I direct your attention to the Porsche 918 Spyder. 500hp engine, 218 additional horsepower available via electric motors, 7 speed sequential gearbox, 0-100km/h in 3.2 seconds, 78mpg.
Oh, and its top speed is in excess of 200mph, so that 100 mile commute won't even take you 30 minutes, traffic and speed traps permitting.
I know this is Idle and we're not supposed to be serious, but doesn't this seem mildly impractical? 1 car and 10k miles per 70 households seems a bit much. Imagine the carpools!
I laughed... That being said, I wonder how much it would hurt Google if they actually needed to buy Namco for some reason (warning: theoretical situation with no base in reality.) Namco's gotten pretty big since the Pac-Man days.
I mentioned it was running faster. In the short period of time I was playing with it this morning, I tested individual page load time on several websites, application start-up/initial page load time using the "Load the pages I had open last session" settings, and some simple responsiveness tests (loading up videos on youtube & etc.) on both Chrome and Firefox (individually, so that the system was in a relatively similar state for each trial.) Firefox seemed snappier when loading individual pages, started noticeably faster, and was generally more responsive than Chrome. Given, I'm not using Chrome Beta at the moment, so that could have something to do with it. But overall, it seems that Firefox has really gotten their game together.
As for memory usage, my main computer is a laptop with 8gb ram, 6 of which are always in use running 2-3 virtual machines. Memory footprint matters greatly to me and is the reason I switched off of Firefox in the first place. The old memory leak that made it take 700mb ram after 2-3 days of constant running wasn't cutting it for me. Chrome tends to hang in the 200s, though on occasion it also jumps up into the 500 range, and, when certain pages start acting up, it'll eat up to 1.2gb. Of course, I tend toward months of uptime and upwards of 30 tabs at any given time, so it's a bit expected.
I'll give you that it feels fat and slow in comparison to, say, elinks. I'll even give you that it's fat and slow in comparison to the first versions of Firefox. But in comparison to existing browsers, it trumps IE (obviously,) and, from the short time I've been using it, seems to be running faster with less of a memory footprint than Chrome. I won't lie, extensive testing will have to happen to make me switch, but things are looking up for Firefox right about now.
The Apple dock-connector audio-out is (as far as I am aware) raw decoded audio at max volume. It does not respect the iPod volume control at all, though it is affected by the "sound check" volume-balancing algorithm.
I imagine that's sustained Newtons for the duration of the fuel. So yeah, it's technically a liquid powered engine with the thrust capabilities of an I, but with significantly more fuel. An I engine should be plenty enough for maneuvering a small spacecraft in space.
--
The above comments are the opinions of a non-qualified amateur rocketry fan. Please take with ~ 2.7 ounces of salt.
If that is indeed true then I apologize. To tell you the absolute truth, the last time I looked at the actual number of megabytes in a 500GB hard drive was so long ago that I should probably have looked the info up before spewing it out. Nevertheless, the base of my statement still stands. When dealing with storage media and OS requirements, a 2GB hard drive will not necessarily fit your 2GB OS.
Just as a note for the future, your Ubuntu installation problem could well have been caused by the fact that flash media uses 1000 megabyte gigabytes, as opposed to the standard 1024 used by traditional hard drives. So, your 2GB was really 48MB short. Now, personally, if I was told that I could install an OS in 2GB, I would get a 3GB+ drive; if you have a 2GB drive and install 2GB of operating system on it, that doesn't leave you much room to actually use the OS...
Nothing like research BEFORE posting an article. If you look at the homepage you will see that 4.1 hasn't been released.
And by the way, XHTML 1.0 of any type just won't work in the real high-quality web designing world.. XHTML 1.1 is the way to go, if you can't get 2.0 to work. (Yes, I know it hasn't been completely defined yet.)
Look at this bullshit!!! On the homepage the guys in the "clean room" are wearing SURGICAL MASKS!!! And one of them is wearing jeans! I bemoan the fate of Slashdot.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm honestly a bit surprised. Something like "Application Marketplace" seems more like a Microsoft-ish name.
I direct your attention to the Porsche 918 Spyder. 500hp engine, 218 additional horsepower available via electric motors, 7 speed sequential gearbox, 0-100km/h in 3.2 seconds, 78mpg. Oh, and its top speed is in excess of 200mph, so that 100 mile commute won't even take you 30 minutes, traffic and speed traps permitting.
Last I checked, all the massive AirCraft [sic] carriers were owned by the US Navy.
My coffee maker runs Linux. Java can run on Linux. Therefore your coffee maker violates Oracle's patent. QED (Oracle style).
I know this is Idle and we're not supposed to be serious, but doesn't this seem mildly impractical? 1 car and 10k miles per 70 households seems a bit much. Imagine the carpools!
I laughed... That being said, I wonder how much it would hurt Google if they actually needed to buy Namco for some reason (warning: theoretical situation with no base in reality.) Namco's gotten pretty big since the Pac-Man days.
Hey, speak for yourself.
They just need to construct additional pylons. Problem solved.
I mentioned it was running faster. In the short period of time I was playing with it this morning, I tested individual page load time on several websites, application start-up/initial page load time using the "Load the pages I had open last session" settings, and some simple responsiveness tests (loading up videos on youtube & etc.) on both Chrome and Firefox (individually, so that the system was in a relatively similar state for each trial.) Firefox seemed snappier when loading individual pages, started noticeably faster, and was generally more responsive than Chrome. Given, I'm not using Chrome Beta at the moment, so that could have something to do with it. But overall, it seems that Firefox has really gotten their game together. As for memory usage, my main computer is a laptop with 8gb ram, 6 of which are always in use running 2-3 virtual machines. Memory footprint matters greatly to me and is the reason I switched off of Firefox in the first place. The old memory leak that made it take 700mb ram after 2-3 days of constant running wasn't cutting it for me. Chrome tends to hang in the 200s, though on occasion it also jumps up into the 500 range, and, when certain pages start acting up, it'll eat up to 1.2gb. Of course, I tend toward months of uptime and upwards of 30 tabs at any given time, so it's a bit expected.
I'll give you that it feels fat and slow in comparison to, say, elinks. I'll even give you that it's fat and slow in comparison to the first versions of Firefox. But in comparison to existing browsers, it trumps IE (obviously,) and, from the short time I've been using it, seems to be running faster with less of a memory footprint than Chrome. I won't lie, extensive testing will have to happen to make me switch, but things are looking up for Firefox right about now.
The Apple dock-connector audio-out is (as far as I am aware) raw decoded audio at max volume. It does not respect the iPod volume control at all, though it is affected by the "sound check" volume-balancing algorithm.
I believe that falls under "Tyrannical government? Revolution."
No, that would clearly be 1,181.25 grains [google.com].
I imagine that's sustained Newtons for the duration of the fuel. So yeah, it's technically a liquid powered engine with the thrust capabilities of an I, but with significantly more fuel. An I engine should be plenty enough for maneuvering a small spacecraft in space.
--
The above comments are the opinions of a non-qualified amateur rocketry fan. Please take with ~ 2.7 ounces of salt.
If that is indeed true then I apologize. To tell you the absolute truth, the last time I looked at the actual number of megabytes in a 500GB hard drive was so long ago that I should probably have looked the info up before spewing it out. Nevertheless, the base of my statement still stands. When dealing with storage media and OS requirements, a 2GB hard drive will not necessarily fit your 2GB OS.
Just as a note for the future, your Ubuntu installation problem could well have been caused by the fact that flash media uses 1000 megabyte gigabytes, as opposed to the standard 1024 used by traditional hard drives. So, your 2GB was really 48MB short. Now, personally, if I was told that I could install an OS in 2GB, I would get a 3GB+ drive; if you have a 2GB drive and install 2GB of operating system on it, that doesn't leave you much room to actually use the OS...
OH GOD! WHERE WILL IT END!! I'd have more !s. Damn lameness filter...
Maybe we'll actually get 7ghz chips without overclocking!
What comes next...a fully functional car made out of paper?
Can't we start with getting a working engine?
Nothing like research BEFORE posting an article. If you look at the homepage you will see that 4.1 hasn't been released.
And by the way, XHTML 1.0 of any type just won't work in the real high-quality web designing world.. XHTML 1.1 is the way to go, if you can't get 2.0 to work. (Yes, I know it hasn't been completely defined yet.)
Look at this bullshit!!! On the homepage the guys in the "clean room" are wearing SURGICAL MASKS!!! And one of them is wearing jeans! I bemoan the fate of Slashdot.