Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:How about Silicone oil ? (Score 1) 101

by Polo (#46721839) Attached to: Intel and SGI Test Full-Immersion Cooling For Servers

Their fluid is boiling, phase transition takes a lot of heat out without pumping anything.

That's the key point.

If you have a pot on your stove filled with water at 211 degrees F, it will absorb 1000 calories and then the pot will be at 212 F.
But then the pot will absorb 540,000 calories before it gets to 213 F.

Comment: Re:I wonder... (Score 1) 101

by Polo (#46721795) Attached to: Intel and SGI Test Full-Immersion Cooling For Servers

It seems to be 99kJ/kg at it's boiling point of 45C/120F

For all practical purposes, I just thought coolants increase in temperature to their boiling point and just stay there (or a little higher if under pressure like a car radiator or pressure cooker)

That would mean systems with this fluid would reach 120F and basically go no further (unless ALL the coolant boiled off, which I doubt would happen)

Comment: Re:It's not the thing... (Score 1) 90

by Polo (#46709315) Attached to: Raspberry Pi's Eben Upton: How We're Turning Everyone Into DIY Hackers

But people naturally compare them anyway.

You have to admit there are lots of tasks that don't require realtime control where people could choose either system.

I think the Arduino shield system is brilliant, and the equivalent on the Raspberry Pi is not as well thought out. This is the biggest shame of all.

My top few wishes for the Pi would be:
- a well-thought-out, open shield system
- 4 support holes at the corners instead of 2 in the middle
- maybe a better case design - all ports along one side maybe?
- an SD card that would insert fully

The Raspberry Pi is wonderfully standardized, but the Arduino seems to evolve in a darwinian fashion because many vendors can make them.

The Arduino comes up a little short in tcp/ip connectivity, where the raspberry pi is brilliant from the start.

Comment: Re:darn. (Score 1) 264

by Polo (#46393619) Attached to: Apple Launches CarPlay At Geneva Show

Setting a radio station preset is a long-press.

Maybe we should make selecting a radio station long press (so you're REALLY sure).

We could even be safe and make you pull over to the side of the road to set a radio station (like some cars make you do to select GPS destinations)

(I am totally kidding about all this by the way)

Comment: Re:darn. (Score 1) 264

by Polo (#46391255) Attached to: Apple Launches CarPlay At Geneva Show

Sorry, I said it was a pet peeve. I realize it's not the end of the world.

I have a JVC car stereo with bluetooth and I have to reach over, press and hold the phone button on the radio unit for 2-3 (or more?) seconds before the JVC unit will beep, and then siri will beep.

I know it's minor to most people, but I do have to take my attention away from driving, and I would prefer a dedicated siri button (along with a separate dedicated phone answer button and a separate dedicated phone hangup button). It's the difference between "works for me" and "truly well designed".

Comment: Re:"Apple Maps as in-car navigation" (Score 1) 198

by Polo (#46388429) Attached to: Apple To Unveil Its 'iOS In the Car' Project Next Week

I disagree.

"the competition can move faster" - the auto manufacturers move on 4 or more year cycles. Most aftermarket units are ridiculous -- who uses CDs anymore? But they still ship with CDs and DVDs.

"and produce better results" - I see zero car systems, from manufacturers or aftermarket, that I would enjoy owning. I actually like the controls from manufacturers, but the systems themselves suck and are obsolete before they ship. The aftermarket gives you the ability to upgrade your car to keep up with the times, at the expense of of a crappy user interface and low-margin-hardware-manufacturer-software.

Seriously, the answer is to integrate with your phone, which actually does move fast and produce better products.

Comment: Re:No (Score 4, Interesting) 627

by Polo (#46327777) Attached to: Does Relying On an IDE Make You a Bad Programmer?

I think a better analogy is that an IDE to a developer is more like a CNC machine to a carpenter.

It's possible that a CNC machine can allow an experienced carpenter to do his work fast and efficiently.

But for an unskilled carpenter, I see two possibilities:
- the carpenter may limit his designs to what the CNC machine can make (no curved wood objects for one example)
- the fundamentals of carpentry might be ignored (like the properties of natural wood, growth, shrinkage)

In the context of an IDE maybe like:
- only build on one platform
- only create products the IDE way (maybe creating "apps" instead of minimal command line tools or OS internal things)
- allow the developer to ignore corner cases that are abstracted away with IDEs (memory management? interrupts?)

The end of labor is to gain leisure.