Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:You think electricity is expensive now? (Score 1) 395

The drop in gasoline tax revenue will logically lead to "car electricity" taxes... coming soon to a charging station near you.

They won't bother with taxing charging stations. What they want to do is put a GPS tracker in every car so they can track where the car is at all times... errr... I mean tax based upon where the car has been driven. They're been pushing for this already.

Comment: Re:Birth control pills signifcant contributor? (Score 1) 147

by toddestan (#48137117) Attached to: Birth Control Pills Threaten Fish Stocks

This is why I don't drink tap water.

My tap water is pumped out of an aquifer where it has been for decades. This is of course, unsustainable in the long term, but in the meantime I'll take my chances with my tap water (which tastes great, by the way) instead of the bottled stuff.

Comment: Re:Claim is BS. (Score 1) 155

by toddestan (#48122375) Attached to: Liking Analog Meters Doesn't Make You a Luddite (Video)

Up north it's not uncommon to see temperatures that low. I've never seen analog gauges in a car or truck act up at those temperatures. LCDs generally work, but the contrast can get screwy making them hard to read, and they update really slowly. LED and vacuum florescent displays are generally fine.

Comment: Re: Intel Common Core i7 (Score 1) 238

by toddestan (#48122267) Attached to: Where Intel Processors Fail At Math (Again)

A couple notes: Numbers with 0 on the right without any decimal point (e.g. 10, 2500) create an ambiguity with sigfigs as to whether those zeros are significant or not. Some authors put a bar over the last significant figure to clarify, but many do not. In fact, one of the textbooks I used --- I believe it was for trig --- changed its practice in a later addition regarding whether those zeros are significant or not.

I've never heard of that. I've always just used scientific notation to remove any ambiguity. Sure, 1 x 10^1 or 1.0 x 10^1 is a bit more cumbersome than 10, but at least it's clear.

Comment: Re:Hey Ubisoft, maybe you should stop shitting on (Score 1) 338

The jokes about Intel giveth, Microsoft taketh date back more than 10 years before the release of Vista. Besides, I used Vista on a Phenom II with 8GB of ram, and when you throw that kind of hardware at it, the performance was perfectly fine. I also ran it on an older P4 with 2GB of ram, and even then it wasn't horrible.

Comment: Re:clockspeed really? (Score 1) 338

There never was a 4GHz P4 released, so it's not clear how that's even in the database. Maybe it's some engineering sample, though as someone else pointed out it's half as fast as the 3.8 Ghz P4 (the fastest released Pentium 4) so my guess it's an error. In any case, I wouldn't use if for any meaningful comparisons. Also, you might want to note that the Core i7 has a turbo boost up to 3.3 Ghz and I would have to assume that's what it's really running at during any benchmark, so to call it a 1.7 Ghz CPU is misleading at best. It's also a dual core, so to compare it to single core is also bit unfair. Perhaps the closest comparison might be the Pentium D Extreme Edition which was two hyperthreading P4's in a single chip which would be the closest thing to the i7.[]=1955&cmp[]=1130

You'll see that the i7 is now only about 4-5 times faster.

Comment: Re:Worst physics nobel (Score 1) 243

by toddestan (#48108649) Attached to: 2014 Nobel Prize In Physics Awarded To the Inventors of the Blue LED

My experience is that the lights are fine, but the cheap wall wart power supply is what is actually dead. My guess is that they tend to get a power supply that is rated just high enough to run the lamp, and unlike most things that use a wall wart the light is going to be drawing the full amount of power any time it is on. Find a working power supply at the right voltage (most use 5 or 12V which is luckily common) that preferably has a higher amperage rating and you can usually revive these lights.

Comment: Re:Antecdotes != Evidence (Score 1) 577

by toddestan (#48060863) Attached to: Will Windows 10 Finally Address OS Decay?

Welcome to Windows prefetch. Basically, Windows will preload your programs and data that it thinks you might use into ram after you boot. The idea being that if the program is already cached when you try to launch it, then it will launch faster. The actual result seems to be lots of disk thrashing after boot, and the more ram you have the more Windows will thrash as Windows will prefetch until it's full. At least they toned it down a bit with Windows 7, as one of Vista's faults was that it was far too aggressive about prefetching.

Comment: Re:The bigger Problem is their "updates" (Score 1) 577

by toddestan (#48060583) Attached to: Will Windows 10 Finally Address OS Decay?

Windows XP definitely got slower as the patches and service packs piled up. The original release of Windows XP ran acceptably on a P3 with 256MB of ram, which was a pretty typical computer when XP debuted. By the end, it was a total dog on a P4 with 1GB of ram, which would have have been a high-end machine back in 2001.

Comment: Re:Study is quite incomplete (Score 1) 261

by toddestan (#48053385) Attached to: Which Cars Get the Most Traffic Tickets?

It's the Mercury version of the Ford Tempo, which didn't make the top 20 at all. And I'd be willing to bet Ford sold a lot more Tempos than they did Topazs...

Probably the reason for that is all the Tempos were driven into the ground a long time ago by people who more or less considered them an appliance, whereas the Topazes were bought by older people who took a lot better care of them and drove them less. Now, the Tempos are gone, and these survivning Topazes have been passed on to their next (and probably last) owners, and are now being driven into the ground.

The world is moving so fast these days that the man who says it can't be done is generally interrupted by someone doing it. -- E. Hubbard