95% to 99% of computer users do
internet
email
light document work for which google apps, pages or the other apps out there are more than good enough
photo editing - there are photo editing apps in both markets and as long as they are as good enough as the current version of iphoto it will be good enough for most people
Yes. That's been true for 15 years and yet MS and Intel are still on top. People understand their own needs change over time and the mix of software may need to change as well. If you don't know what you might need to use a year or two down the road, it makes sense to buy the platform with the most available software even if there are other platforms that suit your current needs.
When Intel moves to 14 nm in 2014 will their offerings be using more power? Seems unlikely. Intel doesn't need the best architecture if it can stay ahead of its rivals in manufacturing.
Quite a few people are asking this question. The problem is you can't answer it unless you know exactly what kinds of conflicts we'll be in for the next 30 years.
You didn't pay $150m for your blu-ray player. Your idea of "high-def" and the military's idea of "high-def" are totally at odds. A 1080p stream from that altitude would be worthless.
I'm pretty sure you're not going to get the real number from wikipedia, particularly if it involves a system that can be upgraded without changing the air frame.
For that sensor package. The problem with speculating about required bandwidth is it really depends on what kind of sensors are there. When I was working with satellites we had some gigabit plus streams, so it's not difficult at all for me to believe they have a package that requires 500Mb/sec. Particularly since the stuff they're putting on Global Hawk is reputed to be satellite quality sensors.
The army allows noncoms to fly drones. Officers in the air force jealously guard their turf, even though most of the early combat pilots weren't officers.
I doubt that. The last analysis I read says the division is profitable over time, including the time value of money. Not hugely profitable, but they're in a pretty good position to make money going forward. It's been, what, three or four years since they started making money on the hardware?
Seems like the other way around to me. Apple desktops and workstations would be a fond memory but for the introduction of the iPod and its successors. The iOS devices play well with other Apple hardware, which has allowed the company to reclaim some lost ground on the desktop..
The problem is that it all breaks down when that doctor has to enter a long note to go along with that chart. My doctor's office tried to use tablets and then went right back to notebooks. Text entry is just too slow and painful. Heck, even typing in a medium-length URL is a chore.
Microsoft didn't have any competence in the console market either. But if you throw enough cash at a product line and manage it properly you're going to get a winner eventually. Even the Zune could have been successful if Microsoft had poured enough money into it.
Google is in the same position Microsoft was a decade ago. It has money coming out its ears and not much to buy. Samsung could annoy Google enough that Google gets into the mobile business. Just like Microsoft and the xbox, Google can afford to lose money every year pretty much until it has a winner or it gets bored and finds another shiny toy. If you were selling half of all the Android phones, would you want to rock the boat?
There's also a process in place to make sure surgeons remove all the clamps and sponges from the patient's body before they sew up. Still happens sometimes, though.
Apart from the "national pride", there is a much more subtle reason Japan continues to invest in nuclear energy, it basically gives them access to nuclear weapons without actually having nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are of course banned by law, but most experts seem to think that thanks to the nuclear power industry in Japan, Japan has the material, equipment, and expertise to produce nuclear weapons in less than year.
Again, this is what you wrote. And it's bullshit. Yeah, you can find nutty people in every country, but in Japan they don't have access to the levers of power. Stop trying to pretend you understand anything. You don't.
Fukushima absolutely *did* fail due to age. The primary pressure relief system failed, primarily due to age. It took several hours before pressure relief started.
I can't find any indication the failure of that valve was age related. Some of the sites I came across point to a design problem. Do you have a link?
Beyond that, many reactors have suffered failures due to neutron hardening of the plumbing, particularly in the primary cooling loops. Re-piping is a common occurrence, and has added operational costs well beyond predictions. It has been the cause for massive cost overruns here in Ontario, for instance.
Failures, or just extra maintenance? Neutron hardening effects are predictable, after all. The cost aspect is a separate issue from safety.
Has a reactor ever failed because of old age? Fukushima certainly didn't. If you want to make the case that we have better designs these days, and that we shouldn't be grandfathering in less safe designs then that's a pretty reasonable argument. But the OP's thirty year number smells of ass, and there's no reason you can't figure out whether a forty year old reactor is still performing up to its original design specs.
You are also assuming energy is the only reason the Japanese build nuke plants, it's not. Apart from the "national pride", there is a much more subtle reason Japan continues to invest in nuclear energy, it basically gives them access to nuclear weapons without actually having nuclear weapons.
Oh, bullshit. The Japanese people are as against nuclear weapons as they were the day after they got nuked themselves. Yes, the nuclear plants are partly strategic, but the reason is the country doesn't have energy resources, and they don't want to be in the position of having a foreign power turn out the lights with a half-dozen submarines.
There are other parts of the plant layout I don't understand. The wiring closets were below ground level under the reactors, meaning they could be flooded and would have been in any case hard to get to in an emergency. Engineers have been fretting over a loss of power problem for years and deemed it the most likely problem to cause a meltdown. And yet the reactor building is designed such that you can't run emergency external power to the pumps without going under the reactor.
And why is the spent fuel pool directly above the reactor? I realize it's easier to pull out old rods and put them in a pool that's right there, but it's not like they swap in new rods every day.
And why put the reactors so close together? I would have put a big earthen berm in between them to prevent cascading failures. The Russians were still running reactors at Chernobyl long after the #4 unit burned, but at Fukushima if they'd lost control of a single reactor they would have been forced to abandon all four plus all the spent rods stored on site. It seems like the plant could have been laid out in a way that made what happened (and the much, much worse thing that almost happened) much less likely.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. That's been true for 15 years and yet MS and Intel are still on top. People understand their own needs change over time and the mix of software may need to change as well. If you don't know what you might need to use a year or two down the road, it makes sense to buy the platform with the most available software even if there are other platforms that suit your current needs.
When Intel moves to 14 nm in 2014 will their offerings be using more power? Seems unlikely. Intel doesn't need the best architecture if it can stay ahead of its rivals in manufacturing.
I don't have a link, this is all from memory.
Quite a few people are asking this question. The problem is you can't answer it unless you know exactly what kinds of conflicts we'll be in for the next 30 years.
You didn't pay $150m for your blu-ray player. Your idea of "high-def" and the military's idea of "high-def" are totally at odds. A 1080p stream from that altitude would be worthless.
Multiplexing. Lots and lots of multiplexing.
I'm pretty sure you're not going to get the real number from wikipedia, particularly if it involves a system that can be upgraded without changing the air frame.
For that sensor package. The problem with speculating about required bandwidth is it really depends on what kind of sensors are there. When I was working with satellites we had some gigabit plus streams, so it's not difficult at all for me to believe they have a package that requires 500Mb/sec. Particularly since the stuff they're putting on Global Hawk is reputed to be satellite quality sensors.
The army allows noncoms to fly drones. Officers in the air force jealously guard their turf, even though most of the early combat pilots weren't officers.
I doubt that. The last analysis I read says the division is profitable over time, including the time value of money. Not hugely profitable, but they're in a pretty good position to make money going forward. It's been, what, three or four years since they started making money on the hardware?
Seems like the other way around to me. Apple desktops and workstations would be a fond memory but for the introduction of the iPod and its successors. The iOS devices play well with other Apple hardware, which has allowed the company to reclaim some lost ground on the desktop..
That's exactly what my doctor was trying to do. The results were amusing, but not very effective.
The problem is that it all breaks down when that doctor has to enter a long note to go along with that chart. My doctor's office tried to use tablets and then went right back to notebooks. Text entry is just too slow and painful. Heck, even typing in a medium-length URL is a chore.
At this point I would rate tablets far down on the list of threats to Dell. Below Apple desktops and notebooks. Below consoles. Below televisions.
Microsoft didn't have any competence in the console market either. But if you throw enough cash at a product line and manage it properly you're going to get a winner eventually. Even the Zune could have been successful if Microsoft had poured enough money into it.
I thought the Motorola buy was just to secure patents. Are the actually making hardware?
Google is in the same position Microsoft was a decade ago. It has money coming out its ears and not much to buy. Samsung could annoy Google enough that Google gets into the mobile business. Just like Microsoft and the xbox, Google can afford to lose money every year pretty much until it has a winner or it gets bored and finds another shiny toy. If you were selling half of all the Android phones, would you want to rock the boat?
There's also a process in place to make sure surgeons remove all the clamps and sponges from the patient's body before they sew up. Still happens sometimes, though.
Like I said, don't pretend. You're just digging now.
Again, this is what you wrote. And it's bullshit. Yeah, you can find nutty people in every country, but in Japan they don't have access to the levers of power. Stop trying to pretend you understand anything. You don't.
I can't find any indication the failure of that valve was age related. Some of the sites I came across point to a design problem. Do you have a link?
Failures, or just extra maintenance? Neutron hardening effects are predictable, after all. The cost aspect is a separate issue from safety.
Has a reactor ever failed because of old age? Fukushima certainly didn't. If you want to make the case that we have better designs these days, and that we shouldn't be grandfathering in less safe designs then that's a pretty reasonable argument. But the OP's thirty year number smells of ass, and there's no reason you can't figure out whether a forty year old reactor is still performing up to its original design specs.
Oh, bullshit. The Japanese people are as against nuclear weapons as they were the day after they got nuked themselves. Yes, the nuclear plants are partly strategic, but the reason is the country doesn't have energy resources, and they don't want to be in the position of having a foreign power turn out the lights with a half-dozen submarines.
There are other parts of the plant layout I don't understand. The wiring closets were below ground level under the reactors, meaning they could be flooded and would have been in any case hard to get to in an emergency. Engineers have been fretting over a loss of power problem for years and deemed it the most likely problem to cause a meltdown. And yet the reactor building is designed such that you can't run emergency external power to the pumps without going under the reactor.
And why is the spent fuel pool directly above the reactor? I realize it's easier to pull out old rods and put them in a pool that's right there, but it's not like they swap in new rods every day.
And why put the reactors so close together? I would have put a big earthen berm in between them to prevent cascading failures. The Russians were still running reactors at Chernobyl long after the #4 unit burned, but at Fukushima if they'd lost control of a single reactor they would have been forced to abandon all four plus all the spent rods stored on site. It seems like the plant could have been laid out in a way that made what happened (and the much, much worse thing that almost happened) much less likely.
Well, of course, because if we don't you won't be able to pretend wind energy is cheaper.