When talking about Conduction though it is good to specify electrical conduction or heat conduction. They are definitely correlated, but not equivlent.
The best known heat conductor is diamond, but diamond is a terrible conductor of electricity.
It is also good to specify the arrangement in question. Consider that the best heat conductor is diamond, but graphene is not a very good heat conductor.
The most common solid phases of silver are among the best electrical conductors known, although that status does depend on the temperature in question, since for example, at superconducting temperatures, superconductors easily beat out silver.
As for uses of Gold. Gold's most notable attributes are relatively high heat and electrical conductivity, its appearance, the ability to easily create thin wires or thin sheets of it, and its highly inert nature (including not oxidizing).
Just about all practical applications (as opposed to vanity applications) of gold could use some other metal, however, due to those properties gold is often seen as the better choice. For example, even microelectronics could use other metals in place of gold, but in such applications gold is often used as very fine wires, so even slight oxidation could be problematic, and further most other metals are far more difficult to shape into such fine wires.
More on topic. Homosexuality ads in either direction are often based on combining the "Gender" and "Looking for" facebook attributes. If you have the gender set, and you are "looking for" both genders, even if just for "friendship", you will get some Gay or Lesbian targeted ads (depending on your gender). It has always worked that way.
The advertises have always (or at least for nearly the entire existence of face-book ads) been able to target users based on Gender, age ranges, and "looking for" genders. The fact is though that the advertisers cannot rely on the "looking for" genders having any real meaning, because many straight people have both set since they are looking for (non-romantic) friends of either gender. (i.e. not everybody interprets the "looking for" setting the same way).
The database storage feature is an evolution of a feature originally found in Google Gears. The original purpose was to permit offline capable websites. For example, one could store several years worth of calendar data in a fairly small amount of space, so would it not be convenient to let Google calendar do that, and also request caching of itself such that you could visit it when offline and still see your calendar?
Now, you might be one of those users who would say that is absurd, I will use my desktop calendar app when offline, since that synchronizes with Google Calendar (or whatever online calendar provide you use, if any).
But people are using fewer and fewer desktop clients for things. The GTalk in GMail and Facebook chat have replaced separate IM clients for many people. Outside of of tech circles, one almost never sees desktop e-email clients for personal use. (Though businesses still frequently use Outlook).
I just tested Chrome's private browsing mode. The "cookie" was set, but did not survive when the session was closed. The most likely way for the cookie to survive a private browsing mode is though Flash's Local Stored Object feature. I've not checked with firefox.
The rollout of FiOS or u-verse gives customers a maximum of 4 options in most places for non-broadcast channels. That is getting a lot better, but the companies still don't really compete, since FiOS/u-verse is largely only economical if you take bundled services, which means that you are very unlikely to be switching services. Switching between two cable providers if you are getting separate phone and internet would be no big deal, similar to switching phone companies in those few places with a choice.
The required bandwidth is fixed, however, then the channels are off, they can use those channels for cable internet signals. That means that they can use a single cable run for more houses, since they can fit more Internet content. If all the TV stations are being watched, then everybody's Internet connection would be terrible, but the cable company knows that needing all channels at once is not very common.
Further more, if fewer channels are in use, then they can offer more VOD content. They normally keep selections painfully limited, because if thy were bigger, too many people would want to use the service at once, and they only have a limited number of VOD channels per area (but satellite has it even worse) . If they can use the regular channel slots for VOD, they could offer more programming, because they could sustain more feeds, albeit at the risk of having to tell users that a normal channel is unavailable if VOD is using up all the slots.
That said, many have not fully rolled out either of those, and piracy is still a significant part of the reason.
Hold on a moment. Cable companies are granted exclusive franchises by the city government, not the federal government. That and that alone is the reason for the abysmal service. If you had a choice between TW, Comcast, Cox, Charter, and CableVision in most cities then we would have real competition, and the prices and services would be much better.
The FCC helps to keep the cable companies acting like there is competition. If not for the FCC, there would never have been the CableCard option in the first place. The only option would be to buy the set-top box, or not be able to tune in to many of the channels you are paying for.
Sure the FCC does sometimes bend to much the the will of the media companies or cable companies, but if the FCC only regulated the actual airwaves, and not also the cable companies, Things would be much, much worse.
There are two things that opera's content blocker lacks, that AdBlock Plus has. The first is subscribing to a block list (which is automatically updated).
The second is complex blocking rules. It has basic wildcard rules, but Adblock Plus also has has exception rules, regex rules, a special wildcard that only matches the beginning or end of a url, a wildcard that matches "separator characters", rules to block elements through specification of the element type, the element style or id, etc.
The end result is that the blocklists available block almost all ads with virtually no false positives, since one can specify exceptions for them.
Commercials obviously have the audio waveform's amplitude at maximum. Furthermore, the waveform might be a clipped waveform, which results is a greater apparent volume. Then commercials tend to be highly compressed, so both the quiet sounds and loud sounds have pretty much maximum amplitude.
On the other hand, TV shows like to be able to use dynamic range, meaning that during most of the program the audio waveform never reaches the maximum, doing so only on occasion, for dramatic effect.
Furthermore, TV shows often use relatively little compression, so if there are quiet sounds that are important to understanding the show, and there is any background noise in the room, one needs to turn up the volume [1] until those sounds are audible.
[1] For some reason, I've never seen a TV with the ability to add compression, which is what would be best for TV shows and movie, if there is background noise, or one wants to keep the volume low but not miss any quieter sounds. You set the volume so the loudest part is no louder than you want, and then you increase the compression until the quieter sounds (often voices) are loud enough to be heard.
I've never udersttod the need for more than a dozen or two bookmarks. All the main sites I use have either memerable URLs or can be found reliably in quick one or two word Google search.
On;y a few useful but rarely used sites that don't have memorable URLs do I ever bookmark. I have 23 bookmarks in Firefox, and many of those were ancient things added by accident, that I never bothered to delete.
Yes, a real motor will cause some heating, but a theoretical frictionless motor will still use energy, but not give off any heat. In that case it is exactly 0% efficient at heating. Practical motors are far less than 100% efficient heaters.
Having pretty much every computer running both IPv4 and IPv6 will be a nightmare. Things like managing subnets for IPv4 will still need to happen, but yet the IPv6 system does not cleanly line up with that.
If you don't have some (many) IPv6 only machines, then you have not in any way avoided the IPv4 address exhaustion problem.
The only sane future is one where we gradually transition to having almost no devices still running IPv4.
Why would you want to be able to tunnel IPv4 over an IPV6 connection? Obviously two IPv4 networks seperated by an IPv6 only network.
In the long run we do not want to be running both, or we will be tempted to allways assign both an IPv4 and IPv6 address to every machine. Eventually we want basically nothing left running IPv4, just like we got rid of IPv1, IPv2, and IPv3 when each successor came out.
Also the "*myriad* solutions" is a problem. There sould have been exactly one, not more than one.
You are correct, but the problem was that when IPv6 was first announced, the NAT based tunnel mechanism was not ready yet, AFAICT.
At the time, I believe they had specified how to transparently tunnel an IPv4-to-IPv4 message across an IPv6 network, and the reverse, such that except from the perspective of the edge gateways, both IPv4 and IPv6 looked like contiguous networks, even when they were not.
There has also not been nearly nearly enough emphasis on avoiding IPv4/IPv6 mixed networks. In the theoretical design of IPv6, only the gateways between IPv4 and IPv6 networks spoke both protocols, and even then, not on the same physical interface. Regular machines simply spoke only one or the other. In practice, I've yet to see a network where the clients have IPv4 disabled. If the machines speak IPv6, they also speak IPv4, which is not optimal.
But having networks speak both internally is just asking for trouble.
I have not yet read all of DJB's post, but I agree that the design is the key issue.
There are a number of large flaws, but the key among them is ipv4/ipv6 dual networks, and lack of a proper transisition plan.
Here is how IPv6 should have gone:
First they design a new protocol, with new address space, etc. They did that correctly.
It is highly stressed that inside a single network only IPv4 or IPv6 be used. Never both, except on gateways between an IPv4 and IPv6 network. They failed here miserably. Having regular machines speak both protocols is asking for trouble.
Now, design a method of tunneling IPv4 packets across an IPv6 network, in such a way that that it appears to the IPv4 machines as merely one high latency IPv4 hop. Thus all IPv4 networks can talk to each other completely unaware of the existence of IPv6.
Now also design a way to tunnel IPv6 packets between two IPv6 networks separated by an IPv4 network. Basically that requires the IPv6/IPv4 boarder gateways to know about each other and each's IPv4 network.
At that point we would have the ability of IPv4 and IPv6 machines to talk with other machines of the same protocol, despite possibly needing to tunnel over the other protocol.
Now we need the ability for IPv6 only clients to be able to connect to IPv4 only servers. There exists only one way to do that. You specify some way to encode IPv4 addresses in IPv6 space. The IPv4/IPv6 border gateways advertise routes for such packets. When the packets reach them, they perform a form of network address translation, not unlike what home routers perform, except that the interior addresses (and protocol) are IPv6 not IPv4.
I believe that all of those tunneling/translation systems have been defined for the real world IPv6, but as far as I can tell, they were not all ready when IPv6 was first announced.
Many electric devices have less than 100 percent heating efficiency. An LED is not 100% efficient. Much of the energy is turned into visible light instead. (Admittedly, the light will (and everything else will eventually decay into heat, but not before escaping.) If it is making sound like a speaker, it is not 100% efficient in terms of heating (unless it heats by transferring heat energy like the devices you mentioned.)
(Electric) motors are electrical devices, and they most definitely are not heating at 100% efficiency, since they transferring energy into rotation.
Resistance can be 100% efficient in generating heat, but is not always that way. If the heater is making noise, then part of the energy is being wasted on sound. If it is giving of light, then the same is true again. Granted evenetually both sound and light, will decay into heat, but the same is true of everything thanks to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The real concern here is that both light and sound are likely to escape the desired area before decaying into heat.
Part of this may have been the fact that it was looked at almost like a motor scooter. Like those, it cannot remain balanced with power off, and has similar speeds, but unlike them, they take up far more room and cost much more.
Interestingly adding a third wheel to the front, but mounting it on a spring with little resistance would allow the device to remain balanced when the power was off, without interfereing with the lean to drive feature.
But generally people are satisfied with the existing options like motorized scooters, mopeds, bicycles, and motorcycles.
That is pretty stretched logic. One might try to claim irony in the person who makes a device being killed by it, but although unexpected, these sorts are things are not actively contrary to expectations, at least when we don't expect the guy to have special knowledge that makes the device safer.
A quote from an article covering perfect competition: "In contrast to a monopoly or oligopoly, it is impossible for a firm in perfect competition to earn economic profit in the long run, which is to say that a firm cannot make any more money than is necessary to cover its economic costs."
Claasical economic theory ignored the possibility of erning interest by investing the money in alternative measures. Only neoclassical economic theory accounts for that. In neoclassical theory, profit is defined including subtracting out the interest that would have been earned by low risk investment instead.
There would be several options. A C compiler could pretend that it was a byte addressable machine, and just never generate code that generates addresses without the last 3 address bits being all zeros.
That would be the easiest option.
On a side note: The 386 is byte addressable, but has alignment concerns, meaning that loading an int from a non-multiple of 4 address is possible with a single instruction, but it is slower than loading it from a multiple of four address. Did the TI 340x0 series have similar alignment concerns?
A perfectly competitive market would not have zero markup, that is true, since some markup is necessary to cover the other costs. That said a perfectly competeative market would have (asymptotically) zero profit, according to basic economic theory theory.
That said such theory is still incorrect, because it fails to account for the market of production factors. There is a fixed number of people willing to work minimum wage making your Widget. Let us say there is only one company in the market, they pay only minimum wage, and sell with a moderate profit (where profit=revenue - all costs (including wages)).
The theory says I could undercut that company, by starting up my own widget factory (these widgets are standardized commodities so my product is identical). There is no cost to set up, since there is no barrier to market. The theory says that if I sell for less profit, I will be selling for a lower price, and make all the profit. That said, I might not be able to hire a full crew at minimum wage, since there are only a limited number of workers willing to work making widgets at that price, and the other company has most of them. Therefore my costs are not equal to the other company, and I might not be able to undercut them.
Slashdot Mirror
When talking about Conduction though it is good to specify electrical conduction or heat conduction. They are definitely correlated, but not equivlent.
The best known heat conductor is diamond, but diamond is a terrible conductor of electricity.
It is also good to specify the arrangement in question. Consider that the best heat conductor is diamond, but graphene is not a very good heat conductor.
The most common solid phases of silver are among the best electrical conductors known, although that status does depend on the temperature in question, since for example, at superconducting temperatures, superconductors easily beat out silver.
As for uses of Gold. Gold's most notable attributes are relatively high heat and electrical conductivity, its appearance, the ability to easily create thin wires or thin sheets of it, and its highly inert nature (including not oxidizing).
Just about all practical applications (as opposed to vanity applications) of gold could use some other metal, however, due to those properties gold is often seen as the better choice. For example, even microelectronics could use other metals in place of gold, but in such applications gold is often used as very fine wires, so even slight oxidation could be problematic, and further most other metals are far more difficult to shape into such fine wires.
Not anymore. Channels 52-69 are no longer in use, not being permitted for TV broadcasters.
More on topic. Homosexuality ads in either direction are often based on combining the "Gender" and "Looking for" facebook attributes. If you have the gender set, and you are "looking for" both genders, even if just for "friendship", you will get some Gay or Lesbian targeted ads (depending on your gender). It has always worked that way.
The advertises have always (or at least for nearly the entire existence of face-book ads) been able to target users based on Gender, age ranges, and "looking for" genders. The fact is though that the advertisers cannot rely on the "looking for" genders having any real meaning, because many straight people have both set since they are looking for (non-romantic) friends of either gender. (i.e. not everybody interprets the "looking for" setting the same way).
The database storage feature is an evolution of a feature originally found in Google Gears. The original purpose was to permit offline capable websites. For example, one could store several years worth of calendar data in a fairly small amount of space, so would it not be convenient to let Google calendar do that, and also request caching of itself such that you could visit it when offline and still see your calendar?
Now, you might be one of those users who would say that is absurd, I will use my desktop calendar app when offline, since that synchronizes with Google Calendar (or whatever online calendar provide you use, if any).
But people are using fewer and fewer desktop clients for things. The GTalk in GMail and Facebook chat have replaced separate IM clients for many people. Outside of of tech circles, one almost never sees desktop e-email clients for personal use. (Though businesses still frequently use Outlook).
I just tested Chrome's private browsing mode. The "cookie" was set, but did not survive when the session was closed. The most likely way for the cookie to survive a private browsing mode is though Flash's Local Stored Object feature. I've not checked with firefox.
The rollout of FiOS or u-verse gives customers a maximum of 4 options in most places for non-broadcast channels. That is getting a lot better, but the companies still don't really compete, since FiOS/u-verse is largely only economical if you take bundled services, which means that you are very unlikely to be switching services. Switching between two cable providers if you are getting separate phone and internet would be no big deal, similar to switching phone companies in those few places with a choice.
The required bandwidth is fixed, however, then the channels are off, they can use those channels for cable internet signals. That means that they can use a single cable run for more houses, since they can fit more Internet content. If all the TV stations are being watched, then everybody's Internet connection would be terrible, but the cable company knows that needing all channels at once is not very common.
Further more, if fewer channels are in use, then they can offer more VOD content. They normally keep selections painfully limited, because if thy were bigger, too many people would want to use the service at once, and they only have a limited number of VOD channels per area (but satellite has it even worse) . If they can use the regular channel slots for VOD, they could offer more programming, because they could sustain more feeds, albeit at the risk of having to tell users that a normal channel is unavailable if VOD is using up all the slots.
That said, many have not fully rolled out either of those, and piracy is still a significant part of the reason.
Hold on a moment. Cable companies are granted exclusive franchises by the city government, not the federal government. That and that alone is the reason for the abysmal service. If you had a choice between TW, Comcast, Cox, Charter, and CableVision in most cities then we would have real competition, and the prices and services would be much better.
The FCC helps to keep the cable companies acting like there is competition. If not for the FCC, there would never have been the CableCard option in the first place. The only option would be to buy the set-top box, or not be able to tune in to many of the channels you are paying for.
Sure the FCC does sometimes bend to much the the will of the media companies or cable companies, but if the FCC only regulated the actual airwaves, and not also the cable companies, Things would be much, much worse.
There are two things that opera's content blocker lacks, that AdBlock Plus has. The first is subscribing to a block list (which is automatically updated).
The second is complex blocking rules. It has basic wildcard rules, but Adblock Plus also has has exception rules, regex rules, a special wildcard that only matches the beginning or end of a url, a wildcard that matches "separator characters", rules to block elements through specification of the element type, the element style or id, etc.
The end result is that the blocklists available block almost all ads with virtually no false positives, since one can specify exceptions for them.
There are several things going on here.
Commercials obviously have the audio waveform's amplitude at maximum. Furthermore, the waveform might be a clipped waveform, which results is a greater apparent volume. Then commercials tend to be highly compressed, so both the quiet sounds and loud sounds have pretty much maximum amplitude.
On the other hand, TV shows like to be able to use dynamic range, meaning that during most of the program the audio waveform never reaches the maximum, doing so only on occasion, for dramatic effect.
Furthermore, TV shows often use relatively little compression, so if there are quiet sounds that are important to understanding the show, and there is any background noise in the room, one needs to turn up the volume [1] until those sounds are audible.
[1] For some reason, I've never seen a TV with the ability to add compression, which is what would be best for TV shows and movie, if there is background noise, or one wants to keep the volume low but not miss any quieter sounds. You set the volume so the loudest part is no louder than you want, and then you increase the compression until the quieter sounds (often voices) are loud enough to be heard.
I've never udersttod the need for more than a dozen or two bookmarks. All the main sites I use have either memerable URLs or can be found reliably in quick one or two word Google search.
On;y a few useful but rarely used sites that don't have memorable URLs do I ever bookmark. I have 23 bookmarks in Firefox, and many of those were ancient things added by accident, that I never bothered to delete.
Yes, a real motor will cause some heating, but a theoretical frictionless motor will still use energy, but not give off any heat. In that case it is exactly 0% efficient at heating. Practical motors are far less than 100% efficient heaters.
Having pretty much every computer running both IPv4 and IPv6 will be a nightmare. Things like managing subnets for IPv4 will still need to happen, but yet the IPv6 system does not cleanly line up with that.
If you don't have some (many) IPv6 only machines, then you have not in any way avoided the IPv4 address exhaustion problem.
The only sane future is one where we gradually transition to having almost no devices still running IPv4.
Why would you want to be able to tunnel IPv4 over an IPV6 connection? Obviously two IPv4 networks seperated by an IPv6 only network.
In the long run we do not want to be running both, or we will be tempted to allways assign both an IPv4 and IPv6 address to every machine. Eventually we want basically nothing left running IPv4, just like we got rid of IPv1, IPv2, and IPv3 when each successor came out.
Also the "*myriad* solutions" is a problem. There sould have been exactly one, not more than one.
You are correct, but the problem was that when IPv6 was first announced, the NAT based tunnel mechanism was not ready yet, AFAICT.
At the time, I believe they had specified how to transparently tunnel an IPv4-to-IPv4 message across an IPv6 network, and the reverse, such that except from the perspective of the edge gateways, both IPv4 and IPv6 looked like contiguous networks, even when they were not.
There has also not been nearly nearly enough emphasis on avoiding IPv4/IPv6 mixed networks. In the theoretical design of IPv6, only the gateways between IPv4 and IPv6 networks spoke both protocols, and even then, not on the same physical interface. Regular machines simply spoke only one or the other. In practice, I've yet to see a network where the clients have IPv4 disabled. If the machines speak IPv6, they also speak IPv4, which is not optimal.
But having networks speak both internally is just asking for trouble.
I have not yet read all of DJB's post, but I agree that the design is the key issue.
There are a number of large flaws, but the key among them is ipv4/ipv6 dual networks, and lack of a proper transisition plan.
Here is how IPv6 should have gone:
First they design a new protocol, with new address space, etc. They did that correctly.
It is highly stressed that inside a single network only IPv4 or IPv6 be used. Never both, except on gateways between an IPv4 and IPv6 network. They failed here miserably. Having regular machines speak both protocols is asking for trouble.
Now, design a method of tunneling IPv4 packets across an IPv6 network, in such a way that that it appears to the IPv4 machines as merely one high latency IPv4 hop. Thus all IPv4 networks can talk to each other completely unaware of the existence of IPv6.
Now also design a way to tunnel IPv6 packets between two IPv6 networks separated by an IPv4 network. Basically that requires the IPv6/IPv4 boarder gateways to know about each other and each's IPv4 network.
At that point we would have the ability of IPv4 and IPv6 machines to talk with other machines of the same protocol, despite possibly needing to tunnel over the other protocol.
Now we need the ability for IPv6 only clients to be able to connect to IPv4 only servers. There exists only one way to do that. You specify some way to encode IPv4 addresses in IPv6 space. The IPv4/IPv6 border gateways advertise routes for such packets. When the packets reach them, they perform a form of network address translation, not unlike what home routers perform, except that the interior addresses (and protocol) are IPv6 not IPv4.
I believe that all of those tunneling/translation systems have been defined for the real world IPv6, but as far as I can tell, they were not all ready when IPv6 was first announced.
Many electric devices have less than 100 percent heating efficiency. An LED is not 100% efficient. Much of the energy is turned into visible light instead. (Admittedly, the light will (and everything else will eventually decay into heat, but not before escaping.) If it is making sound like a speaker, it is not 100% efficient in terms of heating (unless it heats by transferring heat energy like the devices you mentioned.)
(Electric) motors are electrical devices, and they most definitely are not heating at 100% efficiency, since they transferring energy into rotation.
Resistance can be 100% efficient in generating heat, but is not always that way. If the heater is making noise, then part of the energy is being wasted on sound. If it is giving of light, then the same is true again. Granted evenetually both sound and light, will decay into heat, but the same is true of everything thanks to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The real concern here is that both light and sound are likely to escape the desired area before decaying into heat.
Part of this may have been the fact that it was looked at almost like a motor scooter. Like those, it cannot remain balanced with power off, and has similar speeds, but unlike them, they take up far more room and cost much more.
Interestingly adding a third wheel to the front, but mounting it on a spring with little resistance would allow the device to remain balanced when the power was off, without interfereing with the lean to drive feature.
But generally people are satisfied with the existing options like motorized scooters, mopeds, bicycles, and motorcycles.
That is pretty stretched logic. One might try to claim irony in the person who makes a device being killed by it, but although unexpected, these sorts are things are not actively contrary to expectations, at least when we don't expect the guy to have special knowledge that makes the device safer.
That could be, but much of KDE's bad rep is not based on instability, but more the half-baked feel the default configuration gives.
A quote from an article covering perfect competition: "In contrast to a monopoly or oligopoly, it is impossible for a firm in perfect competition to earn economic profit in the long run, which is to say that a firm cannot make any more money than is necessary to cover its economic costs."
Claasical economic theory ignored the possibility of erning interest by investing the money in alternative measures. Only neoclassical economic theory accounts for that. In neoclassical theory, profit is defined including subtracting out the interest that would have been earned by low risk investment instead.
The C99 standard does specify a few minimum sizes for some of those though. For example, char must be at least 8 bit.
There would be several options. A C compiler could pretend that it was a byte addressable machine, and just never generate code that generates addresses without the last 3 address bits being all zeros.
That would be the easiest option.
On a side note: The 386 is byte addressable, but has alignment concerns, meaning that loading an int from a non-multiple of 4 address is possible with a single instruction, but it is slower than loading it from a multiple of four address. Did the TI 340x0 series have similar alignment concerns?
A perfectly competitive market would not have zero markup, that is true, since some markup is necessary to cover the other costs. That said a perfectly competeative market would have (asymptotically) zero profit, according to basic economic theory theory.
That said such theory is still incorrect, because it fails to account for the market of production factors. There is a fixed number of people willing to work minimum wage making your Widget. Let us say there is only one company in the market, they pay only minimum wage, and sell with a moderate profit (where profit=revenue - all costs (including wages)).
The theory says I could undercut that company, by starting up my own widget factory (these widgets are standardized commodities so my product is identical). There is no cost to set up, since there is no barrier to market. The theory says that if I sell for less profit, I will be selling for a lower price, and make all the profit. That said, I might not be able to hire a full crew at minimum wage, since there are only a limited number of workers willing to work making widgets at that price, and the other company has most of them. Therefore my costs are not equal to the other company, and I might not be able to undercut them.