Most of the laptop makers should be doing this. Perhaps it will help get the heat away from the "lap" and into the "top"?
They should put silvered mylar shapes (stars, moons, penguins,... ) into the water tank on the display, so that when the pump runs, the shapes gambol about. Or perhaps a blizzardy Winter scene, with imitation snow.:-)
When they get really clever, they'll have most of the case sealed, to protect it more from spilled beverages, etc. If all your peripherals and your networking are wireless, then the number of openings in the case does start to fall.
If they would use wide enough pipes (doubtful), they could rely on convection cooling at times, for low-power operation. Oooo, aaaa.
I have to agree with idfrsr on this one. If you think it's important, send me a letter. Here are three reasons why:
Sending mail compells you to at least pay for the written material, and the postage to get it to me. Perhaps this will encourage you to target me somewhat more precisely than the Penis Enlargers, Make Money Fasters, and Debt Consolidators do via email.
The arrival of unwanted USPS mail does not interrupt my day. It arrives only once, at the same time as everything else. At the time of my choosing, I put on my "is this garbage?" hat, and sift through the pile rapidly.
At the instant that I decide that your message is spam, it goes into the trash. I do not have to listen to you prattle on ignoring my attempts to shut you up and make you never call me again. (Is there an equivalent "do not mail me" list, like the "do not call" list? It would be soooo cool if bulk mailers were required to include/attach a postage-paid reply postcard that would take you off their mailing list.)
I'm tired of paying the big car companies my tax dollars to pretend to work on a solution to the fuel economy and exhaust pollution problems. Aren't you also?
Instead of handing the car companies money to produce concept cars and glitzy powerpoint presentations about what they might build in a decade, the USA should just increase the gasoline tax, and also tax those gasses/particles coming out of the tailpipe that are deemed harmful.
Then let the market decide whether hybrid, fuel cell, reformer + fuel cell, battery, rubber band, or whatever is the best. I guess as they suggest the Feds could step in and subsidize the building of many H2/methanol/??? stations, if it is later determined that a different kind of fuel would be better.
If GM then decides to build a gasoline-fueled 4x4x4 roller skate with changeable tops, they are quite welcome, and I wish them the best of luck. But if they miss the market window because they farted around at my expense, while Honda and Toyota actually built cars and figured out how to make them work well with electric motors at the wheel, then I have little sympathy for them.
Let's see. 1) It uses fuel cells, to provide pleasing zero emissions. 2) But if it can't store enough fuel, then it will plug into the wall and make its own fuel, to please the people who need 500km range. 3) And it will take gasoline as fuel, and reform that into hydrogen, 4) except in China, which will have H2 stations. 5) All the drivestuff will be in the low-profile chassis, so that you can put a variety of tops on it. 6) In fact, we'll even let the user put different tops on it. 7) It will be so cheap that more than 12% of the people in the world will be able to buy it, unlike ICE vehicles. 8) It will have 4-wheel drive. 9) It will have 4-wheel steering. 10) It will have a 20 year life, with few parts that would wear out before then. 11) It will satisfy USA safety regs for things like mechanical steering, emergency brakes, parking brakes. 12) It will look cool.
There is no such animal, nor will there be. Some of those goals and design constraints need to be discarded. They need to pick _a_ market, and aim for that.
From the article: A note from the THG lab: because the pump runs in a closed water circuit, the pressure head has no influence.
Nice try, but no cigar. When the manufacturer specifies the amount of flow for a given "pressure head", they are telling you how much flow you will get when pushing the water a certain distance uphill. While it is true that your water goes in a circle, and thus not really uphill, the resistance from those skinny hoses, pipes, elbows, and other fittings will have (for a given flow rate) the same effect as some amount of pressure head.
If you could choose, you would choose piping that would have as little resistance to flow as possible. Less resistance to flow lets you use a smaller pump. A smaller pump generates less heat.
And that would be that much less heat to remove from the case and dump in your room.
What I want to know is a rule of thumb for equating megapixels to analog film. How many megapixels does it take to equal the quality of a 35mm negative, taken with the following speeds of rather generic (Kodak, Fuji,...) color film?
100
200
400
800
1600 What I really want to know is what sort of digital camera do I need to buy to take pictures as good as 200 speed film?
Are digital cameras generally "fast", in the sense of 1600 speed film?
(I hate taking pictures with fast film because of the graininess, and I hate taking pictures with flash.)
But the difficulty in distinguishing RIAA and MPAA from the government is not because one is acting like the other. The confusion is caused by an uncertainty of where the lines should be drawn. To make it more clear, legislators should address each other in ways such as "... the senator from South Carolina, a wholly owned subsidiary of Disney, Inc."
Why do we expect privacy when dealing with the outside world?
Ah, a game of softball? How refreshing.
"Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
And before the conversation wanders, let me remind you that the above is a minimum , not a maximum.
Also, the above restraint only applies to the government, not corporations. Corporations may be restrained by existing laws, and as the article makes clear, they should be restrained by additional ones.
Stop expecting privacy when using services provided by someone other than yourself.
No. For example, it is illegal to tamper with US Mail. It is illegal in many states to eavesdrop in certain ways, or to record certain conversations. I expect my phone calls, my mail, and more to be private. There is more that I want, and if a majority of Americans would join me, we would have those privacies as well. There is no plausible reason why I should be able to purchase your medical history, your salary history, or your credit history. A narrow group of people or corporations may need to know these things, with your informed consent, in certain situations, but the general public never does.
Re:Days of denial are over.
on
Baked Alaska
·
· Score: 1
Everybody repeat after me. Commonality Does Not Equal Causality.
You are so right to insist on following strict rules of logic when solving this complicated puzzle, but I think you have stopped short. We should insist on rigorous scientific method to test these "greenhouse" theories. Towards that goal, I propose that we place the entire solar system into a giant replicator, and make many copies of it. Then, on some of those copies, we will do nothing. In others, we will strictly regulate the emissions of all greenhouse gases on Earth. In still other copies, we will try out the other several most popular theories of how to proceed.
Then after several centuries, or perhaps even longer, we will check which plan had the most pleasant result. If we made enough copies at the start of our experiment, enough of each kind to apply proper statistical methods, we will be able to show with only small doubt (choose your probability) that we know the correct course of action. Then we will all hop in our time machine, zip back to the present, and proceed along the best path.
Oh, wait, I forgot, we don't HAVE a giant replicator, a time machine, or a situation in which we have the luxury of requiring your strict rules of logic.
All we have are some brilliant people constructing climate models that predict that the global average temperature will rise by some non-negligible amount and that according to mathematics in these models greenhouse gases cause this rise. This is the best that we can do. Whether or not you believe that their models agree with reality, and that the "causality" in the mathematics of their models in any way indicates causality in the real world is up to you.
Please stop being retarded, thanks.
Please let us know when you are ready to follow your own advice.
...If only the California high-speed rail system was up and running.
That comment was, of course, only the first scrap of a litany of "if only we had super-duper high-tech trains in the USA". (Yeah, it's News-for-Nerds, should I be surprised?) But sometimes a rather good, low-tech solution is also possible. It is less sexy, and less likely to have a corporate lobbyist selling it, but it is probably the best choice.
Recently, some boosters were clamoring for high-speed rail between Baltimore, Maryland and Washington, D.C, so that we could have a sexy train in time for some Olympics or somesuch. The projected cost ("projected" in this case is a euphemism for "wildly optimistic") was something like $4,000,000,000. There have also been proposals for high-speed from Washington, D.C to Richmond, Virginia, which would cost similar large piles of money.
How about something simple, like adding the overhead wires and such so that electric engines can travel South and West from Washington, D.C? Currently, if you travel through Washington, from any big Northeast ciy, and try to continue South or West, you will learn that they stop for a half hour in D.C., while they unhitch the electric engine, take it away, bring a diesel engine, hitch it, test it, yadda yadda. During most of the half hour, the coaches are sitting there, unpowered, unventilated, unlit. It does not make a good impression, and it is not speedy.
Yeah, I knew it would need error correction when I wrote that; I was sort of "thinking out loud". Yes, I am aware that current storage technologies use error detection and correction. But one of the interesting things is I think the perhaps different failure mode, when one of the "pokers" fails, taking out 0.1% of the raw bits at once. Do hard drives fail in this way? I assume that they have only the catastrophic failure (head crash, fried electronics,...) and the slow bit rot failure (single bits or blocks rendered unusable. Do they often also loose a (eg) single cylinder all at once?
Plus, it seems to me that a failing poker is not inconceivable. Each one has to make sooooo many holes.
Heeeeey, waitaminute, maybe this technology really IS like punch cards. With punch cards, one of the "bad things" you could do was make a "lace card", by punching all the holes out of a card.
But, darn, I suppose that low-level controls in the device would prevent the millipede from punching every hole, making a "lace chip" as it were, much in the same way that magnetic encodings on platters and tapes require that there not be too many ones, nor too many zeros, all in a row.
So, there's a thousand red-hot pokers, melting a trillion holes in a square of plexiglass. Each poker will make a half billion holes just filling up the chip the first time. Eeek! I assume these chips will come with plenty of error detection/correction, so that if one of the pokers quits, the remaining ones will give you the clues to what was in that 0.1% that you just lost.
But certainly, there must be some sort of failure rate for each poker, and the chip... Is it too soon to know/guess these numbers?
If a software application representing 5000 hours uses GPL code that reflects only 100 hours, is the GPL fair in its argument that the entire product is GPL?
This sort of comparison just sounds to me like the first of several steps on the path of rationalizing theft of the GPL code. You downplay the size of the theft ("Aw, I could have written that in 100 hours!"), you attack the author ("Those lousy GPL crooks, they are just trying to steal my intellectual property rights!"), you attack the quality of the product ("It doesn't come with support, or snazzy bound manuals."), etc. Then you quietly slip it into your pocket, and hope that nobody notices...
"design a space station using the doughnut shape? That way, they could kill two birds with one stone; spin the station to create artificial gravity and achieve gyroscopic stability"
Ah, but then when the Russian oxygen generator catches fire, the artificial gravity will keep the toxic fumes from smothering the flames.
"That picture"? And in the article, the one of which the caption says "a prototype is seen here"?
Neither of these is accurate. The graphic in the article seems to be a very crude computer generated image of vaporware. Not a picture, not a prototype.
1. It is unlikely to work. A huge amount of money will be spent, and they are likely to end up with either a) nothing b) wacky spontaneously aborted fetuses c) almost-but-not-quite-right sterile or frail Taz tigers d) not enough genetic diversity, plus a fear that they should not release these into the wild, because there _might_ still be bona fide Taz tigers whose genes shouldn't be mixed with these questionable ones.
2. Whether or not it does work, the general public will think it did. Then they will cease to care when they hear that other species are going extinct. ("Oh, let's just put a few of them in jars of formaldehyde, just in case, for later.") If it does work, then preserving specimens, rather than habitats, will become the misguided policy. Great, a bunch of creatures, with nowhere for them to live!
3. Spending the money on habitat preservation and fighting introduction of foreign species is a more effective use of the money. Bringing just a Taz tiger back to life would be expensive. Imagine the expense if we try to do this at a rate of species/year that even begins to resemble the number of extinctions/year that are already occurring. For species residing on tropical islands, it would be cheaper to buy/seize these islands and mark them off-limits to everyone but biologists.
Once this thing goes into production or gets fielded, it will need a nickname. And just like the A-10 is named "Thunderbolt", but more appropriately nicknamed "Warthog" to match its appearance, the X-45 should be nicknamed the "Mola mola", or just "Mola".
Of course _you_ probably don't get it, because although you are a nerd, _you_ are not _me_. But Google will let you in on the fun. Click links until you find pictures. I especially like the pix I found at http://www.earthwindow.com/mola2.html. To quote a line from a Marx Brothers' movie (_Horsefeathers_?): "I give you a hint. It's the name of a fish!"
Apparently, I should have selected "Plain Old Text" instead of HTML Formatted. But shouldn't we judge content, rather than style, especially for my first post?
"The idea behind Opteron is to build off of the Latin root optimus meaning best or if you play with the translation a bit you get optimal unit or flagship."
Wrong root, guys. Here's a quiz. What are the following?
Isoptera, Orthoptera, Hemoptera, Heteroptera, Homoptera, Neuroptera, Coleoptera, Lepidoptera, Hymenoptera, Ephemeroptera, Mecoptera, Trichoptera, Diptera, Siphonaptera, Thysanoptera, Paleoptera, Strepsiptera
Answer: They are kinds of bugs.
Yeah, "Opteron" is a GREAT name for something computer-related.
Slashdot Mirror
Most of the laptop makers should be doing this. Perhaps it will help get the heat away from the "lap" and into the "top"?
They should put silvered mylar shapes (stars, moons, penguins,... ) into the water tank on the display, so that when the pump runs, the shapes gambol about. Or perhaps a blizzardy Winter scene, with imitation snow. :-)
When they get really clever, they'll have most of the case sealed, to protect it more from spilled beverages, etc. If all your peripherals and your networking are wireless, then the number of openings in the case does start to fall.
If they would use wide enough pipes (doubtful), they could rely on convection cooling at times, for low-power operation. Oooo, aaaa.
Sending mail compells you to at least pay for the written material, and the postage to get it to me. Perhaps this will encourage you to target me somewhat more precisely than the Penis Enlargers, Make Money Fasters, and Debt Consolidators do via email.
The arrival of unwanted USPS mail does not interrupt my day. It arrives only once, at the same time as everything else. At the time of my choosing, I put on my "is this garbage?" hat, and sift through the pile rapidly.
At the instant that I decide that your message is spam, it goes into the trash. I do not have to listen to you prattle on ignoring my attempts to shut you up and make you never call me again. (Is there an equivalent "do not mail me" list, like the "do not call" list? It would be soooo cool if bulk mailers were required to include/attach a postage-paid reply postcard that would take you off their mailing list.)
If you are talking about the new 17" iMac, then I guess the eMac would be the stripped-down version, for many $100s less.
If you are talking about MacOS X 10.2 (nee Jaguar), then perhaps Darwin does what you want?
Or perhaps you were wondering if Apple forces its customers to use a particular Web browser? No.
Or perhaps you are asking if Apple will force people to sign up for .mac at $100/year? No.
I'm tired of paying the big car companies my tax dollars to pretend to work on a solution to the fuel economy and exhaust pollution problems. Aren't you also?
Instead of handing the car companies money to produce concept cars and glitzy powerpoint presentations about what they might build in a decade, the USA should just increase the gasoline tax, and also tax those gasses/particles coming out of the tailpipe that are deemed harmful.
Then let the market decide whether hybrid, fuel cell, reformer + fuel cell, battery, rubber band, or whatever is the best. I guess as they suggest the Feds could step in and subsidize the building of many H2/methanol/??? stations, if it is later determined that a different kind of fuel would be better.
If GM then decides to build a gasoline-fueled 4x4x4 roller skate with changeable tops, they are quite welcome, and I wish them the best of luck.
But if they miss the market window because they farted around at my expense, while Honda and Toyota actually built cars and figured out how to make them work well with electric motors at the wheel, then I have little sympathy for them.
Let's see. 1) It uses fuel cells, to provide pleasing zero emissions. 2) But if it can't store enough fuel, then it will plug into the wall and make its own fuel, to please the people who need 500km range. 3) And it will take gasoline as fuel, and reform that into hydrogen, 4) except in China, which will have H2 stations. 5) All the drivestuff will be in the low-profile chassis, so that you can put a variety of tops on it. 6) In fact, we'll even let the user put different tops on it. 7) It will be so cheap that more than 12% of the people in the world will be able to buy it, unlike ICE vehicles. 8) It will have 4-wheel drive. 9) It will have 4-wheel steering. 10) It will have a 20 year life, with few parts that would wear out before then. 11) It will satisfy USA safety regs for things like mechanical steering, emergency brakes, parking brakes. 12) It will look cool.
There is no such animal, nor will there be. Some of those goals and design constraints need to be discarded. They need to pick _a_ market, and aim for that.
Nice try, but no cigar. When the manufacturer specifies the amount of flow for a given "pressure head", they are telling you how much flow you will get when pushing the water a certain distance uphill. While it is true that your water goes in a circle, and thus not really uphill, the resistance from those skinny hoses, pipes, elbows, and other fittings will have (for a given flow rate) the same effect as some amount of pressure head.
If you could choose, you would choose piping that would have as little resistance to flow as possible. Less resistance to flow lets you use a smaller pump. A smaller pump generates less heat. And that would be that much less heat to remove from the case and dump in your room.
What I want to know is a rule of thumb for equating megapixels to analog film. How many megapixels does it take to equal the quality of a 35mm negative, taken with the following speeds of rather generic (Kodak, Fuji, ...) color film?
100
200
400
800
1600
What I really want to know is what sort of digital camera do I need to buy to take pictures as good as 200 speed film?
Are digital cameras generally "fast", in the sense of 1600 speed film?
(I hate taking pictures with fast film because of the graininess, and I hate taking pictures with flash.)
But the difficulty in distinguishing RIAA and MPAA from the government is not because one is acting like the other. The confusion is caused by an uncertainty of where the lines should be drawn. To make it more clear, legislators should address each other in ways such as "... the senator from South Carolina, a wholly owned subsidiary of Disney, Inc."
Ah, a game of softball? How refreshing.
"Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
And before the conversation wanders, let me remind you that the above is a minimum , not a maximum.
Also, the above restraint only applies to the government, not corporations. Corporations may be restrained by existing laws, and as the article makes clear, they should be restrained by additional ones.
Stop expecting privacy when using services provided by someone other than yourself.
No. For example, it is illegal to tamper with US Mail. It is illegal in many states to eavesdrop in certain ways, or to record certain conversations. I expect my phone calls, my mail, and more to be private. There is more that I want, and if a majority of Americans would join me, we would have those privacies as well. There is no plausible reason why I should be able to purchase your medical history, your salary history, or your credit history. A narrow group of people or corporations may need to know these things, with your informed consent, in certain situations, but the general public never does.
You are so right to insist on following strict rules of logic when solving this complicated puzzle, but I think you have stopped short. We should insist on rigorous scientific method to test these "greenhouse" theories. Towards that goal, I propose that we place the entire solar system into a giant replicator, and make many copies of it. Then, on some of those copies, we will do nothing. In others, we will strictly regulate the emissions of all greenhouse gases on Earth. In still other copies, we will try out the other several most popular theories of how to proceed.
Then after several centuries, or perhaps even longer, we will check which plan had the most pleasant result. If we made enough copies at the start of our experiment, enough of each kind to apply proper statistical methods, we will be able to show with only small doubt (choose your probability) that we know the correct course of action. Then we will all hop in our time machine, zip back to the present, and proceed along the best path.
Oh, wait, I forgot, we don't HAVE a giant replicator, a time machine, or a situation in which we have the luxury of requiring your strict rules of logic.
All we have are some brilliant people constructing climate models that predict that the global average temperature will rise by some non-negligible amount and that according to mathematics in these models greenhouse gases cause this rise. This is the best that we can do. Whether or not you believe that their models agree with reality, and that the "causality" in the mathematics of their models in any way indicates causality in the real world is up to you.
Please stop being retarded, thanks. Please let us know when you are ready to follow your own advice.
That comment was, of course, only the first scrap of a litany of "if only we had super-duper high-tech trains in the USA". (Yeah, it's News-for-Nerds, should I be surprised?) But sometimes a rather good, low-tech solution is also possible. It is less sexy, and less likely to have a corporate lobbyist selling it, but it is probably the best choice.
Recently, some boosters were clamoring for high-speed rail between Baltimore, Maryland and Washington, D.C, so that we could have a sexy train in time for some Olympics or somesuch. The projected cost ("projected" in this case is a euphemism for "wildly optimistic") was something like $4,000,000,000. There have also been proposals for high-speed from Washington, D.C to Richmond, Virginia, which would cost similar large piles of money.
How about something simple, like adding the overhead wires and such so that electric engines can travel South and West from Washington, D.C? Currently, if you travel through Washington, from any big Northeast ciy, and try to continue South or West, you will learn that they stop for a half hour in D.C., while they unhitch the electric engine, take it away, bring a diesel engine, hitch it, test it, yadda yadda. During most of the half hour, the coaches are sitting there, unpowered, unventilated, unlit. It does not make a good impression, and it is not speedy.
Yeah, I knew it would need error correction when I wrote that; I was sort of "thinking out loud". Yes, I am aware that current storage technologies use error detection and correction. But one of the interesting things is I think the perhaps different failure mode, when one of the "pokers" fails, taking out 0.1% of the raw bits at once. ...) and the slow bit rot failure (single bits or blocks rendered unusable. Do they often also loose a (eg) single cylinder all at once?
Do hard drives fail in this way? I assume that they have only the catastrophic failure (head crash, fried electronics,
Plus, it seems to me that a failing poker is not inconceivable. Each one has to make sooooo many holes.
Heeeeey, waitaminute, maybe this technology really IS like punch cards. With punch cards, one of the "bad things" you could do was make a "lace card", by punching all the holes out of a card.
But, darn, I suppose that low-level controls in the device would prevent the millipede from punching every hole, making a "lace chip" as it were, much in the same way that magnetic encodings on platters and tapes require that there not be too many ones, nor too many zeros, all in a row.
So, there's a thousand red-hot pokers, melting a trillion holes in a square of plexiglass. Each poker will make a half billion holes just filling up the chip the first time. Eeek! I assume these chips will come with plenty of error detection/correction, so that if one of the pokers quits, the remaining ones will give you the clues to what was in that 0.1% that you just lost.
But certainly, there must be some sort of failure rate for each poker, and the chip... Is it too soon to know/guess these numbers?
If a software application representing 5000 hours uses GPL code that reflects only 100 hours, is the GPL fair in its argument that the entire product is GPL? This sort of comparison just sounds to me like the first of several steps on the path of rationalizing theft of the GPL code. You downplay the size of the theft ("Aw, I could have written that in 100 hours!"), you attack the author ("Those lousy GPL crooks, they are just trying to steal my intellectual property rights!"), you attack the quality of the product ("It doesn't come with support, or snazzy bound manuals."), etc. Then you quietly slip it into your pocket, and hope that nobody notices...
"May I suggest Courreges or Gaultier for space-suit designer?"
No, get the person who did the costumes for Barbarella!
"design a space station using the doughnut shape? That way, they could kill two birds with one stone; spin the station to create artificial gravity and achieve gyroscopic stability"
Ah, but then when the Russian oxygen generator catches fire, the artificial gravity will keep the toxic fumes from smothering the flames.
"That picture"? And in the article, the one of which the caption says "a prototype is seen here"?
Neither of these is accurate. The graphic in the article seems to be a very crude computer generated image of vaporware. Not a picture, not a prototype.
But, oh yeah, I'll grant you "giant iPaq".
Yes, all the white plastic in the base will be replaced with depleted uranium, with an attractive brushed-metal finish to match their PowerBooks.
Oh yeah, that's right, turn all the white parts black. And ... instead of making the base a hemisphere, make it a cube ... and then ... voila!
The oRiGiNaL NeXTStEP cOmPuTeR iS ReBoRn!!!!! Can I get a finicky magneto-optical disk with that?
1. It is unlikely to work. A huge amount of money will be spent, and they are likely to end up with either a) nothing b) wacky spontaneously aborted fetuses c) almost-but-not-quite-right sterile or frail Taz tigers d) not enough genetic diversity, plus a fear that they should not release these into the wild, because there _might_ still be bona fide Taz tigers whose genes shouldn't be mixed with these questionable ones.
2. Whether or not it does work, the general public will think it did. Then they will cease to care when they hear that other species are going extinct. ("Oh, let's just put a few of them in jars of formaldehyde, just in case, for later.") If it does work, then preserving specimens, rather than habitats, will become the misguided policy. Great, a bunch of creatures, with nowhere for them to live!
3. Spending the money on habitat preservation and fighting introduction of foreign species is a more effective use of the money. Bringing just a Taz tiger back to life would be expensive. Imagine the expense if we try to do this at a rate of species/year that even begins to resemble the number of extinctions/year that are already occurring. For species residing on tropical islands, it would be cheaper to buy/seize these islands and mark them off-limits to everyone but biologists.
Once this thing goes into production or gets fielded, it will need a nickname. And just like the A-10 is named "Thunderbolt", but more appropriately nicknamed "Warthog" to match its appearance, the X-45 should be nicknamed the "Mola mola", or just "Mola".
Of course _you_ probably don't get it, because although you are a nerd, _you_ are not _me_. But Google will let you in on the fun. Click links until you find pictures. I especially like the pix I found at http://www.earthwindow.com/mola2.html. To quote a line from a Marx Brothers' movie (_Horsefeathers_?): "I give you a hint. It's the name of a fish!"
Apparently, I should have selected "Plain Old Text" instead of HTML Formatted. But shouldn't we judge content, rather than style, especially for my first post?
"The idea behind Opteron is to build off of the Latin root optimus meaning best or if you play with the translation a bit you get optimal unit or flagship." Wrong root, guys. Here's a quiz. What are the following? Isoptera, Orthoptera, Hemoptera, Heteroptera, Homoptera, Neuroptera, Coleoptera, Lepidoptera, Hymenoptera, Ephemeroptera, Mecoptera, Trichoptera, Diptera, Siphonaptera, Thysanoptera, Paleoptera, Strepsiptera Answer: They are kinds of bugs. Yeah, "Opteron" is a GREAT name for something computer-related.