CDMA uses 1/3 to 1/10th the power of GSM, all the while having better range, more resilient to interference, signal bouncing can actually improve signal strength, tower hand-off rarely results in dropped calls, and supports more customers per tower by several factors. oh, and they're easier to setup because they all use the same frequency, so you don't have to check with any other tower operators.
I guess GSM is cheaper to implement.. so it's clearly better.
Good point. Forgotten "costs" like toxic crap. Curious how the over all system compares for toxic materials. I would assume it's better, and possibly by quite a bit just because of the batteries, but by how much.
The real question is if it is more efficient than just charging a better with a solar panel. Since that Hydrogen is just a storage medium for "energy".
Every time lights go out in my city, everyone just treats them like stop signs.
A few months back, the busiest intersection in town had all of its lights suddenly turn green while I was at it. No accidents during the time I was there. I was at the back of the line, so it was a few minutes.
Effectively, it turned into a round-robin right-of-way. There were multiple lanes, so several cars were able to go at the same time, but no were near as many as when the lights worked properly. Some times cars would "burst" in groups. So 3-4 would turn at the same time, then the 5th person just waited to let the strait lane go. etc etc.
When you buy a stationary batter pack, that's all you get. When you purchase a Prius/Leaf/etc, you get a car *and* a battery pack. Thus it is more cost effective.
Personally, I think it would be easier to sell a $30k hybrid car with a battery pack in it than a $5k battery pack on its own.
Just because it's not "best', but doesn't it won't help.
Take a breath and say it with me.. "They are not stealing my electricity, they are willing to pay me for access to my batteries and I have complete control on when and how they access my batteries, if I even allow it"
The real question, can you make an actual profit once you include battery wear/tear. We'll have to wait a few years to see what kind of batteries we have then and run the math.
If this actually works out, I would be tempted to purchase a large battery bank for my home. The batteries can help cover their own costs by doing what they want your car to do. And if the power goes out, I still have a large battery back-up to run my house.
YOU control when and how your car gets charged. Make your own custom settings and schedule. The main thing is you get paid for this. The more you do it, the more you make.
I'm sorry, Win8 SP1 won't run on your 2011 machine because you didn't get one that supported Secure Boot.. riiiggghhhttt... And Ford is going to make all cars require premium gasoline once it becomes widely available, so oil companies can make more money... ohhh wait.. premium already is everywhere.
Is it just me, or are conspiracy theories more fun the less you know about something?
Hi.. I'm Dell... I'm going to f*ck over all of my Linux customers. I plan on losing lots of business because I'm f'n retarded and I'm not going to support managing certs
Hi.. I'm Dell... I'm going to f*ck over all of my enterprise customers. I plan on making it so they can't use custom boot disks anymore. I plan on losing lots of business because I'm f'n retarded and I'm not going to support managing certs
Hi.. I'm a custom motherboad manufacturer... I'm going to f*ck over enthusiast costumers who make up most of my sales by not allowing managed certs.
So... Tell me ohhh wise one. With this multi-billion dollar market moving away from OEMs because they're too stupid to allow managing certs, do you think someone is going to step in and grab all of that money?
If you ever worked in Enterprise-IT/Datacenter, you would know that custom boots are important. But nope. You seem to have no experience with how the world works or are willfully ignorant about how common Linux is.
tens of billions of dollars would have to be spent by enterprise companies if OEMs dropped custom kernel Linux support... This idea is borderline insane.
My biggest issue is trying to find a router can that run DD-WRT/Tomato/etc, is trying to find a router that can handle 400mpbs+ of WAN LAN Performance.
Are there any high performance routers that support open source?
"Huh? I think you missed the part where the PC will not recognize anything you create but only keys assigned to it at manufacture. Right now those keys will only allow Win 8 unless the OEM decides otherwise."
I think you missed the part where you CAN CREATE AND IMPORT YOUR OWN KEYS. Secure boot is an industry standard and has been around for a while
"If you read the article you would realize you missed the point."
Yay, you read the article.. did you read the article that the article linked to as "proof"? First off the primary article says "Required for Windows 8 client", which isn't true already. So yay.. misinformed from the get-go. That author doesn't know the difference between "Windows Logo" and "Windows Client".
Also, the article seems to entirely hinge on "Windows-8-logo-qualified OEMs could add an off switch to secure boot without penalty, But the company never came straight out and said so". It keep going back to that being like "Why won't MS say for sure? They're hiding something! RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!" Well, Microsoft recently has some out and said exactly this. OEMs only require the feature to be default on, but can be disabled.
"Huh? Current malware can still take advantage of exploits, they just won't be able to install themselves in the hardware boot sequence. Or do you believe Win 8 and all applications will be bullet proof from now on? It will eliminate one avenue of infection, nothing more."
It is optional, but you can force Windows to only allow signed executables and DLLs to be loaded. You can create your own keys and sign any executable you download and while-list that key. This way IT can only allow white-listed programs/DLLs to run.
If the entire boot sequence is secure and Windows won't run any app/dll unless it's signed and toss in DEP, how do you expect malware to take over in a permanent way?
Do you realize that quite a few customer machines from quite a few of the large OEMs have supported UEFI+SecureBoot for the past 3 years? Why do you think this will change once MS mandates this feature to be standard?
There is a lot of stuff that "could" happen, but I see no logical argument saying that there is a conspiracy. If there is a conspiracy, I see more anti-trust fun in the near future.
I did a bit of googling and found a list of motherboards, tablets, laptops, netbooks, servers, and desktop computers from companies such as, Intel, Dell, IBM, Toshiba, and HP, that have UEFI and Secure boot since 2008.....
UEFI + Secure Boot has been around for 3+ years already. Microsoft is finally making use of this "old" standard, and for some reason, people will suddenly not be able to use their computers? No one has actively advertised this feature as no OS currently implements it, but it is part of the standard.
That's still an OEM issue, not an MS issue. I do understand the possible problem, but it would be *more work* and would piss off the users if OEMs didn't include this functionality. IT would require it and servers would require it. OEMs would have to have separate UEFI for corp models vs non-corp models. That would cost money.
So not only would not including cert management cost OEMs money, it would cost them business. Someone else would come along and allow cert management. Then more and more users would switch to that OEM and the other OEM would lose customers.
It doesn't make business sense and doesn't make logical sense to not include cert management or *at least* the ability to disable secure boot.
There are a lot of things OEMs *could* do, but don't. I can't see the removal of cert management being one of them.
Personally, I think these petitions should be about getting an official confirmation from OEMs about cert management, not MS removing this useful security feature.
In other news, users petition to have Firewalls disabled, Microsoft force all users to have admin privs, and the removal of passwords.
When interviewing these users they had these things to say: "I love malware, someone has to" and "Pressing F12 at boot and disabling secure boot is too much work, I would rather troll every forum on the internet to sign petitions"
If you want to stand up for the rights of malware and rootkit creators everywhere, please help support this cause. Because.. "Someone has to love them"
Signing off, Bengie
1) Certs can be managed if your OEM doesn't suck. eg. Sign your own custom Linux kernel if you want 2) Win8 doesn't require secure boot to work, it just requires secure boot to put the logo on the PC 3) Secure boot can be disabled, again assuming your OEM doesn't suck 4) IT would have a shit storm if they couldn't manage this 5) Server admins would have a shit storm if they couldn't manage this 6) Someone would lose a job at Dell/HP/Gateway/etc if the end user couldn't manage this 7) This effectively makes it impossible, with current malware, to ever take over a PC
I have yet to hear a logical argument against secure boot, just lots of emo and fud.
While rebellion against a government that is not for the people, is listed as both a right and a duty, just make sure it's more than just you. The difference between a crazy people and a rebellion is the difference between a few people and a small army.
Personally, I would love to see a Federal Judge outline what constitutes as a "formal" constitutionally supported rebellion.
1) Right to property has nothing to do with "commerce and travel" 2) Last I checked, driving a car on public roads was a privilege, not a right. 3) If it's a public place, they have just as much right to be there as you do, there's just a lot more of them
So which is it "Majority rules" or "Minority rules"? No matter which way you look at it, someone is going to lose their rights.
They already have working prototype batteries with 10x-100x the storage densities. Have fun charging them though. 100x the storage = 100 times longer to charge or 100x the power draw... or something in-between.
I hope to see these batteries soon.
I read an interview with IBM's lead researcher. They asked a question like: What important new tech can you see making huge changes in the next 5-10 years.
One of his answers: Batteries with 100x the storage. A few months later, some company announces working prototypes of a battery with 10x-100x the storage and can charge/discharge 10x faster.
Vista Beta: ~550MB memory used on boot ~50 services - more functionality than XP Win7 SP0: ~450MB memory used on boot ~40 services - more functionality than Vista Win7 SP1: ~380MB memory used on boot ~35 services - more functionality than SP0 Win8 Dev Preview: ~180MB memory used on boot ~30 services - more functionality than Win SP1
MS is currently gutting the old API and have made huge strides to reduce resources consumed. Each release uses less memory with fewer services, while providing more features and functionality
"Windows Vista, which apparently was specifically designed to be awful" I get the same feeling
From what I've read for other articles from many other sources, the general consensus isn't that desktop sales are declining, they're just not growing like they use to. Most people only need 1-2 desktops for the whole family. Tablets/Netbooks/Smart-phones on the other hand, you can have quite a few per family. Lots of growth potential.
Slashdot Mirror
"None of that matters if you like to travel."
That right there is probably the main reason for GSM being "better". I forgot to include that along with the "cheaper" part.
I have a feeling graphene is going to do for us what plastic did.
lawl.. GSM better than CMDA...
CDMA uses 1/3 to 1/10th the power of GSM, all the while having better range, more resilient to interference, signal bouncing can actually improve signal strength, tower hand-off rarely results in dropped calls, and supports more customers per tower by several factors. oh, and they're easier to setup because they all use the same frequency, so you don't have to check with any other tower operators.
I guess GSM is cheaper to implement.. so it's clearly better.
"it's nearly impossible to have 100 unique 16 x 16 pixel icons"
ehhh?
16*16 = 256 pixels
say 16 main distinct colors 256^16 = 3.4E38 unique 16 x 16 pixel icons at 4 bit color.
Just for S&Gs, 24bit color. 256^16,777,216 = error... calc won't do it. Anyway, more atoms than the universe has, by thousands of magnitudes.
Nah, I didn't really think it through, but it sounds nice to me :P
I bet it would be more good than bad.
" the court here awarded $1,000 (one thousand dollars) for breach of the Century 21 website's Terms of Use"
We need an "Internet Terms of Use". "Anything on the internet that was meant to be accessible by the public is automatically public domain.
Good point. Forgotten "costs" like toxic crap. Curious how the over all system compares for toxic materials. I would assume it's better, and possibly by quite a bit just because of the batteries, but by how much.
The real question is if it is more efficient than just charging a better with a solar panel. Since that Hydrogen is just a storage medium for "energy".
Every time lights go out in my city, everyone just treats them like stop signs.
A few months back, the busiest intersection in town had all of its lights suddenly turn green while I was at it. No accidents during the time I was there. I was at the back of the line, so it was a few minutes.
Effectively, it turned into a round-robin right-of-way. There were multiple lanes, so several cars were able to go at the same time, but no were near as many as when the lights worked properly. Some times cars would "burst" in groups. So 3-4 would turn at the same time, then the 5th person just waited to let the strait lane go. etc etc.
When you buy a stationary batter pack, that's all you get. When you purchase a Prius/Leaf/etc, you get a car *and* a battery pack. Thus it is more cost effective.
Personally, I think it would be easier to sell a $30k hybrid car with a battery pack in it than a $5k battery pack on its own.
Just because it's not "best', but doesn't it won't help.
That's why it's "optional"..
Take a breath and say it with me.. "They are not stealing my electricity, they are willing to pay me for access to my batteries and I have complete control on when and how they access my batteries, if I even allow it"
The real question, can you make an actual profit once you include battery wear/tear. We'll have to wait a few years to see what kind of batteries we have then and run the math.
If this actually works out, I would be tempted to purchase a large battery bank for my home. The batteries can help cover their own costs by doing what they want your car to do. And if the power goes out, I still have a large battery back-up to run my house.
It's not a question of what's best, but a question of what's most cost effective
This whole idea is to be 'optional'.
YOU control when and how your car gets charged. Make your own custom settings and schedule. The main thing is you get paid for this. The more you do it, the more you make.
But again, optional.
I'm sorry, Win8 SP1 won't run on your 2011 machine because you didn't get one that supported Secure Boot.. riiiggghhhttt... And Ford is going to make all cars require premium gasoline once it becomes widely available, so oil companies can make more money... ohhh wait.. premium already is everywhere.
Is it just me, or are conspiracy theories more fun the less you know about something?
Hi.. I'm Dell... I'm going to f*ck over all of my Linux customers. I plan on losing lots of business because I'm f'n retarded and I'm not going to support managing certs
Hi.. I'm Dell... I'm going to f*ck over all of my enterprise customers. I plan on making it so they can't use custom boot disks anymore. I plan on losing lots of business because I'm f'n retarded and I'm not going to support managing certs
Hi.. I'm a custom motherboad manufacturer... I'm going to f*ck over enthusiast costumers who make up most of my sales by not allowing managed certs.
So... Tell me ohhh wise one. With this multi-billion dollar market moving away from OEMs because they're too stupid to allow managing certs, do you think someone is going to step in and grab all of that money?
If you ever worked in Enterprise-IT/Datacenter, you would know that custom boots are important. But nope. You seem to have no experience with how the world works or are willfully ignorant about how common Linux is.
tens of billions of dollars would have to be spent by enterprise companies if OEMs dropped custom kernel Linux support... This idea is borderline insane.
My biggest issue is trying to find a router can that run DD-WRT/Tomato/etc, is trying to find a router that can handle 400mpbs+ of WAN LAN Performance.
Are there any high performance routers that support open source?
"Huh? I think you missed the part where the PC will not recognize anything you create but only keys assigned to it at manufacture. Right now those keys will only allow Win 8 unless the OEM decides otherwise."
I think you missed the part where you CAN CREATE AND IMPORT YOUR OWN KEYS. Secure boot is an industry standard and has been around for a while
"If you read the article you would realize you missed the point."
Yay, you read the article.. did you read the article that the article linked to as "proof"? First off the primary article says "Required for Windows 8 client", which isn't true already. So yay.. misinformed from the get-go. That author doesn't know the difference between "Windows Logo" and "Windows Client".
Also, the article seems to entirely hinge on "Windows-8-logo-qualified OEMs could add an off switch to secure boot without penalty, But the company never came straight out and said so". It keep going back to that being like "Why won't MS say for sure? They're hiding something! RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!" Well, Microsoft recently has some out and said exactly this. OEMs only require the feature to be default on, but can be disabled.
"Huh? Current malware can still take advantage of exploits, they just won't be able to install themselves in the hardware boot sequence. Or do you believe Win 8 and all applications will be bullet proof from now on? It will eliminate one avenue of infection, nothing more."
It is optional, but you can force Windows to only allow signed executables and DLLs to be loaded. You can create your own keys and sign any executable you download and while-list that key. This way IT can only allow white-listed programs/DLLs to run.
If the entire boot sequence is secure and Windows won't run any app/dll unless it's signed and toss in DEP, how do you expect malware to take over in a permanent way?
Do you realize that quite a few customer machines from quite a few of the large OEMs have supported UEFI+SecureBoot for the past 3 years? Why do you think this will change once MS mandates this feature to be standard?
There is a lot of stuff that "could" happen, but I see no logical argument saying that there is a conspiracy. If there is a conspiracy, I see more anti-trust fun in the near future.
I did a bit of googling and found a list of motherboards, tablets, laptops, netbooks, servers, and desktop computers from companies such as, Intel, Dell, IBM, Toshiba, and HP, that have UEFI and Secure boot since 2008.....
UEFI + Secure Boot has been around for 3+ years already. Microsoft is finally making use of this "old" standard, and for some reason, people will suddenly not be able to use their computers? No one has actively advertised this feature as no OS currently implements it, but it is part of the standard.
Again.. FUD
Yeah, they have a weird definition of "dying". My kid is dying, but really you mean, my kid isn't growing any more. aka "is Mature"
That's still an OEM issue, not an MS issue. I do understand the possible problem, but it would be *more work* and would piss off the users if OEMs didn't include this functionality. IT would require it and servers would require it. OEMs would have to have separate UEFI for corp models vs non-corp models. That would cost money.
So not only would not including cert management cost OEMs money, it would cost them business. Someone else would come along and allow cert management. Then more and more users would switch to that OEM and the other OEM would lose customers.
It doesn't make business sense and doesn't make logical sense to not include cert management or *at least* the ability to disable secure boot.
There are a lot of things OEMs *could* do, but don't. I can't see the removal of cert management being one of them.
Personally, I think these petitions should be about getting an official confirmation from OEMs about cert management, not MS removing this useful security feature.
In other news, users petition to have Firewalls disabled, Microsoft force all users to have admin privs, and the removal of passwords.
When interviewing these users they had these things to say: "I love malware, someone has to" and "Pressing F12 at boot and disabling secure boot is too much work, I would rather troll every forum on the internet to sign petitions"
If you want to stand up for the rights of malware and rootkit creators everywhere, please help support this cause. Because.. "Someone has to love them"
Signing off, Bengie
1) Certs can be managed if your OEM doesn't suck. eg. Sign your own custom Linux kernel if you want
2) Win8 doesn't require secure boot to work, it just requires secure boot to put the logo on the PC
3) Secure boot can be disabled, again assuming your OEM doesn't suck
4) IT would have a shit storm if they couldn't manage this
5) Server admins would have a shit storm if they couldn't manage this
6) Someone would lose a job at Dell/HP/Gateway/etc if the end user couldn't manage this
7) This effectively makes it impossible, with current malware, to ever take over a PC
I have yet to hear a logical argument against secure boot, just lots of emo and fud.
While rebellion against a government that is not for the people, is listed as both a right and a duty, just make sure it's more than just you. The difference between a crazy people and a rebellion is the difference between a few people and a small army.
Personally, I would love to see a Federal Judge outline what constitutes as a "formal" constitutionally supported rebellion.
1) Right to property has nothing to do with "commerce and travel"
2) Last I checked, driving a car on public roads was a privilege, not a right.
3) If it's a public place, they have just as much right to be there as you do, there's just a lot more of them
So which is it "Majority rules" or "Minority rules"? No matter which way you look at it, someone is going to lose their rights.
They already have working prototype batteries with 10x-100x the storage densities. Have fun charging them though. 100x the storage = 100 times longer to charge or 100x the power draw... or something in-between.
I hope to see these batteries soon.
I read an interview with IBM's lead researcher. They asked a question like: What important new tech can you see making huge changes in the next 5-10 years.
One of his answers: Batteries with 100x the storage. A few months later, some company announces working prototypes of a battery with 10x-100x the storage and can charge/discharge 10x faster.
Are you excited as I am?!
Vista Beta: ~550MB memory used on boot ~50 services - more functionality than XP
Win7 SP0: ~450MB memory used on boot ~40 services - more functionality than Vista
Win7 SP1: ~380MB memory used on boot ~35 services - more functionality than SP0
Win8 Dev Preview: ~180MB memory used on boot ~30 services - more functionality than Win SP1
MS is currently gutting the old API and have made huge strides to reduce resources consumed. Each release uses less memory with fewer services, while providing more features and functionality
"Windows Vista, which apparently was specifically designed to be awful" I get the same feeling
From what I've read for other articles from many other sources, the general consensus isn't that desktop sales are declining, they're just not growing like they use to. Most people only need 1-2 desktops for the whole family. Tablets/Netbooks/Smart-phones on the other hand, you can have quite a few per family. Lots of growth potential.