2871 posts • joined 12 Feb 2011
Only making a paltry 12.5%! I ask you, how will they feed their families on such a pittance?
Seems kind of shady in a way
If they were OK with version 6.4, why change it to 10.0? Seems like they're trying to bring them in sync, making the kernel version useless in the future as it'll probably go to 10.1 when Windows 10.1 is released, to 11.0 when Windows 11 is released and so on.
At least until now the kernel version has been a good indicator of when they are making major changes. For instance, NT 4.0 drivers needed a rewrite for Win2K, but XP was OK with minor tweaks. XP drivers needed a rewrite for Vista, but 7 and 8 were OK with minor tweaks.
If drivers from Windows 8 mostly require only minor tweaks, or will run unchanged, we'll know that the kernel version 10.0 thing is a fantasy, and it is really version 6.4 under the hood.
1) Count the number of persons inside each car.
2) Calculate the action that would pose less risk to the higher number of humans.
If you're ever in a position to propose this solution for real, I'd recommend a different choice of words for step 3.
Re: Ethernet already addressed that.
You do realize what the "CD" CSMA/CD stands for, right?
I think you missed the point of the exercise, and the meaning of the word "inevitable". There is no "the collision should be avoided in all circumstances" answer because it is impossible for all collisions of autonomously driven vehicles be avoided, unless you restrict their speeds far below the speeds we travel at today.
One car may slip on a patch of ice, a blowout or other malfunction could cause a car in the opposite lane to swerve over in a split second with no possibility for the other car to avoid the impact save deliberately crashing itself, possibly deliberately crashing into a car in the next lane over.
Re: did anybody get their tiny antenna back before bankruptcy?
I don't think Aereo ever said you "owned" a particular antenna, just that one was dedicated to your use while you were using it.
Re: "Do no evil"...?
You really think Google can tell how many searches for "Nexus 6" translates into someone who will definitely buy one? Not to mention that shortages are normal for new devices, because people mostly want it when its new, but it is difficult to arrange manufacturing resources to front load 5x more capacity for a short period before/after release to satisfy the demand peak and then go away when they're not needed later. Delaying release to build up sufficient inventory for a launch where everyone who wants one gets one is also a problem, because it allows for the chance some sales will be lost to the competition, or people will hear rumors about something even better just around the corner.
But most of all, this whole experience should convince you of the stupidity of building a bunch of devices to have enough to satisfy initial demand. Had Google done that, this recall would have involved a hell of a lot more devices. Sometimes you don't find out about problems until it is too late, and you'd rather not have 5x as many devices to recall (and have to build that many replacement devices, assuming it isn't a 'while you wait' fix)
If this flops
Which I think it will, look for Google and the advertisers to claim it means that people don't really mind ads and the current amount isn't "too much" after all.
Hypocritical on both Google and the web sites' part
Yep, Google is trying to portray this as doing something for the consumer, but it is self serving for them and their real customers, the advertisers (who I'll bet share in this gold mine of demographic data getting information about people who are willing to pay to avoid ads)
Not to mention, having ads replaced by "thank you" does absolutely NOTHING for me. Would TV be better if four minutes of ads were replaced by four minutes of thank yous? I'd still skip through them my DVR, still be annoyed at them when I'm watching something live, and still end up with less actual content per hour.
For a real thank you, all the sites that arrange their content so you have to keep hitting "next" through pages that are 80% ad covered which will now be 80% thank you covered could put all their content onto single pages with content only. But they won't, because it would mean more work on their part.
How is this "3D NAND" any different from stacked dies?
They've been selling them for years, did they start calling it "3D" once they exceeded 8 dies in a stack? Stupid marketing wins again?
When Samsung announced this I was hoping they were using a large number of process steps to actually create an individual die with that many layers. It would be something crazy like a 100 metal layer chip, but surely that's more efficient than making 32 dies and stacking them? (At least if you work out the wafer handling/processing to allow that many metal layers)
Android vulnerable but not Linux?
Did Linux recently patch against this attack and Android hasn't caught up, or has Linux been fixed for a long time and Android was changed in a way that opened it up?
Hopefully this isn't an attack that's a real issue, because as always Android will be vulnerable for years as many devices don't receive updates so they'll be vulnerable forever.
Re: “As corporates buy apps and devices ...
Who says Microsoft won't play their usual games, and start adding features that are only available on Windows Phone to push people towards their solution?
@Sir Runcible Spoon
It is essentially a "poison pill" to designed to bring the purists to your side (voting against it) a bill that would otherwise have a majority will fail to pass.
And you can see this worked, as for example Rand Paul voted against it because of the poison pill that was inserted by his republican colleagues who were mostly against it (some because they believe government spying is good/necessary, some because they're just reflexively voting against what the democrats want)
Of course, there are many examples where the same happens in the reverse and democrats poison republican bills. The rules of the house/senate and their committees are quite complex and allow a lot of ways for this type of thing to happen. Neither side has any incentive to change this, because they both benefit from it in being to either stop what the "other guy" wants to do, or water it down.
Re: The "Patriot Act" won't be allowed to die @Ugotta B. Kiddingme
Nice revisionist history, sounds like it came directly from Rush's mouth. The productive capacity of much of the industrialized world was turned into rubble during WW II. The US stood alone with a completely undamaged industrial sector - having in fact a surplus of productive capacity thanks to ramping up wartime production.
It took a few years to retool from making tanks and bombs to cars and fridges, but once they did there was huge latent demand for such products in the US since production of consumer goods had been massively curtailed in favor of war production. What's more, US consumers had plenty of savings with which to buy them, since they hadn't been able to buy stuff during the war, and had instead been buying war bonds. A lot of people had spare cash, too - an all time high percentage of the population had been gainfully employed and earning wages (either as a soldier or "Rosie the Riveter")
A combination of tremendous productive capacity in the US, little competition on that front, and consumers with a lot of savings (first in the US, later in the rest of the world) was responsible for the post war US economic growth, not your conservative rewriting of history.
Re: The "Patriot Act" won't be allowed to die @Ugotta B. Kiddingme
Don't blame the republicans alone. Bush started the current set of abuses, but Clinton's administration was pushing for the Clipper Chip, and Obama has been in the white house for six years and had plenty of time to reform spying abuses - instead he expanded them. The democrats also controlled both houses of congress for the first two years.
It is a good thing we were able to head the Clipper Chip off at the pass. At least with encryption we have a fighting chance against the NSA. If they had been successful in pushing that and criminalizing use of non-compliant encryption, then stuff like Apple and Google encrypting our phones would have been pointless since the Feds would have the keys anyway. And Apple's sales in China would be almost non-existent and Android would have been forked years ago and Google's flavor of Android would be selling only in the US and UK. The cost to the US economy would probably be in the trillions.
Re: The "Patriot Act" won't be allowed to die @Ugotta B. Kiddingme
The US hasn't won a war for a while because we haven't officially declared war since Korea. We fight 'off the books' against foes that have no uniforms or much in the way of home bases, without clear reasons for starting, goals to accomplish, or strategies for exit.
We've built up a gigantic military that could probably fight and win a 'traditional' war against the entire rest of the world combined (or at least as a taxpayer I'd argue we'd better be able to, if we're supposed to be getting our money's worth on that military budget) but we don't fight those kind of wars. Fat lot of good aircraft carriers and B2 bombers are against Al Qaeda, ISIL or Saddam Hussein.
Great theory, except
Intellectual Ventures is a glaring exception to your rule. The apex troll was also the first (or at least one of the first)
Cisco settlement != Android settlement
Just because Cisco ended up settling for a nine figure amount doesn't mean the Google or Android OEMs will end up paying that much. Maybe they will, maybe they won't, but Nortel was primarily a networking company. There's a lot more overlap with Cisco's business than with Android. The main exception being that Nortel held a lot of patents applicable to GSM and LTE.
Those GSM patents were probably in a FRAND pool, but the patents applicable to LTE might have missed out on such a pool, as Nortel was busy being bankrupt when the LTE standard and patent pool were formulated. I think however that Apple purchased those patents directly from Rockstar so they could defend against the kind of FRAND patent battles Motorola was trying to fight against them a couple years ago. I read somewhere that Apple owns 5% of the LTE FRAND patent pool, which is pretty remarkable considering they had little involvement in the standards creation process.
Pretty much. Guess that's the plan for making back some of the billions they spent on those patents.
Moore's Law hasn't stopped yet, but when it does it will be due to cost for new fabs and mask sets, not physical limits. They have a clear path to go at least a decade longer, and during that decade would probably clear the path to go further.
The problem is since they can't get new technologies like EUV or e-beam to provide the required throughput, and prolonging the lifetime of 193nm litho they have had to go to double and eventually triple/quadruple patterning of the critical layers to keep pushing to smaller sizes. Or use Intel's strategy of restricted design rules (which works for them, but not for a big foundry like TSMC) That will make the cost of mask sets prohibitive for all but the highest volume chips, and increase the size and cost of fabs due to the increased number of process steps.
They aren't running into physical limits on hard drives either, they have ways of limiting the size of the magnetic domains like HAMR, but it will be more difficult to get that working since there is less profit to be used for R&D to bring it out of the lab and into large scale production.
I don't think it deserves that title when he only said it in 2005 and we diverged from it only five years after. Maybe "Kryder's Fallacy" would be more accurate?
What I wonder is, how much did SSDs have to do with this? That's eliminated the high end disk drive market. There is a lot less future profit available to fund research that results in aereal density increases. Right about the time that GMR was starting to run out of steam, everyone knew that NAND would soon approach the densities required that would allow its use as a true storage tier, rather than a niche/botique option for special cases. The R&D money was poured into SSDs, and hard drive density increases have dimished because hard drives have only a low profit commodity market remaining.
Re: Forget Customers, Whose makes the most money from their mobile phones,
I love reading all the posts by Apple haters saying they're doomed because they're "gouging" their customers. They make it sound like they want to own Apple products but only if they could pay less, or Apple made minimal profit from them.
Samsung charges similar prices for the GS5 to iPhone 6 and Note 4 to iPhone 6 Plus. So Apple is gouging and Samsung is not? Or is Samsung gouging too? How about if Blackberry sold a phone for a similar price, but lost money that year? Is it only gouging if you're making "too much" money, or is there a certain price threshold some people believe phones should not exceed?
You're only being gouged if you buy a product for more than you think it is worth - and that's really your problem because no one is forcing you to buy an iPhone. If you value the iPhone/Note 4 enough to think it is worth what Apple/Samsung asks, then you'll buy it and not feel you're buying gouged. If you value them below their asking prices, you'll buy something else.
I'm sure everyone who whines about gouging every time an Apple article comes up spends money on things I think are foolish and you're being "gouged". But I wouldn't go trolling on for people I think are being gouged paying extra to get a 3D TV, or something useless like a Nest thermostat.
Isn't dark matter supposed to be mostly on the outer edge of the galaxy?
It may not be evenly distributed, and may not be near our planet.
Re: Cue panic
Amazed how many downvotes my comment attracted. Guess there is still a lot of Yahoo/Bing hate.
I used Bing sometimes when a google search gets too much spam or crappy links on the first couple pages, and sometimes it provides much better results. Probably because the link spammers that are always battling with Google pay less attention to trying to game Bing's results.
Pretty sure for simple searches like "indian restaurant london" you get similar quality results. I just tried it and found similar quality results on Google, Yahoo! and Bing (since Yahoo! uses Bing) Actually, I like Bing's presentation of the results best out of the three.
Re: Cue panic
Do you really think 98% of people will notice or care about the change? Search is search as far as they're concerned.
Having 100% of the iPhone market is irrelevant. You can't ding a company for antitrust based on owning 100% of their market for their OWN COMPANY'S PRODUCTS. It depends on how much of the defined "relevant market" they have, which in this case would be "smartphones", of which they do have around 15% of the market. Despite J.R. Hartley being a bigger dickhead by incorrectly calling me a dickhead because he has no clue how antitrust works.
May as well try to hit up Ferrari for antitrust, because it violates their warranty if you try to swap out the engine for one from a Lamborghini.
Uh, Apple has like 15% of the market...maybe you need to read up on the antitrust laws.
Even if they dropped Spotify and other streaming apps from the App Store (which I highly doubt, because it would piss off too many people) it wouldn't qualify. There would remain plenty of opportunity for competing streaming services on Android which has over 80% of the market.
Your impression is incorrect. GT manufactures the furnaces that make the 50 kg (or whatever) sapphire boules. That's it. They have no actual manufacturing experience (especially cutting the glass) or IP related to manufacturing, so I'm not sure why Apple was dumb enough to believe their assertion that they could run the plant and produce cut glass for Apple.
Just because GT is screaming from the rooftops they were screwed, doesn't mean Apple didn't get screwed in this deal too. The bankruptcy hasn't gone through, Apple doesn't "own" them and probably isn't interested in owning them since they can't operate the factory for Apple. Apple's efforts to use sapphire have been set back several years by this debacle, and they'll have to find someone else who is capable of manufacturing the glass for them.
It isn't clear what Apple will end up owning, but they probably won't get back their $350 million or so investment. There isn't much IP they could get from GT unless they wanted to make furnaces, which they don't, at best they'll end up owning some furnaces which they'll need if they go forward with this plan down the road, with another partner.
Re: Apple already owned the plant!
No, Apple OWNED the plant. They built it themselves, GT was not involved in the construction of the plant.
Their investment was in the form of several hundred million in loans for GT to equip the plant, i.e. provide & install the furnaces (the selling of which is GT's business) plus whatever other infrastructure inside the plant is needed to support them (cranes, conveyors, whatever...)
Apple already owned the plant!
The deal was GT was Apple would loan GT money to equip the plant with sapphire furnaces, and GT would pay them back with either cash or sapphire. They couldn't produce the sapphire on schedule (perhaps because they make the furnaces, and have no experience operating them) so they were forced into bankruptcy.
The plant was ALWAYS Apple's to do with what they want.
Re: X % of top apps have been "hacked"
I think as far as iOS goes, he's probably talking about "hacking" it to allow it to be installed for free on a jailbroken device. That's not the same thing at all as modifying it to steal your info or whatever other nasty stuff.
I suspect that if you don't count this, the percentage of top 100 apps in the iOS App Store is zero, but their line of business depends on people thinking there is a huge problem out there which simply doesn't exist.
Re: Credit card upfront
They already offer the ability to completely disable in app purchases, or allow them but have a timeout where the password is required again.
So I fail to see what the point of this measure would be. If you require the password for every purchase, mom & dad will either be inputting that, or inputting credit card details. If I had a kid using in app purchases, I'd just get them an iTunes gift card and let them go crazy. Best way to teach kids about saving/managing money is to give them some, then have a "teachable moment" when they've run out of money and wish they still had it for something else they want more.
The next gift card they get, you remind them what happened last time, and hopefully they learn. If they don't, they're probably going to grow up to be one of those people who always carries a big credit card balance...
A quick Google shows the price for a Samsung Galaxy Tab S 16GB wifi only is $499 from most of the stores. Same as a 16 GB wifi only iPad Air 2.
At least in the US. Prices in the EU may differ, but not by all that much - given the recent strength in the dollar, Apple's exchange rates are probably quite so unreasonable as they used to be...
A tax that increases at a set rate over a very long time is required
That's how you'd do if you want to do it right. Then everyone knows what the cost is today, in 10 years, in 30 years, in 50 years, and can make long term investments (i.e. building new power plants) based on full knowledge.
Back in the early 90s when Perot was talking about increasing the gas tax by 50 cents to help the budget deficit and reduce dependence on foreign oil, I suggested to my friends an idea of making a law that added 10 cents to the gas tax every year. Most of them thought it was a terrible idea, and a few made comments about gas costing $3-$4/gallon in 20 years. Well, it did anyway, but if automakers had known that you wouldn't have had to force them to meet fuel economy standards, they'd do it themselves. And develop hybrids, electrics, etc. to make cars that avoid using gas entirely.
As a side benefit, maybe our budget deficit would be lower (not really, Bush probably would have made his tax cuts bigger...)
Comparison with Solyndra loans is spurious
The government wasn't looking at these as "investments" at all. They were trying to spark an industry, and knew some of the loans would go bad.
A VC might have invested in Tesla (or wished he had) and certain others that looked like they had a good chance of success, but it is unlikely any would invest in production of solar cells in the US when they'd know that China would be able to eat their lunch due to cheap labor and less environmental regulation (making the panels is kind of a nasty process, you can save a lot of money if you don't have to worry about controlling your pollution)
Re: Why hello there officer...
One isn't exclusive of the other. If they added a small battery bank that's recharged from the fuel cell, they could greatly improve that 0-60 time, and provide a higher top speed, if only for a short burst.
The fuel cell obviously puts out more power than is required for steady driving at legal (or normal) driving speeds outside of Germany, so it should be capable of always keeping the battery topped up. If you needed an extra burst for quick acceleration it would be available.
Realistically, in the market Toyota is targeting here, a 9.6 second 0-60 time is fine. That's faster than any cars I rent in Europe, and while on the slow side by American standards it isn't out of line for an economy car.
Re: Where is the threshold for obviousness?
What else is new? There are a lot of obvious patents successfully sued over. If there weren't, this company wouldn't have bothered. If they got $23 million out of Apple, imagine what that East Texas jury will grant them against some nasty furriners like Samsung and HTC?
Buried at 20 meters it will be safe from radiation, and the temperature is probably constant at that depth as well.
Apple's delay with the iPhone
Wasn't "giving in", waiting was deliberate on Apple's part:
1) they wanted developers to know they would be getting in on a big market, not taking a risk on a new product that might flop - waiting generated pent up demand for developers to get access and resulted in creation of a large number of apps very quickly, rather than the slow trickle that it probably would be started with otherwise
2) they wanted developer tools to be polished and provide a good experience, the tools were not in proper shape at the time of the iPhone's release
3) they wanted the app 'sandbox' to be sure to prevent data leakage between apps and between the OS and apps
Re: Do I care enough to comment???
It is idiots like Big John who blindly support one party while hating the other that are responsible for the mess we're in. People who don't use their brains and simply think what their masters on Fox News or MSNBC tell them to think, and who love the "simplicity" of straight ticket voting.
He thinks electing a republican to the White House will change things. That's what the people who elected Obama thought, shows how well that works. Why would anyone be so stupid as to think it works the other way around? Bush sure as hell fucked up his share of stuff, just like Obama did, just like the next guy (or gal....Big John has been trained by his chosen media sources to hate and fear another President Clinton every bit as much as democrats' chosen media sources will train them to hate and fear a third President Bush)
Be nice if you could get multipart certificates
Do you trust that these guys aren't feeding the keys to the feds? Or that they aren't being unknowingly hacked? Not a problem if you set a simple site to make your vacation pictures and grandma's recipes available, but you probably didn't need to encrypt that in the first place...
If there were several authorities like these that offered free or cheap certificates, in different countries that probably don't cooperate for spying (say US, Russia/China, India) that could be combined into a single extended certificate that worked transparent for client browsers, assurance of security could be greatly improved.
Leakage tends to dominate at smaller nodes, especially in lower power devices. Hence the move to FinFET. The difference between a FinFET and non FinFET device of the exact same gate length is fairly large in the 14nm/16nm range. Making the fin taller/narrower helps even further, while not changing the measured gate length.
Where's your proof that TSMC production was limiting Apple? They seem to be selling tens of millions of iPhone 6s - they'll have their biggest launch quarter ever. As always the limitation is Foxconn, because even they can't produce at the quantities Apple needs during launch. Apple is always in shortage after the iPhone launches.
14nm versus 16nm
A smaller feature size doesn't necessary mean Samsung's process is better or lower power. There are a lot of dimensions to measure transistors aside from gate length, and it is well down the list when it comes to power draw. The efficiency of the FinFETs will dominate for mobile SoCs.
Apple seems to have a fair bit of confidence in Samsung's ability to work out the kinks Samsung has reportedly run into:
TSMC is extremely capacity limited, despite being by far the largest foundry on Earth, because almost everyone on Earth goes to them to have chips fabbed.
Apple needs to have a backup plan in place in case they can't get the chip volumes they require from TSMC. I suspect they'd prefer to use TSMC for the A9, and surely will do a design that targets both TSMC's and Samsung/GF's processes, so they can switch sources as needed if one runs into any production delays or capacity constraints.
Going to TSMC probably caused a lot of pain for Samsung as they were left with a lot of excess capacity. Apple may have got a very nice discount to win their business back.
Re: All well and good.
No, they didn't. Apparently you didn't comprehend the article you linked. If you want to use two factor authentication, make sure communication to the second factor isn't forwarded to the first!
As that article points out, the situation is even worse for Google Voice if you aren't using two factor correctly. Security is hard. Making more advanced security like two factor available at the same time you provide convenience features like making SMS available on multiple devices a recipe for people to think they're protected when they aren't.
Now maybe Apple and Google need to be smarter and not allow (or at least warn people about) the combination of SMS forwarding and two factor authentication...
If first you don't succeed
And you still don't when you try, try, try again, reorganize your books to hide the losses so you can make up whatever numbers you like about how successful your mobile efforts are.
How is that different from other companies though? When Glass was announced and first released, all the Google fanboys were falling all over themselves because they made the floor wet with their drool. They're no different than Apple fanboys. And Microsoft fanboys will eat whatever shit they put out if it has the Windows name on it...where do you think the positive press (yes, there was some) for Windows 8 came from? Where else could sales of Zune have come from? Remember all the hype from Samsung fanboys about "eye scrolling" and how that proved they were far ahead of Apple? Do the GS5 and Note 4 still even support that....I sure haven't heard anything about it since the initial hype!
So don't act like having a contingent of raving loonies is something exclusive to Apple. A lot of people are excited about Apple Watch because little is known about it, so fanboys are free to dream about things it might do. It is when reality strikes and what it can do is known that will determine how successful it is. While there is a small group of people who will buy it on day one just because Apple releases it, there are not nearly enough of them to make it successful. For that it'll have to stand on its own merits, just like any other product.
Why, do you think just because Apple sells something people will automatically buy it? Or because Apple would do a better job of making it something an average person might want, rather than only an ubergeek?
No one can successfully sell this product until a killer app/use for it is found that will appeal to the average person. The bar is a lot higher for it than it was for the smartphone, because everyone already carried a phone with them anyway. Most people don't wear glasses, and those that do don't need them to be any heavier, need to worry about charging them, need to worry about upgrading them, etc.
Glass is a geek toy, nothing more. It offers the average person nothing, but Google is populated almost entirely by geeks, so of course they'd think it is a great idea. I imagine its designers remain puzzled why there isn't a pent up demand of millions of people who want to own it.
Re: "double bonk"
Jesper knows, he just doesn't care as he can toss it in to make Apple look bad. He'll continue to mention it in every single article he writes about Apple Pay.
Re: This is bad
While I agree that Paypal must be stopped, so must Google so replacing one with the other was never a viable solution.
- Comment Renewable energy 'simply WON'T WORK': Top Google engineers
- Game Theory Dragon Age Inquisition: Our chief weapons are...
- 'How a censorious and moralistic blogger ruined my evening'
- Leaked screenshots show next Windows kernel to be a perfect 10
- Amazon warming up 'cheapo web video' cannon to SINK Netflix