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.

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.

According to the Congressional Budget Office's prelminary report we just set a record in February for the largest ever monthly deficit at $229 Billion. The federal government spent $334 Billion dollars but only brought in $105 Billion in taxes. That works out to a deficit of about $7.9 Billion per day. It is almost comical think about a program with so much potential only needing $4 Billion to advance their work. I guess it would funny if it weren't real life.

Emphasis mine...I think any responsible person sees the value of auto insurance but that doesn't mean it needs to be required by law. I live in a state the does not require auto insurance. However, my state does require me to show financial responsibility if I am in an accident or someone is an accident while using my vehicle. I own three vehicle, and all three vehicles are insured because financially that makes the most sense for me. I made this decision on my own, I was not forced to buy anything by my state/government. It is simply a matter of personal responsibility.

It is likely that self-destruct functionality depends on the technology that is employed in the drones. Most sensitive electronics can be zeroized in some fashion to protect cyrpto keys without loss of the hardware. In some cases destructive zeroization is required, but another poster mentioned accidental activation of self-destruct systems is a reality so it needs to be considered with care where either loss of life/injury or expensive hardware costs could occur.

In the case of an unmanned vehicle it seems like the self-destruct mechanisms become far more complex if the autonomous systems have to determine when to destroy the vehicle or specific hardware. Assuming that in this case the drone was no longer in contact with the Operator how does it know that it is enemy hands? How does one ensure that the vehicle never gets confused and self-destructs during normal operation or in a friendly hanger?

I am sure extensive trade studies and have been done on this specific topic, but I have never seen real world technical problems and solutions documented anywhere. Would be interested if anyone has links to any technical information.

Your post comes across as if there is something inherently wrong with using aluminum. Just because aluminum doesn't have a fatigue limit doesn't imply there is a design problem. The fatigue properties are just one of many design aspects that have to be balanced, and there are number of ways to mitigate fatigue risks. Also, the fatigue curve on wiki is generic and not not necessarily representative of a aircraft grade Aluminum Alloy such as 7075. Many high performance aluminum alloys have a sharp knee between 10E6 and 10E8 cycles. Finally, admitting they know the weakness of aluminum is hardly all encompassing as there are many more steps required to determine when fatigue failures will occur, it is a lot more complicated than matching number of cycles to a given stress.

This argument is fundamentally flawed. It only holds true if both citizen A and B agree that the minimum cost of living is 100. However, if Citizen B desires for themselves a minimum cost of living no less than 160, and that is what drives them to obtain an income of 200, then the progressive taxation will deprive them of their personal desires. As a society I believe we are far more 'collective' than we will ever admit.

It depends on the buyer....but a used car is generally cheaper than a new car in every aspect. Purchase price is lower, registration is less, and insurance will be less. If you can do basic maintenance yourself, like a changing an alternate, you can take care of most of the problems you will have. As long as you don't get a "lemon", in the long run you will save enough to cover a few larger problems that require a mechanic.

But if you are willing to get your hands dirty than you can still save money even if extra maintenance is required. I owned an '83 Toyota for 5 years. Bought it for $2,000 and dropped maybe $5,000 in tools and parts for maintenance and fun (a lot of things broke because I beat on the car). I re-built the front brakes, changed all the brake lines, replaced the alternator (twice), brake master cylinder, water pump, oil pump, engine hoses, dicked up the engine timing, new timing chain & sprockets, engine gaskets (including head gasket), new rear suspension arms, springs, suspension bushings, and repainted the oil pan and timing cover myself. There are dozens of other things but nevertheless $7,000 across 5 years is still less than half of what my wife's brand new Honda cost (at purchase). The funny thing is before I had bought that car I had never even changed my own oil before and didn't even own a tool box, so if I can do all that anyone can given they are willing to invest some of their time.

It was only $23 dollars/year to register and only needed liability insurance because it wasn't worth insuring the car. A bit of an extreme case maybe... someone could find something in between brand new and 30 years old that would save money in the long run. Especially if you don't have to take out a loan because $200-300/mo in car payments equals a lot of parts and/or labor.

So is that why the rich are taxed at higher rate....to dissuade people from becoming wealthy? Has that become socially undesirable?

Why are the only alternatives either to ban behavior you don't agree with or that they must pay more for the same service? Maybe people have different priorities and needs than you. Maybe it is best to allow people to find their own path, rather than be told like children what is best for themselves.

You do understand that it is already more expensive to buy a Hummer? It has a larger sticker price, it is subject to a federal gas guzzle tax during purchase, and because it has poor mileage it costs more per mile. Let us not forget that registration and insurance are also probably more expensive as well. So it is ALREADY more expensive to own a hummer. The people who drive them are the people who are willing to pay more. The problem is that everyone else wont be happy until they are off the road, increased fuel taxes are just an excuse to justify one point of view.

By your line of reasoning I think it is the people who buy new cars that are really environmentally irresponsible. There are plenty of used cars that would meet most peoples needs. Why buy a brand new car that requires so many resources to not only build but also develop. I mean think about the thousands of people that commute to work everyday to develop that vehicle. Keeping the lights and computers on for years, moving and assembling the raw materials and tooling, shipping the assembled vehicle across the country/globe. Just so you can get that new car smell, how fucking selfish. I think there should be a significant "new car tax" to dissuade this behavior, otherwise we may be forced to ban purchasing of new vehicles.

It can be done on an LCD TV, as there are commercially available pattern retarders that can be bonded on to an LCD that will alternatively circularly polarize each row of pixels. However, the process is expensive and it cuts the 3D vertical resolution in half. Nevertheless, the result is passive 3D with an OK viewing envelop.

Google xpol for more information