No, I was thinking way more than 9%, at least at altitude. Doesn't the formula convey the fact that at 65000 feet, H would have considerably more lift than He?
At sea level the lift is roughly the same. At high altitudes H has much more lift than He (if I'm reading the formula correctly), so you could get beyond that 65k' ceiling.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifting_gas
"They were given a large sum up-front by ATT to develop the phone in return for an exclusive (5-year???) contract."
You wouldn't want to quote a source for that statement would you? Sounds just like something Enderle would say.
You're assuming that Apple will just sit on it and do nothing else with it. If you recall, Apple even canned their top selling iPod at one time and replaced it with a new model, so I doubt if they will be content to simply use this patent to prevent progress. They will make the progress even if no one else does.
Not enough users? Why wouldn't 30 million UNPROTECTED computers appeal to a virus creator? Just think, he could get at least 3 million in his botnet in no time. A lot more than in any Windows botnet, and those users are typically a bit wealthier than the Windows variety so the chances of accumulating some significant bank account numbers would be mighty tempting. Are you telling me that 30 million unprotected computers is an insignificant target? Do you even believe yourself when you write that?
No, the Mini is not, but the one they tested with is: Single Core 1.5GHz Mac with 2GB of RAM. The current Minis are 1.8GHz Dual Core & 1GB RAM. The Windows machine they used was a Dell XPS M1530, 2GHz Dual Core + 3GB RAM. That's almost 3 times the horsepower of the Mini. Definitely not a fair comparison. Why didn't they at least test it on today's MacBook?
Is it fair for them to run these tests on different machines? If you'll notice, Safari was run on an obsolete Mac Mini, a relatively slow single core laptop in a desktop box. Some poster there had run his own tests with the browsers in question, all on the same machine and he got different results -- Safari was fastest. I think they should have also tested Safari on a standard issue Mac, like a current iMac.
From ieee.org, and other places:
Unfortunately, 158 pages of internal Microsoft emails by employees like Michael Nash, a Microsoft vice president who oversees Windows product management, tends to undercut Microsoft's insistence that there was nothing misleading with Vista. Nash wrote that he "personally got burned" by buying a laptop that was labeled as Windows Vista Capable: "I now have a $2,100 e-mail machine."
If their advertising can fool a VP then it surely can fool the plaintiffs. I don't think they have a leg to stand on.
"Remember how Enderle, O'Gara and company told us that SCO was sure to win?"
No, no, no. You misunderstood. Enderle always says the opposite of what will be, or what is, or whatever is logical. So if you're tuned in to what he really means, he predicted this correctly just as he does everything else.
In case you're interested in power consumption, my MacPro V8 draws 12 watts when asleep. When waking from sleep it's ready to go in about 2 seconds (but my main monitor is not... it's a 20" Sumsung and it takes it around 4 seconds to come alive). It's drawing its normal 206 watts right now with 11 apps open (and 1 is Fusion running XP), and I've only seen it hit its max of 260 when encoding several movies at once. Core temperatures at the moment are 86F, way lower than the water-cooled Quad G5 I used to have.
But back to topic, it boots in 60 seconds. Used to be less before I loaded quite a few startup tasks, and it only gets booted after major system updates. I usually just walk away from it and let it go to sleep. So for me, boot time isn't an issue I have to deal with.
Even if I could buy a PC at $300-$400 less than a MacBook, even with all the features (or a little more), I won't get what I really want:
A computer with OSX, UNIX, and able to run anything on the planet. You can call that a tax if you like.
So..... if Apple products are NOT so awesome, tell me why their customer satisfaction ratings simply blow away all others. Seems you had one Apple product with a short lifespan and thereby assume that all their products are the same. Even with your evidence from Apple's forums (where you don't expect to see a post from everyone who had no problems), your statements aren't supported by the experience of the vast majority of Apple's customers. Enjoy your Zune.
Remember those old BASF commercials? Kinda reminds me of those, where at the end I'm left wondering just what it is I'm supposed to buy.
Shoes? Chips? Hula lessons?
I need Windows for just one application that only runs on Windows. Used to, I had it running on a PC here but never let it connect to the net, not even for 1 nanosecond. Then I used my MacBook with BootCamp, and today it runs under VMware Fusion on my MacPro. But it never never ever got wired up to the net. So what shall I do years from now (many years most likely) when windows, or whatever it is by then, IS on the net?
Used to own an 88 Olds Toronado. I bought a reader for the trouble codes, $30 bucks. Plugged it in and the code showed up on the digital display in the dash. Wondering how this little box was displaying something on my instrument cluster, I opened it up to have a look inside. Inside the box was a wire that shorted 2 of the pins on the connector, and a LEAD WEIGHT to make it feel like I really had something. Turns out that jumpering those 2 pins on the diagnostic connector under the dash was all you had to do to get the codes displayed. Yeah, you could say I got ripped.
Oh great! Not only do I have to wait for my TV, my cell phone, my set-top box, and even my scope to boot up, now I'll have to wait for my CAR TOO???
Used to, all you had to do when buying a new car was to kick the tires and take it for a test drive. Now we'll have to benchmark it before making a decision.
If anyone's interested, here's some power consumption info for a PowerMac Quad G5 (4x2.5GHz, 2 HD, 4.5G RAM, GeForce 7800GT). And after this Monday I'll be able to test a PowerMac V8!
Idle: 190W
Play 1 Movie: 225W
Bittorrent, 50 connections, 200KB/s down, 80KB/s up: 205W
Games: Dunno, I don't game
Encoding 4 videos simultaneously: 320W (max I've ever seen)
Sleep: 28W
And the Kill-A-Watt power meter is an RMS metering device so it should be fairly accurate regardless if the power supply is a switcher or not.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, they're using microwave gravity waves. They pass through anything and if beamed into a nearby black hole, all other black holes in the universe re-radiate the same signal. Kind of like radio repeaters located on the top of nearby mountains, all you have to be is within a reasonable distance to a nearby black hole and you cut your ping time considerably.
At least that's what ET told me the last time I was visiting their mothership.
Slashdot Mirror
No, I was thinking way more than 9%, at least at altitude. Doesn't the formula convey the fact that at 65000 feet, H would have considerably more lift than He?
At sea level the lift is roughly the same. At high altitudes H has much more lift than He (if I'm reading the formula correctly), so you could get beyond that 65k' ceiling. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifting_gas
Since this thing is unmanned, why not use hydrogen and get substantially more lifting power or get the same lift with a smaller craft?
"...and may seek another vendor."
Macs maybe?
"They were given a large sum up-front by ATT to develop the phone in return for an exclusive (5-year???) contract." You wouldn't want to quote a source for that statement would you? Sounds just like something Enderle would say.
You're assuming that Apple will just sit on it and do nothing else with it. If you recall, Apple even canned their top selling iPod at one time and replaced it with a new model, so I doubt if they will be content to simply use this patent to prevent progress. They will make the progress even if no one else does.
Move right along folks. When you see quotes from Dvorak you know you better look the other way.
Not enough users? Why wouldn't 30 million UNPROTECTED computers appeal to a virus creator? Just think, he could get at least 3 million in his botnet in no time. A lot more than in any Windows botnet, and those users are typically a bit wealthier than the Windows variety so the chances of accumulating some significant bank account numbers would be mighty tempting. Are you telling me that 30 million unprotected computers is an insignificant target? Do you even believe yourself when you write that?
No, the Mini is not, but the one they tested with is: Single Core 1.5GHz Mac with 2GB of RAM. The current Minis are 1.8GHz Dual Core & 1GB RAM. The Windows machine they used was a Dell XPS M1530, 2GHz Dual Core + 3GB RAM. That's almost 3 times the horsepower of the Mini. Definitely not a fair comparison. Why didn't they at least test it on today's MacBook?
Is it fair for them to run these tests on different machines? If you'll notice, Safari was run on an obsolete Mac Mini, a relatively slow single core laptop in a desktop box. Some poster there had run his own tests with the browsers in question, all on the same machine and he got different results -- Safari was fastest. I think they should have also tested Safari on a standard issue Mac, like a current iMac.
From ieee.org, and other places: Unfortunately, 158 pages of internal Microsoft emails by employees like Michael Nash, a Microsoft vice president who oversees Windows product management, tends to undercut Microsoft's insistence that there was nothing misleading with Vista. Nash wrote that he "personally got burned" by buying a laptop that was labeled as Windows Vista Capable: "I now have a $2,100 e-mail machine." If their advertising can fool a VP then it surely can fool the plaintiffs. I don't think they have a leg to stand on.
"Remember how Enderle, O'Gara and company told us that SCO was sure to win?" No, no, no. You misunderstood. Enderle always says the opposite of what will be, or what is, or whatever is logical. So if you're tuned in to what he really means, he predicted this correctly just as he does everything else.
In case you're interested in power consumption, my MacPro V8 draws 12 watts when asleep. When waking from sleep it's ready to go in about 2 seconds (but my main monitor is not... it's a 20" Sumsung and it takes it around 4 seconds to come alive). It's drawing its normal 206 watts right now with 11 apps open (and 1 is Fusion running XP), and I've only seen it hit its max of 260 when encoding several movies at once. Core temperatures at the moment are 86F, way lower than the water-cooled Quad G5 I used to have. But back to topic, it boots in 60 seconds. Used to be less before I loaded quite a few startup tasks, and it only gets booted after major system updates. I usually just walk away from it and let it go to sleep. So for me, boot time isn't an issue I have to deal with.
Even if I could buy a PC at $300-$400 less than a MacBook, even with all the features (or a little more), I won't get what I really want: A computer with OSX, UNIX, and able to run anything on the planet. You can call that a tax if you like.
So..... if Apple products are NOT so awesome, tell me why their customer satisfaction ratings simply blow away all others. Seems you had one Apple product with a short lifespan and thereby assume that all their products are the same. Even with your evidence from Apple's forums (where you don't expect to see a post from everyone who had no problems), your statements aren't supported by the experience of the vast majority of Apple's customers. Enjoy your Zune.
Remember those old BASF commercials? Kinda reminds me of those, where at the end I'm left wondering just what it is I'm supposed to buy. Shoes? Chips? Hula lessons?
I need Windows for just one application that only runs on Windows. Used to, I had it running on a PC here but never let it connect to the net, not even for 1 nanosecond. Then I used my MacBook with BootCamp, and today it runs under VMware Fusion on my MacPro. But it never never ever got wired up to the net. So what shall I do years from now (many years most likely) when windows, or whatever it is by then, IS on the net?
Used to own an 88 Olds Toronado. I bought a reader for the trouble codes, $30 bucks. Plugged it in and the code showed up on the digital display in the dash. Wondering how this little box was displaying something on my instrument cluster, I opened it up to have a look inside. Inside the box was a wire that shorted 2 of the pins on the connector, and a LEAD WEIGHT to make it feel like I really had something. Turns out that jumpering those 2 pins on the diagnostic connector under the dash was all you had to do to get the codes displayed. Yeah, you could say I got ripped.
Oh great! Not only do I have to wait for my TV, my cell phone, my set-top box, and even my scope to boot up, now I'll have to wait for my CAR TOO??? Used to, all you had to do when buying a new car was to kick the tires and take it for a test drive. Now we'll have to benchmark it before making a decision.
Yes it does work really well. I use it every day.
You realize you're linking to a blog from the year 2001, right? Think things have changed a little since then?
Yeah, shoulda used the Preview button, cause WYSWYG doesn't apply here.
If anyone's interested, here's some power consumption info for a PowerMac Quad G5 (4x2.5GHz, 2 HD, 4.5G RAM, GeForce 7800GT). And after this Monday I'll be able to test a PowerMac V8! Idle: 190W Play 1 Movie: 225W Bittorrent, 50 connections, 200KB/s down, 80KB/s up: 205W Games: Dunno, I don't game Encoding 4 videos simultaneously: 320W (max I've ever seen) Sleep: 28W And the Kill-A-Watt power meter is an RMS metering device so it should be fairly accurate regardless if the power supply is a switcher or not.
I stopped reading the article summary as soon as I saw Enderle's name in it. The entire article must be bullshit from start to finish.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, they're using microwave gravity waves. They pass through anything and if beamed into a nearby black hole, all other black holes in the universe re-radiate the same signal. Kind of like radio repeaters located on the top of nearby mountains, all you have to be is within a reasonable distance to a nearby black hole and you cut your ping time considerably. At least that's what ET told me the last time I was visiting their mothership.