>three miles beneath the ocean... How is that comparison useful to anyone?
Haha, maybe to the engineers of the Alvin submersible, perhaps!
6366 posts • joined 21 Jul 2010
>three miles beneath the ocean... How is that comparison useful to anyone?
Haha, maybe to the engineers of the Alvin submersible, perhaps!
>Edit: 2 grams of antimatter is a LOT and illustrates how much energy you need...
Indeed. E=mc^2 where E is energy, m is mass (in this example, 0.004 Kg since the 2 grams of antimatter would react with 2 grams of normal matter) and c, the speed of light in a vacuum, is a really, really big number. All multiplied by the same really, really big number.
So, E = shitloads.
It would be easier to parse your comment for how AMD is suitable - or superior - for certain use-cases or workloads if it wasn't written in such pejorative language. Good points should stand by themselves.
As for "Intel inside, idiot outside", well, non-idiots will know what their workload is, and where to find appropriate independent benchmarks - and then make up their own minds before buying.
>without price info, this story is a bit "so what?"
What's the point of the Reg posting the prices when they are amenable to change? The article tells you how to find the Ubuntu laptops on the Dell website, and anyone who is about to drop hundreds of groats on a new machine will spend more than the minute it would to check the price on their purchasing decision.
"Clear your diaries - we've just won a massive contract!" or "Make a note in your diary for the 27th June" are examples of how we often might use the term 'diary'. It also refers to a small pocket book that is divided into the days of the year.
We don't refer to a 'pocket calender', and a calender is usually thought of as a desk or wall-mounted collection of paper leaves. Single-sheet posters, often around A2 size, with a roughly 1" square for each day of the year are often referred to as 'year planners'.
We will also keep a journal - keep a diary - in a 'diary', too - usually a blank or lined book.
Hope that helps.
>Sorry, DARPA. Those of us with a clue don't work on consumer goods anymore.
I'm sure they will be inconsolable.
Seriously though, it makes no odds to me if I'm blown up by explosives derived from fertiliser or by those from a military supply chain. The results are the same if the timer used is purpose-made, or constructed from a cheap digital wristwatch.
>I could just imagine the fun that the Monty Pyhon team would have had with 'Flying Toast as weapons of mass destruction'.
Spike Milligan had already beaten them to it with the "The Jet-Propelled Guided NAAFI" episode of the Goon Show. (A NAAFI in this context was a canteen run by the Navy Army Air Force Institute for the benefit of British military personnel.)
Good Heavens, Sir! It's a plan of a new Guided NAAFI! A self-contained missile capable of carrying eighty-two staff, ten NAAFI pianos, sixty thousand gallons of tea and twelve tons of buttered crumpets, being shot six thousand miles up and set fully operative at the point of impact in sixteen seconds. It sounds quite impossible.
The good thing about radio comedy is that the special effects budged is unlimited!
EDIT: Audio here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwSQ0CBQuA0 Enjoy!
>Apple make a battery case now don't they? They could try incorporating a sliding cover into that.
Apple could, but that would be tantamount to them admitting they don't trust their own software stack, in addition to any aesthetic and manufacturing considerations.
Users who want to block their camera can do so with nearly any case by just sliding a chewing gum wrapper in front of the camera :)
>It would actually be simpler for the very paranoid to have a case with a dummy connector to plug into the speaker/microphone jack socket.
The switch between internal mic and headset is managed by software - plugging in a jack doesn't disable the internal microphone hardware per se. If we're working on the assumption that the phone's software is compromised, then I wouldn't trust a jack to disable the internal mic. So Kevin, you're not being paranoid enough mate! :)
(This can be demonstrated, at least on Android phones, with an App called 'SoundAbout' which is handy for using headphones that confuse the phone - typically headsets designed for iPhones. You can force the audio routing to your will, as a workaround. )
Simple plan that one, but more likely to be implemented in a 3rd party iPhone case than by Apple themselves. Or in any number of currently existing iPhone cases and a slip of foil-backed paper.
I don't know, but I would imagine that a bugged microphone would be more useful to spooks than a bugged camera, anyhow - and that would be harder to muffle. I suppose you could have a phone case with a small speaker, playing pseudo-random gibberish (or Radio 2's Jeremy Vine show - same difference) into the phone's microphones.
>OxfordDictionaries = Oxford dictionaries
No, it is Oxford Dictionaries. It is the name of an organisation, and thus a proper noun. Similarly, we have British Broadcasting Corporation, BBC, and not Bbc.
Without the space, OxfordDictionaries suggests to most people here that it is probably a website, and the capitalised D aids legibility.
Windows Mobile supported Bluetooth Low Energy before Android did, though some Android handsets had the capable hardware at the time.
>Every new Android version I hope for a saner update mechanism,
Manage your expectations, dotdavid!
There are some technical reasons that date back to Android 1.0 why Android updates can't be made saner without a bit of an upheaval (think of something akin to OSX moving from PowerPC to Intel). Google have nailed updates with ChromeOS, and it's possible that the two OSs might converge in future.
From the Perlan website:
- Airbus is providing consulting on carbon fiber manufacturing quality.
- Airbus is providing the Perlan Project with critical consultations on aircraft and systems reliability.
So it appears that Airbus aren't making any parts themselves, but providing advice - and money.
>I'm sure they predate the invention of the idea of discrimination.
Haha, I doubt that! In some medieval countries, no left-handed (sinister) man could become a knight. This influenced the chirality of spiral stair cases in castles - defending knights, fending off ascending attackers, had an advantage because they had more room to swing a sword with their right hand.
Or do you mean the idea of trying not to discriminate? : )
It can be. There are a few form factors, to suit a few use cases.
The one that appeals to me is Lenovo's Yoga ('Tent') laptop where the keyboard can be folded back - it would suit me when I want to watch video. If I needed a new laptop, the MS Surface Book also appeals, because of it's screen's aspect ratio, stylus digitiser and discrete GPU more than it's convertible nature. Hopefully other manufacturers will make competing machine before my currently fit-for-purpose laptop dies.
'Tablet' used to mean a seldom-seen Intel/WinXP paving slab. Later it was usually taken to mean a lighter weight ARM/*NIXish machine. Now it can be a few things.
>I like towers for the ease of being able to tinker around inside for upgrades but even good laptops are easier to get into now if they are not fruity.
Agreed, though I haven't had the need to upgrade the internals of my laptop (or even think about buying a new one). I'm not really a PC gamer, nor a heavy video editor, so my laptop that was upper-middle spec five years ago is still fit for the 3D CAD and Photoshop I throw at it occasionally today.
If I want to treat myself to some more RAM and an SSD one day, then yeah, it's nice that I can open the laptop up and fit some. In reality though, the need for upgrades is less pressing than once it was, back in the days when it seemed hardware struggled to run the software.
I've spent ten minutes on the internet trying to find a concise clarification of what Bezos is on about. No real joy. Some snippets, though:
- The BE-4 is about 3 times more powerful than the Merlin that SpaceX currently use.
- The BE-4 could be used in conjunction with existing NASA rocket stages
- SpaceX have been working on the Raptor, a motor of equivalent power to the BE-4. It is tied up with Musk's plans for Mars, such as possibly running on methane which could be sourced on the Red Planet.
-The BE-4 is further along the development path than the Raptor.
Found a list of controls for Sam Cruise here:
I get stuck on the above browser version when I answer the in-game telephone. Oh well!
...I thought the game being played was How to be a Complete Bastard, and thought it fitting for the Reg.
Alas, on closer inspection it turned out not to be.
If your graphics department (hahaha) wants to do a quick Photoshop on it, you can find screen shots here:
...bubbling up through my brain, but it isn't there yet. It the meantime, I'm just thinking:
'Cause I got a brand new combine harvester and I'll give you the key
Come on now, let's get together
In perfect harmony
I got 20 acres and you got 43
Now I got a brand new combine harvester and I'll give you the key.
That, and also Homer Simpson's garage, full of tools and lawnmowers marked 'Property of Ned Flanders'.
When Cortana was introduced, MS made play of the fact that the privacy settings were under granular user control - in a bid to differentiate themselves from Android.
I don't know what the policy is now.
Hehe, nice one! Have an upvote, Known Hero!
With Hololens, MS apps will run on all devices, even when they are turned off!
As a meatbag, I have various motivations. These motivations are generally geared to preserving my life (food: yum. High fat and sugar food: yummier! High cliff: scary. Snakes: Avoid!) and passing on genes and caring for people who share those genes - in environments similar to those my ancestors lived in. Some of these motivations of mine are now not optimal for the selection pressure that lead to them (easy example: donating my sperm to a bank would be a low cost, low risk way of passing on my genes, but I haven't the instincts to do that in the same way I feel sexual attraction and the urge to find a mate).
So, what would 'Skynet's' motivation be? And what is the difference between a motivation and programming? An AI might be programmed to be self-preserving - that would make some sort of sense for a military command-and-control system which might be under attack. An AI footsoldier might be programmed so that it's own self-preservation is secondary to taking orders (or even it's own tactical reading of a situation, where it's own sacrifice buys an advantage for its allies).
The barge coms are fit for purpose: telemetry data is prioritised over the video.
Lots of lovely high-res video is then retrieved from the barge a day later, along with bits of returned rocket, to help engineers improve upon their efforts. Your enjoyment of these videos is merely a happy side effect. This is how they have always done it.
SpaceX deliver payloads to space for money: they are not an entertainment company. If they were, and you JeffyPoooh had paid for a pay-per-view event, then yes you would have grounds to carp. But you are not, so please leave it alone.
When courting paying customers, SpaceX have numbers on their side. Whilst I'm sure that the employees of SpaceX like having a generally positive public image, it is not their core business.
>I believe they do have footage, but it runs on a delay loop, because they only want to show success.
Believe what you want.
Meanwhile, SpaceX have provided footage of their past failed landings.
On their last attempt, that resulted in an explosion, Musk tweeted that it won't be their last RUD. (Rapid Unplanned Disassembly). On this attempt to land, Musk said they were not expecting a successful landing (because of the amount of fuel required to get the satellite to its orbit).
>Pictures of detonating rockets is bad for business,
The customers need to get satellites into orbit. They only have a few suppliers to choose from. They do due process, weighing up a lot of factors, and bash out contracts with insurance clauses. i.e it is not an emotional decision that would be influenced by a picture.
SpaceX have had one rocket explode on the way up (destroying its customer's patyload), but all their landing attempts have been done after doingthe job they were paid to do.
>When researchers say intelligence what exactly do they mean?
Presumably, the ability to make actions that are in its tactical and strategic advantage. To a human, 'advantage' would mean a continued, happy existence, but what 'advantage' would mean to an AI is harder to define.
>Human intelligence doesn't reside in individual brains, it resides in external memory
That's knowledge, not intelligence. For sure, intelligence was used to assemble said knowledge, but actual intelligence it isn't. In familiar situations though, we sometimes use one instead if the other.
>have blown the doors off the old evolutionary limitations of a single brain with no external storage
We can't compose a single 'intelligence' from multiple humans brains that can react in real time. The 'bus speed' (language verbal and written) between 'processing nodes' (human minds) is incredibly slow. >taking part in a public debate about something potentially dangerous that doesn't exist yet
Prevention is better than cure
I have an old G3 Mac Pro (the grey plastic one, before they went 'Cheesegrater Aluminium) that could be similarly re-worked as an aquarium. Or vivarium, if lizards are your thing.
Or Google, or Apple. In very different ways. It depends on what you want.
Google sell you low-priced hardware to sell you video content. Could be used with phone and TV (beta) for office-like tasks with keyboard and mouse
Apple, the above but pricier.
Google: use services (email, document creation / sharing) across platforms: PC, Mac, *nix... Android, iOS.
Apple: Doesn't matter, above applies (for GMail users). Or: Continuity, their iOS/OSX integration.
The Ubuntu/MS concepts just seem to be based around re-purposing a phone's CPU. But why? Just buy another CPU in a stick, they are not that pricey.
Hi bombastic bob!
Thankyou for making a reasoned argument (though capitals are hard to parse!). You mentioned Apple as having not followed the same path as MS and Ubuntu... they would rather sell you additional hardware. As such, they have provided a software solution that (in concept at least, I haven't used it myself) is sensible: open documents on your iPhone are open when you turn on your Mac. Straightforward enough, I reckon.
A small point: Canonical have been advocating Desktop/Mobile OS on a phone for longer than MS have (although in reality, both organisations would have been exploring the concept long before any public announcement).
Without Apple, my experience of Android+Chromecast (i.e, the same as iOs/Android + Chromecast/Playstation/Whatever) informs my opinion here.... attempts to reuse a phone's CPU are more effort than they are worth.
It seems that the main advantage of Ubuntu's idea is seamless access to work-in-progress documents, but that could be done through software. You don't want your data on just one device anyway (loss, damage, failure), and the same mechanisms that make backing-up easier can also make data accessible to multiple devices.
I remain unconvinced (but I actively welcome reasoned persuasion by you guys!) by the idea of having a Desktop OS put in a phone and the phone connected to a screen, especially when the cost of an SoC to run a Desktop OS on a TV is low (compared to a generic Snapdragon 8xx 2GB RAM 5" Android phone). A 'PC on a Stick' isn't going to take up much space in a kit bag, especially when compared to a keyboard or wireless mouse.
I have usability concerns, too (i.e plugging a phone into a TV, then unplugging it when someone rings or you want to leave the room for ten minutes).
Also, redundancy concerns: If you lose your phone, you can still use the 'PC on Stick' to contact friends and colleagues. Vice versa if your 'PC on a Stick' goes 'poooft!', or a crumb gets in your keyboard and stops the spacebarfromworking.
So: Convince me, guys! :)
>a desktop and a couple of laptops, all of which have their own storage, and setting them up to talk seamlessly to each other isn't trivial.
Hi AndyS. I thought I'd ask you, since you actually live this scenario. Is there any way you could envisage the above inconvenience being fixed by software? Your wording suggests that is is *possible*, but a bit of pain in the neck to configure/maintain.
Yep, two Reg articles about different subjects, but based on the same speech by the Culture Secretary. This little sub thread belongs under the *other* Reg article, the one about the BBC, not this one which is about ad-blockers.
Ah well, it is nearly Friday!
[Note to non-Uk readers: the network 'Orange' changed it's name to EE a little while back, after a merger with 'O2']
I had a similar issue the other day. Normal phone broken, so wanted to put my EE SIM into a Samsung 'feature phone' that had been on the same Orange contract - even the telephone number was the same!
Orange waived the (less than £10) network unlock fee without argument, since it was clearly ridiculous that a phone acquired on the same contract wouldn't for merely rebranded SIM. It is possible that the quoted fee was less for me than JimmyPage, since the unlocking could be done with a code on this Samsung.
However, I was told it would take around five days for the code to be sent to me, so I went out and bought a bargain basement (£25 from Sainsburys) Android phone unlocked to any network. As a phone for voicecalls, text email etc, it works pretty well.
>(2) Manufacturer (e.g. Samsung) spanners it onto their hardware
That is actually several steps. If you will allow me, just for clarity, to change your example from Samsung to an ODM who doesn't make their own chips:
Google distributes the new version to an ODM, lets say HTC. Google also distributes source code to chip makers like Qualcomm (and yes, Samsung). They decide if they can be bothered to support the chip in question. If they do, they send a Board Support Package to the ODM in question, HTC, Sony, Samsung etc. Then there is lots of testing. Then it is sent to:
(3) The carriers, for approval. Then sent back to ODM for changes to be implemented. (Repeat)
(4)Then it is sent to the relevant regulatory authorities for approval. (Repeat)
(5)Then it is distributed to end users.
Note that there is plenty of scope for foot-dragging by various parties.
For a short while the HTC ONE M8 was actually sold by Google as a Play Edition phone. Since Google can't release their promised updates on a Play Edition phone until the hardware vendor has supplied them with some binary blobs, HTC had to get do the work quickly.
>It has been coming up quite frequently since before Android even launched. And it hasn't prevented Android from taking over the world.
@Mikel He didn't say it would damage adoption of Android. He said that Google will make efforts (as they have in the past, including the Nexus range, the Silver Edition programme, APIs being moved into Google Play Services etc) to make the situation more to their liking. A less fragmented Android would suit Google - whose revenue does not come from Android adoption in itself, but through services with ads - more than the multi-version Android world we have now.
From other sources, it is reported that Google may be thinking of designing their own chips and SoCs.
That's a good idea Marcelo. And Google have already done it - On ChromeOS.
The reason it isn't done already on Android is because it currently wouldn't work.
Hence the interest in the possibly merged future of ChromeOS/Android.
Professional gear - the cost of getting 1Kg of cheap camera lens into orbit is the same as 1Kg of professional gear! The retail cost difference is a rounding error.
Onboard the ISS, US use Nikon D4, Russia D3 dSLRs. Sony, Panasonic and Canon cover video duties.
For handheld photography outside the ISS, a modified Nikon D2X is used.
You can often see an arsenal of dSLRs and big lenses fixed (velcro?) to the the walls in interior photographs of the ISS. ThinkPads are also easy to spot.
There was a documentary made with IMAX film onboard the ISS over a decade ago. Because IMAX is chemical film and not a digital format, the film had to be returned to Earth fairly promptly, so that it wouldn't record too many cosmic rays.
>Humanitarian worth 16.6 Donald Drumpfs
>I guess a good parallel is the Kinect - it sold by the shitload when it was priced and packaged for consumers and had a ton of great software being sold so they could use it, but started off with expensive developer previews so it could get to the point where it was a consumer product.
Even the original Kinect was sold at a loss - with an idea to recoup the money by selling games (a bit like printers and ink cartrisges... again, profit is hard to calculate).
Within 48 hours of its release, a MIT student had got a PC to talk to the Kinect, opening the door for people to use the subsidised hardware for their own applications. A little while later, MS released a PC-only version of the Kinect which was more expensive, along with drivers and APIs.
>our highly profitable hardware. If it sells.
How can you even judge the profit on something that hasn't been sold yet? You have to share your R&D and tooling costs amongst your customers. After that, you add up your bill of materials and assembly costs per unit. Add the two together and add a margin. This will be roughly what you sell it for.
For the moment, we don't know how many customers there will be. So we can't calculate a profit.
>Tablets, then, didn't really exist. The EEE PC came out in 2007.
2007? We were discussing what killed netbooks, not what what aborted them!
Whatever, a small letter-box of a screen just wasn't much fun. I saw a fair few netbooks (Linux and XP) in the wild for a few years after their arrival - until tablets and 'thin n light' laptops came on the scene - so I stand by my comment about their small screen being their Achilles' heel.
I don't care how good an OS is, if it is on akward hardware then the whole experience will be lacklustre. At the time we were forgiving of netbooks' shortcomings because of their price - the Reg termed them 'SCCs', Small Cheap Computers. I'm sure some of you can remember a sunny photograph demonstrating this!
>Yep, it's the netbook scenario making a comeback, and look what that did to a very clever idea.
I don't think it was MS that killed the netbook. They weren't great for writing lots of text due to their small keyboards, and their letter-box shaped screens made even browsing web pages tiring work - too much scrolling! These points remain true regardless of what OS they were running.
Netbooks could get you out of a jam, but you wouldn't want to use one for extended periods. For purely consuming content (web pages, video), tablets simply had a better form-factor.
For creating content, you'd want at minimum a bigger keyboard (novelist). Coders and artists would also want a bigger screen and more grunt.
Can't help you - there's no clearer image of it in the video.
For all I know, it could have been an old drill-bit case that this guy has re-purposed as a chassis for a home-built mixer.
> I don't know if it works on Android yet, but last I heard latency was still a problem.
URL alone gives the idea.
Anecdotal evidence, possibly not relevant to Linux, please feel free to correct me:
Using some old Windows XP desktops with around 1GB of RAM, I found Chrome too memeory hungry, so I installed Opera. My reasoning at the time was that each Chrome tab was a sandboxed instance, so using resources. Whether I was right or wrong, Opera worked better than Chrome on these underpowered machines.
It is the crowd funding aspect of this project that has caught my attention. I keep abreast of the popular technology sites, but I haven't heard much of crowd-funded open source projects.
I have been critical (in a supportive, not mocking way I hope) of some open source productivity applications (just as I am of commercial applications). I do this because as a user of software, I want the best and sanest solution for everybody. 'Everybody' means people who are rightly wary of proprietary software, just as it also includes people who are less confident with computers.
I love the ethos of open source. I love the idea that if someone needs a little bit of software, they can write it and make it available for others. And in those cases, I wouldn't knock them for not polishing the user interface. To create larger applications, a team might be required - skilled people giving their time. But usability testing and refinement is time consuming. If crowd-funded open source software is more suitable for 'everybody', that can only be a good thing.
One assumes that such chips are descended from those developed for mobile phones, and thus work similarly.