Er... In response to gadgeteer.

Oh my!

Do my eyes deceive me, or does that say 1073M colors.

10 bit per channel ... DO WANT!

I also read through the theory paper back when it was initially publicly announced. The implications of this were very exciting and I wanted so badly for it to be true, but I could not reconcile to myself a glaring error in the theory. As I see it now, all there is to decide is if this is simple stupidity, or is there a deliberate intent to deceive.

The error is that he holds on to an assumption long after the condition that merits that assumption is no longer true. He starts out with a strait cylinder shaped chamber, and notes that the force exerted on sides of the cylinder cancel out. This is true, and entire premise of his device is based on that, that the forces on the sides of the chamber cancel out and can be disregarded. He then changes the shape of the chamber, but retains the assumption that the forces on the sides of the chamber can be disregarded, an assumption that is not only no longer valid, but hides a force that (shocker!) cancels out the disparity in force created on the ends of the chamber.

There's a reason you can here the crickets in the US, because they are all smothering their giggles and laughter at yet another sap who buys into a crackpot scheme.

Thanks Ryan for the flicker link. Stupid web filter at work blocks "gaming" sites. >_<

Looks decent. I imagine this could also change the way I hold the controller. With this attached unit resting on my index fingers, I could use 4 fingers for the sholder buttons. Then again, I'm so used to using only two fingers...

I'll take two. Oh, and can I get them in white please? KTHXBYE!

PS. Cloudbook too, please. ^__^

And I'm quite certain it would be cheaper to heat the pool with gas rather than with electricity also.

But this isn't about using electric heat to warm the pool or the parent posters room. This is about reuse of waste heat. These computers are going to be running for whatever prupose they were built for, not for heating pools or rooms, but if the waste heat from them can be used to offset the energy that would otherwise be required to heat a pool (or a room), it is most definitely a gain in energy usage efficiency.

However, I'll gladly accept your line of reasoning as relevant when you can show me how to run my computer efficiently off gas. :)

Unbiased? Engadget?!!

... are you sure you're in the right place?

Err, your statements and numbers don't match.

"if Microsoft stopped selling the Xbox 360"
"to catch up to where the Xbox 360 is TODAY"

If MS did stop selling XBox 360 (that's zero consoles sold each month), and PS3 sales stayed at January's level (269k) it would take 26 months, not 180.

7,002,955 / 269,000 = 26.033

However, if you were to assume that Sales of XBox360 and PS3 were to remain constant (230k and 269k respectively), then yes, it would take 180 months for PS3 to overtake XBox360.

While I understand the point you were trying to make, your statements were false.

Assuming the sustained transfer rate of 230MB/s is both read and write, then it would take roughly 116 minutes to write to that 1.6TB.

This SSD uses NAND flash, which has a typical endurance of 1000000 erase/write cycles. At a sustained rate of 230MB/s, it would take 220 years to write that 1.6TB a million times.

To add a touch of reality to these raw calculations, you will likely not have perfect write distribution, so some blocks will go through more cycles than others. But this pales to the converse side: You will never sustain maximum transfer rate for writes anywhere near that long, nor will you use it for writes only.

All together, even under constant heavy usage, this drive could outlive your grandchildren.

Write cycle durability still an issue? No.

What is this "agreeing or disagreeing" business? Sounds like a bunch of bandwagon fanboyism for those without enough intelligence to formulate their own opinion.