Direct sunlight at 1 AU has ~1400 W / m2 (minus atmospheric absorbence), your 250 figure is a DAILY average which includes nighttime and obliqueness. Which is exactly whatr AC said... Your point?
And just like the four stroke engine, modern engines just burn gasoline and push car forward. This is where the similarity with the original engines end. Am I reading you wrong? Most modern engines *are* 4-stroke engines...
Using this/. comment page, I can reproduce what looks to me like some kind of leak.
Firefox 2.0.0.3 on Windows XP. browser.cache.memory.enable = false
Startup - to blank page - 30MB Load this comments page - 44MB repeatedly refresh the page: 1st time - 47MB 2nd time - 47.7MB 3rd time - 52.2MB 4th time - 55.6MB 5th time - 56MB 22nd time - 81MB ~40th time - ~100MB and so on... (I got bored of refreshing the page, the pattern seems apparent already)
Now open new blank tab and close the/. page and no more than ~10MB memory reduction occurs. It should be back down to 30MB as it was when I opened Firefox with a blank page. Where is this extra ~70MB hiding?. There is no history being saved as 1). I closed the tab again, 2). I was only refreshing so no history data was generated. There should be no memory cache as that is disabled.
Now consider there are lots of times a user may continuously refresh a page, the slashdot index, forum indexes etc. If you have 5 pages that you refresh every few minutes it does not take long for the memory footprint to get well over 500MB. Then depending on your system, it all starts slowing down from swapping/whatever.
On this particular machine, I need to restart Firefox at about the 400-500MB (system has 1GB) mark as switching tabs or doing pretty much anything starts getting a 5 second delay which is just well annoying.
In the US (New York at least) they don't keep them unless you are convicted.
They still have mine and all I did was cross the border.
Seriously, how does this work, are the border prints only kept for a certain amount of time or are they kept permanently? Why do I, as a tourist, have my prints kept longer than someone with a cleared felony?
I shot one of these guns this winter at some crazy guys ranch in Canada. 3 shots and I got my coke can - also with no ear plugs but fook me it's loud! my ears were ringing and my shoulder was sore.
The only other gun I have ever shot was a shotgun about 10 mins earlier - I got my can:)
Not sure if the sore shoulder was from the shotgun or the rifle. Very fun though, I want more.
Does anyone really need these?
This and a quite from the article -
Although 1TB of storage on a single drive will be alluring to some users, IDC's Rydning sees only very specific demand for that much storage. "For consumers, we still think the big hard drives are mainly for niche applications," says Rydning. "There's going to be a certain minority of PC users and video recorder enthusiasts who will want to have the highest capacity available. And in those markets, a high-capacity drive is valued. However, the vast majority of PC users are still serviced by a one-platter, 160GB hard drive."
Consumers' increasing accumulation of digital personal data is, not surprisingly, driving the need for high-capacity storage. "As people amass their own personal memories, either in photographs or video, hard disk drive storage is one of the best, lowest cost ways to store and retrieve that type of data," says Rydning. - both just remind me of the same shit that people harp on about every time new breakthroughs are made in hard drive (or any other, I guess) technology. I remember them saying the same thing about 80GB hard drives.
People, please! The computing world advances, people use more hard drive space, people DO end up using it.
I don't agree with his derogatory comments on phrases like "safe haven" (haven has had it's definition expanded to mean other things than safety, so it's a distinguisher) Shaven Haven for example?:)
This reminds me of when I was at my first job at a "rather large" software company that we all know.
Some guy in the exchange team in Redmond decided to test the capability of distributions groups with all the employees in it. Due to the large worldwide nature of the company, this was a *lot* of employees.
Naturally he did not test e-mailing to this ultra-huge email group as it would likely set off a swarm of emails from people wondering what this group was.
But all it took was one person looking through the groups he was in and thinking "oh what's this one then?" So he sent an e-mail to the group declaring shenannigans and wondering why he was on this group without prior knowledge......shortly followed by an exponential growth of "me too" mails and the entire companies exchange servers grinding to a halt within 10 mins.
That was fun. Anyone reading this who was in that company at that time (Around 98ish maybe?) should remember this:)
We got a cheapie CFL from ikea in our bedroom and its warmup time has degraded *immensely*. It is the only cfl we have that displays any kind of warmup time. The others (different ikea ones) all seem to come on "as quick as you need a light to come on" and at full brightness.
The thing is, this degraded warm-up one in the bedroom is a bit of a godsend... You turns it on in the morning and it does not blow your eyeballs out, it barely lights the room. Then gets to full brightness over a minute or so as your eyes adjust. Its fantastic, they should make them like this for bedrooms. Its only mildly annoying if you need to go in there from another lit room and its hard to see for a minute.
Crazy. That would explain why my light bill is 80 pounds per month!! Is it just me or does your phone charger, computer and LCD monitor (and probably the other things too) seem twice as high as they should be?
Is your ammeter a UK one plugged in before the power converter or a Canadian one plugged in between the power converter and the appliance?
Something seems (to me) awry in your calculations there.
Yeah I did the school stuff and did well at it, but that was like 17 years ago now so its all started to fade a bit since I switched from science to computers around then:-(
I totally understand about the low duration bursts etc, I just think that, as you say, those shows glance over things too much and that may have just muddled things up in my head a bit this time round.
Thanks for all your responses, they have been helpful and I am back on track:) Now I need to un-learn all the stuff I explained* to my wife while we went through those shows over xmas. Its tough explainign all this stuff to someone who did not learn much about atoms and physics at school, but its a good chance to go through things in your own head again from the basics. Quite the challenge too after so long:)
*With those shows, I find myself doing about an hours of explaining for every 30 mins of show - really shows how much they assume/miss...
For starters, I accept that they can do this but...
1. I thought Hydrogen (and deuterium) were the easiest atoms to fuse together (Call it a naive assumption if you like). 2. I also thought that these were incredibly hard to fuse together. 3. I also thought that even in a star, there is only enough energy to fuse atoms together up to Iron. 4. I also thought that you only get the energy needed to fuse atoms to form elements higher than Iron in a Supernova. 5. So I figured we'd not be able to harness the kinds of energy needed to fuse atoms this big. 6. I have just been watching Steven Hawkins series about all this shit over the xmas break:) 7. I did have rudimentary knowledge of all this stuff before watchign those shows.
So obviously we can create this kind of energy. I must have been confusing "not being able to fuse atoms together" with "not being able to fuse atoms together in an energy efficient manner" - i.e. the reason we dont get more out than in with our fusion energy attemts.
So if we can fuse hige Super Heavy atoms together, why can't we fuse lesser atoms together to make, say, gold?
I obviously have a flaw somewhere in my assumptions, if it's a simple one-liner, please tell me. Otherwise I will just go research it all again and find where I went wrong:)
Slashdot Mirror
+1 Whoosh
Using this /. comment page, I can reproduce what looks to me like some kind of leak.
/. page and no more than ~10MB memory reduction occurs. It should be back down to 30MB as it was when I opened Firefox with a blank page. Where is this extra ~70MB hiding?. There is no history being saved as 1). I closed the tab again, 2). I was only refreshing so no history data was generated. There should be no memory cache as that is disabled.
Firefox 2.0.0.3 on Windows XP.
browser.cache.memory.enable = false
Startup - to blank page - 30MB
Load this comments page - 44MB
repeatedly refresh the page:
1st time - 47MB
2nd time - 47.7MB
3rd time - 52.2MB
4th time - 55.6MB
5th time - 56MB
22nd time - 81MB
~40th time - ~100MB
and so on... (I got bored of refreshing the page, the pattern seems apparent already)
Now open new blank tab and close the
Now consider there are lots of times a user may continuously refresh a page, the slashdot index, forum indexes etc. If you have 5 pages that you refresh every few minutes it does not take long for the memory footprint to get well over 500MB. Then depending on your system, it all starts slowing down from swapping/whatever.
On this particular machine, I need to restart Firefox at about the 400-500MB (system has 1GB) mark as switching tabs or doing pretty much anything starts getting a 5 second delay which is just well annoying.
I don't see why this is news. Google has been working on my mobile phone for years!
In the US (New York at least) they don't keep them unless you are convicted.
They still have mine and all I did was cross the border.Seriously, how does this work, are the border prints only kept for a certain amount of time or are they kept permanently? Why do I, as a tourist, have my prints kept longer than someone with a cleared felony?
I'm a brit so I "don't do guns"
:)
I shot one of these guns this winter at some crazy guys ranch in Canada. 3 shots and I got my coke can - also with no ear plugs but fook me it's loud! my ears were ringing and my shoulder was sore.
The only other gun I have ever shot was a shotgun about 10 mins earlier - I got my can
Not sure if the sore shoulder was from the shotgun or the rifle. Very fun though, I want more.
There is too much butter ON, THOSE, TRAYS!
Pumpkins I assume
Mine does not.
I am using Firefox on Linux
I am in Bavaria, it is fookin 10 degrees here. it should be *minus* 10.
Went to Mayrhofen on Sat and the only snow worth going on was right up the top. Its awful.
FTFA...
6 5-3d-printer-to-churn-out-copies-of-itself.html
http://www.newscientisttech.com/channel/tech/dn71
32568*65736
Oh wait, is this still 2007?
This and a quite from the article - Although 1TB of storage on a single drive will be alluring to some users, IDC's Rydning sees only very specific demand for that much storage. "For consumers, we still think the big hard drives are mainly for niche applications," says Rydning. "There's going to be a certain minority of PC users and video recorder enthusiasts who will want to have the highest capacity available. And in those markets, a high-capacity drive is valued. However, the vast majority of PC users are still serviced by a one-platter, 160GB hard drive."
Consumers' increasing accumulation of digital personal data is, not surprisingly, driving the need for high-capacity storage. "As people amass their own personal memories, either in photographs or video, hard disk drive storage is one of the best, lowest cost ways to store and retrieve that type of data," says Rydning. - both just remind me of the same shit that people harp on about every time new breakthroughs are made in hard drive (or any other, I guess) technology. I remember them saying the same thing about 80GB hard drives.
People, please! The computing world advances, people use more hard drive space, people DO end up using it.
heh, fantastic! Thats the one :)
This reminds me of when I was at my first job at a "rather large" software company that we all know.
...shortly followed by an exponential growth of "me too" mails and the entire companies exchange servers grinding to a halt within 10 mins.
:)
Some guy in the exchange team in Redmond decided to test the capability of distributions groups with all the employees in it. Due to the large worldwide nature of the company, this was a *lot* of employees.
Naturally he did not test e-mailing to this ultra-huge email group as it would likely set off a swarm of emails from people wondering what this group was.
But all it took was one person looking through the groups he was in and thinking "oh what's this one then?" So he sent an e-mail to the group declaring shenannigans and wondering why he was on this group without prior knowledge...
That was fun. Anyone reading this who was in that company at that time (Around 98ish maybe?) should remember this
I agree, but I must add something.
We got a cheapie CFL from ikea in our bedroom and its warmup time has degraded *immensely*. It is the only cfl we have that displays any kind of warmup time. The others (different ikea ones) all seem to come on "as quick as you need a light to come on" and at full brightness.
The thing is, this degraded warm-up one in the bedroom is a bit of a godsend... You turns it on in the morning and it does not blow your eyeballs out, it barely lights the room. Then gets to full brightness over a minute or so as your eyes adjust. Its fantastic, they should make them like this for bedrooms. Its only mildly annoying if you need to go in there from another lit room and its hard to see for a minute.
I like your analogies. I think I will be using them on the wife. Ta!
sPh Unless you have the ones with the plastic earth prong...
Cell phone charger: 10W
Washing machine: 790W
Computer: 240W
LCD monitor: 90W
IP telephone: 20W (!!!!!)
42" Hi-def plasma display: 190W
Crazy. That would explain why my light bill is 80 pounds per month!! Is it just me or does your phone charger, computer and LCD monitor (and probably the other things too) seem twice as high as they should be?
Is your ammeter a UK one plugged in before the power converter or a Canadian one plugged in between the power converter and the appliance?
Something seems (to me) awry in your calculations there.
Yeah I did the school stuff and did well at it, but that was like 17 years ago now so its all started to fade a bit since I switched from science to computers around then :-(
:) Now I need to un-learn all the stuff I explained* to my wife while we went through those shows over xmas. Its tough explainign all this stuff to someone who did not learn much about atoms and physics at school, but its a good chance to go through things in your own head again from the basics. Quite the challenge too after so long :)
I totally understand about the low duration bursts etc, I just think that, as you say, those shows glance over things too much and that may have just muddled things up in my head a bit this time round.
Thanks for all your responses, they have been helpful and I am back on track
*With those shows, I find myself doing about an hours of explaining for every 30 mins of show - really shows how much they assume/miss...
OK, I am missing something here...
:)
:)
For starters, I accept that they can do this but...
1. I thought Hydrogen (and deuterium) were the easiest atoms to fuse together (Call it a naive assumption if you like).
2. I also thought that these were incredibly hard to fuse together.
3. I also thought that even in a star, there is only enough energy to fuse atoms together up to Iron.
4. I also thought that you only get the energy needed to fuse atoms to form elements higher than Iron in a Supernova.
5. So I figured we'd not be able to harness the kinds of energy needed to fuse atoms this big.
6. I have just been watching Steven Hawkins series about all this shit over the xmas break
7. I did have rudimentary knowledge of all this stuff before watchign those shows.
So obviously we can create this kind of energy. I must have been confusing "not being able to fuse atoms together" with "not being able to fuse atoms together in an energy efficient manner" - i.e. the reason we dont get more out than in with our fusion energy attemts.
So if we can fuse hige Super Heavy atoms together, why can't we fuse lesser atoms together to make, say, gold?
I obviously have a flaw somewhere in my assumptions, if it's a simple one-liner, please tell me. Otherwise I will just go research it all again and find where I went wrong
Thanks for your time.
Tom...
Oh no, not again
my point? He'll have a tough time sueing them for damaging his computer.