Wrong, because even DOCSIS 2.0 supports 38 megabits/second. However, users are NEVER sold this full amount. They're sold a much lower cap.
For example, my Time Warner service is capped at 5 megabits/second. (The modem itself enforces this cap, probably modern headends double-check to make sure the modem has not been tampered with.) So it takes nearly 8 simultaneous full-downstream users before anyone sees evidence that their line is shared. For upstream, I have a cap of 512 kbps if I recall correctly. This means it'll take approximately 50 users saturating their upstream before I see any evidence of sharing of the 27 megabits/sec upstream channel.
The cable providers can pretty easily throw extra channels at the problem, splitting the load even more.
However, where the cable providers have underspent on infrastructure is their backhaul (e.g. their connection to the Internet). At this point they have the same problems as DSL users.
Well, at least to the credit of those trying to protect air travel - It takes a lot less effort to severely damage an airplane at altitude (thanks to the stresses of a pressurized cabin) to the point where it will not fly than it does to damage a ship or train to the point where it causes massive loss of life. (Although due to derailment, a train is probably easier.)
So a small bomb can take down a plane, but can't necessarily take out a ship or train, especially if in a cargo area.
And, by the meaning of "terrorist" (someone who uses fear and terror as a means of coercion), then that means that you have won even if not a single one of your bombs actually goes off.
There are some pretty low-end ARMs these days... Not sure where the Kinect's ARM falls.
I'm having difficulty finding specs on either the Marvell AP102 or the PrimeSense SOC. Keep in mind there are now ARMs (LPC1111) that cost on the order of $1 each. The AP102 is probably much beefier, but not THAT beefy especially compared to the Xbox 360's host CPU.
So having an ARM processor really means nothing these days in terms of how much processing is being done.
Yeah. Some people have claimed that Slashdot's response is being hypocritical, however, the key differences are:
MPAA/RIAA sues individual who downloads a song for personal use for $insane_amount per track/video. Person in question did not engage in any commercial activity related to the downloaded item. Some magazine steals a woman's article (not just the recipe, but the whole article word for word) and commences to use it as part of a commercial product (their magazine). Original author requests a $130 donation to a college and is denied.
Dark fiber is dark because in areas that needed 1 fiber, the additional cost to run a bundle of fibers was miniscule. (Labor costs to lay the fiber dominated the material costs.)
Probably on the line of 1 fiber might cost 100 million, and 100 fibers might cost 101 million.
So if we go past the capacity of one fiber, we can in theory light up another. In practice, there might be space constraints at the endpoints that weren't thought of when the big bundles were laid down.
As the other poster said, a conventional vehicle typically pays only 20-30% mileage penalty when transitioning from highway to city driving.
Any hybrid vehicle should pay FAR less penalty when transitioning. In addition, we're likely to eventually reach a point where hybrids get MORE mileage on the EPA city cycle than highway due to the fact that they are operating at lower speeds (hence spending far less energy fighting aerodynamic resistance).
So a hybrid vehicle that takes a 50% performance hit when transitioning from highway to city says to me, "fabricated numbers".
There are plenty of vehicles superior in snow to a 4x4. In fact, 4x4s with "selected" 4WD (which locks all the wheels together) is potentially worse in snow and ice than a proper AWD system.
There are plenty of good AWD systems in cars that are far more environmentally friendly than your megapickup. Throw snow tires on basically any Subaru (or Audi, but they're quite expensive in both purchase price and maintenance) and you can godmode it through most ice and snow.
Note: For really deep snow you'll need an Outback or Forester to avoid highcentering.
In this case, function (Aerodynamics) dictates form.
My question is: 200 motorway, 100 city? This is FAR worse than the typical performance hit you see for conventional vehicles, and is abysmal for a hybrid. (Regenerative braking means you should pay very little penalty in city fuel economy, and if air resistance dominates your energy expenditures, city might even be more efficient due to the lower speeds involved.)
Also: Is that on a pure hybrid cycle, or is that with the "electric cheat" of saying a plug-in hybrid gets (insane number) miles to the gallon (however, the number is highly dependent on driving patterns and what portion of the energy is from plugin charge vs. from liquid fuel)
Last but not least: Does this vehicle meet all United States crash safety standards? Most of these "super high mileage" hybrids don't, so we'll never see mileage numbers like that in a real road-legal vehicle.
It's the same reason that by the time I got laid off at my first job after finishing my undergraduate degree, I was already planning on leaving the company voluntarily.
The work was the most interesting work I have ever done, however the corporate culture at the company was AWFUL. (Actually, it was a bit of a "clash" situation - it was a small startup that got bought by a larger company. As the larger company asserted more control, things got unpleasant very quickly. The larger company had more of a focus on manufacturing and passive components, and didn't seem to know how to manage a high-tech startup in a highly competitive environment.)
I think the question is - How much money is behind the fork? What status do the 33 that left have within the project? Are they smaller contributors or core devs?
If most of those that are left are volunteer developers with little financial backing, it might not go as well as X.org did.
In the case of X.org, it was founded by a number of core developers, many of whom had financial backing (primarily from distribution vendors), and it was a very short period of time before other distribution vendors and other companies depending on X "jumped in" and started pumping money in.
The thing is that OO is not quite as core of a component as the X server is, so - will distro vendors and others pump as much financial backing into the project? Is as much financial backing needed?
Also, while most of the issues with particulate emissions from diesel have been solved, solving the issue of raised NOx emissions is more difficult and so far has required tricks that involve injecting an additional urea-based substance into the exhaust.
Gasoline Direct Injection (GDI) is starting to hit the market with pretty rapid deployment, and has many of the advantages of diesel (fuel economy) without the disadvantages (NOx emissions), however it doesn't have ready availability of a biofuel.
However right now our biofuel production isn't easily scalable to a mass deployment of biodiesel.
What I see is: Significant increase in complexity - three piston rods per cylinder, six crankshaft attachments to rods per cylinder pair - plus piston rods on the outside of the engine block.
Good for small engines, but massive increase in complexity and size for more than one cylinder pair.
Also, much of the claimed advantage of cylinder shutdown is negated by gasoline direct injection (an alternative method to reducing pumping losses at low power levels).
Having finally found some details, it is quite a bit different from the horizontally opposed approaches of Subaru/Porsche/VW/Textron Lycoming/Continental (the latter two are aircraft engine manufacturers).
However, it doesn't seem "simpler" to me - it appears to require three piston rods per cylinder (one for the inner piston, two for the outer - a single rod for the outer would result in some significant torque on the pistons from having an edge-mounted rod. Also, this means you have crankshaft rods going OUTSIDE of the engine block.
All in all it looks to be a hell of a lot more complex than a traditional one piston per cylinder design.
Especially since they give little details as to what is so special about their engine.
"Opposing piston, opposing cylinder" is nothing new and is known for being good for improving balance and reducing vibration. See: Porsche Boxster (Flat-4?), Porsche 911 (I think most if not all 911s have a Flat-6), all Subaru engines (Flat-4 or Flat-6, called "H4 and H6" by Subaru to indicate that they are horizontally opposed engines), and nearly all modern piston aircraft engines.
There's nothing fundamentally good about this design as far as fuel economy goes. In fact, Subaru is a bit behind in terms of piston engine efficiency, although it's hard to make an apples-to-apples comparison of engines, as all Subarus are AWD, and AWD is known for being somewhat detrimental to fuel efficiency on a system (e.g. vehicle) level.
Now for engine efficiency itself, GDI is leading to significant improvements in piston engine efficiency. (See Ford EcoBoost, which is a turbocharged GDI, and the new Hyundai Sonata GDI engines). They aren't as efficient as diesel engines (While they have a higher than traditional compression ratio, they're still lower than diesel), but do have the benefit of reduced pumping losses that diesel does (Note: this particular benefit negates one of the benefits of hybrid vehicles, which is keeping the engine outside of a state where it experiences significant pumping losses), without the NOx and particulate emissions issues that diesel engines do.
Nearly all of these supercomputers are just that - VERY large clusters.
Although in many cases they have specialized communications backplanes for communications between nodes with capabilities (such as low latency) that can't be achieved with geographically distributed clusters. (Note the mention of parts from Intel and Nvidia, combined with undefined "domestic" communications silicon.)
Also note that geographic distribution leads to all sorts of information assurance nightmares when you're simulating nukes...
There will always be problems that require large amounts of computing power. In some cases, increases in computing power make previously unworkable problems feasible to throw a computer at.
Just because today's PCs are more powerful than older supercomputers doesn't mean there is going to be demand for capabilities at the upper end of the computing power spectrum.
In this case - A large number of the top computers in the world are used for nuclear weapons simulations. (You can't test them any more due to test ban treaties, so you have to simulate them.) So China ramping up their computing power is a bit scary. Note that it was apparently created by a "University for Defense Technology" of some sort.
(Note: I can't read TFA, as it appears to be trying to give me a popup ad, but the big square covering the article is blank and has no close button. However I've seen one or two smaller articles regarding this new system.)
Slashdot Mirror
Wrong, because even DOCSIS 2.0 supports 38 megabits/second. However, users are NEVER sold this full amount. They're sold a much lower cap.
For example, my Time Warner service is capped at 5 megabits/second. (The modem itself enforces this cap, probably modern headends double-check to make sure the modem has not been tampered with.) So it takes nearly 8 simultaneous full-downstream users before anyone sees evidence that their line is shared. For upstream, I have a cap of 512 kbps if I recall correctly. This means it'll take approximately 50 users saturating their upstream before I see any evidence of sharing of the 27 megabits/sec upstream channel.
The cable providers can pretty easily throw extra channels at the problem, splitting the load even more.
However, where the cable providers have underspent on infrastructure is their backhaul (e.g. their connection to the Internet). At this point they have the same problems as DSL users.
Never mind - someone did post a location of W-537, and it doesn't match the location stated by the news reports.
http://skyvector.com/?ll=34.03656120385772,-121.69918142437554&chart=24&zoom=5
Most likely it was a classified test and the Navy representative question didn't have a need-to-know.
See post below from mp3LM - apparently NOTAMs were sent out for this area as part of an unspecified NAWC test.
Well, at least to the credit of those trying to protect air travel - It takes a lot less effort to severely damage an airplane at altitude (thanks to the stresses of a pressurized cabin) to the point where it will not fly than it does to damage a ship or train to the point where it causes massive loss of life. (Although due to derailment, a train is probably easier.)
So a small bomb can take down a plane, but can't necessarily take out a ship or train, especially if in a cargo area.
"If you haven’t tried Chrome yet, remember to download the browser before you take to the skies, or try it when you’re back on the ground."
Three words: local airborne cache
And, by the meaning of "terrorist" (someone who uses fear and terror as a means of coercion), then that means that you have won even if not a single one of your bombs actually goes off.
There are some pretty low-end ARMs these days... Not sure where the Kinect's ARM falls.
I'm having difficulty finding specs on either the Marvell AP102 or the PrimeSense SOC. Keep in mind there are now ARMs (LPC1111) that cost on the order of $1 each. The AP102 is probably much beefier, but not THAT beefy especially compared to the Xbox 360's host CPU.
So having an ARM processor really means nothing these days in terms of how much processing is being done.
Yeah. Some people have claimed that Slashdot's response is being hypocritical, however, the key differences are:
MPAA/RIAA sues individual who downloads a song for personal use for $insane_amount per track/video. Person in question did not engage in any commercial activity related to the downloaded item.
Some magazine steals a woman's article (not just the recipe, but the whole article word for word) and commences to use it as part of a commercial product (their magazine). Original author requests a $130 donation to a college and is denied.
His point is that need is increasing.
Dark fiber is dark because in areas that needed 1 fiber, the additional cost to run a bundle of fibers was miniscule. (Labor costs to lay the fiber dominated the material costs.)
Probably on the line of 1 fiber might cost 100 million, and 100 fibers might cost 101 million.
So if we go past the capacity of one fiber, we can in theory light up another. In practice, there might be space constraints at the endpoints that weren't thought of when the big bundles were laid down.
As TFA implies, selection has improved greatly over the past year or two.
As the other poster said, a conventional vehicle typically pays only 20-30% mileage penalty when transitioning from highway to city driving.
Any hybrid vehicle should pay FAR less penalty when transitioning. In addition, we're likely to eventually reach a point where hybrids get MORE mileage on the EPA city cycle than highway due to the fact that they are operating at lower speeds (hence spending far less energy fighting aerodynamic resistance).
So a hybrid vehicle that takes a 50% performance hit when transitioning from highway to city says to me, "fabricated numbers".
Motorcycles are registered in a completely different class than automotives.
The class is formally defined in such a way that a vehicle like this can't be registered as a motorcycle.
There are plenty of vehicles superior in snow to a 4x4. In fact, 4x4s with "selected" 4WD (which locks all the wheels together) is potentially worse in snow and ice than a proper AWD system.
There are plenty of good AWD systems in cars that are far more environmentally friendly than your megapickup. Throw snow tires on basically any Subaru (or Audi, but they're quite expensive in both purchase price and maintenance) and you can godmode it through most ice and snow.
Note: For really deep snow you'll need an Outback or Forester to avoid highcentering.
In this case, function (Aerodynamics) dictates form.
My question is:
200 motorway, 100 city? This is FAR worse than the typical performance hit you see for conventional vehicles, and is abysmal for a hybrid. (Regenerative braking means you should pay very little penalty in city fuel economy, and if air resistance dominates your energy expenditures, city might even be more efficient due to the lower speeds involved.)
Also:
Is that on a pure hybrid cycle, or is that with the "electric cheat" of saying a plug-in hybrid gets (insane number) miles to the gallon (however, the number is highly dependent on driving patterns and what portion of the energy is from plugin charge vs. from liquid fuel)
Last but not least:
Does this vehicle meet all United States crash safety standards? Most of these "super high mileage" hybrids don't, so we'll never see mileage numbers like that in a real road-legal vehicle.
The think is that it is produced in response to the presence of a virus.
What happens to a cell that sees TRIM21 when not infected? I suspect bad things, there's a reason that mechanism isn't always active.
It's the same reason that by the time I got laid off at my first job after finishing my undergraduate degree, I was already planning on leaving the company voluntarily.
The work was the most interesting work I have ever done, however the corporate culture at the company was AWFUL. (Actually, it was a bit of a "clash" situation - it was a small startup that got bought by a larger company. As the larger company asserted more control, things got unpleasant very quickly. The larger company had more of a focus on manufacturing and passive components, and didn't seem to know how to manage a high-tech startup in a highly competitive environment.)
I think the question is - How much money is behind the fork? What status do the 33 that left have within the project? Are they smaller contributors or core devs?
If most of those that are left are volunteer developers with little financial backing, it might not go as well as X.org did.
In the case of X.org, it was founded by a number of core developers, many of whom had financial backing (primarily from distribution vendors), and it was a very short period of time before other distribution vendors and other companies depending on X "jumped in" and started pumping money in.
The thing is that OO is not quite as core of a component as the X server is, so - will distro vendors and others pump as much financial backing into the project? Is as much financial backing needed?
Also, while most of the issues with particulate emissions from diesel have been solved, solving the issue of raised NOx emissions is more difficult and so far has required tricks that involve injecting an additional urea-based substance into the exhaust.
Gasoline Direct Injection (GDI) is starting to hit the market with pretty rapid deployment, and has many of the advantages of diesel (fuel economy) without the disadvantages (NOx emissions), however it doesn't have ready availability of a biofuel.
However right now our biofuel production isn't easily scalable to a mass deployment of biodiesel.
What I see is: Significant increase in complexity - three piston rods per cylinder, six crankshaft attachments to rods per cylinder pair - plus piston rods on the outside of the engine block.
Good for small engines, but massive increase in complexity and size for more than one cylinder pair.
Also, much of the claimed advantage of cylinder shutdown is negated by gasoline direct injection (an alternative method to reducing pumping losses at low power levels).
Having finally found some details, it is quite a bit different from the horizontally opposed approaches of Subaru/Porsche/VW/Textron Lycoming/Continental (the latter two are aircraft engine manufacturers).
However, it doesn't seem "simpler" to me - it appears to require three piston rods per cylinder (one for the inner piston, two for the outer - a single rod for the outer would result in some significant torque on the pistons from having an edge-mounted rod. Also, this means you have crankshaft rods going OUTSIDE of the engine block.
All in all it looks to be a hell of a lot more complex than a traditional one piston per cylinder design.
Especially since they give little details as to what is so special about their engine.
"Opposing piston, opposing cylinder" is nothing new and is known for being good for improving balance and reducing vibration. See: Porsche Boxster (Flat-4?), Porsche 911 (I think most if not all 911s have a Flat-6), all Subaru engines (Flat-4 or Flat-6, called "H4 and H6" by Subaru to indicate that they are horizontally opposed engines), and nearly all modern piston aircraft engines.
There's nothing fundamentally good about this design as far as fuel economy goes. In fact, Subaru is a bit behind in terms of piston engine efficiency, although it's hard to make an apples-to-apples comparison of engines, as all Subarus are AWD, and AWD is known for being somewhat detrimental to fuel efficiency on a system (e.g. vehicle) level.
Now for engine efficiency itself, GDI is leading to significant improvements in piston engine efficiency. (See Ford EcoBoost, which is a turbocharged GDI, and the new Hyundai Sonata GDI engines). They aren't as efficient as diesel engines (While they have a higher than traditional compression ratio, they're still lower than diesel), but do have the benefit of reduced pumping losses that diesel does (Note: this particular benefit negates one of the benefits of hybrid vehicles, which is keeping the engine outside of a state where it experiences significant pumping losses), without the NOx and particulate emissions issues that diesel engines do.
Yeah, but how long will it stay that way? The writing is on the wall, there is a clear trend in the locked-down direction.
I'm fairly certain Linpack (the standard metric) requires decent connectivity if it is to scale.
Nearly all of these supercomputers are just that - VERY large clusters.
Although in many cases they have specialized communications backplanes for communications between nodes with capabilities (such as low latency) that can't be achieved with geographically distributed clusters. (Note the mention of parts from Intel and Nvidia, combined with undefined "domestic" communications silicon.)
Also note that geographic distribution leads to all sorts of information assurance nightmares when you're simulating nukes...
There will always be problems that require large amounts of computing power. In some cases, increases in computing power make previously unworkable problems feasible to throw a computer at.
Just because today's PCs are more powerful than older supercomputers doesn't mean there is going to be demand for capabilities at the upper end of the computing power spectrum.
In this case - A large number of the top computers in the world are used for nuclear weapons simulations. (You can't test them any more due to test ban treaties, so you have to simulate them.) So China ramping up their computing power is a bit scary. Note that it was apparently created by a "University for Defense Technology" of some sort.
(Note: I can't read TFA, as it appears to be trying to give me a popup ad, but the big square covering the article is blank and has no close button. However I've seen one or two smaller articles regarding this new system.)