Apparently the term "nano-scale" means that your manufacturing process has features measured in nm. Even if that is 400 nm or 1000 nm it seems.
Example: https://nano-cemms.illinois.edu/materials/3d_printing_full
Quote 1: " . . . incredibly thin polymer layers (on the order of 400 nm) . . . "
Quote 2: "This activity demonstrates the basic challenges of nanoscale engineering and manufacturing."
16:9 is more natural - it fits your vision. I currently work using a Dell D830 laptop that runs at 1680x1050 on the built-in LCD and I have an external 1280x1024 LCD for my secondary monitor. Despite the fact that my primary screen is "widescreen" I actually have more VERTICAL room on it than I do on my 19" external monitor.
With the expanded room I've bumped my SSH windows to 160x50 text mode as well. The argument that 4:3 monitors have more vertical space only matters if you actually have more pixels to play with. Even 1600x1200 doesn't have "more vertical space" than 2560x1200. The added room for additional windows is perfect for keeping lots of information up and ready to use.
Slashdot Mirror
More like 3.0e16 sha-256 computations per second (each Bitcoin hash involves two sha256 calculations), but the HLT idle command is a clear winner.
Assume: HLT idle is 1 clock cycle
Assume: Typical PC is idling at 1 GHz
PC shipments were 350m in 2010. If even 1 billion PCs are on and idle 60% of the day, then we have:
0.6 * 1 billion * 1 GHz * 1 year = 1.9e25 iterations per year
versus
3.0e16 Hz * 1 year = 9.5e23 iterations per year for Bitcoin
Now, sha256x2 is much more complicated than HLT, but the OP asked for iterations.
That's why I use VIM. It removes the possibility of evil. :P
You really should re-train yourself to use ":x" - you could be saving an entire keystroke per IM message!
Apparently the term "nano-scale" means that your manufacturing process has features measured in nm. Even if that is 400 nm or 1000 nm it seems. Example: https://nano-cemms.illinois.edu/materials/3d_printing_full Quote 1: " . . . incredibly thin polymer layers (on the order of 400 nm) . . . " Quote 2: "This activity demonstrates the basic challenges of nanoscale engineering and manufacturing."
16:9 is more natural - it fits your vision. I currently work using a Dell D830 laptop that runs at 1680x1050 on the built-in LCD and I have an external 1280x1024 LCD for my secondary monitor. Despite the fact that my primary screen is "widescreen" I actually have more VERTICAL room on it than I do on my 19" external monitor. With the expanded room I've bumped my SSH windows to 160x50 text mode as well. The argument that 4:3 monitors have more vertical space only matters if you actually have more pixels to play with. Even 1600x1200 doesn't have "more vertical space" than 2560x1200. The added room for additional windows is perfect for keeping lots of information up and ready to use.