Of course, Linux doesn't have a billion and one crappy binary drivers that don't support PAE to deal with. THAT is why Windows x86 is limited to 4GB of physical address space, even though it does support PAE, and could use the same 64GB if it hadn't been disabled by MS in XP SP2 to stop all those driver crashes. In fact the server versions do still support PAE, because the signing process for server drivers required PAE support.
I've seen a full-length card, but not for a LONG time. The last one was an early mono card that went to the end of the case, turned around and came back again. Strange to think that it didn't really do anything, and was just some ram and some DACs.
Damn I wish I had some mod points. Cue me getting twenty in the morning.
A lot of people are proclaiming blu-ray as a success because of all the PS3s sold that no-one watches blu-rays on. Show us actual disk sales, not player sales. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if because of the PS3 including a blu-ray drive there have been more blu-ray players sold than blu-ray disks:P. Ok, that's not likely, but you can see how much the PS3 could skew the results by.
I never said it was impossible, I just said that FULLY implementing DX10 on XP/2000 would require porting most of Vista to XP, making the process somewhat pointless. A compatibility layer that supports MOST of DX10 can be done and has by (multiple) 3rd parties.
See, not impossible. Just crazy hard. If you disagree, YOU DO IT.
Just because it runs on the cpu doesn't make it independent of the new graphics driver architecture. The main part of DX10 that CAN'T be back-ported to XP/2000 is the new inter-process graphics surface sharing, which is what allows the Vista shell (explorer) to use the surface that other applications have drawn to, and show it in the flip task-switcher and so on without special new application support.
In XP running a hardware-accelerated app in a window was incredibly hacky. The app had to be trusted to render to its allocated bit of the screen only (frequently rendering to a back buffer and blitting to the screen). In vista the app renders to its own surface and vista renders that to the screen, and the app CAN'T draw outside its window.
To backport that to XP would require backporting Vista's entire graphics subsystem, including drivers, not just the DX10 API. A compatibility layer could be made that supports MOST of DX10 in XP (specifically the stuff you could already do in a slightly more round-about way in DX9c), but then you might as well just use DX9. But the stuff that requires support from Vista's new driver model? Not a chance.
That should work on Windows too. It just requires you to have a place to copy a backup to, which most home users don't.
The Windows defrag tool works on a live hard-disk (even defragmenting its own executable), despite Windows not supporting Linux's "replace a file that is in use and the old program continues to read the old file" feature.
Wikipedia seems to think that the fuel pebbles are coated in silicon carbide (Under criticisms)
The manufacturing should be easy enough, we've been mass-producing all kinds of crazy things to crazy tolerances for years. Look at the tolerances on pens, for example. Or screws, or car engines. All manufactured to 0.1% tolerance against size or better, and all really common.
A containment structure is included in some pebble-bed designs, and will be used in production versions if they want. It's not an inherent flaw in pebble-beds that some people think that emergency containment isn't needed.
If the ISP has a web proxy, it could quite easily take connections from the users with IPv4 and connect to the destination server with v4 or v6 as appropriate.
But there is no generic way to connect to an IPv6 address from an IPv4 network, so you couldn't have an IPv4 network at home and play IPv6-only games for example.
Except pebble-bed reactors are designed to be naturally self-limiting, so even if coolant is stopped entirely the reactor doesn't get damaged. In fact, altering coolant flow is how you choose their power output, no control rods to worry about. You'd only have a problem if you intentionally smashed open most of the "pebbles"
Re:Was the cover designed by someone at Fark?
on
Ubuntu Kung Fu
·
· Score: 1
He was a logged in user, he doesn't need to enter a captcha. Just preview, submit.
It is 150% of the old one's power. How are you calculating 167.5%? The old one is 67.5% the power of the new one, but that doesn't mean that the new one is 167.5% of the old.
How about if they lock it so that only other EVE email addresses could mail EVE email addresses?
With an automatic marker on the account for excessive mailing, to help them stop spammers. They probably have something similar for the in-game mail already, as they have had trouble with currency-buying spam, which they have cleared up.
The first Pentium 4s are 8 years old. Intel wanted to replace it in 2005, but couldn't because their replacement design drew far too much power and generated far too much heat (Even compared to the Pentium 4, believe it or not). The P4 was finally replaced when the "Core 2" line was released, 2 years ago, though P4s continued being sold until this year.
The Pentium 4 was beaten to a pulp by the cheaper AMD Athlon XP line its entire life, I'm surprised it hung on so long.
A computer only lasts a few years, my parents have a 5-year-old Athlon XP -powered pc which has had to have the hard-disk and ram replaced. That's about P4 age. If you've got a P4 that still works you're pretty lucky. A car and a house last much longer, it's not comparable. An incandescent lightbulb is probably a better comparison (they produce as much heat, use as much power, and are on about as long). Do you have any 4-year-old lightbulbs in your house?
Incidentally that's a different number to everyone else who's tried to do the conversion so far. We've had: 155,416.667 GWnFn (used 52220 instead of 52.220 kWh) 1.55416667 * 10^-7 GWnFn (actually GWFn, forgot to nano) 17545920 GWnFn (actually GW/nFn) 1.74x10^-11 GWnFn (actually nGW/Fn)
I hate to tell you but a P4 isn't modern any more. Not even "relatively" modern.
But your point is valid, especially as the P4s were some of the most power-hungry desktop CPUs ever made. I've measured my pc at 200 W draw under normal use, most of which will be the graphics card. It probably goes up to 300 W when gaming.
That cell would last me about 10 days of continuous use at 200W if I used it as a UPS. That's crazy.
Now for the important bit. For a car: Wikipedia says cars use between 0.17 to 0.37 kWÂh/mi Cell is 52.220 kWh Therefore a car would have a 141 to 307 mile range, depending on the efficiency of the car.
That's pretty impressive, especially if it can be charged rapidly.
If these are old, the numbers won't be valid any more... At least with a UK card number, every issue of the card ends in a different set of digits (last 6?)
I'm running a completely passive Linux box off of a 4GB CF card (claims 200x speed) in a 2.5" IDE adapter, and it does work quite well.
Though for reasons I don't understand Linux labels it as a SCSI device, and I've heard that Windows won't install to a CF card that identifies itself as removable.
I have a 4GB CF card which I'm using as a boot disk in my "no moving parts" linux box, which shows up as 4,110,188,544 bytes, or ~3.83 GB. Note, that is the raw size of the disk, not available space after formatting or even the size of the only partition. The number is taken directly from the number and size of sectors the disk reports.
I think it's entirely possible that this power-of-two 512GB disk is actually closer to 512,000,000,000 bytes, or ~477.8 GB. A little higher if they're generous.
It's also possible that both disks ARE the size they claim, and the size exposed to the system is only smaller due to some of it being reserved for wear-levelling.
Slashdot Mirror
Crystal Chronicles, 3 of so far I think, with two more planned.
Of course, Linux doesn't have a billion and one crappy binary drivers that don't support PAE to deal with. THAT is why Windows x86 is limited to 4GB of physical address space, even though it does support PAE, and could use the same 64GB if it hadn't been disabled by MS in XP SP2 to stop all those driver crashes. In fact the server versions do still support PAE, because the signing process for server drivers required PAE support.
I loved that bit. So over-dramatic about normal actions, because he was hiding killing people behind those actions.
I've seen a full-length card, but not for a LONG time. The last one was an early mono card that went to the end of the case, turned around and came back again.
Strange to think that it didn't really do anything, and was just some ram and some DACs.
Damn I wish I had some mod points. Cue me getting twenty in the morning.
A lot of people are proclaiming blu-ray as a success because of all the PS3s sold that no-one watches blu-rays on. Show us actual disk sales, not player sales. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if because of the PS3 including a blu-ray drive there have been more blu-ray players sold than blu-ray disks :P. Ok, that's not likely, but you can see how much the PS3 could skew the results by.
I never said it was impossible, I just said that FULLY implementing DX10 on XP/2000 would require porting most of Vista to XP, making the process somewhat pointless. A compatibility layer that supports MOST of DX10 can be done and has by (multiple) 3rd parties.
See, not impossible. Just crazy hard. If you disagree, YOU DO IT.
Just because it runs on the cpu doesn't make it independent of the new graphics driver architecture. The main part of DX10 that CAN'T be back-ported to XP/2000 is the new inter-process graphics surface sharing, which is what allows the Vista shell (explorer) to use the surface that other applications have drawn to, and show it in the flip task-switcher and so on without special new application support.
In XP running a hardware-accelerated app in a window was incredibly hacky. The app had to be trusted to render to its allocated bit of the screen only (frequently rendering to a back buffer and blitting to the screen). In vista the app renders to its own surface and vista renders that to the screen, and the app CAN'T draw outside its window.
To backport that to XP would require backporting Vista's entire graphics subsystem, including drivers, not just the DX10 API. A compatibility layer could be made that supports MOST of DX10 in XP (specifically the stuff you could already do in a slightly more round-about way in DX9c), but then you might as well just use DX9. But the stuff that requires support from Vista's new driver model? Not a chance.
That should work on Windows too. It just requires you to have a place to copy a backup to, which most home users don't.
The Windows defrag tool works on a live hard-disk (even defragmenting its own executable), despite Windows not supporting Linux's "replace a file that is in use and the old program continues to read the old file" feature.
Wikipedia seems to think that the fuel pebbles are coated in silicon carbide (Under criticisms)
The manufacturing should be easy enough, we've been mass-producing all kinds of crazy things to crazy tolerances for years. Look at the tolerances on pens, for example. Or screws, or car engines. All manufactured to 0.1% tolerance against size or better, and all really common.
A containment structure is included in some pebble-bed designs, and will be used in production versions if they want. It's not an inherent flaw in pebble-beds that some people think that emergency containment isn't needed.
Those would be "A"s.
Try again, in ASCII this time instead of Unicode so Slashdot doesn't mangle it...
Perhaps they should ask CCP how they do it.
1000 player PvP battles? WoWers can only dream of that...
If the ISP has a web proxy, it could quite easily take connections from the users with IPv4 and connect to the destination server with v4 or v6 as appropriate.
But there is no generic way to connect to an IPv6 address from an IPv4 network, so you couldn't have an IPv4 network at home and play IPv6-only games for example.
Except pebble-bed reactors are designed to be naturally self-limiting, so even if coolant is stopped entirely the reactor doesn't get damaged. In fact, altering coolant flow is how you choose their power output, no control rods to worry about.
You'd only have a problem if you intentionally smashed open most of the "pebbles"
He was a logged in user, he doesn't need to enter a captcha. Just preview, submit.
?
It is 150% of the old one's power. How are you calculating 167.5%?
The old one is 67.5% the power of the new one, but that doesn't mean that the new one is 167.5% of the old.
How about if they lock it so that only other EVE email addresses could mail EVE email addresses?
With an automatic marker on the account for excessive mailing, to help them stop spammers. They probably have something similar for the in-game mail already, as they have had trouble with currency-buying spam, which they have cleared up.
The AC post just before this one was me, not sure why it's AC as I didn't tick the anon box and was logged in...
The first Pentium 4s are 8 years old. Intel wanted to replace it in 2005, but couldn't because their replacement design drew far too much power and generated far too much heat (Even compared to the Pentium 4, believe it or not). The P4 was finally replaced when the "Core 2" line was released, 2 years ago, though P4s continued being sold until this year.
The Pentium 4 was beaten to a pulp by the cheaper AMD Athlon XP line its entire life, I'm surprised it hung on so long.
A computer only lasts a few years, my parents have a 5-year-old Athlon XP -powered pc which has had to have the hard-disk and ram replaced. That's about P4 age. If you've got a P4 that still works you're pretty lucky.
A car and a house last much longer, it's not comparable. An incandescent lightbulb is probably a better comparison (they produce as much heat, use as much power, and are on about as long). Do you have any 4-year-old lightbulbs in your house?
No it isn't.
It's mostly the same codefrom the x86 version recompiled to x86-64, just like linux x86-64 vs. x86.
You missed the nano. :( ) gives 155.416667 GW nano-fortnights.
52.22000 (kW hour) = 1.55416667 x 10^-7 GW fortnights (same as your answer)
Converted into nanofortnights (not recognised by google
Incidentally that's a different number to everyone else who's tried to do the conversion so far.
We've had:
155,416.667 GWnFn (used 52220 instead of 52.220 kWh)
1.55416667 * 10^-7 GWnFn (actually GWFn, forgot to nano)
17545920 GWnFn (actually GW/nFn)
1.74x10^-11 GWnFn (actually nGW/Fn)
I hate to tell you but a P4 isn't modern any more. Not even "relatively" modern.
But your point is valid, especially as the P4s were some of the most power-hungry desktop CPUs ever made.
I've measured my pc at 200 W draw under normal use, most of which will be the graphics card. It probably goes up to 300 W when gaming.
That cell would last me about 10 days of continuous use at 200W if I used it as a UPS. That's crazy.
Now for the important bit. For a car:
Wikipedia says cars use between 0.17 to 0.37 kWÂh/mi
Cell is 52.220 kWh
Therefore a car would have a 141 to 307 mile range, depending on the efficiency of the car.
That's pretty impressive, especially if it can be charged rapidly.
You didn't get funny, but you did manage to get "+1 Troll". :)
If these are old, the numbers won't be valid any more...
At least with a UK card number, every issue of the card ends in a different set of digits (last 6?)
I'm running a completely passive Linux box off of a 4GB CF card (claims 200x speed) in a 2.5" IDE adapter, and it does work quite well.
Though for reasons I don't understand Linux labels it as a SCSI device, and I've heard that Windows won't install to a CF card that identifies itself as removable.
I have a 4GB CF card which I'm using as a boot disk in my "no moving parts" linux box, which shows up as 4,110,188,544 bytes, or ~3.83 GB. Note, that is the raw size of the disk, not available space after formatting or even the size of the only partition. The number is taken directly from the number and size of sectors the disk reports.
I think it's entirely possible that this power-of-two 512GB disk is actually closer to 512,000,000,000 bytes, or ~477.8 GB. A little higher if they're generous.
It's also possible that both disks ARE the size they claim, and the size exposed to the system is only smaller due to some of it being reserved for wear-levelling.