World politics, alternative fuels, and an odd GPU comment (was Ati's 9800 is out)

[pHaestus]

I went ahead and changed the topic to reflect the content.

[Quickmcj]

Originally posted by bigben2k
(I don't know why people think I'm even remotely interested in farming! LOL!)

We are all facing an energy crisis: the world supply of oil is only good for another 60 to 200 years.

On top of this, the USA depends on foreign countries for 40% of its oil.

So the US is highly motivated to turn around this trade imbalance however, the technology to do this is not "economically" practical.

But we're trying: we now have a number of vehicules available that do not depend so much on oil (ref: Toyota Prius, and the latest Honda), but we're still a long way.

I was thinking the other day: do ya'll know how incredibly inneficient the gasoline engine really is? Out of all the energy from the combustion of gasoline, only 30 to 40% is used to move the vehicule!

In every other application, we are all far more efficient than this.

Lol...sorry. Was'nt meant for you particualy. Anyway, I think you know what I mean. US mainly want that oil because their car's run like 3-4km/L. The funny thing is that there actually IS another solution, not using oil. In fact there are plenty...

BMW has made the H2 car...it will hit the marked in 2007. A car that runs on Hydrogen.

Present cars (Only some) can be remade so that they can run on (Dont know the english word) oil you use for cooking. Way cheaper, no polution and lots of it. (Talking about that plant oil thing).

[TerraMex]

Actually, alot of older cars, here in portugal, have been converted for gas use. Tts cheaper and cleaner. But the fill points are only a few, so there isnt that many cars out there with that system. A good step nevertheless.

The conversion is pretty simple, by replacing the intake from gasoline, with gas (butane i think). And you have the hability to switch back to gasoline by flipping a simple switch (operates the valves).

[gmat]

Originally posted by pHaestus
I went ahead and changed the topic to reflect the content.

I think that the sippers of mocha lattes who believe that the

Thanks PH.
Didn't expect a news on Ati to go that far

[iceheart]

War Never Changes.

[Blackeagle]

Wind power, I somehow thought from your prior post that it was some form of new engine for cars & trucks. Wind is a good source of elec. power generation. There are some good sized wind farms on the US west coast and in some areas of the great plains states and the great lake states. As wind generation continues to grow it can supply a even larger portion of the US power needs. Geothermal, solar and hydro can all help as well.
Tidal and wave power generation are ones I'm not real well read on yet, but also very welcome. Oils and alcohols from grains already are helping a good deal.

All are renewable. But all taken together they can only supply a modest percentage of power needs at this time. But a decade ago they gave us much less.

BigBen has a point about, "give me a incentive and I'll buy........"

How about a much cleaner enviroment to live in Ben? That is a pretty strong plus right there, at least to me. As regulations require ever lower pollution standards for cars and trucks they will become increasingly expensive and the price gap will close. This in spite of Eco rollbacks of the Bush administration. In the next 12-15 years the higher costs due to fuel cost increases and those passed on to the consumer for lowering levels of pollutatants discharged by combustion engines, will raise the price beyond those of the newer "Eco" designs. And the "incentive" will be what it always has been price/performance.

There is just no way any goverment can underwrite "incentives" large enough to long sway usage. Foolish to even try, cleaner air and preservation of fosil fuels for other uses will have to drive this. Along with mandated standards for much lower pollutant discharge from cars/trucks. While these sources also have limits to how much they can provide they are at least self renewing.

And one question for you Ben, where would you suggest the goverment get the funds for those incentives?? You and I both know the answer to that, our taxes. Problem with that is that once the incentives gave what small push they could provide toward change, the goverment will find a reason to try to keep at least part of those incentive taxes in place. They always do.

"WAR NEVER CHANGES"

If you mean the motives for war, then I agree for the most part.

But war itself, and how they are fought, has changed dramaticly in the last century. And sadly warfare is one of the biggest driving forces in technological advancements. Most of all in the areas of flight, optics, electronics, creation of synthetics and I'm sure there are a large number of other areas that could be included in the list.

The new topic name does reflect the many areas this thread has touched on. Still a interesting, if a bit heated, thread at times.

[Blackeagle]

And thanks much for the 9800 pro link TerraMex.

I'm going to wait to see the cards with the 256 of memory on the card. Doubling the ram and increasing the speed of it should offer a pretty strong boost. And the extra ram would be nice for when doing photo work.

[bigben2k]

Oh don't get me wrong, I'm all for a cleaner environment, but if that means that I have to spend 50'000 on a car, then something else takes priority: my ability to live!

It wouldn't be in a government's interest to allocate those resources to this, but it is possible. The US could completely drop its military and space program, to do what's right for the environment.

But we don't live in an age where dropping the military is even a serious consideration. A few countries have done it, but those were particular cases.

As for the space program, NASA has been under review for many, many years, and has been pushed to cut costs. The advancement of science is a considerable priority, and the technology developped ends up serving the industry, and the economy.

Certainly, the space shuttle orbiter design will be reviewed: it's now due for an update. This whole issue with the carbon-carbon leading edge parts, I mean, it's so fragile that if you kick it hard enough, the shuttle is unable to land! We're a long way from Star Trek...

[TerraMex]

>And thanks much for the 9800 pro link TerraMex.
>I'm going to wait to see the cards with the 256 of
>memory on the card. Doubling the ram and increasing
>the speed of it should offer a pretty strong boost. And
>the extra ram would be nice for when doing photo
>work.

No problem. Anandtech is one of my favourites.

Anyway, i dont think that having 256mb will happen very soon. Games barely use 128mb , and those that do are only a few. However, the increase of memory and core speed would (of course) give that extra boost that everybody wants.

>Certainly, the space shuttle orbiter design will be
>reviewed: it's now due for an update. This whole issue
>with the carbon-carbon leading edge parts, I mean, it's
>so fragile that if you kick it hard enough, the shuttle is
>unable to land! We're a long way from Star Trek...

Just a few remaks:

The current space shuttles are 25 years old (more or less) , and were scheduled to continue flight for another 25 years, due to the lack of funding to NASA.

Never the less, there were three "new" designs (one from the 70's) that needed testing and constructing , and space flight testing. They never really "took off" the model stage until recently.

I've seen a few buy adds on ebay, asking for 8088 for NASA, to replace old burnt components, dont know if they were true, but assuming they were, its pretty obvious whats wrong with the shuttles, old age. I've read about problems that pop up, then desappear, and come back again, and nobody know why. They cant really remodel the whole shuttle, it would imply several years of shipyard work and billions of dollars. They cant built new ones without support and the full testing of the current technologies... who havent been properly tested due to fund cuts. Its a no win situation that needs to be solved fast.

About the sturdiness of the shuttle, they're pretty strong. You forget that the tiles that compose the bottom can stop a bullet in its tracks. Its a dense ceramic. Even the metal side is made of titanium and composite materials, exceptionaly strong. The proof of this can be found on the NASA site, and the pictures of debris that hit the shuttle while on orbit, and those travel at the speed of the rotation of the earth (or more) wich is 1000 miles per hour (or more) . And they've been hit hundreds of time, and always came back.

If you were referring to the Columbia incident, sometimes , s*** happens. There wasnt much anyone could do. Same as Challenger. However, for what i've seen in the sensors PDF and a few other public documents, my guess goes to a failure in the joint of the left landing gear, and then failure (due to heat) of the hidraulic and then electrical failure. But thats just my guess.

[bigben2k]

I can't say about the 8088, but I do know two things from experience: flight avionics are often upgraded, in commercial aircrafts; I wouldn't expect anything less with the shuttle.

The US military started a COTS program a few years back, to cut costs. The idea is to attempt to accept Commercial Off-The-Shelf electronic components, instead of paying an exorbitant amount of money for a part specifically engineered for a single purpose.

The program is doing well, but still has some issues, specifically with reliability, or more specifically, the life cycle of the part: they meet all specs, but fail within a relatively short period of time (i.e. 3 years or more).

Designing a new shuttle would be prohibitively expensive, indeed, but there are many preliminary designs that were shelved, and some others explored, during the past 25 years.

The most significant of these is a pseudo-commercial stratospheric airliner type of vehicule (dubbed X-30?).

[airspirit]

I just wanted to chime in: Canada is EVIL.

Damn am I hung over ....

Oh, and Red Phone tech was available back then. All they'd have to do is start transmitting surrender details over the radio channels and we'd have had them instantly. They knew we were monitoring their radio traffic. If they wanted to get a message to us, they could have ... and this is assuming that there weren't any intercontinental telephone lines, which I believe there were.

[gmat]

Actually the US did a good job crippling their communications, to a point where lone Japanese were still fighting (or waiting for 'ennemies' to show up) months after the end of the war (and on some remote islands, years after !). Their army was totally cut off from command, supply lines and comms where annihilated.
I thought it was well known...
There are several good documents (both written and in video) on this period. The latest i've seen is 'the clash of the wings', WWII seen from the sky. Refreshing and well done (it's in 22 parts of 1:30 each)

[airspirit]

There is a difference between external and internal communications. I guarantee you that while some parts of their forces may have been cut off, we didn't take out every communication tower in Japan. Not very likely, moi bucko.

Man, remind me never to drink cheap beer and cheap wine in copious quantities together ... it's lunchtime, and I'm still feeling fuggered.

[g.l.amour]

ahah, u also drank some of that reputed "chateau migraine 1999"

[gmat]

Originally posted by airspirit
There is a difference between external and internal communications. I guarantee you that while some parts of their forces may have been cut off, we didn't take out every communication tower in Japan. Not very likely, moi bucko.

That's why mainland Japan managed to send a surrender message to the US command a few days before. Check your own archives, or see your own ex-secret agents, many are speaking now. (interestingly, many from Germany and Russia are speaking as well, but that's another story, another problems)

[iroc409]

dude, like, 4 pages. can someone summarize? this looks interesting...

[gmat]

In short:
- Some americans here (and g.l.amour, for some unknown reason, must be Belgian beer, strong stuff) believe that the rest of the world think all Americans are Evil
- Other people here try to explain how the U.S. foreign policy could be seen as 'aggressive' by the rest of the world, and how some people around the world could feel oppressed by the "we own the world" US policy.
- There have been some arguments over written (and recorded) History, mainly over the nuking of Japan
- Also there was an argument over whether it was 'right' to bomb the Irak or not.
- US conservatists believe it's 'right' because Saddam will conquer Middle East, Europe and then nuke out the USA. Or support Al Qaida and blow up the White House. Or anything Evil.
- Other think it's 'wrong' because Saddam is a loser and circled by far more powerful countries which all hate him.
- Since it's a war on oil, some ppl proposed replacements for this energy, and talked about the state of the art and what's to come, hopefully for a better world


Oh, and the Ati 9800 (pro and not-pro) is out... (was the initial topic)

[satanicoo]

Originally posted by airspirit
There is a difference between external and internal communications. I guarantee you that while some parts of their forces may have been cut off, we didn't take out every communication tower in Japan. Not very likely, moi bucko.

Man, remind me never to drink cheap beer and cheap wine in copious quantities together ... it's lunchtime, and I'm still feeling fuggered.

i love it 2 :P

btw: anyone here w8ting for the 9800 with ddr2 memory? IF it will ever release?

[iroc409]

Originally posted by gmat
In short:
- Some americans here (and g.l.amour, for some unknown reason, must be Belgian beer, strong stuff) believe that the rest of the world think all Americans are Evil
- Other people here try to explain how the U.S. foreign policy could be seen as 'aggressive' by the rest of the world, and how some people around the world could feel oppressed by the "we own the world" US policy.
- There have been some arguments over written (and recorded) History, mainly over the nuking of Japan
- Also there was an argument over whether it was 'right' to bomb the Irak or not.
- US conservatists believe it's 'right' because Saddam will conquer Middle East, Europe and then nuke out the USA. Or support Al Qaida and blow up the White House. Or anything Evil.
- Other think it's 'wrong' because Saddam is a loser and circled by far more powerful countries which all hate him.
- Since it's a war on oil, some ppl proposed replacements for this energy, and talked about the state of the art and what's to come, hopefully for a better world


Oh, and the Ati 9800 (pro and not-pro) is out... (was the initial topic)

thanks for the synopsis! sounds like about every war argument i've been hearing lately. you can't change the oil people. they're silly. really. we're already capitalizing on that oil, why invade?

i'm seriously getting tired of these arguments. i'm on another board and that's all they talk about (not computers, i'm true to procooling ). it's silly. the anti-war people are incorrigable. all i have to say is to quote an nice little letter.

"Ok let's just say for a moment you bunch of pampered, overpaid, unrealistic children had your way and the U.S.A. didn't go into Iraq. Let's say that you really get your way and we destroy all our nuclear weapons and stick daisies in our gun barrels and sit around with some white wine and cheese and pat ourselves on the back, so proud of what we've done for world peace.

Let's say that we cut the military budget to just enough to keep the National Guard on hand to help out with floods and fires. Let's say that we close down our military bases all over the world and bring the troops home, increase our foreign aid and drop all the trade sanctions against everybody. I suppose that in your fantasy world this would create a utopian world where everybody would live in peace. After all, the great monster, the United States of America, the cause of all the world's trouble would have disbanded it's horrible military and certainly all the other countries of the world would follow suit. After all, they only arm themselves to defend their countries from the mean old U.S.A.

Why you bunch of pitiful, hypocritical, idiotic, spoiled mugwumps. get your head out of the sand and smell the Trade Towers burning. Do you think that a trip to Iraq by Sean Penn did anything but encourage a wanton murderer to think that the people of the U.S.A. didn't have the nerve or the guts to fight him?

Barbara Streisand's fanatical and hateful rankings about George Bush makes about as much sense as Michael Jackson hanging a baby over a railing. You people need to get out of Hollywood once in a while and get out into the real world. You'd be surprised at the hostility you would find out here. Stop in at a truck stop and tell an overworked, long distance truck driver that you don't think Saddam Hussein is doing anything wrong. Tell a farmer with a couple of sons in the military that you think the United States has no right to defend itself. Go down to Baxley, Georgia and hold an anti-war rally and see what the folks down there think about you.

You people are some of the most disgusting examples of a waste of protoplasm I've ever had the displeasure to hear about. Sean Penn, you're a traitor to the United States of America. You gave aid and comfort to the enemy. How many American lives will your little, "fact finding trip" to Iraq cost? You encouraged Saddam to think that we didn't have the stomach for war. You people protect one of the most evil men on the face of this earth and won't lift a finger to save the life of an unborn baby. Freedom of choice you say? Well I'm going to exercise some freedom of choice of my own. If I see any of your names on a marquee, I'm going to boycott the movie. I will completely stop going to movies if I have to. In most cases it certainly wouldn't be much of a loss.

You scoff at our military who's boots you're not even worthy to shine. They go to battle and risk their lives so ingrates like you can live in luxury. The day of reckoning is coming when you will be faced with the undeniable truth that the war against Saddam Hussein is the war on terrorism.
America is in imminent danger.
You're either for her or against her.
There is no middle ground.
I think we all know where you stand.
What do you think?
God Bless America"


~ Charlie Daniels, originally titled "An Open Letter To The Hollywood Bunch"

[iroc409]

Originally posted by satanicoo
i love it 2 :P

btw: anyone here w8ting for the 9800 with ddr2 memory? IF it will ever release?

i've heard there's a bigger gun in ati's arsenal, and that the 9800 doesn't compare to it, even.

so i think since i just spent $345 on the 9700 a few months back, i'll wait and see what the new one has to offer

[Blackeagle]

AAAAAAAAaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhh,

Here we go again.

1) I don't think anyone here thinks the rest of the world feels America is evil. I do think however that some have forgotten history or prefer a revisionist version now.

2) I don't doubt for a moment some feel the US can be aggresive. We are when the need to be is there. But there is also the very valid view that many of these claiming this want to push their ideas on the US. That dog don't hunt.

3) The claim that Japan tried to surrender 3 days before the 1st nuke was dropped is BS, plain and simple. The tenative feelers put out by the Japanese goverment in no way constituted a surrender offer. They were only a proposal to try to end the conflict on terms the Japanese thought they could get the US to agree to, rather than face the massive losses of American troops in a landing and conquest of the home islands. They in fact showed Japan's resolve to fight to the bitter end if not allowed they're terms for a end to hostilitys. The most overriding reason for their use was to save American lives. And in preventing the kinds of American losses that were what the Japanese were counting on to force terms the japanese wanted. Just as Japan miss judged when they attacked Peral Harbor they miss judged how the war could be ended. With out the nuke strikes being carried out they would never have believed we had the capability. Note how the weapons were not dropped on the same day. As there was a real risk the weapons would fail to detonate properly there could also be no demonstration(s) of them, there were to few of them.

History is written not only by the victors as is often claimed. Most of all this is true today. It is also written by those who wish to condem those victors. Disinformation, revisionism are real and are often used. They are believed by those who wish to see things in that light.

I have read many accounts of the 2nd world war both those written by historians and men who lived what they wrote of. Not only from the US perspective but from German, Japanese, British and Austrailian accounts as well. The use of nukes while decried today, made very good sense at the time. And was in fact the correct decision. You do NOT conduct a war with sparing the enemy as the main, or even secondary goal. Just how would those in power in the US at that time have ever convinced the millions of griving parents, widows and orphans that the use of the "bomb" was forgone so as to spare the Japanese? That the deaths of those tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of American troops lost during the invasion of the home islands was for the "greater good"?

The last 4 are interconnected.

If by the bombing of Iraq you are refering to the war 12 years ago, would you have allowed So-dahm-insane to hold Kuwati?

Would not todays mess have been forgone if the UN would have not demanded the US stop short of invading Iraq then and removing Saddam at that time. His goverment would have been shattered and removed with less than 3 days of further fighting. The "mother of all battles" was already a total desaster for Iraq. The added desaster was leaving Saddam in power.

If instead you mean the very real potential of war now. Why wait for Saddam to rebuild further his forces? Or to use them. Just what did the recent disclosures about the missles hidden away now being deystroyed mean to you? Do you really think for one instant he'd be bringing them out for the inspectors if there weren't over 300 thousand Americans near by getting ready to take him down? Are you that blind? If he really wanted peace he could have surredered those weapons 12 years ago.

What about his statment that the few weeks offered in the latest British proposal wouldn't be enough time? Time for what? He's claimed all along he had no such weapons. Now 2 weeks won't be near enough time to turn them over??? What part of this leads you to think this man wants peace, not war?????

Bush wouldn't be able to gain even 5% of the population of this countrys support if oil were the goal. Good grief man Bush couldn't get support for drilling in Alaska's artic areas where oil is the only issue. He wan't even close to winning passage of his plan to drill that artic area. He has the support from the majority because oil isn't the real issue. Oil is only a handy excure for those wishing to leave Saddam in power. Or in the case of France and Russia, perhaps it is what is buying them off.

".........chateau migraine 1999." ROFL For some reason good wines lay me out the next day. Love the flavor but not the follow up the next day. Must be me, as it don't take very much wine to do it, 8 oz. is often enough.

Not sure about the DDR II but I'm interested in seeing the card with 256 meg of memory. I'm going to wait until seeing that, and perhaps the NV35 to boot.

I may as well, I don't have the money for the rest of the stuff to go with it yet anyway, and most likly won't until fall.

[g.l.amour]

i found the speach of "domi de villepin" quite amusing as he was saying to the journalists last friday that the inpectors should be given, ohh, a couple more months. i guess he must have suggested that france pay those soldiers out there another couple of months to keep pressure on the kettle. or better, he is probably gonna send france's 200k+ troops to keep saddam under pressure...lol, what an arse.

i think the will of the world towards the US boils down to this. US citizens pay for the troops. american families provide the soldiers. the rest of the world provides for the generals.

btw, saddam has been hiding this drone aircraft. that must be what full compliance means to saddam. to bad blixie forgot to mention that.

[satanicoo]

Originally posted by iroc409
i've heard there's a bigger gun in ati's arsenal, and that the 9800 doesn't compare to it, even.

so i think since i just spent $345 on the 9700 a few months back, i'll wait and see what the new one has to offer

Its the R400 right? do you know any stats of it?

anyway, i will upgrade my gf4mx (D0H) only when doom3 is out.

since i heard it will only be released by the end of the year, i should go for R400 too...

[TerraMex]

1) What does history has to do with it? Its about power, and how its being used. Its irrelevant to bring back history. Its not about what happened, its about what's going to happen, during and specially AFTER the supposed "war".

2) they are where... they have something to gain. The problem isnt that, is the lack of consideration for others involved. Sometimes is next to null.

I can understand that there , it looks and feels like something righteous, but it doesnt mean it really is.

3) BS... according to you, not according to historians. So, i'm sticking with historians.

> Disinformation, revisionism are real and are often used

Agreed. But doubles for what you read/hear. Doesnt invalidade what i wrote. I wasnt there to verify, and neither was you. So i have to base myself on the data i have availiable, and take my own conclusions. Simple as that. And said that, you can complaint all you want .

> And was in fact the correct decision

Thats your opinion, i have mine.I dont really agree what Truman did , but in the end it about points of view.

About the rest... i have noticed you failed to see the points made by the rest that answered.

Changing a regime without the people of the country supporting it, and having cultural beliefs that can get behind whats being done, is rowing against the current. You'll just piss them off, and every other country that thinks it shouldnt be this way. Specially the neighbour ones, who are still not confortable with the US supporting Isreal, let alone alot of military there. Not to mention having a excepcionally strong US presence in the Middle East is inviting every extremist network with bullseyes. But hey, if you guys are willing... and going anyway, i cant do much about that. We'll just have to wait and see.

> He has the support from the majority because oil isn't > the real issue

He's using the terrorism thing, the point is area control. If he control Iraq, he can control the oil production to an extent. Same has de French and British did 12 years ago. Who do you think has large oil quotas there?

Point two is the large drop of the economy (heck, its all over the world) that is being clouded by the sense of fear constantly kept high. Its a know tactic. Worked before, a good example was during the cold war, in both sides.

Besides, saddam is old, filthy rich, and wants to be left alone to rule his country. I dont agree on the "how" he does that, but he's not a threat to the world. If the people need a change, let them have a revolution. It would feel right because they were the ones who did it, not "invaders" (its what they think of US) who impose themselfs.

It comes down to mentalitys. Not "we know whats good for them".

PS :

> Disinformation, revisionism are real and are often used

By your own words.

But hey, thats just me.

ONTopic: (Yay).

>Not sure about the DDR II but I'm interested in seeing
>the card with 256 meg of memory. I'm going to wait
>until seeing that, and perhaps the NV35 to boot.

The problem with 256mb card is that it will be more expensive, and probably 0.1% of games will use the extra 128mb. So, i really doubt that you'll see one soon. Althou i would like to see one in testing, but i can make a safe assumption that to a 128mb card, with the same memories (access time) it would do the same.

Take the 8x vs 4x example, you gain 1% if that much. Or even SATA looses to a decent Western Digital IDE drive (see anandtech i think). Currently there isnt an real gain in those technology/specs. Maybe next year. So, its a bit of wasted money.

Oh, and for what i read, DDR-II will start to be used by the end of the year, or early 2004 , with a fair amout of luck .

http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/20...1205017630.htm

DDR II ? I really want to see that .

[g.l.amour]

easy talk about revolution. if one doesn't have the means to properly organize. you could form a group of 5 and chase saddam with some good old sticks n stones. saddam will gladly test out his mass destruction weaponry.