I think I've made my point: Diesel is not worth the cash premium in the USA unless you drive it into the ground.
You have chosen to ignore this point in every reply. Prove me wrong, or stop making the claim that diesel is worth the money.
And don't get distracted on your power worship - the only reason I brought it up was because you acted like your diesel was the queen of the dragstrip when I mentioned performance was similar/worse (with proof) to the I5.
I wonder - what's the resale on that gasser VW compared to the TDI. I know when I bought mine I bought new because no one would sell their TDI for a price that was reasonable and buying new made sense. It was one of THE only cars I've ever bought new and it's maintenance has been pretty much zippo....
As it should be in ANY quality car sold today!
My Scion Xb purchased in 2007 requires nothing but filter / oil / brakes / tires changes until 120,000 miles (YES, you have to change the spark plugs...after forever). And I expect the engine to last me well over the 150,000 mile mark, all for a car that cost me 18K (no diesel premium here)! So again, your anecdote against mine.
They don't get just 30MPG in the city unless your foot is flat to the floor full time. I drive a larger older Jetta and get 38MPG average over the 60K+ miles I've been driving it.
I assume you have not driven your Jetta purely in the city. Your figure would be what they call "combined" mileage, and your value sits right in between the city and highway ratings (30/42). I simply flagged the city number because, based on "official" mileage numbers it put the TDI engine in the absolute best terms (I ran both sets of numbers).
Also, most any vehicle I buy is likely going to need premium fuel unless it's a complete junker. I tend to like power and that usually requires premium to go with the turbo or higher compression.
See, this is how I know you've never even test driven a car with a 2.5 liter engine. The power provided is plenty (especially with the 5 cylinder design VW has, which bridges the torque gap nicely between I4 and V6).
Further, the 2.5l I5 is designed for cheap cars, and is thus DESIGNED FOR REGULAR GASOLINE. Using Premium in an engine designed for regular is just a waste of your money. trust MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE: I drive a 2.4l Scion xB, I can get to 60 in under 9 seconds with a 4-speed slushbox and regular unleaded.
Oh yeah, head over to Fuelly.com if you want real world MPG numbers for your math. You may find that the gas vehicles have different MPG numbers too but not having owned one in a VW I dunno'.
Oh that and they say "but diesel is more expensive" without bothering to do any math whatsoever...
And I suppose you've actually done the math? Because if you had, you'd see Diesel doesn't add up in our country.
Cost of Diesel in my area: 40 cents above Regular (4 bucks versus 3.60 a gallon).
Sticker price premium to purchase 2-door baseline Golf TDI over Golf 2.5l: $6,400. Let's give you $2,400 off that to account for the larger alloys included, fog lights (very generous amount of money for just those features), for a total difference of $4,000 for an engine swap. And while you can argue torque differences all day, I guarantee you that a car as light as the Golf will drive with agility using either engine, so it's a valid comparison.
Now let's compare the city mileage numbers, manual transmission (these are the most in favor of the TDI):
Rated city mileage Golf TDI: 30 mpg Rated city mileage Golf 2.5: 23 mpg
Now you can compute the miles per dollar, just for the fuel:
And the scores scale linearly, so you can just divide the scores of the new Samsung quad core by 2 to get a rough comparison with the iPhone 5. This gives an estimate of SIMILAR single-threaded performance between the two.
There are variations not handled by the simple comparison method (e.g. bandwidth-limited scaling of more cores, or clock turbo/throttling depending on number of cores used), but it's a pretty quick and fairly accurate comparison.
2. You have no fucking clue what you are talking about!
This is a discussion about the combined GPU + CPU design for the Playstation 4, not about any announced products on the shelf from AMD or Nvidia. This is a TRUE part to be released only by Sony, and it will have access to 8GB shared GDDR5 with a 256-bit bus to feed the GPU/CPU combination.
But the price of the AMD solution goes up because they have to use GDDR5 instead of DDR3 for that memory pool. Estimates I have seen are 2-3x the cost versus DDR3, so it adds an extra 30-50 bucks to the BOM.
You would spend the same amount of money buying 8GB DDR3 plus 2GB GDDR5 for your GPU, and you could choose whichever combination of CPU/GPU you want! It would also mean you could use cheaper 1Gbit GDDR5 chips.
I think that Sony is betting on the unified memory architecture giving them an advantage in GPU compute, and we shall see if this really happens. But it is FAR from a cost saving measure - GDDR5 has and will continue to be a low-volume, upmarket technology with a sizable cost premium. Supplying 4x more of it than most mid-range GPUs ship with is a dangerous bet for a system that will eventually have to come down in price!
Online ads are so successful and profitable because they're the first form of advertisement where you can actually prove it's working.
That's only true if you're selling something directly. If you're trying to craft "image" or anchor the brand name, that still takes feedback surveys like it always has!
We already had a big collapse in ad payment rates about a decade ago because the entire early Internet advertising industry was based upon "assumed value," which meant you paid a fixed price per page view. That price was entirely made-up, but advertisers paid because they had no clue what the "right price" was.
After advertisers ran the numbers and found the ads made less impression on viewers than your average TV or radio spot, the pay-per-impression market collapsed. Now ads are often very distracting, and you only get paid serious money if someone clicks through and makes a purchase.
Truth be told, online ads today will only make you serious money if you put out a lot of effort buying old domains and turning them into ad farms, or if you're part of a larger website (that can still command impression money / site sponsorship) Most small websites with full-time backing from their authors only make ends meet by selling stuff in their online store, or asking for donations.
You know every fucking passenger will have to "experience" it, but there's only one prow on this ship, and more people there just ruins the experience.
Maybe they'll use FastPass to reserve your place in line?
"My love, I reserved the King of the World ride at 6pm, followed by a frolic in the back seat of an old clunker!"
Nobody has committed to a Smartphone platform using the A15 precisely because the power consumption is too high. It may be tweaked over time, but right out the gate the power is just not there. This is why Apple went their own way with the A6.
True, but the same thing applies when trying to get data to someone across town. Would you rather get in a car and carry a hard drive over there or send a link? Especially when it's a tiny file that takes 10 seconds to download on a modern broadband connection?
Well then you have a small file that's already solved by email attachments. If you have a medium file that's already solved by free cloud storage offerings (Google's free cloud offers 5GB, so does Dropbox). You can get even larger storage if you care to take chances with less savory companies (e.g. MEGA offers 50GB free).
Want to store your music online? You have many different options (Google, Apple, Amazon)!
Want to store your videos online? Upload them to Youtube and make them private (15 minutes free for everyone, but a channel in good standing can upload up to 20GB files).
There's really no need for people to pay for gobs of money for cloud storage, unless they're one of those people stuck in a corner case (need mobility, and lots of storage accessible anywhere). For most other people, the free cloud is more than enough to to provide the flexibility you need while still primarily using local storage.
I was thinking the same thing - what the hell is Maryland doing on that list? Every one of my friends is right now gainfully employed, and none have been jobless for more than a few months over the last couple years.
I suppose Maryland loses out on the tourist tweeting factor (lots of DC tourists, but rarely do they go north), and I guess also that people will complain about ANYTHING, even if they have a job!
It's easy to have a larger market share 7 years before the iPhone was released, when smartphones were only for the rich instead of commodity devices.
Actually, they're still devices for the rich. The only difference is now network providers will sell them to you for $100 down plus 24 easy payments of $69.99! And yes, you have to pay for an overpriced data pan!
Anytime you introduce easy credit, you entice people to bite who don't really need something that expensive. High prices do not stop a deadbeat from driving a Lexus.
Speaking of the iPhone, Steve Job's single biggest innovation in this market was convincing carriers to stop charging per-KB fees on data access (or dropping the cost of unlimited plans from the $50-60 range), with the hopes that they could make up for it by selling lots of expensive cell phones on layaway. It worked, and now that people are hooked most major carriers are locking things back down again.
SP1 added the firewall, gave Windows Update a bit of a shake down, and generally acted as though the internet existed and was not necessarily friendly. And that was about it. I don't know where this impression that Windows service packs are huge orbital drops of features came from because in my experience, aside XP SP1, they've been nothing but a banal necessity.
Absolutely wrong.
Service pack 1 added native support for USB 2.0. The OS did not ship with this support (much like Windows 7 added official USB 3 in SP1).
Service pack 2 completely redid the security system in XP: the firewall that was ALWAYS included was switched on by-default, they added native support for the NX bit (hardware-level protection from buffer overflows), and they created the new Windows Security Center to BUG PEOPLE to make sure their computer was secured (could see the state of Firewall, Antivirus and Automatic Updates, all in one place).
That's a huge orbital drop of features in my book!
Windows XP today is impressive, but when it first launched it seemed no more than a carbon-copy of Win2k with a pretty skin. This change in OS featureset is entirely due to the service packs.
How the fuck is a 1920x1080 TV better for programming than a 1920x1080 monitor?
It's not!
The larger size for the same resolution means lower DPI, and if you get belw the 90dpi mark you start to get distracted or get eyestrain from visible pixels.
Also, a lesser known problem with using TVs as monitors: Chroma Subsampling!
Most TVs expect the HDMI signal it receives (even from Blu-Ray) to default to 4:2:0. This means you get 1/8 as much chromanance resolution as you get luminance. This means that movies look fine (enough picture detail, and high chominance resolution highlights changes in that detail), but extremly high-contrast items (like text, which depends on high chrominance and luminance resolution) look blurred. This is made even worse with color-highlighting of code keywords (some colors look more blurred than others), which makes for an inconsistent mess when looking at a page of code in your favorite IDE.
And it's a pain in the ass to find a TV with proper 4:4:4 support, and even if you do find one it's another thing entirely to make sure you video card's HDMI port can actually ouput the 4:4:4 signal.
Wouldn't you rather just pay for a real 1080p monitor with a real DVI/Displayport input?
I'm sorry, but I just don't see that happening in the next 20-40 years, unless your only destination is an official quick charge station.
Look at you average parking lot/garage. What do you see? Lots of spaces, and very little wired cabling.
The problem is, these parking lots would have to be dug-up and completely resurfaced to run cables to each parking spot (can't just wire-up a few spots and "reserve" them for EVs, no way people will obey that). Or you could run overhead cables (still talking major $$$), and make it look like 1920s New York City with the sky full of wires. When was the last time you local business did more than reseal and put a few patches down on 30-year-old tarmac? And what would that business say when they have to get a mini-substation installed next door to charge all the parked cars? The sort of effort required to support EVs is frigntening for buisness owners, and could affect the charm/street effect of the location if not done properly.
Parking garages have it easier because you could run the cablling overhead, but then you get into the question of costs (both for the cable and the electricity): there's no way that garage owners will offer electric out fo the goodness of their hearts (they already gouge you for parking fees). This means that either ticket prices will go-up across the board, or else they will charge a premium to activate the tether?
These issues have not been dealt with because right now there are not enough EVs on the roads to justify more than a few dedicated charging stations in a hundred mile radius, and until they are dealt with the EV will NOT be the conveyence of choice for most people in the US.
Except that you're forgetting one key component of the 360 CPU: SMT.
Fine-grained SMT (the only SMT worth pursuing) allows for a second thread to populate unused execution units, allowing for an in-order CPU core to potentially exceed 1.0 IPC when running highly-threaded code (or maintain near 1.0 in I/O-blocked instances)..
The 360 cores are dual-decode, dual-issue (just like the Pentium, Intel Atom), as anything less would make zero sense to implement SMT for, and anything more would be overkill for an in-order design. It features triple 128-bit vector units, but will usually only be able to execute 2 vector instructions per-cycle. Here are the specs if you want to peruse them.
The Atom gets trounced in single-threaded operations, and also in some c tests where Brazos can keep itself fed. But in some tests the I/O becomes the bottleneck, and in those cases Atom catches-up (or exceeds Brazos).
Thus, for certain operations SMT offers similar per-clock performance to out-of-order execution. This means that an optimized multi-threaded load on the 3.2 GHz 360 CPU may run 50-75% faster than on a 1.6 GHz Jaguar core.
Thus if you assume PERFECT scaling for those 3 cores on the 360 and 8 cores of Jaguar, you really see only a 2x overall speedup (especially since Jaguar is getting an upgrade to dual 128-bit vector units).
I can barrage you with cheap munitions that are designed to just rain down over a general area, like you know a city, with just some basic magnetic guidance to keep it on a strait course.
Once your out of expensive weapons I can bring out my good ones to use on your high value targets.
Okay, this is how this scenario really works:
Assuming you have enough "cheap" munitions in a coordinated attack designed to overwhelm interception defenses, the attacker would require several strongpoints with lots of weapons (no way you could ransomly distribute that level of coordinated attack with enough munitions to overwhelm defenses).
The defender would have a firing solution on every strongpoint in seconds, and would lob off artillery and/or their own rockets and/or air strikes. Your coordinated attack designed to overwhelm defenses is cut-short by a conventional counterstrike before it has the time to do so.
The reason they build desenses like these to handle a cerain number of projectiles is because coordinated attackers make for easy targets. You typically see rebels taking pot-shots in smaller numbers where they can quickly disappear, and enemies in the next country over have known-quantities of ballistic missiles.
To all the pedants out there who think anything beyond TOS is ruining your childhood, read the following: ff you can timewarp reliably in a POS Klingon Bird of Prey, tell me exactly why people in the future (ST:TNG) with much more reliable ships (LaForge is not fixing an impossible engineering issue *every* episode) are not gallavanting freely all across both time and space?
The reason is: it's not impotant to the curent plotline, so nobody needs to do it. So long as you can accept this little bit of self-delusion, you can enjoy time travel plots without getting your official Star Trek pantaloons in a twist.
Accept that time travel and FANTASY are NECESSARY elements for a universe/series based on bending space-time, and you will be a much happier camper.
I don't have the patience to try and find a USB->serial adapter to use my ancient GraphLink, otherwise I'd load it on my 89 and see how true-to-life it is.
The REAL challenge would be to make a passable port of Sonic The Hedgehog to the Z80. Sega did this both as a last hurrah for the Sega Master System, and a port to promote the Game Gear.
That's probably a combination of the piss-poor GPU on Tegra 3 (barely good enough to render one thing at-a-time, and you expect stutter-free multitasking?) Along with the pathetic memory bandwidth (DDR3, but only a 32-bit bus).
You can actually lock that down in the profile manager (yes, there is a "no-login" profile). You can take away the abilty for users to access programs and run executables, which means the OS is "practically" locked-down.
The only downside? The same "no-login" profile is required for accessing Safe Mode, so if you have an unrecoverable problem be prepared to reinstall:D
The server market, usually Linux-based, appears to be AMD's most stable market.
Servers are a market that AMD has been losing for years now.
AMD stole over 20% market share from Intel while they were fucking around with the Pentium 4 disaster, and they've been losing it ever since the release of Conroe. Nehalem with high-scaling QPI interconnect was the last nail in the coffin - AMD's server share has been in free-fall since then.
Like the first linked article stated, AMD bet the farm on Bulldozer, and it's killing them. There's no way in hell AMD can reverse this trend with their existing silicon - that's already been made clear. So they're cutting to stay afloat, while they slowly rot from lack of innovation.
It'll be HP all over again, and that makes me sad.
Charging most cell phones for example only requires about 500ma at 5vdc. Even at 10% efficiency it's doable; just inefficient.
Can't you see how crazy you sound? Smartphones are a new constant drain on electricity, and if you dropped the efficiency of the charging transmission line to just 10%, you'd potentially cost the grid GIGAWATTS of capacity.
Here are my thoughts:
Current worldwide sales of Smartphones were 154 million units in 2012. If they continue to grow like last year, in 2013 they will move 220 million units. Let's ignore the already existing installed base of phones, and just assume those are all the Smartphones on earth (374 million).
If you drop efficiency of the charging transfer medium (wire = approx 100%) to 10%, you're wasting 22.5W to provide each Smartphone with 2.5W of usable power. If you assume perhaps 20% (low-ball estimate, for sure) are plugged-in at any time, this gives you:
374 million phones * (0.2) *(22.5W) = 1683 Megawatts of power, when the wired chargers only used 187 Megawatts. That's 1.5 Gigawatts of added capacity just so people can be lazy!
In addition to this, another key part of improving transmission has been improvements in DSP processing power to lift usable signals out of the noise. Unless you can find a unique way to improve the efficiency of the algorithm they use, you're going to have to wait for a die shrink to improve power consumption of that portion of the cellular chipset.
Slashdot Mirror
I think I've made my point: Diesel is not worth the cash premium in the USA unless you drive it into the ground.
You have chosen to ignore this point in every reply. Prove me wrong, or stop making the claim that diesel is worth the money.
And don't get distracted on your power worship - the only reason I brought it up was because you acted like your diesel was the queen of the dragstrip when I mentioned performance was similar/worse (with proof) to the I5.
As it should be in ANY quality car sold today!
My Scion Xb purchased in 2007 requires nothing but filter / oil / brakes / tires changes until 120,000 miles (YES, you have to change the spark plugs...after forever). And I expect the engine to last me well over the 150,000 mile mark, all for a car that cost me 18K (no diesel premium here)! So again, your anecdote against mine.
I assume you have not driven your Jetta purely in the city. Your figure would be what they call "combined" mileage, and your value sits right in between the city and highway ratings (30/42). I simply flagged the city number because, based on "official" mileage numbers it put the TDI engine in the absolute best terms (I ran both sets of numbers).
See, this is how I know you've never even test driven a car with a 2.5 liter engine. The power provided is plenty (especially with the 5 cylinder design VW has, which bridges the torque gap nicely between I4 and V6).
In the 0-60 test the TDI is actually almost a second SLOWER than the standard Golf 2.5l (manual transmission), which shows you don't need a turbocharger to get plenty of off-the-line performance. Can you justify spending a $4,000 premium for LESS performance?
Further, the 2.5l I5 is designed for cheap cars, and is thus DESIGNED FOR REGULAR GASOLINE. Using Premium in an engine designed for regular is just a waste of your money. trust MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE: I drive a 2.4l Scion xB, I can get to 60 in under 9 seconds with a 4-speed slushbox and regular unleaded.
Fuelly results for 2010-2013 VW Golf 2.5l: about 27mpg combined!
Fuelly results for 2010-2013 VW Golf 2.0 TDI: roughly 40mpg
This puts the numbers more in favor of the TDI, but you still have to drive it beyond 100,000 miles to break even:
Golf TDI: 40 miles/gallon * 1gallon/$4.00 = 10 miles/$
Golf 2.5: 27 miles/gallon * 1gallon/$3.60 = 7.5 miles/$
At 100,000 miles,
gas costs you a total of $9,333 ($13333 subtracting $4k starting cash)
diesel costs you a total of $10,000
And I suppose you've actually done the math? Because if you had, you'd see Diesel doesn't add up in our country.
Cost of Diesel in my area: 40 cents above Regular (4 bucks versus 3.60 a gallon).
Sticker price premium to purchase 2-door baseline Golf TDI over Golf 2.5l: $6,400. Let's give you $2,400 off that to account for the larger alloys included, fog lights (very generous amount of money for just those features), for a total difference of $4,000 for an engine swap. And while you can argue torque differences all day, I guarantee you that a car as light as the Golf will drive with agility using either engine, so it's a valid comparison.
Now let's compare the city mileage numbers, manual transmission (these are the most in favor of the TDI):
Rated city mileage Golf TDI: 30 mpg
Rated city mileage Golf 2.5: 23 mpg
Now you can compute the miles per dollar, just for the fuel:
Golf TDI: 30 miles/gallon * 1gallon/$4.00 = 7.5 miles/$
Golf 2.5: 23 miles/gallon * 1gallon/$3.60 = 6.38 miles/$
if you start with $4,000 in your pocket after purchasing the gas engine, how long do you have to drive until the diesel catches up?
At 100,000 miles,
gas costs you a total of $11,673 (after accounting for starting cash)
diesel costs you a total $13,333
At 200,000 miles,
gas costs you a total of $27,347 (after accounting for starting cash)
diesel costs you a total $26,666
So it seems you will only make your money back if you drive it into the ground, and then only just.
And the scores scale linearly, so you can just divide the scores of the new Samsung quad core by 2 to get a rough comparison with the iPhone 5. This gives an estimate of SIMILAR single-threaded performance between the two.
There are variations not handled by the simple comparison method (e.g. bandwidth-limited scaling of more cores, or clock turbo/throttling depending on number of cores used), but it's a pretty quick and fairly accurate comparison.
1. You have no clue what you are talking about
2. You have no fucking clue what you are talking about!
This is a discussion about the combined GPU + CPU design for the Playstation 4, not about any announced products on the shelf from AMD or Nvidia. This is a TRUE part to be released only by Sony, and it will have access to 8GB shared GDDR5 with a 256-bit bus to feed the GPU/CPU combination.
But the price of the AMD solution goes up because they have to use GDDR5 instead of DDR3 for that memory pool. Estimates I have seen are 2-3x the cost versus DDR3, so it adds an extra 30-50 bucks to the BOM.
You would spend the same amount of money buying 8GB DDR3 plus 2GB GDDR5 for your GPU, and you could choose whichever combination of CPU/GPU you want! It would also mean you could use cheaper 1Gbit GDDR5 chips.
I think that Sony is betting on the unified memory architecture giving them an advantage in GPU compute, and we shall see if this really happens. But it is FAR from a cost saving measure - GDDR5 has and will continue to be a low-volume, upmarket technology with a sizable cost premium. Supplying 4x more of it than most mid-range GPUs ship with is a dangerous bet for a system that will eventually have to come down in price!
That's only true if you're selling something directly. If you're trying to craft "image" or anchor the brand name, that still takes feedback surveys like it always has!
We already had a big collapse in ad payment rates about a decade ago because the entire early Internet advertising industry was based upon "assumed value," which meant you paid a fixed price per page view. That price was entirely made-up, but advertisers paid because they had no clue what the "right price" was.
After advertisers ran the numbers and found the ads made less impression on viewers than your average TV or radio spot, the pay-per-impression market collapsed. Now ads are often very distracting, and you only get paid serious money if someone clicks through and makes a purchase.
Truth be told, online ads today will only make you serious money if you put out a lot of effort buying old domains and turning them into ad farms, or if you're part of a larger website (that can still command impression money / site sponsorship) Most small websites with full-time backing from their authors only make ends meet by selling stuff in their online store, or asking for donations.
You know every fucking passenger will have to "experience" it, but there's only one prow on this ship, and more people there just ruins the experience.
Maybe they'll use FastPass to reserve your place in line?
"My love, I reserved the King of the World ride at 6pm, followed by a frolic in the back seat of an old clunker!"
So romantic!
Tegra 4 will not be a phone part (at least not in any phoe that values battery life). Those A15 cores suck down batter life like vampires.
Like Tegra 3, Tegra 4 uses far too much power for mobile phones. The plan this time is to produce two products:
Tegra 4: 4 + 1 Coretex A15 + 72 shaders, several watts power consumption, aimed at tablets.
Tegra 4i: 4 + 1 tweaked Coretex A9 + 60 shaders + integrated LTE, much lower power. Aimed at phones.
Nobody has committed to a Smartphone platform using the A15 precisely because the power consumption is too high. It may be tweaked over time, but right out the gate the power is just not there. This is why Apple went their own way with the A6.
Well then you have a small file that's already solved by email attachments. If you have a medium file that's already solved by free cloud storage offerings (Google's free cloud offers 5GB, so does Dropbox). You can get even larger storage if you care to take chances with less savory companies (e.g. MEGA offers 50GB free).
Want to store your music online? You have many different options (Google, Apple, Amazon)!
Want to store your videos online? Upload them to Youtube and make them private (15 minutes free for everyone, but a channel in good standing can upload up to 20GB files).
There's really no need for people to pay for gobs of money for cloud storage, unless they're one of those people stuck in a corner case (need mobility, and lots of storage accessible anywhere). For most other people, the free cloud is more than enough to to provide the flexibility you need while still primarily using local storage.
I was thinking the same thing - what the hell is Maryland doing on that list? Every one of my friends is right now gainfully employed, and none have been jobless for more than a few months over the last couple years.
I suppose Maryland loses out on the tourist tweeting factor (lots of DC tourists, but rarely do they go north), and I guess also that people will complain about ANYTHING, even if they have a job!
Actually, they're still devices for the rich. The only difference is now network providers will sell them to you for $100 down plus 24 easy payments of $69.99! And yes, you have to pay for an overpriced data pan!
Anytime you introduce easy credit, you entice people to bite who don't really need something that expensive. High prices do not stop a deadbeat from driving a Lexus.
Speaking of the iPhone, Steve Job's single biggest innovation in this market was convincing carriers to stop charging per-KB fees on data access (or dropping the cost of unlimited plans from the $50-60 range), with the hopes that they could make up for it by selling lots of expensive cell phones on layaway. It worked, and now that people are hooked most major carriers are locking things back down again.
Absolutely wrong.
Service pack 1 added native support for USB 2.0. The OS did not ship with this support (much like Windows 7 added official USB 3 in SP1).
Service pack 2 completely redid the security system in XP: the firewall that was ALWAYS included was switched on by-default, they added native support for the NX bit (hardware-level protection from buffer overflows), and they created the new Windows Security Center to BUG PEOPLE to make sure their computer was secured (could see the state of Firewall, Antivirus and Automatic Updates, all in one place).
That's a huge orbital drop of features in my book!
Windows XP today is impressive, but when it first launched it seemed no more than a carbon-copy of Win2k with a pretty skin. This change in OS featureset is entirely due to the service packs.
I meant to say "This means you get 1/4 as much chromanance resolution"
It's not!
The larger size for the same resolution means lower DPI, and if you get belw the 90dpi mark you start to get distracted or get eyestrain from visible pixels.
Also, a lesser known problem with using TVs as monitors: Chroma Subsampling!
Most TVs expect the HDMI signal it receives (even from Blu-Ray) to default to 4:2:0. This means you get 1/8 as much chromanance resolution as you get luminance. This means that movies look fine (enough picture detail, and high chominance resolution highlights changes in that detail), but extremly high-contrast items (like text, which depends on high chrominance and luminance resolution) look blurred. This is made even worse with color-highlighting of code keywords (some colors look more blurred than others), which makes for an inconsistent mess when looking at a page of code in your favorite IDE.
And it's a pain in the ass to find a TV with proper 4:4:4 support, and even if you do find one it's another thing entirely to make sure you video card's HDMI port can actually ouput the 4:4:4 signal.
Wouldn't you rather just pay for a real 1080p monitor with a real DVI/Displayport input?
I'm sorry, but I just don't see that happening in the next 20-40 years, unless your only destination is an official quick charge station.
Look at you average parking lot/garage. What do you see? Lots of spaces, and very little wired cabling.
The problem is, these parking lots would have to be dug-up and completely resurfaced to run cables to each parking spot (can't just wire-up a few spots and "reserve" them for EVs, no way people will obey that). Or you could run overhead cables (still talking major $$$), and make it look like 1920s New York City with the sky full of wires. When was the last time you local business did more than reseal and put a few patches down on 30-year-old tarmac? And what would that business say when they have to get a mini-substation installed next door to charge all the parked cars? The sort of effort required to support EVs is frigntening for buisness owners, and could affect the charm/street effect of the location if not done properly.
Parking garages have it easier because you could run the cablling overhead, but then you get into the question of costs (both for the cable and the electricity): there's no way that garage owners will offer electric out fo the goodness of their hearts (they already gouge you for parking fees). This means that either ticket prices will go-up across the board, or else they will charge a premium to activate the tether?
These issues have not been dealt with because right now there are not enough EVs on the roads to justify more than a few dedicated charging stations in a hundred mile radius, and until they are dealt with the EV will NOT be the conveyence of choice for most people in the US.
Except that you're forgetting one key component of the 360 CPU: SMT.
Fine-grained SMT (the only SMT worth pursuing) allows for a second thread to populate unused execution units, allowing for an in-order CPU core to potentially exceed 1.0 IPC when running highly-threaded code (or maintain near 1.0 in I/O-blocked instances)..
The 360 cores are dual-decode, dual-issue (just like the Pentium, Intel Atom), as anything less would make zero sense to implement SMT for, and anything more would be overkill for an in-order design. It features triple 128-bit vector units, but will usually only be able to execute 2 vector instructions per-cycle. Here are the specs if you want to peruse them.
The AMD Bobcat core is not a very powerful out-of-order unit. Like the 360 CPU, it features dual-decode and dual-issue (a trait shared by the Jaguar refresh). You can see how little boost Bobcat receives from out-of-order by putting it up against the Intel Atom.
The Atom gets trounced in single-threaded operations, and also in some c tests where Brazos can keep itself fed. But in some tests the I/O becomes the bottleneck, and in those cases Atom catches-up (or exceeds Brazos).
Thus, for certain operations SMT offers similar per-clock performance to out-of-order execution. This means that an optimized multi-threaded load on the 3.2 GHz 360 CPU may run 50-75% faster than on a 1.6 GHz Jaguar core.
Thus if you assume PERFECT scaling for those 3 cores on the 360 and 8 cores of Jaguar, you really see only a 2x overall speedup (especially since Jaguar is getting an upgrade to dual 128-bit vector units).
Okay, this is how this scenario really works:
Assuming you have enough "cheap" munitions in a coordinated attack designed to overwhelm interception defenses, the attacker would require several strongpoints with lots of weapons (no way you could ransomly distribute that level of coordinated attack with enough munitions to overwhelm defenses).
The defender would have a firing solution on every strongpoint in seconds, and would lob off artillery and/or their own rockets and/or air strikes. Your coordinated attack designed to overwhelm defenses is cut-short by a conventional counterstrike before it has the time to do so.
The reason they build desenses like these to handle a cerain number of projectiles is because coordinated attackers make for easy targets. You typically see rebels taking pot-shots in smaller numbers where they can quickly disappear, and enemies in the next country over have known-quantities of ballistic missiles.
This is my feelings exactly!
To all the pedants out there who think anything beyond TOS is ruining your childhood, read the following: ff you can timewarp reliably in a POS Klingon Bird of Prey, tell me exactly why people in the future (ST:TNG) with much more reliable ships (LaForge is not fixing an impossible engineering issue *every* episode) are not gallavanting freely all across both time and space?
The reason is: it's not impotant to the curent plotline, so nobody needs to do it. So long as you can accept this little bit of self-delusion, you can enjoy time travel plots without getting your official Star Trek pantaloons in a twist.
Accept that time travel and FANTASY are NECESSARY elements for a universe/series based on bending space-time, and you will be a much happier camper.
Right here:
Sonic MisAdventures
I don't have the patience to try and find a USB->serial adapter to use my ancient GraphLink, otherwise I'd load it on my 89 and see how true-to-life it is.
The REAL challenge would be to make a passable port of Sonic The Hedgehog to the Z80. Sega did this both as a last hurrah for the Sega Master System, and a port to promote the Game Gear.
That's probably a combination of the piss-poor GPU on Tegra 3 (barely good enough to render one thing at-a-time, and you expect stutter-free multitasking?) Along with the pathetic memory bandwidth (DDR3, but only a 32-bit bus).
Snapdragon S4 has nether of these issues!
You can actually lock that down in the profile manager (yes, there is a "no-login" profile). You can take away the abilty for users to access programs and run executables, which means the OS is "practically" locked-down.
The only downside? The same "no-login" profile is required for accessing Safe Mode, so if you have an unrecoverable problem be prepared to reinstall :D
Servers are a market that AMD has been losing for years now.
AMD stole over 20% market share from Intel while they were fucking around with the Pentium 4 disaster, and they've been losing it ever since the release of Conroe. Nehalem with high-scaling QPI interconnect was the last nail in the coffin - AMD's server share has been in free-fall since then.
2010: 7% server market share!
This year: 5.5% server market share
Like the first linked article stated, AMD bet the farm on Bulldozer, and it's killing them. There's no way in hell AMD can reverse this trend with their existing silicon - that's already been made clear. So they're cutting to stay afloat, while they slowly rot from lack of innovation.
It'll be HP all over again, and that makes me sad.
Can't you see how crazy you sound? Smartphones are a new constant drain on electricity, and if you dropped the efficiency of the charging transmission line to just 10%, you'd potentially cost the grid GIGAWATTS of capacity.
Here are my thoughts:
Current worldwide sales of Smartphones were 154 million units in 2012. If they continue to grow like last year, in 2013 they will move 220 million units. Let's ignore the already existing installed base of phones, and just assume those are all the Smartphones on earth (374 million).
If you drop efficiency of the charging transfer medium (wire = approx 100%) to 10%, you're wasting 22.5W to provide each Smartphone with 2.5W of usable power. If you assume perhaps 20% (low-ball estimate, for sure) are plugged-in at any time, this gives you:
374 million phones * (0.2) *(22.5W) = 1683 Megawatts of power, when the wired chargers only used 187 Megawatts. That's 1.5 Gigawatts of added capacity just so people can be lazy!
In addition to this, another key part of improving transmission has been improvements in DSP processing power to lift usable signals out of the noise. Unless you can find a unique way to improve the efficiency of the algorithm they use, you're going to have to wait for a die shrink to improve power consumption of that portion of the cellular chipset.