Seriously, though, why should it be? If I'm going to pay for a dedicated graphics processing chip, why not use it to reduce CPU load as often and as much as possible? Why would I want to use it only for games?
Advantage: File will be continuous.
Disadvantage: Paritioning is less flexible; may prevent swap file from being located to the outermost tracks, where disk access is fastest.
From what I gather, it is pre-emptively paging memory, though the applications will still use the physical RAM pages as long as they exist, once they are premptively paged they are tagged as freeable. So, then when another application that you are using needs more RAM, Windows can immediately free up and use the premptively paged RAM, without making you wait for the old data to be paged to the disk, and if you never actually do need more RAM, the disk-written pages are just ignored.
I am not a computer scientist
The framers (by which I mean >= 1 framer) actually did use a property formulation. George Mason, in drafting Virginia's own declaration of rights in May 1776, wrote: "all men are born equally free and independant [sic], and have certain inherent natural rights,...among which are the Enjoyment of Life and Liberty, with the Means of acquiring and possessing Property, and pursueing [sic] and obtaining Happiness and Safety."
Undoubtedly, this formulation was influential on the drafting of the DoI, and the significance of omitting the property clause is debatable.
If legend is true, this is exactly what happened. Gates had envinsioned an MS console that was basically a "DirectX Box" that game programmers could use to target the DirectX platform. This eventually got shortened to "X Box" in in-house communications. The marketing department couldn't really come up with anything better except to remove the space, so they went with that.
Be thankful for that bit of serendipity, though, or else we'd probably be using a "Microsoft Game Console 2000 Home Edition".
I have a feeling though, that the efficiency losses inherent in going from radiation-->heat-->mechanical-->electrical-->chemi cal will be significantly higher than radiation-->electrical-->chemical.
Whoops, I forgot about saying goodbye to nuclear waste! We consume about 8.59131981 × 10^18 joules of nuclear power per year, as of 2002. That's 2.38647772 × 10^12 kiloWatt hours per year to generate, which at 365 kw-hr/yr/m^2 requires an additional 2,524.44986 square miles, or roughly another Delaware. This is for the U.S. only.
Well, let's see. 2002 fossil fuel energy consumption appears to be 56.915 quadrillion BTU's.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb0102.html
That's about 6.00485039 × 10^19 Joules. Let's be generous and assume a very high 5 kw-Hr/m^2 solar intensity over our land mass, and a very generous collection/Hydrogen conversion efficiency of 20%, in effect yielding 1 kw-Hr/m^2 in hydrogen. 1 kilowatt hour = 3 600 000 Joules, and we need to produce 6.00485039 × 10^19 Joules, so that works out to be 1.668014 × 10^13 kilowatt hours that we need to produce in a year. A production rate of 1 kw-hr/day = 365.25 kw-hr/year, so we need 4.56990137 × 10^10 m^2 to generate the same number of kw-hrs in the same year, or 17,644.4878 square miles. Delaware is 2,489 square miles. Now, Arizona is the sixth largest state, so it looks like this facility could still rest entirely in its borders. But I think you can see why this is not an even remotely cost-effective solution.
Intended as a joke, maybe, but huge efficiency strides have been made with conventional gas combustion engines in recent years, enough so that large-engined muscle cars are making a decided comback, but with actually decent mileage now.
I use Firefox. But in case I didn't: don't, for one second, ever think that you have the right to decide what's good for me, and I don't care how l33t you are.
Maybe you were joking, but I take these things seriously, because when people who think like you do gain power, people die (as I'm guessing you are probably aware of, by the title of your post.)
Funny comment, but in all seriousness, I despair at the number of old buildings I visit that have had enormous, beautiful glass skylights covered over in favor of electric lighting. At an early twentieth-century school building being demolished in my home town, I was shocked to discover that a large, beautiful skylight over one of the main lobby areas had been covered over with a false ceiling! The sunlight was literally shining on the back of the ceiling tiles, while directly below, a fluorescent fixture had been installed. Perverse, and I never would have known but for the fact that the building was being destroyed and the false ceiling torn away.
Another example I noticed recently was the reading room at the Wisconsin State Historical Society (pictured here). All of the fluorescent squares at the top of the picture were skylights, which covered the entire ceiling.
My point is to dispute your insinuation that the discrepency is due to malice. The product databases are huge and difficult to maintain, and because signage can be confusing or tampered with, and sometimes the codes are actually erroneous.
It's just you. I use mainly XP on the desktop. When I want to play Freecell, I do much the same as you. I pick an open cmd shell and type "freecell" or, if no cmd shell is open - Command-R (Or in my case, Ctrl-Esc + R, since I use the godly Model M 101-key-no-more-no-less) to bring up a command-line dialog. It's got a history AND autocomplete. Enter "freecell" and press Enter. Not that hard.
The difference maybe is I know how to do it on Windows and you don't, which I think make it "just you."
I'm guessing it's factored in, but honestly, soldiers put out kilocalories of EM in the infrared range already; it's called BODY HEAT. The few additional watts from electronic devices are probably not going to make that big of a difference, unless you're a pathfinder or something...
I don't understand how you can simultaneously claim that (a) solar events certainly do effect the ozone and that (b) attributing any current depletion to the sun is FUD.
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously, though, why should it be? If I'm going to pay for a dedicated graphics processing chip, why not use it to reduce CPU load as often and as much as possible? Why would I want to use it only for games?
If implemented sanely, it should use fewer CPU cycles and many more GPU cycles.
Advantage: File will be continuous. Disadvantage: Paritioning is less flexible; may prevent swap file from being located to the outermost tracks, where disk access is fastest.
From what I gather, it is pre-emptively paging memory, though the applications will still use the physical RAM pages as long as they exist, once they are premptively paged they are tagged as freeable. So, then when another application that you are using needs more RAM, Windows can immediately free up and use the premptively paged RAM, without making you wait for the old data to be paged to the disk, and if you never actually do need more RAM, the disk-written pages are just ignored. I am not a computer scientist
Undoubtedly, this formulation was influential on the drafting of the DoI, and the significance of omitting the property clause is debatable.
If legend is true, this is exactly what happened. Gates had envinsioned an MS console that was basically a "DirectX Box" that game programmers could use to target the DirectX platform. This eventually got shortened to "X Box" in in-house communications. The marketing department couldn't really come up with anything better except to remove the space, so they went with that. Be thankful for that bit of serendipity, though, or else we'd probably be using a "Microsoft Game Console 2000 Home Edition".
The question is, will it be tiberium ore?
The column heading explicitly states, "Nuclear Electric Power."
I have a feeling though, that the efficiency losses inherent in going from radiation-->heat-->mechanical-->electrical-->chemi cal will be significantly higher than radiation-->electrical-->chemical.
http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/old_data/nsrdb/redbook /sum2/23183.txt
(Why is /. mangling this URL, at least in preview?!?) I double-checked, but it appears that these figures are indeed in kWh/m^2/day.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb0102.html
which indicates 8.143 quadrillion BTU. By my calculation (correct me if I'm wrong on this) that works out as I stated.
Whoops, I forgot about saying goodbye to nuclear waste! We consume about 8.59131981 × 10^18 joules of nuclear power per year, as of 2002. That's 2.38647772 × 10^12 kiloWatt hours per year to generate, which at 365 kw-hr/yr/m^2 requires an additional 2,524.44986 square miles, or roughly another Delaware. This is for the U.S. only.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb0102.html
That's about 6.00485039 × 10^19 Joules. Let's be generous and assume a very high 5 kw-Hr/m^2 solar intensity over our land mass, and a very generous collection/Hydrogen conversion efficiency of 20%, in effect yielding 1 kw-Hr/m^2 in hydrogen. 1 kilowatt hour = 3 600 000 Joules, and we need to produce 6.00485039 × 10^19 Joules, so that works out to be 1.668014 × 10^13 kilowatt hours that we need to produce in a year. A production rate of 1 kw-hr/day = 365.25 kw-hr/year, so we need 4.56990137 × 10^10 m^2 to generate the same number of kw-hrs in the same year, or 17,644.4878 square miles. Delaware is 2,489 square miles. Now, Arizona is the sixth largest state, so it looks like this facility could still rest entirely in its borders. But I think you can see why this is not an even remotely cost-effective solution.
No, #3 is "take their plutonium and in turn give them a shiny bomb case full of used pinball machine parts."
It's been done, pretty much. http://www.defensetech.org/archives/001437.html
Not exactly. They do not continuously operate at 100% capacity. Operation (and fuel consumption) is scaled as appropriate to roughly match demand.
As a practical exercise, why don't you go ahead and calculate just how much land that would require, and you might see why this is silly.
Intended as a joke, maybe, but huge efficiency strides have been made with conventional gas combustion engines in recent years, enough so that large-engined muscle cars are making a decided comback, but with actually decent mileage now.
Maybe you were joking, but I take these things seriously, because when people who think like you do gain power, people die (as I'm guessing you are probably aware of, by the title of your post.)
Another example I noticed recently was the reading room at the Wisconsin State Historical Society (pictured here). All of the fluorescent squares at the top of the picture were skylights, which covered the entire ceiling.
My point is to dispute your insinuation that the discrepency is due to malice. The product databases are huge and difficult to maintain, and because signage can be confusing or tampered with, and sometimes the codes are actually erroneous.
Prices are not encoded in UPC barcodes.
It's just you. I use mainly XP on the desktop. When I want to play Freecell, I do much the same as you. I pick an open cmd shell and type "freecell" or, if no cmd shell is open - Command-R (Or in my case, Ctrl-Esc + R, since I use the godly Model M 101-key-no-more-no-less) to bring up a command-line dialog. It's got a history AND autocomplete. Enter "freecell" and press Enter. Not that hard.
The difference maybe is I know how to do it on Windows and you don't, which I think make it "just you."
I'm guessing it's factored in, but honestly, soldiers put out kilocalories of EM in the infrared range already; it's called BODY HEAT. The few additional watts from electronic devices are probably not going to make that big of a difference, unless you're a pathfinder or something...
I don't understand how you can simultaneously claim that (a) solar events certainly do effect the ozone and that (b) attributing any current depletion to the sun is FUD.