As I thought I made clear, I was only speculating on other -possible- reasons for the issue; obviously power is by far the most likely reason.
BTW, synchronizers are tough circuits to get right, and your thought that Sony can design it is matched by ample evidence from many other designers of at least equal caliber who have designed synchronizers that fail outside certain assumptions. It's not a slight on Sony, it's an engineering reality. So if the synchronizer designer was told the psp cpu only went up to 222 MHz and built it to that specification it is quite feasible that it would later fail.
But that's just a possibility, and I don't even know if they use a synchronizer. The other possibility that someone else brought up was that all the chips are locked to multipliers of bus frequency, bringing up the chance that the higher processor frequency is an effect of a higher bus frequency which could result in the wi-fi chip operating at a higher frequency than it was designed for.
Anyway, I think we all agree that it's power issues.
The flaw in your logic is the assumption that an A+ = open source code.
When you are being "graded" by the open source community, then it is. What's this topic about? Oh yeah, how the open source community views companies of varying degrees of openness. It's not an "assumption", it's a definition of the problem.
Nice attempt to find a logical flaw to criticize using the minimal amount of brainpower, though.
Access to movies is already limited, people perceive no need for action.
Right, people see a voluntary rating system that anyone with two brain cells knows is barely enforced as being completely adequate. Access is not limited in any realistic sense. But when the subject is games, then suddenly you need laws on the books where the government defines what is suitable for minors and punishes retailers for violating those standards.
That's blatant hypocrisy.
Calm yourself and consider this. If there were a compromise and the implementation was left to the retailer the outcome would be the same. A child attempting to buy a Mature rated Terminator game would be turned away, just as he would be at a theater. Same underlying beliefs, same outcomes, no hypocrisy.
Engage your brain and consider this: When a child attempts to buy an R-rated ticket for Terminator, and the theater sells the child a ticket anyway... nothing happens. When a child attempts to buy an M-rated Terminator game, and the game retailer sells the child the game anyway... then that retailer would be liable for state-imposed legal penalties if Arnold had his way.
What planet are you on where that's the "same outcome"?
It's not the same outcome at all, and it's hugely hypocritical. I repeat: It's not a matter of "implementation", and it's not a matter of "overzealousness". It's censorship vs no censorship.
Just because he says he feels the same way about games and movies means nothing. Actions speak louder than words, and he is doing nothing about movies, and trying to enforce government censorship of games. His actions say that he only actually cares about limiting minor's access to games. His actions say that he doesn't really mind kids watching his R-rated movies, but keeping kids from playing violent games is so important it requires government intervention. His actions say that his "underlying beliefs" about games and movies are completely different.
The Courts agree that this is not a matter of zealousness, but a matter of kind. Yet Arnold fights on, proving that he views games as something which require government censorship, while movies do not need anything of the sort.
Arnold is a hypocrite, and so is anyone who thinks voluntary MPAA movie ratings are fine, but games need a law banning their sale to minors.
I thought Serious Sam settled this whole "games can't be serious" business a long time ago. Sam was very serious. The engine for the game was serious too.
Croteam was ahead of their time in more ways than one; they'd seen the need for seriousness in the games industry, and they provided it in spades.
As I pointed out there is no hypocrisy, he wants access to both violent movies and violent video games limited. Who gets to enforce things, theaters/retailers or law enforcement, does not change this underlying belief. You are merely bringing up an implementation detail, an important one but still only a detail. Which ever way this detail goes does not change the underlying belief so there is no hypocrisy here.
BS. He is not involved in movie violence at all. His "belief" does not extend to movies, as he is taking zero action to limit access to movies. Whereas for games he's going far past voluntary policies to a law barring sales to minors. A law that has been ruled unconstitutional, a decision which he is appealing. This isn't an "implementation detail", it's the difference between the government being involved and it being voluntary! The day he wishes to wield the power of law enforcement and challenge the courts to stop minors entering R rated movies, then he isn't a hypocrite. Until then, don't tell me he has the same "beliefs" about movies and video games when he clearly does not.
I'm really not convinced you understand the distinction between voluntary corporate policy like MPAA ratings, and a standard enforced by rule of law, like France's anti-Nazi-memorabilia laws. It's not a matter of implementation. It's a matter of government imposed penalties for violating the code -- that is to say, government censorship. This is exactly as the courts have ruled, and have ruled time and time again. Arnold is fighting them and all of the other court decisions, while not even suggesting that movies be subject to the same regulations, but he has the same "belief" about them? Yah, right. One is a convenient bogeyman, the other was his bread and butter. He knows this game with the courts is one he'll lose, but it's great "save the children" fodder. But dare threaten his political "base" with legislation? Never.
Restricting sales to minors based upon these ratings is no different than restricting a minor's entrance into a theater based upon moving ratings.
So you mean it should be a voluntary restriction enforced solely by the game retailers, with zero force of law?
I agree completely. And in which case there's no point in the Governator even being involved.
That's where the hypocrisy is. Call me when Arnold starts campaigning to make it illegal to let minors into R rated movies, then he'll be consistent. Until then, he's a hypocrite.
Unethical? maybe, illegal? I am not sure about MySQL, as the sole owner and proprietor of the copyrighted code, MySQL AB can provide the MySQL technologies in any license they want.
Of course they can, so long as they own the copyrights to every piece of code involved. They aren't the only ones to use dual-licensing either, Trolltech being the first example to spring to mind. However what they can't do is un-GPL code they've already released under that license. That version of the code is Free now and forever. Which I believe is why it was pointed out that they are -not- closing their source. At least with the GPL, that's not something you can do, legally.
Well there were about 2.5 million shares short, so even if they all covered that wouldn't even account for half of today's volume. Plus there's no good reason for a short to cover now--yes, there is value in taking your gains up front rather than waiting for it to drop those last 40 cents, but anyone short this stock has to recognize that SCOX is very likely only a few months from bankruptcy which would mean the stock goes to zero and they don't have to buy back their shares at all.
If I understand correctly, you cannot hold shorted shares forever, you can be forced to cover. Specifically this happens when the entity from which you borrowed your shares wants to sell them; you have to give them their shares back, and that means you have to cover your short. Since anyone holding actual SCOX shares would probably want to sell them now rather than before the stock drops another 40 cents, it could very well be that all the shorts were by necessity covered too.
One thing I don't know is if you can, hypothetically, cover your short by buying the very same stock you shorted from the shareholder who wants to sell and is forcing you to cover.
Either way it's quite possible that a large portion of the volume today was shareholders selling their shares, with the buyers being shorters forced to cover for those shareholders. The image you should be getting is of a lot of money spinning in circles in a porcelain vessel making a "ker-faaaaaaaash-glug-glug-glug" noise.
Yeah. I'm thinking power consumption is by far the most likely cause. Of course I don't have any numbers for how much power an actively transmitting wifi chip uses, or the PSP's processor at various frequencies. However given the power budgets of portable devices, I'm guessing the answer is "a lot, relatively" in both cases.
If the PSP processor requires a higher voltage to run at 333MHz, then I'd say this answer is a shoe-in. Power scales linearly with frequency, so going from 222MHz to 333 is a 50% increase in power. But it scales with the square of voltage, so if a higher voltage is needed to run at the higher frequency then that could increase the power requirement of the CPU such that there is no power budget left for the wifi.
Other possibilities? I dunno... a wonky synchronizer between the wifi and cpu clock domains that makes a bad assumption about wifi chip vs cpu/bus speed? I've certainly seen that happen, but I'm really guessing as to whether it applies to the psp or not.
You'll notice they won't even tell you which patents of theirs linux infringes now. SCO got bad PR instead of them and IBM got good PR for defending linux.
No, they won't tell, and they most likely never will unless they get in a SCO-like situation where their actual revenue stream is drying up fast and it's either sue-and-pray or just die quietly.
I believe this is the primary lesson MS learned from their SCO experiment: The implication of IP infringement is much more effective at scaring people away from Linux than actually trying to prove it. As long as the infringement is a non-specific threat with only a hint of reality behind it, it works on the basic fear-centers of the brains of IT management. As soon as it becomes something real, like a lawsuit, then it instead it invites the managers to use the analytic portions of their brains. FUD and fact checking don't go together.
The concept of FUD is really nothing new to Microsoft of course, but this was an actual test run of "can we scare more people away from Linux with an actual IP lawsuit instead of just claiming that it is unsafe?" and it turns out the answer is "no".
Now I know about "short" and "long". But that's more easily described as a bet where you bet the stock will go one way and someone else bets the stock will go the opposite way. I understand about people having to buy stock to cover a mistake in a short/long. But that's an awful lot of shares being purchased.
I don't know about the volume of stock being shorted, but I remember several people on/. saying that they had tried to short, only to find that there were no shares available. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that a lot of the volume today was shareholders cutting their losses and shorters covering their shorts and making a killing. Certainly I can't think of any other reason why somebody would be buying the stock today. Of course outside the short-sellers there aren't all that many people anxious to buy SCOX, that's why the price plummeted. The ones who did buy outright instead of covering a short are probably hoping for a dead-cat bounce that will let them make some money in the short term.
It's too bad I just wasn't in the financial position for a medium-term investment a few years back. After the initial speculation (it -was- theoretically possible that SCO's code had gotten into Linux, much like it was theoretically possible that SCO owned the copyright for UNIX), there was a lengthy period where it was clear to us geeks that SCOX had no case (when they were finally forced to produce some evidence, and came up with nothing better than a few lines from standard header files) but wouldn't have been to the majority of investors. This was also around the time their stock was riding high. This would have been a perfect time to short. Though, as I mentioned, I'm obviously not the only one who had this idea and it may have already been to late to find any shares to short.
It is double standard, and it is more like common nonsense than common sense. If you praise the C- student because he gets a B, then you are only encouraging people to be bad at first and average after.
There is no encouragement to be bad at first unless you're praising the student for getting C-. The idea that they will undergo however many semesters of zero praise to establish a baseline of inadequacy just so that for one grading term they will be praised for a B, with no subsequent praise because they will not continue to improve, so basically a one-time deal, is really nonsense. In the meantime, by failing to praise the student for improving (because you don't want to encourage them for some reason), you have failed to reinforce the improvement and can expect more C- semesters. In your attempt to discourage people from being "bad at first and average after" you have in fact discouraged them from being average or better ever. Congratulations, you fail common sense.
You will buy the product $14 because improvement is good while regression is bad ?
See, common sense would say that you can acknowledge and praise improvement and condemn regression while still purchasing the cheaper item. Kinda like an open source fan can criticize MySQL, but still use it instead of say Oracle because it's much more Free-as-in-speech. If you confuse improvement/regression with the actual relative value then of course this way of thinking doesn't make sense because that confusion is nonsensical to begin with.
When I got an A on a report card I got jack squat, not even a pat on the head.
This is pretty much the only problem. I mean, my parents expected me to be the smart kid and I certainly didn't get paid by the "A", but maybe because I was getting better grades than they ever got they still thought it was a praise-worthy accomplishment to get my "usual" report card.
And yes, I did get cussed out major for any C that showed up. Nothing wrong with that; we all knew I could have done better.
It's not even human nature, it's common freaking sense. If you have a student who averages C- and gets a B on a test you praise them for their achievement. If you have a student who averages A+ and gets a B on a test you ask them what went wrong. If you fail to praise the underachieving student or fail to question the overachieving student then you discourage further improvements by the underachiever, and encourage further drops in performance by the overachiever.
It's not a double standard. It's a rational standard: Improvement is good, regression is bad. Becoming more open is good, becoming less open is bad. Ignoring this in order to be "fair" and avoid being accused of a "double standard" is just stupid.
If we assume that these figures apply to the population at large as Ars did when they speculated that this explains the Wii's dominance, then this means that 40% of the population is aware of PS3's BluRay capabilities. Yet they're not choosing to buy a PS3.
Because knowing the PS3 has BluRay doesn't cause an extra $350 to spontaneously appear in your wallet.
"Good value for what you get if you can/will use all of its features" does not translate into "I can afford to spend that much on a toy".
And unless I didn't sleep through physics, the 2nd law of thermodynamics tells me that this better be some really, really clean way of generating H2.
It's a bit like the electric motor. Sure, it's the most efficient kind of engine, converting more than 95% of the energy put into it into movement, but first of all someone has to generate that electricity to run it. And that means... 2nd thermodynamic law, it would have been probably more efficient and less waste heat producing to use the primary energy source to generate movement instead of converting it to power and then use an electric motor.
The 2nd Law says nothing about how efficient a process is, only that it will not be 100%.
A power plant is more efficient than an automobile ICE. Even if both are burning hydrocarbons dug up from the ground, the power plant will be more efficient and produce less pollution largely due to the scale. It's much easier to add expensive and heavy scrubbers to a coal plant smoke stack than to the exhaust system of a car. It's easier to make an efficient engine when the weight of the engine is not a concern.
So your 95% efficient electric engine times a 40% efficient coal plant is better than your 35% efficient ICE with much better emissions controls to boot. And that's using coal, which I'm certainly not a fan of.
Which leads me to the big advantage of electricity-based transportation (whether it's electric batteries or electrically produced hydrogen from water) which is that once you have decoupled power generation from transportation, when you bring online new environmentally friendly power plants you can use this new source seamlessly with no disruption to the transportation infrastructure. Already we're producing far more "green" electricity in this country than we are using "clean" transportation, and this has happened without you even having to be aware when you flick the light switch. We should be so lucky as to be able to do the same with transportation.
Basically what I'm saying is that electric/hydrogen power has efficiency and environmental advantages now, but also has the potential for vast improvements in the future and that's even if you keep the exact same car!
Solar power? Would be cheap, but the production of those solar cells is creating a horrible amount of waste and they're far from efficient. Wind power? Even worse. And pretty much everything else isn't CO2 neutral.
If you're going to look at the environmental cost of solar power, then you should include the environmental cost of acquiring oil. Adding every cost associated with ICE-based cars or coal power plants certainly do not make them look better compared to solar power.
And what's wrong with wind power again? It's not bird deaths, those were never any more than city office buildings produce, and new designs that discourage nesting on the turbines has put it in the noise.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for demonstrating through extended analogy that you don't understand the situation at all.
As I thought I made clear, I was only speculating on other -possible- reasons for the issue; obviously power is by far the most likely reason.
BTW, synchronizers are tough circuits to get right, and your thought that Sony can design it is matched by ample evidence from many other designers of at least equal caliber who have designed synchronizers that fail outside certain assumptions. It's not a slight on Sony, it's an engineering reality. So if the synchronizer designer was told the psp cpu only went up to 222 MHz and built it to that specification it is quite feasible that it would later fail.
But that's just a possibility, and I don't even know if they use a synchronizer. The other possibility that someone else brought up was that all the chips are locked to multipliers of bus frequency, bringing up the chance that the higher processor frequency is an effect of a higher bus frequency which could result in the wi-fi chip operating at a higher frequency than it was designed for.
Anyway, I think we all agree that it's power issues.
The flaw in your logic is the assumption that an A+ = open source code.
When you are being "graded" by the open source community, then it is. What's this topic about? Oh yeah, how the open source community views companies of varying degrees of openness. It's not an "assumption", it's a definition of the problem.
Nice attempt to find a logical flaw to criticize using the minimal amount of brainpower, though.
Access to movies is already limited, people perceive no need for action.
Right, people see a voluntary rating system that anyone with two brain cells knows is barely enforced as being completely adequate. Access is not limited in any realistic sense. But when the subject is games, then suddenly you need laws on the books where the government defines what is suitable for minors and punishes retailers for violating those standards.
That's blatant hypocrisy.
Calm yourself and consider this. If there were a compromise and the implementation was left to the retailer the outcome would be the same. A child attempting to buy a Mature rated Terminator game would be turned away, just as he would be at a theater. Same underlying beliefs, same outcomes, no hypocrisy.
Engage your brain and consider this: When a child attempts to buy an R-rated ticket for Terminator, and the theater sells the child a ticket anyway... nothing happens. When a child attempts to buy an M-rated Terminator game, and the game retailer sells the child the game anyway... then that retailer would be liable for state-imposed legal penalties if Arnold had his way.
What planet are you on where that's the "same outcome"?
It's not the same outcome at all, and it's hugely hypocritical. I repeat: It's not a matter of "implementation", and it's not a matter of "overzealousness". It's censorship vs no censorship.
Just because he says he feels the same way about games and movies means nothing. Actions speak louder than words, and he is doing nothing about movies, and trying to enforce government censorship of games. His actions say that he only actually cares about limiting minor's access to games. His actions say that he doesn't really mind kids watching his R-rated movies, but keeping kids from playing violent games is so important it requires government intervention. His actions say that his "underlying beliefs" about games and movies are completely different.
The Courts agree that this is not a matter of zealousness, but a matter of kind. Yet Arnold fights on, proving that he views games as something which require government censorship, while movies do not need anything of the sort.
Arnold is a hypocrite, and so is anyone who thinks voluntary MPAA movie ratings are fine, but games need a law banning their sale to minors.
I thought Serious Sam settled this whole "games can't be serious" business a long time ago. Sam was very serious. The engine for the game was serious too.
Croteam was ahead of their time in more ways than one; they'd seen the need for seriousness in the games industry, and they provided it in spades.
As I pointed out there is no hypocrisy, he wants access to both violent movies and violent video games limited. Who gets to enforce things, theaters/retailers or law enforcement, does not change this underlying belief. You are merely bringing up an implementation detail, an important one but still only a detail. Which ever way this detail goes does not change the underlying belief so there is no hypocrisy here.
BS. He is not involved in movie violence at all. His "belief" does not extend to movies, as he is taking zero action to limit access to movies. Whereas for games he's going far past voluntary policies to a law barring sales to minors. A law that has been ruled unconstitutional, a decision which he is appealing. This isn't an "implementation detail", it's the difference between the government being involved and it being voluntary! The day he wishes to wield the power of law enforcement and challenge the courts to stop minors entering R rated movies, then he isn't a hypocrite. Until then, don't tell me he has the same "beliefs" about movies and video games when he clearly does not.
I'm really not convinced you understand the distinction between voluntary corporate policy like MPAA ratings, and a standard enforced by rule of law, like France's anti-Nazi-memorabilia laws. It's not a matter of implementation. It's a matter of government imposed penalties for violating the code -- that is to say, government censorship. This is exactly as the courts have ruled, and have ruled time and time again. Arnold is fighting them and all of the other court decisions, while not even suggesting that movies be subject to the same regulations, but he has the same "belief" about them? Yah, right. One is a convenient bogeyman, the other was his bread and butter. He knows this game with the courts is one he'll lose, but it's great "save the children" fodder. But dare threaten his political "base" with legislation? Never.
Restricting sales to minors based upon these ratings is no different than restricting a minor's entrance into a theater based upon moving ratings.
So you mean it should be a voluntary restriction enforced solely by the game retailers, with zero force of law?
I agree completely. And in which case there's no point in the Governator even being involved.
That's where the hypocrisy is. Call me when Arnold starts campaigning to make it illegal to let minors into R rated movies, then he'll be consistent. Until then, he's a hypocrite.
Unethical? maybe, illegal? I am not sure about MySQL, as the sole owner and proprietor of the copyrighted code, MySQL AB can provide the MySQL technologies in any license they want.
Of course they can, so long as they own the copyrights to every piece of code involved. They aren't the only ones to use dual-licensing either, Trolltech being the first example to spring to mind. However what they can't do is un-GPL code they've already released under that license. That version of the code is Free now and forever. Which I believe is why it was pointed out that they are -not- closing their source. At least with the GPL, that's not something you can do, legally.
Well there were about 2.5 million shares short, so even if they all covered that wouldn't even account for half of today's volume. Plus there's no good reason for a short to cover now--yes, there is value in taking your gains up front rather than waiting for it to drop those last 40 cents, but anyone short this stock has to recognize that SCOX is very likely only a few months from bankruptcy which would mean the stock goes to zero and they don't have to buy back their shares at all.
If I understand correctly, you cannot hold shorted shares forever, you can be forced to cover. Specifically this happens when the entity from which you borrowed your shares wants to sell them; you have to give them their shares back, and that means you have to cover your short. Since anyone holding actual SCOX shares would probably want to sell them now rather than before the stock drops another 40 cents, it could very well be that all the shorts were by necessity covered too.
One thing I don't know is if you can, hypothetically, cover your short by buying the very same stock you shorted from the shareholder who wants to sell and is forcing you to cover.
Either way it's quite possible that a large portion of the volume today was shareholders selling their shares, with the buyers being shorters forced to cover for those shareholders. The image you should be getting is of a lot of money spinning in circles in a porcelain vessel making a "ker-faaaaaaaash-glug-glug-glug" noise.
Yeah. I'm thinking power consumption is by far the most likely cause. Of course I don't have any numbers for how much power an actively transmitting wifi chip uses, or the PSP's processor at various frequencies. However given the power budgets of portable devices, I'm guessing the answer is "a lot, relatively" in both cases.
If the PSP processor requires a higher voltage to run at 333MHz, then I'd say this answer is a shoe-in. Power scales linearly with frequency, so going from 222MHz to 333 is a 50% increase in power. But it scales with the square of voltage, so if a higher voltage is needed to run at the higher frequency then that could increase the power requirement of the CPU such that there is no power budget left for the wifi.
Other possibilities? I dunno... a wonky synchronizer between the wifi and cpu clock domains that makes a bad assumption about wifi chip vs cpu/bus speed? I've certainly seen that happen, but I'm really guessing as to whether it applies to the psp or not.
You'll notice they won't even tell you which patents of theirs linux infringes now. SCO got bad PR instead of them and IBM got good PR for defending linux.
No, they won't tell, and they most likely never will unless they get in a SCO-like situation where their actual revenue stream is drying up fast and it's either sue-and-pray or just die quietly.
I believe this is the primary lesson MS learned from their SCO experiment: The implication of IP infringement is much more effective at scaring people away from Linux than actually trying to prove it. As long as the infringement is a non-specific threat with only a hint of reality behind it, it works on the basic fear-centers of the brains of IT management. As soon as it becomes something real, like a lawsuit, then it instead it invites the managers to use the analytic portions of their brains. FUD and fact checking don't go together.
The concept of FUD is really nothing new to Microsoft of course, but this was an actual test run of "can we scare more people away from Linux with an actual IP lawsuit instead of just claiming that it is unsafe?" and it turns out the answer is "no".
But IANA stock analyst, so take that with a grain of salt.
Okay, but now I'm thirsty and I still don't know if I should trust your advice!
Now I know about "short" and "long". But that's more easily described as a bet where you bet the stock will go one way and someone else bets the stock will go the opposite way. I understand about people having to buy stock to cover a mistake in a short/long. But that's an awful lot of shares being purchased.
/. saying that they had tried to short, only to find that there were no shares available. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that a lot of the volume today was shareholders cutting their losses and shorters covering their shorts and making a killing. Certainly I can't think of any other reason why somebody would be buying the stock today. Of course outside the short-sellers there aren't all that many people anxious to buy SCOX, that's why the price plummeted. The ones who did buy outright instead of covering a short are probably hoping for a dead-cat bounce that will let them make some money in the short term.
I don't know about the volume of stock being shorted, but I remember several people on
It's too bad I just wasn't in the financial position for a medium-term investment a few years back. After the initial speculation (it -was- theoretically possible that SCO's code had gotten into Linux, much like it was theoretically possible that SCO owned the copyright for UNIX), there was a lengthy period where it was clear to us geeks that SCOX had no case (when they were finally forced to produce some evidence, and came up with nothing better than a few lines from standard header files) but wouldn't have been to the majority of investors. This was also around the time their stock was riding high. This would have been a perfect time to short. Though, as I mentioned, I'm obviously not the only one who had this idea and it may have already been to late to find any shares to short.
It is double standard, and it is more like common nonsense than common sense. If you praise the C- student because he gets a B, then you are only encouraging people to be bad at first and average after.
There is no encouragement to be bad at first unless you're praising the student for getting C-. The idea that they will undergo however many semesters of zero praise to establish a baseline of inadequacy just so that for one grading term they will be praised for a B, with no subsequent praise because they will not continue to improve, so basically a one-time deal, is really nonsense. In the meantime, by failing to praise the student for improving (because you don't want to encourage them for some reason), you have failed to reinforce the improvement and can expect more C- semesters. In your attempt to discourage people from being "bad at first and average after" you have in fact discouraged them from being average or better ever. Congratulations, you fail common sense.
You will buy the product $14 because improvement is good while regression is bad ?
See, common sense would say that you can acknowledge and praise improvement and condemn regression while still purchasing the cheaper item. Kinda like an open source fan can criticize MySQL, but still use it instead of say Oracle because it's much more Free-as-in-speech. If you confuse improvement/regression with the actual relative value then of course this way of thinking doesn't make sense because that confusion is nonsensical to begin with.
When I got an A on a report card I got jack squat, not even a pat on the head.
This is pretty much the only problem. I mean, my parents expected me to be the smart kid and I certainly didn't get paid by the "A", but maybe because I was getting better grades than they ever got they still thought it was a praise-worthy accomplishment to get my "usual" report card.
And yes, I did get cussed out major for any C that showed up. Nothing wrong with that; we all knew I could have done better.
The quad-core Opteron will have a maximum of 4 hypertransport connections, is that right ?
Will have, yes, once both chip and socket support it. The current socket only supports 3 HT links.
It's not even human nature, it's common freaking sense. If you have a student who averages C- and gets a B on a test you praise them for their achievement. If you have a student who averages A+ and gets a B on a test you ask them what went wrong. If you fail to praise the underachieving student or fail to question the overachieving student then you discourage further improvements by the underachiever, and encourage further drops in performance by the overachiever.
It's not a double standard. It's a rational standard: Improvement is good, regression is bad. Becoming more open is good, becoming less open is bad. Ignoring this in order to be "fair" and avoid being accused of a "double standard" is just stupid.
Well I guess that explains the built-in commode in the driver's seat.
/. really does need wrong and unfunny moderations though.
I think it's pretty clear that most moderators use "Troll" and "Flamebait" as surrogates to the mods you suggest.
If we assume that these figures apply to the population at large as Ars did when they speculated that this explains the Wii's dominance, then this means that 40% of the population is aware of PS3's BluRay capabilities. Yet they're not choosing to buy a PS3.
Because knowing the PS3 has BluRay doesn't cause an extra $350 to spontaneously appear in your wallet.
"Good value for what you get if you can/will use all of its features" does not translate into "I can afford to spend that much on a toy".
It's not complicated.
and there's no way you're getting me to click that link at work!
But once I get home...
And unless I didn't sleep through physics, the 2nd law of thermodynamics tells me that this better be some really, really clean way of generating H2.
It's a bit like the electric motor. Sure, it's the most efficient kind of engine, converting more than 95% of the energy put into it into movement, but first of all someone has to generate that electricity to run it. And that means... 2nd thermodynamic law, it would have been probably more efficient and less waste heat producing to use the primary energy source to generate movement instead of converting it to power and then use an electric motor.
The 2nd Law says nothing about how efficient a process is, only that it will not be 100%.
A power plant is more efficient than an automobile ICE. Even if both are burning hydrocarbons dug up from the ground, the power plant will be more efficient and produce less pollution largely due to the scale. It's much easier to add expensive and heavy scrubbers to a coal plant smoke stack than to the exhaust system of a car. It's easier to make an efficient engine when the weight of the engine is not a concern.
So your 95% efficient electric engine times a 40% efficient coal plant is better than your 35% efficient ICE with much better emissions controls to boot. And that's using coal, which I'm certainly not a fan of.
Which leads me to the big advantage of electricity-based transportation (whether it's electric batteries or electrically produced hydrogen from water) which is that once you have decoupled power generation from transportation, when you bring online new environmentally friendly power plants you can use this new source seamlessly with no disruption to the transportation infrastructure. Already we're producing far more "green" electricity in this country than we are using "clean" transportation, and this has happened without you even having to be aware when you flick the light switch. We should be so lucky as to be able to do the same with transportation.
Basically what I'm saying is that electric/hydrogen power has efficiency and environmental advantages now, but also has the potential for vast improvements in the future and that's even if you keep the exact same car!
Solar power? Would be cheap, but the production of those solar cells is creating a horrible amount of waste and they're far from efficient. Wind power? Even worse. And pretty much everything else isn't CO2 neutral.
If you're going to look at the environmental cost of solar power, then you should include the environmental cost of acquiring oil. Adding every cost associated with ICE-based cars or coal power plants certainly do not make them look better compared to solar power.
And what's wrong with wind power again? It's not bird deaths, those were never any more than city office buildings produce, and new designs that discourage nesting on the turbines has put it in the noise.
Hehe, oops, no, I didn't notice that, I misread it as the opposite.
:P
So this is what you get for trying to optimize.
Looks to me like you got a ~13% reduction in execution time in a somewhat ideal test (only touching one file).
13% is a pretty significant speedup. Especially if they can provide that speedup while also providing most of the functionality of atime.
SHOW ME THE THINGY.
:(
Oh sure. You say that, and get +5 Funny. I say that, and I get a visit from the police.