It's my understanding that Qualcomm purchase the engineers, equipment, and all the IP from ATI's handheld division.
The purchase of the IP would seem to preclude them from developing anything new for the mobile market in the near term.
Yeah, I was just pointing out what Intel was claiming. Even a 50x reduction in standby power from the 1.6W (see my second link) is still 32mW in standby. That's considerably higher that other offerings in the market place. Also, as you point out, this doesn't include the power used by the chipset. Intel has a ridiculous amount of catch-up to do, and they know it. Given Intel's track history with the market place, watch for underhanded dealings with the Smartbook/Netbook/MID/whatever manufacturers.
You also have to look at the packet header in the course of regular routing decisions. Would it really take more CPU to look at the packet header and drop it into/dev/null than it does to look at the packet header and send it out a different network interface?
That's not what really causes the extra CPU usage. It's the sheer volume of the packets you now have to handle. It's not as if these botnet computers are generating traffic like the would during a normal transaction. They're transmitting as fast as they can.
I'm American, and I'd like to say is thank you very much for the perspective you're giving. I'd known that the Japanese school system was "unique" by western standards, to say it's unique is an understatement.
The campus culture is just very, very different from that of a US university. The level of maturity and seriousness is much, much lower.
This, frankly, scares the shit out of me and I don't envy you your position. I received my degree 5 years ago now, and I remember what my school was like then. To think of the level of maturity and seriousness being lower is a difficult thing to think about.
Full disclosure: I was one of those who had a 4.0 for the first two years of college, before I realized it was hurting my chances of getting an internship (I kid you not, and it sort of makes sense...). It's not that I didn't have fun or make my share of stupid just-left-your-parents mistakes, but I wasn't one of those college party-until-you-can't-anymore types. They were usually the ones at my door begging for help when finals came around.
To think that Japanese schools at a similar level are worse is painful, especially since the uninformed (myself until this) generally hear the reverse is true.
Tell me I'm not the only one who's noticed that everything is permanently 5 years away. Unless the technology you're talking about is fusion - that's always 15-20 years away.
Apparently they think now might be a good time to start battening down the hatches. They don't want to make mistakes like they did with the iPhone. Who seriously leaves a JTAG enabled and on the board of a production phone?
I thought the real problem was creating the hydrogen in the first place. Not to mention the problem of compressing it to a point that it had a reasonable amount of energy per unit of volume.
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I was under the impression that current methods of producing hydrogen for fuel cells was only slightly more intelligent than producing ethanol from corn.
Seeing as my cash is earning interest for me, rather than debt on which you have to pay interest, I say that's the cheapest way to run a company.
The point is that there's a cost associated with spending money that you have in the bank. That money isn't earning any interest for you if you're spending it. If the debt is cheaper than the money you'd lose by spending your cash reserve, it makes good sense to borrow. Reread the post you're replying to, it's there.
Corporations with good credit can sell bonds at rates which are less than the return they're getting on their cash reserves at this point in time.
Rose-colored glasses. Back in those days, great sites were constantly disappearing just because the webmaster got sick of paying hosting fees.
And there was nothing remotely like a "service", i.e. a discussion or social networking site. Who would pay for it?
Rose colored glasses or not, I think you're taking a walk through the Emerald City.
I don't remember too many "great sites" that were "constantly disappearing".
I know I shouldn't, but I'm going to respond to your sweeping generalization with one of my own. The truly great sites received enough in donations to keep running.
There are many other dimensions of this issue. For instance, the software industry is well known for adding pointless complexity - features that nobody ever asked for.
I'm not denying this happens. I certainly know it does given what I do for a living.
The root of the problem isn't so much the the software industry, it's more the clients of the industry. No one really knows what they actually want. This problem isn't unique to only software either. It's very hard to create anything when what your client wants is a quickly moving and vague target. You end up with a lot of things someone thought they might want, and wouldn't buy without, only to find out later that they really didn't want that feature after all. It's always more work than anyone can do within the timelines given by the customer with the bloated feature set of what they may or may not actually want.
The corporations don't push back much, as it affect the bottom line. It's my opinion that the customer is always right mentality is a large part of the problem. The customer is usually wrong, especially when it comes to product requirements. Hell, it's not even the customer is always right now that I'm thinking about it. It's all about the money. The He who has the money makes the rules kind of thing. If people want better quality, they need to be realistic about cost, time, and feature sets. They rarely are.
They might as well say, "Can we upload your list of files so that we may sue you?" Call me paranoid, but I think the chances of these file lists getting shared with the industry along with identifying information is very high. All of my music is legit, but what's to stop them from just threatening me with a lawsuit because they don't think I've paid for all of it? Thanks Lala, but no thanks.
From TFA:(emphasis mine)
"The system also allows for the 'revoking' of ownership of digital media," Lala writes in the patent filing. "For example, if a user is known to have illegally shared a file, the copyright owner may choose to revoke their ownership of the digital media in the system, limiting the rights of such user to the media."
Known to whom? What's the burden of proof? Knowing the industry it'll be the burden that comes along with "because I said so". This is an underhanded attempt to control people. I plan on staying the hell away from this trash. The feature set looks attractive in a few ways, but it's just putting perfume on a skunk.
When asked about this, Lala's CEO was unapologetic.
"Is it controversial that a store has the right to terminate someone that steals from them?" Ralston asked.
No, it isn't. What's controversial is making that employee pay back all the money you've paid them over the years for their work.
In any case, it comes down to this post for me. Why should I "buy" from Lala if I don't actually own anything? Owning a "right" to do something isn't the same as actually owning it.
Thank you for staying away from the massive anti-MS bent on this site and sticking with the heart of the problem.
The title of this post is horribly misleading, but I suppose I shouldn't expect anything else where MS is concerned.
Let's make one thing clear to the peanut gallery, however. I'm not trying to absolve MS from any of the other crap they've pulled over the years. They definitely deserve quite a bit of scrutiny, but this is just ridiculous. Let's just come up with a completely misleading title, based on an obviously biased article which glosses over the pertinent information!
Yeah, I know. This is absolutely nothing new to/. but seems to be getting even more out of hand lately.
Anyways, enough ranting. To the "MS should just reverse engineer what OO.org does!" or the "They can just look at the source!" crowd: You're very funny, but if you think they can actually do either, you're kidding yourself. First, most corporations have strict rules against reverse engineering someone else's products. There are huge liability issues involved with doing that. They can't look/use the source either due to the license on it. The instant anyone mentions anything with the letters "GPL" in it (yes, I know the latest OO is under LGPLv3), corporate IP lawyers get twitchy. It's dangerous territory, and MS would have to be idiotic to risk their Office cash cow.
So already IN ONE SINGLE WEEK, Gas Powered Games and Stardock have lost 80% of the potential revenue of the game and had its reputation tarnished by the freeloaders because of the server load issue.
This is exactly the same garbage that the **AA spouts. They didn't lose anything. Your assertion is that all of those pirated copies were lost sales, and I'd challenge you to prove that most pirates would actually buy said items if they couldn't pirate them.
Only the part about "having its reputation tarnished" has any merit at all, and even Stardock admits that problem was their fault. RTFA.
Super idea. Lets all give up nukes, and go back to the days when war between major powers is again thinkable.
And slaughter millions upon millions in the process.
If you think nuclear weapons are so good, why shouldn't everyone have them?
Besides, I don't think nuclear weapons make a war unthinkable - you're going to slaughter millions upon millions with or without nukes if you start a world war, it makes very little difference.
It makes a huge difference, don't be so quick to toss it aside. I know it serves your interest, but think about it for a moment. Read up on mutually assured destruction. Attacking some neighboring country is a lot harder to do when it means your annihilation in the progress. I don't think you truly fathom just how horrible a real nuclear contest would actually be.
At the moment, there's nothing stopping nuclear nations warring with the non-nuclear nations (and the likes of Iraq has proved that they are happy to do that) - why wouldn't a non-nuclear nation want nukes when faced with this? There are only 2 ways you're going to convince other nations that they don't need nukes:
1. Disarm yourself so that you are no longer capable of oppressing them, so they don't feel the need to be able to defend themselves from you.
2. Conquer them.
The US has shown that their preferred option is (2). Unfortunately, when you start conquering other nations, the ones who are left suddenly realise that they *really* do need to be able to defend themselves.
To be blunt, you're seriously deluded if you think disarmament would have the desired effect. There will always be some nation or group that will use that as an opening to decide to attack you. To think otherwise is pure naivete. Honestly, what makes you think that nuclear nations disarming would keep non-nuclear nations from still trying to develop nukes? They're already well aware of the amount of "respect" nuclear weapons gets you. At that point, you've disarmed, so you have very little deterrent at all.
An interesting point, anything can lead to violence if the person is pre-disposed to violence. Trying to limit violence in this way will likely just make people find another reason.
Exactly. The problem, at it's root, is that it's very easy to break down groups into "us" or "them". After that point, it's fairly easy to demonize "them" to the point of some fanatic's definition of "justifiable violence". The problem isn't so much religions themselves, it's that they provide a *very* easy basis to make "us" versus "them" situations.
If it isn't a religion based conflict, it'll be something else; My village versus their village, my country versus their country, we wear red sashes and they wear blue.
The problem is humanity in general. As I like to say, "I like us as individuals, but I can't stand humanity."
* Tag editing or even reading failures when approaching the 256MB limit because software will try to put each ID3v2 frame in a single memory block and allocating a single block of such size is likely to fail in 32-bit address space because of fragmentation issues.
While I 100% agree with everything else you've said, I do have one nitpick about this one. For any operating system using a virtual address space (any modern operating system), this isn't an issue in the slightest. The memory given to a program or process can appear to be a single block to the process, but not have to be physically contiguous thanks to MMU magic. While physically contiguous memory is preferred for a number of reasons (namely heap efficiency and speed) it isn't required.
Posted by kdawson on Sunday March 15, @12:53AM
from the bandwidth-available-but-not-to-you dept.
The bolded portion should tell you why this "article" is complete crap. Check kdawson's article history. It's filled with unsubstantiated or deliberately misleading stuff like this.
Are you telling me Obama's administration is as corrupt as any other...
Not quite?
If it were, we wouldn't be finding out about this corruption until two years into their term, just like any other democrat. (Republicans don't get exposed until after they leave office, or piss off too many constituents.)
So yes, this IS a very big change from the way things used to be.
The only completely inexplicable "change" here is that people don't really seem to care about the obvious amount of corruption and just plain incompetence going around. How many of his cabinet picks inexplicably can't fill out their taxes properly? I don't know about you, but it doesn't give me any confidence when the treasury secretary can't even do his taxes right. This is the guy we're trusting to fix the banking mess?
While it's nice to see this stuff doesn't come out years after it happens (Oh wait, most of the tax problems were years old, and only corrected a short time before confirmations. Hell, Daschle knew about his tax problems early last year but didn't come clean until he was tapped for the cabinet.), but that doesn't give them the pass on screwing up that they're getting.
No matter the race, creed, or political party, they're dirty. The only change we're getting is how this crap is presented.
Slashdot Mirror
It's my understanding that Qualcomm purchase the engineers, equipment, and all the IP from ATI's handheld division. The purchase of the IP would seem to preclude them from developing anything new for the mobile market in the near term.
Citation
Thank you for saying this. If I could mod this up now, I would. It seems that there's more than enough hypocrisy to go around.
Yeah, I was just pointing out what Intel was claiming. Even a 50x reduction in standby power from the 1.6W (see my second link) is still 32mW in standby. That's considerably higher that other offerings in the market place. Also, as you point out, this doesn't include the power used by the chipset. Intel has a ridiculous amount of catch-up to do, and they know it. Given Intel's track history with the market place, watch for underhanded dealings with the Smartbook/Netbook/MID/whatever manufacturers.
TFA has it here and here as a 50x reduction.
After looking at their numbers, it's clear that BSA doesn't stand for "Business Software"...
That's not what really causes the extra CPU usage. It's the sheer volume of the packets you now have to handle. It's not as if these botnet computers are generating traffic like the would during a normal transaction. They're transmitting as fast as they can.
One thing to note about Bitpim: "BitPim is a program that allows you to view and manipulate data on many CDMA phones"
They glossed over quite a bit. I was hoping to hear more in depth hardware specs than hardware features.
Guess I'll have to wait for the tear-down reports in two weeks...
You already do - check your receipts.
Take a look at the "win under the cap" soda pop promotions, where you can win a free one. You're still liable for the sales tax on it.
This, frankly, scares the shit out of me and I don't envy you your position. I received my degree 5 years ago now, and I remember what my school was like then. To think of the level of maturity and seriousness being lower is a difficult thing to think about.
Full disclosure: I was one of those who had a 4.0 for the first two years of college, before I realized it was hurting my chances of getting an internship (I kid you not, and it sort of makes sense...). It's not that I didn't have fun or make my share of stupid just-left-your-parents mistakes, but I wasn't one of those college party-until-you-can't-anymore types. They were usually the ones at my door begging for help when finals came around.
To think that Japanese schools at a similar level are worse is painful, especially since the uninformed (myself until this) generally hear the reverse is true.
Tell me I'm not the only one who's noticed that everything is permanently 5 years away. Unless the technology you're talking about is fusion - that's always 15-20 years away.
Apparently they think now might be a good time to start battening down the hatches. They don't want to make mistakes like they did with the iPhone. Who seriously leaves a JTAG enabled and on the board of a production phone?
I thought the real problem was creating the hydrogen in the first place. Not to mention the problem of compressing it to a point that it had a reasonable amount of energy per unit of volume.
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I was under the impression that current methods of producing hydrogen for fuel cells was only slightly more intelligent than producing ethanol from corn.
The point is that there's a cost associated with spending money that you have in the bank. That money isn't earning any interest for you if you're spending it. If the debt is cheaper than the money you'd lose by spending your cash reserve, it makes good sense to borrow. Reread the post you're replying to, it's there.
Corporations with good credit can sell bonds at rates which are less than the return they're getting on their cash reserves at this point in time.
Rose colored glasses or not, I think you're taking a walk through the Emerald City. I don't remember too many "great sites" that were "constantly disappearing".
I know I shouldn't, but I'm going to respond to your sweeping generalization with one of my own. The truly great sites received enough in donations to keep running.
I'm not denying this happens. I certainly know it does given what I do for a living.
The root of the problem isn't so much the the software industry, it's more the clients of the industry. No one really knows what they actually want. This problem isn't unique to only software either. It's very hard to create anything when what your client wants is a quickly moving and vague target. You end up with a lot of things someone thought they might want, and wouldn't buy without, only to find out later that they really didn't want that feature after all. It's always more work than anyone can do within the timelines given by the customer with the bloated feature set of what they may or may not actually want.
The corporations don't push back much, as it affect the bottom line. It's my opinion that the customer is always right mentality is a large part of the problem. The customer is usually wrong, especially when it comes to product requirements. Hell, it's not even the customer is always right now that I'm thinking about it. It's all about the money. The He who has the money makes the rules kind of thing. If people want better quality, they need to be realistic about cost, time, and feature sets. They rarely are.
The second option is great.
They might as well say, "Can we upload your list of files so that we may sue you?" Call me paranoid, but I think the chances of these file lists getting shared with the industry along with identifying information is very high. All of my music is legit, but what's to stop them from just threatening me with a lawsuit because they don't think I've paid for all of it? Thanks Lala, but no thanks.
From TFA:(emphasis mine)
Known to whom? What's the burden of proof? Knowing the industry it'll be the burden that comes along with "because I said so". This is an underhanded attempt to control people. I plan on staying the hell away from this trash. The feature set looks attractive in a few ways, but it's just putting perfume on a skunk.
No, it isn't. What's controversial is making that employee pay back all the money you've paid them over the years for their work.
In any case, it comes down to this post for me. Why should I "buy" from Lala if I don't actually own anything? Owning a "right" to do something isn't the same as actually owning it.
Thank you for staying away from the massive anti-MS bent on this site and sticking with the heart of the problem. The title of this post is horribly misleading, but I suppose I shouldn't expect anything else where MS is concerned.
Let's make one thing clear to the peanut gallery, however. I'm not trying to absolve MS from any of the other crap they've pulled over the years. They definitely deserve quite a bit of scrutiny, but this is just ridiculous. Let's just come up with a completely misleading title, based on an obviously biased article which glosses over the pertinent information!
Yeah, I know. This is absolutely nothing new to /. but seems to be getting even more out of hand lately.
Anyways, enough ranting. To the "MS should just reverse engineer what OO.org does!" or the "They can just look at the source!" crowd: You're very funny, but if you think they can actually do either, you're kidding yourself. First, most corporations have strict rules against reverse engineering someone else's products. There are huge liability issues involved with doing that. They can't look/use the source either due to the license on it. The instant anyone mentions anything with the letters "GPL" in it (yes, I know the latest OO is under LGPLv3), corporate IP lawyers get twitchy. It's dangerous territory, and MS would have to be idiotic to risk their Office cash cow.
Have they actually done so? The only ODF plug-in I see for Office is from Sun. http://www.sun.com/software/star/odf_plugin/
So already IN ONE SINGLE WEEK, Gas Powered Games and Stardock have lost 80% of the potential revenue of the game and had its reputation tarnished by the freeloaders because of the server load issue.
This is exactly the same garbage that the **AA spouts. They didn't lose anything. Your assertion is that all of those pirated copies were lost sales, and I'd challenge you to prove that most pirates would actually buy said items if they couldn't pirate them.
Only the part about "having its reputation tarnished" has any merit at all, and even Stardock admits that problem was their fault. RTFA.
Super idea. Lets all give up nukes, and go back to the days when war between major powers is again thinkable.
And slaughter millions upon millions in the process.
If you think nuclear weapons are so good, why shouldn't everyone have them?
Besides, I don't think nuclear weapons make a war unthinkable - you're going to slaughter millions upon millions with or without nukes if you start a world war, it makes very little difference.
It makes a huge difference, don't be so quick to toss it aside. I know it serves your interest, but think about it for a moment. Read up on mutually assured destruction. Attacking some neighboring country is a lot harder to do when it means your annihilation in the progress. I don't think you truly fathom just how horrible a real nuclear contest would actually be.
At the moment, there's nothing stopping nuclear nations warring with the non-nuclear nations (and the likes of Iraq has proved that they are happy to do that) - why wouldn't a non-nuclear nation want nukes when faced with this? There are only 2 ways you're going to convince other nations that they don't need nukes:
1. Disarm yourself so that you are no longer capable of oppressing them, so they don't feel the need to be able to defend themselves from you. 2. Conquer them.
The US has shown that their preferred option is (2). Unfortunately, when you start conquering other nations, the ones who are left suddenly realise that they *really* do need to be able to defend themselves.
To be blunt, you're seriously deluded if you think disarmament would have the desired effect. There will always be some nation or group that will use that as an opening to decide to attack you. To think otherwise is pure naivete. Honestly, what makes you think that nuclear nations disarming would keep non-nuclear nations from still trying to develop nukes? They're already well aware of the amount of "respect" nuclear weapons gets you. At that point, you've disarmed, so you have very little deterrent at all.
An interesting point, anything can lead to violence if the person is pre-disposed to violence. Trying to limit violence in this way will likely just make people find another reason.
Exactly. The problem, at it's root, is that it's very easy to break down groups into "us" or "them". After that point, it's fairly easy to demonize "them" to the point of some fanatic's definition of "justifiable violence". The problem isn't so much religions themselves, it's that they provide a *very* easy basis to make "us" versus "them" situations.
If it isn't a religion based conflict, it'll be something else; My village versus their village, my country versus their country, we wear red sashes and they wear blue.
The problem is humanity in general. As I like to say, "I like us as individuals, but I can't stand humanity."
* Tag editing or even reading failures when approaching the 256MB limit because software will try to put each ID3v2 frame in a single memory block and allocating a single block of such size is likely to fail in 32-bit address space because of fragmentation issues.
While I 100% agree with everything else you've said, I do have one nitpick about this one. For any operating system using a virtual address space (any modern operating system), this isn't an issue in the slightest. The memory given to a program or process can appear to be a single block to the process, but not have to be physically contiguous thanks to MMU magic. While physically contiguous memory is preferred for a number of reasons (namely heap efficiency and speed) it isn't required.
Posted by kdawson on Sunday March 15, @12:53AM from the bandwidth-available-but-not-to-you dept.
The bolded portion should tell you why this "article" is complete crap. Check kdawson's article history. It's filled with unsubstantiated or deliberately misleading stuff like this.
Are you telling me Obama's administration is as corrupt as any other...
Not quite?
If it were, we wouldn't be finding out about this corruption until two years into their term, just like any other democrat. (Republicans don't get exposed until after they leave office, or piss off too many constituents.)
So yes, this IS a very big change from the way things used to be.
The only completely inexplicable "change" here is that people don't really seem to care about the obvious amount of corruption and just plain incompetence going around. How many of his cabinet picks inexplicably can't fill out their taxes properly? I don't know about you, but it doesn't give me any confidence when the treasury secretary can't even do his taxes right. This is the guy we're trusting to fix the banking mess?
While it's nice to see this stuff doesn't come out years after it happens (Oh wait, most of the tax problems were years old, and only corrected a short time before confirmations. Hell, Daschle knew about his tax problems early last year but didn't come clean until he was tapped for the cabinet.), but that doesn't give them the pass on screwing up that they're getting.
No matter the race, creed, or political party, they're dirty. The only change we're getting is how this crap is presented.