B
BarryNL
Michael said:
I assume a TDI is a diesel.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
I assume a TDI is a diesel.
B
BarryNL
drumguy1384 said:We'll be using some sort of alternative fuel (i.e. hydrogen) before that
happens.
You don't really want "free" (i.e. governement subsidized) health care in
America, trust me. Look at Canada for crying out loud. They've been doing it
for years, and people come here and PAY for it ... because they can actually
SEE a DOCTOR. Plus, "free" is never really free ...
Name one thing government has taken over and done better and/or cheaper than
the private sector. Government control makes things bloated and wasteful.
Er, you obviously haven't been on a train in the UK since it was
privatised then. I guess you never tried to get healthcare as a poor
person either.
C
CBFalconer
drumguy1384 said:.... snip ...
You don't really want "free" (i.e. governement subsidized) health
care in America, trust me. Look at Canada for crying out loud.
They've been doing it for years, and people come here and PAY for
it ... because they can actually SEE a DOCTOR. Plus, "free" is
never really free ...
Name one thing government has taken over and done better and/or
cheaper than the private sector. Government control makes things
bloated and wasteful.
Health care in Canada. Those that need it get it. The average
lifespan is higher than in the US. Some are impatient, have
money, and go to the US where the twin gods of money and oil
prevail. Certainly there are glitches, very few human enterprises
are perfect.
D
drumguy1384
BarryNL said:wasteful.
Er, you obviously haven't been on a train in the UK since it was
privatised then.
Nope ...
I guess you never tried to get healthcare as a poor
person either.
Doctors and hospitals don't want to turn away poor patients, and in fact by
law they CAN'T turn away someone who needs medical attention.
The problem is that we Americans want to live forever without living healthy
lifestyles, and the politicians say "Sure! We'll pay for that ... just vote
for me!" So many government handouts and give-aways are just vote-buying in
disguise ... it's appalling.
As far as getting medical treatment as a poor person is concerned ... The
state of Louisiana (where I live) has one of the greatest charity hospital
systems in the world. It is similar to Canada's system, though not
government funded. And I'll guarantee it is much more efficient, and less of
a drag on the economy, because every dollar counts.
Take public school for instance. The government spends more per child than
any private school (and subsequently taxes us to pay for it) yet private
school teachers make easily twice as much. And it costs less to send a child
to a decent private school (not those high-brow elite schools, but decent)
than we collectively pay to send a child to public school. Not to mention
private school students tend to score higher on college entrance exams.
Why should I have to pay to send someone else's children to school? And why
should I have to pay someone else's doctor bill? If I wanted to do that I
would donate money to a charity hospital (which I do when I can)
Don't get me wrong, I'm not unsympathetic to those who have it bad off ... I
just think there are much better ways to do it than with bloated and
wasteful government beurocracy.
By the way, I make about $18K a year ... I think the poverty line is $16K.
So I am by no means well off. When I go to the dentist, I pay her. When I
need medical treatment I pay for it if I can, if it's too much I'll go stand
in line at the charity hospital. Because the people that fund it WANT to
help me, and I'll be damned if I'll endorse a system that takes money from
people without asking to pay for my stuff. I don't like it being done to me,
and I won't participate in them doing it to someone else.
Drumguy
S
Strontium
-
drumguy1384 stood up at show-n-tell, in (e-mail address removed),
and said:
Just an observation, here. You are describing a government run operation.
State and/or city government. So, your general term of 'government' was
restricted to Federal government, correct? I won't disagree with you, about
the shitty status of the US Federal government. It's been crooked, and
greedy, from day one. But, there is greed everywhere. Just not so
prevalent and accepted, as is in our 'great nation'.
The US government spends more, on the 'war on drugs' (if pot and cocaine
were legal, the US gov't would die, funding-wise), and military, and (now)
the 'war on terrorism', than it EVER did on education and welfare. If you
research, you can see a common thread of greed and lust. A desire to
dominate the world. That's all I see (or, ever have) from the US Fed. The
main core of every major US law appears to me as based on 'profit margin'
for the ones enacting the laws. Imagine flying a lear jet, to work, every
morning (maybe 33 days a year that you work). So exemplary of this nation's
ideals.
I would'nt mind paying for taxes that ACTUALLY were useful. The tax
structure we have, at present, only lines polititicans, big business, and
lawmaker's pockets. I would not mind shelling out $40/month if it were
going to people that needed it. As it is, not one of our tax dollars is
being spent honestly nor correctly. Gov't officials (state and, federal,
and city) hire contractors that overcharge, for a reason. Kickbacks.
They're all crooked, period. I'd rather pay 50% tax, and have it utilized,
than pay the 25% I'm paying now and have it line some fatass old fart's
pockets... drinking martinis and ****ing some 25yr old bimbo (while his wife
is raising their kids and spending most days at the country club) and flying
all over the country on 'business trips'.
I'm 'this far' from moving to a third world country. 'This far...' Might
not wanna be here, when the Arabs finally do get a nuke into this country,
anyway. The whole world hates us. Might be safer not being from the USA,
for a while.
drumguy1384 stood up at show-n-tell, in (e-mail address removed),
and said:
Nope ...
Doctors and hospitals don't want to turn away poor patients, and in
fact by law they CAN'T turn away someone who needs medical attention.
The problem is that we Americans want to live forever without living
healthy lifestyles, and the politicians say "Sure! We'll pay for that
... just vote for me!" So many government handouts and give-aways are
just vote-buying in disguise ... it's appalling.
As far as getting medical treatment as a poor person is concerned ...
The state of Louisiana (where I live) has one of the greatest charity
hospital systems in the world. It is similar to Canada's system,
though not government funded. And I'll guarantee it is much more
efficient, and less of a drag on the economy, because every dollar
counts.
Just an observation, here. You are describing a government run operation.
State and/or city government. So, your general term of 'government' was
restricted to Federal government, correct? I won't disagree with you, about
the shitty status of the US Federal government. It's been crooked, and
greedy, from day one. But, there is greed everywhere. Just not so
prevalent and accepted, as is in our 'great nation'.
Take public school for instance. The government spends more per child
than any private school (and subsequently taxes us to pay for it) yet
private school teachers make easily twice as much. And it costs less
to send a child to a decent private school (not those high-brow elite
schools, but decent) than we collectively pay to send a child to
public school. Not to mention private school students tend to score
higher on college entrance exams.
The US government spends more, on the 'war on drugs' (if pot and cocaine
were legal, the US gov't would die, funding-wise), and military, and (now)
the 'war on terrorism', than it EVER did on education and welfare. If you
research, you can see a common thread of greed and lust. A desire to
dominate the world. That's all I see (or, ever have) from the US Fed. The
main core of every major US law appears to me as based on 'profit margin'
for the ones enacting the laws. Imagine flying a lear jet, to work, every
morning (maybe 33 days a year that you work). So exemplary of this nation's
ideals.
Why should I have to pay to send someone else's children to school?
And why should I have to pay someone else's doctor bill? If I wanted
to do that I would donate money to a charity hospital (which I do
when I can)
Don't get me wrong, I'm not unsympathetic to those who have it bad
off ... I just think there are much better ways to do it than with
bloated and wasteful government beurocracy.
By the way, I make about $18K a year ... I think the poverty line is
$16K. So I am by no means well off. When I go to the dentist, I pay
her. When I need medical treatment I pay for it if I can, if it's too
much I'll go stand in line at the charity hospital. Because the
people that fund it WANT to help me, and I'll be damned if I'll
endorse a system that takes money from people without asking to pay
for my stuff. I don't like it being done to me, and I won't
participate in them doing it to someone else.
I would'nt mind paying for taxes that ACTUALLY were useful. The tax
structure we have, at present, only lines polititicans, big business, and
lawmaker's pockets. I would not mind shelling out $40/month if it were
going to people that needed it. As it is, not one of our tax dollars is
being spent honestly nor correctly. Gov't officials (state and, federal,
and city) hire contractors that overcharge, for a reason. Kickbacks.
They're all crooked, period. I'd rather pay 50% tax, and have it utilized,
than pay the 25% I'm paying now and have it line some fatass old fart's
pockets... drinking martinis and ****ing some 25yr old bimbo (while his wife
is raising their kids and spending most days at the country club) and flying
all over the country on 'business trips'.
I'm 'this far' from moving to a third world country. 'This far...' Might
not wanna be here, when the Arabs finally do get a nuke into this country,
anyway. The whole world hates us. Might be safer not being from the USA,
for a while.
R
Rickster
Exactly, never say that it cant go any faster, I guarantee that you'll
be wrong. Sort of like Bill Gates' famous quote "640k is enough memory
for anyone"
be wrong. Sort of like Bill Gates' famous quote "640k is enough memory
for anyone"
J
James
Rickster said:Exactly, never say that it cant go any faster, I guarantee that you'll
be wrong. Sort of like Bill Gates' famous quote "640k is enough memory
for anyone"
I recall reading an artical saying quite simply that around the year
2010 we'll reach the limit of micro technolegy. Basically saying, from
there on, to get more, we're going to have to start making them
bigger, as physics won't allow to make it any smaller. However, it was
stated as a theory, and human race is an inventive one. Who knows?
L
Loknar
the limit he was talking about is related to the size of transistors,
limited by the atomic size itself.
Frequency (Hz) is not a limit by itself.. exept, like you said, from the
relations between resistance (heat) and amplitudes
Loknar
limited by the atomic size itself.
Frequency (Hz) is not a limit by itself.. exept, like you said, from the
relations between resistance (heat) and amplitudes
Loknar
R
rickman
BarryNL said:I suspect we're already seeing the end of the Gigahertz race. Witness
that Intel are only going to increase clock speed around 10% this year
compared to around 50% last year - same with AMD. Not that it's
technologically impossible to go faster, but there doesn't seem to be
market demand for it. Even the lowest end processors (Celeron 1.8Ghz)
are more than powerful enough for most office use. Only high end gamers
are really looking for more power and they're not a big enough market
segment to justify Intel and AMD investing big bucks producing faster
processors. High-end workstations may continue to demand more
performance, but RISC chips, many of which are nowhere near 3Ghz yet,
are players in that market.
The CPU speed has not increased much lately because they have not
reduced the die size lately. Nearly all speed improvements come from
making the chip smaller. The reason to make the chip smaller is cost.
So as they work to reduce cost you get speed improvements for free. So
don't think they are reaching the end of the MHz race. The next die
size reduction is around the corner.
I think future research will be into server technologies with more
emphasis on multiprocessor machines. AMD are clearly taking this route
with the Opteron. I think the days of the Wintel box may be numbered
anyway. I suspect future (business) computing will be based on
client-server technology with many dumb terminals sharing a central
processor (this is certainly Sun's vision of the future). Back to the
days of the mainframe, really.
--
Rick "rickman" Collins
(e-mail address removed)
Ignore the reply address. To email me use the above address with the XY
removed.
Arius - A Signal Processing Solutions Company
Specializing in DSP and FPGA design URL http://www.arius.com
4 King Ave 301-682-7772 Voice
Frederick, MD 21701-3110 301-682-7666 FAX
E
E_\\_¼__½__¾__F
I read somewhere that there exists a 1.1THz processor but they have
no effective way of cooling it... was a while ago and i cant remember
all the details. anyone else ever heard of this?
|
| | > In article <[email protected]>,
| > (e-mail address removed) says...
| > > Isn't there a limit to processor speed?
| > > I mean they cant simply go on bringing ever faster processors ?
| > >
| > > There should be some theoritical limit to it. what is that?
| > >
| > Physics comes into play. Currently pretty much at the limit of
current
| > technology.
| >
|
| I remember reading about that - in an article about the 8Mhz 286
processor.
|
|
| >
| > --
| > ________________________
| > Conor Turton
| > (e-mail address removed)
| > ICQ:31909763
| > ________________________
|
|
no effective way of cooling it... was a while ago and i cant remember
all the details. anyone else ever heard of this?
|
| | > In article <[email protected]>,
| > (e-mail address removed) says...
| > > Isn't there a limit to processor speed?
| > > I mean they cant simply go on bringing ever faster processors ?
| > >
| > > There should be some theoritical limit to it. what is that?
| > >
| > Physics comes into play. Currently pretty much at the limit of
current
| > technology.
| >
|
| I remember reading about that - in an article about the 8Mhz 286
processor.
|
|
| >
| > --
| > ________________________
| > Conor Turton
| > (e-mail address removed)
| > ICQ:31909763
| > ________________________
|
|
F
FuzionMan
| I remember reading about that - in an article about the 8Mhz 286
processor.
|
I thought the 286's came from 10 Mhz to 20Mhz, the 8086 processor was a 4.77
and the 8088 was a 7.** ?
R
Ralph Wade Phillips
Howdy!
The 8086 was available first cut at 5MHz (usually run at 4.77MHz to
use a cheap colorburst crystal at 14.something MHz). Later ones were
available to 10MHz, and could be hand picked to 12.
The 8088 was similar.
The 80286 was initially released at 6MHz, then 8, then up to 25MHz
(and I seem to recall a Harris 33MHz part, BICBW).
RwP
FuzionMan said:I thought the 286's came from 10 Mhz to 20Mhz, the 8086 processor was a 4.77
and the 8088 was a 7.** ?
The 8086 was available first cut at 5MHz (usually run at 4.77MHz to
use a cheap colorburst crystal at 14.something MHz). Later ones were
available to 10MHz, and could be hand picked to 12.
The 8088 was similar.
The 80286 was initially released at 6MHz, then 8, then up to 25MHz
(and I seem to recall a Harris 33MHz part, BICBW).
RwP
F
FuzionMan
Thanks for clearing that up Ralph =-)
Ralph Wade Phillips said:Howdy!
The 8086 was available first cut at 5MHz (usually run at 4.77MHz to
use a cheap colorburst crystal at 14.something MHz). Later ones were
available to 10MHz, and could be hand picked to 12.
The 8088 was similar.
The 80286 was initially released at 6MHz, then 8, then up to 25MHz
(and I seem to recall a Harris 33MHz part, BICBW).
RwP
S
SPS 700
I had a 25MHz 286. It would outrun my 386-20. Never saw a 33MHz 286.