Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Multiple heads? (Score 1) 248

by Firethorn (#46783685) Attached to: SSD-HDD Price Gap Won't Go Away Anytime Soon

Actually, "client" workloads (personal computers) aren't very parallel so the requests are served sequentially. As such, this won't help too much.

Most client machines don't have multiple drives mirrored either. I was thinking purely in a server setting when I made the comments, though I'll admit that I didn't specify.

A HD with two head systems still wouldn't match an SSD for random reads, but it'd be much better than one. Depending on the use it's seeing, it could even employ different algorithms depending on the use mode it's seeing to help speed things along. In addition, more cache might help it during a large sequential read, allowing the heads to leapfrog each other better. Like I said - engineering and programming nightmare, but an interesting thought experiment.

By the way, if I remember correctly multiple requests on flight were implemented on SATA standard for client drives, 10 years ago or so on (SCSI had them for quite a while). I'm not sure Windows XP uses these queues.

You're talking about how the system queues multiple data(read/write) requests with the drive, and the drive possibly delivering them out of order(because it's using an optimized path to collect all the data), right?

I assumed that capability from the start. The REAL trick to the system is that to date it's one read head per platter, thus one device serving all the data. With two head systems, the question comes up of how you optimally assign said demands between the two head systems to most efficiently move the data.

Comment: Multiple heads? (Score 1) 248

by Firethorn (#46781695) Attached to: SSD-HDD Price Gap Won't Go Away Anytime Soon

This is actually a very interesting proposal. While I imagine the engineering and programming would be a relative nightmare*, it would provide a number of options for hard drives.

While it wouldn't double performance in most cases, especially not sequential operations, for random operations it'd be almost as good as two drives. Maybe better if the access is typically really random and one head can 'field' mostly the outer disc calls while the other catches the inner disk ones.

*Just look at the difference between programming a single thread application and multi-threading!

Comment: Re:It was a "joke" back then (Score 1) 275

One thing that isn't obvious though is that it's a 30Hz monitor. All the 60Hz ones, as far as I can tell, are still in $1000+ territory.

I should probably have put some disclaimers in my post about affordability and suitability. I'm not a refresh snob but I can't help but think that 30Hz is a bit slow for gaming, perhaps even video watching.

Comment: Re:It was a "joke" back then (Score 1) 275

You can't even (afforadably) get computer monitors with more than 1080p resolution, and bigger than 27 inches, but about 5 years ago I got a 1920x1200 28 inch monitor for $250

You can still get them, newegg *very* occasionally puts a 1200 on sale.

I figure it'll be another 2-4 years before the new '4k' televisions start trickling down to computer monitors. That will be nice.

Comment: Re:Um, no? (Score 1) 307

I'm going to agree with Sarten-X - turning in a wide circle shouldn't get anybody dizzy.

Also, with my lawn mower I have a turning radius that I can maintain without lifting the wheels at all. So at least the first few loops I wouldn't need pressure at all.

It also depends on how you define 'most efficient'. If the extra effort of pushing down a bit is outweighed by the time saved, it may we worth it.

On trick I've used in the past is to not turn the mower around - after clearing around the fence a bit, after pushing forward you pull the mower back.

Comment: Re:ITER disproved itself (Score 2) 174

by Firethorn (#46730517) Attached to: Cost Skyrockets For United States' Share of ITER Fusion Project

I've come to the conclusion that it's likely a scaling problem. IE once we can do continuous fusion(or at least pulse/'diesel' fusion fast enough for steady power), it'll be a matter that the energy costs will scale by the square, but power production will scale by the cube.

Going by the size of ITER, considering that many research nuclear reactors had generators hooked up to them but ITER has no provision to ever produce electricity, ITER isn't big enough.

We may be looking at needing something crazy like a 10GW facility before it makes sense.
(not an expert)

Personally, I'd almost rather put the money(and a lot of money from other sources, such as the F-35 program) to start building new fission plants - stop the majority of our CO2/power plant pollution.

Do the research necessary to develop liquid thorium to remove that restraint. Put solar panels on buildings south of the Mason-Dixon line where they'll do the most good, solar water heaters, etc...

Employing all the people it'd take to do this would help solve our employment problem for a long time, and it actually benefits the country.

Comment: Survival after 100mph crash isn't the point (Score 1) 152

by Firethorn (#46719729) Attached to: Under the Chassis: A Look At Tesla's Battery Shield

You missed the point - Survival after a 100mph crash isn't really unusual(though a lot of people die in them). It's the ability to walk away after the crash with no serious injuries that's unusual.

Oh, and going by the results of the crush test(broke the test machine), it doesn't need the additional protection a roll cage would provide.

Comment: Battery shield (Score 1) 152

by Firethorn (#46719653) Attached to: Under the Chassis: A Look At Tesla's Battery Shield

The car shipped with a shield, it's just that it turned out some events could pierce said shield so they reinforced it.

Some of this stuff is learning experience on the differences between a petrol vehicle and a battery-electric. They only gained minimal knowledge from the industry's history of protecting the gasoline tank.

Comment: biofuels (Score 1) 256

by Firethorn (#46719077) Attached to: Navy Creates Fuel From Seawater

Since the 1970's, cars have been run on ethanol; but until recently (post 2000 or so), you had to choose either gasoline or ethanol and buy a car based on this choice.

Any citation on this? From what I remember they were always flex, even if sometimes you might have to manually adjust something.

And where would the biodiesel come from? Algae for fuel is something I hadn't heard before, I'll look into it. One promissing source of fuel is the digestion of celulose, this is what I'm hoping for.

Algae, of course. You use a strain that's high in lipids(fats) that converts to biodiesel through various processes, and the carbohydrates can be turned into ethanol and butanol, which is closer to gasoline than Ethanol, so has a number of advantages as a fuel(you don't have to modify the engine is a big one). You use the remaining bits as fertilizer to grow more algea or even plants/crops.

Comment: Re:Just like Nuclear Fusion (Score 1) 256

by Firethorn (#46717759) Attached to: Navy Creates Fuel From Seawater

I knew that about half of them were capable of it, the actual amounts of ethanol has varied over the years depending on how the supplies worked out.

Unfortunately the capability to produce ethanol from sugar cane is limited due to the climate it needs to grow. Which is why the USA tried corn.

Personally, I hold higher long-term hopes for algae and biodiesel.

Comment: Re:Not the first time this has happened (Score 1) 639

The point is that the actor was scammed into appearing in a movie they would not have done had the producers been honest about their intentions.

That was step 1, where antifoidulus mentioned the film and rahvin112 posted that an actress had successfully sued over it. Step 2 I replied to that mentioning(in a round-about way) that the actor(and scientists) likely could suffer damages from it(especially if they don't undertake damage control like suing).

Combine the two of 1 - act, and 2 - damages, and you have a lawsuit.

Those who can, do; those who can't, simulate.