I keep hoping someone will take the 6809 architecture, extend it to 64 bits wide per register, add an MMU, implement underneath a modern microcoded engine (the original was random logic), and throw an FPU on-board. Maybe add a few megs of register pages for context switching, a few instructions to give it supervisor/user smarts.
It was *so* easy to write code for that thing; it had pretty much the perfect mix of instructions -- way better than the 68000, for instance. The 6809 was the best 8 bit uP ever from a programming POV. I wrote a couple of compilers for it over the years, it felt like the uP designers totally knew what I was going to need.
Nor will it EVER have its day until there is a real 3D display system.
Now, stereoscopic filmmaking may be over, but that's hardly 3D except in the eyes of the bewildered.
I guarantee you, when a 3D production can be made, distributed and enjoyed, the day of 3D will begin, and it isn't likely to *ever* go back to 2D (or the pale imitation that is stereoscopy.)
Also, happy solstice + 3. I wish you a suitably bacchanalian event, complete with frolicking, consensual partner of your choice.
thinking an extremely painful death can't be a sacrifice, because, hey, there are MORE painful ways to die
You missed the point entirely. He didn't actually die, if you believe the story, as Christians tend to say they do. Instead, he was brought back and taken into heaven. So some torture, three days of unconsciousness, then resurrection at God's right hand.
The contention is that the aggregate there doesn't meet the standard of a sacrifice that the actual death of a human being does. If you have a counter-argument, by all means, let fly. But don't compare the Christ story with death, because it doesn't describe the thing we know to be death.
Neither does the nature of Christian metaphysics work the way you argue for for the purposes of arguing against.
Christian metaphysics don't work at all. It's superstition, nothing more. Precisely the same thing as myths of the Norse gods, or Quetzalcoatl, or banshees, ghosts, etc.
The function Christianity performs is not one of saving people, that's purest bunkum. It is strictly a social mechanism used to apply goat-age thinking to modern life. Some of that thinking still applies; but most of it doesn't.
No, actually we're talking about Canada, which no more has free speech than any other place that has laws that can punish you for what you say, paint, sculpt, perform an imitation of, write, etc.
And yes, that absolutely implicates the USA as well. We're a long, long way from our 1st amendment guarantees because our "justice" system is manifestly corrupt.
These couldn't come close even with the entire wing covered.
They probably don't need to. A LiPo battery (or any other kind) has to store energy to operate the system for the entire flight. A solar cell array only has to provide just a bit more than enough to keep it operating for an instant. Throw a small untracap in there and you'd have something. There are lots of high-tech ways to lighten a small scale flyer. And there is always the gasbag "cheat" if you'll go for flying only on low-wind days.
If the panels were $350, they would be a no brainer- buy 10 of them, basically erase your electrical bill during daylight hours. Get a 10 year payoff.
uh.... no.
10 of those panels would, according to your numbers, produce 1400 watts during peak time at your location. Disregarding conversion efficiency, non-peak time, and outright darkness, the assumption that the average household uses 1400 watts... that's just not in line with reality. 1400 watts is living like a bloody caveman. My home entertainment system can pull more than that. So does my refrigerator. So does my computer (admittedly, it's a heck of a machine.) So does my fishtank. So does the vacuum cleaner. So does electric heat, if you use it (remember, some areas are *cold*.) So does the stove. So does the air conditioning. Other things are close, just by themselves: Toasters, microwaves, total lighting loads, furnace fan, water heaters, some power tools. Seriously, 1400 watts isn't a reasonable number for a modern household.
Most US households have a 10 kw service, and it's not at all uncommon for that service to see loads over 5 kw at various times of day. Green appliances can help, but unless you want to outright start going backwards by just tossing out some pretty common amenities, they won't get you to 1400 watts.
Also, you need to mount your solar cells on a surface that is at an appropriate angle, and probably have no such surfaces.
This is not difficult, not expensive, and not even required, although it does increase the energy output. You can leave a solar cell in the shade, on the desk in your office, and it'll still produce output. Outdoors, facing generally towards the sun at some semi-reasonable angle, they'll do fine. You need more of them to get the same output as optimally positioned cells, that's all.
While we really need to get away from the grid and go towards smaller scale energy production
Why do we "need" to do that?
Why can't we just try for a green grid and let those who want to get off and gain the advantages (and annoyances) of being off-grid, get off, just as it is now?
Why can't we mix technologies as we see fit, particularly if they're green, sustainable technologies?
There's plenty of sunlight. Solar cells work (albeit less well) when it's cloudy. A 40% over-capacity of solar cells, and you're covered no matter what. So there's a solution for off-the-grid folk.
But dense urban configurations don't have as much sun-facing area as a house in the country, and we can certainly create steam in ways that don't spew pollutants or leave significant residue behind.
How 'bout we not panic and aim for the middle of the road? It's probably where we're going to end up anyway, lol.
Look, no one is arguing that starvation will leave you fat; eventually, you'll burn it. Unfortunately for simplistic reasoning like yours, the fat isn't always the first thing to go. It can be muscle tissue, organ tissue, etc. and there are many questions of various low level nutrient shortages that arise with extreme low calorie diets as well.
There are few subjects as rife with misinformation as diet; part of that is because we don't know what works for everyone, part of it is because there's an entire industry preying on those who are looking for various one-button solutions in that information vacuum. Not to be confused with the disinformation glut.
You know, that doesn't work for everyone. It sounds great when it works for YOU, but it's entirely possible to eat reasonably, exercise a lot, and *still* not lose weight. I exercise five days a week, two hours a day, and I'm not talking light exercise. I don't eat sweets, I don't drink, I control my carbs, I make sure I don't drown in meat proteins... I *love* veggies and eat them every day, both salads and side dishes, and I *still* have trouble controlling my weight. Yeah, I'm strong and have stamina and flexibility -- all important targets for my undertakings -- but the fat wants to hang around regardless. I have *never* been "cut." Kinda sleek looking like a seal back in my teenage days, pretty big through the chest and shoulders, but even then I carried extra weight (i'm talking fat) on my thighs and ass. And I was active as hell. Caving, swimming, martial arts, biking, dragging musical equipment from gig to gig, rope climbing, pushing lawn mowers... I hardly ever sat still.
Today I have students that are so cut, so defined, so obviously on the extreme low end of the body fat range it would make you cry... and if that didn't do it, watching them wolf down $15 worth of McDonald's poison surely would. I can't eat that crap at *all* or my weight takes right off. Not that I really want to, but still, the message is clear: What makes me fat doesn't make you fat, and so forth.
Everyone's experience is not the same. Metabolism, infection, allergies, immune system fuckarows and Darwin knows what else...
"Exercise and eat healthy food" is not a universal prescription for "control body fat." It's just a good start for baseline health.
I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if someone identifies one (or more) independent factors that drive fat retention. I've suspected it for years.
I am using examples that include video cards (4 of them, in my case.) My OS uses video cards to accelerate mainline processes; furthermore, this is done through a standard system mechanism and is relatively easy to incorporate in a considerable range of code; end users see benefits commensurate with the graphics engines they have installed. The processors in graphics cards are specialized for certain types of operations that can be very useful, and in use will significantly outperform, general purpose CPU instructions.
It really doesn't matter (other than as a market force) if gamers are buying cards that can handle more display activity than they're throwing at them. What matters is if these cards (and CPUs, for that matter) are overpowered in all places they are utilized, and the answer to that is flat-out no.
Should I still be bitching about England's tea taxes? Hardly. I likes me a nice, smart English wench just fine. They have manners, and they still know how to wear suspenders and a dress without becoming all confused about who they are, unlike most American fems these days.
Anyway, you wanna indulge in angst, there are all kinds of contemporary reasons that actually call for it as they remain unresolved. Australia as a penal colony and England's goal of empire... isn't one of them.
I have project builds (in c) that take many minutes to complete on an 8-core, 3 GHz machine with many gigs of memory available. I have at least one application that consumes all eight cores just to run -- and yes, it's written efficiently. I have others that consume a core or two... and less would be better. I *do* multitask. As far as I'm concerned, neither software (c compiler and linker in this case) or hardware are anywhere *near* where I'd like them to be. Your assertion of "no reason" strikes me as ludicrous.
I rather suspect that software will be coming down the pike that can use far more than even I'd like to see... when AI gets here (and yes, I don't consider that to be in any doubt whatsoever, nor is there any significant indication we'll need anything more than high powered VN architecture to do it), "more, faster" will be of benefit no matter how much of it there is.
Expert systems -- not intelligent, but just expert -- can develop indefinitely from right where we are, and the faster they are, and the more data they can get at in a short period of time, the better they will be.
It seems just wantonly blind to say that there is "no real reason" for these improvements.
If all you're thinking about is games... then you're simply not looking at enough of the picture to suggest a decently thought out answer (and even so, I bet there are game designers all over the place who will tell you they'd like more power, more memory, more textures, higher level engines, etc.)
Tornados are inherently driven by DC electric, viz. an amp or two through a potential of several million volts. The circuit consists of rain laying down charge, the tornado picking it up and returning it to the cloud.
This kind of thinking is why people England had to set up Australia as a penal colony. Oh, Mick, you know you shouldn't make things up. We told yer and we told yer. Now say toodles to yer mum, and onto the freighter wit yer. Time fer a new life where yer can't hurt nobody no more.
Slashdot Mirror
I keep hoping someone will take the 6809 architecture, extend it to 64 bits wide per register, add an MMU, implement underneath a modern microcoded engine (the original was random logic), and throw an FPU on-board. Maybe add a few megs of register pages for context switching, a few instructions to give it supervisor/user smarts.
It was *so* easy to write code for that thing; it had pretty much the perfect mix of instructions -- way better than the 68000, for instance. The 6809 was the best 8 bit uP ever from a programming POV. I wrote a couple of compilers for it over the years, it felt like the uP designers totally knew what I was going to need.
Probably never happen.
Pffftbt.
We should, though. Nothing worse than a dry flag, I say.
Nor will it EVER have its day until there is a real 3D display system.
Now, stereoscopic filmmaking may be over, but that's hardly 3D except in the eyes of the bewildered.
I guarantee you, when a 3D production can be made, distributed and enjoyed, the day of 3D will begin, and it isn't likely to *ever* go back to 2D (or the pale imitation that is stereoscopy.)
Also, happy solstice + 3. I wish you a suitably bacchanalian event, complete with frolicking, consensual partner of your choice.
The science and reality based crowd drink from the fountain of knowledge. The superstitious just gargle and spit.
The Romans didn't actually nail people through the hands. They nailed them through the wrists, so the nails wouldn't tear out.
You missed the point entirely. He didn't actually die, if you believe the story, as Christians tend to say they do. Instead, he was brought back and taken into heaven. So some torture, three days of unconsciousness, then resurrection at God's right hand.
The contention is that the aggregate there doesn't meet the standard of a sacrifice that the actual death of a human being does. If you have a counter-argument, by all means, let fly. But don't compare the Christ story with death, because it doesn't describe the thing we know to be death.
Christian metaphysics don't work at all. It's superstition, nothing more. Precisely the same thing as myths of the Norse gods, or Quetzalcoatl, or banshees, ghosts, etc.
The function Christianity performs is not one of saving people, that's purest bunkum. It is strictly a social mechanism used to apply goat-age thinking to modern life. Some of that thinking still applies; but most of it doesn't.
No, actually we're talking about Canada, which no more has free speech than any other place that has laws that can punish you for what you say, paint, sculpt, perform an imitation of, write, etc.
And yes, that absolutely implicates the USA as well. We're a long, long way from our 1st amendment guarantees because our "justice" system is manifestly corrupt.
Yeah, but bacon. And beer. Eh?
They probably don't need to. A LiPo battery (or any other kind) has to store energy to operate the system for the entire flight. A solar cell array only has to provide just a bit more than enough to keep it operating for an instant. Throw a small untracap in there and you'd have something. There are lots of high-tech ways to lighten a small scale flyer. And there is always the gasbag "cheat" if you'll go for flying only on low-wind days.
uh.... no.
10 of those panels would, according to your numbers, produce 1400 watts during peak time at your location. Disregarding conversion efficiency, non-peak time, and outright darkness, the assumption that the average household uses 1400 watts... that's just not in line with reality. 1400 watts is living like a bloody caveman. My home entertainment system can pull more than that. So does my refrigerator. So does my computer (admittedly, it's a heck of a machine.) So does my fishtank. So does the vacuum cleaner. So does electric heat, if you use it (remember, some areas are *cold*.) So does the stove. So does the air conditioning. Other things are close, just by themselves: Toasters, microwaves, total lighting loads, furnace fan, water heaters, some power tools. Seriously, 1400 watts isn't a reasonable number for a modern household.
Most US households have a 10 kw service, and it's not at all uncommon for that service to see loads over 5 kw at various times of day. Green appliances can help, but unless you want to outright start going backwards by just tossing out some pretty common amenities, they won't get you to 1400 watts.
Reduce the rates? Sure. Erase the bill? No.
This is not difficult, not expensive, and not even required, although it does increase the energy output. You can leave a solar cell in the shade, on the desk in your office, and it'll still produce output. Outdoors, facing generally towards the sun at some semi-reasonable angle, they'll do fine. You need more of them to get the same output as optimally positioned cells, that's all.
Why do we "need" to do that?
Why can't we just try for a green grid and let those who want to get off and gain the advantages (and annoyances) of being off-grid, get off, just as it is now?
Why can't we mix technologies as we see fit, particularly if they're green, sustainable technologies?
There's plenty of sunlight. Solar cells work (albeit less well) when it's cloudy. A 40% over-capacity of solar cells, and you're covered no matter what. So there's a solution for off-the-grid folk.
But dense urban configurations don't have as much sun-facing area as a house in the country, and we can certainly create steam in ways that don't spew pollutants or leave significant residue behind.
How 'bout we not panic and aim for the middle of the road? It's probably where we're going to end up anyway, lol.
Look, no one is arguing that starvation will leave you fat; eventually, you'll burn it. Unfortunately for simplistic reasoning like yours, the fat isn't always the first thing to go. It can be muscle tissue, organ tissue, etc. and there are many questions of various low level nutrient shortages that arise with extreme low calorie diets as well.
There are few subjects as rife with misinformation as diet; part of that is because we don't know what works for everyone, part of it is because there's an entire industry preying on those who are looking for various one-button solutions in that information vacuum. Not to be confused with the disinformation glut.
You know, that doesn't work for everyone. It sounds great when it works for YOU, but it's entirely possible to eat reasonably, exercise a lot, and *still* not lose weight. I exercise five days a week, two hours a day, and I'm not talking light exercise. I don't eat sweets, I don't drink, I control my carbs, I make sure I don't drown in meat proteins... I *love* veggies and eat them every day, both salads and side dishes, and I *still* have trouble controlling my weight. Yeah, I'm strong and have stamina and flexibility -- all important targets for my undertakings -- but the fat wants to hang around regardless. I have *never* been "cut." Kinda sleek looking like a seal back in my teenage days, pretty big through the chest and shoulders, but even then I carried extra weight (i'm talking fat) on my thighs and ass. And I was active as hell. Caving, swimming, martial arts, biking, dragging musical equipment from gig to gig, rope climbing, pushing lawn mowers... I hardly ever sat still.
Today I have students that are so cut, so defined, so obviously on the extreme low end of the body fat range it would make you cry... and if that didn't do it, watching them wolf down $15 worth of McDonald's poison surely would. I can't eat that crap at *all* or my weight takes right off. Not that I really want to, but still, the message is clear: What makes me fat doesn't make you fat, and so forth.
Everyone's experience is not the same. Metabolism, infection, allergies, immune system fuckarows and Darwin knows what else...
"Exercise and eat healthy food" is not a universal prescription for "control body fat." It's just a good start for baseline health.
I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if someone identifies one (or more) independent factors that drive fat retention. I've suspected it for years.
Gut bacteria? Nein, nein, das ist schlechte bacteria!
Also, eat some cake.
I am using examples that include video cards (4 of them, in my case.) My OS uses video cards to accelerate mainline processes; furthermore, this is done through a standard system mechanism and is relatively easy to incorporate in a considerable range of code; end users see benefits commensurate with the graphics engines they have installed. The processors in graphics cards are specialized for certain types of operations that can be very useful, and in use will significantly outperform, general purpose CPU instructions.
It really doesn't matter (other than as a market force) if gamers are buying cards that can handle more display activity than they're throwing at them. What matters is if these cards (and CPUs, for that matter) are overpowered in all places they are utilized, and the answer to that is flat-out no.
It's over. Long over. Get over it. Sheesh.
Should I still be bitching about England's tea taxes? Hardly. I likes me a nice, smart English wench just fine. They have manners, and they still know how to wear suspenders and a dress without becoming all confused about who they are, unlike most American fems these days.
Anyway, you wanna indulge in angst, there are all kinds of contemporary reasons that actually call for it as they remain unresolved. Australia as a penal colony and England's goal of empire... isn't one of them.
I have project builds (in c) that take many minutes to complete on an 8-core, 3 GHz machine with many gigs of memory available. I have at least one application that consumes all eight cores just to run -- and yes, it's written efficiently. I have others that consume a core or two... and less would be better. I *do* multitask. As far as I'm concerned, neither software (c compiler and linker in this case) or hardware are anywhere *near* where I'd like them to be. Your assertion of "no reason" strikes me as ludicrous.
I rather suspect that software will be coming down the pike that can use far more than even I'd like to see... when AI gets here (and yes, I don't consider that to be in any doubt whatsoever, nor is there any significant indication we'll need anything more than high powered VN architecture to do it), "more, faster" will be of benefit no matter how much of it there is.
Expert systems -- not intelligent, but just expert -- can develop indefinitely from right where we are, and the faster they are, and the more data they can get at in a short period of time, the better they will be.
It seems just wantonly blind to say that there is "no real reason" for these improvements.
If all you're thinking about is games... then you're simply not looking at enough of the picture to suggest a decently thought out answer (and even so, I bet there are game designers all over the place who will tell you they'd like more power, more memory, more textures, higher level engines, etc.)
Reincarnate.
"Money can't buy love, but it sure can buy you a yacht to pull up next to it" ...I think that was a Van Halen member, not sure. :)
Ted? Ted, is that you? Bill?
This kind of thinking is why people England had to set up Australia as a penal colony. Oh, Mick, you know you shouldn't make things up. We told yer and we told yer. Now say toodles to yer mum, and onto the freighter wit yer. Time fer a new life where yer can't hurt nobody no more.
Since you have no idea what you're talking about, we'll just agree to disagree.