 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> I'm still puzzled about the Race of Champions. They raced several
> designs of car which seemed to be using *external combustion* to propell
> themselves, rather than the more traditional *internal combustion*. (As
> evidenced by the huge flashes and bangs as they raced round the track.)
Military planes do it, so why shouldn't a car benefit from an afterburner, too?
=B)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> News today: an 8GB *RAM-based* solid-state drive:
>> http://tinyurl.com/8d64qv
>
> Hum... why would anyone want such a thing?
>
> For persistent storage of data, I guess it would be a *very* bad idea. Lose
> power = lose data.
>
> For nice fast swap space, I guess it would make more sense to put those 8GB
> right onto the mainboard, so you don't need the swap space in the first place.
>
> For fast temporary storage of mass data (like, say, in scientific simulations),
> it's plain too small...
>
>
It would make a darned nice Photoshop scratch disk. Make it about 50GB
and it would make a decent video editing scratch disk.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"scott" <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> Maybe someone could find a way to convert the sound energy from an engine
> into mechanical or electrical energy...
Some do, in a way: Resonance exhausts. They're designed to use the acoustic
"bang" produced when a cylinder is opened to expel the exhaust gases, to
resonate in the exhaust system in such a way that a lower-than-average pressure
is achieved when the next cylinder opens, helping expel it.
Probably must be tuned to some certain rpm optimum though.
So that may be another reason why racing cars are particularly loud - and why
the statement "loud == inefficient" is not totally true.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
> > - It appears that "solid state harddrives" are now reaching useful sizes
> > and sane pricing levels. (E.g., when I first looked at this it was
> >
> Only problems are: a) slow (faster isn't much faster, and costs double),
> and b) limited number of "write cycles". And, no, the 250GB one is not
> $2/GB. lol
Just recently read about SSD's; two things to consider:
- If they're reasonably good quality, it seems you can't really "kill" them,
even in years of excessive abuse... because they can only do so many write
cycles a second ;)
- If you don't need to *write* too much, then faster *is* much faster! (Don't
try to replace a speed-optimized RAID box that already maxes out the connection
speed though ;))
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> wrote:
> Magnesium. The ultimate in portability. My camera still blows me away,
> the chassis is a Mg alloy and feels like plastic.
>
> Of course, I don't know how well Mg deals with heat.
I bet the game geeks will discover that material soon enough - if only because
it makes car wheels faster as well :)
(IIRC you shouldn't try to build something out of pure Mg though... unless the
thing to build is an outdoor fire starter ;))
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 12:46:14 -0600, Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>Of course, I don't know how well Mg deals with heat.
Woosh! Thermite :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 12:56:10 -0600, Mike Raiford wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>
>> They could, but my experience was generally good. Unless the TSR was
>> poorly written, in which case it got used only once. :-)
>>
>>
> Sidekick comes to mind as a particularly troublesome TSR.
Yeah, it had some useful features, but not *that* useful.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 13:02:16 -0600, Mike Raiford wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>
>> I just had a picture flash through my mind (if you'll pardon the pun)
>> of a case made out of pure Magnesium. In my mind's eye, it didn't last
>> very long, but it was spectacular. :-)
>>
>> Jim
>
> Something like ...
>
> http://macenstein.com/default/archives/1405
Yes, something like that - I'd forgotten all about the NeXTCube.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
>>> - It appears that "solid state harddrives" are now reaching useful sizes
>>> and sane pricing levels. (E.g., when I first looked at this it was
>>>
>> Only problems are: a) slow (faster isn't much faster, and costs double),
>> and b) limited number of "write cycles". And, no, the 250GB one is not
>> $2/GB. lol
>
> Just recently read about SSD's; two things to consider:
>
> - If they're reasonably good quality, it seems you can't really "kill" them,
> even in years of excessive abuse... because they can only do so many write
> cycles a second ;)
>
> - If you don't need to *write* too much, then faster *is* much faster! (Don't
> try to replace a speed-optimized RAID box that already maxes out the connection
> speed though ;))
>
Well, I updated the 8GB SSD in my Asus 900A with a 64GB. I had two
choices, a slower Patriot for $96, or a Runcore, for $178... Yeah, would
nice to have it faster, but... not at double the price. I would "much"
rather have a 1TB device that I could throw at a wall without breaking
it, but.. we just don't have it yet. ;) lol
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I'm still puzzled about the Race of Champions. They raced several
>> designs of car which seemed to be using *external combustion* to propell
>> themselves, rather than the more traditional *internal combustion*. (As
>> evidenced by the huge flashes and bangs as they raced round the track.)
>
> Military planes do it, so why shouldn't a car benefit from an afterburner,
> too?
> =B)
Because to get any remotely significant extra acceleration you would use up
the whole fuel tank in 10 seconds :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
