My E-350 system is fanless. Not even a case fan.

It's in the only "big boy" word processor that matters: emacs.

transpose-chars is an interactive compiled Lisp function in
`simple.el'.

It is bound to C-t.

(transpose-chars ARG)

Interchange characters around point, moving forward one character.
With prefix arg ARG, effect is to take character before point
and drag it forward past ARG other characters (backward if ARG negative).
If no argument and at end of line, the previous two chars are exchanged.

The difference between an Intel-only world and an Intel-AMD world would not be very great at this point. x86 development is already a walking corpse and there will not be significant advances in x86 performance ever again, regardless of whether or not AMD is in the market. x86 will only get about 50% faster than the current top of the line i7. The costs to moving the x86 performance bar have become high enough and the x86 market outlook is stagnant at best with mobile devices taking center stage. x86 does not compete in that market and even if it did, it would be lower performing parts with vastly less power usage, not parts faster than current x86 fastest parts.

The point being, x86 is not getting significantly faster, ever. It's done. 50% faster than the fastest current core i7 is the fastest x86 will ever be. It will get cheaper but never faster. It doesn't matter if AMD is in the market or not, this fact is true either way.

AMD has seen the writing on the wall: there is very little incentive to spend the money required to further the state of the art in x86. Intel is slowing down its development pace on x86 and AMD is as well; there simply isn't much money in making faster x86 processors because they have already achieved sufficient speed for 95% of what 95% of consumers do with x86 CPUs 95% of the time.

What would be the point of sinking huge funds into becoming more competitive in a market that is going to become increasingly irrelevant going forward? Mobile devices are the trend and x86 does not compete there. Aside from Intel, which has momentum built up that will take a little while to wind down, x86 development is in the process of stagnating. It's quite clear when major x86 CPU announcements are now years apart instead of less than a year like they used to be. This trend will continue.

Hope you are satisfied with the current crop of i7 processors because x86 is not going to get significantly faster, at least not at the consumer level.

AMD will instead focus on trying to compete in a segment of the x86 market that may remain relevant over the long term: SoCs for embedded applications. I think it's a smart move because it's the market that AMD has the best chance of being competive in.

I predict that the fastest x86 CPU will ever be made will be no more than 50% faster than the current fastest Core i7. Intel's development dollar momentum will carry us through to that but nobody, including Intel, is going to be willing to invest significantly more in x86.

> First, why not use the obvious countermeasure here. When you
> create an encrypted volume, you should enter 2 keys, not
> justone. One will unlock your drive, another will appear to unlock
> your drive, but in fact deletes the contents of the disk entirely.

That would have to be built into the device. I can't take a normal device and make the above happen. For any normal hard drive or other storage mechanism, I would expect that the forensics people already know to read the raw data off of the device onto their own device (backing it up at the same time), and then they can operate on it using whatever program they want. There would be no way to force their program to delete the data or modify it in any way regardless of the decryption key you gave them. The program would produce exactly one of two results given any decryption key: successful decryption (you gave them the correct key), or unsuccessful decytpion (you gave them the wrong key).

The best you could do would be to have a form of ecryption that could somehow produce two different, meaningful sets of decrypted results given two different decryption keys. AFAIK there is no such cryptographic system in existence. It would be an incredible feat to be able to encrypt two sets of plaintext to the same ciphertext for which the original independent plaintexts could be recovered using two different decryption keys.

That being said, it would be a pretty awesome cryptography scheme that could do this from the perspective of allowing a user perfect secrecy with their data.

It sounds like you are trying to convince everyone, including yourself, that you were better off to choose a G2 over a G3.

There is no merit to your argument. The G3 bug you mentioned was real but it was fixed by Intel's firmware update, which is why you haven't heard anything about it.

There is nothing wrong with the G3 that would suggest that the G2 is a more reliable option. There is little to recommend the G3 over the G2 either, except price and availability.

I personally own two G2's, one G3, a real old skool PATA 32 GB SLC SSD from Mtron (perhaps the very first performant SSD), a cheap-o Kinston value series SSD, and a super duper cheap-o "SSDFactory" 32 GB PATA SSD direct from China that I bought because it was the only thing that would work in my ancient Panasonic Y2 laptop.

Not one of these drives has experienced any problem of any kind, and I've had some of them upwards of 2 years.

I would never buy an OCZ drive though. They are terrible.

You really should read something, anything before bothering to spend the time to post.

The 520 is faster at every metric (random read/write and sequential read/write) than the Intel controller based drives.

It also had a full year of vetting by Intel before being released, and they are putting the same 5 year warranty as their other drives; there is no reason to believe that it will not be as reliable as Intel controller based drives.

The only thing that doesn't compare favorably with this drive is the price.

Wrong. It is consoles that killed the arcade, PERIOD. You do not need to look any further than that.

Is this really true?

Too bad. I really liked that place. Haven't lived in NYC for years but in the mid-2000's I like going to the Mott St. arcade. It was the last true arcade experience I ever had, and probably ever will have.

I was in Japan in 2001 and really enjoyed the great selection of really good arcades.

I looked forward to repeating this experience when I went back to Japan at the end of 2010 and unfortunately, it seemed that the arcades were all gone. Yes there were the pachinko machines and win-a-prize machines but the good arcades were all gone.

I disagreew with the poster's assertion that home consoles caught up to arcades in the late 80's and early 90's. In fact it wasn't until the PS2 in 2001-ish that home consoles became consistently as good as or better than arcade games.

R.I.P. arcades. They were a major part of my young life but they are gone now; nothing lasts forever.