Good point, though I think it would be better because the invertor would only need to power the monitor, not the computer internals and so still be more efficient and even last longer or require a smaller battery than the equivalent external model.
In any case, the reason for having them internal would be the standardise them, somewhat like with laptops, and so people don't expect their computer to 'just stop suddenly'. If you do want the full 'laptop experience' - ie being able to use them for more useful periods of time, then perhaps the paradigm might be extended to supply DC to an external monitor too; and there's still the use-case for computers with built-in monitors.
Well, yes, but, as I say, that is a different use-case - I'm considering the unattended case primarily. Anyway, if we're essentially inventing something new here, there's no reason we can't add a socket to the UPS on the back of the machine, something that some machines of old have had - actually, *some* machines had the monitor already built in (that's not unheard of, even today).
Well, ok, but I might have thought there would be a standard that would incorporate a UPS and even might fit the same hole (though with less capability, I suppose.
I think the connecting the monitor too bit is a bit off-topic for what I was suggesting - sure some use a UPS so that they can keep using the computer when the power goes out, but the primary reason is to allow the computer to shut down gracefully...that's more the use-case I was suggesting.
Of course, there's no telling how long a computer *needs* to shut down gracefully, but that's true with the current external UPSes too.
Anyway, I tend to think it's something all computers should have, even if there needs to be a 'new standard sized hole', or whatever, but then I've formed that opinion while working in China where the power is a little less reliable than in some places (though, to be fair, it has been much more reliable over the past several years).
Oh, because someone doesn't like Apple stuff, they're a "Hateboi". It is possible for someone to genuinely not like their style, you know.
Actually, it took a while (due to GreatFirewall-itis) for the original page to come up, but I find the actual computer to be very un-Apple-like...and I actually quite like it.
The monitors, though, I still don't like.
This computer is the first Apple product I've genuinely thought was good looking since the old PowerBook Titanium...I had a twinge of 'hrm, not bad' for the iPhone4 (hated the prior ones), but that didn't take hold.
I must take a closer look at it...I somehow don't think the photos do it justice.
Of course, I don't much care for Aqua either, so I'd wipe it and put on Ubuntu...which I find an interesting proposition...
OK, that's what I was trying to get at with one of my comments.
However, aren't there 'logs' or something like that, that *are* written straight to disk so as to enable a recovery should there be such a failure?...or does that not apply. I guess the disk I/O associated with the logs (I forget the correct word) might be a bottleneck.
Perhaps he should have asked the question slightly differently...I seem to recall it being a selling point for big SGI machines that they could potentially hold the entire database in RAM. I suppose it totally depends on how big the database is...looking, it seems SGIs can have up to 64 TB of RAM (though the wording is unclear).
If the database fits into that amount of RAM, then wouldn't that mean I/O is not a limiting factor?
I have to wonder what happens when there's an unexpected failure...wouldn't the changes that are still in RAM be lost? Well, I don't know much about this, but these are obvious questions I'd be interested to know...beyond "No. Yes." anyway:)
In anticipation of someone telling me to look it up, I did and my cursory search seemed to suggest the issues are mostly about cost; so, if I can honestly say the following :
"My database can happily fit inside 64TB and I have enough money to affort to own/run/maintain an SGI UV2000."
Wouldn't that then mean I have no I/O issue? Assuming "I/O" means disk I/O, of course.
Of course, the issue more relevant is how much RAM can a GPU have direct control of? I wouldn't imagine it is anything like 64TB...a quick search suggests 12GB is quit a large number for such a product. I suppose that might cover a certain (but different) portion of the market...the same served by regular desktop PCs, for example.
How do you "butt-dial" on a capacitative touch screen? Doesn't there have to be some actual (almost) skin contact?
With physical buttons, I can see how it can happen, but with resistive touch screens it is already less likely...but with capacitative is seems extremely unlikely. Am I missing something?
I find the opposite - or I should say 'found' since I'm not longer an Apple customer. I have had some 'hand-me-downs' from friends who seem to have come to the same conclusion (ie they're free) and so I have had cause to still attempt maintenance of same. Going to an Apple store is a chore too...*far* too long a queue, and you need to make an appointment (that bit is ok, if you can wait). That is, of course, if you have an Apple store near enough to go to.
I actually thought the same thing - quantify it in real, solid terms, or don't bother mentioning it. Using 'fluffy' English isn't much use to anyone, imo. I haven't bothered to read if they actually do quantify things, but there you go.
I was traveling from Heathrow to Beijing via Helsinki (5.5 hour lay-over) that was supposed to leave LHR at 7:30 but was delayed until 9:00...the estimated departure moved again backwards and forwards once (after we got on the plane), but it seemed to be a minor delay from my point of view.
The most annoying thing was that the online systems weren't showing the disruption. I was looking at the departure board at LHR and it was showing the delay (though it took a while), but the online web page and the 'Heathrow App' for my android phone both showed no delay even though it was ~8am already. I was due to meet someone for lunch (during my 5.5 hour lay-over) and I had smsed them about the delay, but they had called the airport authority and were told there was no delay, and so they experienced some inconvenience while they waited.
The good thing was that the flight from Helsinki to Beijing was very sparse, and I was able to use a whole 4-seat row to sleep on - I guess many flights missed the connection. Sucks to be them, but good for me, I suppose:)
Ah, sure, the source is available, but what about the source of the compiler what was used to compile it? If you can't get the source of the original compiler, the only recourse is to actually check the output of the compiler - I suppose you could also *de*compile the compiler and check *that* source too.
I wonder if you have a limited vision of what constitutes a robot. Why must it be that a robot cannot have desires, addictions, or any of the other 'eminently human behaviours'?
I suspect that such 'errant' behaviour is not so far off. We have this idea that our brains are so complicated, but I wonder if that's really true, and instead our brains are relatively simple but work in a different way so that it just seems complicated.
Slashdot Mirror
Good point, though I think it would be better because the invertor would only need to power the monitor, not the computer internals and so still be more efficient and even last longer or require a smaller battery than the equivalent external model.
In any case, the reason for having them internal would be the standardise them, somewhat like with laptops, and so people don't expect their computer to 'just stop suddenly'. If you do want the full 'laptop experience' - ie being able to use them for more useful periods of time, then perhaps the paradigm might be extended to supply DC to an external monitor too; and there's still the use-case for computers with built-in monitors.
Well, yes, but, as I say, that is a different use-case - I'm considering the unattended case primarily. Anyway, if we're essentially inventing something new here, there's no reason we can't add a socket to the UPS on the back of the machine, something that some machines of old have had - actually, *some* machines had the monitor already built in (that's not unheard of, even today).
Well, ok, but I might have thought there would be a standard that would incorporate a UPS and even might fit the same hole (though with less capability, I suppose.
I think the connecting the monitor too bit is a bit off-topic for what I was suggesting - sure some use a UPS so that they can keep using the computer when the power goes out, but the primary reason is to allow the computer to shut down gracefully...that's more the use-case I was suggesting.
Of course, there's no telling how long a computer *needs* to shut down gracefully, but that's true with the current external UPSes too.
Anyway, I tend to think it's something all computers should have, even if there needs to be a 'new standard sized hole', or whatever, but then I've formed that opinion while working in China where the power is a little less reliable than in some places (though, to be fair, it has been much more reliable over the past several years).
I've often wondered why PSUs don't come with batteries built in...perhaps they do now - I've not been paying attention.
have both then :)
Oh, because someone doesn't like Apple stuff, they're a "Hateboi". It is possible for someone to genuinely not like their style, you know.
Actually, it took a while (due to GreatFirewall-itis) for the original page to come up, but I find the actual computer to be very un-Apple-like...and I actually quite like it.
The monitors, though, I still don't like.
This computer is the first Apple product I've genuinely thought was good looking since the old PowerBook Titanium...I had a twinge of 'hrm, not bad' for the iPhone4 (hated the prior ones), but that didn't take hold.
I must take a closer look at it...I somehow don't think the photos do it justice.
Of course, I don't much care for Aqua either, so I'd wipe it and put on Ubuntu...which I find an interesting proposition...
Am I really the only one who finds it embarrassing to use an Apple product? They're just so garish and flashy.
There was a time when Apple was cool, but that was several years ago. /IMO
"journal" - that's what I meant...similar to some filesystems.
OK, that's what I was trying to get at with one of my comments.
However, aren't there 'logs' or something like that, that *are* written straight to disk so as to enable a recovery should there be such a failure? ...or does that not apply. I guess the disk I/O associated with the logs (I forget the correct word) might be a bottleneck.
It's because people moved to using 64-bit instead of the old 32-bit. Right?
Perhaps he should have asked the question slightly differently...I seem to recall it being a selling point for big SGI machines that they could potentially hold the entire database in RAM. I suppose it totally depends on how big the database is...looking, it seems SGIs can have up to 64 TB of RAM (though the wording is unclear).
If the database fits into that amount of RAM, then wouldn't that mean I/O is not a limiting factor?
I have to wonder what happens when there's an unexpected failure...wouldn't the changes that are still in RAM be lost? Well, I don't know much about this, but these are obvious questions I'd be interested to know...beyond "No. Yes." anyway :)
In anticipation of someone telling me to look it up, I did and my cursory search seemed to suggest the issues are mostly about cost; so, if I can honestly say the following :
"My database can happily fit inside 64TB and I have enough money to affort to own/run/maintain an SGI UV2000."
Wouldn't that then mean I have no I/O issue? Assuming "I/O" means disk I/O, of course.
Of course, the issue more relevant is how much RAM can a GPU have direct control of? I wouldn't imagine it is anything like 64TB...a quick search suggests 12GB is quit a large number for such a product. I suppose that might cover a certain (but different) portion of the market...the same served by regular desktop PCs, for example.
Hrm.
> tiviozing
Let me correct that for you :
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=tiviozing&title=Special%3ASearch
"Did you mean: "Timing"?"
Now you, too, know how to read more carefully and see how someone might make that mistake.
Even google doesn't attempt to correct that typo (when I try it, anyway) and the only 'result' is a link to the above post.
How do you "butt-dial" on a capacitative touch screen? Doesn't there have to be some actual (almost) skin contact?
With physical buttons, I can see how it can happen, but with resistive touch screens it is already less likely...but with capacitative is seems extremely unlikely. Am I missing something?
>When someone is pointing a gun at you shouting "emergency call"
That's quite unlikely. "Give me all your money!" is much more likely, I think...
> could not differentiate between "nearly ran a red light" and did not run a red light
care to enlighten us?
flamebate? seriously?
I find the opposite - or I should say 'found' since I'm not longer an Apple customer.
I have had some 'hand-me-downs' from friends who seem to have come to the same conclusion (ie they're free) and so I have had cause to still attempt maintenance of same. Going to an Apple store is a chore too...*far* too long a queue, and you need to make an appointment (that bit is ok, if you can wait). That is, of course, if you have an Apple store near enough to go to.
Thanks goodness for choice :)
I actually thought the same thing - quantify it in real, solid terms, or don't bother mentioning it. Using 'fluffy' English isn't much use to anyone, imo. I haven't bothered to read if they actually do quantify things, but there you go.
> to bed where it belongs.
and with no supper, either, I suppose.
just how many libraries of congress is that?
I'd at least expect a fukushima or something...
'store'? which store is that? Do we know where this guy lives?
I was traveling from Heathrow to Beijing via Helsinki (5.5 hour lay-over) that was supposed to leave LHR at 7:30 but was delayed until 9:00...the estimated departure moved again backwards and forwards once (after we got on the plane), but it seemed to be a minor delay from my point of view.
The most annoying thing was that the online systems weren't showing the disruption. I was looking at the departure board at LHR and it was showing the delay (though it took a while), but the online web page and the 'Heathrow App' for my android phone both showed no delay even though it was ~8am already. I was due to meet someone for lunch (during my 5.5 hour lay-over) and I had smsed them about the delay, but they had called the airport authority and were told there was no delay, and so they experienced some inconvenience while they waited.
The good thing was that the flight from Helsinki to Beijing was very sparse, and I was able to use a whole 4-seat row to sleep on - I guess many flights missed the connection. Sucks to be them, but good for me, I suppose :)
...even if you use their dart-capable browser?
Ah, sure, the source is available, but what about the source of the compiler what was used to compile it? If you can't get the source of the original compiler, the only recourse is to actually check the output of the compiler - I suppose you could also *de*compile the compiler and check *that* source too.
I wonder if you have a limited vision of what constitutes a robot. Why must it be that a robot cannot have desires, addictions, or any of the other 'eminently human behaviours'?
I suspect that such 'errant' behaviour is not so far off. We have this idea that our brains are so complicated, but I wonder if that's really true, and instead our brains are relatively simple but work in a different way so that it just seems complicated.