Don't know about you. But Economics 101 taught me any time there is a price cap on a good - a shortage is guaranteed. I would like to see a counter example.
I'm not sure if this can be counted as goods - but things like software, downloaded music (or even cds - most of the price doesn't consist of the piece of plastics you buy), would be good examples, because so much of the cost of producing them comes from the startup costs. Margin costs are more or less negligible, so selling yet another copy equals to almost pure profit. They're also items that aren't very limited by raw material availability.
I work with frequency inverters, and most standard ones don't behave very well under 1 Hz (low torque, speed variations). That would mean you're two-pole, 200 km/h car would be hard to control at speeds lower than about 5 km/h. Bad idea if you want to avoid parking accidents...
The problem could easily be solved by adding some feedback from the motor (I have used systems where a standard three-phase motor can hold, at zero speed, a hanging load, thanks to pulse encoder feedback). Those features normally cost extra, though, and in a car, you really want to minimize cost.
However, you also fail the fact that a frequency inverter easily can put out higher frequencies as well. I regularly use standard motors at speeds approaching 100 Hz (ie the double frequency). If just the motor is built for it, it can easily be running at the max output frequency of the inverter. The ones I'm working with are maxing out at 400 Hz...
So, an 8-pole or 16-pole motor driven by up to 400 Hz three-phase power would be a much more sensible choice. In addition, inverter motors and generators built for higher frequencies tend to be lighter than low-frequency ones (standard frequency on airplanes is 400 Hz - on trains it is 16,66 Hz)
And yes, the pattern holds even for Macs. Why do you think the pros don't use iMovie, but FCP? Why was one of the first things I did to put the terminal in the dock? Apple does a really good attempt at cracking the gordian knot, but ultimately, you have to handle the difference in demands on complexity somehow.
I'm not saying that's always bad, just that it means that a software just not can aim to be best for "everyone" - if you choose a specific target group, and make your software ultimate for them it will somehow be better (for that group at least). Ideally, every user should have its own system integrator/programmer that tailored for their specific needs, but that's impossible due to lack of programmers (hey, someone would have to make custom solutions for them as well) and need of interoperability.
why don't they just work all on 1 fantastic piece of software?
Because there couldn't be such a thing - it's an oxymoron.
Basically, the requirements of the piece of software would be heavily contradictory - dead-easy to use, but still incredibly powerful. Few such programs exist - because they are virtually impossible to make.
Example: file managers. On the one hand, you have explorer, finder, nautilus et al, which all are at least relatively easy to use even for a newbie. Many find them far to little powerful, especially on/., where the favourite probably is raw/bin/bash, which is far more powerful, but also really hard to learn.
The same principle holds for most other software. Either you make an easily usable, or a powerful version. The powerful version will, by definition, need a lot of learning on the part of the users, and thus can't be easily usable.
When you try to unite these two conflicting requirements, the most likely outcome is one of:
1) Cluttered interface, which intimidates the newcomer 2) Clean interface, but with all powerful features hidden away from sight so the advanced user has to look for them. 3) Millions of settings in an unmanagable settings dialog, toggling the different features on and off.
Conclusion: One software normally can't be the great software - not for every single user. The shifting requirements different individuals have will without doubt make them prefer different software - and that isn't really a bad thing. If everybody ran the same software, there wouldn't be as much incitement for developing new, powerful features!
I'd take a car to go a mile if I had to do it more than once or twice in a short period of time. Not for a block walk, but a mile is a fair distance (12-15 minutes or so at a normal stride?).
You have a perfectly valid point. But one mile still isn't far at all - even though you wouldn't want to walk between the buildings, it would be perfectly possible to ride the bike between them (max 5 minutes, probably nothing compared to finding a parking spot...).
And before you remind me that most employees probably drive to work, I know of several companies in Sweden that have bikes available for internal transports for the employees.
Yeah. This IS Slashdot, so sorry. My comments still were valid (TFA talks a lot about the possibility to use the Core Duo not only in laptops, but in desktops as well), but of course I didn't think of teh simple fact that noone (except me sometimes) on/. reads TFA.;-) Peace, love and Elvis?:-)
I was responding to your comments on the Pentium M. Go back and read your own comment.
Please, do it as well, as you don't seem to have read what I wrote at all. I did a comparison of the Pentium M to the Prescott, saying they weren't even close in TDP. It is a comment on the Pentium M, yes, but not only. The Pentium M variants you mentioned are so close to the Core Duo that the difference is negligible in comparison with the difference to the Prescott cores, basically, you dismissed my comparison without even reading it properly.
Ok, you're still not close to the desktop processors though (which TFA refers a lot to - it tests the Core Duo not only against laptop processors, but against desktop ones as well, and one of the conclusions is that Core Duo beats even the Pentium XE at most times - which is the Intel flagship).
Office buildings tend to have a higher density of people than houses. Per person heat output is non trivial.
Yes they do, they also have quite a bit of IT equipment, so it will be easier to design for heaterless usage. Still, Kiruna is in the land of the midnightsun and doesn't really see the sun for a couple of months, and it can get quite snowy and cold there (think -20C and lower). In conventional building styles, even houses in the south of Sweden (or for that matter, in Germany), are equipped with heating facilities...
It seems to me the more heat I produce from my bulb/processor, the less my temperature regulator will pull energy from my heating system (based on gas, which is becoming more expensive). What's wrong with this way of thinking ?
In an ideal world, you wouldn't be using neither gas, oil, nor electricity for heating your house (at least not as the main source). There are plenty of more environmentally friendly heat sources available, like heat pumps, wood, solar power and so on.
Also, in case you don't live in a really cold climate, the added heat output won't do any good at all - it will only waste energy, and even worse - if you're using an AC it will need even more energy to cool your house.
As a comparison, there are heaterless homes built in Gothenburg, Sweden. The only heating needed comes from the inhabitants and their appliances (fridge, TV, computer(s), stove etc), the insulation is good enough to keep the house warm with the help of ventilation air heat exchangers.
As another comparison, I've heard that a modern office building in Kiruna (northernmost town in Sweden) needs cooling 90% of the year...
convince some users that use (or want to use) both (because they're forced to because of software availability etc) to get rid of their PCs. Not having to buy two computers means they can spend more money on the Apple hardware.
Also, it will be a safe retreat for some one buying a Mac only to find out they didn't like it. Even though you're not totally convinced that you'll like OS X, you always have the possibility to install Windows XP on it instead.
There is a perfect "old school" variant of this, that a friend sometimes used in lectures at the university. He just brought a digital camera, and snapped a picture of the blackboard...
Bill Gates is supported by a system of veins and arteries that cycle blood throughout his body, as well as a set of lungs which collect oxygen which is then added to the blood...
Aren't you forgetting the borg parts of him (just look at the picture at the top of Slashdot)? Those would be the parts that don't work like the rest of us.:)
I have MP3s which are merely renditions of 8 kB MOD files (similar to MIDI). That makes for a (de)compression of several 100 times. It's quite possible that even other songs, in the format they were created, could be just as small. Just make sure not to let them contain any lyrics (ie singing - which necessarily has to be sampled) and keep to making pure electronica and similar stuff.
Of course, this won't apply to music you don't have the "source code" for.:O)
Slashdot Mirror
Don't know about you. But Economics 101 taught me any time there is a price cap on a good - a shortage is guaranteed. I would like to see a counter example.
I'm not sure if this can be counted as goods - but things like software, downloaded music (or even cds - most of the price doesn't consist of the piece of plastics you buy), would be good examples, because so much of the cost of producing them comes from the startup costs. Margin costs are more or less negligible, so selling yet another copy equals to almost pure profit. They're also items that aren't very limited by raw material availability.
There's lots of energy stored in plants that's not oil. An engine that burns that would be a good start.
Uhm, that problem was solved already during the 19th century, and extensively used during WWII...
not in the sense that hybrid cars are, i don't think there are any trains in common use that store sigificant energy in batteries.
:)
You're wrong.
Another one.
I work with frequency inverters, and most standard ones don't behave very well under 1 Hz (low torque, speed variations). That would mean you're two-pole, 200 km/h car would be hard to control at speeds lower than about 5 km/h. Bad idea if you want to avoid parking accidents...
The problem could easily be solved by adding some feedback from the motor (I have used systems where a standard three-phase motor can hold, at zero speed, a hanging load, thanks to pulse encoder feedback). Those features normally cost extra, though, and in a car, you really want to minimize cost.
However, you also fail the fact that a frequency inverter easily can put out higher frequencies as well. I regularly use standard motors at speeds approaching 100 Hz (ie the double frequency). If just the motor is built for it, it can easily be running at the max output frequency of the inverter. The ones I'm working with are maxing out at 400 Hz...
So, an 8-pole or 16-pole motor driven by up to 400 Hz three-phase power would be a much more sensible choice. In addition, inverter motors and generators built for higher frequencies tend to be lighter than low-frequency ones (standard frequency on airplanes is 400 Hz - on trains it is 16,66 Hz)
if you don't what a newspaper is, reading Slashdot is also a viable solution. :)
did you ever see a Macintosh
I wrote my post on my iBook, does that suffice?
And yes, the pattern holds even for Macs. Why do you think the pros don't use iMovie, but FCP? Why was one of the first things I did to put the terminal in the dock? Apple does a really good attempt at cracking the gordian knot, but ultimately, you have to handle the difference in demands on complexity somehow.
I'm not saying that's always bad, just that it means that a software just not can aim to be best for "everyone" - if you choose a specific target group, and make your software ultimate for them it will somehow be better (for that group at least). Ideally, every user should have its own system integrator/programmer that tailored for their specific needs, but that's impossible due to lack of programmers (hey, someone would have to make custom solutions for them as well) and need of interoperability.
why don't they just work all on 1 fantastic piece of software?
/., where the favourite probably is raw /bin/bash, which is far more powerful, but also really hard to learn.
Because there couldn't be such a thing - it's an oxymoron.
Basically, the requirements of the piece of software would be heavily contradictory - dead-easy to use, but still incredibly powerful. Few such programs exist - because they are virtually impossible to make.
Example: file managers. On the one hand, you have explorer, finder, nautilus et al, which all are at least relatively easy to use even for a newbie. Many find them far to little powerful, especially on
The same principle holds for most other software. Either you make an easily usable, or a powerful version. The powerful version will, by definition, need a lot of learning on the part of the users, and thus can't be easily usable.
When you try to unite these two conflicting requirements, the most likely outcome is one of:
1) Cluttered interface, which intimidates the newcomer
2) Clean interface, but with all powerful features hidden away from sight so the advanced user has to look for them.
3) Millions of settings in an unmanagable settings dialog, toggling the different features on and off.
Conclusion: One software normally can't be the great software - not for every single user. The shifting requirements different individuals have will without doubt make them prefer different software - and that isn't really a bad thing. If everybody ran the same software, there wouldn't be as much incitement for developing new, powerful features!
new ones, filled ones, and finally, broken ones.
om du kikar på vad moderatorerna gav din idé för omdöme, så är det uppenbarligen inte minsta lilla dugg påhittat... :-/
I'd take a car to go a mile if I had to do it more than once or twice in a short period of time. Not for a block walk, but a mile is a fair distance (12-15 minutes or so at a normal stride?).
You have a perfectly valid point. But one mile still isn't far at all - even though you wouldn't want to walk between the buildings, it would be perfectly possible to ride the bike between them (max 5 minutes, probably nothing compared to finding a parking spot...).
And before you remind me that most employees probably drive to work, I know of several companies in Sweden that have bikes available for internal transports for the employees.
...if they patent this, then nobody *else* will do it, and than we can all just go and not buy Philips TVs.
Unless Philips decides to license its new patent to all the other manufacturers...
Yeah. This IS Slashdot, so sorry. My comments still were valid (TFA talks a lot about the possibility to use the Core Duo not only in laptops, but in desktops as well), but of course I didn't think of teh simple fact that noone (except me sometimes) on /. reads TFA. ;-) Peace, love and Elvis? :-)
I was responding to your comments on the Pentium M. Go back and read your own comment.
Please, do it as well, as you don't seem to have read what I wrote at all. I did a comparison of the Pentium M to the Prescott, saying they weren't even close in TDP. It is a comment on the Pentium M, yes, but not only. The Pentium M variants you mentioned are so close to the Core Duo that the difference is negligible in comparison with the difference to the Prescott cores, basically, you dismissed my comparison without even reading it properly.
Ok, you're still not close to the desktop processors though (which TFA refers a lot to - it tests the Core Duo not only against laptop processors, but against desktop ones as well, and one of the conclusions is that Core Duo beats even the Pentium XE at most times - which is the Intel flagship).
Key word in my answer: Prescott . You just skipped that word did you?
None of the Pentium M processors uses a Prescott core, with a TDP in the ranging from 84 to 115 W. As I said, Core Duo isn't even close...
You're not even close to how a Prescott would feel in a laptop...
The Vaio AFAIK contains a Pentium M - which means they're on the very cool end of Intel processors.
Office buildings tend to have a higher density of people than houses. Per person heat output is non trivial.
Yes they do, they also have quite a bit of IT equipment, so it will be easier to design for heaterless usage. Still, Kiruna is in the land of the midnightsun and doesn't really see the sun for a couple of months, and it can get quite snowy and cold there (think -20C and lower). In conventional building styles, even houses in the south of Sweden (or for that matter, in Germany), are equipped with heating facilities...
It seems to me the more heat I produce from my bulb/processor, the less my temperature regulator will pull energy from my heating system (based on gas, which is becoming more expensive). What's wrong with this way of thinking ?
In an ideal world, you wouldn't be using neither gas, oil, nor electricity for heating your house (at least not as the main source). There are plenty of more environmentally friendly heat sources available, like heat pumps, wood, solar power and so on.
Also, in case you don't live in a really cold climate, the added heat output won't do any good at all - it will only waste energy, and even worse - if you're using an AC it will need even more energy to cool your house.
As a comparison, there are heaterless homes built in Gothenburg, Sweden. The only heating needed comes from the inhabitants and their appliances (fridge, TV, computer(s), stove etc), the insulation is good enough to keep the house warm with the help of ventilation air heat exchangers.
As another comparison, I've heard that a modern office building in Kiruna (northernmost town in Sweden) needs cooling 90% of the year...
No other energy source offer the same energy per volume efficiency, energy per weight efficiency and power burst.
Nuclear energy does, and even with a huge margin on all accounts. It's a bit impractical to use for driving a car forward, though.
convince some users that use (or want to use) both (because they're forced to because of software availability etc) to get rid of their PCs. Not having to buy two computers means they can spend more money on the Apple hardware.
Also, it will be a safe retreat for some one buying a Mac only to find out they didn't like it. Even though you're not totally convinced that you'll like OS X, you always have the possibility to install Windows XP on it instead.
There is a perfect "old school" variant of this, that a friend sometimes used in lectures at the university. He just brought a digital camera, and snapped a picture of the blackboard...
Bill Gates is supported by a system of veins and arteries that cycle blood throughout his body, as well as a set of lungs which collect oxygen which is then added to the blood...
:)
Aren't you forgetting the borg parts of him (just look at the picture at the top of Slashdot)? Those would be the parts that don't work like the rest of us.
Nope, not anymore. Ingvar Kamprad used to be though, when the IT market flushed, making all BG's stock more or less worthless.
I have MP3s which are merely renditions of 8 kB MOD files (similar to MIDI). That makes for a (de)compression of several 100 times. It's quite possible that even other songs, in the format they were created, could be just as small. Just make sure not to let them contain any lyrics (ie singing - which necessarily has to be sampled) and keep to making pure electronica and similar stuff.
:O)
Of course, this won't apply to music you don't have the "source code" for.
Can you get naked cars (i.e. no engine) from a reasonable/reliable manufacturer?
Put "kit cars" into Google...