Would you buy a bicycle to commute? Many people would not, and yet millions of other people do. Just because *you* have some specific issues with this car doesn't mean there isn't a market for it.
A bike doesn't cost more than a far more capable gasoline-powered car.
The market for this car is people with more money than sense, which exists, but isn't very large now that banks have stopped lending money to anything with a pulse.
if aerobreathing engines like the one planned on the skylon are operational, they too could be a game changer. yes it is unmanned but drastically decreases costs
If I remember correctly, Skylon's estimated cost per kilo is about the same as Falcon 9 Heavy, which should be flying soon for far less than the tens of billions of dollars required to build Skylon.
Skylon used to look like a great idea, but now that governments are getting out of the space business and leaving it to private corporations, it's starting to look like another expensive white elephant designed around 'cost no object' government funding.
Space exploration may be a technological feat, but it is also a wonder of human intellect. By abandoning the shuttle, that human intellect is being dumped on the streets with nothing but promises for the future.
No-one would build another rocket like the shuttle, and NASA hasn't designed a new rocket in forty years; most of the people who designed it retired years ago.
If that 'intellect' was so valuable, private space companies would be lining up to hire them, yet in reality they seem to avoid hiring NASA's cast-offs. Probably because NASA engineers spent about as much to put a fake upper stage on top of an SRB and launch it into the sea as SpaceX did to build two new launchers from scratch and fly them into orbit.
The 'next big thing', manned missions to Mars and beyond, is going to be so expensive no single nation can afford to do it.
Bollocks. Spaceflight is expensive because governments will pay a billion dollars a time to fly seven astronauts and a few tons of pizza and toilet paper to a space station which serves no purpose that anyone can adequately explain.
I'd bet $10 that the first human to walk on the surface of Mars will be a billionaire tourist, not a government bureaucrat.
Space is what I would describe of itself 'indirect research', in that the technology that you and I benefit from was a result of something done in space research, even if that wasn't the initial intent.
If that's the only argument you can come up with for funding NASA then you're screwed, because you could have done those things far more cheaply by, you know, funding research into them and forgetting the whole space thing.
In 2006, the decision was made to end the Shuttle program by 2010 and put focus on Orion.
I don't believe that's true. If I remember correctly, the committee said that the shuttle had to be recertified or stop flying and there was no requirement that it be followed by another pork-barrel program to keep shuttle contractors employed.
You're really using the Flight 93 situation as a citation of functional security? It fucking crashed. Everyone died. Way to go, security.
It crashed because the pilots assumed it was just another hijacking and let the hijackers take control of the plane, while the passengers assumed it was just another hijacking until they heard about the other planes being deliberately crashed.
That will not happen again because the hijackers won't be allowed into the cockpit and, in any case, they'll be too busy with the passengers who are beating them to death.
"'If your system does get infected with Trojan:Win32/Popureb.E, we advise you to fix the MBR and then use a recovery CD to restore your system to a pre-infected state,' said Feng.
If your recovery CD is pre-infected, then surely you're screwed anyway?
What do you mean by "both sides"? Really? What funding source were you thinking of that has a financial interest comparable to the trillion dollar profits of the fossil-fuel companies?
I believe you'll find the oil companies have put hundreds of millions of dollars of funding into 'global warming' and 'green energy' research. They'd probably be foolish if they didn't, because if they can use 'global warming' to reduce the usage of coal, then they're likely to make more money selling oil.
Didn't the 'Climategate' emails include a bunch where they were discussing how to get funding from oil companies?
An Intel Atom with Nvidia ION can't even run half of these games.
And the entire Ion system will probably use about a quarter as much power as this CPU/GPU combo. My Ion Xbmc box with a cheap SSD and 4GB of RAM takes about 25W from the wall when playing HD video.
I honestly don't understand why people are comparing this chip to the Atom when it's in a totally different market; people buying Atoms are not going to replace them with a 100W CPU. The lower power versions may be more competitive, but they'll also be far less powerful.
Kinda depends on your expected server workload, no ?
Sandy Bridge is faster, has lower peak power consumption for a given performance level and lower idle power consumption. I can't really see any expected workload where AMD is a better choice unless you plan to have lots of CPUs in your system.
The review here is for the King of the Bobcat's, the high powered variant weighing in at 100W peek built on the 32nm processes. All the Bobcat modules have only 2 ALU's and 2 FPU's, and only a 1-channel memory controller, so it is no surprise that it has trouble competing with the i3's. What is surprising is that never-the-less, its competing with the i3's.
It has twice as many cores and from the numbers you give here uses about 3x as much power. I'm not too surprised that you can compete with a cheaper chip in that case.
Re:Looks like time to find a new search engine
on
Google's New Design
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Searches for what I want it to search for instead of what it thinks I wanted to search for. Google is always wrong on this one and has been getter worse and worse since they implemented it.
Yeah, pretty much every time I use Google now I start wondering whether there's a better search engine out there because every update makes it less useful. Why should I have to tell the search engine to actually search for what I specifically asked it to search for and not try to guess what I really wanted to search for?
It's particularly problematic for technical searches which often have acronyms which are close to real words and Google 'corrects' them for me.
Weird. I have a 1005HAB running 10.10 and it's fine other than Unity randomly crashing when closing a Firefox window (which doesn't surprise me given all the other Unity bugs).
AutoRun was removed from USB sticks in Windows XP and above.
Does Windows still have '.' at the start of the DLL loading path by default? If so, eliminating autorun doesn't necessarily help that much; you click on 'Fluffy Kitty.jpg', Windows loads some image viewer which loads some JPEG-reading DLL, and instead of getting the real one it loads the trojan version from the USB stick.
Slashdot Mirror
How do you think Hydrogen is manufactured, if not from electricity?
Um, steam reforming of natural gas, dude.
I'd guess you'd do a lot better just running the cars on the natural gas and forgetting the hydrogen crap.
Would you buy a bicycle to commute? Many people would not, and yet millions of other people do. Just because *you* have some specific issues with this car doesn't mean there isn't a market for it.
A bike doesn't cost more than a far more capable gasoline-powered car.
The market for this car is people with more money than sense, which exists, but isn't very large now that banks have stopped lending money to anything with a pulse.
The problem is they keep pricing the things so high the economics of buying them just aren't there.
That's because electric cars make no financial sense at this point in time and probably won't any time soon.
if aerobreathing engines like the one planned on the skylon are operational, they too could be a game changer. yes it is unmanned but drastically decreases costs
If I remember correctly, Skylon's estimated cost per kilo is about the same as Falcon 9 Heavy, which should be flying soon for far less than the tens of billions of dollars required to build Skylon.
Skylon used to look like a great idea, but now that governments are getting out of the space business and leaving it to private corporations, it's starting to look like another expensive white elephant designed around 'cost no object' government funding.
Space exploration may be a technological feat, but it is also a wonder of human intellect. By abandoning the shuttle, that human intellect is being dumped on the streets with nothing but promises for the future.
No-one would build another rocket like the shuttle, and NASA hasn't designed a new rocket in forty years; most of the people who designed it retired years ago.
If that 'intellect' was so valuable, private space companies would be lining up to hire them, yet in reality they seem to avoid hiring NASA's cast-offs. Probably because NASA engineers spent about as much to put a fake upper stage on top of an SRB and launch it into the sea as SpaceX did to build two new launchers from scratch and fly them into orbit.
The 'next big thing', manned missions to Mars and beyond, is going to be so expensive no single nation can afford to do it.
Bollocks. Spaceflight is expensive because governments will pay a billion dollars a time to fly seven astronauts and a few tons of pizza and toilet paper to a space station which serves no purpose that anyone can adequately explain.
I'd bet $10 that the first human to walk on the surface of Mars will be a billionaire tourist, not a government bureaucrat.
Space is what I would describe of itself 'indirect research', in that the technology that you and I benefit from was a result of something done in space research, even if that wasn't the initial intent.
If that's the only argument you can come up with for funding NASA then you're screwed, because you could have done those things far more cheaply by, you know, funding research into them and forgetting the whole space thing.
In 2006, the decision was made to end the Shuttle program by 2010 and put focus on Orion.
I don't believe that's true. If I remember correctly, the committee said that the shuttle had to be recertified or stop flying and there was no requirement that it be followed by another pork-barrel program to keep shuttle contractors employed.
what you'll get instead is the cheapest security theater that convinces customers that they're safe.
Which has to be an improvement over expensive granny-groping security theater.
You're really using the Flight 93 situation as a citation of functional security? It fucking crashed. Everyone died. Way to go, security.
It crashed because the pilots assumed it was just another hijacking and let the hijackers take control of the plane, while the passengers assumed it was just another hijacking until they heard about the other planes being deliberately crashed.
That will not happen again because the hijackers won't be allowed into the cockpit and, in any case, they'll be too busy with the passengers who are beating them to death.
The Israel's airport security model is very effective.
When was the last time they caught a terrorist at the airport? Perhaps I've missed the news stories, but I don't remember seeing any for many years.
With a Seagate Barracuda I think the challenge is getting the thing to actually run for over a minute.
I just ran smartcl here and the two Seagate Barracudas in this machine have each been running for 29,908 hours.
"'If your system does get infected with Trojan:Win32/Popureb.E, we advise you to fix the MBR and then use a recovery CD to restore your system to a pre-infected state,' said Feng.
If your recovery CD is pre-infected, then surely you're screwed anyway?
What do you mean by "both sides"? Really? What funding source were you thinking of that has a financial interest comparable to the trillion dollar profits of the fossil-fuel companies?
I believe you'll find the oil companies have put hundreds of millions of dollars of funding into 'global warming' and 'green energy' research. They'd probably be foolish if they didn't, because if they can use 'global warming' to reduce the usage of coal, then they're likely to make more money selling oil.
Didn't the 'Climategate' emails include a bunch where they were discussing how to get funding from oil companies?
An Intel Atom with Nvidia ION can't even run half of these games.
And the entire Ion system will probably use about a quarter as much power as this CPU/GPU combo. My Ion Xbmc box with a cheap SSD and 4GB of RAM takes about 25W from the wall when playing HD video.
I honestly don't understand why people are comparing this chip to the Atom when it's in a totally different market; people buying Atoms are not going to replace them with a 100W CPU. The lower power versions may be more competitive, but they'll also be far less powerful.
For $100 you can get both an Atom CPU and motherboard.
I don't know about current prices, but back in 2008 I paid about $100 for my dual-core Atom motherboard, CPU and 2GB of RAM.
These processors are for tablets and netbooks running Windows 8 or browsing the web with the GPU taking part of the load.
I'll be impressed the day I see someone using a tablet with a 100W CPU.
Slower than an i3, yes. But...it's waay faster than the fastest Atoms
And costs waay more and uses waay more power. Atoms are mostly being used for cheap, low power systems, and this chip fails on both counts.
Kinda depends on your expected server workload, no ?
Sandy Bridge is faster, has lower peak power consumption for a given performance level and lower idle power consumption. I can't really see any expected workload where AMD is a better choice unless you plan to have lots of CPUs in your system.
The review here is for the King of the Bobcat's, the high powered variant weighing in at 100W peek built on the 32nm processes.
All the Bobcat modules have only 2 ALU's and 2 FPU's, and only a 1-channel memory controller, so it is no surprise that it has trouble competing with the i3's. What is surprising is that never-the-less, its competing with the i3's.
It has twice as many cores and from the numbers you give here uses about 3x as much power. I'm not too surprised that you can compete with a cheaper chip in that case.
Searches for what I want it to search for instead of what it thinks I wanted to search for. Google is always wrong on this one and has been getter worse and worse since they implemented it.
Yeah, pretty much every time I use Google now I start wondering whether there's a better search engine out there because every update makes it less useful. Why should I have to tell the search engine to actually search for what I specifically asked it to search for and not try to guess what I really wanted to search for?
It's particularly problematic for technical searches which often have acronyms which are close to real words and Google 'corrects' them for me.
Can someone give me a good reason to use Thunderbird or any other mail client. I haven't felt the need for it ever since gmail arrived.
Because we don't want to give all our email to Google?
Weird. I have a 1005HAB running 10.10 and it's fine other than Unity randomly crashing when closing a Firefox window (which doesn't surprise me given all the other Unity bugs).
AutoRun was removed from USB sticks in Windows XP and above.
Does Windows still have '.' at the start of the DLL loading path by default? If so, eliminating autorun doesn't necessarily help that much; you click on 'Fluffy Kitty.jpg', Windows loads some image viewer which loads some JPEG-reading DLL, and instead of getting the real one it loads the trojan version from the USB stick.
What's wrong with simply saying "online"?
"Online" is so last century. "The Cloud" is the new shiny.