If there's 110V AC on the data pins, those isolation transformers are toast. The router proc. may not crash, but it will most assuredly destroy the port.
OK, So I checked and to get a closer comparison of two new chips (the C7 is several years old now), Intel Atom (45nm) vs Via Nano (65nm).
Atom = 4 W.
Nano = 17W.
Keep in mind that the C7 has been shown to be faster than the Atom, and the Nano is twice as fast as the C7. On a performance/watt basis that puts Nano much closer to the Atom than even I thought.
Well, the Atom is 4W TPD while the C7 is 20W. Given that the Atom is a later generation process (45nm vs 65nm), this makes sense. I'd expect Isaiah aka Via Nano is going to do better (although not quite as good as Atom) once they get it into 45nm.
For a desktop machine, that's not as big a deal as it sounds though, because the matching "low power" northbridge and graphics tend to be a TDP of 5-20W by themselves. They mention in the article that 70% of the heat in the test system is generated by the 945G northbridge.
It's been said; but, just so that it rises above the noise... Get a couple of good directional antennas, and a couple of decent wireless routers and your set.
That said, I think if they are going to have a 21st century MacGyver, they need to rewrite his back story a bit. I think in the show he had a physics (and maybe chemistry?) degree, but for this decade they'd better give him a compsci/computer engineering degree instead
I take issue with this. I have an applied physics degree; and, I can write code and hack hardware as well as most with a cs or ce degree.
In fact, I am always amazed at just what we gratuitously stuff processors into. Digital coffee maker anyone?
I think having a physics degree would be adequate for MacGyver.
I regret to inform you that this isn't likely to happen for at least 50 years. The plans for the first manned Mars missions don't currently include nuclear power; although the VASIMR propulsion guys are basically saying that if you provide them with a nuclear power plant for their engine, they can cut Earth to Mars transport time to under 3 months. (That's using current technology). The VX-200 200kW engine is supposed to be test fired this year. I'd consider this to be one of the more exciting options since it's real, works, and is scalable.
the crew has no control over the parachute deployment.
That is probably a good thing, given than an incapacitated crew might not be in able to deploy. They are probably simple, robust systems based on altimeters.
I concur. However, there would also be important functions like retro-rockets and parachutes to consider. If you are operating the craft manually, you'd better be conscious to activate them.
I've heard this accusation before, but I don't grok it at all. My limited understanding was that anti-pollution devices were supposed to squelch unburned hydrocarbons emitted by inefficient engines. However, if your engine is more efficient -- if it more completely burns hydrocarbons -- then the emissions controls should be superfluous.
Well, to start with, the anti-pollution devices don't make the engine more efficient. They eliminate unburned hydrocarbons and nitrous oxides. Sometimes these anti-pollution systems actually use available horsepower to do their jobs. In some cases they reduce the efficiency of the engine, in order to reduce emissions.
One good example is the catalytic converter. It is in the exhaust stream, post combustion (usually mounted under the floor of the car). It works by catalytically combining oxygen, often pumped in, with any unburned hydrocarbon (CO, for example). Having the catalytic converter in the exhaust system acts as a restriction. So, it requires power to pump the oxygen it needs to do it's job, and it reduces the engines efficiency by increasing back-pressure.
I think you get the idea. I've read that the pollution control hardware costs the typical vehicle a couple of miles-per-gallon in efficiency
As to no longer needing them, once you improve the efficiency... Well, now that the laws are in place requiring the emission control systems to be included, it's always harder to undo a law, so there will be very little effort in that reguard. No politician wants to be known as the one who submitted the bill to remove the emission control devices. Particularly in today's political climate. In fact, the trend is to go the other way: If the engine becomes more efficient then the emission control system should be able to remove even more unburned hydrocarbons and nitrous oxides; and, the requirements therefore become stricter.
This lack of willingness to allow mass numbers of visitors in during the open houses might be more "political" than anything else. You could certainly rope off safe areas where you could run guided tours. Unfortunately, here in the U.S., the general public still has some irrational fears concerning anything "nuclear" or "radioactive" and you can't help but be exposed to the signage, placards, warning labels, etc.
Your right that the activated materials are short lived, typically with half-lives on the order of hours. At JLab (which is a very low energy facility compared to some others) we typically allow a cool-down period of a week or so, after the accelerator has shut down, before we start the serious work on the detector systems. There's very little risk associated with working around the equipment.
My point was, however, that once beam has been introduced into the end station, we no longer allowed people into the halls during the open houses. The only people who can go into the end stations, accelerator tunnels, and above ground facilities where we work on the equipment are staff, users, and escorted VIP guests. So, if you are going to go during an open house, if the CERN open house runs anything like the JLab open house, now is your last chance to get a good look at the equipment.
If you have any interest at all in the detectors or accelerator, now's the time. Spend your time there; because, you won't be able to "tour" it later. Once it's been running the equipment will become activated (as in radioactive) and the public will no longer be able to tour the underground facilities. There will likely be physicists and technicians on hand who will be happy (excited even) to talk about what they've built.
you can always go back and look at the computer center, control rooms, or whatever at a future open house event (which I'm certain they'll have regularly, to keep the public interested).
For what it's worth, I worked as a technician at a U.S. DOE facility
You miss the point. The cheapest ICBM of all: The standard 40' shipping container.
Line shipping container with shielding (reduces neutron signature)
install bomb in container
Set bomb to detonate when container is opened
Put container on ship, bound for foreign port.
wait for boom.
If you detonate a nuclear weapon in a port city, you're likely in a major city where you could do a lot of harm to people, property and logistical capability of the target country.
If I were a small country with, say, 5 crude atomic bombs, and I wanted to do maximum damage to the United States, I'd simply send containers to bogus addresses in New York, Norfolk, Savana, Los Angeles and Seattle. This is a somewhat arbitrary list, to which you can add or subtract cities based on desired effect and number of available weapons: All are in the top 10 ports by tonnage. All have large populations. All but NY have Naval bases. NY is the financial center of the U.S.
Think about that for a while... Think about how easy it would be. You want the customs or port security people to open the container. Hell, just put "bomb" on the packing list, once it gets to its destination, who cares?
I'm not trying to be a fear monger. I happen to live in one of those previously mentioned port cities and it's occured to me just how simple this would be. With an improvised 20kton weapon you could take out a naval base, a major port and rail terminal, and kill maybe 1/4 million people in one shot.
Not every piece of software has a license as clear-cut as "One copy per PC".
You'd think more people here on/. would know that. Look at the Visual Studio license:
You can have one copy installed on a desktop.
You can have another copy installed on a mobile machine, iff it's used by the same developer when their away from their desk (on travel).
You can have a copy installed on a third machine, for testing and debugging.
We recently got into this discussion with our IT guys over an audit. I have a copy installed at my desk. I have a copy installed on my test machine, which is in my office, so clearly I'm the one using it. They weren't sure whether to call that two licenses or one; so, I agreed to uninstall it from my test machine when I'm not using it. Since I wasn't using it at that moment that greatly simplified the problem.
You have to be careful... We thought we were included in our parent companies SA plan. Everyone here from the top down believed this to be true. When it came time to renew, we found we had never been included. It was called a "misunderstanding" by corporate headquarters. We had to stroke a check for over 100k to bring our facility up to date with Microsoft.
A subsidiary of the company I work for makes things that go boom, for the U.S. military. Typically the government assembles components made by contractors. I have done work at a national lab where we essentially had to design, prototype, build and test the equipment ourselves, since it was purpose built for an accelerator.
This is old news, came up during the design phase of the LHC. I heard a simple common sense based answer:
If high energy particle accelerators could create particles that could destroy the Earth, then you would see this effect all over the universe. Why, you ask? Because there are natural accelerators everywhere, many of energy much higher than anything we could hope to build on the Earth's surface
Slashdot Mirror
If there's 110V AC on the data pins, those isolation transformers are toast. The router proc. may not crash, but it will most assuredly destroy the port.
OK, So I checked and to get a closer comparison of two new chips (the C7 is several years old now), Intel Atom (45nm) vs Via Nano (65nm).
Atom = 4 W.
Nano = 17W.
Keep in mind that the C7 has been shown to be faster than the Atom, and the Nano is twice as fast as the C7. On a performance/watt basis that puts Nano much closer to the Atom than even I thought.
Well, the Atom is 4W TPD while the C7 is 20W. Given that the Atom is a later generation process (45nm vs 65nm), this makes sense. I'd expect Isaiah aka Via Nano is going to do better (although not quite as good as Atom) once they get it into 45nm.
For a desktop machine, that's not as big a deal as it sounds though, because the matching "low power" northbridge and graphics tend to be a TDP of 5-20W by themselves. They mention in the article that 70% of the heat in the test system is generated by the 945G northbridge.
Their benchmarks (for which there were no details) showed Atom was ~10% slower than a Via C7 ???
It's been said; but, just so that it rises above the noise... Get a couple of good directional antennas, and a couple of decent wireless routers and your set.
that the old IBM anti-virus from over a decade ago used an adaptive pre-emptive algorithm.
but, you just did!
by the way, birds fly into tall buildings and die; so, tall buildings = death!
I take issue with this. I have an applied physics degree; and, I can write code and hack hardware as well as most with a cs or ce degree.
In fact, I am always amazed at just what we gratuitously stuff processors into. Digital coffee maker anyone?
I think having a physics degree would be adequate for MacGyver.
I regret to inform you that this isn't likely to happen for at least 50 years. The plans for the first manned Mars missions don't currently include nuclear power; although the VASIMR propulsion guys are basically saying that if you provide them with a nuclear power plant for their engine, they can cut Earth to Mars transport time to under 3 months. (That's using current technology). The VX-200 200kW engine is supposed to be test fired this year. I'd consider this to be one of the more exciting options since it's real, works, and is scalable.
That is probably a good thing, given than an incapacitated crew might not be in able to deploy. They are probably simple, robust systems based on altimeters.
Sometimes you have to ask "What were they thinking?" Then pick your jaw up off the floor and move on...
I concur. However, there would also be important functions like retro-rockets and parachutes to consider. If you are operating the craft manually, you'd better be conscious to activate them.
Well, to start with, the anti-pollution devices don't make the engine more efficient. They eliminate unburned hydrocarbons and nitrous oxides. Sometimes these anti-pollution systems actually use available horsepower to do their jobs. In some cases they reduce the efficiency of the engine, in order to reduce emissions.
One good example is the catalytic converter. It is in the exhaust stream, post combustion (usually mounted under the floor of the car). It works by catalytically combining oxygen, often pumped in, with any unburned hydrocarbon (CO, for example). Having the catalytic converter in the exhaust system acts as a restriction. So, it requires power to pump the oxygen it needs to do it's job, and it reduces the engines efficiency by increasing back-pressure.
I think you get the idea. I've read that the pollution control hardware costs the typical vehicle a couple of miles-per-gallon in efficiency
As to no longer needing them, once you improve the efficiency... Well, now that the laws are in place requiring the emission control systems to be included, it's always harder to undo a law, so there will be very little effort in that reguard. No politician wants to be known as the one who submitted the bill to remove the emission control devices. Particularly in today's political climate. In fact, the trend is to go the other way: If the engine becomes more efficient then the emission control system should be able to remove even more unburned hydrocarbons and nitrous oxides; and, the requirements therefore become stricter.
A reply to myself, I had further insight...
This lack of willingness to allow mass numbers of visitors in during the open houses might be more "political" than anything else. You could certainly rope off safe areas where you could run guided tours. Unfortunately, here in the U.S., the general public still has some irrational fears concerning anything "nuclear" or "radioactive" and you can't help but be exposed to the signage, placards, warning labels, etc.
Maybe your in a better position in Europe?
Your right that the activated materials are short lived, typically with half-lives on the order of hours. At JLab (which is a very low energy facility compared to some others) we typically allow a cool-down period of a week or so, after the accelerator has shut down, before we start the serious work on the detector systems. There's very little risk associated with working around the equipment.
My point was, however, that once beam has been introduced into the end station, we no longer allowed people into the halls during the open houses. The only people who can go into the end stations, accelerator tunnels, and above ground facilities where we work on the equipment are staff, users, and escorted VIP guests. So, if you are going to go during an open house, if the CERN open house runs anything like the JLab open house, now is your last chance to get a good look at the equipment.
If you have any interest at all in the detectors or accelerator, now's the time. Spend your time there; because, you won't be able to "tour" it later. Once it's been running the equipment will become activated (as in radioactive) and the public will no longer be able to tour the underground facilities. There will likely be physicists and technicians on hand who will be happy (excited even) to talk about what they've built.
you can always go back and look at the computer center, control rooms, or whatever at a future open house event (which I'm certain they'll have regularly, to keep the public interested).
For what it's worth, I worked as a technician at a U.S. DOE facility
You miss the point. The cheapest ICBM of all: The standard 40' shipping container.
Line shipping container with shielding (reduces neutron signature)
install bomb in container
Set bomb to detonate when container is opened
Put container on ship, bound for foreign port.
wait for boom.
If you detonate a nuclear weapon in a port city, you're likely in a major city where you could do a lot of harm to people, property and logistical capability of the target country.
If I were a small country with, say, 5 crude atomic bombs, and I wanted to do maximum damage to the United States, I'd simply send containers to bogus addresses in New York, Norfolk, Savana, Los Angeles and Seattle. This is a somewhat arbitrary list, to which you can add or subtract cities based on desired effect and number of available weapons: All are in the top 10 ports by tonnage. All have large populations. All but NY have Naval bases. NY is the financial center of the U.S.
Think about that for a while... Think about how easy it would be. You want the customs or port security people to open the container. Hell, just put "bomb" on the packing list, once it gets to its destination, who cares?
I'm not trying to be a fear monger. I happen to live in one of those previously mentioned port cities and it's occured to me just how simple this would be. With an improvised 20kton weapon you could take out a naval base, a major port and rail terminal, and kill maybe 1/4 million people in one shot.
You'd think more people here on /. would know that. Look at the Visual Studio license:
You can have one copy installed on a desktop.
You can have another copy installed on a mobile machine, iff it's used by the same developer when their away from their desk (on travel).
You can have a copy installed on a third machine, for testing and debugging.
We recently got into this discussion with our IT guys over an audit. I have a copy installed at my desk. I have a copy installed on my test machine, which is in my office, so clearly I'm the one using it. They weren't sure whether to call that two licenses or one; so, I agreed to uninstall it from my test machine when I'm not using it. Since I wasn't using it at that moment that greatly simplified the problem.
I thought it was already an "arrogant organ of propaganda"
You have to be careful... We thought we were included in our parent companies SA plan. Everyone here from the top down believed this to be true. When it came time to renew, we found we had never been included. It was called a "misunderstanding" by corporate headquarters. We had to stroke a check for over 100k to bring our facility up to date with Microsoft.
A subsidiary of the company I work for makes things that go boom, for the U.S. military. Typically the government assembles components made by contractors. I have done work at a national lab where we essentially had to design, prototype, build and test the equipment ourselves, since it was purpose built for an accelerator.
A better picture would be customs inspectors checking shipping containers at a port.
This is old news, came up during the design phase of the LHC. I heard a simple common sense based answer:
If high energy particle accelerators could create particles that could destroy the Earth, then you would see this effect all over the universe. Why, you ask? Because there are natural accelerators everywhere, many of energy much higher than anything we could hope to build on the Earth's surface
It might be a T1. A T1 is only 1.5 Mbit. That's not enough bandwidth for a dorm full of MIT students who are all trying to play online games and hack.
Citation Provided: Google search "Robert Liburdy" DOE "Lawrence Berkeley Lab" and Fraud. In case you're too lazy, here's a few links
http://www.ncpa.org/pd/budget/pd081299a.html
http://www.lbl.gov/Publications/Currents/Archive/Aug-13-1999.html#RTFToC4
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940CE3DB133EF937A15754C0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2002/07/13/MN242131.DTL