A 19" CRT is about 80W. A 19" LCD is about 30W. So if you have the monitor on for 8 hours a day you use an extra 0.4KWH, which at the 12.5 cents/KWH I pay comes out to an even nickel per day. If I use the monitor 365 days a year for 8 hours, I'll pay an extra $18.25 in electricity. So the payback would be a few years, probably around the lifespan of the replacement LCD.
As maligned as the DeathStars were, I never lost any data on them. They always gave signs of theilr impending doom, and lasted long enough to copy the data off of them. In comparison, I've seen enough SSDs suddenly just stop working, and anything stored on them is simply gone.
They also need to add a way to get rid of the annoying message directing you to install flash any time everytime you visit a page that needs flash and you don't have it installed. Did it ever occur to them that some people don't want to install flash? Or that some people may run an open source browser on a platform that isn't even supported by flash?
I think a big part of the problem is not just that the UI changed, it's that the Firefox UI changes are basically a rip-off of Chrome's UI. So if you don't like Chrome's UI, you're certainly not going to be happy with a browser that looks and acts like a bad copy of Chrome.
Well, you have mountains in the western part, and those can slow you down quite a bit. Especially if you have to go well out of your way just to get around them depending on your starting point or destination. There simply aren't a lot of roads in that part of the state, and the roads that do exist you aren't going to be driving 60 on generally. Granted, if you're just pounding down I-90/I-94 then that'll take about 10 hours if you don't stop much. Then again, to a lot of people that's a day's worth of driving.
The military has such beasts, such as the M35 2 1/2 cargo truck, which are designed so that in a pinch you can use just about anything that'll burn (kerosene, gasoline, jet fuel, av gas, gasoline, ethanol, whatever) as fuel. Of course, they really prefer running diesel, and standard practice is if you're going to burn something like gasoline to throw a quart or two of oil into the tank to keep things lubricated.
Doing a trip like that in an e-Golf would be crazy. But that doesn't mean you couldn't own one, and rent a car for a trip like that. Heck, I know people with a perfectly functional gasoline powered car that still like to rent for trips like that.
For many people, a 90 mile range is just fine. For a family with more than one vehicle, having one car with a 90 mile range because they'll just use the other car for long trips. I do agree that we need more serial hybrids, but pure electrics also have their place.
It's practically impossible to import anything newer than 25 years into the US unless it's an exotic or a not street-legal race car. On the other hand, if you just want a commuter car I suppose you could pick out a nice late 80's Renault/VW/Peugeot/Mercedes/Ford/whatever and import that.
From what I've seen, MKV was most popular around 2009-2012 or so. While it's still common, it seems that things are shifting over to MP4 and MKV isn't as dominant as it used to be.
The problem is that parts all have serial numbers, no first world airline is going to touch parts of questionable origin, and third world airlines generally don't have 777's yet, so you'd be better off stealing something like a 727.
In every drive I've ever taken apart, all the heads move together so you're not reading data simultaneously from multiple platters unless by chance you just happen to need to read data from the exact same spot on multiple platters at the same time. Even if this happened, my guess is that the drive isn't capable of utilizing more than one head at a time anyway.
Why not? You simply stick more flash chips in the drive. It's not like it's a mechanical device with moving parts where it gets impractical to keep stacking platters.
Well, part of the problem is that people don't expect to live in one place for a long time. This changes how they think about houses they build. If something won't pay off in the 7 years that they expect that they'll own the house, they won't do it unless perhaps they think it might help the resale value. Because of this, I see all kinds of short term thinking. They'll put the 15 year roof on instead of the 50 year rood because they'll be gone by the time it needs replacing, and so on.
Another reason is bank financing. Banks generally don't like to finance non-traditional homes because the house is collateral, and they want something that they can sell easily should the borrower default on their mortgage. Be prepared to front the money to build the house yourself.
Building codes are another problem, as they heavily favor the traditional way of building a house. They can be pretty inflexible if you want to step outside those bounds. Zoning and other restrictions can also cause problems.
Back when I remember them being popular for home use (relatively speaking), a decent number of people who had computers also had a tape drive for a backup. I would say a larger percentage than ever had Zip drives a few years later. Keep in mind this was before the whole internet thing took off, so it's not like your typical household had a computer yet. Also, keep in mind that at the time tape really was it for backing up a non-trivial amount of data - your only other option was a stack of floppy disks, or maybe a really expensive SCSI external HDD.
The SSD cache is non-volatile which means that it can be used when booting up, which is one place where the SSD can really make a difference. Otherwise, I've found that once the computer is booted up, a reasonably fast 7200RPM drive and a large amount of ram isn't all that different than an SSD for many workloads. I've put a SSD in my laptop as they are much faster than 5400RPM drives, they use less power, and are more durable, and in the case of my older laptop it's chipset-limited to 3GB of ram, but for the desktops I haven't bothered.
The problem with the 16:10 1920x1200 screens is that they were for the most part 24" or larger, when they really needed to be about 22" to get the pixel density correct. There were a handful made in that size, but they were from companies like Eizo with a matching price tag. Never did figure that out, because 4:3 has it right with the 1600x1200 at 20", and 16:9 has the popular 21.5" models which are also very close.
That's almost certainly what's going on. Even if it's not listed on there, it may be worth cracking it open and taking a look, especially since I've seen enough Samsung LCDs with bulging capacitors made long after everyone else seemed to have solved their capacitor problems.
Yeah, but who wants a monitor that's only 960 pixels wide? That's the problem with 16:9. It's too wide, but at the same time not wide enough. If it was wider, you could replace a dual 4:3 or 5:4 set up with one screen and lose the bezel running down the middle. But it's not, so you end with two 16:9 screens which is just stupidly wide. The 21:9 screens are more interesting than the 16:9 screens to me.
The big annoyance I had with Midori is that clicking too fast on the scrollbar would open a new tab (this was in XFCE - may not be applicable in other desktops). I think part of Midori's problem is that they're using a version of Webkit that's a few releases old (as of 0.5.8). If you want something similar you might try Qupzilla, which despite the name is based on Webkit and so far seems to work pretty well and is a lot more stable. Comes with Adblock and DDG set as the default search engine.
Slashdot Mirror
A 19" CRT is about 80W. A 19" LCD is about 30W. So if you have the monitor on for 8 hours a day you use an extra 0.4KWH, which at the 12.5 cents/KWH I pay comes out to an even nickel per day. If I use the monitor 365 days a year for 8 hours, I'll pay an extra $18.25 in electricity. So the payback would be a few years, probably around the lifespan of the replacement LCD.
As maligned as the DeathStars were, I never lost any data on them. They always gave signs of theilr impending doom, and lasted long enough to copy the data off of them. In comparison, I've seen enough SSDs suddenly just stop working, and anything stored on them is simply gone.
Link works fine for me. It's one of those show an ad and redirect you type of sites, so you might want to check your adblocker.
They also need to add a way to get rid of the annoying message directing you to install flash any time everytime you visit a page that needs flash and you don't have it installed. Did it ever occur to them that some people don't want to install flash? Or that some people may run an open source browser on a platform that isn't even supported by flash?
I think a big part of the problem is not just that the UI changed, it's that the Firefox UI changes are basically a rip-off of Chrome's UI. So if you don't like Chrome's UI, you're certainly not going to be happy with a browser that looks and acts like a bad copy of Chrome.
Well, you have mountains in the western part, and those can slow you down quite a bit. Especially if you have to go well out of your way just to get around them depending on your starting point or destination. There simply aren't a lot of roads in that part of the state, and the roads that do exist you aren't going to be driving 60 on generally. Granted, if you're just pounding down I-90/I-94 then that'll take about 10 hours if you don't stop much. Then again, to a lot of people that's a day's worth of driving.
The military has such beasts, such as the M35 2 1/2 cargo truck, which are designed so that in a pinch you can use just about anything that'll burn (kerosene, gasoline, jet fuel, av gas, gasoline, ethanol, whatever) as fuel. Of course, they really prefer running diesel, and standard practice is if you're going to burn something like gasoline to throw a quart or two of oil into the tank to keep things lubricated.
Doing a trip like that in an e-Golf would be crazy. But that doesn't mean you couldn't own one, and rent a car for a trip like that. Heck, I know people with a perfectly functional gasoline powered car that still like to rent for trips like that.
For many people, a 90 mile range is just fine. For a family with more than one vehicle, having one car with a 90 mile range because they'll just use the other car for long trips. I do agree that we need more serial hybrids, but pure electrics also have their place.
It's practically impossible to import anything newer than 25 years into the US unless it's an exotic or a not street-legal race car. On the other hand, if you just want a commuter car I suppose you could pick out a nice late 80's Renault/VW/Peugeot/Mercedes/Ford/whatever and import that.
From what I've seen, MKV was most popular around 2009-2012 or so. While it's still common, it seems that things are shifting over to MP4 and MKV isn't as dominant as it used to be.
The problem is that parts all have serial numbers, no first world airline is going to touch parts of questionable origin, and third world airlines generally don't have 777's yet, so you'd be better off stealing something like a 727.
In every drive I've ever taken apart, all the heads move together so you're not reading data simultaneously from multiple platters unless by chance you just happen to need to read data from the exact same spot on multiple platters at the same time. Even if this happened, my guess is that the drive isn't capable of utilizing more than one head at a time anyway.
Why not? You simply stick more flash chips in the drive. It's not like it's a mechanical device with moving parts where it gets impractical to keep stacking platters.
December 2005 was the 1.0 release. It was around in 2004, but at that time it was still pretty obscure.
A lot of Democrats don't like her either. Unfortunately, that's how we ended up with Obama.
Walker? Maybe. But no one with the last name of Bush will ever be taken seriously.
Well, part of the problem is that people don't expect to live in one place for a long time. This changes how they think about houses they build. If something won't pay off in the 7 years that they expect that they'll own the house, they won't do it unless perhaps they think it might help the resale value. Because of this, I see all kinds of short term thinking. They'll put the 15 year roof on instead of the 50 year rood because they'll be gone by the time it needs replacing, and so on.
Another reason is bank financing. Banks generally don't like to finance non-traditional homes because the house is collateral, and they want something that they can sell easily should the borrower default on their mortgage. Be prepared to front the money to build the house yourself.
Building codes are another problem, as they heavily favor the traditional way of building a house. They can be pretty inflexible if you want to step outside those bounds. Zoning and other restrictions can also cause problems.
Back when I remember them being popular for home use (relatively speaking), a decent number of people who had computers also had a tape drive for a backup. I would say a larger percentage than ever had Zip drives a few years later. Keep in mind this was before the whole internet thing took off, so it's not like your typical household had a computer yet. Also, keep in mind that at the time tape really was it for backing up a non-trivial amount of data - your only other option was a stack of floppy disks, or maybe a really expensive SCSI external HDD.
I would think that at that point, a Bluray burner would also look like an attractive alternative.
The SSD cache is non-volatile which means that it can be used when booting up, which is one place where the SSD can really make a difference. Otherwise, I've found that once the computer is booted up, a reasonably fast 7200RPM drive and a large amount of ram isn't all that different than an SSD for many workloads. I've put a SSD in my laptop as they are much faster than 5400RPM drives, they use less power, and are more durable, and in the case of my older laptop it's chipset-limited to 3GB of ram, but for the desktops I haven't bothered.
The problem with the 16:10 1920x1200 screens is that they were for the most part 24" or larger, when they really needed to be about 22" to get the pixel density correct. There were a handful made in that size, but they were from companies like Eizo with a matching price tag. Never did figure that out, because 4:3 has it right with the 1600x1200 at 20", and 16:9 has the popular 21.5" models which are also very close.
That's almost certainly what's going on. Even if it's not listed on there, it may be worth cracking it open and taking a look, especially since I've seen enough Samsung LCDs with bulging capacitors made long after everyone else seemed to have solved their capacitor problems.
Yeah, but who wants a monitor that's only 960 pixels wide? That's the problem with 16:9. It's too wide, but at the same time not wide enough. If it was wider, you could replace a dual 4:3 or 5:4 set up with one screen and lose the bezel running down the middle. But it's not, so you end with two 16:9 screens which is just stupidly wide. The 21:9 screens are more interesting than the 16:9 screens to me.
The big annoyance I had with Midori is that clicking too fast on the scrollbar would open a new tab (this was in XFCE - may not be applicable in other desktops). I think part of Midori's problem is that they're using a version of Webkit that's a few releases old (as of 0.5.8). If you want something similar you might try Qupzilla, which despite the name is based on Webkit and so far seems to work pretty well and is a lot more stable. Comes with Adblock and DDG set as the default search engine.