And probably almost half of all humans who have ever lived (remember, that's bit over 100 billion, almost all dead and demonstrably forgotten) didn't survive their first year.
Total number of humans who have died to this point is around 100 billion. All of over 6 billion humans alive today will be dead very, very quickly (all things considered); and forgotten, most likely not a trace behind them. Nothing. Who knows how many untold billions will be born into the same fate.
Taking the above into consideration...how can you sleep at night? (if some fiction which actually presents quite attractive scenario creeps you out...)
Deprecation which doesn't mean much if one wants to simply run many of the older games, using tech which should work in the OS and drivers right now. Older games, for which Intel gfx was supposed to be "fine"...
No, it doesn't utilize two; it's visually intimidating for sure, needlessly overcomplicated, but the Wiki link above points to an image which is functionally equivalent - external gearwheel, internal gearwheel; and third one (in the wiki link being a symmetrical group, not just one), movement of which negotiates the relation between internal and external.
What are you talking about? On good current integrated graphics many recent games work quite well; mostly "flagship", bling-oriented titles have issues.
"Lean car -> SUV" probably rings closer to home...
Not that I'm anymore happier Google's products taking over everything...
It's not like Chromium is anywhere close to that; it grows, sure, but this time it might bring honest adherence to standards instead of a kind of duaopoly, making websites to work with "IE+FF" that was semi-common for some time. Even if they are only slightly better than FF with standards at this point; this post means they rather care.
Good for me, and any user of the browser which is closest to the bullseye. And good for the web.
Intel GFX is shit for many games, especially older ones (considering their state of drivers); they have problems with old 2D Direct(smth...2D?) games since Vista drivers FFS.
At least they manage to run properly one of the most popular FPS games ever, lucky you...
With Intel's offerings the thing is that they don't really have any advantages (except perhaps making 3rd party chipsets less attractive for OEMs, but that's a plus only for Intel). They didn't end up cheaper in any way (ok, a bit too soon to tell...but do you really have some hope?). They are certainly a bit faster - but still too slow; and anyway it doesn't matter much with the state of Intel drivers.
AMD integrated GFX has already very clear advantages. This new variant, integrated with the CPU, while certainly simpler than standalone parts, might make up for it with much higher clock and wide data bus. Edning quite attractive.
Actually, the situation might be reversed this time; sure, that Intel quadcores weren't "real" didn't matter much, because their underlying architecture was very good.
In contrast, Intel GFX is shit compared to AMD. The former can usually do all "daily" things (at least for now, who knows if it will keep up with more and more general usage of GPUs...)' the latter, even in integrated form, is suprisingly sensible even for most games, excluding some of the latest ones.
Plus, if AMD throws this GPU on one die, it means it will be probably manufactured at Global Foundries = probably smaller process and much more speed.
Well, I'm trying to approach this (I think...) as a general "transfer of energy". There are two easy situations - a) "max gear" when the "control" is locked and everything can go only to the wheels, nowhere else; and b) "neutral" when it's allowed to go towards spinning the "control" (when the latter can be basically free-wheeling)
What happens between them? What's stopping the "main" engine from propelling almost only...the "control" shaft once it encounters some "outside" resistance? It would be easier than the goal of moving the vehicle after all, unless: - there's some notable input of energy at "control" which resists that(?) - so shouldn't there be another non-trivial engine there? (with...varrying RPM) Or, hell, "classic" gearbox driving the "control" shaft... - overused mechanical brake? - so "no friction" part goes out the window.
Am I lost or perhaps reasonably close after all to what you mention in previous post?
With me wondering whether or not it's semi-sensible to attach such tag, it was more about suspecting that the "control" shaft contributes actually a bit more than low power. Sure, it's easy at neutral, also easy at "max gear" (when the "control" is at a stop, might as well be locked by some internal brake) - but isn't it possible that between those points there will quite a bit of potentiall for "control" supplying large part of power? But it's not visible in demonstrations done practically without any load.
Also, the situation at reverse appears to be...funny? With the "control" working to move the vehicle in the desired direction, and "main" working...against it? (so you might as well disconnect it)
All the more reason for not remaining one of only two places which use that metric (those two with different value of "gallon" anyway...). People don't think well in reciprocal functions, they think linearly; just like the amount of fuel used per distance behaves.
As a sidenote large part of the world can't help but scratch their heads and wonder what's the big deal with your new "efficient" cars...they merely come close to, say, my decade old (checking google calculator) 55mpg one.
But basically it seems to be the saem part but operated in way / with the "goal" of keeping the engine at constant RPM... (however much power would be required from "control" shaft to do that)
Re:Sorry, just one more science fiction joke
on
The Laser Turns 50
·
· Score: 2, Funny
2012: 50 year birthday for the visible-spectrum LED, without which no advanced machines could be build!
And without those making the serious computers, with a wall of blinking lights, would be so much harder...
Completelly different? How is that invention not, basically, an epicyclic differential? (but slightly more problematic, not symmetric in contruction) Apparently used in Prius. There are different torques involved, too...
But is has two inputs; the second is just called "control" in those demonstrations, and "very small electric engine" is enough since there's not much load.
I'm not sure about not needing a lot of power; sure, definitely not in neutral, and not at "max gear", when it can be simply locked to not fight & keep the "control" shaft in proper position. But in between those two a large part of power will often have to come from "control", there's no way around it. OK, you keep the RPM of the "main" engine constant - but that's not its only property. From where comes counterbalancing for fluctuating torque?
Might still be mighty usefull for simple, cheap hybrids.
Yet...a string of dissapointments
on
The Laser Turns 50
·
· Score: 5, Funny
Still no succesful integration with friggin' sharks...:(
ISS is a good training ground though; main differences with some serious spacecraft being lack of shielding and weak propulsion (both easily modelled); and seems it will be assembled and serviced in a sensibly cost-efficient way from...quite soon.
If only the training ground was treated more seriously..."you wanted to be an astronaut? Five years on the ISS, no view of the Earth or Moon, no contact with visiting crews, broadcast delay, etc.", for example.
Slashdot Mirror
And probably almost half of all humans who have ever lived (remember, that's bit over 100 billion, almost all dead and demonstrably forgotten) didn't survive their first year.
So, so...sad :(
Total number of humans who have died to this point is around 100 billion. All of over 6 billion humans alive today will be dead very, very quickly (all things considered); and forgotten, most likely not a trace behind them. Nothing.
Who knows how many untold billions will be born into the same fate.
Taking the above into consideration...how can you sleep at night? (if some fiction which actually presents quite attractive scenario creeps you out...)
Deprecation which doesn't mean much if one wants to simply run many of the older games, using tech which should work in the OS and drivers right now. Older games, for which Intel gfx was supposed to be "fine"...
No, it doesn't utilize two; it's visually intimidating for sure, needlessly overcomplicated, but the Wiki link above points to an image which is functionally equivalent - external gearwheel, internal gearwheel; and third one (in the wiki link being a symmetrical group, not just one), movement of which negotiates the relation between internal and external.
You're behind the times.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATI_Hybrid_Graphics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalable_Link_Interface#Hybrid_SLI
What are you talking about? On good current integrated graphics many recent games work quite well; mostly "flagship", bling-oriented titles have issues.
"Lean car -> SUV" probably rings closer to home...
Is your CPU + motherboard combo cheaper than typical combo from some other manufacturer that has notably higher performance and compatibility?
With greater usage of GPUs for general computation, the point is that not only gamers "give a fuck" nowadays.
PS. If something runs HL2, it can run Portal. As my old Radeon 8500 did, hence also certainly integrated 9100 of parent poster.
Not that I'm anymore happier Google's products taking over everything...
It's not like Chromium is anywhere close to that; it grows, sure, but this time it might bring honest adherence to standards instead of a kind of duaopoly, making websites to work with "IE+FF" that was semi-common for some time. Even if they are only slightly better than FF with standards at this point; this post means they rather care.
Good for me, and any user of the browser which is closest to the bullseye. And good for the web.
you have to have a certain amount of cash on-hand ...and the bigger you are, the less that has to be, proportionally; right?
...or you could just use a symmetrical, and accidentally much more clear to visualise mentally, existing variant of this "invention" from TFA.
Intel GFX is shit for many games, especially older ones (considering their state of drivers); they have problems with old 2D Direct(smth...2D?) games since Vista drivers FFS.
At least they manage to run properly one of the most popular FPS games ever, lucky you...
...But does it have any disadvantages?...
With Intel's offerings the thing is that they don't really have any advantages (except perhaps making 3rd party chipsets less attractive for OEMs, but that's a plus only for Intel). They didn't end up cheaper in any way (ok, a bit too soon to tell...but do you really have some hope?). They are certainly a bit faster - but still too slow; and anyway it doesn't matter much with the state of Intel drivers.
AMD integrated GFX has already very clear advantages. This new variant, integrated with the CPU, while certainly simpler than standalone parts, might make up for it with much higher clock and wide data bus. Edning quite attractive.
Actually, the situation might be reversed this time; sure, that Intel quadcores weren't "real" didn't matter much, because their underlying architecture was very good.
In contrast, Intel GFX is shit compared to AMD. The former can usually do all "daily" things (at least for now, who knows if it will keep up with more and more general usage of GPUs...)' the latter, even in integrated form, is suprisingly sensible even for most games, excluding some of the latest ones.
Plus, if AMD throws this GPU on one die, it means it will be probably manufactured at Global Foundries = probably smaller process and much more speed.
Yup; SDI on top of that.
(though they were not only put strictly into VW, at least as far as the badge is concerned...)
Well, I'm trying to approach this (I think...) as a general "transfer of energy". There are two easy situations - a) "max gear" when the "control" is locked and everything can go only to the wheels, nowhere else; and b) "neutral" when it's allowed to go towards spinning the "control" (when the latter can be basically free-wheeling)
What happens between them? What's stopping the "main" engine from propelling almost only...the "control" shaft once it encounters some "outside" resistance? It would be easier than the goal of moving the vehicle after all, unless:
- there's some notable input of energy at "control" which resists that(?) - so shouldn't there be another non-trivial engine there? (with...varrying RPM) Or, hell, "classic" gearbox driving the "control" shaft...
- overused mechanical brake? - so "no friction" part goes out the window.
Am I lost or perhaps reasonably close after all to what you mention in previous post?
With me wondering whether or not it's semi-sensible to attach such tag, it was more about suspecting that the "control" shaft contributes actually a bit more than low power. Sure, it's easy at neutral, also easy at "max gear" (when the "control" is at a stop, might as well be locked by some internal brake) - but isn't it possible that between those points there will quite a bit of potentiall for "control" supplying large part of power?
But it's not visible in demonstrations done practically without any load.
Also, the situation at reverse appears to be...funny? With the "control" working to move the vehicle in the desired direction, and "main" working...against it? (so you might as well disconnect it)
I take it it's safe to regard this as a kind of perpetuum mobile, assuming we're going with the claims from inventor and "journalists"?
All the more reason for not remaining one of only two places which use that metric (those two with different value of "gallon" anyway...). People don't think well in reciprocal functions, they think linearly; just like the amount of fuel used per distance behaves.
As a sidenote large part of the world can't help but scratch their heads and wonder what's the big deal with your new "efficient" cars...they merely come close to, say, my decade old (checking google calculator) 55mpg one.
But basically it seems to be the saem part but operated in way / with the "goal" of keeping the engine at constant RPM... (however much power would be required from "control" shaft to do that)
2012: 50 year birthday for the visible-spectrum LED, without which no advanced machines could be build!
And without those making the serious computers, with a wall of blinking lights, would be so much harder...
Completelly different? How is that invention not, basically, an epicyclic differential? (but slightly more problematic, not symmetric in contruction) Apparently used in Prius. There are different torques involved, too...
But is has two inputs; the second is just called "control" in those demonstrations, and "very small electric engine" is enough since there's not much load.
I'm not sure about not needing a lot of power; sure, definitely not in neutral, and not at "max gear", when it can be simply locked to not fight & keep the "control" shaft in proper position. But in between those two a large part of power will often have to come from "control", there's no way around it. OK, you keep the RPM of the "main" engine constant - but that's not its only property. From where comes counterbalancing for fluctuating torque?
Might still be mighty usefull for simple, cheap hybrids.
Still no succesful integration with friggin' sharks... :(
ISS is a good training ground though; main differences with some serious spacecraft being lack of shielding and weak propulsion (both easily modelled); and seems it will be assembled and serviced in a sensibly cost-efficient way from...quite soon.
If only the training ground was treated more seriously..."you wanted to be an astronaut? Five years on the ISS, no view of the Earth or Moon, no contact with visiting crews, broadcast delay, etc.", for example.