238 posts • joined 12 Nov 2011
Two thoughts -
1) I look at stuff like this, and realise that we are an intelligent race when we actually want to be. 2 to 3 times the network capacity over existing kit? Bloody brilliant.
2) The guys that name this stuff are obviously still all watching Dragonball-Z to come up with names like this. "Hey, Gohan is going to fight Mumimo to stop him from destroying the city". I mean...really?
I am really, really struggling to understand why the author bought the Play 3s to start with. The sound quality of Sonos really isn't _that_ great, for the money. It makes a ton of sense only if you want whole-house audio, with speakers in every room, that is fairly unobtrusive. (to put the SQ issue in perspective, I just bought a 6 year old pair of Epos M12s from a man who replaced them with Sonos - and as he said, it was a huge step down in quality).
So if you can afford to buy a ton of Sonos and put it in every room - and you are not technical enough to use AirPlay to build something similar yourself - then it is OK. But ONLY if you can afford enough Sonos speakers to really make it worth it! So if you are in an income bracket where you can do that, the Playbar shouldn't even be a second thought - it works, it fits your system approach, take it to the checkout.
But as the author states, he can't afford it. So what good are the Play 3s? They are a whole-house audio solution that is lacking the funding for expansion to the whole-house.
For £400 to 500 or so, the author could have gotten a pretty nice AV receiver, and a decent sat/sub package in a bundle deal from any high street audio store (Richer Sounds or similar). That would have included a centre channel speaker. And full multi-channel decoding, and video switching capability.
IMHO, sell the Play 3s to someone that needs whole-house audio, and go buy a good system for your AV needs...
India was able to outsource for the UK and the US because they have enough people that speak English to engage with their customers (even if the quality of that engagement at a project level can be suspect at times).
But how many Indians are competent at the various Chinese dialects? Mandarin? Cantonese? How do they expect to gather business requirements, write specs and conduct UAT meetings? It's not as if a few months with Rosetta DVDs will produce an army of competent Chinese BAs and Project Managers...Chinese is hard.
That is the same problem the Indian outsourcers have faced in Germany, France, et al in Europe. Their grip of English only opens doors in some accounts - but some businesses there require that the outsourcer have teams (or at least team leaders) that speak the business's native language. Even in multinationals.
I can see that the Indian IT bosses are merely developing strategies to go where the money is. But I think the barriers are larger than they can overcome themselves. I suspect they will have to buy up smaller Chinese firms to both get around Chinese protectionism, and to get the on-shore language skills they need. I reckon that if they don't, in 10 years time it will be Chinese IT firms buying up TCS and the rest...
If the perps are covered in soil, BUT don't get caught - was it in fact a clean get-away?
These are the imponderables that keep me up all night...sadly.
Re: Just a question: "utilize"?
I am not a grammar nazi or an English teacher, but have been told I write well. So as a practical matter, I prefer "use" to talk about a transitional relationship - i.e., "I used the shovel for 5 minutes to dig a hole." I would prefer "utilise" to say that something is more permanently incorporated in a function, i.e., "this new car utilises a huge V8 to get 600hp and fantastic acceleration". It is clear that the car is going to have that V8 under the hood for quite some time. Or, you could more topically say that "this class utilises this subclass to provide transparent multi-threading". Unless you re-write the class, it will always have that utilisation.
Not saying that in practical conversation you can't say "this class uses this subclass". It works, they are synonyms. But I like to differentiate, and I have seen similar uses from other authors.
Just don't get me started on "utilise versus utilize". Please.
Re: @ Dave ..The same-old same-old
A very adult comment...which shows the entire debate very well.
The real threat to Uber is one of the last use cases you mentioned - no real passenger protection. Nearly anyone can become an Uber driver, and accept fares - very little background checking, just have a license. And with such a large pool of drivers they don't actually personally know any of them...unlike most taxi companies, where they at least come into the garage to pick up their cabs.
I know Uber has a driver rating system, but that really won't stop a true psycho from getting a job for a short bit, doing a few good fares, and then doing something unsociable. That has always been the issue with gypsy cabs, and using Uber isn't much safer than taking a ride from any of the transient cabbies that hang around the Arrivals exit at JFK. You are getting in a mobile, lockable metal box with a stranger - that really was the whole idea behind licensing taxis and drivers in the first place.
This is predictable, and it will happen. I just hope that the victim(s) are OK and that we learn from it when it does happen.
Re: Them's fightin' words
Most Americans abroad sport Irish passports anyway....
Re: Internal Contradictions
It was an amazing piece of thermal engineering to manage the hot air flow within the cube to make it that small. Really amazingly well done, and how they were able to make it so small. Most generic PC makers simply bolt on more shrieking 80cm fans into the case and make it larger to aide airflow...the G4 was quiet and small. Great engineering.
Re: Concentrating on things
Your one presumption is that Apple could BUILD more Macs - a problem Microsoft didn't have, as they allow others to build the hardware for them. But in point of fact, once Apple began doing things like integrating the screens into their designs, and higher and higher resolution screens compared to the competition, they were always going to face parts availability limitations. You can see that currently with their struggle to obtain enough new parts to simultaneously launch iPhones in all major markets (they cannot as it turns out).
And then their is the manufacturing problem - for a very long time, Apple produced their own hardware, in their own factories. Sure, they could scale them, but never to the degree that Dell+Gateway+IBM+everywhiteboxmaker could. And they didn't want to farm it out at the time, in part because at that time the ability to buy high-quality assembled machines from Asia wasn't nearly as advanced as it is now. And any capital invested in manufacturing and physical plant would actually be a drag on their share pricing and net valuation on the stock market.
So there are a HOST of reasons why Apple thought it best to sell smaller numbers of more profitable machines...and you can see that as many of these have been offset by the rise of higher-quality Asian subcontracted assembly, Apple's pricing has fallen more and more in line with other PC manufacturers. Never will totally compete with the bottom end of the market, but pricing for an Apple MBP and a Sony Viao laptop are not light-years apart...
I looked at Sonos..but it is proprietary, and their speakers are good, not great.
What seems to work for me is simply AirPlay, but with some caveats.
I store all of my best music (Apple Lossless encoded) on a Mac Mini, that is connected by HDMI to my Arcam receiver and 5 Epos speakers. I run iTunes as the main playback mechanism in my lounge via this, and it doubles to play video off my NAS (the NAS also backs up the Mac Mini to guard my music collection - and the NAS backs up to Glacier). I then have an Airport connected to a Creek integrated amp and more Epos 12.2 speakers in the kitchen, and a Denon Picollo AirPlay receiver in the bedroom connected to a pair of Monitor Audio Vectras.
I control it all via my Android phone, using "Remote for iTunes" app from the Play store, or using my iPad. I can even remote login to the Mac Mini from my MacBook and control it.
Because it is AirPlay, and Spotify knows about AirPlay, my gf (who is a Spotify lover) can connect to most of the speakers with AirPlay from her MacBook - but not the Arcam in the lounge, as that isn't an AirPlay receiver (yet).
Quality is pretty good, latency is manageable, and because AirPlay is a standard I can buy more extension speakers of whatever quality I want/can afford to expand. My gf is in love with the B&O AirPlay portable speaker, so we may need one before summer for the garden. Or something much cheaper as my bank details dictate.
N.B. - I bought a used set of Epos 12.2s for the kitchen off eBay, because I love the ones in the lounge. The seller had just gone to Sonos, and as he put it, it was a downgrade...
And some didn't
I know a couple that speculated on BitCoin several years ago. They just bought a house nearly entirely in cash. In LONDON. Just from their BitCoin investment cash-out.
OTOH, I nearly plowed thousands into Mt. Gox over the last few weeks in an effort to arbitrage the exchange differentials. Thankfully I decided to hold out...
Re: How about a financial disaster
I beg to differ. Japan's nuclear program has OVERWHELMINGLY been a massive financial benefit to Japan, even after taking out the cost of accidents. The simple fact is, Japan could never have become the industrial powerhouse it has over the past 5 decades without their plethora of nuclear plants. They are too limited in coal, oil, natural gas, etc. to have powered their industrial plants in any other financially viable way. Show me a variation of Japan's history without their web of nuclear plants, and I will show you a Japan without Toyota, Honda, Nippon Steel, etc. I will show you a smaller, dimmer Tokyo. I will show you...well, a very different past and present.
Simply put, the energy from those nuclear plants enabled decades of industrial growth in Japan, at a price for energy they could afford. So the financial cost of Fukishima must be balanced against those decades of growth and prosperity created by the entire network of atomic power plants - and that can only be measured in the TRILLIONS of dollars. Maybe tens of trillions over 5 decades. In terms of cost versus benefits, it is a clear win for nuclear power, at least in the case of Japan (and France, and Germany, and...you get the idea).
It is always tempting to go look at outdated design work and say "Gee, they should have known better". But they didn't - in the same way an Airbus A380 is a bit better than a DC-9, we've learned a lot over 4 decades of technology and science. Those plants were slated for replacement several years ago, but politics and environmentalist actions delayed their replacement - leaving 40+ year old plants soldiering on with known deficiencies - and lacking the safety features of modern plants. That should not be a signal to stop building plants - that should be a signal to redouble our efforts to build new ones, to replace the many that are near their end of life and/or are of such old designs that a newer plant would be MUCH safer.
Re: More metal kit that blocks and thus drops more calls.
Otterbox Commuter case...looks great, adds grip, seals ports from water. Because the One is so thin to begin with, even the massive Otterbox still results in a phone+case that is manageable in size.
I have the dual-SIM version (imported from China), and one SIM is O2, the other Voda. The Voda drops connections, has iffy voice quality, etc. The O2 is MUCH better, at least where I live and travel in London. So it may be down more to the network than the phone....
"It may have been close to the GPS band, but in their defence the GPS manufacturers were apparently a little lazy, and didn't keep within their band - hence the interference.
Feel sorry for this guys - fighting against goliaths, to provide something nice for the country."
I wish I could downvote you a million times over. As it happens, I personally KNOW one or two of the senior executives involved in LightSquared, and "providing something nice for the country" was never part of it... They are men after their presumed millions, built by corrupting the political process to get around inconvenient (to them) laws and regulations that existed to protect the rest of us. And I mean that..an airliner that loses a firm GPS fix is an accident waiting to happen...for us. They are the part of the 1% that thinks they can piss on the rest of us, and get richer doing so.
Re: IT can be a pain in the arse too
"A Mac is just a pretty PC using a closed form of UNIX/LINUX as an OS. I don't believe that a professional IT department knows nothing about them. Macs are no different to any other PCs in function (only in the minds of the self-appointed 'elite' that use them) and there is nothing that can be done on them which can't be done on any other form of PC just as effectively and usually cheaper."
I write this as someone who bought his first "PC" in 1981, an Ohio Scientific 6502 that I programmed in assembler and MS's first 8k ROM BASIC. I have used pretty much all PC types known to Western civilisation, except BeOS. I built my own MS-DOS/WIn PCs for 15 years from scratch. I now use both Macs and PCs, AND my gf is a graphic/user experience designer. We probably have about 4 Macs, 3 Windows, and 2 Linux machines in our flat at any one time.
There is a fair portion of graphic design, multimedia production, and user experience software that either only runs on a Mac, or runs so much _better_ on a Mac that using it on a PC is a PITA. Also to the point, the "office standard" PC selection is usually terribly speced for graphics design - low resolution screens and poor graphics cards especially. Getting a PC that is equivalent to a MacBook Pro usually costs about what a MacBook Pro costs. Whereas, all Macs, including the Mac Mini, operate reasonably well for graphics and multi-media design, due in part to Mac OS having better primitives and being designed for the past 20 years to support those applications better than Windows.
You CAN take a multimedia PC, such as a Sony Viao Studio series, and get a configuration of applications that do 80-95% of what you can do on a MacBook Pro. But knowing how to do THAT requires almost as much skill as learning how to support Macs, in my experience....
You astound me...
It's like you have read the product description for Synology's NAS drives and Cloud Station software or something...
Re: Obviously doomed from beginning - Mark Logic XML db
Oh...but don't you know, XML databases are one of those "new Web technologies" that simply must be applied to all problems to prove that the development staff are up to date and hip. The next alternative was probably Hadoop, so they could call it a "Big Data" solution.
You are entirely correct - the only proper solution to such an important application, at an enterprise level of transaction processing, was a well-designed and well-normalised relational database with huge parallel abilities. Oracle (despite the cost) would have been an obvious choice, but other RDBMS packages would be nearly as capable - in some cases, such as HP's NonStop SQL, perhaps more so and even more suited.
We sometimes forget that Web-technologies evolved to do things that prior technologies didn't do very well - like enable massive social interactions, or end-user customisation and extendability. But that doesn't mean that they are the appropriate choice to replace legacy technology for what it was specifically DESIGNED to do, such as massive transaction processing in a well-delineated environment.
Re: And this beats Glacier...how?
I don't think you know how Glacier really works...every byte is heavily encrypted at backup. Your access is encrypted as well. You have your own private keys. And you can even pre-encrypt the data if you are terribly paranoid. Not to say that the NSA can't get past it...but it is unlikely they can get past it in any meaningful way due to volume.
The only serious downside mentioned is that of the speed of the restore, which is critical for SMBs, but not so much for private individuals storing their video, picture, and music collections. But I would expect SMBs with proper IT to have a device like this AND an offisite backup as well...either cloud-based or physical. With Synology OS as a core, you could run their Glacier backup on this hardened box directly...belt and braces, as it were.
And this beats Glacier...how?
All you have done is hardened the disks. That still doesn't prevent theft of the entire enclosure. So while one of these looks perfect for protecting up to 4Tb of critical data that you don't want to back up to a public cloud even while encrypted...I am struggling to find why this beats having a nice Glacier back-up running on a standard Synology NAS...
Time to stop OUTLAW in El Reg...
This is the second piece in a few weeks that has been slanted obviously in favour of Pinsent Masons' clients. It REALLY is time for El Reg to stop giving OUTLAW any page space, given that they are not fair and unbiased reporters of the legal scene. It is paid propaganda, masquerading as unbiased coverage.
El Reg - please stop carrying them, it only harms your own image...
Re: SaaS contracts
I also work with selling services around SaaS vendors, and the above is spot on with nearly all of them that I have worked with. While some of the major ones have complicated licensing options (thinking SFDC and others), their salespeople can usually explain the whys and whats pretty quickly.
But the REAL fail of the Gartner analyst is to think that a pricing model will drive a company out of business, in favour of another company that has the same cost structures and sales channels (which is what he is implying). Does he not THINK that such a problem could not be dealt with very quickly, by simply adjustment to the pricing sheets and terms&conditions? It would be the fix of a few months (legal approval, finance approval, etc.) for any SaaS company to change their terms of license and pricing models substantially. And that is far easier than having a new software company gain marketshare and credibility...
You re-published an Out-law article...
of which half is dedicated to one of Pinsent Masons' tax solicitors talking up their own "government has no remit to investigate corporate tax" POVs!!! And then kindly note that Pinsent Masons underwrites Out-law.
What utter tripe El Reg. You have just become a mouthpiece for the 1%...
Brits forgetting their past?
How can a Brit forget the best way to take down an incoming aircraft at low levels?
A barrage balloon. Or many of them. Pretty sure they would do a number on a drone. Just not as much fun...
If you want to ensure you snare a drone, circle your balloons around an address (doesn't have to be your own!), place your order, then watch the fun...
Re: Bears with Arms
There would be informal competitions, with video posted to YouTube...
Having said that, I have just ordered a laser sight for my Beretta 12 guage... ;-)
No, your ears have gone, it happens with age....sorry. ;-)
What's so new...?
We did this with a cluster of HP Unix Workstations and D&B for a data factory in...oh, 1995. Running custom parallel processing software. Our alternative was to buy a Teradata or IBM SP...the workstations were cheaper and just about as functional for what we were doing...
Re: The cloud is only vaporware and it never will get any better....
I am not an immediate fan of the cloud (that is, use it when it makes sense, but sometimes it doesn't).
But let me answer you with a bit of history. I remember a HUGE data warehousing project at a large bank in Boston more than a few years ago. While in build of this totally secure, non-cloud system, the lead DBA confused his environments and ended up deleting the entire LIVE database of master dev customer data, rather than a test environment. He is someone that used to work with me, this story is not fiction. Gone. The back-ups were out of synch and didn't reload properly. WEEKS of this data warehouse being down, development staff stopped, hundreds of thousands of dollars lost to development time...and that was a very simple mistake, made by a usually very skilled individual.
If you don't know more stories like that, they you haven't worked in IT very long. Cloud, in-house, mainframe, SOA, or client-server...these are all just technologies. But the fundamental fuck-ups are usually human in nature, and they will always happen. And I have seen them happen about equally on all of those platforms, even to good staffs.
Your comment might have a SHRED of truth...except that the stock exchanges, and CORPORATE PROFITS, are both at all time record levels. True, verifiable fact. With most companies in robust, almost obscene health, it would seem that taxes are not the problem...
Re: controllable? - WELL ENOUGH
@RISC OS - you are suffering from a perspective that only recognises what is flashy and disastrous over a short period of time...such as a nuclear accident.
To date, nuclear accidents have regrettably killed probably 5000 to 6000 thousand people, including Chernobyl, Fukushima, TMI, and others. If the liquid sodium reactor near Detroit had actually gone critical (it came very close), many more would have been added to that list. If Indian Point had ever had a massive accident that it has always seemed close to...more yet again.
But those thousands are NOTHING with how many people fossil fuels already kill. From their crude extraction, to the poisoning of the air and water with their use...the death toll from the current "status quo" energy sources are killing many, many thousands every year. The difference is that the deaths from fossil fuels are usually slow and lingering...it takes a massive calamity like Deepwater Horizon to really make the slow deaths from fossil fuels stand out. But Deepwater Horizon was, pardon the expression, a drop in the bucket.
And if you think renewables will be a magic bullet, consider the likely death toll from a few "pumped storage" alpine valley dams failing over the years.
The point is, there is NO energy source that is 99% risk and death free, except for hydro and thermo. But those just are not useful in very many places on the planet. It is OK to say that nuclear is dangerous if poorly engineered and/or poorly regulated (watch that "regulatory capture!"), but in comparison, so is everything else....
Cool. The human race is now officially put on notice of our imminent departure from this universe, in historical timeframes. Given the rate of technological progression...I give us what, 100 or 200 years?
Only one thing to call it...
It's an Apple. It has a hole. It must be...a WORMHOLE.
Re: iPods. - Not going to die...
Tell me where I can get a phone that can store 180gigs of FLAC/ALAC uncompressed music, as my iPod Classic can do for my car? My Chinese-sourced HTC One has 32gigs internal, and I can add a TF card for another 64gigs (and dual-SIMs)...and THAT'S the largest I know about (and is rather hard to come by and a bit expensive).
The other fact is that there is a huge youth market - many people buy iPod Touches to allow their kids to play iOS games on without running up a phone bill.
And is also a huge market for iPod Nano's and Shuffles for the gym and running set. There are places you don't want to take a £500 smartphone.
I just don't see iPods going away anytime soon...
I actually do not believe that documents that have not ever been publicly shared can be considered trademarked, unless they have had a trademark formally applied for - and precious few of any Wikileaks document fit that description. They could be considered copywrit, yes, if they are a creative product. But I am not sure that old shopping lists, military plans, and private emails that are not creative product can even be considered copywritten. Moreover, you would face a very difficult task to even judge on which legal jurisdiction should such a copywrite consideration would be granted. (which is my same answer to why Assange isn't a "traitor" or a "spy" - he isn't a US citizen to start with...)
Re: client confidentiality
EVERYONE knew that Wikileaks was hosted at Banhoff. They came under legal threat. It was very public.
Hence the tagline "was hosted" at Banhoff...
Re: No nostalgia here
"Dolby NR required calibration that couldn't be provided by any consumer equipment, especially cassette tape players."
Really? I am pretty sure my old Nakamichi BX-125 could calibrate it pretty accurately. I know the Nak Dragon (which I lusted after but couldn't make the jump to) could get it to near studio accuracy.
In my opinion, what you are remarking on is that, back in the analogue days, the difference between cut-rate consumer electronics and top-end consumer electronics was MUCH more pronounced than it has become with digital. And Dolby B and C were mainstays of that analogue history, and suffered from that as much as anything else. One manufacturer could implement the Dolby circuitry cheaply, and another could use triple the components and get a more accurate playback curve. The point is, you can't blame Dolby for that, you have to blame cheapskate audio manufacturers, and the fact that you presumably spent your money on other pursuits like chasing women or buying drugs, than buying a Nakamichi (or similar) for your dorm room.. ;-).
Missing Key Data...
The key piece of data is, really, how MANY cheap fondleslabs did they ever really have in stock? If it was 0, or 10, or even 50, it sounds like bait and switch.
If they had a few hundred or more, and they sold those out...then it really seems like a case of "Tough Luck Charlie", they sold out, and this is what they had left.
But without knowing the amount in stock and on order, it is impossible to say if it was intentional.
Re: So "Temporary Mobile Subscriber Identity" *not* temporary after all
I don't think it was cost-cutting. The designers already were using made-up temporary numbers in their comms, and so didn't think that encrypting them was really worth the overhead of encrypting a temporary, made-up ID. They could have achieved the same result simply by having the handset negotiate a new ID on a rotating, frequent basis.
As others have pointed out below, this is a mere annoyance at worst...
So...it would appear that corelets are really slightly altered nodes from the old "Data Flow Architecture" that was so cutting edge...about 15 years ago.
Don't get me wrong...the world is FULL of IT "ideas" that have been re-invented and re-named. I mean really, ever since Ted Nelson published "Computer Lib/Dream Machines" in 1974 it's all just been rehashed versions of most of what he wrote in that seminal book. (And yeah, I keep a copy on hand just to remind myself when computing was really, really INTERESTING.)
But I digress....if IBM gets this right, it will be very powerful, because fundamentally linear code sucks for emulating the brain. An interesting side note....I think one of the HARDEST things about this new paradigm is TESTING. How can you prove that such and such a program is actually "production ready"? Maybe such coding eliminates the whole terminology of "testing". It seems a lot like verifying the correctness of genetic algorithms...and for many of the same reasons. (HINT: many applications of GAs have gone back to more traditional methods because of the inherent inability to prove that they had reached the best solution in actual fact).
In my best Spock voice, I just want to say "Fascinating....fascinating". And it is that, for real.
Re: I just want to see it fly
and don't forget the B-70 Valkyrie and Skylon's spiritual father, the SR-71 (well, for the dual-mode engine tech, at least)...
Re: POWER did rule in the HPC field.
I expect it will have an impact on my life in the same way that the supercomputers that developed the new engines for the A380 did - a lot quieter experience at 38,000 ft due to the super efficient blade and compressor design, that makes my semi-frequent flights from London to Melbourne a lot more bearable. And a raft of other hidden, tech-driven design improvements that we take for granted, but required someone doing a whole lot of calculations that we never see or think about. Computational Flow Dynamics and other simulations (weather, climate, etc.) take massive cycles, and the more cycles you can throw at the models the quicker you can develop accurate models, and the finer grain simulation you can run.
Re: POWER did rule in the HPC field.
Totally correct - I once (1997) installed and configured an entire football pitch of SP/2 hardware buried deep under the United Airlines World HQ parking lot for customer demand simulation...the models it ran took 18 hours to run in a single batch cycle, and had to be run every day...we installed several terabytes of RAID 1 disk with the drives being ultra-fast Fibre Channel 4Gig drives. People bought SP/2s to do SERIOUS work.
Interesting fact - the very normal-looking employee parking lot of United Air WHQ has reinforced concrete/macadam that is about 6 feet thick, for bomb resistance to protect their underground data centre from truck bombs. Or crashing planes...
This is an HPC and server play...
To all of the above that couldn't figure out what you use Power for - you use it when you have SERIOUS need for compute cycles with a relatively advanced instruction set. It's not about power efficiency a la ARM, it's not about Windows compatibility a la Intel...it's simply a very good architecture for high workload compute-intensive tasks. Yes, so is Intel, but the PowerPC arch and instruction set are in many ways cleaner, and always have been. This can be important if you are going to use them as building blocks, say by designing your own CPU/GPU hybrid on-die. This is the stuff you take as a core building block if you are going to design your own HPC modules - a solid, well-documented architecture that is pretty clean and scales well.
I highly applaud IBM's thinking on this - MIPS was always underpowered (after the 90s at least), SPARC in many ways too...but PowerPC has always kind of deserved that name. It's exactly what a chip designer needs if they are going to build the hardware for the next Deep Thought. It's a niche market, but it's where the excitement is in terms of cool HPC applications, particularly if someone closely-couples it with GPU parallelism on-die. "Imagine a Beowulf cluster of..." indeed. The ONLY part of this that is surprising is that IBM is not opening up AIX to run on the resultant customer-derived chips...AIX could really be leveraged on some of the resultant architectures to provide a solid HPC platform. But overall, good show IBM!! Let's see what gets born from this...
Re: Except that...
Actually, most desktop CPUs have HyperThreading, which makes even the 4-core CPUs function in many ways like 8...
Re: Yes, definitely dumb
You seem to have missed a lot of history here. Historically, ARM cores have fewer pieces, parts, and transistors than Intel, and have therefore run slower, but with much less power. ARM isn't about speed - it is about work per watt. Intel comes from a desktop background where it was always about having the faster processor, period.
To address their relatively low power (in both ways) cores, ARM has gone multi-core in a big way. Whereas Intel has gone down the power-saving route in a big way - reducing clock, idling parts of the chip, etc. And they have developed some very cool tech for that.
I personally think that the ARM approach is simpler, and will therefore yield a more cost-efficient solution. For a phone, or tablet even, there are a lot of tasks that are limited by the speed of the communications interface, checking for email in the background, even downloading a web page, etc. That will be slower on mobile than a laptop or desktop for quite some time, even with LTE. ARM's approach is optimised for that kind of slow, steady work.
Improving the per core performance would help on games, etc., but even with power saving, it still isn't as efficient as a slower, but steady engine. Think of driving your car - you CAN take an F1 engine, put it in your car, accelerate madly to 150 mph, and then coast back down to below the speed limit, repeat, repeat, repeat, and get an average speed of 80 mph. Or, you can put your bog standard production-line auto engine, and steadily maintain 80 mph - which do you think is more efficient really?
Re: Oh shift
I hereby declare that today, you win the interwebz with that comment. Although I predict the one person that could get the capitalisation correct would be "aManFromMars" in whatever version he is spelling it now...
@itzman - BULLSHIT
Seriously, show me how installing carbon dioxide scrubbers on every coal power plant, continuing to cut emissions on autos, and building more nuke plants than coal plants over the next 40 years will "cripple" the world economy.
Because THAT right there gets you a big CHUNK of improvement. And it's all technology that we know, have relatively mastered (with "clean" diesels and hybrid cars, and 4th Gen nuclear plants), and is available right now, in the marketplace.
Yes, it might cost a few million per power plant to install and service scrubbers - but out of the total cost of the life of that powerplant, it's a pittance.
What you are succumbing to is CORPORATE NOISE...that ANY single cent they have to spend that affects their stock price (and exec compensation) one millionth of one percent is ECONOMIC DOOM FOR US ALL. And that's just SELF-SERVING CORPORATE BULLSHIT - designed by business to ensure that it doesn't have to suffer even the _slightest_ impact on it's stockprice (and thus exec compensation, which is usually linked to it). Despite a multi-year recession, America has cut joblessness from over 9% to 7.4% over the past few years. CORPORATE PROFITS and WALL STREET are at an all time high - higher even than before the crash.
Do you really, really believe their FUCKING BULLSHIT that "oh, we can't afford to save the planet, and it isn't necessary anyway....blah blah blah"???
Do you know how LITTLE the seas have to rise to basically wipe out the harbours and shipping terminals that the world relies upon for global trade? And nearly every major city is built on a waterfront. You worry about the costs of lessening CO2? Worry about the cost of relocating many major cities away from their current locations, and doing it relatively fast - say in a 50 year timespan. TRILLIONS of dollars wouldn't even start to cover it.
Those CEOs who's noise you believe will be on their private, secured, ranches in Montana, or on the hilltops of their private islands, when it all goes to shit. Where will you or your children be?
No, they were buying more BMW 3-Series, which includes a whole lot of different engine sizes, especially the diesels. The M3 is the high-performance, insanely powerful version, and is very, very expensive, and doesn't outsell the Mondeo..they couldn't make that many if they tried. The 3 Series outsells the Mondeo in large part because it has a very low CO2 diesel option, which makes it the PERFECT company car, and has such a high resale it is actually available at the same price as a Mondeo on company car schemes, and also probably via leasing deals. For most buyers, the BMW 3-Series diesel (or small petrol) was actually a very, very sensible option over a Mondeo for these reasons. (And I think the Mondeo is a good car overall, too).
I agree that you have a right to believe what you want - but you have no RIGHT to religion that extends past your personal space. If you want to believe in sky fairy tales, I cannot stop you, nor would I if they make you happier. HOWEVER - the second you take that believe and use it to influence society in ANY WAY - then you have to prove it. You have to prove - in a re-creatable, verifiable manner that your assertions about this set of beliefs is valid.
That includes influencing healthcare for anyone but yourself, that includes fiscal policy, that includes tax policy (and should include that nice non-taxable religious exemption), defence policy, education policy, legal policy, and a host of other areas. Once you want to use your "beliefs" to influence any of these, you have to PROVE THEIR VALIDITY - and saying some old guy(s) wrote a book 2000 years ago doesn't cut it.
Don't quote from The Ten Commandments, unless you can SCIENTIFICALLY PROVE there were stone tablets and they were actually handed down from a superior being to guide us. (HINT: you probably can't). Don't quote from a Bible for policy reasons, unless you can prove that it actually IS the word of a superior being meant as guidance to the human race. You can read them and believe all you want, but the second you expect your reading of them to affect MY LIFE, or the life of society in general, THEN they have to pass some pretty tough scrutiny - at least to the same standards of proof that Evolution and the Theory of Relativity have passed.
Believe what you want - but you should not be TAX EXEMPT for having those beliefs (or leading the discussion of them), and you cannot use them to influence what I or my family do in society. Do not limit my wife's reproductive freedoms because "your god" said so. Do not preach hatred towards my gay brother "because our lord said it was a sin". Do not oppose gay marriage merely because "your lord wouldn't like it". Do not deny even your own children medical care because "your religion said it was unclean". Etc, etc., etc. Unless of course, you can categorically PROVE the existence of your sky fairies. Happy to have their wisdom once they are proven to exist - until then they should stay in your brain and your brain only.
"if I have faith in something without scientific evidence I may or may not be right, not having evidence doesn't automatically mean I am wrong!"
Actually, it violates the scientific principle called Occam's Razor, which basically "states that among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected. In other words, the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. " (yeah, Wikipedia's definition).
So by adding all of these make-believe friends and fictional events into any explanation, you are by default adding complexity that cannot be verified experimentally, proven via evidence, nor replicated. In short, exactly the kinds of things that make it very, very, very LIKELY that you are wrong. You are correct - you are not PROVABLY wrong - because it is hard to prove a negative. But you are very likely to be so.
I'll give you 70 reasons...
And that's just for starters.
- Opportunity selfie: Martian winds have given the spunky ol' rover a spring cleaning
- Spanish village called 'Kill the Jews' mulls rebranding exercise
- Reddit users discover iOS malware threat
- Pics R.I.P. LADEE: Probe smashes into lunar surface at 3,600mph
- Ex–Apple CEO John Sculley: Ousting Steve Jobs 'was a mistake'