2900 posts • joined 12 Feb 2011
If someone wants info on the iPhone, they'll just search for 'iphone' in their browser of choice. This might be a good idea for companies that lack the marketing might and reach of Apple and Google.
I foresee it being used more by startups. I can already see the Super Bowl ads where some new company or product is introduced and everyone is told to visit the wacky looking domain and their TLD server falls over and catches fire because while they were smart enough to provision enough resources on the product's web site, they forgot about the TLD server that would be forced to responds to millions of DNS queries for newproduct.company name that wasn't cached anywhere...
Well I guess I should have known better than to ask a serious question, since it quickly devolved into a pissing match between the supporters like you and the deniers showing graphs that somehow are supposed to indicate CO2 has no effect (maybe they gave the wrong link, because I sure don't see that)
Anyway, regarding the models. Yes, I realize that additional data is always plugged into the models. I hope you realize that the way the models interpret the data is CONSTANTLY being modified. It is not as though they have a program called "climate.c" and as they add more input data its output data becomes more accurate. What really happens is that they're adding to the inputs, massaging data they think "doesn't look right" and constantly fiddling with the way the data is interpreted.
Unfortunately many scientists are predisposed to show future warming, because results that conflict with the accepted theory will meet with resistance. This has happened time and again in the history of science. It should not in an ideal world, but scientists are people, and most people don't like to swim against the tide in their life's work, and a large majority is always successful at shutting them out for a long time. Sometimes the minority who are resisted are proven correct. More often of course, they are not, because they're just plain wrong. Maybe try not to be so willfully blind and simply accept what they say because that's what a large majority of climate scientists say, when they know their professional acceptance depends on toeing the line. They're probably right, but groupthink and echo chambers usually cause things to swing too far to the extreme until the proper balance is found.
You were very quick to criticize me because I used the word "warmists" in my post. You'll find in my post history I refer to warmists and deniers equally. I personally think humans are having an effect on the climate, but I'm highly skeptical of the ability of scientists to construct working models considering how they predictions the models make are constantly running into problems (like Antarctica) and the way the input data is often massaged - seemingly always in the direction of helping the cause of warming - is very troubling to me.
The worst offense though that causes me to be seriously skeptical of those advocating for the cause is the differing treatment of events occurring in the present. For example, in the eastern 2/3 of the US the temperature has been below average for I believe 14 months running. The state in which I live had its coldest July on record (going back nearly 150 years) If a denier makes the stupid claim that it is evidence that global warming is wrong, they'll be told that the long term trend is what matters, not what happens over very short time scales such as a year. And rightly so.
However, warmists seem to have no trouble pointing out the record heat in most of the rest of the world over the past year, and all sorts of "extreme weather events" from California's record drought, to record flooding in parts of Europe, to major storms like Katrina and Sandy they say are "becoming more common", to the absence of major storms - yes, I did see a climate scientist from NOAA on TV claiming that the recent absence of hurricanes in the Caribbean over the past half decade or so is the sort of "disruption of normal climatic patterns" you'd expect from global warming!
Basically the warmists want to count everything as a checkbox in their column, but there is no way for the deniers to compete. I feel confident that if we experienced a decade long drop of 1 to 2 degrees, the warmists would claim it is normal variation but the upward trend is still intact, look for reasons in solar activity, volcanos, climactic feedback cycles or whatever else to excuse it and keep pushing their cause.
That's why I remain skeptical. I think we should try to reduce CO2 output through renewable energy, replacement of coal/oil with natural gas, conservation, etc., but the alarmist view that we're doomed if we don't make massive cutbacks in the next decade or two are just the product of the echo chamber most of those researchers are locked into.
Serious question here
Do we know how well/quickly CO2 disperses in the atmosphere? That is, let's say we had one dominant source of it, like a volcano or ultra gigantic Chinese factory city. How long will it take for that CO2 to be spread evenly throughout the atmosphere worldwide?
What I'm getting at is, given that most human sources of CO2 are in the northern hemisphere, maybe that's why the major observations of warming (Arctic sea ice and Greenland) are in that hemisphere. While in the Antarctic we see conflicting information, like expanding areas of sea ice (which the warmists were excusing as "yeah, but it is thinner than it used to be" which seems may not be the case) and some areas of the continent where the ice is growing (though to be fair in other areas of the continent it is shrinking - hence the 'conflicting information')
The thousands of places where you can find stories with a pro-warming slant aren't enough for you?
No news here
iPad sales have already "crashed", given that Apple already reported two consecutive YoY sales declines, so it is too late to predict a crash - the IDC doesn't predict any massive drop from where they are now. Apple has already suggested the reason is replacement cycles appear to be more PC like than phone like, so the IDC is as usual behind on news (like how they missed the massive PC sales decline that started nearly four years ago)
No one anywhere, to my knowledge, ever predicted tablets "taking over as primary content creation devices", I don't know where the author dreamed up that fantasy. OK, maybe Microsoft sales reps did. A few breathless analysts who are only able to extrapolate trends as far as drawing lines and fitting exponential curves may have predicted tablets outselling PCs, but only the fools who extrapolated another five years beyond that to predict three tablets sold for every person on Earth.
Oh, and the PC market that some like to claim is "recovering"? Instead of the 3.5% sales drop IDC predicted for the year, they now think it'll have a 2.5% sales drop instead. So looks like going on four years of PC sales declines, despite all the people (especially in China) moving up in economic circumstances to where they can afford a PC. The problem for Intel/Microsoft is that they're using their smartphone as their "PC" and don't need a "real" PC. Because the author that forgets that the majority of PC users are content consumers only, not content creators.
How about either/or
Count people who have either a fixed line or a mobile phone subscription. Count people who have either a wired or wireless broadband subscription. Counting them separately unfairly punishes less affluent countries where people may be unwilling to pay for both.
For that matter counting "households with a computer" and not counting a smartphone as a computer hurts them too. There will never be the penetration of PCs in China there is in the US and UK, because for a lot of people who get a smartphone first, they'll find it fits their needs and even when they can later afford a computer have no interest in owning one.
The VNX supports dedupe also, but EMC is honest enough to base their pricing on actual storage, rather than some 'make up whatever you want' dedupe or compression based figure.
Most of the usage scenarios dedupe excels at don't require the extreme low latency for random I/O flash delivers. Where you want that most is for a DB, which as you point out is not going to dedupe.
Better way to do this
Set up a paypal account, and people are considered to have "entered" only after they've donated. Then turn it over to the winner after chosen. Ideally have a lawyer hold it under escrow legally so you don't have to worry about the guy running the contest legging it with the proceeds.
I'll bet fewer than 10% of people who posted will actually go to the trouble of making the donation after they're a loser.
If I knew about something like this, I'd do it just for the heck of it. I'll drop a buck on a lottery ticket down at the grocery store, so it isn't really any different than that. Even though the prize would be smaller this would be a far better deal because 100% of the buy-in would go towards the prize. Unfortunately in the US this would be taxable income, but that would still leave a lot left over.
Why don't the French do like the rest of us
And just click "I agree" without looking at them? Anyone here who says they can read and fully understand the entire agreements for Netflix, Microsoft, Facebook, Apple, etc. is either lying, badly mistaken, or has a very extensive legal background.
If there's anything nasty in one of these agreements, I'm pretty sure I'll hear about it in the tech news and can decide whether or not I give a damn.
Re: Never mind the enterprise...
You can do that today with regular hard drives, and far cheaper. Streaming video is sequential I/O, something regular hard drives are quite good at. Using SSDs for that is pointless unless someday they cost less per TB than hard drives.
You rooted your phone and have the nerve to complain that the vendor won't let you install their official upgrade? You think they should test it on all possible configs of rooted phone? You think they want people coming to them for warranty service because they rooted their phone and Samsung's upgrade bricked it?
Why didn't you just install generic Android and be done with it, why the desire to use Samsung's build or go to all the trouble to shut down their software? You could simply have installed generic Android and be able to upgrade immediately it is available rather than wait around for Samsung.
Rhino horn backplate
Shhhh, not so loud, someone in China will see this as a market opportunity and it'll start a trend!
Re: Good hardware... but
Samsung adds the extra stuff to differentiate themselves. They want to create an attachment to Samsung phones so if you own one you'll want to upgrade to another Samsung, as opposed to upgrading to another Android.
You guys might wish everyone sold generic Android, but that's Samsung's worst nightmare - then when Xiaomi expands to the US and EU, why exactly would anyone pay 2.5x the price for the latest Galaxy S when it is running identical software?
Google doesn't want you running that, that's where they make all their money!
Re: Google uses a lot of Macs
although many PC users would probably just click "yes.. run the darn thing" anyway
So would many Mac users. And many iOS users. And many Android users. People are dumb, something like this warning you only truly works well if you assume a technically competent user. Luckily, Google has that covered, at least amongst its engineers. Its ad sales division could still very easily be pwned by something nasty this had blacklisted, I'm sure!
The "people are stupid" philosophy is why AV software ended up with a guilty until proven innocent model, where they make it a bit of a pain to remove something from quarantine. They assume if you aren't smart enough to figure how to do that, you also aren't smart enough to know if you should...
That would be an SEC investigation, not IRS. Try again.
Re: A shot in the dark
You would expect to find some hits in the US if that were so. If it was of US origin, you'd expect to find some China hits.
Though maybe it is one of those two and they use something specially developed when they target the other, due to an assumed greater ability to detect malware/attacks.
Is it wrong
That for the first few seconds when I read this I thought "damn, I better buy one of those because I might not be able to in the future". Luckily I quickly realized that I had absolutely no use for it whatsoever.
That sounds like about the most unsafe thing you could possibly do. Forgetting for a moment that a plane or bird might be overhead in the path you sweep as you try to train it on the clay target, if you turn it on/off too soon/late, you could get someone on the ground, in a building or car behind the range, etc.
This is stupid! Mobile "friendly" sites should be punished in the rankings, because it is being used for stupid purposes.
Stupid purpose one: I want to make a super bandwidth wasteful site, but I recognize no one will want to use it if they're on cellular, so I need to make a lower bandwidth mobile version for them. But I won't care how hard it is use, or when there are always broken links on it because I ignore it since I spend 99% of my effort on my bloated desktop site.
Stupid purpose two: I like using mouse over events for stuff like menus, so I need a mobile site that uses non brain-damaged menus.
Stupid purpose three: I'm still living in 2004, and think Flash is awesome, and I use it liberally on my site. I need a mobile site without it for iPhones and newer Androids that don't do flash, but mostly it just doesn't have the content that uses flash because I don't care that the world has moved on.
Stupid purpose four: I don't understand that people using any modern smartphone can view full desktop sites (so long as I don't do the previously mentioned stupid stuff) so I'm forcing them onto a poorly designed mobile site. They can hunt for the 'desktop site' link in order to actually use my site.
Mobile friendly sites should be dropped in the rankings not bumped up, and if the desktop version violates one of the above rules they should be completely buried on page 7852 of the search rankings.
Re: I voted for Gort
Whether Gort is in charge of Klaatu or not doesn't matter, so long as he was merely following orders from above.
I voted for Gort
Because I think based on when the movie was released, right at the dawn of the golden era of B movie sci fi, he set the tone for the "evil robot" for decades to come. Granted, he wasn't evil, but was purely a robot that did what he was told without any silly "3 laws" or feelings or anything like that.
Many other robots, along with 'not really robots but pretty much the same thing to most people' like HAL 9000 and the terminator that were true robots in that sense, followed in Gort's (rather large) footsteps. They simply followed orders/programming without the typical shlock of having a machine that wasn't programmed to think or feel do so because "love overcomes all".
While the three laws make a lot of sense, those aren't the robots we'll end up with. You can require it legally, but people will root/jailbreak their robot to get it to commit crimes for them, guaranteed.
The analyst didn't predict doom
But rather predictably, Jesper wrote his headline to imply it when no doom was implied by the analyst. Both the 71 million sales for this quarter and 49 million sales for the next quarter would easily break Apple's previous sales records for those quarters. Given that the mix is going to be higher priced this time around (thanks to the extra $100 for the 6 Plus) it will be even more lucrative for Apple.
Since Apple is now trading at a pre-split stock price of $828, the Reg's "peak Apple" predictions were wrong before, and they'll have to wait a bit before they can trot that out again. In the meantime they'll have to content themselves with trying to spin good news as a disaster...
End of life treatment costs
I've read that somewhere between a third and a half of one's lifetime health care costs occur in the last two years of life, on average.
If that's true, and it is true whether you die at 60 or 90, the savings from smokers, fatties, drunks, and so forth dying earlier will be rather limited.
This is certainly an area without much research until recently, but it is fair to say that throughout most of our history the more sterile the environment the better off we were, so it is not surprising it took us a while to catch on to this.
Here's how they do it
I asked in another forum (populated by semi guys) and got the answer. They deposit alternating thin films of two materials, position some hole sites using a single exposure, then etch boreholes down through all the layers, then fill the holes with metal. That gives you a stack of gate all around transistors in series. Pretty cool, and nothing like either stacking dies or processing 100 metal layers.
The reason they're using somewhat older processes than this is because the holes can't be perfectly cylindrical, but are conical to some extent, so if they start too small at the top they'll dwindle down to nothing before reaching the bottom.
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)
Re: I'm happy when MS starts to follow industry standards.
They were incrementing the version number. Vista was kernel 6.0, 7 was kernel 6.1, 8 was kernel 6.2, 8.1 was kernel 6.3. Until recently 10 was kernel 6.4, which would indicate that it was a minor rev and not something big that would change the driver interfaces in a major ways and require driver rewrites.
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.
It is interesting that Samsung has not used their Exynos SoCs in their US phones for the last couple years, but use those only overseas and use Qualcomm in the US. Maybe they've been preparing for this step for some time, since if both sides got their graphics chips banned in the US it wouldn't even affect Samsung now!
Re: You try to block our products
How would Intel be helped? People who want add on graphics will go AMD, not decide to use integrated graphics.
For the cell phone market Qualcomm would be the big winner, as Android devices would have to use them, instead of Nvidia or Samsung SoCs.
Only making a paltry 12.5%! I ask you, how will they feed their families on such a pittance?
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.
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.
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.
- Review We have a winner! Fresh Linux Mint 17.1 – hands down the best
- Vid Antarctic ice THICKER than first feared – penguin-bot boffins
- Antique Code Show World of Warcraft then and now: From Orcs and Humans to Warlords of Draenor
- iPhone sales set to PLUMMET: Bleak times ahead for Apple
- HTML5 vs native: Harry Coder and the mudblood mobile app princes