At least on primitive VGA subsystems like the ones you see on servers because they're integrated with the BMC for IPMI, yes, it's clearly copying memory. They often scroll only around 20 to 50 lines per second.
One thing I hate about the console is that it's slow.
If you have a driver or piece of HW that misbehaves so lots of kernel messages are printed, scrolling the console screen becomes a bottleneck and the system becomes unresponsive. I've had cases where it took over a half hour to shut down. End users will typically be less patient.
Agree. I'd looove to find the time to reverse engineer some fglrx code. I'd hope, though, that with SI they avoided some of the IP shackles of the past. We'll see.
The open source driver plays 1080p without hiccups on my 7850. Conversely, fglrx 13.1 kept crashing (KDE on Debian with 4 monitors, 3 of them in portrait.)
I'm running radeonsi on a 7850 (since fglrx kept crashing.) It has 3D, is reasonably stable, there is video acceleration but it only seems to use the shaders, not the video hardware. There are a few bugs that sometimes cause artifacts and performance is so-so with some hiccups, but it's usable for real work.
My impression is that a Chromebook is a low-end notebook that's sufficiently different from a generic machine that MS can't demand the manufacturer put Windows on it.
Dream on. Nuclear is hugely subsidized still hardly anyone builds any new reactors. For example, without the government insuring the operation it would be impossible to run one because no insurer would underwrite the risk. Who is trying to find/build a waste disposal site? Who has to get rid of surplus fuel from nuclear weapons? And even with all these, wind and solar are cheaper than nuclear power today and some people have started to talk about Peak Uranium. That's why nobody builds any new reactors, except for the Chinese who are still on an expansionist course (for now.)
I'm not a scholar but I've been following peak oil for about 8 years and climate change for over 20, almost 30. The most rational place in this discussion IMHO is theoildrum.com and the scientists and oil business people there are generally in the same boat as I am.
Why do you think the oil price quadrupled in about 7 years and production is flat despite a doubling in exploration/production investments in the last 5 years?
Why do you think nobody builds nuclear reactors except with huge government subsidies?
Since old phones are grandfathered, don't buy a new phone as long as you can't use it the way you want to use it. My phone is good enough and shows no sign of wear.
We will have to replace a large fraction of our current oil consumption within 20 to 30 years. Coal is not an option since CTL emits way more CO2 than burning oil directly. We're still going to do I'm afraid.
How many of those new tech reactors are operational? How does their cost compare to light water reactors? What would building 1,000 reactors do to the availability and cost of uranium? How much fossil fuel is needed to mine that uranium? What's going to be done with the nuclear waste? How many reasonable locations are there for nuclear reactors in the US?
Economics is 99% mass psychology and wishful thinking. It doesn't apply here; this is about physics. Show me the new technology that we can deploy within the next 20 or 30 years to save our ass and I may listen to you.
The population will decline way too slowly on the demographic path. There will be some harsh realities that'll make it decline a lot faster than you think.
Slashdot Mirror
See? Fox News was correct - as long as you define "we" as "Alaskans" or even "Seatlleites."
Munich: http://maps.google.com/?ll=48.166085,11.513672&spn=24.248734,32.739258&t=m&z=5
Same latitude in the US (northern Montana): http://maps.google.com/?ll=48.136767,-106.347656&spn=24.262182,32.739258&t=m&z=5
My favorite comparison is always that Berlin is at the latitude of South Hudson Bay.
"They got a lot more sun than we do" for anyone who can't bear watching.
P.S. in graphics mode - 80x25 text is fast of course.
At least on primitive VGA subsystems like the ones you see on servers because they're integrated with the BMC for IPMI, yes, it's clearly copying memory. They often scroll only around 20 to 50 lines per second.
One thing I hate about the console is that it's slow.
If you have a driver or piece of HW that misbehaves so lots of kernel messages are printed, scrolling the console screen becomes a bottleneck and the system becomes unresponsive. I've had cases where it took over a half hour to shut down. End users will typically be less patient.
Agree. I'd looove to find the time to reverse engineer some fglrx code.
I'd hope, though, that with SI they avoided some of the IP shackles of the past. We'll see.
The open source driver plays 1080p without hiccups on my 7850. Conversely, fglrx 13.1 kept crashing (KDE on Debian with 4 monitors, 3 of them in portrait.)
I'm running radeonsi on a 7850 (since fglrx kept crashing.) It has 3D, is reasonably stable, there is video acceleration but it only seems to use the shaders, not the video hardware. There are a few bugs that sometimes cause artifacts and performance is so-so with some hiccups, but it's usable for real work.
Not to mention with the ChromeBook all you are doing is trading the openness of X86 for a system that is as locked down as a cellphone.
It's not locked down at all and it's well documented how to install other Linux distros.
In North America, Chromebooks are largely an education (K12) play.
Just like netbooks initially. Remember they were Intel's reaction to the OLPC project.
Chromebooks are way more powerful than netbooks and you can put generic Linux on them.
The *only* difference from other low end laptops is that they don't come with Windows.
My impression is that a Chromebook is a low-end notebook that's sufficiently different from a generic machine that MS can't demand the manufacturer put Windows on it.
After all, Windows is what killed netbooks.
If you ask this then maybe you shouldn't run Apple (or Microsoft for that matter) software.
Dream on.
Nuclear is hugely subsidized still hardly anyone builds any new reactors. For example, without the government insuring the operation it would be impossible to run one because no insurer would underwrite the risk. Who is trying to find/build a waste disposal site? Who has to get rid of surplus fuel from nuclear weapons?
And even with all these, wind and solar are cheaper than nuclear power today and some people have started to talk about Peak Uranium. That's why nobody builds any new reactors, except for the Chinese who are still on an expansionist course (for now.)
Citation required.
I'm not a scholar but I've been following peak oil for about 8 years and climate change for over 20, almost 30. The most rational place in this discussion IMHO is theoildrum.com and the scientists and oil business people there are generally in the same boat as I am.
When did France build those reactors?
Why do you think the oil price quadrupled in about 7 years and production is flat despite a doubling in exploration/production investments in the last 5 years?
Why do you think nobody builds nuclear reactors except with huge government subsidies?
That's completely moronic. Without huge subsidies nuclear is not profitable today.
Detailed, specific answers on how to solve the energy, financial and food crisis?
Or is his answer "Let them eat iPads"?
OMG.
Cornucopians have been proven so consistently wrong the last 10 to 15 years it's no longer funny.
Since old phones are grandfathered, don't buy a new phone as long as you can't use it the way you want to use it.
My phone is good enough and shows no sign of wear.
We will have to replace a large fraction of our current oil consumption within 20 to 30 years. Coal is not an option since CTL emits way more CO2 than burning oil directly. We're still going to do I'm afraid.
How many of those new tech reactors are operational? How does their cost compare to light water reactors?
What would building 1,000 reactors do to the availability and cost of uranium? How much fossil fuel is needed to mine that uranium?
What's going to be done with the nuclear waste? How many reasonable locations are there for nuclear reactors in the US?
Economics is 99% mass psychology and wishful thinking. It doesn't apply here; this is about physics. Show me the new technology that we can deploy within the next 20 or 30 years to save our ass and I may listen to you.
The population will decline way too slowly on the demographic path. There will be some harsh realities that'll make it decline a lot faster than you think.
You may want to start with estimating the cost of 1,000 new nuclear reactors and and the probability density of major failures.