846 posts • joined 23 Apr 2008
Re: What use?
Well, it's not that far off 'Normal'. 400Gbps is going to pan at at less than 50GByte/s, and there's Intel CPUs that have that much memory bandwidth (certainly when inter-leaved across multiple CPU sockets). The second requirement is for a CPU -> peripheral bus that's equally fat, and that's only a matter of bus width ultimately.
So we're not far away from it being "Normal" at all, especially as anything reasonable NIC in this class would offer TCP offload facilities. Give it a few years and it will seem routine.
It does raise an interesting point. If Ethernet is the fastest interconnect we have, people will start using it inside computer architectures instead of PCI or whatever.
Making the Internet Of Things secure / better is going to be very difficult. To address bugs in a worldwide deployed software installation you need a worldwide update capability, and a whole team of devs whose only job is fixing the software. That's a very difficult thing to achieve. Not even Google have achieved it in any meaningful way with Android.
When you look at what platforms are there out there which can realistically and universally receive updates there's not many. Windows is quite good, though I don't know about embedded Windows. iOS and OS X aren't bad either (though you have to depend on Apple giving a damn). Linux distributions (notAndroid) aren't bad either, but again it depends on someone actively taking a long term view (i.e. you don't want old distros being cut off from updates simply because a new one has been published). I guess that QNX could be self updating; BB10 sorta does, though the user has to actively kick-off the installation; it won't happen autonomously.
The manufacturers of Internet Connected Things aren't motivated to take all that on board because it will cost them money. Sling some Linux based firmware together, get it to version 0.0.2, sling it in the fridge (or whatever) and sack the dev team / move onto the next one. They don't want to have to be spending money updating fridges they shipped years beforehand when there's no revenue stream to fund it.
The flip side of that is that if Internet Connected Things start getting hacked, and being actively broken by the hackers, you might start seeing a flood of warranty returns on fridges, Smart TV's. That'll put the manufacturers off the whole idea very rapidly, especially as it's likely that hardly anyone is seriously using the internet connection features on these devices anyway.
"The cute technical term for the uninsurable."
It's also code for telling investors "The insurance people thing that you're definitely going to lose all your money".
Re: Typically ignorant management response
"So you see, another unintended consequence of the Greenpeace energy policy that has been foisted on the happy bill payers of Europe. Who would have thought that some fool mistaking correlation for causation on a chart would eventually lead to a chance of you and I being plunged into darkness by state sponsored hackers from the other side of the world?"
Well you say that, but not that long ago none of this was connected to the internet at all; the internet didn't exist! Yet we were able to generate quite a lot of electricity back then no problems at all.
So how and why did hooking it all up to the internet become a business imperative? There's clearly no particular benefit (because we managed perfectly well without it being netted). Whatever business improvements that have been brought about it could almost certainly have been achieved another way (e.g. point to point dial up? Seriously, just how much datacomms bandwidth does an oversized kettle or a big switch actually need just to say whether it's on or off?).
Using the Internet as a default choice seems to have been a lazy and 'cheap' solution to needs easily satisfied by other cheap alternatives that are inherently far hard to abuse from the other side of the world.
Given that coal is somewhere in the region of one part per million uranium, and that a big coal station will get through 35million tons per year, that's a lot of uranium going up the chimney every year. The guide didn't appreciate me pointing that out when as a school kid aged 9 I went on a tour of Didcot coal fired power station, at the high point in CND's popularity. I must have been a horrible kid. I asked about CFC leakage at Oldbury Nuclear power station under similar circumstances (it was used in the chiller that quickened the cooling of the core following shut down for maintenance).
I imagine that the introduction of electrostatic precipitators has reduced the output somewhat, and concentrated it into thermalite building bricks instead.
There's some controversy over the matter. Scientific American have this article:
Given that you have to get pretty close to your average nuclear accident before the count becomes worse than what you get from, say, granite I don't think anyone on the other side of the Pacific need worry. Anyone living in a granite built house, or anywhere with a faint whiff of natural radon in the air? No one worries about those, so its not rational to worry about something far off whose effect is much diminished by distance.
Re: QNX is Blackberry by name only
"As a consultant, I still have some customers using WinCE but many of those are worried and are looking for exit strategies to Linux. They have little confidence that MS will support WinCE into the future and most of them want out."
Sounds like the typical WinCE experience. MS really had zero imagination when it came to anything other than desktop and server software. That's why they missed out on the mobile revolution.
As for an exit strategy from WinCE, that sounds awkward. If they'd picked a POSIX-ish OS in the first place then their code base would be much more portable than it is. No doubt there was some engineer on the staff at the time WinCE was picked who said "This ain't a good idea" for that very reason!
Re: QNX is Blackberry by name only
"QNX has also benefited a lot from being bought out by BlackBerry. Their new Car platform is essentially BB10 re-purposed."
Ah, I was wondering about that. I use a Z10, and a PlayBook for that matter, and whatever else one might think about it the BB10 UI framework certainly allows a dev to produce a well polished result.
I wonder how important the Android runtime is going to be in the automotive sector. There's currently no app-store type market place for in car infotainment systems, so I'm guessing that most of the applications are bespoke to or customised by each manufacturer. So if they're being written specifically for each manufacturer, why write it in Android when one might just as well write it for BB10? And, any sign of TomTom doing a BB10 version of their Satnavs?
"Each time my car infotainment system crashes; each time I see yet another airport flight display with a DOS prompt on it; each time I see a cashier at a checkout rebooting their Windows system just so I can check out;"
Yet underneath all that crap there lies what is essentially the NT kernel and the bones of MS's desktop operating system (unless it really is DOS, but surely that's not been used on anything recent...). Windows in it's various (supported) guises doesn't have a huge reputation for conking out randomly, at least not these days.
So it's more likely that buggy bespoke device drivers and software written by hired then fired devs are to blame. A lot of manufacturers just don't get it; smarter systems absolutely require continual and substantial development, otherwise someone else will come along and steal your business.
It happened in mobile phones. Smart phones were great, then Apple showed everyone that actually they weren't and perhaps this iPhone thing is a better way, and everyone else has been playing catchup / going extinct ever since.
Cars are going to be increasingly sold because of their tech and the manufacturers have to get deadly serious about Doing Software Properly. Otherwise the likes of Google or Apple will come along and start controlling the market place. Hiring a few programmers for a few months to hack an infotainment system together before sacking them and shipping it isn't going to work against Apple and Google. They'll practically have to turn themselves into software companies with a sideline in car manufacturing.
[Having said that the prospect of a car running Apple Maps for a navigation system really won't sell at all well...]
Re: QNX is Blackberry by name only
"QNX is Blackberry by name only"
Indeed but BlackBerry, despite whatever their faults might be, knew a good thing when they saw it and bought QNX for use by themselves. BB10 has certainly benefited from being based on QNX.
I don't really understand why MS's automotive offering has gone so badly wrong. Did they plug it as a finished solution for the car makers who had only to burn it to ROM, but then spoiled it by not polishing it, fixing the bugs, etc?
I don't think they've solved the fuel issue, but I reckon they've spun the economics a different way.
Yes, their booster has to carry more fuel and weighs more / carries less payload in order to soft land, which costs. But then they won't have to build a whole new rocket, which might just cost less.
It's a bit if a gamble; a disposable rocket designed to the same engineering limitations would always be able to lift more payload to orbit. And if there's one thing satellite builders like it's having a bigger payload budget to work within. Just being able to put a year's extra maneuvering fuel on a big satellite might pay for the costs of a slightly more expensive but beefier launcher. These big TV and comms satellites are not cheap, yet cost no more to launch than their weight in concrete.
Re: Big fat juicy target
"Sounds more like his mistake was to overdo it."
Nah, he under did it. If he'd made a fortune out of it he could have split the proceeds with first the BOFH or, if the BOFH was unaccountably honest, the University. "He's a very Naughty Boy, but he has given us a nice fat cheque so we'll let him off with a First"...
At any rate, he may be sitting on a stash of crypto currency that in future years becomes worth a lot of money. I wonder whether as a notable Alumnus he would be prepared to me a donation?
Big fat juicy target
His mistake was to be sneaky about it. If he'd just applied for runtime for his "experimental novel internet connected computational fluid dynamics program" he might have got a whole week of runtime without anyone batting an eyelid. They might even have commiserated with him when his results turned out to be "garbage" (but in fact comprised a tidy stash of virtual coinage). How often do sysadmins actually look at a student's results?
Presumably these supers are connected to the internet, even if hidden behind some firewalls, etc. I bet there's plenty of hackers out there who must be thinking about trying to steal some runtime off them for bitcoin mining.
And I'm guessing that a supercomputer, in the interests of achieving best performance, isn't running an AV package or many of the normal defences. So once inside the owning institution's outer protection it might be quite easy to take control and mine away, at least for a short while. I'm hoping that their sysadmins are wise to that sort of problem.
Re: Prepare for a huge class action
"Such a shame that what used to be a great engineering company is now a great example of how not to run any company."
Quite right, and I'm afraid it's been like that for a long time now. The only thing they've got left that is interesting is memristor, and the sooner they bring it to market the better.
Re: @bazza I shouldn't laugh, but...
"I buy things and stuff. I've never seen the things I buy advertised on Google. (Having said that, I use AdBlock and don't pay attention to webverts.) Are you saying that the majority of people won't buy anything they need/want unless it's advertised on Google?"
The price of goods you buy incorporates the cost of advertising it on Google. Just because you've not looked at the ad on Google doesn't mean that you're not paying for it. Every time Google invent yet another irritating way of advertising stuff, the manufacturers have to buy those ads too (or fear losing ground on their competitors), and they pass the cost on to you whether or not you've seen the ad. AdBlock does not make your groceries and tech cheaper.
Re: I shouldn't laugh, but...
Laugh if you want, but ask yourself where does the money come from ultimately? That's right, us consumers.
Google's advertising blackmail system means that everything we buy costs a little bit more than it should. These days you pretty much have to advertise on Google or go out of business. Every advertising trick that Google develops means having to buy it or see your competitors get your customers. And that cost is passed on to us.
Re: Another day, another vulnerability
As others have said, yes and no.
There's a lot of formal dev techniques to demonstrate that a software design has been correctly implemented in source and compiled code, and there is some software is done that way (flight control software, things like Greenhill's INTEGRITY operating system, etc).
However, that's just part of the battle. First you have to be confident that the design itself is correct, never mind the source code that implements it. That's really hard to achieve; there's plenty of room for error there. For example, there was once a feature in Adobe Reader which left it wide open, and it affected Foxit too. The problem was that the PDF spec itself was flawed, and both Adobe Reader and Foxit had faithfully implemented it.
"You're right. In 20 years, with 2,000,000,000 billion people wearing something similar, we will all become movie stars!"
In which case we'll all be able to be start charging a fee to appear in the movies!
Re: 8.1's not bad
”My biggest criticism was reserved for the hardware. The left and right buttons are incorporated in the one piece surface trackpad. This required extreme accuracy in clicking or the cursor went shooting off, and after 5 minutes of this, I grabbed a mouse and control returned. Medium sized Sony Vaio - nice machine except for the trackpad.”
The track pad in a lot of PC laptops are DREADFUL, especially the cheaper ones. A lot of them are so bad at doing multitouch that you'd be better off with a decent old fashioned single finger touchpad.
MS has apparently got some sort of industry working group together to try an improve the situation, because it really, truly ruins Win 8 for those without / not wanting a touch screen. Windows 8 with a decent touchpad like the Logitech T650 is much improved, but it's a rare laptop indeed with one as good as that.
MS really dropped the ball with this one. You want to release an OS that depends on a trackpad as good as a Mac's, you'd better specify it down to the very last detail in your hardware compatibility certification scheme. They were living in cloud coockoo land if they ever thought that everyone would want/buy/be provided with a touch screen.
To be fair, C++ with smart pointers is a very much more usable language than C++ of old. One might even go as far to question whether all these garbage collected languages are barking up the wrong tree...
Except isn't it the JVMs that are the problems, not the Java language itself?
Scala I like because it does CSP. I might even have to have a look at it.
When you've got massive data centres, power consumption is a major cost. If you've got the money to invest (like Google has) you'd do almost anything to reduce that cost, like develop your own chips.
Intel ain't going to let Google develop its own x64 chips. ARM will license their design to anyone, and have indeed licensed it to Google. Guess where the future lies there...
If you're in the business of shipping data from storage to networks (which is pretty much all Google does), you don't need a honking great x64 core to do that. All you need is a tiny core, such as an ARM. And, just like in mobile phones, you'd bolt on co-processors for specific computational loads rather than concentrate on making the core fast enough to do them.
Microsoft too have an ARM license. If they don't use that to develop and define an ARM server architecture that runs Windows, MS could lose out. Someone else will do an open one that runs Linux instead that might not suit Windows at all.
Re: Can't wait for Modern UI version of Firefox
Yeah, it works just fine on Window 8 for me too, I just don't use Win8 that often. The fact that it does most of what one wants from a muli-touch user interface on Windows 7 is what I was very pleased by.
I've no rational idea why someone's downvoted you.
Re: Can't wait for Modern UI version of Firefox
I've got a Logitech T650 touch pad, and I've let it's driver software install its browser plugins. It's the best browsing and scrolling experience I've seen yet on a PC, super smooth scrolling in IE, Firefox (and Chrome too I think but I rarely use Chrome). On Win7.
I just wish some laptop manufacturers would build them in.
...and stable door now propped shut with thin, dry stick?
Re: blame linux?
"Sony didn't use Linux for the PS4, so they must have had their reasons."
It would seem that their choice was mostly because of licensing - the FreeBSD guys seems remarkably relaxed about what people do with their code and aren't fussed over whether people openly release their own tweaks, etc. That's ideal for someone looking for a customisable OS that doesn't oblige them to release things like DRM tweaks.
From a purely technical point of view I reckon Linux is the better OS of the two performance-wise [semaphores, context switch times, etc] on modern multi-core CPUs. So that must have made Linux a tempter for Sony, but commercial considerations are always going to override a purely technical choice.
Re: Not another smart phone?
Market forces, alas, are not our friends here. Want to know the reason behind the technical strategies of MS, Google, Samsung and literally everyone else over the past few years? It's because Apple showed that there's a bundle of cash to be made from selling useless toys to consumers who'd never dream of doing a stroke of work on their shiny shiny toys.
It's a stupid idea for a company to chase the Professional market for people who actually do work. There's nothing like as much money to be made. Apple have a 100billion in the bank precisely because they didn't sell to the business user, they sold to the home user. Everyone else has got that message too, hence Windows 8, Android, the demise of BlackBerry, and the imminent death of the PC.
For US based companies it's very difficult. A company board isn't really able to say, "No, we're sticking to what we've always done". The board members will get sued by their shareholders for not pursuing a more profitable market. Apple made 100billion; MS and everyone else has to follow otherwise their shareholders will take them personally to the cleaners. Board members aren't going to risk their own livelihood and well being for the sake of a few million professional users when there's a few billion consumers to milk.
So I'm sorry Ted, but there just isn't enough 'Workers' out there for any of the major companies to care about any more.
Given that all you're really getting from Redhat is support (otherwise you'd be using Centos, right?), I have often wondered whether that is really value for money, especially for their MRG product. Something like £3000 per year per installation. That's a lot of money; 60 of those and you'd want a RH support engineer dedicated to you 24/7, but I doubt you'd get that.
Scientific Linux is a better bet.
No no, it'll be ok because within a few more winks you'll have hired a lawyer, brought a case and settled out of court. Who knows what will happen when your eyes widen when you see the legal bill you run up without hardly knowing it...
Re: Android malware becoming a growing nuisance?
"There's no technical protection from some users going to malicious sites and downloading malicious software."
Yes there is, it's called an Anti-Virus package that is actually empowered to stop nasty things running in the first place. The problem with Android is that it won't let an AV package do that, and Android doesn't prevent it either.
Google's whole security set up for Android is terrible. There's no proper update mechanism, there's no means for third party AV software to properly help, Android's security model is seemingly not very effective anyway (why else the malware?), and Google don't seem to be very intent on fixing any of this.
One might as well don a grass skirt and conduct some sort of shamanistic ritual over one's phone, that would be a security measure as effective as any other...
Re: Crazy Platform
"also known as a factory/hard reset on Android (and other smartphone OSs, Symbian had it, Windows Phone has it, etc.)."
So what? If a factory reset merely results in you having a phone as insecure as it was before, how exactly are you better off, and how exactly do you stop the same nastie getting in?
At least with a PC or Mac you can reinstall back to clean, get a better AV package and install a load of updates and be more secure that you were before.
Re: But also:
"Not even in the darkest days did Windows XP stop viruses from cleaning up AV software."
True enough, but at least that was by mistake. At least I am presuming that it wasn't deliberate on Microsoft's part...
Android is seems designed to make life harder for the AV guys than it is for the malware authors. I just wonder when it will occur to Google that they've a properly bad security problem and that their design is preventing other people from fixing that problem for them. Maybe they don't care, sales are great, but it's not exactly setting themselves up for a glorious long term future, is it?
Look at the things with major security problems at the moment. Java - who is running that in their browser these days? Adobe reader - so bad that the browser writers are developing their own PDF plugins. Flash - eek! Yahoo has a number of security problems, so people go to Google, Outlook, etc. MS are still around of course, but Apple did very nicely out of OS X's reputation for being more 'secure'.
In short, people start to drift away from platforms that have feeble security. Google can't afford that. They will actually have to fix it sooner or later.
Re: Crazy Platform
" Android, unlike any version of Windows, isolates apps giving them separate uid's and thus has them running in a sandboxed env. Each uid routinely joins various groups with different permissions. These permissions are also transparent to a user.
All apps are pretty much equal and cannot have higher privileges over each other. An admin (the user) or root can go over their heads. You cannot simply allow an app on an unrooted system to do just that.
All those features combined is a good measure against malware already."
Boring, and useless. Android is riddled with money stealing malware that no-one is doing anything about. If all that guff you've spouted is worth a damn, why are there so many Android nasties doing the rounds?
It is very obvious that the Android sandbox isn't worth a damn. I don't care if it's design is any good or not, the end result is that there's a shed load of Android malware. And yet the sandbox and OS architecture in general is set up to prevent anything (i.e. anti-virus software) doing anything about it. Seems that to have effective protective software the AV guys would have to use the same tricks as the malware guys are using in the first place. That's a simply crazy position for a software ecosystem to be in.
This sounds like madness. Not even in the darkest days did Windows XP stop AV software from cleaning up viruses. At least XP allows a modestly competent user to reinstall from scratch if necessary. What on earth do Google think they're doing?
Except of course the end user isn't dealing with Google, it's "not their problem" (unless it's Nexus). The end user deals with Samsung, Sony, etc or more likely with their network provider. And there's nothing they can do, because actually it all comes from Google.
Google really seem to be doing their best totally screw up Android. They're just one big hack away from driving all their customers to another mobile phone platform like iOS, Win phone, etc. And I'm pretty doubtful of Android's ability to resist hacks.
The trademark system basically requires a trademark owner to actively defend their trademark or lose it altogether. So if someone came up with "iiPhone" Apple would have to sue or risk losing exclusive rights to "iPhone". Same with "Experier" vs Sony's "Xperia", etc, etc. The trademark authorities themselves will not protect your trademark for you except in obvious cases of direct copying.
So the problem is that you have to be "seen" to be defending your trademark, or else you'll lose it. The common sense thing for Apple to have done would have been to write a letter saying that they don't mind DRIPHONE, that they recognise that they're selling waterproof cases and that there's no real conflict of business interests. However, that's not public enough to be "seen" to be defending "iPhone". And without that someone would be able to argue that Apple didn't care and that they should be allowed "iiPhone" as a trademark.
It would be far better if the system allowed trademark owners to officially lodge letters of consent ("Dear DRIPHONE, we're cool with your company name coz you're selling cases, please don't make an actual phone otherwise I'll get angry, lots, Tim Cook") as official evidence of actively defending a trademark. That would be better for everyone.
Having said that, Apple do seem to have been needlessly paranoid in this case. I guess we all would be too if we stood to lose $billions of business if we lost control of a trademark and risked being personally sued by the shareholders for being so careless.
Re: There is a reason why it's free...
"It's seems to be engineering lead rather than marketing lead."
Well they sort of had to be like that. They never had any 2G spectrum of their own, so they were forced to do 3G as well as they could otherwise they'd have had no business at all.
All the other operators had big chunks of 2G, and that allowed them to be lazy in their 3G rollouts. That worked well, right up until the smartphone revolution meant that punters wanted a lot of data instead of phone calls. Three were the only operator in a position to respond to that revolution in a sensible way.
I've noticed that Three's rural coverage is gradually getting better, and they're filling in the gaps in towns too. I think their service is pretty good at 3G, and I think I'll stick with 3G for the sake of my battery life.
Re: Speculative Conclusions do not Compute.....
"Ahhhh, Friday ... the sun is shining in a cloudless sky, the trees are vibrant with the green of summer"
Oh stop rubbing it in, you southern hemisphere types. Up here we've got a grotty winter in full swing you know, and I for one am not enjoying it much. Especially as we're not thrashing the Aussies in the cricket like we should be.
The only 5c with anything like a remote chance of being popular is the white one. Who wants yellow, pick it, green, etc?
I don't understand why they didn't do a black one. Black sold very well in the old days, and I think a black 5c would have sold quite well today.
That's pretty unfair comment I think. Whilst some of us don't mind thinking in multiple different addresses spaces all at once (if you think 2 address spaces is hard, try the 69+ you get with VME...), anything that makes the programmer's job easier is a good thing for NVidia; they'll sell more product because of it.
At the software level they are copying what AMD have done, which is understandable. They can't copy AMD at the hardware level though, so they may start to struggle to compete in terms of whole system performance.
Re: Unified Memory
It is a response to what AMD have done with their APUs, but it's definitely a sticking plaster (band-aid for our transatlantic cousins) for NVidia's problem. Sure, the programmer doesn't have to worry about transferring data between CPU and GPU anymore, but the hardware does and the latency is still there.
If anything this could make the situation worse for NVidia. Before this, when the programmer had to do their own data transfers, the latency was explicitly there in the source code. It was practically shouting "this is painful and slow, don't do this too often coz it'll be a slow steaming pile of shite". Now that it's all hidden from the programmer it is easy to write working code with little evidence of inefficiency in the source. Laziness will become harder to spot.
In AMD land where the APUs have properly unified memory at the electronics level everyone wins. There are no inefficient data copies to be done at all, so source code that looks efficient ends up being efficient. That's a very good thing. It's not something that NVidia can compete with unless they start building themselves a serious x86 core.
Re: Another win for open-source leechers
Firstly its not "our" software, it belongs to the FreeBSD guys. Secondly, if the FreeBSD guys want to license it under BSD that's down to them, not you. Thirdly, their choice of that license clearly shows that they're super-chilled about what other people, including Sony, Apple and even YOU, can do with the code. And I rather suspect that the FreeBSD guys derive a well deserved portion of smugness from the fact that their software seems to be so popular.
Personally I find that Google's choice of Linux as the basis for Android to be very odd given that FreeBSD would have done very well indeed. They would have had more control over the platform and the anarchy that is the Android ecosystem could have been avoided.
Re: Yet People Still Flock to the Cloud
Not everybody does.
As Clouds come and go that'll just condition the market into not trusting clouds in general. For instance, I doubt that the former Shard customers are terribly enthusiastic about the whole idea anymore.
It'll also probably end up with there being just a few clouds, perhaps Amazon, Google, maybe Apple & MS. Apple have too much of a reputation for closing cloud services, MS are late to the party.
The really scary thing is that Google are just a couple of privacy law changes away from having no business model at all. If they ever lose the right to sniff through customer data then the whole business model for their cloud services vanishes, as will their cloud. Given the court cases starting up in the US its not so hard to imagine this happening. So, would you take the risk of irrevocably basing your whole corporate IT around Google Apps if you thought you might wake up one morning to discover its not there anymore?
The way I see it is that for clouds to survive in the long run they're going to have to properly inter-operate properly. A couple of big failures and everyone will decide its safer to do it themselves with their own hardware. That's what I do,
Re: Pot, kettle, black?
"You have the option to not use google, so if you don't like anything they do, then don't bloody use it. ”
Right, but that means you can't send email to anyone with a Gmail account, you can't browse most websites, and now you can't even phone someone with an Android 4.4 mobile.
Because if you do any of these things Google are tracking you, they know your name, address, phone number, they know what you look at and who you know and what you're sending to them. They'll even know get SSID of your home wifi. And they do all this even though you have never ever ticked a box accepting terms and conditions on Google's websites. They do all this because someone else you know has ticked that box.
The logical conclusion of the claimed performance and characteristics of memristor is startling. The only storage anywhere in a computer will be directly attached to its CPUs, just like RAM is nowadays. No SATA, SAS, PCIe SSDs, Fibre Channel, nothing. Just DDRx (whatever the 'x' has become by then).
That memristor storage would likely be divisioned into an area to take on the role of long term storage, and another to be the equivalent of DDR RAM. Except that the DDR-RAM part won't forget what it stores when power is removed.
And we'll have to get used to the fact that switching off your PC won't necessarily mean that it's memory goes blank. Everything in its terabyte sized memory will be retained between power cycles. Sounds like a security nightmare... Just to be sure the shutdown process will have to consist primarily of securely deleting its short term storage so all that those decryption keys, important data, etc. are wiped out. A power cut could be a real security nightmare for some people. And losing a laptop - eeek!
If you think about how software these days deals with important things like crypto keys, etc. so much of it assumes that memory is volatile and will be forgotten when power is lost. With memristor based RAM, things like BitLocker will be extremely vulnerable to power cuts.
Re: What's in a zero anyways?
The first rule of cloud club is, don't get hacked.
The second rule of cloud club is, really don't get hacked.
The last rule of cloud club is, if you do get hacked don't ever tell anyone. Except when it's that bad...
Re: Here we go again...
"It's aimed at RICH grown-ups. I don't know anyone who would spend that kind of money on a mobile and if I did, I'd have to say they were fucking lunatics."
Are you suggesting that people who spend that much on an iPhone or Samsung are lunatics too?
Re: BB's saviour?
No, Google don't need to make direct money from Android, not so long as their shareholders haven't figured out where it's all going.
Google made $10billion in 2012, not bad for an ad broker. However Samsung are making more like $30billion. A very big chunk of that $30billion is courtesy of Android, yet it isn't in Google's shareholders' pockets. Samsung galaxy wouldn't be doing anything like that much business without Android. How long before Google's shareholders start wanting a slice of that pie?
Re: BB's saviour?
@ Steve Davies 3,
"Release a build that can be installed on say, Samsung Android phones and still let the user have full access to Android apps."
Er, you do know this is an article about the BlackBerry operating system, not about the recent BBM port to Android and iOS?
From what I understand of BB's architecture there's hardware features in BB's phones that support the operating system's security model. Without those hardware features the phone wouldn't be as secure. Porting BB10 to a Samsung might not be possible without ruining the security model.
BB have offered manufacturers BB10 under license, but so far there's been no takers. Understandable - Android is effectively 'free' and clearly good enough to attract a healthy market. BB10 wouldn't be free.
On the topic of money, I think it's astonishing how much money Google aren't making out of Android. They do all the work, but it seems that Samsung are the guys making all the money. Google clearly do make some money, but they're effectively missing out one many gigadollars that are being banked by Samsung.
Re: 1 out of 3 aint bad.
"The reaction and participation on the petition - or rather the distinct lack there-of - is a pretty good indicator of the impact and importance of this API. The internet says "meh"."
Except that most end users won't have a clue what all this means until they discover that the Skype peripheral they got given for Christmas last year stops working before this Christmas.
Ok, so perhaps there's not that many people out there who are going to care or even notice, but it is crap of MS to do this. The API was well established, used by quite a wide variety of hardware and software, wasn't doing any harm, and wouldn't have taken any effort to leave it in Skype alongside whatever new API MS want to introduce.
Gaining traction and market share in communications is a key business goal for MS, and they're not in an unassailable position. Skype is not the whole of the mobile comms market. Doing something that pisses off even a small portion of the customer base would seem to be a stupid thing to do.
- Fee fie Firefox: Mozilla's lawyers probe Dell over browser install charge
- 20 Freescale staff on vanished Malaysia Airlines flight MH370
- Neil Young touts MP3 player that's no Piece of Crap
- Review Distro diaspora: Four flavours of Ubuntu unpacked
- Did Apple's iOS literally make you SICK? Try swallowing version 7.1