A typical 1 U server (2 processor 4 cores each) can consume between 300 and 500 watts. So 42 of them (the number in a rack) would give 336 cores at between 12kw and 21kw. As a rough number for reasonable performance servers, 300 to 500 watts per U is about what you'll find. Sure, you can find more powerful and less powerful servers, but that's a decent figure...
Have RIM, Nokia, Palm, or even MS ever done what Apple is doing?
The thing you have to realize, is that none of them is thriving in the way that iPhone and Android are (for what I mentioned in my OP, an "App Store" centric OS).
RIM doesn't even have an app store, so they couldn't even do what Apple is doing...
Nokia launched Ovi, but there are plenty of other methods to get your apps (and considering that Nokia has 2% of the US market share and doesn't even show up on the sales charts, I can't see how you can say that Nokia is "thriving" in the smartphone market)...
Palm is the only real argument that you have here. But I would also hardly considering it thriving. It's at 4% US market share (vs 9% Android), and has low single digit sale rates (vs over 30% for Android).
MS doesn't have a market place for 6.x. They are introducing one for 7 (in fact it will be the only place to buy apps). However, they did release statements that they would be controlling content in the market. They actually took a shot at Apple by saying that they would be "transparent" with their policies. But telling you what they are going to censor is still censorship...
I don't even understand how this is off topic... The issue at hand here is what happens when a corporation gets too much control. Or as the summary said:
'Let's See What Happens When Corporations Become Publishers.'
So the fact that you have two platforms --one that's notorious for exerting arbitrary and inconsistent control and another that's known for being 100% open-- really is about as on topic as you can get. The fact that Android is thriving is proof that people don't need (And that at least a fair number of them don't want) that kind of control pushed upon them. It's not a "Apple sucks and Android rules" fanboi statement. It's a simple statement that a platform can survive (and thrive) in a realm without censorship and control (and that corporations can be publishers and yet still be responsible and open about it).
The way the summary (and TFA) is written, it makes it sound like this is a universal problem for all corporations that get into publishing (that they have to walk a fine line between "protecting the users" and limiting censorship). But I think the fact that there is at least one corporation thriving in the industry that doesn't partake in those practices says a heck of a lot (and hence isn't flamebait or offtopic)...
Well, I don't think that would work. That's like saying that rape is allowed because of a lack of a chastity belt. Just because there are not security methods in place doesn't mean that you're authorized.
If their definition of access did not require inbound communication to the network, then that's a can of worms. You could argue that ALL electronic devices would then be illegal access to a computer network. Turn on your radio. It'll receive the WIFI signal on its antenna (Sure, it'll never get past the tuner, but that's besides the point, it still "received" the signal). Where's the line?
Well, that's good and fair. Except that Google never accessed any computer/system or network. Access requires two way communication. All they did was listen to broadcast data. There's nothing illegal about that (so 1(1) is out). And they did not deny (or cause denial) any services to anyone, so 1(2) is out. So I fail to see how that's applicable here...
It's most definitely NOT illegal anywhere in the USA. They collected data (note, they did not "access", that would be illegal) that was broadcasted unencrypted over public frequencies from public property. By the FCC's rules, you can receive any unencrypted data that you want (It's another story to transmit, which again would classify as access)... So no, nobody should go to jail, because nobody did anything illegal. Was it morally wrong? More than likely. Was it stupid? More than likely. Does that make it a jailable offense? No.
The market is significantly bigger than Apple though, so neither of those anti-competitive terms apply.
Not true. US Anti-Trust laws don't require a monopoly to be enforced. All they require is anti-competitive behavior (And enough market share to raise their attention/cause potential damage)... That's why it's called anti-competitive behavior, not monopolistic behavior...
I think Apple knows that the writing is on the wall and they are going to lose something so why not cash in as much as possible?
Perhaps Apple sees the inquiry coming and knows they'll have to give up something to appease the DOJ and FTC. So they are purposely coming out with over the top rules.
It's a win-win for them. If they govt doesn't like it, they can take away the fluff, and Apple still will have what they wanted all along. If the govt decides it's ok, they have their cake and can eat it as well...
It's kind of like if you wanted a 10% raise. You then ask for 20%. If you get 20%, GREAT. If not, you can negotiate down from there, but since the bar is higher, 10% seems like a good deal (you're happy, because you got what you wanted, and they are happy because they "negotiated a fair compromise")_...
I've always understood (I know the "definition", but it seems like a lot of people use mine) a Zero-Day as an attack that requires no action by the victim. So a flaw in Apache that allowed a remote user to execute code with a malformed HTTP request would by very definition be a Zero-Day. I know that's not the "official" definition, but based on what a lot of people call a Zero-Day, it seems that I'm not the only one with that idea...
but the shots of pictures taken with the 3G model vs the new 4G model show that there's been a huge jump in quality.
It's all in the shot. My old G1 took pretty decent photos IF there was PLENTY of ambient light (basically in direct sunlight). Pictures taken on a cloudy day looked like crap (very hazy). I don't care what the best possible image the phone can take is. I care about day to day use. How well does it do in non-ideal conditions (Something that Jobs is very unlikely to show during a keynote). That's why I am reserving judgment until reviews start coming in...
One thing that the past has taught us, is that resolution != quality. Sure, it can shoot 720, but without a decent lens or good sensor, most of those pixels will be just noise anyway. I'm not saying that it's bad, I'm just saying that just because it's 5mp and 720 doesn't mean that it'll give better quality than a 1mp and 320 x 240... It's one of those things that we'll have to wait for the reviews to see...
Sure there is. Revenue. With cities, counties and states (not to mention the FED) going or getting dam near bankrupt, this sounds like an ingenious method of getting added $$$.
Knowingly leaving out the real inventors will get them more than just a slap on the wrist...
Yes, but only after years of legal battles. They'll need the first court to overturn the patent before they would be able to go back after them for damages. That's the problem here... Patents are being blindly issued, only looking to see if it was patented before. Then, it's up to the courts to determine the validity of the patent... That's horrible for the little guy, who chances are doesn't have the money to pay for the legal fees. So the only people the current patent system helps, are the big companies and the courts.
It's indeed a very good thing. When coupled with Preemptive security. To give an example in a "traditional" realm, Preemptive security would be locking your doors when you leave the house (and setting an alarm/installing bars on windows, etc). Reactive security would be having the police come to your house with guns drawn because someone is inside (and then later figuring out how they got in and closing that hole). Neither on their own would be sufficient to feel secure (or protect anything worth protecting). But when you combine them, you have a very effective security system (that's used by the entire world).
If you ask a normal (non-geek) person if they would leave their house unlocked during the day in a bad neighborhood, what do you think they'd say? But if you ask them to not click links from reputable sources (or those that look suspicious), they look at you like you're crazy. THAT's the problem with preemptive security today. Not that it's hard or costly, but that the normal users are not convinced that they should care at all...
They've already said they'll support any codec installed on the machine.
Actually, no. What they said was that they would support EMBEDDING of any format using the <embed> or <object> tags. The <video> tag was going to be H.264 only (no matter what you had installed on your machine).
So that implies the question, did they mean "support" by means of the embedding, or support by means of the <video> tag...
What would be funny is if we eventually discover that yes, technically there are statements that are true but cannot be printed, but in reality, there is only one such statement, "NPR*NPR*"
Actually, it's proven that there are an infinite number of them. Here's how it works. Let's call the language introduced in the GP post "SPL" (Statement Printing Language). So, we know that NRP*NRP* is the problem statement in that language. So let's add an axiom to SPL and call it SPL2. Here's the axiom:
NPR*NPR* is false
So now SPL2 is complete and consistent, right? Wrong. There'll always be another phrase you could write. What about "NPR*NPR*NPR*"? On the surface, it doesn't look that bad (since it isn't self reference). But let's expand it out a few generations:
NPR*NPR*NPR*
NPR*NPR*NPR*NPR*
NPR*NPR*NPR*NPR*NPR*NPR*
NPR*NPR*NPR*NPR*NPR*NPR*NPR*NPR*NPR*NPR*
As we can see, it's an infinite recursion. Now, from WITHIN the system, it's impossible to tell what happens as you approach infinity. So it's impossible to tell WITHIN THE SYSTEM* if the statement is true or false. Therefore we don't know what to do with it. No matter what we do (print it or not), we will either fill the incomplete criteria or the inconsistent criteria of Gödel. So we could add a new axiom. But this process would repeat forever.
* Note that the big thing that Gödel said implied that systems that can prove their completeness (or consistency) from within themselves are by definition incomplete (or inconsistent). It's possible to prove one way or another from outside that system (inside of a more powerful formal system)...
Well, it's possible to travel supersonic with a minimal or even no sonic boom (I remember someone came out with a design for a boom-less Learjet recently). IF they can do that reliably, perhaps the countries will open up their airspace to it... Or perhaps it's a losing battle. Either way, some good science should result from it (What NASA is ultimately, a science organization. It's not Airbus)...
Linux software RAID 5 is faster than a dedicated parity processor on a hardware card? Maybe in pure benchmarks, but try comparing the speed when CPU utilization from other tasks is non-trivial... As for interoperable and standardized, I can agree with both of them...
The computer can still solve any problem you give it. It just won't execute it's own automatic suicide code.
I'd suggest reading the book. He tackles this problem quite easily. There are an infinite number of possible "suicide codes". And due to the incompleteness theorem (among others), the computer cannot possibly know OR FIGURE OUT if a particular code is bad. Besides, it's impossible for a computer to know 100% of the outcomes without actually executing the code (see: Halting Problem). So no, it cannot just "not execute" any potentially harmful code without not executing code you want it to run (Because it cannot tell if a piece of code is harmful until it executes it). So either it's useless, or it's vulnerable. It's one or the other.
There are zero real-world implications of this "thinking" exercise, regardless or which end you look at it from, any conclusions you draw, etc.
Sure there are. One of which is that it's literally impossible to build a 100% secure system. There will always be a method of attack that the computer cannot detect simply based on the fact that it's looking for malicious code (What if the authorized user is malicious. How is the computer supposed to distinguish that?). Another implication is that there's always a trade-off between security and usability. Either you make the computer so weak that it cannot possibly run something malicious (and thereby making it all but useless), or you encumber the UI to the point that it requires the user to confirm everything (it's typically a combination of them).
Not this. I don't want my single 4TB drive being split in half then recombined in Windows! I want a solid 4TB.. The more places the data is manipulated, the more places a fault can exist. I want to be able to pull the drive out and stick it in another computer without worrying about what hardware is needed unless the benefits exceed the complexity addition (a hardware RAID will be tied to the hardware, but you get massive speed increases). With this "multiplier", what do you gain? Nothing. So why not fix the problem rather than putting a band-aid on a gunshot wound...
Slashdot Mirror
A typical 1 U server (2 processor 4 cores each) can consume between 300 and 500 watts. So 42 of them (the number in a rack) would give 336 cores at between 12kw and 21kw. As a rough number for reasonable performance servers, 300 to 500 watts per U is about what you'll find. Sure, you can find more powerful and less powerful servers, but that's a decent figure...
The thing you have to realize, is that none of them is thriving in the way that iPhone and Android are (for what I mentioned in my OP, an "App Store" centric OS).
So the fact that you have two platforms --one that's notorious for exerting arbitrary and inconsistent control and another that's known for being 100% open-- really is about as on topic as you can get. The fact that Android is thriving is proof that people don't need (And that at least a fair number of them don't want) that kind of control pushed upon them. It's not a "Apple sucks and Android rules" fanboi statement. It's a simple statement that a platform can survive (and thrive) in a realm without censorship and control (and that corporations can be publishers and yet still be responsible and open about it).
The way the summary (and TFA) is written, it makes it sound like this is a universal problem for all corporations that get into publishing (that they have to walk a fine line between "protecting the users" and limiting censorship). But I think the fact that there is at least one corporation thriving in the industry that doesn't partake in those practices says a heck of a lot (and hence isn't flamebait or offtopic)...
Well, I don't think that would work. That's like saying that rape is allowed because of a lack of a chastity belt. Just because there are not security methods in place doesn't mean that you're authorized.
If their definition of access did not require inbound communication to the network, then that's a can of worms. You could argue that ALL electronic devices would then be illegal access to a computer network. Turn on your radio. It'll receive the WIFI signal on its antenna (Sure, it'll never get past the tuner, but that's besides the point, it still "received" the signal). Where's the line?
Well, that's good and fair. Except that Google never accessed any computer/system or network. Access requires two way communication. All they did was listen to broadcast data. There's nothing illegal about that (so 1(1) is out). And they did not deny (or cause denial) any services to anyone, so 1(2) is out. So I fail to see how that's applicable here...
It's most definitely NOT illegal anywhere in the USA. They collected data (note, they did not "access", that would be illegal) that was broadcasted unencrypted over public frequencies from public property. By the FCC's rules, you can receive any unencrypted data that you want (It's another story to transmit, which again would classify as access)... So no, nobody should go to jail, because nobody did anything illegal. Was it morally wrong? More than likely. Was it stupid? More than likely. Does that make it a jailable offense? No.
Not true. US Anti-Trust laws don't require a monopoly to be enforced. All they require is anti-competitive behavior (And enough market share to raise their attention/cause potential damage)... That's why it's called anti-competitive behavior, not monopolistic behavior...
Perhaps Apple sees the inquiry coming and knows they'll have to give up something to appease the DOJ and FTC. So they are purposely coming out with over the top rules.
It's a win-win for them. If they govt doesn't like it, they can take away the fluff, and Apple still will have what they wanted all along. If the govt decides it's ok, they have their cake and can eat it as well...
It's kind of like if you wanted a 10% raise. You then ask for 20%. If you get 20%, GREAT. If not, you can negotiate down from there, but since the bar is higher, 10% seems like a good deal (you're happy, because you got what you wanted, and they are happy because they "negotiated a fair compromise")_...
I've always understood (I know the "definition", but it seems like a lot of people use mine) a Zero-Day as an attack that requires no action by the victim. So a flaw in Apache that allowed a remote user to execute code with a malformed HTTP request would by very definition be a Zero-Day. I know that's not the "official" definition, but based on what a lot of people call a Zero-Day, it seems that I'm not the only one with that idea...
It's all in the shot. My old G1 took pretty decent photos IF there was PLENTY of ambient light (basically in direct sunlight). Pictures taken on a cloudy day looked like crap (very hazy). I don't care what the best possible image the phone can take is. I care about day to day use. How well does it do in non-ideal conditions (Something that Jobs is very unlikely to show during a keynote). That's why I am reserving judgment until reviews start coming in...
One thing that the past has taught us, is that resolution != quality. Sure, it can shoot 720, but without a decent lens or good sensor, most of those pixels will be just noise anyway. I'm not saying that it's bad, I'm just saying that just because it's 5mp and 720 doesn't mean that it'll give better quality than a 1mp and 320 x 240... It's one of those things that we'll have to wait for the reviews to see...
Wow, those are conservative odds as well. I would have put it somewhere around G to 1...
Kind of reminds me of:
640K ought to be enough for anybody.
(Bill Gates, 1981)
Sure there is. Revenue. With cities, counties and states (not to mention the FED) going or getting dam near bankrupt, this sounds like an ingenious method of getting added $$$.
I wish that was sarcasm...
Yes, but only after years of legal battles. They'll need the first court to overturn the patent before they would be able to go back after them for damages. That's the problem here... Patents are being blindly issued, only looking to see if it was patented before. Then, it's up to the courts to determine the validity of the patent... That's horrible for the little guy, who chances are doesn't have the money to pay for the legal fees. So the only people the current patent system helps, are the big companies and the courts.
That should have been "not click links from non-reputable sources"... Dam lack of an edit button...
It's indeed a very good thing. When coupled with Preemptive security. To give an example in a "traditional" realm, Preemptive security would be locking your doors when you leave the house (and setting an alarm/installing bars on windows, etc). Reactive security would be having the police come to your house with guns drawn because someone is inside (and then later figuring out how they got in and closing that hole). Neither on their own would be sufficient to feel secure (or protect anything worth protecting). But when you combine them, you have a very effective security system (that's used by the entire world).
If you ask a normal (non-geek) person if they would leave their house unlocked during the day in a bad neighborhood, what do you think they'd say? But if you ask them to not click links from reputable sources (or those that look suspicious), they look at you like you're crazy. THAT's the problem with preemptive security today. Not that it's hard or costly, but that the normal users are not convinced that they should care at all...
First off, they are launching (Logitech) a set top box along side the Sony TV.
Secondly, I'd suggest actually looking into it. It looks quite powerful and packs a lot more than I think you're giving credit for. It's not just a browser on the TV... Check this out: http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/20/live-from-the-google-i-o-2010-day-2-keynote/
Famous last words...
Actually, no. What they said was that they would support EMBEDDING of any format using the <embed> or <object> tags. The <video> tag was going to be H.264 only (no matter what you had installed on your machine).
So that implies the question, did they mean "support" by means of the embedding, or support by means of the <video> tag...
Actually, it's proven that there are an infinite number of them. Here's how it works. Let's call the language introduced in the GP post "SPL" (Statement Printing Language). So, we know that NRP*NRP* is the problem statement in that language. So let's add an axiom to SPL and call it SPL2. Here's the axiom:
So now SPL2 is complete and consistent, right? Wrong. There'll always be another phrase you could write. What about "NPR*NPR*NPR*"? On the surface, it doesn't look that bad (since it isn't self reference). But let's expand it out a few generations:
As we can see, it's an infinite recursion. Now, from WITHIN the system, it's impossible to tell what happens as you approach infinity. So it's impossible to tell WITHIN THE SYSTEM* if the statement is true or false. Therefore we don't know what to do with it. No matter what we do (print it or not), we will either fill the incomplete criteria or the inconsistent criteria of Gödel. So we could add a new axiom. But this process would repeat forever.
* Note that the big thing that Gödel said implied that systems that can prove their completeness (or consistency) from within themselves are by definition incomplete (or inconsistent). It's possible to prove one way or another from outside that system (inside of a more powerful formal system)...
Well, it's possible to travel supersonic with a minimal or even no sonic boom (I remember someone came out with a design for a boom-less Learjet recently). IF they can do that reliably, perhaps the countries will open up their airspace to it... Or perhaps it's a losing battle. Either way, some good science should result from it (What NASA is ultimately, a science organization. It's not Airbus)...
Linux software RAID 5 is faster than a dedicated parity processor on a hardware card? Maybe in pure benchmarks, but try comparing the speed when CPU utilization from other tasks is non-trivial... As for interoperable and standardized, I can agree with both of them...
I'd suggest reading the book. He tackles this problem quite easily. There are an infinite number of possible "suicide codes". And due to the incompleteness theorem (among others), the computer cannot possibly know OR FIGURE OUT if a particular code is bad. Besides, it's impossible for a computer to know 100% of the outcomes without actually executing the code (see: Halting Problem). So no, it cannot just "not execute" any potentially harmful code without not executing code you want it to run (Because it cannot tell if a piece of code is harmful until it executes it). So either it's useless, or it's vulnerable. It's one or the other.
Sure there are. One of which is that it's literally impossible to build a 100% secure system. There will always be a method of attack that the computer cannot detect simply based on the fact that it's looking for malicious code (What if the authorized user is malicious. How is the computer supposed to distinguish that?). Another implication is that there's always a trade-off between security and usability. Either you make the computer so weak that it cannot possibly run something malicious (and thereby making it all but useless), or you encumber the UI to the point that it requires the user to confirm everything (it's typically a combination of them).
Not this. I don't want my single 4TB drive being split in half then recombined in Windows! I want a solid 4TB.. The more places the data is manipulated, the more places a fault can exist. I want to be able to pull the drive out and stick it in another computer without worrying about what hardware is needed unless the benefits exceed the complexity addition (a hardware RAID will be tied to the hardware, but you get massive speed increases). With this "multiplier", what do you gain? Nothing. So why not fix the problem rather than putting a band-aid on a gunshot wound...