Flojer0

Well technically he said Giga-bits (Gb), 32Gb is only 4GB (GigaBytes). 8x4GB dimms would be 32GB, which currently seems to run $310 and up on newegg.
 
Explanation: lowercase 'b' stands for bits and uppercase 'B' stands for Bytes.

A programmers wife tells him, "Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen." So the programmer comes home with twelve loafs of bread.
 
___________________
 
An engineer, a manager, and a programmer are riding in a car. They come to a hill and their brakes fail. After careening down the hill and finally coming to a stop they get out to decide what to do. The manager says “We need to have a meeting to form a committee to see what we should do next!” The engineer says, “Screw that! Give me a pocket knife and some duck tape and I’ll have us going in no time!” The programmer looks at them both and says, “Lets push it back to the top and see if it does it again.”
  Those are the two in my memory.

Alright, though apparently I was mistaken and it was capacitors that were leaking. 

I'm using a comparable system to yours and I am using a 430 watt PSU. It's been running like a champ for 2.5 years now. I even had my rig mining for about four months straight this year and haven't had a single hitch yet.

Game content is already going to be compressed, and due to the way compression works you are most likely going to end up with bigger files that take longer to read since the dictionary generated would take up space and you would need to decompress the files to get to their original state.
 
If you are working with uncompressed data then you could benefit though. I doubt games are a good candidate. Though you could try with just one or two games and see if it works, shouldn't hurt.

^^^ or recycle an old computer and setup a LAMP.
 
Amazon also has a small AWS tier that is free for one year that I have been using with no issues. Aside from having to set everything up.

If bees eat colored honey they change to that color, the only reason they are yellow is because that is the color of the honey/nectar inside of them.

Why have no one seen this post? This is server grade memory so of course it would be a lot more expensive. Mainstream memory would be about half that price or so.

It does say that those dimms are registered and ECC. If DDR4 follows the same trend as DDR3 then non-ECC and un-registered dimms would cost about half as much. Which is still ~$220 for 16GB.

I agree. To illustrate I threw together some basic math and made gcc spit out the assembly with the -S flag. For the following block of C code:
int a = 3;int b = 4;int c = 0;int d = 0;c = a*a;d = b*b;c = c+d; I got the following block of assembly, which I've commented to help understanding:
movl $3, -16(%rbp) %int a = 3;movl $4, -12(%rbp) %int b = 4;movl $0, -8(%rbp) %int c = 0;movl $0, -4(%rbp) %int d = 0;movl -16(%rbp), %eax %Load contents of a (currently in ram) into register eaximull -16(%rbp), %eax %Multiply contents of a (still in ram) with eaxmovl %eax, -8(%rbp) %Write eax to memory address of cmovl -12(%rbp), %eax %load contents of the memory address of b to eaximull -12(%rbp), %eax %Multiply contents of memory address b with eaxmovl %eax, -4(%rbp) %Write eax to memory address of dmovl -4(%rbp), %eax %Load contents of d into eaxaddl %eax, -8(%rbp) %add contents of eax with contents of c Hopefully the formatting is tolerable. The forum screwed with it a bit.
 
So I guess this doesn't show the linecount ratio well. But keep in mind that this is a very simplified example that I am hoping will illustrate the extra shuffling that is managed at the assembly level. Also remember that behind all of that assembly are real chunks of silicon that are shuffling that data around, and I feel that to really understand what is going on in any assembly you need at least a functional understanding of computer architecture. If you ever get the chance to take a computer architecture class I would highly recommend it.
 
If any one wants me to illustrate anything else I should be able to. You could even try it yourself by having gcc spit out an assembly file by using the command line command "gcc -S file.c". Though it can get tricky finding what is your code and what is executable boilerplate if you don't have some idea what you are looking at.
 
EDIT: This is getting big, let me know if my brain vomits are too much
 
I just finished something that may better illustrate some points, here we have a for loop giving us a code block that gives us five lines including the return:
int a = 0; for (int i = 0; i < 42; i++) if (i%2==0) a+=i; return 0; And here we have the corresponding assembly:
movl $0, -8(%rbp) %int a = 0; movl $0, -4(%rbp) %int i = 0; jmp .L2 %jump to label L2.L4: movl -4(%rbp), %eax %load i into eax andl $1, %eax %And 1 with eax testl %eax, %eax %Test if eax = 0 jne .L3 %Jump if not 0 movl -4(%rbp), %eax %Move i into eax addl %eax, -8(%rbp) %add eax and a.L3: addl $1, -4(%rbp) %i++.L2: cmpl $41, -4(%rbp) %Compare i to 41 jle .L4 %Jump to L4 if less or equal movl $0, %eax %Return 0; I'll stop this now, but I am actually finding this rather fun. If there are any further questions I'll do my best to answer them. And after going through with this it looks like the 1-3 lines range might not be that far off. I am a little suprised.

I agree. To illustrate I threw together some basic math and made gcc spit out the assembly with the -S flag. For the following block of C code:
int a = 3;int b = 4;int c = 0;int d = 0;c = a*a;d = b*b;c = c+d; I got the following block of assembly, which I've commented to help understanding:
movl $3, -16(%rbp) %int a = 3;movl $4, -12(%rbp) %int b = 4;movl $0, -8(%rbp) %int c = 0;movl $0, -4(%rbp) %int d = 0;movl -16(%rbp), %eax %Load contents of a (currently in ram) into register eaximull -16(%rbp), %eax %Multiply contents of a (still in ram) with eaxmovl %eax, -8(%rbp) %Write eax to memory address of cmovl -12(%rbp), %eax %load contents of the memory address of b to eaximull -12(%rbp), %eax %Multiply contents of memory address b with eaxmovl %eax, -4(%rbp) %Write eax to memory address of dmovl -4(%rbp), %eax %Load contents of d into eaxaddl %eax, -8(%rbp) %add contents of eax with contents of c Hopefully the formatting is tolerable. The forum screwed with it a bit.
 
So I guess this doesn't show the linecount ratio well. But keep in mind that this is a very simplified example that I am hoping will illustrate the extra shuffling that is managed at the assembly level. Also remember that behind all of that assembly are real chunks of silicon that are shuffling that data around, and I feel that to really understand what is going on in any assembly you need at least a functional understanding of computer architecture. If you ever get the chance to take a computer architecture class I would highly recommend it.
 
If any one wants me to illustrate anything else I should be able to. You could even try it yourself by having gcc spit out an assembly file by using the command line command "gcc -S file.c". Though it can get tricky finding what is your code and what is executable boilerplate if you don't have some idea what you are looking at.
 
EDIT: This is getting big, let me know if my brain vomits are too much
 
I just finished something that may better illustrate some points, here we have a for loop giving us a code block that gives us five lines including the return:
int a = 0; for (int i = 0; i < 42; i++) if (i%2==0) a+=i; return 0; And here we have the corresponding assembly:
movl $0, -8(%rbp) %int a = 0; movl $0, -4(%rbp) %int i = 0; jmp .L2 %jump to label L2.L4: movl -4(%rbp), %eax %load i into eax andl $1, %eax %And 1 with eax testl %eax, %eax %Test if eax = 0 jne .L3 %Jump if not 0 movl -4(%rbp), %eax %Move i into eax addl %eax, -8(%rbp) %add eax and a.L3: addl $1, -4(%rbp) %i++.L2: cmpl $41, -4(%rbp) %Compare i to 41 jle .L4 %Jump to L4 if less or equal movl $0, %eax %Return 0; I'll stop this now, but I am actually finding this rather fun. If there are any further questions I'll do my best to answer them. And after going through with this it looks like the 1-3 lines range might not be that far off. I am a little suprised.

Yes, it is possible to code games in anything you would call a Turing complete programming language. The only benefits to programming in assembly are faster and smaller programs and also the ability to create programs for architectures that have no compilers yet. The downside is that it is that you have to think at a drastically lower level than anything else, even C. That adds a lot of complications when it comes to reasoning about your program. There are also critical real time applications with which you need to know the exact number of cycles something is going to take, this is much easier to do with assembly.
 
Any luxury, or possibly anything you do at all in another language has to be hand written. If it is pure assembly you don't have the option to use functions or even recycle old code unless you copy/paste. If you haven't ever worked with assembly then keep in mind that you don't have variables, you work with data through memory addresses which you have to maintain manually. When you want to work with a piece of data you have to load it into the CPU register(s) yourself and work with the data from there, then write it back to memory.
 
All of this can mean that you need to have an immensely deep understanding of the specific architecture to get much gain in any area by hand coding assembly. Meaning that you'll either loose some benefits if the architecture deviates slightly (think Intel/AMD) or your program will be practically impossible to port to another machine. Compare this to a language like C which if used correctly can be recompiled to anything, from your PC to your microwave. Plus if you don't have sufficient skill the program is likely to be more bloated and slower than what a C compiler or other language will do for you.
 
Lastly, higher level languages have been ruling the roost for decades now. That time has caused architectures to form around the idea of compiled languages and their quirks, meaning your CPU is actually built to run compiled languages as fast as it can in a general manner.
 
If you do have a need it is most productive to combine a higher level language and a lower level one if you need it. So you could write a game in C++ and IF you profile the game and find that a small set of functions is eating all the time you can attempt to tune those functions. 
 
Sorry if that is a bit long winded, but Assembly is a bit of a complicated beast. It is fun to learn, just not necessary for real use unless you are writing compilers.

Yes, it is possible to code games in anything you would call a Turing complete programming language. The only benefits to programming in assembly are faster and smaller programs and also the ability to create programs for architectures that have no compilers yet. The downside is that it is that you have to think at a drastically lower level than anything else, even C. That adds a lot of complications when it comes to reasoning about your program. There are also critical real time applications with which you need to know the exact number of cycles something is going to take, this is much easier to do with assembly.
 
Any luxury, or possibly anything you do at all in another language has to be hand written. If it is pure assembly you don't have the option to use functions or even recycle old code unless you copy/paste. If you haven't ever worked with assembly then keep in mind that you don't have variables, you work with data through memory addresses which you have to maintain manually. When you want to work with a piece of data you have to load it into the CPU register(s) yourself and work with the data from there, then write it back to memory.
 
All of this can mean that you need to have an immensely deep understanding of the specific architecture to get much gain in any area by hand coding assembly. Meaning that you'll either loose some benefits if the architecture deviates slightly (think Intel/AMD) or your program will be practically impossible to port to another machine. Compare this to a language like C which if used correctly can be recompiled to anything, from your PC to your microwave. Plus if you don't have sufficient skill the program is likely to be more bloated and slower than what a C compiler or other language will do for you.
 
Lastly, higher level languages have been ruling the roost for decades now. That time has caused architectures to form around the idea of compiled languages and their quirks, meaning your CPU is actually built to run compiled languages as fast as it can in a general manner.
 
If you do have a need it is most productive to combine a higher level language and a lower level one if you need it. So you could write a game in C++ and IF you profile the game and find that a small set of functions is eating all the time you can attempt to tune those functions. 
 
Sorry if that is a bit long winded, but Assembly is a bit of a complicated beast. It is fun to learn, just not necessary for real use unless you are writing compilers.

Oops, my bad. I should of said Deep Web:
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Web
 
I'll edit my post to correct it.

Yes, it is possible to code games in anything you would call a Turing complete programming language. The only benefits to programming in assembly are faster and smaller programs and also the ability to create programs for architectures that have no compilers yet. The downside is that it is that you have to think at a drastically lower level than anything else, even C. That adds a lot of complications when it comes to reasoning about your program. There are also critical real time applications with which you need to know the exact number of cycles something is going to take, this is much easier to do with assembly.
 
Any luxury, or possibly anything you do at all in another language has to be hand written. If it is pure assembly you don't have the option to use functions or even recycle old code unless you copy/paste. If you haven't ever worked with assembly then keep in mind that you don't have variables, you work with data through memory addresses which you have to maintain manually. When you want to work with a piece of data you have to load it into the CPU register(s) yourself and work with the data from there, then write it back to memory.
 
All of this can mean that you need to have an immensely deep understanding of the specific architecture to get much gain in any area by hand coding assembly. Meaning that you'll either loose some benefits if the architecture deviates slightly (think Intel/AMD) or your program will be practically impossible to port to another machine. Compare this to a language like C which if used correctly can be recompiled to anything, from your PC to your microwave. Plus if you don't have sufficient skill the program is likely to be more bloated and slower than what a C compiler or other language will do for you.
 
Lastly, higher level languages have been ruling the roost for decades now. That time has caused architectures to form around the idea of compiled languages and their quirks, meaning your CPU is actually built to run compiled languages as fast as it can in a general manner.
 
If you do have a need it is most productive to combine a higher level language and a lower level one if you need it. So you could write a game in C++ and IF you profile the game and find that a small set of functions is eating all the time you can attempt to tune those functions. 
 
Sorry if that is a bit long winded, but Assembly is a bit of a complicated beast. It is fun to learn, just not necessary for real use unless you are writing compilers.

if it's just a flaky connection, you may be able to get some deoxit and spray it in the terminals.
it could be potentially cheaper and easier than replacing all the terminals.

Meaning the wires very loose? Try stripping longer copper part, and fold it 2-3 times to make it thick, before inserting and clamping it again. That's how I used to do it.
 
In any case: http://www.mcmelectronics.com/product/50-020 but this seems a little low-quality plasticky to me....
 
Best bet would be to send an email straight to technics though. Just tell them the situation and the part you need. If lucky, they'll sell you the part, or point you to the place where you can get them. 
 
I did this with a small broken part of my canon camera. The part I'm looking for isn't usually for sale, but because I sent an email straight to the main dealer, they are willing to sell me the part, so I guess it's just a part of good company's after sales service.

What would work really easy, and sound like what you're saying, is you can just check the left most and right most ships.

Chips Challenge and Roller Coaster Tycoon

If you're tech savy enough running linux off a USB flash drive can determine if the problem is hardware or software.

If you're tech savy enough running linux off a USB flash drive can determine if the problem is hardware or software.

My guess is the CPU inside the NAS is just that slow. Or it is the wireless. Have you tried it on a wired connection?

Following footsteps through a four year old video?

Monodevelop tries to be an open source C# (and .Net) enviroment. But I find it painful to use and I avoid touching it unless I have to.
 
http://www.mono-project.com/Main_Page

You're welcome .