I know exactly what a plug-in hybrid is, my complaint about not counting the electric cost doesn't apply to a normal hybrid, ONLY to plug-ins. In a normal hybrid the electrical energy all comes from the petrol anyway, so counting it towards the mpg is fine (as long as the battery finishes at the same charge as it started).
From the article: "The highest I have gotten is 232 mpg. I average around 80-100 mpg." Which is obviously bullcrap. There is no way that the petrol is completely responsible for that 232 miles per gallon, at least for a car the size and shape of an SUV. Some of that must have been from electricity that wasn't generated in the car, and instead gotten from "plugging in". Counting miles driven on electric power gotten from charging the car off mains electricity towards "miles per gallon of petrol" is lying, pure and simple.
I think the servers were 4GB, with 2GB per server process (single-threaded on a dual-cpu machine you see). The "core" servers that handle the biggest places like Jita have now been upgraded to 16GB of ram and 64-bit code, allowing them to use it ALL for ONE server process.
I think it also requires a bit of extra effort in the non-server editions because MS is dumb.
Actually it's impossible to enable in XP SP2 onwards. This is because drivers had no nice way of saying they supported it, so there was no way to avoid serious crashes (of the blue screen kind).
The server OSs still support it because IIRC drivers MUST support it to get Microsoft signed for those OSs.
I don't see the point myself, you might as well use an x64 OS if you want that much memory. I do.
I played UT2004 with shutters for a while, it didn't help my aim very much but I got quite good at dodging rockets. I guess that was because with shutters you get depth perception and that lets your brain know that "oh crap it's heading right for me", as well as getting a better idea of where and when it's going to land.
I got to have a go with a polarized glasses -based display at multiplay last year, and those are even better than shutters because the images in your eyes are synchronised. No flicker! Pity you need a special monitor for that, which is a lot more expensive than just a good monitor and some shutter glasses.
Actually, Asimov already wrote 7 "Foundation" books himself. The original trilogy, then 4 more (2 sequels 2 prequels) after a 30-year gap. So if you want to include those 3 it would be a trilogy in ten parts.
However I don't consider them part of "Foundation". They're welcome to claim it as a tribute or similar, but it can never be part of the Foundation series itself, as they weren't created by Asimov himself.
I haven't read them, so I don't know if they are any good and won't make any assumptions.
I have a shock for you. It's called the "Second Foundation Trilogy":
After his death, the Asimov estate, at the request of Janet Asimov, approached Gregory Benford, and asked him to write another Foundation story. He agreed, and at that same time suggested that it should form part of a trilogy with Greg Bear and David Brin writing the other two books, which they agreed to do.
It's a very THIN atmosphere, so thin that the landers use airbags to land on instead of parachutes. That somewhat suggests that they don't burn up, they just go right through the atmosphere and hit the ground.
Infinitely slower? Even with the memory controller in the CPU as well (like all modern cpus), and using DDR2 (or even DDR3) ram?
What about my comparison with graphics chips integrated into motherboard chipsets? Especially the example I gave, which has to go to the CPU for memory access anyway, as for that CPU socket the CPU has the memory controller, not the motherboard chipset? That one seems to work well enough to me, and could only work BETTER by being integrated into the cpu, with access to a better power rail and being closer to the memory controller and ram.
It's not uncommon for lower-end graphics cards to use ordinary DDR2 (the GeForce 9500 GT has a DDR2 version), and you can get some surprisingly powerful GPUs integrated into a motherboard chipset, which don't have the 100W+ coolers a cpu or dedicated cards can (there's an integrated GeForce 8300 in an AM2+ motherboard).
I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the lower end GPUs being embedded in the CPU instead of the chipset.
My point is that we're not in the 3rd generation of DX10-supporting cards, by the time DX10-only games come out pre-DX10 PCs will be so far out of date they couldn't play the game even if it was DX9.
"Windows NT" can already not play games a year old (crysis) on his 5 year old card, by his admission only games that are 3-4 years old work. By the time DX10-only games come out in a few years, only people with (then) 4-year-old PCs won't be able to play them.
You're welcome to believe that everything is God's creation, but you can't use that belief as the evidence that everything is God's creation, or as evidence that God exists, which is what you are saying you are doing. Science pretty much requires direct observation of God or the act of creation (preferably both) for "God created everything" to be considered a scientific fact. Until you can provide one of those two bits of evidence, you can't convince an atheist scientist that god exists.
If I came up to you, handed you a rock and said that I made it, would you believe me? No, you'd ask me to prove it by letting you see me make another rock.
Wasn't it the wonder known as ISDN that stopped people getting ADSL? I'm not sure what cabling that's based on, but it could be fibre.
My parents had to make the choice with ISDN: ISDN now, 128kbps symmetrical internet connection that allows phone and internet to be used together. Connection cost to switch. Different wiring so that adsl won't be available unless a cost is paid to reconnect the old line. Fairly expensive contract as well. Keep ~48kbps dialup for a few years but not be able to use the phones while me and my brothers are online, get adsl when it finally arrives Get the phone line split, downgrade to 28kbps dialup but allowing the phones and the internet (or in theory two phones and no internet) at once, get adsl when it finally arrives.
They went for the latter. It was sensibly cheap compared to ISDN, and gave all the advantages of broadband (with anytime unlimited dialup) except internet speed and ping times. Anything larger than 10MB or so had to be downloaded with a download manager running overnight. Of course they gave up the "phone at the same time as the internet" advantage by giving my sister a phone in her room. After a few months they bought her a mobile and removed it:P Even better, me and my brothers were sharing that wonderful internet connection 3-ways with a LAN...
The village had its own exchange, and for most of the ADSL rollout there wasn't enough people [i]connected to it[/i] to fill the "number of people who must be interested before we'll upgrade the exchange" quota. Now that they finally have upgraded it, my parents get full 8Mbps ADSL. It's a bit difficult for me to use from 250 miles away, but my younger brother enjoys being able to actually play online games instead of getting the 2000ms pings I "enjoyed".
I suspect it will take them just as long to finally roll out fibre to that exchange as it did ADSL.
Slashdot Mirror
I also doubt my cell phone supports ipv6.
Most do, but the internet gateways they use often only support v4 on the internet side.
All the current gen consoles take ordinary USB keyboards, I think.
I know exactly what a plug-in hybrid is, my complaint about not counting the electric cost doesn't apply to a normal hybrid, ONLY to plug-ins. In a normal hybrid the electrical energy all comes from the petrol anyway, so counting it towards the mpg is fine (as long as the battery finishes at the same charge as it started).
From the article:
"The highest I have gotten is 232 mpg. I average around 80-100 mpg."
Which is obviously bullcrap. There is no way that the petrol is completely responsible for that 232 miles per gallon, at least for a car the size and shape of an SUV. Some of that must have been from electricity that wasn't generated in the car, and instead gotten from "plugging in". Counting miles driven on electric power gotten from charging the car off mains electricity towards "miles per gallon of petrol" is lying, pure and simple.
The thread you replied to is talking about an alternator-less car to reduce the load on the engine.
Um, check again? That thread is BELOW my post on my screen, I replied to a thread talking about the article.
That depends on how you measure efficiency.
In this case:
(electric+petrol) miles / (petrol only) gallons
The electric efficiency is being ignored completely, and the miles driven on electric power are being used to massively inflate the petrol efficiency.
I think the servers were 4GB, with 2GB per server process (single-threaded on a dual-cpu machine you see). The "core" servers that handle the biggest places like Jita have now been upgraded to 16GB of ram and 64-bit code, allowing them to use it ALL for ONE server process.
I think it also requires a bit of extra effort in the non-server editions because MS is dumb.
Actually it's impossible to enable in XP SP2 onwards. This is because drivers had no nice way of saying they supported it, so there was no way to avoid serious crashes (of the blue screen kind).
The server OSs still support it because IIRC drivers MUST support it to get Microsoft signed for those OSs.
I don't see the point myself, you might as well use an x64 OS if you want that much memory. I do.
What are you talking about?
Explain please.
The "G" is "Graphics".
It's wide-bus RAM that specialises in long sequential reads/writes. It's not as random-access as most other RAM.
I think he got "decidedly" and "undeniably" mixed up.
I played UT2004 with shutters for a while, it didn't help my aim very much but I got quite good at dodging rockets. I guess that was because with shutters you get depth perception and that lets your brain know that "oh crap it's heading right for me", as well as getting a better idea of where and when it's going to land.
I got to have a go with a polarized glasses -based display at multiplay last year, and those are even better than shutters because the images in your eyes are synchronised. No flicker! Pity you need a special monitor for that, which is a lot more expensive than just a good monitor and some shutter glasses.
To deliver it properly you need to add some more pauses, and get the quote right. Like this:
So in other words this will be almost, but not quite, entirely unlike Douglas Adams' writing?
Actually, Asimov already wrote 7 "Foundation" books himself. The original trilogy, then 4 more (2 sequels 2 prequels) after a 30-year gap.
So if you want to include those 3 it would be a trilogy in ten parts.
However I don't consider them part of "Foundation". They're welcome to claim it as a tribute or similar, but it can never be part of the Foundation series itself, as they weren't created by Asimov himself.
I haven't read them, so I don't know if they are any good and won't make any assumptions.
I have a shock for you. It's called the "Second Foundation Trilogy":
After his death, the Asimov estate, at the request of Janet Asimov, approached Gregory Benford, and asked him to write another Foundation story. He agreed, and at that same time suggested that it should form part of a trilogy with Greg Bear and David Brin writing the other two books, which they agreed to do.
It's a very THIN atmosphere, so thin that the landers use airbags to land on instead of parachutes. That somewhat suggests that they don't burn up, they just go right through the atmosphere and hit the ground.
Atmosphere? Mars?
I'm not sure it has enough to burn something up...
Infinitely slower? Even with the memory controller in the CPU as well (like all modern cpus), and using DDR2 (or even DDR3) ram?
What about my comparison with graphics chips integrated into motherboard chipsets? Especially the example I gave, which has to go to the CPU for memory access anyway, as for that CPU socket the CPU has the memory controller, not the motherboard chipset? That one seems to work well enough to me, and could only work BETTER by being integrated into the cpu, with access to a better power rail and being closer to the memory controller and ram.
The UK is crazy, we sell our fuel in litres but car fuel efficiency is understood in mpg...
It's not uncommon for lower-end graphics cards to use ordinary DDR2 (the GeForce 9500 GT has a DDR2 version), and you can get some surprisingly powerful GPUs integrated into a motherboard chipset, which don't have the 100W+ coolers a cpu or dedicated cards can (there's an integrated GeForce 8300 in an AM2+ motherboard).
I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the lower end GPUs being embedded in the CPU instead of the chipset.
*now in the 3rd generation ...
My point is that we're not in the 3rd generation of DX10-supporting cards, by the time DX10-only games come out pre-DX10 PCs will be so far out of date they couldn't play the game even if it was DX9.
"Windows NT" can already not play games a year old (crysis) on his 5 year old card, by his admission only games that are 3-4 years old work. By the time DX10-only games come out in a few years, only people with (then) 4-year-old PCs won't be able to play them.
Let me know when a DX10-only game comes out...
You're welcome to believe that everything is God's creation, but you can't use that belief as the evidence that everything is God's creation, or as evidence that God exists, which is what you are saying you are doing. Science pretty much requires direct observation of God or the act of creation (preferably both) for "God created everything" to be considered a scientific fact. Until you can provide one of those two bits of evidence, you can't convince an atheist scientist that god exists.
If I came up to you, handed you a rock and said that I made it, would you believe me? No, you'd ask me to prove it by letting you see me make another rock.
Oddly Windows does the same thing. If an application doesn't respond to the close button, it gives you the option to "end task".
Wasn't it the wonder known as ISDN that stopped people getting ADSL? I'm not sure what cabling that's based on, but it could be fibre.
My parents had to make the choice with ISDN:
ISDN now, 128kbps symmetrical internet connection that allows phone and internet to be used together. Connection cost to switch. Different wiring so that adsl won't be available unless a cost is paid to reconnect the old line. Fairly expensive contract as well.
Keep ~48kbps dialup for a few years but not be able to use the phones while me and my brothers are online, get adsl when it finally arrives
Get the phone line split, downgrade to 28kbps dialup but allowing the phones and the internet (or in theory two phones and no internet) at once, get adsl when it finally arrives.
They went for the latter. It was sensibly cheap compared to ISDN, and gave all the advantages of broadband (with anytime unlimited dialup) except internet speed and ping times. Anything larger than 10MB or so had to be downloaded with a download manager running overnight. Of course they gave up the "phone at the same time as the internet" advantage by giving my sister a phone in her room. After a few months they bought her a mobile and removed it :P
Even better, me and my brothers were sharing that wonderful internet connection 3-ways with a LAN...
The village had its own exchange, and for most of the ADSL rollout there wasn't enough people [i]connected to it[/i] to fill the "number of people who must be interested before we'll upgrade the exchange" quota. Now that they finally have upgraded it, my parents get full 8Mbps ADSL. It's a bit difficult for me to use from 250 miles away, but my younger brother enjoys being able to actually play online games instead of getting the 2000ms pings I "enjoyed".
I suspect it will take them just as long to finally roll out fibre to that exchange as it did ADSL.