Not even worth your time to discuss it..hahahahaha. OK, you're right, every company in the world uses network-drive-only setups, and bans their users from any writing to either linux scratch drives or C:\ (usually the location of MY DOCUMENTS). That's completely accurate...dws.
We're not talking SQL servers here, or customer information databases, we're talking average employees performing their business duties.
1) I was assuming they couldn't have been talking about long term storage, because no way an *average* user produces 10GB a year that needs long term storage.
2) You were assuming that somehow the average user produces 10GB a year that requires long-term storage.
There is no way that the average user generates 10GB of data that makes it into long-term storage in a year.
That's approximately 200MB of data a week. Most corporate users generate a few megs in email and a few megs in spreadsheets in a week.
Drive is 3-5x more expensive than $1 a gigabyte...raid level 5 means 2+ drives, we're to $6-10 already, then you say the majority of the cost wouldn't be in the media...
From working at a large university, three fortune 500 companies, and now the small business I work for, I don't think it's even suggestible that most user data is backed up in an out-sourced tape data center. That's an absurd suggestion. The vast majority of data never makes it off either a local hard drive or a temporary, lightly backed up network "drive".
No matter how you skew it, the numbers they came up with in the original post are absurd. Be it either how much the data costs to store, or how much data is being stored - one of those is way out of wack with reality.
On top of what you said - $5 a gigabyte? What is this 1998? Even if you get WD's highest quality consumer hard drives they're about $1 a gigabyte, plus if you buy them in bulk they're probably considerably cheaper. You can use 2 or 3 of them for data redundancy, and it's still significantly cheaper. I question where they got that number.
They're allowed to explore whatever they want on their own - but it is NOT the job of a *science* teacher to teach mythology, which is what creationism is. I'm all for teaching creationism in a mythology/religion class, that's what it is. But teaching it in science is like teaching algebra in a gym class - it's just not the place. Creationism is not a valid scientific theory, no matter how much creationists kick and scream about it. A scientific theory cannot be based off of an unprovable supernatural force, that's the anti-definition of science.
Teaching science appropriately is not indoctrination, it's education about how the world works.
Ignoring scientific fact to teach religious belief is indoctrination.
Not really. California has many many large industries aside from movies.
Alaska doesn't. Oil accounts for the vast, vast majority of income for that state. If oil income stopped in Alaska there would probably be a mass exodus (of the only 700k people), because it simply doesn't have the economy to support that population without oil. You can argue Alaska has a competent non-oil economy as much as you want, but if you look at the numbers, there's nothing to support that the economy could sustain itself sans-oil.
On top of that, Alaskans like to credit themselves as living an independent life from the government, but the truth is the federal-money-spent per Alaskan is higher than any other state.
Re:What happens when the engine loses oxygen?
on
Dolphin Inspired Mini-sub
·
· Score: 2, Informative
FTFA:
"It can do 20mph below the water. If you go below snorkel depth you run out of air for the engine and you stay under for 20 seconds before the craft will automatically surface. But with the snorkel system in use you can stay under for longer."
Your assumptions are quite flawed. You're suggesting people don't drive on their days off? I'd say that's probably the OPPOSITE of the truth (though it'd be an assumption on my part). On top of that you exclude a few long yearly trips into that mileage total.
And who cares if they drive 60 instead of 50 miles in a day, that's not the point of my post. The point is the car is so damn cheap per mile that it's nearly free compared to $4 a gallon in a gas engine. If they drive 60 miles a day, they're only paying for 10 miles, and those 10 are at a SIGNIFICANTLY lower rate than even the most efficient hybrid could provide (and that's not even considering that you already got 5/6th of your miles for free).
No, I don't. But I do think you need to work on your reading comprehension.
Tesla is talking of distributing *solar panels for your house* to use to charge the car, not solar panels for the roof of their *convertible* which you seem to be suggesting.
No offense, but I'd like to see some evidence to back up your claim that burning thousands of gallons of gasoline a year is negligible in comparison to the few hours of energy required to melt iron and carbon together into steel and assemble it in a plant with melted sand (silicon) and maybe a couple gallons of oil worth of plastic..
I can't see any way that the energy cost of producing a car can even approach that of a few years of use. And if you make the switch from a gasoline burner to a car that can run off the grid (meaning you could be getting fairly clean nuclear, wind, hydro energy as well as more efficiently produced fossil fuel energy) - it seems pretty clear to me that it's a bonus for the environment to buy a new electric car - if you can afford one.
You can't haul a lot of things around on a bicycle, nor can you get into work on a 105 degree day in business attire without being covered in sweat. I bet you'd be surprised how many people go less than 50 miles a day. 50 miles a day translates to nearly 20,000 miles a year. There are a *lot* of 5 year old cars that don't have 100k miles on them yet.
Cost of electricity is minimal because it is generated so much more efficiently in power plants than in a combustion engine, plus the potential for solar panels to be distributed with the tesla. Maintenance of an electric motor is SIGNIFICANTLY easier and cheaper than that of a combustion engine. And he factored the initial R&D price into the cost of the car when he used the ERP.
Because electric motors get nearly 100% efficiency from the electricity put into them, and power plants get CONSIDERABLY more energy out of fuel than gasoline car engines do (and usually use higher energy fuels than gasoline as well). Compared to $4 a gallon for really inefficient burning, it does cost close to zero dollars.
On TOP of this, Tesla is looking into distributing solar panels for your roof with the car that would be able to generate about 50 miles a day in energy. So if you travel less than 50 miles a day you would be driving completely for free.
Also maintenance of an electric motor is significantly cheaper than that of a traditional gas engine in a car, due to significantly less moving parts and not constantly trying to harness mini-explosions for power.
It doesn't say whether gromacs was built for floats or doubles. If floats then I could see PPC being very competitive due to altivec, but if it's in double than the x86_64 architecture should kill it, as right now (I just met with an IBM supercomputing team about a month ago) there is no way to do SIMD for doubles on the PPC chips.
Also to generalize gromacs==molecular dynamics is a bit silly. There are tons of other molecular dynamics packages out there. Also there is nothing special about a PPC chip that should make it better for molecular dynamics. In fact since double precision accuracy is usually necessary for true science, PPC chips should be at a disadvantage to x86 chips. If by some miracle gromacs had 3.0ghz ppc's performing better than 3.0ghz Opteron/Xeon's it's because their code was poorly written to utilize SIMD.
W/O the SPU's or graphics processor, the PS3 is actually a very slow machine. A $400 dell would be much faster at doing MD work (especially since gromacs probably has tons of x86 optimizations in it) than a PS3 would.
Did you ever think I don't want to go through and convert about 800 movie/tv-show files I have been using with linux media computers for about 6 years?
And they're not just "my files", I've been accumulating them from both encoding myself with mencoder and off various torrents for years.
The SPU's can do integer math very fast, the problem is all software has to have SPU optimization (which is not trivial) written into it in order to utilize the SPU's. The odds of that happening to something like GCC is nonexistent...who cares enough to do that...nobody. But programs that are actually considered necessities to run fast (mplayer/mencoder, X11 driver) have already been ported and will run blazingly fast using the SPU's.
Yes, because native ps3 sucks at playing divx/xvid. 100% of my h264 files don't play, and about 90% of my xvid files don't play on PS3's native player. The files almost have to be made with the ps3 in mind to play, it's really annoying.
not informative at all.
Wireless most certainly does work out of the box. As does bluetooth for both controllers and keyboards.
On top of that there's been a bunch of work to port CPU intensive things (like the framebuffer and mplayer/mencoder) to the SPU's. They're in various states, but mplayer at least is able to play most video files of any size seamlessly because it dumps it on the SPU's.
In the future, I'd suggest not attempting to write posts being informative on technology when your knowledge of the technology is clearly 18 months to 2 years old.
Since when is gromacs optimized for the cell? Gromacs sucks pretty bad at scaling as it is, but I don't think it'd even use the SPU's (from what I can tell it hasn't been optimized for the cell) - meaning you're basically running it on the processor of a 5 year old mac. Now if you optimized it for a cell...then this thing would be blazing.
The right to file share would have more to do with the right to distribute your own works in an affordable method. Lots of companies (and bands) are now using P2P to distribute their LEGAL content.
What you're suggesting is equivalent to saying that stopping people from printing should be legal because some people might print child pornography.
The ability to distribute and receive content in popular and easy ways would seem to be a very basic right.
* Ninth Amendment â" Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
It was put in there for a reason, to keep tyrannical laws from being passed that are clearly against rights that should be guaranteed to a human being but weren't specifically thought of during the writing of the constitution/BOR.
Slashdot Mirror
We're not talking SQL servers here, or customer information databases, we're talking average employees performing their business duties.
One of us is either making a wrong assumption:
1) I was assuming they couldn't have been talking about long term storage, because no way an *average* user produces 10GB a year that needs long term storage.
2) You were assuming that somehow the average user produces 10GB a year that requires long-term storage.
There is no way that the average user generates 10GB of data that makes it into long-term storage in a year.
That's approximately 200MB of data a week. Most corporate users generate a few megs in email and a few megs in spreadsheets in a week.
Drive is 3-5x more expensive than $1 a gigabyte...raid level 5 means 2+ drives, we're to $6-10 already, then you say the majority of the cost wouldn't be in the media...
From working at a large university, three fortune 500 companies, and now the small business I work for, I don't think it's even suggestible that most user data is backed up in an out-sourced tape data center. That's an absurd suggestion. The vast majority of data never makes it off either a local hard drive or a temporary, lightly backed up network "drive".
No matter how you skew it, the numbers they came up with in the original post are absurd. Be it either how much the data costs to store, or how much data is being stored - one of those is way out of wack with reality.
On top of what you said - $5 a gigabyte? What is this 1998? Even if you get WD's highest quality consumer hard drives they're about $1 a gigabyte, plus if you buy them in bulk they're probably considerably cheaper. You can use 2 or 3 of them for data redundancy, and it's still significantly cheaper. I question where they got that number.
They're allowed to explore whatever they want on their own - but it is NOT the job of a *science* teacher to teach mythology, which is what creationism is. I'm all for teaching creationism in a mythology/religion class, that's what it is. But teaching it in science is like teaching algebra in a gym class - it's just not the place. Creationism is not a valid scientific theory, no matter how much creationists kick and scream about it. A scientific theory cannot be based off of an unprovable supernatural force, that's the anti-definition of science.
Teaching science appropriately is not indoctrination, it's education about how the world works. Ignoring scientific fact to teach religious belief is indoctrination.
Alaska doesn't. Oil accounts for the vast, vast majority of income for that state. If oil income stopped in Alaska there would probably be a mass exodus (of the only 700k people), because it simply doesn't have the economy to support that population without oil. You can argue Alaska has a competent non-oil economy as much as you want, but if you look at the numbers, there's nothing to support that the economy could sustain itself sans-oil.
On top of that, Alaskans like to credit themselves as living an independent life from the government, but the truth is the federal-money-spent per Alaskan is higher than any other state.
"It can do 20mph below the water. If you go below snorkel depth you run out of air for the engine and you stay under for 20 seconds before the craft will automatically surface. But with the snorkel system in use you can stay under for longer."
And who cares if they drive 60 instead of 50 miles in a day, that's not the point of my post. The point is the car is so damn cheap per mile that it's nearly free compared to $4 a gallon in a gas engine. If they drive 60 miles a day, they're only paying for 10 miles, and those 10 are at a SIGNIFICANTLY lower rate than even the most efficient hybrid could provide (and that's not even considering that you already got 5/6th of your miles for free).
No, I don't. But I do think you need to work on your reading comprehension. Tesla is talking of distributing *solar panels for your house* to use to charge the car, not solar panels for the roof of their *convertible* which you seem to be suggesting.
Panels for the roof of your *house*, for charging, not for the roof of your car. The roof of a house is slightly larger than 5ft x 2ft.
I can't see any way that the energy cost of producing a car can even approach that of a few years of use. And if you make the switch from a gasoline burner to a car that can run off the grid (meaning you could be getting fairly clean nuclear, wind, hydro energy as well as more efficiently produced fossil fuel energy) - it seems pretty clear to me that it's a bonus for the environment to buy a new electric car - if you can afford one.
You can't haul a lot of things around on a bicycle, nor can you get into work on a 105 degree day in business attire without being covered in sweat. I bet you'd be surprised how many people go less than 50 miles a day. 50 miles a day translates to nearly 20,000 miles a year. There are a *lot* of 5 year old cars that don't have 100k miles on them yet.
Cost of electricity is minimal because it is generated so much more efficiently in power plants than in a combustion engine, plus the potential for solar panels to be distributed with the tesla. Maintenance of an electric motor is SIGNIFICANTLY easier and cheaper than that of a combustion engine. And he factored the initial R&D price into the cost of the car when he used the ERP.
On TOP of this, Tesla is looking into distributing solar panels for your roof with the car that would be able to generate about 50 miles a day in energy. So if you travel less than 50 miles a day you would be driving completely for free.
Also maintenance of an electric motor is significantly cheaper than that of a traditional gas engine in a car, due to significantly less moving parts and not constantly trying to harness mini-explosions for power.
Also those benchmarks are almost 3 years old! lol! The x86_64 architecture has made some pretty significant leaps and bounds in the last THREE YEARS .
Also to generalize gromacs==molecular dynamics is a bit silly. There are tons of other molecular dynamics packages out there. Also there is nothing special about a PPC chip that should make it better for molecular dynamics. In fact since double precision accuracy is usually necessary for true science, PPC chips should be at a disadvantage to x86 chips. If by some miracle gromacs had 3.0ghz ppc's performing better than 3.0ghz Opteron/Xeon's it's because their code was poorly written to utilize SIMD.
W/O the SPU's or graphics processor, the PS3 is actually a very slow machine. A $400 dell would be much faster at doing MD work (especially since gromacs probably has tons of x86 optimizations in it) than a PS3 would.
Did you ever think I don't want to go through and convert about 800 movie/tv-show files I have been using with linux media computers for about 6 years? And they're not just "my files", I've been accumulating them from both encoding myself with mencoder and off various torrents for years.
The SPU's can do integer math very fast, the problem is all software has to have SPU optimization (which is not trivial) written into it in order to utilize the SPU's. The odds of that happening to something like GCC is nonexistent...who cares enough to do that...nobody. But programs that are actually considered necessities to run fast (mplayer/mencoder, X11 driver) have already been ported and will run blazingly fast using the SPU's.
Yes, because native ps3 sucks at playing divx/xvid. 100% of my h264 files don't play, and about 90% of my xvid files don't play on PS3's native player. The files almost have to be made with the ps3 in mind to play, it's really annoying.
not informative at all. Wireless most certainly does work out of the box. As does bluetooth for both controllers and keyboards. On top of that there's been a bunch of work to port CPU intensive things (like the framebuffer and mplayer/mencoder) to the SPU's. They're in various states, but mplayer at least is able to play most video files of any size seamlessly because it dumps it on the SPU's. In the future, I'd suggest not attempting to write posts being informative on technology when your knowledge of the technology is clearly 18 months to 2 years old.
Since when is gromacs optimized for the cell? Gromacs sucks pretty bad at scaling as it is, but I don't think it'd even use the SPU's (from what I can tell it hasn't been optimized for the cell) - meaning you're basically running it on the processor of a 5 year old mac. Now if you optimized it for a cell...then this thing would be blazing.
What you're suggesting is equivalent to saying that stopping people from printing should be legal because some people might print child pornography.
The ability to distribute and receive content in popular and easy ways would seem to be a very basic right.
* Ninth Amendment â" Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
It was put in there for a reason, to keep tyrannical laws from being passed that are clearly against rights that should be guaranteed to a human being but weren't specifically thought of during the writing of the constitution/BOR.