24 posts • joined 1 Sep 2008
I'm sure this is standard model aircraft terminology...
but why is the thing that connects the batteries to the servo called a battery eliminator?
It probably needs to pay most of those fees on to visa/mastercard, who will then pass them on to the issuer banks. The banks get so much money from card merchant fees that they feel generous enough to give people 1% cashback, and an interest free month.
(Creating a form of payment which didn't inherently cost so much would be a good thing, but that's a Separate Issue)
And Wikipedia tells us that Denver is indeed a microcoded CPU designed by engineers poached from various companies including Transmeta (and possibly licensing some transmeta tech). The reason it can't do x86 is that Nvidia doesn't have the patent licenses.
7-way superscalar, so if it works it'll be very fast.
I await some real independent benchmarks with interest.
Jazelle executes easy Java bytecode instructions natively, but bails out and switches back to interpreting when it gets anything difficult. The process of bailing out is so slow that in practice, JITs have always been faster.
But I'm sure this article is actually saying that ARMs are now so complex that they have real microcode interpretation of ARM instructions. Which is interesting.
Caching microcode didn't work very well on the Pentium 4. Hopefully only doing it on 'commonly used code' might work better. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out; brilliant ideas in chip design have a habit of not actually working in practice (see Jazelle and the Pentium 4)
The most interesting detail there...
Is at the bottom.
I'd have guessed that Android and Apple were way out in front and roughly neck and neck. But I'd have guessed the others completely wrong. So Symbian is still way ahead of Windows Phone 8 for actual usage; that's surprising. And it looks like featurephones are the third phone ecosystem at the moment, comfortably beating Windows Phone, Blackberry and Symbian.
To be fair to the CIO...
I can't remember ever going on a mandatory training course on a new system that imparted any useful knowledge about anything, let alone how to use the new system. So, in my experience, he was proposing a quality level far higher than the industry standard.
Maybe this could work with the right regulations
I think this is most likely to go nowhere and if it does happen, it'll be a disaster but...
What if roaming was not only mandatory but the roamed-to network received hefty charges which the phone's network wasn't allowed to pass on to the customer. That would create a real incentive to increase coverage.
Of course, it'd drive up costs (someone needs to pay for the new masts, and for the endless legal challenges to the idea), but could be worth it for decent coverage.
In fact, this will go nowhere as it only really makes a difference in solid-blue constituencies. What is needed is an initiative that improves phone reception in marginal constituencies.
Is there a good summary somewhere of what the 'numerous hard problems' are?
Actually, I think it makes sense of Apple to buy Beats.
Beats are, as noted, massively overpriced headphones that manage to sell well due to gimmicky features, styling and a strong brand. Therefore we can assume Beats has some world-class experts at selling massively overpriced goods by adding gimmicky features, styling and a strong brand. That's Apple's core competency, and having some more people who are good at it could easily be worth that much. It's just like tech companies buying startups just for a room full of smart engineers, with complete disregard for the startup's product, only here it's not engineers.
Re: This one *is* different
That's really important for everyone who's avoided phone projectors on the grounds that they have nothing in common with phased array radar.
Actually, the throwaway remark at the end that this could be used for cheaper and more robust LIDAR is probably the most exciting aspect of this - personally I need a self-driving car more often than I need a projector phone.
I've been wondering about the etymology of the term 'cloud computing'. I suspect it's a case of a term with negative connotations being embraced, but I'm looking for some evidence.
i.e. I assume it started with fans of on-premises computing saying you want your data to be where you can see it, not 'in the clouds', and then became the term used by the people making the opposite argument.
Firstly this should greatly reduce latency since fewer TCP handshakes are needed. In fact, the DNS requests should end up happening from Google's servers, not from the phone. Latency is a big deal on mobile networks.
Secondly, SPDY always uses TLS. So while all your data is accessible to Google, it's inaccessible to everyone else in the cafe with unencrypted WiFi that you're sitting in (and the cafe owners, even if the WiFi has encryption). Whether that makes things better or worse depends on the cafes you frequent.
So let's get this straight
They expected to sell twice as many as last year, based on a not-completely-earth-shattering update, in more competitive market conditions. But it turns out they're selling about the same number as last year.
I think there's been an accident with the reality-distortion field in the Apple supply-chain department
The fact that anyone thought WiFi was reliable enough to run a signalling system on a good day is terrifying by itself, even without any interference from hotspots. Why not just run wires down the trackbed like sensible people do?
Is there a precise definition of a data centre?
I assumed that a data centre was quite a big setup, not to be confused with a mere server room, but it sounds like standards might be slipping.
> Look, everyone knows what happens if you keep switching units: you'll crash into Mars
That would be classed as a spectacular success for the LOHAN project. Anything that increases the chance of crashing into mars should be done. Keep with mixed units.
£179 at ebuyer
(On pre order of course)
I reckon that's a good deal!
What's a standard
The people lobbying for this (who are probably from Cupertino, not Mountain View) seem to be distinguishing between a 'real standard' such as UMTS, written by a standards body and described in big specifications, and the obvious features that everyone expects a device to have (it's a black rectangle with a touchscreen that does things when you swipe it).
If that's all true...
It would be quite easy to write a proportional bill.
The spooks can only ask you to use the black boxes you already have and are using anyway, not install ones.
If something isn't traffic data from your point of view, it doesn't matter if it's traffic data to someone else.
We could go on to suggest that the spooks can see any relevant data you have, but can't demand any data you don't see a need for.
That is an apalling consultation
Even by the usual standards of our beloved civil service.
It makes no attempt to listen to people who aren't parents or ISPs (e.g. ordinary people who want a reliable cheap internet connection and fear this might break that).
It obviously never mentions either false positives or false negatives, but I wouldn't expect it to.
There's some stuff about self regulation at the back, which makes me think that they're hoping they can'solve the problem through self regulation'. This has the advantage that not all ISPs will sign up, but the disadvantage that the entire scheme will be designed to be cheap rather than effective or reliable, and it'd be harder to blame the government when it fails.
I dispute their use of tenses
Have they actually built a Falcon 9 heavy yet? If not, it's not yet the largest rocket in the world.
Presumably existing games will run at old resolutions and upscale, meaning that the performace test in the review probably didn't test whether there's a problem with doubling the GPU speed and quadrupling the pixel count.
I hope the final Light Peak port isn't that shape
The worst thing about USB is that you can't tell which way up the plugs are. If we go to optical without fixing this, we'll be spending the rest of our lives staring at USB plugs to work out which way up they go. A terrifying thought!
Why can't the market decide?
What's to stop a phone network offering accounts with geographical numbers instead of 077 numbers which do pay to receive calls? Customers can then decide whether or not they want to buy one of them or an ordinary expensive-to-ring mobile number.
The fact that no-one offers this sort iof plan suggests that it's not wanted.
- 'Kim Kardashian snaps naked selfies with a BLACKBERRY'. *Twitterati gasps*
- Pics Facebook's Oculus unveils 360-degree VR head tracking 'Crescent Bay' prototype
- Crawling from the Wreckage THE DEATH OF ECONOMICS: Aircraft design vs flat-lining financial models
- Bargain basement iPhone shoppers BEWARE! eBay exposes users to phishing vuln
- Google+ GOING, GOING ... ? Newbie Gmailers no longer forced into mandatory ID slurp