Re: Not really equivalent
Someone hasn't read their Larry Niven...no excuse, really.
300 posts • joined 12 Nov 2011
Someone hasn't read their Larry Niven...no excuse, really.
Let's look at it this way - AT&T has invested the money for GB fiber to the home, with a presumed ROI attached. Part of that ROI is knowing either they will make money selling targeted ads, or they will make money by having you opt out.
Let's say enough people become untrackable, and it affects the targeting of the ads they are selling. Do you really think they are going to just sit back and allow themselves to miss their ROI target? What are you smoking?
The fact is, if you play with their targeting, it will lower their advertising rates, leading to less income to pay off the investment, and they will simply have to generate that money some other way...likely by raising prices of both privacy and basic service.
Now, about this plan of yours...where is the GOOD part? (And I know I will be downvoted...but honestly, did you think this through?)
OH - you didn't think of that one, did you?
Depends upon California. Right now they are about one to two years from severely impacting agricultural output as the wells run dry. Snowpack is only 12% of what it should be this time of year, so there will be no replenishment worth speaking of. It has all the hallmarks of a disaster in the making, and it is only being delayed via tapping into deep groundwater wells which contain non-replentishable water, some of it millions of years old. When it is gone, it is GONE. And the first casualty will be almonds...much of the production of which has become held by investment firms, not family farmers. There will be an outcry.
In short, once California's ag economy is hit badly, there is no way for climate change to be swept under the rug...so once that happens, and if it is as bad as it COULD be - then yes, rules might be changed in the next 5 to 10 years.
Sorry, but you are trying to impute straight economic discounting into what is really a political and psychological game. The world, and most importantly THE STOCK MARKET, does not work that way.
Firstly, let us say that I accept your theory on discount rates and the future values of reserves out in 2050 and further. But then that means that the incredibly valuations of the petro companies must be based upon consumption of resources in the near to medium term...and that no real effect of climate change regulation will occur before 2050 to impact that.
But in the political world, for substantial rules changes to go into effect in, let's say, 2050, the discussions and alignments around them would have to start in 2030. And the mere discussion of those would impact the pricing and future discounting at that point in a non-linear way. This totally upsets the imputed value in your straight-line discounting calculations, which is really a time value of money issue. But if in 2030 the politics begin to swing quickly towards regulation (due to natural effects that are no longer deniable), then the political situation will change rapidly, and psychologically, people will quickly begin to heavily discount what is then near-term revenues and production possibilities. In short, even though the regulations might not come into play until 2050, we can expect them to play havoc with oil pricing and Wall St. valuations in a non-linear manner well before they are in effect.
This, then, shoots your nice, linear, discount rate calculations out of the water. The market IS non-linear, and subject to as much psychological effects as beta calculations. And something as emotional as this will have a major impact on the market pricing, quite possibly in a very non-linear manner. It has happened before on Wall St., and this is an obvious case where it can happen again.
From that perspective, The Guardian is probably right...especially if the gross effects of climate change become harder and harder to deny...such as the coming, irrefutable mega-draught in California and the loss the entire state's agricultural output.
So, ISIS has managed to alert 100 "targets" that they will be "hunted" by unskilled jihadists that most likely have little or no combat experience.
I have to say, I think that not only are most of those 100 targets amused, many of them are spending this evening sharpening their combat knives, ensuring they have 9mm pistols in every room of the house, two shotguns under the bed, and if anything salivating at the chance to kill some jihadists without having to get on a plane.
As someone about to buy a used FJ Cruiser (which comes with an antiquated dual-DIN CD player), I have been looking at replacement head units. As it turns out, for $399 (from China) you can get a choice of several Android-powered 6 or 7" screened GPS/Entertainment units that allow you to install nearly any Android app from the Play store - even Torque, which allows you (with the appropriate Bluetooth module) to monitor all of your engine vitals and statistics in real time. They come with WiFi, USB, Bluetooth, etc..very connected and from reports fairly competent at what they do.
So while I applaud Audi's decision to integrate such a great UI into the main binnacle, it just seems that the proprietary nature of it means a limited shelf life. Perhaps the real way forward (as the technology filters down) it to have automakers begin to install dual- or triple-DIN cutouts in a binnacle over the steering wheel, so that the technology is easily upgradeable?
I don't think the OP was slighting the possibility of a problem, but pointing out that statistically that small a number of complaints (versus what has been sold) makes it very hard to figure out if it is a design flaw, or mistreatment from users. And LOTS of users mistreat their screens, and they are expensive to repair. So Apple hears a LOT of stories about "I wasn't doing nuttin', it just broke".
There may be a design flaw, there may be just a lot of people that don't know how to take care of their laptops appropriately and use harsh chemicals on it. But with that small (again, percentage wise) number of complaints, it isn't OBVIOUS that there is a design flaw.
The other thing is that, if you visit Cupertino, there are thousands of Macs there. If there was a widespread manufacturing defect in such a mainstream product, they would see it for themselves, most likely. And I am guessing that they haven't...none of my friends have a problem, and my 2+ year old MBP still looks good. But then, I am guessing that all Apple employees know what to use to clean a screen, and my friends and I are pretty competent with PCs. So...anecdotally, I have to say it is mistreatment not likely a defect...but would remain open to more statistical observation saying otherwise. Which is probably exactly where Apple is right now...
He could have...but I'm not sure he would have been as on target.
SURE it is sexist to claim that women know very little about high tech chip design and the industry that bakes them. A tour of any chip foundry would confirm that, unless you are talking about the line workers. That's not to say that a handful don't exist...but it IS a 98% male dominated niche. And it is a very specialised niche, with non-linear value propositions and unique economic models - probably the closets industry would be automotive manufacturing. Again, a field with a nearly zero exec female management number.
Women are GREAT as leaders at building consensus, understanding customer-centricity, at encouraging teamwork, and occasionally being ruthless and aggressive. But unfortunately, in the high-tech world, it is clear that much of the female leadership comes from a very non-technical background, and really does not have a firm grasp of the intricacies and non-linearities of the market. So while they might be great at ensuring eBay has a fantastic customer experience, they have not been as impressive when asked to manage technology product portfolios and strategies...again, not their background.
The IBM divestment decision REEKED of short-term, exec-compensation-stoking transactional thinking, designed to maximize exec numbers to ensure they got the most in their stock grants that year...at the expense of a long-term Unique Value Proposition in the mid-range and even upper-range systems market. Instead, IBM would focus on "Services", that easily off-shored, amorphous product that can mysteriously plug the numbers gap in future projected revenue spreadsheets. The gap where having a Power-fueld midrange server market used to fill. And that's a pretty big gap, especially as a large amount of IBM's "Services" business is driven by them being the hardware vendor of choice in the account!
So call it sexism if you must. It is however, a fairly depressingly accurate description of American tech management...
I do work in this field, as the Head of Big Data for a consultancy. Let me tell you about what your bank is doing (or will be doing) with that Big Data stack...
1) they are looking at your detailed purchase history, and in all probability will eventually offer (if they do not already) a targeted third-party Groupon-type buying solution, driven by a detailed understanding of your buying history, demo/psycho-graphic data, and all other related credit information available about you. You will be asked to opt-in to this service, and if you do it very well may offer you good discounts on stuff you want. If you don't want it, opt-out...no big deal.
2) They are using detailed examination of their own agent's behaviour to understand if the bank is at risk with the financial authorities for mis-selling products to customers. They are likely going to be monitoring agent's verbal conversations using machine learning, the contents of all web and email interactions using textual analysis, and even monitoring of live teller interactions. All of this will hopefully result in a better sales experience for the customer, and a reduction in bank fines from the authorities.
3) They are converting their banks fraud detection from something that is usually done after the fact, into something that is done in real-time and can better prevent fraud before it happens. This will prevent fraud against your account, benefiting both you and the bank.
These are three easy ones, and the tip of the iceberg...now, want to think about what they can REALLY do with Big Data solutions, even with "just three current account types?"
The best advantage of Android is that Samsung, HTC, and even Sony do versions of their Android phones that take dual-SIMs and even can keep them both active at once, so you essentially have a phone for personal use, and another line for business, without having to carry and charge two phones. I've had an HTC One with dual-SIMs, and now a Samsung S5 Duos with two SIMs, and as much as I admire Apple (typing this on my MBP Retina) I cannot go back to a single SIM, or having to carry two phones.
The pity is that the US and UK carriers will not OFFER the dual-SIM versions, so to get them you have to either order on-line from Chinese websites, or travel through Dubai's airport and pick one up on your way through. I've done both, and both worked perfectly here in the UK. If work makes you have a separate line it's very easy to get used to the convenience.
They will if they image the drive, see things they can't understand, and pass it to forensics to figure out...
So while I agree that you are likely to be right in MANY cases, there are a troubling few that will get caught using that idea.
I suspect that those of us in the UK will have a bit of fun having this delivered through UK customs...
Every _hypothetical_ warp drive is nothing you would ever want to use near a populated planet, ever. Even the proposed (and unfeasible until we find "exotic matter" somewhere) NASA warp bubble is known to basically destroy all living matter in front of it as it decelerates at its destination. You just cannot risk a bubble of warp energy (if it could be created) near a populated planet, not at least until you have so many of them that you can afford to lose one or two to disaster.
Inertialess motors, mass drivers, space elevators, or "clean" nuclear will have to do the heavy lifting, as it where...
No, we need a real meta-data enabled object store.
Am I the only person that keeps reading that interface name as "Thunderbird 2"?
No, the extra cost is for packaging it all up, and putting a warranty on it. And ensuring that there is enough margin on it so that stores and distributors will stock it, despite it being a low-volume sales item.
While it is expensive, it is one of those items that if you need it, ALL of the alternatives are expensive too. Clearly, your p0rn collection does not need it....
I was watching the documentary "When Britain Ruled the Skies" the other night, about the giant post-WW 2 push by Britain into jet aircraft, both military and civilian. When Bristol, AVRO, De Havilland, and all the others were literally lighting the skies ablaze with new, ever faster designs. Farnborough airshow became THE huge flying show due to all the new British designs that were being rolled out every year. It was amazing...and for a brief period of about a decade, the small isle of Britain was the leading light in jet design.
But this came at a cost. The test pilots that flew for the companies became household names, adored by adults and children alike. Comic books were written for children about them, men wanted to be them, women wanted to date them. But the truth was, that at the peak of development, about 1 British jet test pilot was killed every month. Some were very famous men, such as the son of De Havilland himself. The toll was, in retrospect, staggering.
And yet nothing deterred their dreams, or the companies that pushed ever higher, ever faster designs.
What will happen here? Unfortunately, I think I know the answer even before I wrote this...
+1. The problems are well known, and if you read the aviation professional press well commented on. The simple fact is, they cannot get the oxidizer to mix evenly with the solid fuel, so it burns very, very unevenly. In a liquid fuel rocket this is accomplished by configuring the combustion chamber and inlets in ways that ensure a well-mixed fuel stream prior to ignition. But when pumping a liquid over a solid that is itself changing shape as it burns, it is much, much harder. That is the reason why hybrid engines have not been used for government-built rockets. It is clear that the switch to the new plastic fuel has not helped this, and it is now very much a long shot as to whether they every CAN get this problem solved.
My guess is that the program will need to switch to liquid fuelled rockets, which they probably cannot do and maintain their funding windows. So my guess is that this will be the end of Virgin Galactic.
That's because you're googled research did not count ground-based accidents done during the development - like explosions during static engine testing. Whereas the Virgin-based accidents include three people killed during an engine fuel flow test at a subcontractor's venue. So hardly an accurate standard of comparison. If you research all of the R&D accidents at Boeing, Rocketdyne, Rockwell, etc., you will find a lot, lot more than 13...
Administrators don't go back and re-do all the testing. All they can do is ensure that the checks and testing was done, and the paperwork supports that it was done correctly. That IS the essence of administration in a free-market economy.
Now if the sub-contractor (Orbital Sciences in this case) does that testing incorrectly, or incompletely, or incompetently, then they are at fault, and they have insurance to cover that business eventuality. Their reputation suffers, and their insurance rates will likely increase per launch. NASA has no responsibility in this instance...nor should they. Being administrators means they orchestrated the launch, ensured Wallops was ready, and ensured the area around it was clear for launch (oops). That is what an administrator does, not reverse engineer the engine, re-perform the testing, etc. By all accounts, Wallops was ready, NASA tried to ensure the area was clear, and ensured what would have been a safe and successful launch had the sub-contractor been successful.
NASA is entirely blameless, IMHO. There is a culprit, and that is whomever inspected and certified those engines most likely.
Elon would just put on his shiny Iron Man suit and take it out with his hand-mounted repulsers...or just fly next to it and tip it into the ocean.
He does have that suit, trust me.
They are NOT maximizing shareholder value in anything more than a year or two.
Once the market digests this, they will find they cannot sell a POWER-based system to any of their major corporate accounts, due to lack of future support for the architecture. And having sold their x86 business to Lenovo, they have little to take up the slack. So overall, sales will plummet on hardware. And, systems integration work based on hardware sales will decline.
That will take 2-3 years to really kick in, but it IS totally predictable, and shareholder value at the 5 and 10 year marks will be greatly negatively impacted. Of course, Ginni isn't planning on being their then....
No, it's a metaphor. It would be hyperbole if the real solution was to do something painful that did not involve shooting them - say a good spanking.
But since the real solution does not involve corporal punishment or violence, but more likely shareholder lawsuits, it IS a metaphor.
You miss the point - the entire IBM mid-range product line is BASED upon these chips. It is also their main market differentiator, their USP.
Getting rid of the fab, and getting only a 10 year guarantee, doesn't just close down the fab - IT SHOOTS THEIR PRODUCT LINE IN THE HEAD!
If that fab is running at a loss, then guess what? Consider it the Cost of Goods Sold, and ameliorate it with one of your other strategies. Solution 3 works for this. Because Option 1 and 4 basically tell your customer that you cannot guarantee a future state of POWER chips beyond one or two more IT lifecycles, and so they should begin to consider other options in the marketplace. There are customers out there with thousands and thousands of blades running POWER...and you have just told them they have an infrastructure that will likely go out of support, and the smart ones will cut their losses sooner rather than later, killing IBMs mid-range sales. (remember that they just sold off their x86 server business to Lenovo, so WTF they are planning to sell without POWER escapes me. And I suspect Ginni as well...).
The point is you cannot just consider the economics of the fab. You have to look at it in light of the entire IBM value proposition to the marketplace - anything else is a broad breech of fiduciary duties. And just f-ing stupid. And right now they have just cut their mid-range architecture off at the knees in the marketplace, and sold their x86 business. As I said, line that "management" team up against the wall...
This saddens me greatly. I remember growing up across the river from the Fishkill, NY fabs, and going on a tour of them as a kid, and getting an IBM keychain with a bit of IBM chippery embedded in Lucite. I thought it was SO COOL back then.
This effectively spells the end of the POWER architecture too. Knowing that the support contract to produce new chips is only for 10 years, any business that is not already on POWER systems would have to have a huge second thought before committing to a future purchase of POWER-based systems, knowing that they are now effectively a dead end. And business on POWER-based systems have little reason to not look at alternatives very quickly, as they cycle their hardware, and thus consider other vendors.
What that leads to is the following conclusion: this is really a HUGE abrogation of leadership (and perhaps fiduciary duties!) from the current IBM management team - they have, as usual in America - optimized their business for next year's quarterly reporting, and F*CK what happens to the business in the long-run. Can you imagine a Japanese company being so short-sighted as to effectively kill off their product line in the marketplace in a single gesture? Or, more to the point, the Chinese?
No, Ginni & Co. have decided that all that matters is next year's executive bonus comp, and fattening their own pay checks, and to hell with what happens to an American business icon in 10 years. They ought to be lined up against the wall and shot**...
(** - that is a _metaphor_ , for any plod or NSA or FBI reading this)
Hi, what sports do YOU do you pathetic wench?
I am sure that they are "unnecessary", and in some way detrimental to others. Even running and cycling have some impact on others - congestion on the sidewalks, slowing down of traffic, etc. NOTHING we do not not pose some imposition on someone else, unless you never leave your house.
I shoot for the camaraderie. I shoot for the thrill of competition. I shoot to get my mind into a good place and practice keeping it there. I shot a really great score in trap shooting last weekend, and it took getting my mind in a good place, finding a rhythm, and mastering my emotions and my body. When I shoot rifle, I have to practice getting my mind and body still, empty of outside distractions, and mindful. My breathing needs to be controlled. My eyes clear. It is Zen. And I can tell how well I do at that by the scores of that day.
What is it in your life that has you seek self-improvement? How do you measure it?
You are a pantywaist, really. And I won't post AC, too bad you didn't have the courage of your convictions to stand up for your own point of view publicly.
Silencers are called "moderators" in the UK. And yes, they are totally legal, as long as you have them noted on your FAC. They do make it easier to shoot and not disturb people, and they are used for both hunting and competition shooting.
Yes it is different.
A domestic disturbance is here and now, and someone is in jeopardy. IF a similar situation exists with a gun owner, the correct response is 999, NOT an anonymous Crimestoppers line. Given a 999 call, the police already have sufficient power to enter immediately if they believe a crime is being committed and someone is in danger.
What this seeks to do is give police that same power, even when there is NO IMMEDIATE THREAT. So you say you have concerns that someone is not securing their guns properly, or is being radicalised? OK, fine, neither of these place anyone in jeopardy TODAY. The police should go see a judge, and get a warrant to enter. If they cannot convince a judge that they have sufficient reason to enter without telling you in advance, then...perhaps they don't.
That is supposedly part of the checks and balances so that the police do not become the law unto themselves. This change effectively entails that where gun owners are concerned, they now are.
From a practical point of view, you would have to ensure that none of the shot falls outside of your own property. For anyone in the suburbs, that will be difficult. Given a sufficiently pastoral setting, this is not a problem.
However, even with a 32" barrelled trap gun with full chokes (I shoot a 32" Gold E Xtrap), you are not going to be hitting much beyond 60-80 yards - and that is both in horizontal and vertical distance. I know highly skilled clay competitors like George Digweed can hit out to 100+ yards, but frankly, that isn't you, and your likely gun and chokes. And after they operator hears the first shot, he will send that drone straight up at full throttle, if he has any sense. So you have one or two shots at most, likely at a target just at or beyond your maximum range.
The real issue is that it is likely that the drone will have a camera, and will quite possibly have you on video as firing at it, and.or destroying it. That is destruction of property, and unless you can prove the drone was a threat to you, you will likely be done for that. I don't think it will be a firearms offence per se - but with the plod trying to do it's utmost to limit ownership, being convicted of the destruction of property may very well be enough for them to pull your Section 2 Shotgun license, and certainly your Section 1 Firearms license if you have one. These are being pulled for convictions such as even getting into a physical fight in self-defence, or too many speeding tickets, or a single drink driving conviction, to put that in perspective. Wanton destruction of other's property is pretty close to that sort of thing, and at that point I believe you would be at the mercy of whatever judgement your local firearms team would happen to make. Some may laugh it off, some may put you under caution, some may revoke or suspend. You can challenge any action in court of course, at your own expense. In my mind, it isn't worth the risk, given how hard they are to get back.
But you miss the entire point...ext file systems are basically not usable by anyone on a cloud-based net book with only plug-in USB FAT storage and non-ext internal drive. Basically, it is the hardware specs and use cases that pretty much make ext redundant. If you don't like that, then a Chromebook and Chrome OS are not for you. You can take the hardware and install Debian just fine, with ext. or you can simply buy a non-Chromebook laptop. But installing a set of software just to "honour the devs" seems really pretty silly. It is very much the same as not loading X-windows code on an embedded Linux controller system...
The issue is that of those that have not paid yet, nearly all of them simply reformatted their NAS and re-loaded from backups, or decided that their p0rn and pirated movie collections were not worth it, and simply reformatted without backups. As they will never be used, those remaining keys are probably very low value, to either Synology, or the previously infected victims.
Again...no Object Store? No metadata management for data objects stored under the file system? Are we still using...gasp....raw files?
What is it about current OS releases that really seem to just be ever more incremental updates on UIs, with few real changes in core functionality and usage? When do we get a proper 21st century desktop operating system that actually embodies computer science concepts that have been talked about for years to make OSes more modern, but have not been delivered?
This is particularly galling on the data storage side - with HBase, HDFS, and even MongoDB showing off alternative methods to store files, data, and objects, why is such functionality not native to the OS, and exposed directly to all apps via standard APIs? Instead...we get yet more 1960s file technology. We should be far angrier at that than whether or not there are tiles on the desktop...
But the author's analysis is really, really, simple minded.
Supply meets demand - true in most cases. But not this one.
The problem with the housing crisis is that a huge percentage of the top of the market is no longer being actually used to provide housing. It is INVESTMENT, and usually offshore, tax-free, and sometimes illegally-gained investment funded. These houses stand empty, great towering symbols for how wimpy the UK's laws are, and how we are simply being used as a giant game of Monopoly by Russian oligarchs, Arab princess, and drug lords. All because the UKs laws make it very, very easy to escape paying taxes if you can claim foreign investment or transfer of ownership.
When such a situation exists, the "supply" and "demand" of housing is totally out of balance, because it breaks the relationship between housing and actual income used to pay for it. By making it essentially a tax free game of Monopoly investment for the top of the market, it has introduced distortions that have filtered down to every single level.
IF you want to solve the UK's housing crisis, it is simple. Close the tax loopholes that have elevated the top of the market and made it a speculator's paradise. This will then correct down the market chain in a few years.
Oh, wait...you see, that CORRECTION is actually reflected in lower house prices. Which we that are struggling to BUY houses really, really need - but the top 10% of the country (being landholders) do NOT want to happen.
Which is why, in reality, the problem of housing in the UK is basically unfixable. Because to truly correct it, the landed gentry, and even the upper-middle class, will have to take a huge hit in house valuations. And NO government will let that happen...
I just want to see Ballmer get up in front of the crowds, in the Staples Center....in front of tens of thousands of sports fans...and take the microphone...
and scream "WINDOWS, WINDOWS, WINDOWS!!!!" as I have seen him do so many times before...
Yes, Mr. Watkinson, I ALSO have a third-edition copy of Ted Nelson's "Computer Lib" to give cool diagrams on MMUs, and I did grow up programming in Fortran on time-shared mainframes in my high-school, then eventually moved on to 6502-powered PCs (my first was an Ohio Scientific C1P, with THE first copy of MS Basic in ROM AFAIK, copywritten 1977 by Gates). I also programmed a variety of single-board computers, like the COSMAC Elf along the way. I grew up reading "Soul of a New Machine", and that made me want a career in computing. So, similar vintage to yourself.
And I think your article is twaddle. I remember breaking security on my university mainframe FOR FUN when forced (against my will, but required to) take a COBOL class, and getting caught because I bragged about it. 45 minutes with the Dean of Students before I managed to get off with a slap on the wrist - because I had thankfully ALSO told my teaching assistant so it was deemed "an experiment" rather than hacking. I remember my first time with a DEC-20 at RPI university...and breaking passwords on that in 20 minutes to admin accounts. I remember my roommate at one point in GREAT detail describing the Man-In-The-Middle attack being used to break VMS networks he was working with. Security was NOT golden back in the golden days, it was utter rubbish! The only thing that made it SEEM more secure was that there was two to three orders of magnitude fewer hackers, because there were fewer high-value targets, and fewer trained people. Back then, there were very few criminal GANGS responsible for it - underwriting teams of coders/hackers, auctioning off automated attacks for Bitcoins on the Tor network. It was all individuals, or very small teams...working in private. Now hacking is a full-blown criminal enterprise, with outsized rewards, safety via huge distances and extradition laws, and often the threat of physical violence.
So of course we feel less safe these days...the level of intrusion investment being deployed against modern systems is at least two to three times the magnitude of the "golden days". And THAT has a whole lot more to do with the relative "insecurity" of today's systems (which all do have MMUs that are insanely well-engineered, btw) than any mythical hardware/software deficiencies.
They will probably have an SD-capable, dual-SIM version in China, and possibly India. You can usually buy them off the web from places like Merimobile.
But really, how much CONFIDENTIAL data do you really keep on your phone - the most likely to be stolen device that you own? Or is it that you think your movie/music/porn collection is so top-secret that it can't be stored in a cloud, for fear of the NSA? Only if you are a paedo...
I think the benefit of Atmos is that it CAN be of use in smaller spaces, as it allows the processor to intelligently model the room and it's dimensions in computing the channel split assignments. I have heard very convincing 5.1 in smaller spaces, even on cheap Logitech 5.1 gaming sound systems (not as good as my lounge set-up that cost a mint, but pretty good for the space).
I have recently bought a new Arcam, and am so happy with it that I cannot bring myself to replace it anytime soon - mainly because it's performance on music was critical in my decision to spend that much. I am fairly certain that until a musically oriented company like Arcam or Rotel brings out an Atmos-enabled receiver they will probably not be very good for dual-use movie/music set-ups (Denon / Marantz might be acceptable in their higher-end units, we will see).
Sure, they are 24 out of 26...but that is not the whole story. The larger story is that EVERY motor maker (bar the Chinese at present) is VASTLY more reliable than they were 20 and even 10 years ago. So a 24th scoring maker now is way up on where the mid-level was 20 years ago, and probably pretty close to where the mid-point was even 10 years ago...while having a lot more features and toys. The fact that they are not quite as good as the best today doesn't mean an automatic horror story, as was usually the case in previous decades. And I say that as someone who is a Land Rover devotee...which no sane person would be if we just went by JD Powers scores.
You beat me to it - Vandersteen made/makes all of their speakers to be time aligned across the multiple drivers. Having said that, I am still not sure that their drivers can match an electrostatic's for linearity. But it is important to remember that at least Vandersteen did emphasise their time cohesiveness...
Your last sentence says why you are wrong - "a particular speaker in a particular room".
The main benefit of "finagling the signal" is that it can be dynamically adapted - in near real-time or as part of a set-up procedure - to the acoustics of ANY room. Which you simply cannot do by "tweaking the layout and mechanics" in the vast majority of cases. Or at least not as well outside of an acoustically damped room.
Where the author is perhaps mistaken however is in assuming that such correction needs be in the speaker. Today's home theatre amps are incorporating dynamic room set-up DSPs of ever-increasing complexity and power, and as they use a calibrated microphone to measure room acoustics and dynamics, they obviously incorporate some level of speaker correction.
So it will be an interesting contest to see where the industry goes - self-powered and correcting speakers, or traditional designs with some level of correction incorporated in the preamp or receiver.
I loved your line "gross ignorance of the author".
You do realise he has decades of experience in engineering speakers and audio equipment, and is the author of many of the reference textbooks used in the field? As well as being a guiding light behind some truly great speaker designs over the years, such as those electrostatics bearing the QUAD label?
And you might check out his 750 page reference book on digital audio...which I am sure will truly prove his "gross ignorance": http://www.amazon.co.uk/Art-Digital-Audio-John-Watkinson/dp/0240515870
It was obviously for the mention of evolution...we get the stray American in here, and anything that claims to "have proven evolution" must get a down vote, especially if they hail from south of the Mason-Dixon Line.
It is one of the reasons I relocated across the Pond...how America expects to keep a lead in science when they care so much about the literal interpretation of their sky fairy stories is beyond me...
Given Elon's track record...and I've been watching this space for half a century...what he does is NOT SCIENCE.
It is magic, by Arthur C. Clark's definition.
His latest capsule has "3D metal printed rocket engines". And flys with touchscreens, not banks and banks of switches and knobs. No, really. What he is producing is nearly a generation ahead of competitors...in short, magic.
It is AMAZING how few commenters here recognise your "breakfast cereal" quote, or the context, or why it relates spectacularly well with the original article's sense of humour. I loved it.
Really poor showing of a lack of reading Douglas Adam's works from some of the commentards here...
"Why are there still no RISC systems that thoroughly outperform x86 on a core for core basis?"
There are a number of reasons. The first one is that Intel has a huge investment in fabrication plants ("fabs" in industry parlance), and usually manages to be a generation ahead of the ARM builders in implementation technology - lithography, insulation, and/or feature size. They just have a better _chip_, regardless of the architecture. Samsung and TMSC are catching up, but for a long time Intel has a huge advantage simply in construction - and this gave them faster clock rates, lower voltages, etc.
The second reason is that convoluted x86 architecture makes no claims to be elegant or simple. But it IS well known what the asymmetries are, and Intel's compilers are heavily optimised to work with them where possible. So having finely tuned compilers has greatly helped even-out the architectural differences.
Thirdly, Intel simply invests a whole lot more into developing their x86 follow-ons than ARM has. Such is the result of market dominance. Intel really does have a number of very smart designers, and as even you stated, it may be a turd, but it is a WELL-POLISHED turd. Things like branch-prediction, out-of-order execution, superpipelining...Intel has these down to a very fine art, with a degree of circuitry dedicated to this that ARM historically lacks.
Lastly, for ARM to focus on execution speed, it would need to add lots of transistors on-die to do these things (Out-of-order, prediction, superpiplining) to the degree that Intel does - and THAT would negate a good portion of ARM's power consumption advantage. There is no free lunch - having a better instruction set doesn't make up for lacking the degree of dedicated silicon that Intel uses to speed up execution. The day that ARM begins to catch Intel in single-core execution speed will also be the day that ARM begins to catch Intel in power usage...
And of course, if you left it to experts, and chose a publicly reviewed cryptosystem, then for many years you could have been using RC4 encryption and been quite happy (as even Skype was when using it). Um, of course...RC4 wasn't REALLY secure, was it???
That is the problem with all of the public-reviewed systems. There is an underlying assumption that there are enough eyeballs and experts actually putting in the months necessary to break it in all kinds of ways. But as the recent HTPS breakage shows, there sometimes just are not enough eyeballs probing it to find the errors...