There's no reason the GUI should look the same it did back in Word95.
Really? there's no reason to look different to it either. I felt quite confortable in terms of GUI when I used Word95 long time ago (yes, only in terms of GUI)
When I see those GUIs arround I feel lost. I love my simple gnome GUI. IMHO, since processor is quicker now, GUIs should be simpler since programs should do more things by their own. I look to that screenshots and I see too much things arround... how can I concentrate on writting? I need to maximize the area where I'm writing to! No to have more and more toolbars wasting space. I don't like clippy things moving and distracting my eyes, and so on.
Perhaps it is just because I am a LyX guy using gnome, Nautilus spatial (no toolbars) and NEdit.
I love Firefox if not Epiphany, and I use Evolution which is close to have too much buttons but it is still fortunately far from that eye-bloat.
BTW, I don't know about windoze, but in the Linux world going from 32 bits to 64 bits almost always seems to produce a performance gain of 10->20%. I personally tried a simulator I'm using with 64 bits (recompiled with gcc), and got a speedup of 12%.
I fully support that. I'm a happy ubuntu64 user. I'll never buy a 32bit CPU anymore.
I've tested my AMD64 in crunching numbers and it is about 15% faster when compiling the code in 64bit respect 32bit (Fortran90 code with PGI compiler checked). Also, AMD64 performs much better than P-IV - specially when I access more than 1Gb of RAM, but not limited to that case.
VBA code stuffed inside the gentle spreadsheet and word doc. There are cubic miles of it in banks.
I'm beginning to feel sick. Hope they do not use *that* for anything related to client ownings.
My opinion is that spreadsheets are evil when are included at product process line. If they also contain scripts, then they are evil**2. Sure it is easy to do lots of things with spreadsheets (and scripts) but their nature is out of process control, and versions control is almost impossible, IMHO, since anyone ends up having her customized version of the spreadsheet. Of course, having compiled apps is more costly but probably generates so less problems at the end so their cost might even be lower than the spreadsheets one.
Long time ago, when I was student, I bought a very good russian thermodynamics book (Kirillin) where they said Borazon synthetic material be harder than diamond. It is a pity Wikipedia does not agree with that fact.
Of course, the thermodynamic process to achieve it was far expensive. Required very high pressure and temperatures.
Don't know about Terminal Services at all. But what I can strongly state is that OpenOffice has always behaved ultra-fast at X11 remote displaying, even under ssh intranet links. The opposite to Acrobat reader, for instance.
My guess is that it caches what it has to cache.
probably but I'm in the same case as the parent poster, and I wish to upgrade my AMD64 to dualcore one perhaps next year. That would be a big improvement for my architecture. That's why I chose the 939 socket.
Yes, an anonymous covard has the same point, don't mod me up, don't mod me down.
Spanish food is actually very healthy, supposing you eat *real* spanish food, besides of being very variate. The use of olive oil, however, may provide strong taste if you are not used to it, I guess; whereas is one of the reasons for its healthness.
I'm spanish, and food is one of the few things I'm really proud of my country. Spain is not bad, by the way, but it is clear that we are not a country of high scientific innovation or high technology skills. Heh, news seems to say that we are improving;-).
[...]GPL and anyone is allowed to modify and distribute it for free?
on the other hand they can't make money from it, unless what they sell is support for that password;-P
The problem is at most at Apple side
on
Safari vs. KHTML
·
· Score: 1
If the code diverts, then they cannot either take advantage of future OSS improvements, at least easily (same as happens for KDE guys at the other side). IMHO it would be better for them a more collaborative developing model (something simmilar to mozilla/netscape OpenOffice.org/Staroffice)
At the beginning of the CDrom era, a CDrom handled more space than most of HDs over there (at least the personal computer HDs). You were lucky if your HD was 200Mb!!. I guess we would be happier with something of about 100Gb right now, but I agree that 30Gb is more than enough.
sure, at the "8" node the gravity of the earth would be cancelled with the gravity of the moon, so I guess the orbit can be controlled easier and it can go closer to both the moon and the earth; it is not a symmetric 8 but one which is bigger around the earth and smaller around the moon and the node is closer to the moon rather than to the earth as well.
You did not. But there are other kinds of use between server and pure desktop. Some of us run databases or web servers at our desktops. Imagine you are doing web development at your desktop, perhaps you might want to have apache running. Yes I know that perhaps you are the only one accessing the web server, afterall.
But from a purely fuel efficiency standpoint, it's not necessarily true that a 400 seat 4-engine plane must be more fuel efficient than two 200 seat 2-engine planes.
of course a 400 seat 4-engine is more fuel efficient than two 200 seat 2-engine planes. It is a question of the Reynolds number involved in the both cases.
The point is that the efficency of two engined airplane is really close to the one of the same airplane with 4 engines (A330 vs A340), but the later increases the manteniance costs. I agree that the 2 engines case should be more efficient than the 4 engines one, but I'm not sure at all since the 2 engines one has to carry heavier weight because of take off regulations (the engines need to be far more powerful). However, a 400 seat airplane (no matter if it has 2 or 4 engines) will always be more efficient than two 200 seat airplanes (no matter if they are 2 or 4 engined)
what current desktops that's pretty much like "rebooting" your computer
you don't run a web server, a database server or other servers at your machine, do you?
Some works have been done in order to migrate apps within X-servers, but it is not completed. For instance, gtkdemo shows a small app that can be moved from one display to another.
I guess you are wrong. Two engines are not much more efficient than 4 engines. Two engines lowers de manteniance costs.
On the other hand, regulations impose the ability to achieve a minimum ascending angle when an engine fails during take off in the worst possible case ( MTOW: maximum take off weight), so two engine aircrafts need much more total full power than 4 engine ones. As a result the airplane weight is higher for a 2 engine version, so the fuel consumption is slightly larger. One engine case is not possible since no regulator would allow that aircraft, since it is impossible to achieve the one-engine-failure test.
Three engines have been used in the past. However nowadays does not make sense because they involve higher weight at the tail structure, and you have not so much benefits on the manteniance side as compared with the 2 engines case versus 4 engines one.
Finally, transoceanic flights require 4 engines because of regulation (except for very few airlines)- so large range aircrafts tend to be 4 engines ones so they are supposed to do transoceanic flights. Also, there are usually versions of the 4 engines aircrafts with 2 engines (A340 -> A330) so if you are an airline that will do continental long range flights you can lower the manteniance costs.
And about scale, the 2 engines - as they are larger- do have better performance than the 4 engines (2 big things is better than 4 small ones, in fluid mechanics). But as I have already said, the one-engine-failure test means that the 2 engines need to be even larger so perhaps they are more efficient but they are far heavier. Don't forget that weight in aviation is *the* issue.
Nice comment. Let me just point a few things. The system is known as "fly by wire". The first airplane to have "fly by wire" AFAIK was the General Dynamics F16 (and the Northrop YF17 which evolved on McDonell Douglas-Northrop F18). The first commercial airplane to "fly by wire" was the A320. Latest Boeing models also do "fly by wire", I guess that 777 and 767 do but other ones (747, 757, 737) don't. Airbus uses a Joystick while Boeing still places a conventional-look control column
"Fly by wire" has three missions: a) never let the airplane fly out of flight envelop (airplane integrity), b) increase airplane efficency (e.g. flying in unstable condition in cruise, positioning the center of gracity of the airplane as close to the lift as possible) and c) lower the pilot stress so she can be aware of other things besides the pure flight control as she has to.
The 7 processors are made by different manufacturers, also (intel, motorola, AMD,...). AFAIK ADA language is used for programming because of realtime capabilities and not being error-prone language.
Probably soon cars will do "drive by wire". Let's hope none of the 7 computers runs windows...
Do you know what this business is about? Do you really think they don't do enough market research when each of those birds costs 218 million USD and you need to sell at least 200 of them in order to make even?
- 1 large, human disaster should that bird go down
- 1 even larger potential target for terrorists
OK, lets all stay at home. At least, slashdot is free from potential terrorist menaces.
The other points have been already covered by other replies.
The fact is that Fluid Mechanics shows that big bodies have proportionally lower drag than low bodies. In other words, two 200 seat airplanes do require more fuel than one 400 seat one.
A380 achieves that 20% less fuel reduction respect a 747 because two facts: the airplane scale (which means a larger Reynolds number, and thus a proportionally lower drag) and the better technology: don't forget that 747 design is 30 years old- which involves better engines, better materials (i.e. less weight) and better wing (higher aspect ratio) which has been the strongest point of Airbus aircrafts and which is the key point for the 7e7, 777 and 767 respect the old 747. BTW, I think that 747 wing has been redesigned within these 30 years, but not sure of how it is nowadays as compared to ultimate designs.
There is another important point when comparing cars to airplanes. The A380 efficiency is obtained at a speed of nearly 10 times higher than the car. Do drive a car at 200Km/h (in a test oval circuit, of course) and you'll get a fuel consumption from the double of that values to three or four times higher!
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. I had to see it by myself.
Really? there's no reason to look different to it either. I felt quite confortable in terms of GUI when I used Word95 long time ago (yes, only in terms of GUI)
When I see those GUIs arround I feel lost. I love my simple gnome GUI. IMHO, since processor is quicker now, GUIs should be simpler since programs should do more things by their own. I look to that screenshots and I see too much things arround... how can I concentrate on writting? I need to maximize the area where I'm writing to! No to have more and more toolbars wasting space. I don't like clippy things moving and distracting my eyes, and so on.
Perhaps it is just because I am a LyX guy using gnome, Nautilus spatial (no toolbars) and NEdit. I love Firefox if not Epiphany, and I use Evolution which is close to have too much buttons but it is still fortunately far from that eye-bloat.
I fully support that. I'm a happy ubuntu64 user. I'll never buy a 32bit CPU anymore. I've tested my AMD64 in crunching numbers and it is about 15% faster when compiling the code in 64bit respect 32bit (Fortran90 code with PGI compiler checked). Also, AMD64 performs much better than P-IV - specially when I access more than 1Gb of RAM, but not limited to that case.
VBA code stuffed inside the gentle spreadsheet and word doc. There are cubic miles of it in banks.
I'm beginning to feel sick. Hope they do not use *that* for anything related to client ownings.
My opinion is that spreadsheets are evil when are included at product process line. If they also contain scripts, then they are evil**2. Sure it is easy to do lots of things with spreadsheets (and scripts) but their nature is out of process control, and versions control is almost impossible, IMHO, since anyone ends up having her customized version of the spreadsheet. Of course, having compiled apps is more costly but probably generates so less problems at the end so their cost might even be lower than the spreadsheets one.
Long time ago, when I was student, I bought a very good russian thermodynamics book (Kirillin) where they said Borazon synthetic material be harder than diamond. It is a pity Wikipedia does not agree with that fact.
Of course, the thermodynamic process to achieve it was far expensive. Required very high pressure and temperatures.
Don't know about Terminal Services at all. But what I can strongly state is that OpenOffice has always behaved ultra-fast at X11 remote displaying, even under ssh intranet links. The opposite to Acrobat reader, for instance. My guess is that it caches what it has to cache.
WebOS, in Spanish sounds exactly like "eggs" ("huevos"), i.e. "balls".
Equality
(a+b)(a-b)=a**2-b**2
is very useful:
(1+i)*(1-i) = 1**2-i**2=2
probably but I'm in the same case as the parent poster, and I wish to upgrade my AMD64 to dualcore one perhaps next year. That would be a big improvement for my architecture. That's why I chose the 939 socket. Yes, an anonymous covard has the same point, don't mod me up, don't mod me down.
Perhaps some dumb discussions may have been avoided afterall.
Today, when reading slashdot, turn on your stereo with M.Jackon's song and sing "we are bad, we are bad, we are really, really bad..."
Spanish food is actually very healthy, supposing you eat *real* spanish food, besides of being very variate. The use of olive oil, however, may provide strong taste if you are not used to it, I guess; whereas is one of the reasons for its healthness.
I'm spanish, and food is one of the few things I'm really proud of my country. Spain is not bad, by the way, but it is clear that we are not a country of high scientific innovation or high technology skills. Heh, news seems to say that we are improving ;-).
on the other hand they can't make money from it, unless what they sell is support for that password ;-P
If the code diverts, then they cannot either take advantage of future OSS improvements, at least easily (same as happens for KDE guys at the other side). IMHO it would be better for them a more collaborative developing model (something simmilar to mozilla/netscape OpenOffice.org/Staroffice)
Good enough, then.
At the beginning of the CDrom era, a CDrom handled more space than most of HDs over there (at least the personal computer HDs). You were lucky if your HD was 200Mb!!. I guess we would be happier with something of about 100Gb right now, but I agree that 30Gb is more than enough.
sure, at the "8" node the gravity of the earth would be cancelled with the gravity of the moon, so I guess the orbit can be controlled easier and it can go closer to both the moon and the earth; it is not a symmetric 8 but one which is bigger around the earth and smaller around the moon and the node is closer to the moon rather than to the earth as well.
You did not. But there are other kinds of use between server and pure desktop. Some of us run databases or web servers at our desktops. Imagine you are doing web development at your desktop, perhaps you might want to have apache running. Yes I know that perhaps you are the only one accessing the web server, afterall.
of course a 400 seat 4-engine is more fuel efficient than two 200 seat 2-engine planes. It is a question of the Reynolds number involved in the both cases.
The point is that the efficency of two engined airplane is really close to the one of the same airplane with 4 engines (A330 vs A340), but the later increases the manteniance costs. I agree that the 2 engines case should be more efficient than the 4 engines one, but I'm not sure at all since the 2 engines one has to carry heavier weight because of take off regulations (the engines need to be far more powerful). However, a 400 seat airplane (no matter if it has 2 or 4 engines) will always be more efficient than two 200 seat airplanes (no matter if they are 2 or 4 engined)
you don't run a web server, a database server or other servers at your machine, do you?
Some works have been done in order to migrate apps within X-servers, but it is not completed. For instance, gtkdemo shows a small app that can be moved from one display to another.
On the other hand, regulations impose the ability to achieve a minimum ascending angle when an engine fails during take off in the worst possible case ( MTOW: maximum take off weight), so two engine aircrafts need much more total full power than 4 engine ones. As a result the airplane weight is higher for a 2 engine version, so the fuel consumption is slightly larger. One engine case is not possible since no regulator would allow that aircraft, since it is impossible to achieve the one-engine-failure test.
Three engines have been used in the past. However nowadays does not make sense because they involve higher weight at the tail structure, and you have not so much benefits on the manteniance side as compared with the 2 engines case versus 4 engines one.
Finally, transoceanic flights require 4 engines because of regulation (except for very few airlines)- so large range aircrafts tend to be 4 engines ones so they are supposed to do transoceanic flights. Also, there are usually versions of the 4 engines aircrafts with 2 engines (A340 -> A330) so if you are an airline that will do continental long range flights you can lower the manteniance costs.
And about scale, the 2 engines - as they are larger- do have better performance than the 4 engines (2 big things is better than 4 small ones, in fluid mechanics). But as I have already said, the one-engine-failure test means that the 2 engines need to be even larger so perhaps they are more efficient but they are far heavier. Don't forget that weight in aviation is *the* issue.
yes, I am aeronautical engineer.
"Fly by wire" has three missions: a) never let the airplane fly out of flight envelop (airplane integrity), b) increase airplane efficency (e.g. flying in unstable condition in cruise, positioning the center of gracity of the airplane as close to the lift as possible) and c) lower the pilot stress so she can be aware of other things besides the pure flight control as she has to.
The 7 processors are made by different manufacturers, also (intel, motorola, AMD, ...). AFAIK ADA language is used for programming because of realtime capabilities and not being error-prone language.
Probably soon cars will do "drive by wire". Let's hope none of the 7 computers runs windows...
Do you know what this business is about? Do you really think they don't do enough market research when each of those birds costs 218 million USD and you need to sell at least 200 of them in order to make even?
- 1 large, human disaster should that bird go down
- 1 even larger potential target for terrorists
OK, lets all stay at home. At least, slashdot is free from potential terrorist menaces.
The other points have been already covered by other replies.
A380 achieves that 20% less fuel reduction respect a 747 because two facts: the airplane scale (which means a larger Reynolds number, and thus a proportionally lower drag) and the better technology: don't forget that 747 design is 30 years old- which involves better engines, better materials (i.e. less weight) and better wing (higher aspect ratio) which has been the strongest point of Airbus aircrafts and which is the key point for the 7e7, 777 and 767 respect the old 747. BTW, I think that 747 wing has been redesigned within these 30 years, but not sure of how it is nowadays as compared to ultimate designs.
There is another important point when comparing cars to airplanes. The A380 efficiency is obtained at a speed of nearly 10 times higher than the car. Do drive a car at 200Km/h (in a test oval circuit, of course) and you'll get a fuel consumption from the double of that values to three or four times higher!