120w. The light I have now is the equivalent of 3x60w normal bulbs (2400 lumen), whereas the previous owners had installed a 75, 75 and 100w bulb (4000 lumen) to make it brighter (easier to sell).
After thinking about it, I realized that this was way more light than I needed - for incandescent bulbs.
But here is where the science ends and my personal tastes begin: I had a full-sized fluorescent ceiling light in the kitchen at my old place (2 circular elements, 2x22w, 2300 lumen), and I always found the light to be cold. Despite that fairly high lumen rating, the room never felt all that bright, especially compared to an incandescent of a similar lumen. So when I did my comparisons, I assumed I would have to keep the same lumen if I went with florescent, hence my 60w estimate.
I'm actually very happy with my current 3x40w Halogena "downgrade" (2400 lumen), despite the fact that this kitchen is larger than my last one. The amount of light really is enough, and the *quality* of the light makes a difference in just how much I need.
And outside the shipping industry, it's quite common: any galvanized steel you're using is covered in a sacrificial anode, and that includes thousands of miles of long-haul steel electrical poles.
I just moved into my new house, and since it's just me, I only leave two lights on most of the time (kitchen and hallway). One is a 250w incandescent set (3 bulbs, kitchen), and the other is 75w incandescent.
I got my first electric bill, and found that the kitchen light was costing me $25/month. So I looked at my alternatives:
Can switch to CFL for around 60w (save $19/month with no change in habits).
Can switch to Philips Halogena for around 120w (save $13/month with no change in habits).
Can just be more aggressive about turning-off the kitchen light when I'm not in it.
In the end, I decided to go with the Halogena setup plus a more aggressive stance on turning-off that light. I really like the light quality of the incandescent - it is especially important because the colors of the room are all warm earth tones, and would look sick and dead under the blue/white light of CFLs. Plus, I really don't like the idea of having bulbs filled with mercury in a room with a ceramic floor (it magically attracts glass objects, and they create explosive splinters) and in a low-hanging light fixture that people constantly hit with objects. I've already had to clean-up one broken glass container in my first month living here, and I don't want to have to keep a Hazmat kit just in case the inevitable happens.
I was just surprised at how MUCH I could save by moving to a more efficient halogen, and how little on top of that you save going to CFL. Ahh, good-old Law of Diminishing Returns.
Not true, this is an opportunistic bacteria that lives in stagnant water. It can find the stagnant water without being introduced through the water supply (through air or other contamination). Since a person with dirty hair is only inches away from the shower, it's not hard to see how it might get contaminated. In the same way it can get inside your lungs (aerosol), it can also get inside your shower head.
The shower head is sitting idle most of the day, and since the chlorine in the water quickly dissipates in air, the water left remaining when you turn the shower off is quite welcoming to the bug. Yeah, it gets hit with chlorinated water at least once a day (you do shower regularly, right?), but the amount of chlorine in the water at-delivery is way too little to kill entrenched bacteria (that happens at the treatment plant, with much higher concentrations of chlorine, and UV treatments). You might kill a small amount, but the strong survive.
Yes, but most Itanium systems don't sell for large-scale clusters or supercomputers, they sell for smaller 2-8 socket servers processing mission-critical data, where RAS (Reliability, Availability and Serviceability) is paramount. In this role, almost anything built with Reliability in-mind will do, but nobody want to step-up and compete.
See here for proof. The average number of processors sold in an Itanium server is around 4 (In 2007, ~200,000 processors went into 55,000 servers).
Itanium has almost no showing in the single-image supercomputer and large cluster market. IBM has the RISC large performance cluster market cornered, and the rest goes to x86-64. There's barely a few crumbs left for Itanium, and the market share is quickly shrinking. The scientific community has decided that Itanium does not offer enough performance per dollar, despite the impressive FP capabilities.
Thankfully, Intel is not afraid to compete with itself - they released the 8-core Nehalem EX this year, which destroyed Itanium on per-socket performance, and also added some of the RAS features previously only seen on IPF and Big Iron. Even Intel knows that IA-64 is a dog, and is slowly abandoning it!
Yeah, Cutler looked uncomfortable, but give him a few weeks - he's still learning the system, and this is the first time he's ever played in a new sandbox.
Farve looked good only because nobody asked him to do anything - Farve didn't have a TD the entire first half, as AP carried the load. It also helped that Farve already did this once last year, so he knew all about the pains of QBs switching teams.
why would HP want it? They sold out their hardware folks for Intel's Itanium a long time ago... shut down Alpha, Vax, etc... it was gruesome.
Don't forget PA-RISC. Despite the fact that systems were still selling new in 2008, HP decided to follow-through and kill it off to make way for Itanium.
It's just pathetic that nobody has the balls to compete with Intel in the RAS space. Now we've spent the last 10 years seeing every single new Itanium core delayed, underpowered and overpriced. Now with 3 years still waiting for Tukwila, I expect that trend to continue.
Thank you very much. Nobody seems to want to spell-out acronyms these days, let-alone explain the significance of new changes. I understood from the name that it had something to do with the Radeon drivers, and I found additional references to KMS Intel updates in Google, but I had no idea what KMS WAS.
Like I said, in most cases, it makes perfect sense to maximize the window you're using. It takes less time than resizing the window manually, and it makes the most effective use of your screen real estate. Aside from when you need to see more than 1 application window at a time, there's no advantage to not maximizing the window.
Some like to call this "document-centric," but I just call it annoying. Whenever I want to maximize a window in OS X, I just do it manually. I really like some aspects of OS X (like Expose), but I have to say I hate the broken maximize button. Luckily everything except Finder seems to remember the window size I set for it.
Right, it's not currently possible to make an LCD borderless, because there are conductors all around the outside (to have access to the grid of conductors going across the device). Moving those conductors would require a paradigm shift in how LCDs are made (read: expensive), and packing them together somewhere would raise the price even higher.
You click the article link, and it's still gibberish. You go to Google and search, and it's STILL gibberish. what in the hell is KMS, and why the hell does anyone care?
Precious? I thought most Blu-rays only used a third of the available bandwidth.
You thought wrong. Blu-Ray has a maximum read rate of 40 Mbps, and it already has so many "features" that suck-down the bandwidth that there's barely room for an HD movie (best to have at least 15-20 Mbps for the 1080p feature film).
A single loss-less audio track can use as little as 5 Mbit, and a much as 18 Mbit - you do the math if you add multiple language support. The PiP commentary and the regular audio commentary tracks also have to be accounted for, leaving you precious little headroom for a high-quality video track. Adding yet-another full-resolution video track to create the 3D effect will mean the players will require 2x speed minimum, and that breaks the standard.
That is, unless you want to sacrifice resolution for your fancy 3D features...or else throw-out the high-quality audio options. something has to be cut short to fit a video that big on a standard 40 Mbps stream.
Well then, we need to tell the environmental groups to shut up and start drilling in ANWAR and the Gulf of Mexico where there were new huge deposits
ANWR best-case estimates will increase Alaskan oil production by roughly %30 (worst case %10-15), and will still be dwarfed by Prudhoe Bay Field. Since Alaska only supplies 16 percent of US crude, that means an overall %2-3 increase in production. But since other fields are already reducing production over time, it will only soften the bleeding of older fields, not allow for a real increase in US domestic oil production.
The environmental groups "won't shut-up about it" because the impact on total US production won't be that much (as-of now). We'll probably eventually drill it, but not until we're much more desperate.
BP's new "Tiber" field in the Gulf, at 3 billion barrels, is half the size of ANWR's lowest-case estimate, and only a fraction of that can be extracted at reasonable cost. Sure, the Gulf is mostly sweet, light crude, but ocean 2 miles deep and regular hurricanes does not make extraction a done deal.
You can talk about tapping "new" oil reserves all you want, but the fact of the matter is that "new" oil finds are appearing at a slower rate than the world is using-up proven reserves. And none of these new finds would be enough to make any difference in US oil dependence. We haven't been able to supply domestic oil needs since the 1950s, and that's not going to change while our demand continues to grow.
yeah, add 3D support to Blu-Ray! Yet another high-bandwidth stream to suck-up the already precious bandwidth!
By the time they get finished adding TrueHD streams in English, Spanish, French, Chinese and Klingon, multiple camera angles, plus an HD look Behind The Scenes, and now an additional parallel 3D stream, there's not much room left for a quality 1080P main movie. At that point, you might as well be watching a DVD, with the poor resolution you'll be seeing.
For those who don't know, the deal was over an,a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6814939.ece">oil exploration contract. Hope we can make lots of petroleum-based cleaners to get all the slime off our hands!
Ride sharing doesn't negate the argument, because one of the most expensive things in aircraft flight (in terms of fuel and stress on the aircraft) is landing and takeoff, and this isn't going to magically change with flying taxis. Sure, you can get efficiency if you ride-share from the same starting and stopping points, but that almost never happens with something as convenient as a taxi. Instead, you'll have the passengers getting on and off at separate locations, each one adding TWO descents and takeoffs.
Now, there could be some money in regularly-scheduled bus services with flying vehicles (you minimize the number of takeoffs and landings), but I think we already have a place for those (AIRPORTS).
It's only 30 bucks if you bought Leopard. I'm still using Tiger, so it's $170 for me.
By contrast, I was able to buy the Windows Home Premium upgrade for $50 in the pre-order days. Sure, you can't get it for that price now, but you could for over a month this summer. You have no excuses.
The $50 Windows 7 upgrade works with XP, but the $30 10.6 upgrade doesn't work with Tiger. Now, which one is the crappy deal again?
Except that it doesn't work that way in the real world. The current experimental platform for the CG(X) next-generation cruiser barely has enough power for the new high-powered radar and the railgun, let-alone TBMD ballistic defense and other future weapons systems. The power budget is so anemic and the oil power is so expensive to operate that the GAO and Congress are pushing the Navy to consider going back to nuclear power for this new class of Cruisers.
Further, it turns-out that adding MORE generator capacity, either through nuclear or non-nuclear means, will require a redesign of the hull just to fit it. So, the only way to make this blue-sky concept REALLY work adds hundreds of millions of dollars to the cost, and necessitates a complete redesign! And after you shove more generation capacity into that sucker, you have a ship that's approaching the massive size of a battleship! Nothing like reality to bring you out of your daydream with a slap in the face, eh?
2017? If DDX is anything to gauge turnaround time by, it'll be 2025 before they ship CG(X), and with about half the orders canceled along the way.
Slashdot Mirror
Re:Here's a clue, luser...
Oh boy! You know a post is going to have some mind-bending insight when it starts with a clumsy personal attack!
10G supports optical PHY.
Yes, but so does every other competing standard. The only thing keeping Ethernet alive is the backward-compatibility of the RJ-45 connector. But the power consumption of the connector means it will never leave the data center. This means that Ethernet has lost all traces of "backward compatibility," which means it will lose tons of steam in the impending 10G optical battle.
Once we jump to optical, for short links (~100m), the cable can suddenly carry any standard you want. So it's the jump to optical that's important, and that's what Intel is trying to offer here: cheap optical. Eventually, one of them has to win, and 10G Ethernet is (for the moment) not really making any attempts to win that race to the consumer.
Today, 1000baseT is included on $500 laptops, and you can get a 5 port 1000baseT switch for $25. If you think similar things won't happen with 10G, you're wrong.
No. with 10GBASE-T over COPPER it's not a question of COST, it's a question of POWER.
10GBASE-T uses too much power, all because it takes more power to get a higher bandwidth signal over the same 100m of copper as Gigabit. Current estimates are about 6W for a controller, which is way too high for integration into chipsets. And you can only reduce the power required for the DSP logic on the controller - the amount of power it has to deliver to the line to meet 10GBASE-T signaling standards is a fixed quantity. Since the power numbers I quoted are for second-generation devices, you can bet your ass that the DSP power quotient has been reduced to almost nothing, so that 6w is almost entirely signaling power.
Hell, even low-power Gigabit controllers use over a watt - this is why a lot of low-power devices still ship with just Fast Ethernet. The industry is moving toward EEE (Energy Efficient Ethernet) to combat this, but it's really nothing more than an idle mode - peak power is unchanged.
Optical offers very low power consumption at 10G (less than 1w), but will require the adoption of a new connector standard regardless of what standard the market goes with. Intel sees the opportunity here: if people will have to buy a new infrastructure to use low-power 10G, they will buy whatever is cheapest, not whatever is used in the server room.
Doubtful, no one other then AMD is able to succesfully compete in the graphics market, also AMD does not have any GPU's or ultra mobile devices, and that market is simply enormous
So enormous that AMD was forced to sell the long-running ATI Imageon line just 8 months ago. If what you're claiming is true, they should have been making money hand-over-fist...but they weren't. All this despite that fact that the only other 3D player in the market is PowerVR!
and nvidia is hoping with their next gen mobile chip to get into everything from phones to portable video players, that is a growth market.
Portable video players are a saturated market. You know when Apple caves-in and adds video RECORDING to their dying iPod line, that video playback is already thoroughly entrenched. And don't give me the bullshit that HD video playback will somehow kick-off a new "revolution," when the devices are too small to gain any benefit whatsoever from HD video (screen is too small).
The Zune HD is the only HD-capable player on the market, and the screen can't take advantage of this. You need a clunky dock and a real monitor to see the difference, and the number of people who will buy it for that purpose is small indeed.
Back to the subject, every single competing smartphone-level chipset can already do video pretty well, so why are people going to spend money on Tegra (especially when you don't even get a Coretex A8)? For the 3D graphics, of course! And that means you're entering yet-another saturated market: portable 3D gaming. Good luck convincing buyers that they need better graphics than a PSP, DSi or iPhone 3GS can already offer.
Nvidia is late to the party by a decade, and they expect to find more than scraps left at the dinner table? They're nuts.
A middle-tier ARM SoC provider competing against TI, Freescale, Qualcomm and Samsung for the media player market, with a sideline in high-end compute and graphics boards that exist as a technology testbed for said SoC products?
Yeah, I have to agree: I don't see Nvidia dying anytime soon, but I have to say that (barring some impressive new market), their days of growth are over.
Intel has locked Nvidia completely out of the Intel chipset business, destroying one of Nvidia's major market segments (who buys Nvidia to run AMD processors anyway?) Clarksdale will close the door permanantly on LGA775, and simultaneously close the market for Nvidia's IGP chipsets. Yeah, there's still some money from selling SLI licenses and that silly PCIe bridge chip, but it's a pittance compared to the sales Nvidia used to see.
The only loophole remaining is Atom, and once that becomes a SoC offering, Nvidia will have nowhere to turn except Tegra.
And boy, is that going to be a competitive market! The ARM SoC field will be tough-going, and Tegra is not the only chipset out in the wild with high-end media capabilities. Oh, and if Intel delivers on it's promises with Atom SoC, Tegra will also have to compete with Atom. Sorry Nvidia, you just can't seem to get away from Intel :)
Yes, and Xbit Labs, as is their tradition, got a true power consumption reading direct from the 12v and 5v PCIe supply lines.
It turns out the card has the same power consumption as the 4870 at load (3dmark), not to mention exceptional idle power. Way to go ATI, I could have sworn TSMC's 40nm bulk CMOS (no metal gates) would have raised leakage, but this proves me wrong!
Yes, it's absolutely true I downgraded the amount of light in the process getting down to 120w. The light I have now is the equivalent of 3x60w normal bulbs (2400 lumen), whereas the previous owners had installed a 75, 75 and 100w bulb (4000 lumen) to make it brighter (easier to sell).
After thinking about it, I realized that this was way more light than I needed - for incandescent bulbs.
But here is where the science ends and my personal tastes begin: I had a full-sized fluorescent ceiling light in the kitchen at my old place (2 circular elements, 2x22w, 2300 lumen), and I always found the light to be cold. Despite that fairly high lumen rating, the room never felt all that bright, especially compared to an incandescent of a similar lumen. So when I did my comparisons, I assumed I would have to keep the same lumen if I went with florescent, hence my 60w estimate.
I'm actually very happy with my current 3x40w Halogena "downgrade" (2400 lumen), despite the fact that this kitchen is larger than my last one. The amount of light really is enough, and the *quality* of the light makes a difference in just how much I need.
Stainless steel, as another person pointed out would also work.
No it wouldn't, not with all alloys.
Any anything with welds (think any large-bore steel pipe system) is automatically going to be a corrosion target, because the welding process can evaporate key corrosion-resistant elements from the alloy.
About the only easy solution to salt water is PVC, but that has crap thermal characteristics.
Not "clever." This is standard practice in the shipping industry.
And outside the shipping industry, it's quite common: any galvanized steel you're using is covered in a sacrificial anode, and that includes thousands of miles of long-haul steel electrical poles.
I just moved into my new house, and since it's just me, I only leave two lights on most of the time (kitchen and hallway). One is a 250w incandescent set (3 bulbs, kitchen), and the other is 75w incandescent.
I got my first electric bill, and found that the kitchen light was costing me $25/month. So I looked at my alternatives:
Can switch to CFL for around 60w (save $19 /month with no change in habits).
Can switch to Philips Halogena for around 120w (save $13/month with no change in habits).
Can just be more aggressive about turning-off the kitchen light when I'm not in it.
In the end, I decided to go with the Halogena setup plus a more aggressive stance on turning-off that light. I really like the light quality of the incandescent - it is especially important because the colors of the room are all warm earth tones, and would look sick and dead under the blue/white light of CFLs. Plus, I really don't like the idea of having bulbs filled with mercury in a room with a ceramic floor (it magically attracts glass objects, and they create explosive splinters) and in a low-hanging light fixture that people constantly hit with objects. I've already had to clean-up one broken glass container in my first month living here, and I don't want to have to keep a Hazmat kit just in case the inevitable happens.
I was just surprised at how MUCH I could save by moving to a more efficient halogen, and how little on top of that you save going to CFL. Ahh, good-old Law of Diminishing Returns.
Not true, this is an opportunistic bacteria that lives in stagnant water. It can find the stagnant water without being introduced through the water supply (through air or other contamination). Since a person with dirty hair is only inches away from the shower, it's not hard to see how it might get contaminated. In the same way it can get inside your lungs (aerosol), it can also get inside your shower head.
The shower head is sitting idle most of the day, and since the chlorine in the water quickly dissipates in air, the water left remaining when you turn the shower off is quite welcoming to the bug. Yeah, it gets hit with chlorinated water at least once a day (you do shower regularly, right?), but the amount of chlorine in the water at-delivery is way too little to kill entrenched bacteria (that happens at the treatment plant, with much higher concentrations of chlorine, and UV treatments). You might kill a small amount, but the strong survive.
This is a real problem - it's already known that sources of stagnant water can be breeding grounds for Legionnaire's Disease, so why not yet-another lung infection?
Yes, but most Itanium systems don't sell for large-scale clusters or supercomputers, they sell for smaller 2-8 socket servers processing mission-critical data, where RAS (Reliability, Availability and Serviceability) is paramount. In this role, almost anything built with Reliability in-mind will do, but nobody want to step-up and compete.
See here for proof. The average number of processors sold in an Itanium server is around 4 (In 2007, ~200,000 processors went into 55,000 servers).
Itanium has almost no showing in the single-image supercomputer and large cluster market. IBM has the RISC large performance cluster market cornered, and the rest goes to x86-64. There's barely a few crumbs left for Itanium, and the market share is quickly shrinking. The scientific community has decided that Itanium does not offer enough performance per dollar, despite the impressive FP capabilities.
Thankfully, Intel is not afraid to compete with itself - they released the 8-core Nehalem EX this year, which destroyed Itanium on per-socket performance, and also added some of the RAS features previously only seen on IPF and Big Iron. Even Intel knows that IA-64 is a dog, and is slowly abandoning it!
Yeah, Cutler looked uncomfortable, but give him a few weeks - he's still learning the system, and this is the first time he's ever played in a new sandbox.
Farve looked good only because nobody asked him to do anything - Farve didn't have a TD the entire first half, as AP carried the load. It also helped that Farve already did this once last year, so he knew all about the pains of QBs switching teams.
why would HP want it? They sold out their hardware folks for Intel's Itanium a long time ago... shut down Alpha, Vax, etc... it was gruesome.
Don't forget PA-RISC. Despite the fact that systems were still selling new in 2008, HP decided to follow-through and kill it off to make way for Itanium.
It's just pathetic that nobody has the balls to compete with Intel in the RAS space. Now we've spent the last 10 years seeing every single new Itanium core delayed, underpowered and overpriced. Now with 3 years still waiting for Tukwila, I expect that trend to continue.
There's an Nvidia open-source driver? Really?
Does it support 3D? In recent chipsets?
Thank you very much. Nobody seems to want to spell-out acronyms these days, let-alone explain the significance of new changes. I understood from the name that it had something to do with the Radeon drivers, and I found additional references to KMS Intel updates in Google, but I had no idea what KMS WAS.
Like I said, in most cases, it makes perfect sense to maximize the window you're using. It takes less time than resizing the window manually, and it makes the most effective use of your screen real estate. Aside from when you need to see more than 1 application window at a time, there's no advantage to not maximizing the window.
Yes, but some people come from the OS X side of the field. And for those poor folks, the maximize button effect varies from app-to-app. I get the feeling that the OP is one of these people.
Some like to call this "document-centric," but I just call it annoying. Whenever I want to maximize a window in OS X, I just do it manually. I really like some aspects of OS X (like Expose), but I have to say I hate the broken maximize button. Luckily everything except Finder seems to remember the window size I set for it.
Right, it's not currently possible to make an LCD borderless, because there are conductors all around the outside (to have access to the grid of conductors going across the device). Moving those conductors would require a paradigm shift in how LCDs are made (read: expensive), and packing them together somewhere would raise the price even higher.
You click the article link, and it's still gibberish. You go to Google and search, and it's STILL gibberish. what in the hell is KMS, and why the hell does anyone care?
Precious? I thought most Blu-rays only used a third of the available bandwidth.
You thought wrong. Blu-Ray has a maximum read rate of 40 Mbps, and it already has so many "features" that suck-down the bandwidth that there's barely room for an HD movie (best to have at least 15-20 Mbps for the 1080p feature film).
A single loss-less audio track can use as little as 5 Mbit, and a much as 18 Mbit - you do the math if you add multiple language support. The PiP commentary and the regular audio commentary tracks also have to be accounted for, leaving you precious little headroom for a high-quality video track. Adding yet-another full-resolution video track to create the 3D effect will mean the players will require 2x speed minimum, and that breaks the standard.
That is, unless you want to sacrifice resolution for your fancy 3D features...or else throw-out the high-quality audio options. something has to be cut short to fit a video that big on a standard 40 Mbps stream.
Well then, we need to tell the environmental groups to shut up and start drilling in ANWAR and the Gulf of Mexico where there were new huge deposits
ANWR best-case estimates will increase Alaskan oil production by roughly %30 (worst case %10-15), and will still be dwarfed by Prudhoe Bay Field. Since Alaska only supplies 16 percent of US crude, that means an overall %2-3 increase in production. But since other fields are already reducing production over time, it will only soften the bleeding of older fields, not allow for a real increase in US domestic oil production.
The environmental groups "won't shut-up about it" because the impact on total US production won't be that much (as-of now). We'll probably eventually drill it, but not until we're much more desperate.
BP's new "Tiber" field in the Gulf, at 3 billion barrels, is half the size of ANWR's lowest-case estimate, and only a fraction of that can be extracted at reasonable cost. Sure, the Gulf is mostly sweet, light crude, but ocean 2 miles deep and regular hurricanes does not make extraction a done deal.
You can talk about tapping "new" oil reserves all you want, but the fact of the matter is that "new" oil finds are appearing at a slower rate than the world is using-up proven reserves. And none of these new finds would be enough to make any difference in US oil dependence. We haven't been able to supply domestic oil needs since the 1950s, and that's not going to change while our demand continues to grow.
yeah, add 3D support to Blu-Ray! Yet another high-bandwidth stream to suck-up the already precious bandwidth!
By the time they get finished adding TrueHD streams in English, Spanish, French, Chinese and Klingon, multiple camera angles, plus an HD look Behind The Scenes, and now an additional parallel 3D stream, there's not much room left for a quality 1080P main movie. At that point, you might as well be watching a DVD, with the poor resolution you'll be seeing.
For those who don't know, the deal was over an ,a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6814939.ece">oil exploration contract. Hope we can make lots of petroleum-based cleaners to get all the slime off our hands!
Ride sharing doesn't negate the argument, because one of the most expensive things in aircraft flight (in terms of fuel and stress on the aircraft) is landing and takeoff, and this isn't going to magically change with flying taxis. Sure, you can get efficiency if you ride-share from the same starting and stopping points, but that almost never happens with something as convenient as a taxi. Instead, you'll have the passengers getting on and off at separate locations, each one adding TWO descents and takeoffs.
Now, there could be some money in regularly-scheduled bus services with flying vehicles (you minimize the number of takeoffs and landings), but I think we already have a place for those (AIRPORTS).
It's only 30 bucks if you bought Leopard. I'm still using Tiger, so it's $170 for me.
By contrast, I was able to buy the Windows Home Premium upgrade for $50 in the pre-order days. Sure, you can't get it for that price now, but you could for over a month this summer. You have no excuses.
The $50 Windows 7 upgrade works with XP, but the $30 10.6 upgrade doesn't work with Tiger. Now, which one is the crappy deal again?
Except that it doesn't work that way in the real world. The current experimental platform for the CG(X) next-generation cruiser barely has enough power for the new high-powered radar and the railgun, let-alone TBMD ballistic defense and other future weapons systems. The power budget is so anemic and the oil power is so expensive to operate that the GAO and Congress are pushing the Navy to consider going back to nuclear power for this new class of Cruisers.
Further, it turns-out that adding MORE generator capacity, either through nuclear or non-nuclear means, will require a redesign of the hull just to fit it. So, the only way to make this blue-sky concept REALLY work adds hundreds of millions of dollars to the cost, and necessitates a complete redesign! And after you shove more generation capacity into that sucker, you have a ship that's approaching the massive size of a battleship! Nothing like reality to bring you out of your daydream with a slap in the face, eh?
2017? If DDX is anything to gauge turnaround time by, it'll be 2025 before they ship CG(X), and with about half the orders canceled along the way.