Comment Re:Math is way off. (Score 2) 355
Somebody needs a math lesson. 3000 miles * 5280 feet per mile / 78000 = 203 feet. That is a tad more than 40 cm.
Seems appropriate given this is a story about sending something to Mars.
Somebody needs a math lesson. 3000 miles * 5280 feet per mile / 78000 = 203 feet. That is a tad more than 40 cm.
Seems appropriate given this is a story about sending something to Mars.
Could a crowd of sharp-eyed citizens uncover evidence of the perpetrators? No, but they could definitely focus attention on the wrong people.
This isn't totally fair. While there are certainly a lot of opportunities for amateur detectives to end up focusing on the wrong people, the reality is that information available online was limited. It was not the same set of data that the government had access to. Unless the actual perpetrators were documented in the online data set, and it doesn't appear they were, the online search was bound to fail.
Had the online community been given the exact same set of information as the FBI, it would have been very interesting to determine what conclusions would have been reached. That would have been a much better test of crowd sourcing.
True. It needs virtual testing before it gets printed.
If the machine can be modelled and all the math is done, weak spots in the designs should be detectable and the design updated. Why do they have to print it and test it? Sounds unsafe.
That is not how it works. You can create mathematical models for analysis, such as a Finite Element model, but that takes time, know-how, and money. As well, analytical approaches help get one closer to the best solution before actually 'cutting metal'. Nevertheless, even with up front analytical work everything needs to be tested to verify the design. All analytical models now matter how complex are still approximations, and there is no substitute for real world testing. For someone with limited resources it may be more practical to simply test.
I'm not supporting Obama's policy but I don't think this is as evil as everyone is making it out to be. Our country is theoretically "at war" with Al Quada as an organization (whether that makes any sense is a whole other tangent). During World War II, plenty of German-American citizens living in the US flue back to Germany and fought against American forces.
So now a theoretically declared war against a poorly defined group of individuals is the same as a congressional deceleration of war against a sovereign nation?
We didn't need due process to kill them on the battlefield. Whether you're an American citizen or not, if you're on foreign territory and pose a threat to our armed forces, there's not a large legal barrier to killing you.
In a genuine time of war exceptions to due process are made. We are not at war. We are not at war with Yemen, yet American citizen Anwar al-Aulaqi was killed there by a drone strike because of the memo you support. He was considered to be a high ranking al-Qaeda agent.
Two-weeks later is 16 year old son, Abdulrahman al-Aulaqi, was killed in similar air-strike. He too was an American citizen. He was traveling with a high ranking al-Qaeda agent, who was the actual target of the air strike. The strike was 'OKed" because Abdulrahman al-Aulaqi was considered to be a "military-age male."
We are not at war. As a country we have lost our way. A secret memo is released and we justify why it is OK to kill Americans abroad without any due-process. We claim we want transparency, and yet accept secret memos. We accept killing of foreign men, woman, and child in countries in which we are not at war, because 'civilian causalities are low'.
The President says "If We Can Just Save One Child..." we should give up are constitutional rights. According the Bureau of Investigative Journalism some 175 children have been killed by the drone program. What about saving just one of those lives? No, lets all attack the Bill of Rights when American children die, but programs that operate on the fringe of legality are OK because foreign children are not afforded the same protections.
Does our hypocrisy as a country have any limits? Do we ever look around, and say WTF is wrong with us. Do we not believe our rights to be natural, and our government is unique in that it recognizes and protects those natural rights? And if we believe these rights natural are they not natural to all people? If natural to all, then shouldn't our government, a government that respects natural rights, also at a minimum respect the natural rights of people in foreign countries, US citizen or otherwise? Or are the principles upon which the country was founded, tied only to the earth on which it is rooted?
Most of the time you can't even tell the difference between frame rates, except when it emerges as artifacts at 24 fps.
24 fps movies are purposefully shot with more motion blur to hide the jerkiness. But nothing really gets around it when panning.
So 24fps primarily equals artifacts: Blurring, jerky motion, and juddering pans.
How nonsensical is it, and how resistant change do you have to be, to worship these artifacts. They are no more beneficial than ticks/pops were on Vinyl. There is certain nostalgia value to listening to something with ticks/pops sometimes, but it isn't something we put everywhere because we can't do without it.
So these resistant to change, Luddites in love with quite irritating artifacts have taken to calling superior motion video with less blur, less judder and less jerking: "The Soap Opera Effect".
Do a freeze frame on a soap opera and good movie. You can still tell which is which when frozen. Soaps look like crap, because they have crap production values. Poor sets, poor lighting, poor cameras, shot without any flair.
Shoot 48fps (or 60 fps or 120 fps for that matter) with great sets, great lighting, great cameras and great flair and it will be amazing and have nothing in common with soap operas.
The Soap Opera Effect originated from TV performance not theater performance. Modern LCD TVs have refresh rates between 120-240Hz in addition to built in motion correction hardware. You can take the any source and basically make it look like a Soap Opera, smooth and fluid. For many people, myself included, this is very distracting. Maybe I am just old, and use to seeing certain types of formats, but when I see a smooth and fluid movie it looks odd.
Personally, I turn off all the motion correction hardware on my TV. I choose to watch TV has it was intended by the creator. General Hospital is smooth and fluid while Hawaii Five O not so much. I have a PS3 set to output 24p, so it also will not perform any video processing, and I can watch a movie in it's most raw form.
On a 120Hz LCD TV there are not juddering pans, painful transitions, or any other negatives associated with watching a movie in the theater. If you have never watched a 24 FPS movie on a properly configured modern entertainment system then don't be so quick to judge the desire to retain the ‘film look’.
No problem, as long as they are off because most of the components are going to be designed for much higher temperatures than 60C. The specified operating temperature is based a powered device, likely running at higher than normal power dissipation, and should have some head room for reliability for the weakest link (display, battery, processor, etc). If you turn the device off, than it becomes a matter of hot storage and not hot operating. Typically, in military electronics the hot storage temperature is about 30C higher than the hot operating temperature. You obviously don't have military grade devices, but many of the internal components have similar temperature ranges.
From a storage standpoint it is highly unlikely that you will permanently damage ICs, IMO. I would be more concerned about a device with an LCD display being damaged by temperature before any other component. Typically, the LCD itself is robust but many of the films that are required for LCD performance can be sensitive to high temperature.
Bottom line is storing you devices in the car is fine as long as they are off, and I would keep them out of direct sunlight.
Official temperatures are always measured in shade. A car parked in direct sunlight, even with windows open could easily hit 10F above officially recorded temperatures.
Could be hotter than that depending on color, size, number of windows, and where it is parked. Many military electronics have to be designed for hot storage up to +85C. An example situation is where a plane is parked in the sun, on the tarmac (which reflects more heat), in the desert, on the hottest day ever, in the early afternoon when air temperatures peak.
Can't they just stack a shitload of gpus and parallelize the stitching? Where's the bottleneck?
Well considering 3 frames is about 3 GB of data, I would guess it takes that long to write the data to a harddisk. Accordingly, to the article they are still working on filtering out the data they do/don't want.
You mean studios will finally be able to pan at a reasonable speed without it looking jittery and fucking terrible?
24 fps is terrible and you should feel bad for propping up a dying standard.
I have my PS3 setup to output 24p with a 120 Hz LCD TV. The difference between watching a movie in the theater and at home is night and day. I don't see any of the issues at home that are prevalent in the theater, but I still get that characteristic low fps film look. As well, the brightness of a modern LCD TV allows for significantly more contrast than is possible in the theater. I simply can't enjoy going to the theater anymore, and 48 fps won't change that.
Increasing the frame rate will make it look like a home video?
Yes home video is typically 60 fps, and the increased frame rate makes it much smoother and fluid. You can see the effect of this on most modern 120/240Hz LCD TVs. If you turn on the motion correction features it will make any source look smooth and fluid, even film, giving the appearance as though it was shot using a 'handy cam'.
What on earth does my method of dress have to do with my level of intelligence? Why does the manner in which I speak imply something about my character? I'm educated, but that doesn't mean I'm going to start dressing like a hipster douche in a GQ ad, and certainly not to avoid being hassled by police that have no business harassing me in the first place. I've been in those situations, too, although when I was growing up, it was the grunge look (flannel shirts, chain wallets) that was a target by our local police. Just wearing a Tool shirt was enough to get me harassed. Hell, just carrying (not even riding, just carrying) a skateboard was enough to get someone harassed by the cops in my town.
I had a 4.0 GPA, perfect attendance, and volunteered, but that all goes out the window because I'm wearing a t-shirt for a band the cops don't like? Come on.
I am for freedom, and if I choose to exercise my freedoms in a legal but socially unacceptable manner, I understand society cannot stop me but nor is society required to embrace my behavior.
Your behavior, dress, and speech means everything in the real world. For people we don't know, just met, or see passing by we judge them based on these characteristics. Welcome to the real world. You are free to dress like a thug, even if you have an 200 IQ and use your genius to clone puppies, but I am also free to look down on you because of how you dress. I don't know you any more than the similarly dressed thug who stole my TV, so why would you expect me to treat you any differently if you choose to dress and act in the same way?
Likewise, if you want to skateboard in public or someones private property it is unrealistic to believe you won't be judged or questioned by the public or property owners over your actions. Don't want to have problems, stay on your own property or go to the skate park where it is socially acceptable to skate. Don't have a skate park or want to skate in public, fine but accept that your actions will draw unwanted attention and assume the responsibility of exercising your freedom.
Ivy Bridge is smaller in area than Sandy Bridge. Assuming I got the right numbers from Wikipedia, 160 mm^2 vs 216. That's 74% the area for heat transfer.
Agreed, but it doesn't necessarily scale linearly when including spreading affects. Using the numbers you provided one would estimate a ~35% increase in temperature at a given power dissipation, when comparing the Ivy Bridge to the Sandy Bridge. Based on the linked article the increase was only ~30%, which seems reasonable if expecting slightly improved heater transfer performance due to spreading across an oversized heatsink.
With the limited amount of hardware information in this thread, one could probably conclude that most of the increase in temperature is due to a reduction in die size.
It's clear in the article, but the headline here sort of implies that the chips run hotter in general, whereas this test is only saying the new chips run hotter when overclocked. From what I can find, when run at the rated voltages/speeds, Ivy Bridge CPUs run at about the same temperature as last gen's CPUs.
Seems like that would make sense if at normal 'voltage/speed' the Ivy Bridge is using less power. Based on the the numbers in the link the Ivy Bridge has a higher overall thermal resistance, junction-to-air, of roughly 30% [=((100C-20C)/(80C-20C))*(231W/236W)]. Based on other reviews the Ivy Bridge processors uses less power at stock frequency/voltage so that may be offsetting much of the temperature rise due to an increase in package resistance and heatsink interface resistance, under normal conditions.
Power dissipation increases exponential with increases in frequency/voltage and it appears to rise faster with the Ivy Bridge processors. So as the power dissipation approaches or exceeds that of the Sandy Bridge processor much higher processor temperatures will be measured in the Ivy Bridge because of the higher thermal resistances.
I think this is a non-issue for the average consumer. However, overclockers would probably be better off with the Sandy Bridge hardware.
Arithmetic is being able to count up to twenty without taking off your shoes. -- Mickey Mouse
