Well, right or wrong, perception of perfect strangers is based on "playing the odds", and the overwhelming majority of slashdotters use Windows, even if they hate it. So you are the exception, which I'm sure you realize.
So, bringing it back to blacksmithing, yeah, most people here have horses.
You really don't need us to confirm your fundamental superiority; you do a fine job of that by yourself.
Kinda depends on which PC manufacturers. Really, there are two diametrically opposed problems being solved: either you're going for the silent, no-moving-parts, low-cost, low-maintenance approach (commodity PCs, home-entertainment appliances, etc.)... or you're going for the balls-to-the-walls, maximum FPS, humongo display resolution enthusiast machines. In the former case, yeah, this technology probably wouldn't be appropriate (in its current incarnation). But for the latter? You always have serious heat dissipation issues, and this discovery seems to pave the way for more heat-transfer efficiency with the same number of moving parts (one... the impeller). Rotation speeds and noise levels would seem comparable to current solutions, but heat transfer seems better, so you can overclock to higher levels and still have the same processor core temperature. Also, the design is claimed to resist dust accumulation and interference, so it would be lower maintenance for the same level of thermal performance.
Good Lord. Have your psychiatrist adjust your dosage.
As is the case in a conventional "fan-plus-heat-sink" CPU cooler, the heat load is placed in thermal contact with the bottom surface of an aluminum base plate that functions as a heat spreader. As in a conventional CPU cooler, this heat spreader plate is stationary. In a conventional CPU cooler, the top surface of the heat spreader base plate is populated with fins. In the air bearing heat exchanger, instead of having fins, the top of the heat spreader base plate is simply a flat surface.
The âoeheat-sink-impellerâ (the finned, rotating component) consists of a disc-shaped heat
spreader populated with fins on its top surface, and functions like a hybrid of a conventional finned metal heat sink and an impeller. Air is drawn in the downward direction into the central region having no fins, and expelled in the radial direction through the dense array of fins. A high efficiency brushless motor mounted directly to the base plate is used to impart rotation (several thousand rpm) to the heat-sink-impeller structure. The bottom surface of this rotating disc-shaped heat spreader is flat, such that it can mate with the top surface of the heat spreader plate described above.
During operation, these two flat surfaces are a separated by a thin (~0.03 mm) air gap, much like the bottom surface of an air hockey puck and the top surface of an air hockey table. This air gap is a hydrodynamic gas bearing, analogous to those used to support the read/write head of computer disk drive (but with many orders of magnitude looser mechanical tolerances).
Heat flows from the stationary aluminum base plate to the rotating heat-sink-impeller
through this 0.03-mm-thick circular disk of air. As shown later in Figure 18, this air-filled
thermal interface has very low thermal resistance and is in no way a limiting factor to device performance; its cross sectional area is large relative to its thickness, and because the air that occupies the gap region is violently sheared between the lower surface (stationary) and the upper surface (rotating at several thousand rpm). The convective mixing provided by this shearing effect provides a several-fold increase in thermal conductivity of the air in the gap region.
TL;DR version: Stationary heat spreader surface on top of the IC. Teensy tiny air gap, small enough to permit heat transfer while functioning as an air bearing between heat spreader and... the next part, a heat-absorbing rotary impeller which pulls heat through the air gap into its fins, which are in turn cooled by air flow caused by centrifugal acceleration of the air through the rotating impeller assembly (squirrel-cage-fan style).
I'm not gonna pretend that there's no boundary-layer effect over the impeller blade surfaces, but I expect it'll be less than the effect caused by the common "push air down into the cooler and have it decelerate and turn 90 degrees to exit" cooler. Flow-through coolers would be more efficient than that, but air still has to decelerate through the cooler, whereas this impeller cooler makes the air accelerate during the cooling action. That might make a difference.
How well do bearings conduct heat?
The generic answer is "depends on thickness of air bearing surface (i.e., how big of an air gap), coverage area of bearing surface (i.e., is the heat spreader the size of the entire impeller, or just the small central portion of it), and the rotational speed of the rotating part on the other side of the gap -- moderate rotation speeds, in the 2k to 10krpm range, make the air in the gap turbulent and sheared rather than laminar, forcing mixing and heat transfer.
WTF happened to/.
Well, in this case, an actual scientific research article of relatively high coolness and technical merit leaked past the editors. I understand how this could be upsetting to most slashbots, given the novelty and rarity of this type of thing. Certainly, t
For the record, Chavez, Castro, Stalin et al use(d) the pretext of socialism to implement fascist dictatorships. It's not socialism.
Ah, the old "no true socialist" argument.
Of course, I can think of at least one prominent historical socialist who would agreewithyou, so socialist idealists seem to consistently go for the "no true socialist" argument (i.e., none of the governmental systems seen so far which self-identifies as "socialist" are, in fact, truly socialist). I guess the question is true socialism is even attainable.
Did you just say "invest"? In an MMO? Do you actually expect a return on that investment? Did you "invest" in your car, knowing full well it will always be worth less that it was worth 15 seconds ago?
MMOs, like casino gambling, are not an investment. They're an amusement. They will always cost you more than you put in, and your compensation will (hopefully) be entertainment value.
But I assure you, you have a better ROI from casino gambling than from MMO'ing, unless you're a <ethnicity> <currency> farmer. Even if it's guaranteed to be negative (i.e., house's edge).
Well, incompetence doesn't always guarantee market failure. The lack of alternative is the antidote to that.
If you're the only game in town (figurative, or literally in this case), you can suck quite a lot and still keep on sucking. But the moment anything competitively similar comes along, you're doomed unless you can prolong your existence with things like market lock-in. And what's the lock-in for an MMO? "You'll lose your characters and your hard-earned <in-game currency>" or whatever else you make your players grind after.
If you suck bad enough, they'll still drop all of that like and run like a scalded dog to your new competition.
Ultimately, falling back on the "WAAAAH IT'S TOO HARD" argument is unpersuasive. The 5th Amendment is in the Constitution specifically to protect against the "WAAAAH IT'S TOO HARD" problem.
After all, why investigate crime at all if we can compel a suspect to confess to anything we need? Investigation is hard and expensive work, and terribly time-consuming. The needs of justice demand that the guilty own up, and it's our job to help them remember their duty. Preferably without life-threatening aftereffects or externally visible marks, but that's just a preference.
If ease and rapidity of prosecution are your only concern, then the mere existence of the Right against Self-Incrimination is a colossal mistake.
The fact that a judge can hold you in contempt doesn't mean what the court ordered is Constitutionally permissible. A sufficiently power-mad or "law-and-order" judge might order you to testify against yourself in the most explicitly unconstitutional fashion and then clap you in jail for pleading the Fifth, and you'd be there in jail until someone took the case to a higher authority (perhaps a Habeas Corpus appeal?).
That's the distinction between "can" (is capable of) and "may" (is permitted to).
In other words, being jailed for disobeying a court order is not proof that the court order was valid, only that the judge has the power to hold you in contempt. Being in jail doesn't always mean you were wrong.
Good point. I suspect the defendant's password is "12345". They should try that. It would eliminate the whole problem of shaving the 5th Amendment down to a useless stub for everyone else. Or at least defer it a little while.
Interesting perspective. I only half-joke when I call my smartphone my "external brain pack".
Now, how's this for scary: hypothesize, someday, that we have implantable computers which augment our memories. Is that part of the "individual's mind" in the context of self-incriminatory testimony? Even if it's exactly the same implementation as an external storage device? Or, because it's artificial, would it not count? What if it's implanted, but in the liver or butt or right hand, instead of nestled in among brain tissue? (Assuming that we don't have substantial brain tissue in those body areas. I know that's an invalid assumption for some, but run with it.)
More to the point, given a choice between spending money, or letting someone else spend money, business will choose the latter. So Google has no immediate incentive to jump in when Microsoft shaking down Android OEMs is covering the need.
The indirect effect, OEMs backing away from Android because Google isn't indemnifying them or rescuing them in their hour of need, is (A) not as economically sensible if the OEM has already settled with MS and now has a license to the patents in play, and (B) not the kind of thing you do instantly, especially if your Android products are the most popular ones you produce and you're not otherwise in great trouble.
Note that Nokia pretty much had to be at the brink of failure before it sold its soul to Microsoft, and the platforms it abandoned were crufty and confused (Symbian) or immature and experimental (Meego). It made a play comparable to buying into Android, except it was Microsoft's equivalent (Win7P) and came with a sizable bribe.
You have to separate the Real Programmers from the whiny trembling wannabees. Assembler is the equivalent of using blanks during "live-fire" training. Any high-order language is like a bunch of guys shouting "POW! POW! BANG! RATATATATAT!" at the trainees while they lackadaisically low-crawl through the not-very-muddy mud.
If you want programmers that won't flinch when the loading ramp on the assault boat drops, you need to start them on machine code. Maybe a rational and internally-consistent architecture, like VAX; after all, this isn't special forces training. (For that, we should use architectures like Intel 80286.)
I'm a scientists and I was shocked at the number of incoming *PhD* students who have close to zero programming experience.
PhD students in what fields? Most of the PhD types I've worked with were environmental/meteorological types, and that scientific endeavor has a long-standing and time-honored tradition of writing your own code, or maintaining your PhD advisor's. Badly. In undocumented FORTRAN. But it's programming. Even patching circa-1969 FORTRAN IV only recently transcribed from punched cards counts as experience.
(Actually, I think it's the meteorology fraternity's equivalent of Pledge Rush.)
I was trying to remember what my CS101 equivalent was 30 years ago.
Turns out, I didn't have one. I got to skip it because the programming and math curriculum in my high school was strong enough that the university credited me.
So, then question became, "WTF do they teach in a CS101 class?"
Turns out, a whole bunch of miscellany. Rudiments, elements, cats, dogs, little green ponies. Stuff I though people picked up by osmosis nowadays.
So, if they're not trying to teach Architecture and Organization (mainframe assembler, and later VAX assembler), or data structures (PASCAL, C, etc.), or Objects (pick your OO poison), I don't think language-of-choice is particularly relevant.
But that's just my crusty old-man opinion. Looks harmless from my lawn.
And as further proof I'm not a locksmith the same way I'm not a lawyer, I meant a "multiple-bolt" lock, not a multiple-tumbler. I assume a combination lock has something analogous to tumblers, but I'm trying to convey the idea of physical impenetrability.
If it's an uncrackable* combination locked safe, can you be compelled to divulge the combination? Or, tailoring the argument to the DoJ's work-around, can you be compelled to use the combination and unlock the safe?
After all, a combination is just a set of secret information contained in your head... just like a password...and completely unlike a physical key.
*"Uncrackable" for certain "practical" values of "crackable".... like a heavily-armored multi-tumbler safe. Every safe is crackable, given enough effort, and I'd argue that every consumer-grade encryption scheme is also crackable given enough effort.
So, is there any case law or precedent about the 5th Amendment protections to combination lock combinations?
Me too, but EFF's perspective is also useful, and forms a valuable distinction:
The Fifth Amendment generally protects a person from being compelled to give testimony that would incriminate her. United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 34 (2000) (Hubbell I); Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 408 (1976). The privilege is limited to testimonial evidence, or a communication that "itself, explicitly or implicitly, relate[s] a factual assertion or disclose[s] information." Doe v. United States, 487 U.S. 201, 210 (1988) (Doe I). Put a different way, the privilege protects the "expression of the contents of an individual's mind."
(Quote from EFF's amicus brief, emphasis mine)
So, while you can be compelled to surrender a physical object (the key to the safe, in the previous analogy), the 5th Amendment is specifically is about something in your mind.
If the "locked safe" in the previous analogy is not locked, but hidden, can a defendant be compelled to disclose its location?
As to the DoJ's "end run" based on the principle "don't tell us, just type it into the computer".... would the 5th Amendment not apply is a defendant is compelled to type self-incriminating testimony into a computer instead of speaking it to a law-enforcement officer?
The DoJ, IMHaUO*, hasn't got a leg to stand on.
*In My Humble and Uneducated Opinion... IANAL, after all.
You just have to sign this confession we very thoughtfully prepared for you.
Yeah, I know, it's not entirely the same; it's not even really analogous. It's just an example of other back-door out-of-the-box problem-solving thinking, the kind of thing that made America great.
While I understand the reasoning, I could imagine 15 different ways the letter of the law could be used to subvert the spirit of the law, and effectively bury the "important terms" you're supposed to be emphasizing. Just a few:
one letter per page in 288-point bold
printing those "important terms" in a clearly distinguisable language like Chinese. "They're clearly obvious and emphasized. They're in a completely different language."
Printing them on a separate form, like an "attachment". I hope you didn't lose those.
I never knew this, but apparently there were mechanical watches in which the movement wasn't "stop-and-go" escapement, but truly continuous-motion and therefore analogue.
Fascinating. Continuous rotation gear trains with "escapement"-modulated braking. Clever. A true "sweep second" movement.
But obviously, that's a very notable exception. Most "analogue" watches are, in fact, high-frequency discrete motion movements. (Up to 5 steps per second, in the writeups I've read; small enough movements to look like continuous second-hand sweep.)
Well, to your anecdote, I'll add my counter-anecdote. I'm your age (a smidge older, actually), and I'm afraid I've been using digital clocks so long that my analog clock reading skills have atrophied.
There's good research that in some measurement regimes, an analog display is better at quickly conveying a quantity, because it's spatially proportional to its maximum value. Hence, analogue speedometers get the idea of "I'm not speeding" across because the difference between "speeding" and "not speeding" is a visual proportion or indicator position, not a calculation.
However, time isn't really like that, not with a classic 12-hour clock face. It's positional, but not very proportionate. Or, more accurately, it's proportionate in two distinct simultaneous variables: hours and minutes. And integrating both requires enough high-level thinking that it isn't just at-a-glance until you're practiced.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, right or wrong, perception of perfect strangers is based on "playing the odds", and the overwhelming majority of slashdotters use Windows, even if they hate it. So you are the exception, which I'm sure you realize.
So, bringing it back to blacksmithing, yeah, most people here have horses.
You really don't need us to confirm your fundamental superiority; you do a fine job of that by yourself.
And after that, a dupe about this exact code signing server outage. And some bitcoin spam.
I find the predictability comforting, TBH.
Kinda depends on which PC manufacturers. Really, there are two diametrically opposed problems being solved: either you're going for the silent, no-moving-parts, low-cost, low-maintenance approach (commodity PCs, home-entertainment appliances, etc.)... or you're going for the balls-to-the-walls, maximum FPS, humongo display resolution enthusiast machines. In the former case, yeah, this technology probably wouldn't be appropriate (in its current incarnation). But for the latter? You always have serious heat dissipation issues, and this discovery seems to pave the way for more heat-transfer efficiency with the same number of moving parts (one... the impeller). Rotation speeds and noise levels would seem comparable to current solutions, but heat transfer seems better, so you can overclock to higher levels and still have the same processor core temperature. Also, the design is claimed to resist dust accumulation and interference, so it would be lower maintenance for the same level of thermal performance.
Good Lord. Have your psychiatrist adjust your dosage.
TL;DR version: Stationary heat spreader surface on top of the IC. Teensy tiny air gap, small enough to permit heat transfer while functioning as an air bearing between heat spreader and... the next part, a heat-absorbing rotary impeller which pulls heat through the air gap into its fins, which are in turn cooled by air flow caused by centrifugal acceleration of the air through the rotating impeller assembly (squirrel-cage-fan style).
I'm not gonna pretend that there's no boundary-layer effect over the impeller blade surfaces, but I expect it'll be less than the effect caused by the common "push air down into the cooler and have it decelerate and turn 90 degrees to exit" cooler. Flow-through coolers would be more efficient than that, but air still has to decelerate through the cooler, whereas this impeller cooler makes the air accelerate during the cooling action. That might make a difference.
How well do bearings conduct heat?
The generic answer is "depends on thickness of air bearing surface (i.e., how big of an air gap), coverage area of bearing surface (i.e., is the heat spreader the size of the entire impeller, or just the small central portion of it), and the rotational speed of the rotating part on the other side of the gap -- moderate rotation speeds, in the 2k to 10krpm range, make the air in the gap turbulent and sheared rather than laminar, forcing mixing and heat transfer.
WTF happened to /.
Well, in this case, an actual scientific research article of relatively high coolness and technical merit leaked past the editors. I understand how this could be upsetting to most slashbots, given the novelty and rarity of this type of thing. Certainly, t
For the record, Chavez, Castro, Stalin et al use(d) the pretext of socialism to implement fascist dictatorships. It's not socialism.
Ah, the old "no true socialist" argument.
Of course, I can think of at least one prominent historical socialist who would agree with you, so socialist idealists seem to consistently go for the "no true socialist" argument (i.e., none of the governmental systems seen so far which self-identifies as "socialist" are, in fact, truly socialist). I guess the question is true socialism is even attainable.
Did you just say "invest"? In an MMO? Do you actually expect a return on that investment? Did you "invest" in your car, knowing full well it will always be worth less that it was worth 15 seconds ago?
MMOs, like casino gambling, are not an investment. They're an amusement. They will always cost you more than you put in, and your compensation will (hopefully) be entertainment value.
But I assure you, you have a better ROI from casino gambling than from MMO'ing, unless you're a <ethnicity> <currency> farmer. Even if it's guaranteed to be negative (i.e., house's edge).
Well, incompetence doesn't always guarantee market failure. The lack of alternative is the antidote to that.
If you're the only game in town (figurative, or literally in this case), you can suck quite a lot and still keep on sucking. But the moment anything competitively similar comes along, you're doomed unless you can prolong your existence with things like market lock-in. And what's the lock-in for an MMO? "You'll lose your characters and your hard-earned <in-game currency>" or whatever else you make your players grind after.
If you suck bad enough, they'll still drop all of that like and run like a scalded dog to your new competition.
Ultimately, falling back on the "WAAAAH IT'S TOO HARD" argument is unpersuasive. The 5th Amendment is in the Constitution specifically to protect against the "WAAAAH IT'S TOO HARD" problem.
After all, why investigate crime at all if we can compel a suspect to confess to anything we need? Investigation is hard and expensive work, and terribly time-consuming. The needs of justice demand that the guilty own up, and it's our job to help them remember their duty. Preferably without life-threatening aftereffects or externally visible marks, but that's just a preference.
If ease and rapidity of prosecution are your only concern, then the mere existence of the Right against Self-Incrimination is a colossal mistake.
The fact that a judge can hold you in contempt doesn't mean what the court ordered is Constitutionally permissible. A sufficiently power-mad or "law-and-order" judge might order you to testify against yourself in the most explicitly unconstitutional fashion and then clap you in jail for pleading the Fifth, and you'd be there in jail until someone took the case to a higher authority (perhaps a Habeas Corpus appeal?).
That's the distinction between "can" (is capable of) and "may" (is permitted to).
In other words, being jailed for disobeying a court order is not proof that the court order was valid, only that the judge has the power to hold you in contempt. Being in jail doesn't always mean you were wrong.
Good point. I suspect the defendant's password is "12345". They should try that. It would eliminate the whole problem of shaving the 5th Amendment down to a useless stub for everyone else. Or at least defer it a little while.
Interesting perspective. I only half-joke when I call my smartphone my "external brain pack".
Now, how's this for scary: hypothesize, someday, that we have implantable computers which augment our memories. Is that part of the "individual's mind" in the context of self-incriminatory testimony? Even if it's exactly the same implementation as an external storage device? Or, because it's artificial, would it not count? What if it's implanted, but in the liver or butt or right hand, instead of nestled in among brain tissue? (Assuming that we don't have substantial brain tissue in those body areas. I know that's an invalid assumption for some, but run with it.)
What are the boundaries of "individual's mind"?
More to the point, given a choice between spending money, or letting someone else spend money, business will choose the latter. So Google has no immediate incentive to jump in when Microsoft shaking down Android OEMs is covering the need.
The indirect effect, OEMs backing away from Android because Google isn't indemnifying them or rescuing them in their hour of need, is (A) not as economically sensible if the OEM has already settled with MS and now has a license to the patents in play, and (B) not the kind of thing you do instantly, especially if your Android products are the most popular ones you produce and you're not otherwise in great trouble.
Note that Nokia pretty much had to be at the brink of failure before it sold its soul to Microsoft, and the platforms it abandoned were crufty and confused (Symbian) or immature and experimental (Meego). It made a play comparable to buying into Android, except it was Microsoft's equivalent (Win7P) and came with a sizable bribe.
You have to separate the Real Programmers from the whiny trembling wannabees. Assembler is the equivalent of using blanks during "live-fire" training. Any high-order language is like a bunch of guys shouting "POW! POW! BANG! RATATATATAT!" at the trainees while they lackadaisically low-crawl through the not-very-muddy mud.
If you want programmers that won't flinch when the loading ramp on the assault boat drops, you need to start them on machine code. Maybe a rational and internally-consistent architecture, like VAX; after all, this isn't special forces training. (For that, we should use architectures like Intel 80286.)
I'm a scientists and I was shocked at the number of incoming *PhD* students who have close to zero programming experience.
PhD students in what fields? Most of the PhD types I've worked with were environmental/meteorological types, and that scientific endeavor has a long-standing and time-honored tradition of writing your own code, or maintaining your PhD advisor's. Badly. In undocumented FORTRAN. But it's programming. Even patching circa-1969 FORTRAN IV only recently transcribed from punched cards counts as experience.
(Actually, I think it's the meteorology fraternity's equivalent of Pledge Rush.)
I was trying to remember what my CS101 equivalent was 30 years ago.
Turns out, I didn't have one. I got to skip it because the programming and math curriculum in my high school was strong enough that the university credited me.
So, then question became, "WTF do they teach in a CS101 class?"
Turns out, a whole bunch of miscellany. Rudiments, elements, cats, dogs, little green ponies. Stuff I though people picked up by osmosis nowadays.
So, if they're not trying to teach Architecture and Organization (mainframe assembler, and later VAX assembler), or data structures (PASCAL, C, etc.), or Objects (pick your OO poison), I don't think language-of-choice is particularly relevant.
But that's just my crusty old-man opinion. Looks harmless from my lawn.
Jaime Kellner, is that you?
What ads on the side?
Oh, you mean, if you use the gmail web mail website.*
They support IMAP. Use it with the mail client of your choice et voilà, no ads.
*If you must use webmail, AdblockPlus is your friend.
And as further proof I'm not a locksmith the same way I'm not a lawyer, I meant a "multiple-bolt" lock, not a multiple-tumbler. I assume a combination lock has something analogous to tumblers, but I'm trying to convey the idea of physical impenetrability.
If it's an uncrackable* combination locked safe, can you be compelled to divulge the combination? Or, tailoring the argument to the DoJ's work-around, can you be compelled to use the combination and unlock the safe?
After all, a combination is just a set of secret information contained in your head... just like a password...and completely unlike a physical key.
*"Uncrackable" for certain "practical" values of "crackable".... like a heavily-armored multi-tumbler safe. Every safe is crackable, given enough effort, and I'd argue that every consumer-grade encryption scheme is also crackable given enough effort.
So, is there any case law or precedent about the 5th Amendment protections to combination lock combinations?
Me too, but EFF's perspective is also useful, and forms a valuable distinction:
(Quote from EFF's amicus brief, emphasis mine)
So, while you can be compelled to surrender a physical object (the key to the safe, in the previous analogy), the 5th Amendment is specifically is about something in your mind.
If the "locked safe" in the previous analogy is not locked, but hidden, can a defendant be compelled to disclose its location?
As to the DoJ's "end run" based on the principle "don't tell us, just type it into the computer".... would the 5th Amendment not apply is a defendant is compelled to type self-incriminating testimony into a computer instead of speaking it to a law-enforcement officer?
The DoJ, IMHaUO*, hasn't got a leg to stand on.
*In My Humble and Uneducated Opinion... IANAL, after all.
You just have to sign this confession we very thoughtfully prepared for you.
Yeah, I know, it's not entirely the same; it's not even really analogous. It's just an example of other back-door out-of-the-box problem-solving thinking, the kind of thing that made America great.
While I understand the reasoning, I could imagine 15 different ways the letter of the law could be used to subvert the spirit of the law, and effectively bury the "important terms" you're supposed to be emphasizing. Just a few:
I never knew this, but apparently there were mechanical watches in which the movement wasn't "stop-and-go" escapement, but truly continuous-motion and therefore analogue.
Linky
Fascinating. Continuous rotation gear trains with "escapement"-modulated braking. Clever. A true "sweep second" movement.
But obviously, that's a very notable exception. Most "analogue" watches are, in fact, high-frequency discrete motion movements. (Up to 5 steps per second, in the writeups I've read; small enough movements to look like continuous second-hand sweep.)
Well, to your anecdote, I'll add my counter-anecdote. I'm your age (a smidge older, actually), and I'm afraid I've been using digital clocks so long that my analog clock reading skills have atrophied.
There's good research that in some measurement regimes, an analog display is better at quickly conveying a quantity, because it's spatially proportional to its maximum value. Hence, analogue speedometers get the idea of "I'm not speeding" across because the difference between "speeding" and "not speeding" is a visual proportion or indicator position, not a calculation.
However, time isn't really like that, not with a classic 12-hour clock face. It's positional, but not very proportionate. Or, more accurately, it's proportionate in two distinct simultaneous variables: hours and minutes. And integrating both requires enough high-level thinking that it isn't just at-a-glance until you're practiced.
Oh, yeah? Where was your precious McCarthy when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?