Hydrogen's not really all that small in volume, actually. Joule-for-joule it takes up much more space in gasoline, even when you start getting into bulky cryogenic compressed storage. Chemical or physical storage is getting there, of course, but isn't a serious option yet, and you run into the problem of gravimetric energy density. You don't want to weigh down your vehicle with fuel.
Engadget (or was it Gizmodo?) made an interesting observation that it's "pin-compatible" with existing C7-M devices, so a whole lot of currently-dodgy VIA-based mini-notebooks, like the HP Mini-Note (which desperately needs to run cooler and longer) can make the transition very smoothly. Well played!
The 1.8GHz Nano setup gets about 25% more performance than the 1.6GHz Atom setup. However the Nano setup uses about 75W under load, while the Atom box uses about 60W. That's about 25% more power consumption/heat output. I imagine an Atom and a Nano setup of equal performance would use equal amounts of juice, or in other words this is a tie in terms of work-per-joule, which is what we're after in mobile processors.
What really bothers me is that the Atom setup seems to use as much power idle as under load. What's going on there? Did the benchmarkers forget to switch on power management or what?
Sales tax and customs duty would mean a mark-up of about 20%-30%, based on personal experience, if software companies shipped things one at a time directly to European customers at the retail price. As large companies shipping in bulk I dare say their customs duty rates are marginally less onerous, and the tax would be on the price at wholesale rather than retail. So even in an implausable worst-case scenario very little of the price difference is accounted for.
Don't blame GameFAQs, the puzzles have always been of the impenetrable use-live-weasel-on-airliner-after-setting-fire-to-cake-in-sweden variety that everybody hates. I recall some Elvira knock-off giving answers to adventure puzzles in CU Amiga and it bewildered me that people would start playing those games to begin with if "use the tuning fork on the harpy before, and only before, going to the west wing" was the standard of intelligence going into the gameplay. Good stories, but the "necessary ludic element" was so often the "obligatory irritating checkpoint". If I can get an equally compelling yarn with some enjoyable gameplay, of course I'm going to look elsewhere.
I meant, my finger itself stutters across the surface of some touchpads because it sticks to the glossy material. However it sounds from your description like that's not as much of an issue on an actual glass surface, as opposed to glossy plastics.
I've used a few touchpads in my time, and the bad ones are the ones that either started off glossy, or became glossy because of wear. I'm fine with using glossy touch-screens for tapping around or stylus work, but trying to operate one as a mouse for a long period of time gets immensely annoying. The slightest bit of sweat on my fingertips makes them stick and stutter across.
I've not used an iPhone or iPod touch for long, but I got the impression that they were designed to favour short finger motions on the pad for precisely this reason. I'm not sure it would translate well into a touchpad.
This just went up: "Film Review: L'homme Sans Tete example. This review was written for a National Film School production workshop." I get the feeling they're not really screening for content all that much. Thousands of chunks of small blog- or magazine-style content is not going to make for a good reference site.
It's not a problem for readers, but you can see why it's attractive for a company like Google. They could never put out a Wikipedia for fear of being seen as The Enemy by people who think the moon landings are fake or that cellphones are making the bees return to their home planet.
Basically what I'm saying is, the former should be less demanding of readers' critical thinking skills, and therefore more likely to be accepted as a source.
On the other hand, this is rather more transparent. When Expert X and Expert Y are putting out mutually contradictory versions of events, then the reader must critically evaluate them both. If it turns out that Y uses shoddy references and mostly cites his own work, while X has a wide-ranging and substantial reference base to build his article on, then it's clear that X is the one to trust, and Google gets to stay out of it.
By contrast, on Wikipedia, Author X's content will dominate the article while Author Y gets into a massive edit war, is banned, and runs off to spin some yarn to The Register about how he's persecuted by The Cabal. Then Wikipedia's image is tarnished.
Moore was actually pretty complimentary of David Hayter's script (inasmuch as he said it was good as he could hope for), which they apparently haven't deviated too far from. He's still dismissive of the idea of a movie version in on principle, of course.
They pull shit like this, yet when I order a laptop, instead of an OS disk or restore media I get a piece of paper with a picture of a CD on it telling me to burn my own.
Outmoded methods, without a shadow of a doubt. This is an agency which still favours the polygraph for things like security clearance interviews, despite at least a decade of scientific concensus that it's useless. Some agencies are incredibly resistant to new information, which is an immense liability where forensic science is concerned.
The transit of the moon isn't the most important thing in the animation. That you can see the forests on the continents in near-IR is hugely significant.
I think you've picked the wrong battle there. People who are going around deleting file extensions are unlikely to hold back from opening funnykittens.exe just because they can see the.exe extension.
Yeah, the "faked documentation" thing is still a pretty intriguing theory, although I've yet to see anything particularly convincing. The whole "didn't go to the moon" thing rubs me up the wrong way though, as you can probably tell! Thanks, by the way.
Slashdot Mirror
Hydrogen's not really all that small in volume, actually. Joule-for-joule it takes up much more space in gasoline, even when you start getting into bulky cryogenic compressed storage. Chemical or physical storage is getting there, of course, but isn't a serious option yet, and you run into the problem of gravimetric energy density. You don't want to weigh down your vehicle with fuel.
It's an editing error. The original submission was "practical" "jet" "pack" "available" "soon".
Engadget (or was it Gizmodo?) made an interesting observation that it's "pin-compatible" with existing C7-M devices, so a whole lot of currently-dodgy VIA-based mini-notebooks, like the HP Mini-Note (which desperately needs to run cooler and longer) can make the transition very smoothly. Well played!
The 1.8GHz Nano setup gets about 25% more performance than the 1.6GHz Atom setup. However the Nano setup uses about 75W under load, while the Atom box uses about 60W. That's about 25% more power consumption/heat output. I imagine an Atom and a Nano setup of equal performance would use equal amounts of juice, or in other words this is a tie in terms of work-per-joule, which is what we're after in mobile processors.
What really bothers me is that the Atom setup seems to use as much power idle as under load. What's going on there? Did the benchmarkers forget to switch on power management or what?
When it comes to air, sometimes I'll take quantity over quality.
Sales tax and customs duty would mean a mark-up of about 20%-30%, based on personal experience, if software companies shipped things one at a time directly to European customers at the retail price. As large companies shipping in bulk I dare say their customs duty rates are marginally less onerous, and the tax would be on the price at wholesale rather than retail. So even in an implausable worst-case scenario very little of the price difference is accounted for.
Don't blame GameFAQs, the puzzles have always been of the impenetrable use-live-weasel-on-airliner-after-setting-fire-to-cake-in-sweden variety that everybody hates. I recall some Elvira knock-off giving answers to adventure puzzles in CU Amiga and it bewildered me that people would start playing those games to begin with if "use the tuning fork on the harpy before, and only before, going to the west wing" was the standard of intelligence going into the gameplay. Good stories, but the "necessary ludic element" was so often the "obligatory irritating checkpoint". If I can get an equally compelling yarn with some enjoyable gameplay, of course I'm going to look elsewhere.
I had a 1.1GHz Celeron laptop which absolutely choked on Youtube, and most Newgrounds videos for that matter.
I meant, my finger itself stutters across the surface of some touchpads because it sticks to the glossy material. However it sounds from your description like that's not as much of an issue on an actual glass surface, as opposed to glossy plastics.
Apparently the materials used to make the Air are relatively environmentally friendly, and this sounds similar, so they extrapolated.
I've used a few touchpads in my time, and the bad ones are the ones that either started off glossy, or became glossy because of wear. I'm fine with using glossy touch-screens for tapping around or stylus work, but trying to operate one as a mouse for a long period of time gets immensely annoying. The slightest bit of sweat on my fingertips makes them stick and stutter across.
I've not used an iPhone or iPod touch for long, but I got the impression that they were designed to favour short finger motions on the pad for precisely this reason. I'm not sure it would translate well into a touchpad.
This just went up: "Film Review: L'homme Sans Tete example. This review was written for a National Film School production workshop." I get the feeling they're not really screening for content all that much. Thousands of chunks of small blog- or magazine-style content is not going to make for a good reference site.
It's not a problem for readers, but you can see why it's attractive for a company like Google. They could never put out a Wikipedia for fear of being seen as The Enemy by people who think the moon landings are fake or that cellphones are making the bees return to their home planet.
I believe that Knol articles are all single-author, while Citizendium is basically Wikipedia with mandatory editor registration.
Basically what I'm saying is, the former should be less demanding of readers' critical thinking skills, and therefore more likely to be accepted as a source.
On the other hand, this is rather more transparent. When Expert X and Expert Y are putting out mutually contradictory versions of events, then the reader must critically evaluate them both. If it turns out that Y uses shoddy references and mostly cites his own work, while X has a wide-ranging and substantial reference base to build his article on, then it's clear that X is the one to trust, and Google gets to stay out of it.
By contrast, on Wikipedia, Author X's content will dominate the article while Author Y gets into a massive edit war, is banned, and runs off to spin some yarn to The Register about how he's persecuted by The Cabal. Then Wikipedia's image is tarnished.
(TINC)
He did mention the refrigerator was using a lot of power. Maybe it's bigger than we assumed.
Moore was actually pretty complimentary of David Hayter's script (inasmuch as he said it was good as he could hope for), which they apparently haven't deviated too far from. He's still dismissive of the idea of a movie version in on principle, of course.
They pull shit like this, yet when I order a laptop, instead of an OS disk or restore media I get a piece of paper with a picture of a CD on it telling me to burn my own.
Outmoded methods, without a shadow of a doubt. This is an agency which still favours the polygraph for things like security clearance interviews, despite at least a decade of scientific concensus that it's useless. Some agencies are incredibly resistant to new information, which is an immense liability where forensic science is concerned.
Looks green to me, and the top of the screen definitely isn't square.
The transit of the moon isn't the most important thing in the animation. That you can see the forests on the continents in near-IR is hugely significant.
Microsoft Mantra 2008 edition: it's not a security hole, it's a feature.
I think you've picked the wrong battle there. People who are going around deleting file extensions are unlikely to hold back from opening funnykittens.exe just because they can see the .exe extension.
Yeah, the "faked documentation" thing is still a pretty intriguing theory, although I've yet to see anything particularly convincing. The whole "didn't go to the moon" thing rubs me up the wrong way though, as you can probably tell! Thanks, by the way.