"One of the interesting initiatives we've taken in Washington, D.C., is we've got these vampire-busting devices. A vampire is a -- a cell deal you can plug in the wall to charge your cell phone."
But MacOS has far more than a BIOS. It has OpenFirmware. It's like a BIOS except it doesn't require your machine to start up as if it were a processor made in 1982, and its programmable (scriptable)!
I'm a bit shocked you manged to make your Mini unbootable, even installing iffy software. I'm not completely up-to-date, but booting with command-option-N-V held down should have fixed you up. Or perhaps booting with command-option-O-F and typing "reset-nvram" at the prompt.
I take it inserting a CD and holding down C during boot (or just option and selecting the CD from the list) didn't work?
A defrost cycle just runs the compressor in reverse, it doesn't run some kind of separate heating element. So it shouldn't take more power than cooling. But I dunno. Maybe someone else does.
I told my friend how much his "garage fridge" (older fridge) was costing him to run, he about crapped his pants.
current x potential (voltage) / power factor = power (Watts)
You cannot measure power factor with a multimeter. A Kill-A-Watt measures both VA (what you measured) and power (Watts) and since it knows both, power factor too.
Additionally, with your system if a device has a large surge current it might blow your meter. Or you might hurt yourself. Better to use an inductive current clamp (around only one wire, you cannot pass the entire power cord of line, load and ground through it), since it cannot overload in any way that causes danger or costs money to repair.
But really, get a Kill-A-Watt. It can measure over time the power consumption of a device. For example, it'll tell me how much power my computer takes in a week of use. It does this by measuring and integrating the power usage over time. For example, I've had my PC plugged into the Kill-A-Watt for 650 hours and it has used 15.25 KWh in that time. A month has about 740 hours in it, so I use about 17.4KWh/month for my PC. It is on for some of that time, off for some and in standby for most of it.
There's no other way to measure how much power your fridge uses in a week, unless you want to measure standby power (including power factor), compressor on power (including power factor), and then manually record each time your fridge turns on and for how long.
Laser printers take a lot of power when standing by, like copy machines. They keep the innards partially warmed up for fast response.
But my Canon inkjet (Pixma 8500) is fantastic. On the Kill-A-Watt you can see that within a minute of printing, it drops to less than 1W consumption. Measuring it over time (Kill-A-Watt doesn't measure less than 1W instantaneous) says it takes about 150mW in this standby mode. That's great. I suppose off takes less, I guess. I have mine set to turn off after 20 minutes. Honestly though, I bet it just turns off the LED (30mW?) and remains in the same state otherwise, because it wakes from off very fast (and without touching it, it does so over USB).
Of course, the inks cost a lot compared to toner... (Cheaper than most though)
Lets me find things like my new Athlon X2 4200+ system takes less power than my old P4 3.0GHz (esp. at idle). And my Athlon XP 1700+ before that takes less than either of them, even at idle when they others are at full bore.
Sadly, it also tells me my P4 3.0GHz took 5W when "off", and 5W when in suspend to RAM (S3 standby), but my new Athlon 64 X2 takes 7W when "off" and 12W when in suspend to RAM (S3 standby). That'll cost me $7/year just to have this computer.
I know the power consumption and cost per year (for 24/7 devices like a fridge) or cost per hour (for things you turn on and off like TVs) for everything I have that I could unplug and put my Kill-A-Watt on. That means I don't know about my stove, dryer (both 220V) and dishwasher (power plug is inaccessible).
For example, it costs me about $45/year to run a TiVo, just for the power. I use fluorescent lights wherever possible.
George Bush campaigned for this stuff back in the early days. I may not like the guy much, but he was right about this. Companies consistently make their products more power inefficient just to make them cheaper, because very very few people pay attention to efficiency of appliances. They save a few pennies on day 1 and give it back and then some every year.
Energy Star has been incredibly effective. The cheapest refrigerator you buy is within 80% as efficient as the most efficient models. This is definitely not true with many other classes of devices (like lights!).
Bush also inadvertently coined a great spoonerism about power-stealing vampires when talking about this initiative.
There is fnord no way to fnord accomplish what you say. And fnord if there is such fnord a thing, it's years fnord away. It definitely fnord has not been around and fnord in public use for fnord quite some time now.
They'll make songs cheaper before they make #1. Why? Because they want the song to be a big seller. Then they raise the price. Make it a hit, then cash in. Heck, make the song $3 and the album $9 to get you to spend the extra money for the album.
I'm sure they have all kinds of plans, all of them manipulative. I wouldn't restrict their potential crassness to a single track.
I had a tube HDTV. It had a great picture. It would scale 720p to 1080i. Other signals were untouched (well, 480i was drawn as 960i), and so yeah, it had very few artifacts. Great blacks too.
But now I have an RP LCD. And it looks great too. There aren't any jaggies, even on still pictures. It really looks kind of like the LCD on a computer. If you set it to its non-native resolution, it uses 4 (or more) tap filtering to rescale, so if anything, it's a bit oversmoothed, not overjaggied.
I mean, I have a 1600x1200 LCD on my PC, and until recently, my video card couldn't play games at that high a res with decent framerates, so I would use 1024x768 or whatever. These games didn't look jaggy, so why would an HDTV have to produce jaggies.
Now, I'll say this, SDTV will usually look terribly disappointing on an HDTV, but that's just because it's low res. If you had an SDTV that was as large as my HDTV (55"), SDTV signals would look just as block on it as they do on my HDTV.
I have a friend who had HDTV about 8 years ago, one of the first ones available in the US. It scaled so badly that he often used another TV to view SDTV. So I do understand where you are coming from. But technology rolls on, it did so a long time ago, and that's just not something you should have to put up with anymore.
I'm not saying I would have invented using DCTs to compress images. Do note however that this patent covers using a Huffman table to compress piecewise (large run + small run type) RLE compressed data. It's actually very similar to T.4 (Group 3 fax) encoding.
But if you read the filing, it's clear lawyers use the word obvious to cover a case regular people normally wouldn't.
If you read the article, basically what it says is that the new patent is an obvious derivation of the original patent. It basically says the original patent described the entire process in this patent, and in most cases in more detail than this one does. Thus, this patent is "anticipated" by previous patents, in that if you read all the other patents in the field, it wouldn't be describing anything you didn't already know.
Additionally, the new patent fails to disclose many related patents in the area that were owned by the same company when this patent was filed. 3 of those even have the same author as this patent! This is a rule 56 violation, and additionally would be one of the steps you would take if you wanted to try to patent something which had already been patented (as is suggested here).
So, since that other patent anticipates (renders obvious) this patent and that one is expired already, this stuff should be free and clear.
I do agree JPEG is used when it shouldn't be many times. But then again, I think most of the time you'd be better to use JPEG2000 over JPEG anyway.
Look up the history of seafaring (specifically European seafaring). You could boil water and put it in a cask for a long journey, and it might still go bad from what was in the cask. If it had alcohol in it, it prevented re-contamination during storage.
Many European naval experts felt that a drinking water-based (as opposed to grog or rum) naval fleet was so difficult to maintain as to be impractical. Losses from water-borne illness would be very large.
Where were you when people were "stealing cable" in the 70s? How about when ad agencies "steal each others ideas"? Or what happens when two lovers "steal away to a secluded location"?
No one lost anything in this case.
Words have many meanings in English. And they did before you got all excited about it.
Stop trying to make the world change to meet your ideas of language. Words are there to communicate ideas. Not using a word people already understand to communicate an idea and using another is just going against the whole idea of language.
Apple's Powerbooks used DDR before the current rev (which uses DDR2).
I don't believe the new machines have more bandwidth than the previous ones, the memory bus is still driven at the same speed as before. They just switched to DDR2 because it runs at 1.8V instead of the 2.5V of DDR1 and so they saved a lot of power (witness the greatly increased battery life). DDR2 is also cheaper than DDR1 on the spot market now and soon probably will be cheaper on the contract market too (but not yet, hence the quad-proc G5 still comes with only 512MB RAM!).
Altivec is used a decent amount I guess. But as to offloading a lot of work onto the GPU, didn't you see how 10.4.3 killed Quartz 2D Extreme (not that it was used before). Apple's efforts to farm out graphics to the GPU seem to have been less successful than initially hoped.
The G4 Powerbooks are usable, I use one everyday. But really, the G4 isn't very fast, compared to Pentium M or especially a dual Pentium M. Laptops stand to gain a lot in the Intel switch.
"Hot Smoke results from incomplete combustion during heavy engine loads. Hot smoke also results from an over-rich fuel mixture. Insufficient oxygen prevents the diesel fuel from completely oxidizing. Besides generating particulate pollution, hot smoke performs no useful work; it reduces net engine power and lowers vehicle mpg. Traditional engine adjustments do nothing to hot smoke production. Fumigation reduces most hot smoke production resulting in reduced pollution and increased vehicle mpg."
Hot smoke happens because you don't have enough oxygen in the chamber to burn the fuel. So you're going to fix this by adding more fuel and no more oxygen?
Also, this LPG injection makes it possible to burn all the air, even that near the cold cylinder walls! But then later it says, don't use it when the engine is cold. Those statements make no sense.
Please, give me a break.
I do understand adding LPG could make more power. But it's because you're burning more fuel. And you're paying for more fuel too. No magic here.
It would greatly increase NOx production. The high temps of Diesel combustion already do this, more heat would make it worse.
Honestly, this whole thing is bunk.
Either the truckers are not paying attention. Or they're bad at math. Or they're being paid to lie. Or they're not even real and someone just made them up to sell product.
This whole "these people are not stupid, they do this for a living, believe them" argument is interesting. Only problem is the argument has a built-in subtext of "but the people who make trucks/Diesel engines for a living ARE stupid, they missed a big fuel saver/energy gainer". Does not compute.
2.88MB 3.5" floppy drives used perpendicular recording.
Although they were done by Toshiba also, there's no way this 2005 patent is the canonical patent for perpendicular recording, as there is obvious prior art.
They say removing two web servers and replacing them with one of these would cut the power usage way down. Yeah, sure it would, but it isn't because the CPU is incredible. It'd because you'd have half as many hard drives, north bridges and other ancilliary devices running as before.
But what happens if I were to take the world's servers and replace them with half as many Athlon X2s? Probably the same thing, especially if they were 90nm cores and the old ones were 130nm.
Good for SUN for coming up with a marketing angle, but it's just that, a marketing angle.
But just because I might be able to find gas for 80 cents for a gallon doesn't mean my point is invalid any more than you being able to find biodiesel for 80 cents a gallon means it is.
If people switch, en-masse to biodiesel, it would rise in price. Also, it would be taxed like Diesel to prevent revenue loss by governments. And you're back where you started or worse.
Yes, your car has more HP than a gas motor at the same RPM. But since you have a low redline, your gearing has to be changed in your car. So you are running at lower RPMs than a gas engine at every speed other than launch, and again, that cuts your power. That was what I said about gearing meaning your torque doesn't make it to the wheels.
Diesels make great sense if you roll on a ton of miles, especially at light loads (as GDI isn't in widespred use yet). It doesn't really make sense in a passenger car. Fifth Gear did a great story on this a while back, showing how once the tax advantages of owning a Diesel were dropped in the UK, Diesel went from a wash to a big loss for most people with passenger cars.
And I don't get the guy on here who said Diesels take less energy to produce. If that's true, why do they cost more? A Diesel engine block contains 50% more material (at least) than a gas one, and it requires a turbo or two to get it moving. Plus high pressure fuel pumps and block heaters. And all you remove is the ignition coil, some wires and spark plugs? I just don't see how it could require less energy to make a Diesel motor than a gas one.
Also, your argument about running a modded turbo car against a N/A car goes right with my point. How about you try on a 215HP modded 1.8T? If you get ahead, it won't be for long, you'll be behind before the 1.8T leaves 1st gear.
They finished it two or three years ago. They did it together with some funding from the federal government. However, before they even showed it at a car show, another arm of the government had changed the law so that Diesels cannot qualify as PZEV (partial zero emissions vehicles), and so they no longer made sense for the companies to even consider making, as they wouldn't help them make their low-emissions mix of production.
As to Diesels making power, they don't make much power. Power is horsepower, Diesels are low on HP. They make a lot of torque, but due to the gearing necessary due to the low redlines, most of that doesn't make it through to the wheels where it would do you any good. And Diesels only make all that torque with complex turbocharging setups (see the new Mercedes 3.2L tri-turbo engine).
With low-sulfur gas and direct gasoline injection, gasoline engines also don't have to close the throttle plate when you let off the gas. They do quite well on the highway.
As to the 45mpg, it's nice. Do the math though. With Diesel costing $0.50 more per gallon right now, the breakeven point of getting your extra $1K or more back that you paid for that engine instead of a gas one is well outside of 100,000 miles.
Say a gas engine gets 26mpg and Diesel 33mpg. You use 4 gallons per 100 mi in the gas engine, 3 in the Diesel. Gas costs $2.50/gallon, Diesel $3.00. So you use $10/100 mi in the gas engine, $9 with the Diesel. So you save $1 for every 100 miles. To save $1000, you have to drive 1000*100 or 100,000 miles. That's before you pay the extra for Diesel maintenance (particulate filters are the newest extra cost). And yes, I know the Diesel does better than 33mpg, but the gas engine does better then 24 also. The numbers get worse if the Diesel gets 40 and the car 29, which is more on track.
Valentin Bondarenko who died in a simulator accident in 1961. Oh, and they didn't admit it until 1986. And 50 people who died fueling a Vostok rocket to accept a military satellite in 1980. And we didn't find out about that for more than 5 years.
Let me just say I don't have much reason to believe there weren't additional deaths too.
But I don't understand, is this some kind of contest? Should I be picking on the Russians for knocking off the US space shuttle in making the Buran? Is using Russian rocket parts because they work well stupid? No? Then why don't Americans deserve credit for doing so?
I do agree the part about the Russians not being able to see the satellites is a bit odd. A few years ago I would have said it was stupid. But things have regressed a lot under Putin, I'm starting to wonder if we shouldn't be a bit more careful with respect to the Russians.
Anyway, as another poster mentioned, the US has some other things to crow about too when it comes to launching satellites besides Sea Launch.
Having had it since 1987, and upgraded to Pro-Logic and DD5.1 as appropriate, I can definitely say surround sound is ridiculously overrated. DD5.1 is a lot better than the rest, technologically, but none of them add much to a movie or a game.
Nonetheless, I believe Revolution supports it (unlike Gamecube).
As to HDTV, by the time it hits the meat of the market, expect N to support it.
I think additionally, you misunderstand the whole point of Revolution. Largely, it will be used to sell you NES and SNES games over again (hello, Tecmo Super Bowl!). Those games aren't improved by HDTV at all.
Wanna use the game in your car? How many rear car video systems support HDTV? 1%?
N is heading for the meat of the market, and if they are $50 cheaper, it will help sales a lot.
But again, I'm happy they're not the only company. I have an Xbox 360 on order and will get a PS3 also. I'll be hooking them to my HDTV which I've had for a couple years. But I know there's a lot of people who don't have HDTV at all and won't have it on their game TVs (kids TVs?) in the next few years.
Slashdot Mirror
"One of the interesting initiatives we've taken in Washington, D.C., is we've got these vampire-busting devices. A vampire is a -- a cell deal you can plug in the wall to charge your cell phone."
http://pbahq.smartcampaigns.com/node/208
I tried to find a link that didn't have other Bush quotes in it, I couldn't. So don't be offended if you're a fan.
But MacOS has far more than a BIOS. It has OpenFirmware. It's like a BIOS except it doesn't require your machine to start up as if it were a processor made in 1982, and its programmable (scriptable)!
I'm a bit shocked you manged to make your Mini unbootable, even installing iffy software. I'm not completely up-to-date, but booting with command-option-N-V held down should have fixed you up. Or perhaps booting with command-option-O-F and typing "reset-nvram" at the prompt.
I take it inserting a CD and holding down C during boot (or just option and selecting the CD from the list) didn't work?
The compressor is stalling.
It's about shot.
Well, that's my guess.
A defrost cycle just runs the compressor in reverse, it doesn't run some kind of separate heating element. So it shouldn't take more power than cooling. But I dunno. Maybe someone else does.
I told my friend how much his "garage fridge" (older fridge) was costing him to run, he about crapped his pants.
current x potential (voltage) / power factor = power (Watts)
You cannot measure power factor with a multimeter. A Kill-A-Watt measures both VA (what you measured) and power (Watts) and since it knows both, power factor too.
Additionally, with your system if a device has a large surge current it might blow your meter. Or you might hurt yourself. Better to use an inductive current clamp (around only one wire, you cannot pass the entire power cord of line, load and ground through it), since it cannot overload in any way that causes danger or costs money to repair.
But really, get a Kill-A-Watt. It can measure over time the power consumption of a device. For example, it'll tell me how much power my computer takes in a week of use. It does this by measuring and integrating the power usage over time. For example, I've had my PC plugged into the Kill-A-Watt for 650 hours and it has used 15.25 KWh in that time. A month has about 740 hours in it, so I use about 17.4KWh/month for my PC. It is on for some of that time, off for some and in standby for most of it.
There's no other way to measure how much power your fridge uses in a week, unless you want to measure standby power (including power factor), compressor on power (including power factor), and then manually record each time your fridge turns on and for how long.
Laser printers take a lot of power when standing by, like copy machines. They keep the innards partially warmed up for fast response.
But my Canon inkjet (Pixma 8500) is fantastic. On the Kill-A-Watt you can see that within a minute of printing, it drops to less than 1W consumption. Measuring it over time (Kill-A-Watt doesn't measure less than 1W instantaneous) says it takes about 150mW in this standby mode. That's great. I suppose off takes less, I guess. I have mine set to turn off after 20 minutes. Honestly though, I bet it just turns off the LED (30mW?) and remains in the same state otherwise, because it wakes from off very fast (and without touching it, it does so over USB).
Of course, the inks cost a lot compared to toner... (Cheaper than most though)
I highly recommend them.
Lets me find things like my new Athlon X2 4200+ system takes less power than my old P4 3.0GHz (esp. at idle). And my Athlon XP 1700+ before that takes less than either of them, even at idle when they others are at full bore.
Sadly, it also tells me my P4 3.0GHz took 5W when "off", and 5W when in suspend to RAM (S3 standby), but my new Athlon 64 X2 takes 7W when "off" and 12W when in suspend to RAM (S3 standby). That'll cost me $7/year just to have this computer.
I know the power consumption and cost per year (for 24/7 devices like a fridge) or cost per hour (for things you turn on and off like TVs) for everything I have that I could unplug and put my Kill-A-Watt on. That means I don't know about my stove, dryer (both 220V) and dishwasher (power plug is inaccessible).
For example, it costs me about $45/year to run a TiVo, just for the power. I use fluorescent lights wherever possible.
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,87100,0 0.asp
George Bush campaigned for this stuff back in the early days. I may not like the guy much, but he was right about this. Companies consistently make their products more power inefficient just to make them cheaper, because very very few people pay attention to efficiency of appliances. They save a few pennies on day 1 and give it back and then some every year.
Energy Star has been incredibly effective. The cheapest refrigerator you buy is within 80% as efficient as the most efficient models. This is definitely not true with many other classes of devices (like lights!).
Bush also inadvertently coined a great spoonerism about power-stealing vampires when talking about this initiative.
There is fnord no way to fnord accomplish what you say. And fnord if there is such fnord a thing, it's years fnord away. It definitely fnord has not been around and fnord in public use for fnord quite some time now.
But I'm going a different way.
They'll make songs cheaper before they make #1. Why? Because they want the song to be a big seller. Then they raise the price. Make it a hit, then cash in. Heck, make the song $3 and the album $9 to get you to spend the extra money for the album.
I'm sure they have all kinds of plans, all of them manipulative. I wouldn't restrict their potential crassness to a single track.
I had a tube HDTV. It had a great picture. It would scale 720p to 1080i. Other signals were untouched (well, 480i was drawn as 960i), and so yeah, it had very few artifacts. Great blacks too.
But now I have an RP LCD. And it looks great too. There aren't any jaggies, even on still pictures. It really looks kind of like the LCD on a computer. If you set it to its non-native resolution, it uses 4 (or more) tap filtering to rescale, so if anything, it's a bit oversmoothed, not overjaggied.
I mean, I have a 1600x1200 LCD on my PC, and until recently, my video card couldn't play games at that high a res with decent framerates, so I would use 1024x768 or whatever. These games didn't look jaggy, so why would an HDTV have to produce jaggies.
Now, I'll say this, SDTV will usually look terribly disappointing on an HDTV, but that's just because it's low res. If you had an SDTV that was as large as my HDTV (55"), SDTV signals would look just as block on it as they do on my HDTV.
I have a friend who had HDTV about 8 years ago, one of the first ones available in the US. It scaled so badly that he often used another TV to view SDTV. So I do understand where you are coming from. But technology rolls on, it did so a long time ago, and that's just not something you should have to put up with anymore.
Did you read the filing?
I'm not saying I would have invented using DCTs to compress images. Do note however that this patent covers using a Huffman table to compress piecewise (large run + small run type) RLE compressed data. It's actually very similar to T.4 (Group 3 fax) encoding.
But if you read the filing, it's clear lawyers use the word obvious to cover a case regular people normally wouldn't.
If you read the article, basically what it says is that the new patent is an obvious derivation of the original patent. It basically says the original patent described the entire process in this patent, and in most cases in more detail than this one does. Thus, this patent is "anticipated" by previous patents, in that if you read all the other patents in the field, it wouldn't be describing anything you didn't already know.
Additionally, the new patent fails to disclose many related patents in the area that were owned by the same company when this patent was filed. 3 of those even have the same author as this patent! This is a rule 56 violation, and additionally would be one of the steps you would take if you wanted to try to patent something which had already been patented (as is suggested here).
So, since that other patent anticipates (renders obvious) this patent and that one is expired already, this stuff should be free and clear.
I do agree JPEG is used when it shouldn't be many times. But then again, I think most of the time you'd be better to use JPEG2000 over JPEG anyway.
SDTV looks great on my HDTV.
And I don't even have some fancy scaler, just a good Sony TV.
It isn't rocket science, there's no excuse for SDTV looking like poop on an HDTV.
Look up the history of seafaring (specifically European seafaring). You could boil water and put it in a cask for a long journey, and it might still go bad from what was in the cask. If it had alcohol in it, it prevented re-contamination during storage.
Many European naval experts felt that a drinking water-based (as opposed to grog or rum) naval fleet was so difficult to maintain as to be impractical. Losses from water-borne illness would be very large.
You're just a n00b.
Where were you when people were "stealing cable" in the 70s?
How about when ad agencies "steal each others ideas"?
Or what happens when two lovers "steal away to a secluded location"?
No one lost anything in this case.
Words have many meanings in English. And they did before you got all excited about it.
Stop trying to make the world change to meet your ideas of language. Words are there to communicate ideas. Not using a word people already understand to communicate an idea and using another is just going against the whole idea of language.
Apple's Powerbooks used DDR before the current rev (which uses DDR2).
I don't believe the new machines have more bandwidth than the previous ones, the memory bus is still driven at the same speed as before. They just switched to DDR2 because it runs at 1.8V instead of the 2.5V of DDR1 and so they saved a lot of power (witness the greatly increased battery life). DDR2 is also cheaper than DDR1 on the spot market now and soon probably will be cheaper on the contract market too (but not yet, hence the quad-proc G5 still comes with only 512MB RAM!).
http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.php?t=274390
Altivec is used a decent amount I guess. But as to offloading a lot of work onto the GPU, didn't you see how 10.4.3 killed Quartz 2D Extreme (not that it was used before). Apple's efforts to farm out graphics to the GPU seem to have been less successful than initially hoped.
The G4 Powerbooks are usable, I use one everyday. But really, the G4 isn't very fast, compared to Pentium M or especially a dual Pentium M. Laptops stand to gain a lot in the Intel switch.
It might as well say. "We regret that we were unable to get away with this."
You won't find the word "sorry" or "apology/apologize" in that document.
Nor does it even express regret for putting a rootkit on there in the first place, let alone express regret for using DRM (we should be so lucky)!
It just says "please stop being angry with us".
"Hot Smoke results from incomplete combustion during heavy engine loads. Hot smoke also results from an over-rich fuel mixture. Insufficient oxygen prevents the diesel fuel from completely oxidizing. Besides generating particulate pollution, hot smoke performs no useful work; it reduces net engine power and lowers vehicle mpg. Traditional engine adjustments do nothing to hot smoke production. Fumigation reduces most hot smoke production resulting in reduced pollution and increased vehicle mpg."
Hot smoke happens because you don't have enough oxygen in the chamber to burn the fuel. So you're going to fix this by adding more fuel and no more oxygen?
Also, this LPG injection makes it possible to burn all the air, even that near the cold cylinder walls! But then later it says, don't use it when the engine is cold. Those statements make no sense.
Please, give me a break.
I do understand adding LPG could make more power. But it's because you're burning more fuel. And you're paying for more fuel too. No magic here.
It would greatly increase NOx production. The high temps of Diesel combustion already do this, more heat would make it worse.
Honestly, this whole thing is bunk.
Either the truckers are not paying attention.
Or they're bad at math.
Or they're being paid to lie.
Or they're not even real and someone just made them up to sell product.
This whole "these people are not stupid, they do this for a living, believe them" argument is interesting. Only problem is the argument has a built-in subtext of "but the people who make trucks/Diesel engines for a living ARE stupid, they missed a big fuel saver/energy gainer". Does not compute.
Look! This hydrogen BS works on gas engines too!
http://www.slspart.com/df.html
2.88MB 3.5" floppy drives used perpendicular recording.
s /7281.htm
Although they were done by Toshiba also, there's no way this 2005 patent is the canonical patent for perpendicular recording, as there is obvious prior art.
http://www.intel.com/design/archives/periphrl/doc
In order to feed a faster CPU you need faster RAM and a faster FSB.
So, unless you want your new CPU to work no better than your old one, that means you're going to have to have a new socket each time.
In summary:
If you don't have a new socket and new RAM, there's no point in upgrading your CPU really. So just stick with your new CPU.
If you want more performance, you won't get it without new RAM and a new socket, so you're going to have to deal with it.
This is all because faster CPUs can't go faster without more bandwidth to feed their faster instruction and data consumption rate.
It is perfectly valid to just stick with your old CPU, RAM and mobo because it is fast enough for you also.
SUN describes it well, but people miss it.
They say removing two web servers and replacing them with one of these would cut the power usage way down. Yeah, sure it would, but it isn't because the CPU is incredible. It'd because you'd have half as many hard drives, north bridges and other ancilliary devices running as before.
But what happens if I were to take the world's servers and replace them with half as many Athlon X2s? Probably the same thing, especially if they were 90nm cores and the old ones were 130nm.
Good for SUN for coming up with a marketing angle, but it's just that, a marketing angle.
But just because I might be able to find gas for 80 cents for a gallon doesn't mean my point is invalid any more than you being able to find biodiesel for 80 cents a gallon means it is.
If people switch, en-masse to biodiesel, it would rise in price. Also, it would be taxed like Diesel to prevent revenue loss by governments. And you're back where you started or worse.
Yes, your car has more HP than a gas motor at the same RPM. But since you have a low redline, your gearing has to be changed in your car. So you are running at lower RPMs than a gas engine at every speed other than launch, and again, that cuts your power. That was what I said about gearing meaning your torque doesn't make it to the wheels.
Diesels make great sense if you roll on a ton of miles, especially at light loads (as GDI isn't in widespred use yet). It doesn't really make sense in a passenger car. Fifth Gear did a great story on this a while back, showing how once the tax advantages of owning a Diesel were dropped in the UK, Diesel went from a wash to a big loss for most people with passenger cars.
And I don't get the guy on here who said Diesels take less energy to produce. If that's true, why do they cost more? A Diesel engine block contains 50% more material (at least) than a gas one, and it requires a turbo or two to get it moving. Plus high pressure fuel pumps and block heaters. And all you remove is the ignition coil, some wires and spark plugs? I just don't see how it could require less energy to make a Diesel motor than a gas one.
Also, your argument about running a modded turbo car against a N/A car goes right with my point. How about you try on a 215HP modded 1.8T? If you get ahead, it won't be for long, you'll be behind before the 1.8T leaves 1st gear.
They finished it two or three years ago. They did it together with some funding from the federal government. However, before they even showed it at a car show, another arm of the government had changed the law so that Diesels cannot qualify as PZEV (partial zero emissions vehicles), and so they no longer made sense for the companies to even consider making, as they wouldn't help them make their low-emissions mix of production.
As to Diesels making power, they don't make much power. Power is horsepower, Diesels are low on HP. They make a lot of torque, but due to the gearing necessary due to the low redlines, most of that doesn't make it through to the wheels where it would do you any good. And Diesels only make all that torque with complex turbocharging setups (see the new Mercedes 3.2L tri-turbo engine).
With low-sulfur gas and direct gasoline injection, gasoline engines also don't have to close the throttle plate when you let off the gas. They do quite well on the highway.
As to the 45mpg, it's nice. Do the math though. With Diesel costing $0.50 more per gallon right now, the breakeven point of getting your extra $1K or more back that you paid for that engine instead of a gas one is well outside of 100,000 miles.
Say a gas engine gets 26mpg and Diesel 33mpg. You use 4 gallons per 100 mi in the gas engine, 3 in the Diesel. Gas costs $2.50/gallon, Diesel $3.00. So you use $10/100 mi in the gas engine, $9 with the Diesel. So you save $1 for every 100 miles. To save $1000, you have to drive 1000*100 or 100,000 miles. That's before you pay the extra for Diesel maintenance (particulate filters are the newest extra cost). And yes, I know the Diesel does better than 33mpg, but the gas engine does better then 24 also. The numbers get worse if the Diesel gets 40 and the car 29, which is more on track.
Valentin Bondarenko who died in a simulator accident in 1961. Oh, and they didn't admit it until 1986. And 50 people who died fueling a Vostok rocket to accept a military satellite in 1980. And we didn't find out about that for more than 5 years.
Let me just say I don't have much reason to believe there weren't additional deaths too.
But I don't understand, is this some kind of contest? Should I be picking on the Russians for knocking off the US space shuttle in making the Buran? Is using Russian rocket parts because they work well stupid? No? Then why don't Americans deserve credit for doing so?
I do agree the part about the Russians not being able to see the satellites is a bit odd. A few years ago I would have said it was stupid. But things have regressed a lot under Putin, I'm starting to wonder if we shouldn't be a bit more careful with respect to the Russians.
Anyway, as another poster mentioned, the US has some other things to crow about too when it comes to launching satellites besides Sea Launch.
Having had it since 1987, and upgraded to Pro-Logic and DD5.1 as appropriate, I can definitely say surround sound is ridiculously overrated. DD5.1 is a lot better than the rest, technologically, but none of them add much to a movie or a game.
Nonetheless, I believe Revolution supports it (unlike Gamecube).
As to HDTV, by the time it hits the meat of the market, expect N to support it.
I think additionally, you misunderstand the whole point of Revolution. Largely, it will be used to sell you NES and SNES games over again (hello, Tecmo Super Bowl!). Those games aren't improved by HDTV at all.
Wanna use the game in your car? How many rear car video systems support HDTV? 1%?
N is heading for the meat of the market, and if they are $50 cheaper, it will help sales a lot.
But again, I'm happy they're not the only company. I have an Xbox 360 on order and will get a PS3 also. I'll be hooking them to my HDTV which I've had for a couple years. But I know there's a lot of people who don't have HDTV at all and won't have it on their game TVs (kids TVs?) in the next few years.