Unless there is a straightforward way for the toolkits, i.e. Qt, gtk, etc. to use a single new protocol for "virtualized" displays they will have to maintain seperate implementations for Wayland and X11.
At least Qt already keeps separate graphics backends for Windows, Mac and Linux, a quick search suggests they already have Wayland mostly working as a backend.
I remember in `99 I compiled XFree86 at home and it took 3 days to compile. Later when I first heard about X.org people were saying, they are modernizing the code. And sure enough, I tried it and it compiled in just a few hours.
If I recall correctly one of the first orders of business for x.org was splitting it up into modules rather than one gigantic monolithic project. Compiling the whole stack was not significantly faster, so most likely you're comparing compiling the core server to compiling everything including the kitchen sink but it allowed developers to work more independently and spend less time waiting for compiles.
It goes the other way: unless you design for network transparency from day one, you're not going to get it and have it perform well. There's no way to decently get network transparency as a layer on top of the window system. VNC and RDP are horrible kludges and perform like crap.
Maybe with all the fancy animations and shadows and transparency and 3D effects it just *isn't* going to work well? I can't be arsed to look up the bandwidth or latency of the 16x PCIe connection to my graphics card but I'm pretty sure it's off the charts compared to my fairly speed fiber Internet connection. Seems to me that either HTML if you want a "generic" client or a thick client that only sends and retrieves the data you need beats trying to push pixels around. Yes it's convenient in that all your applications work remotely like they do locally but I can't for the life of me imagine that it's actually efficient.
x.org split off from XFree86 over licensing arguments, if I recall properly.
That was the breaking point but there was very much tension between XFree86's Core Team and the other developers over the development model. Both the developers and distros rapidly abandoned XFree86 so their first release under the new license was essentially already dead and buried. It was something of an eye opener to see how quickly you could go from being president for XFree86, used in pretty much every form of *nix systems to having an empty title while all the people and all the work continued over at x.org. It really goes to show that open source projects are at the mercy of the grassroots, if you act like a dick or an idiot your project will be forked and dead like if someone pulled the rug out from under you.
In general, everybody dealing with computers can benefit from a bit of programming knowledge, not only admins. The rule of thumb is: if you're doing a repetitive, braindead job, you're doing it wrong. Computers are built to do exactly that. A small script can automate a lot of work for you, if you have that skill it can help you tremendously.
Let me guess, you're a developer? Yes, yes and it'd be great if developers understand a little about sysadmin so they knew how their software would be run... oh and understand the business a little better... oh and understand support and the issues their having.... oh and understand the sales and marketing people who little who has to try to sell this stuff... oh and understand the economists so we actually do things profitable too... and, yeah okay there's a zillion things that would be somewhat useful. I don't mean everybody should put on blinders and just stare at their own little piece of the big picture, but most people have plenty improvement potential in their own job rather than go off to learn the basics of an entirely different job. You're probably comparing the speed it'd take you to whip up a script rather than solve it the manual way, not the time it'd take them.
I'm barely qualified to change windshield wipers, tires, light bulbs and at a stretch possibly oil on a car. An auto mechanic would probably think I'm a total n00b and I'm sure to him many things looks super easy and he can't understand why people don't bother learning the basics of auto maintenance and repair - though I'm sure he doesn't mind the business. Well life's too short to learn all those things I don't have any particular need or interest in learning and so is work life too. I have no problem with people that choose to be specialists, sure you need some "glue" people to make them talk to each other but the value of real experts who know their area inside and out is immeasurable. If it's not a big deal that needs automation they'll just do it, if it is a big deal they'll get on the phone or email or talk to their boss and find someone who can automate it.
Besides I thought most developers hated most wannabe developers that pop out some kind of abomination in VBA or something similar and when it outgrows their limited skills the whole pile is dropped on somebody on the IT side. Code hacks aren't exactly know to build things that are reliable, maintainable or even sane. I certainly wouldn't want to give them the impression that it's so easy anybody could do it as a side gig to their normal job, that's a disaster waiting to happen. Yes yes, we get it you're doing something very important in automating all the crazy that'd otherwise be a huge time sink. But those other people are probably also doing something fairly essential to the business or else they wouldn't be there. I'm sure they all wish you'd understand some of their job, but you'd feel spread pretty thin then wouldn't you?
Negotiation, intimidation and retaliation are three sides of the same coin (hint: they overlap). Even in a win-win situation it's about who should get most of the winnings. And the only really credible threat you have in those negotiations is to not make a deal, but say "this is going to hurt you more than it hurts me, next time give me a better deal". Likewise with this patent case, I'm sure some bigwigs have said that if Apple does this then no more rebates for you and now have to follow through on it. It's not so much about being mean as making your threats have teeth - if you always ended up signing the contract anyway then you're all bark and no bite.
However, when you start getting into repair you're talking about a massive increase in cost and decrease in reusability of the refueling ship.
It might not be Hubble-class replacement jobs we're talking about, it may be changing the windshield wipers but there's nobody to do it because it's 36000 km away from the nearest service station. Yes, each repair job will probably be a custom fit but I imagine this refuel/repair course is laid out before it even launches, I doubt it'll be orbiting up there waiting for customers.
And if you don't do repair, then you need to design the satellites to have components that last for decades but a fuel supply which lasts much less - why not just launch it with a lifetime fuel load?
Weight and size constraints? Big rockets costs big money, if you can get away with a smaller launch vehicle and a top up in orbit maybe it will be cheaper. Personally I'm thinking more about big military satellites in low earth orbit that may need this much more often than GEO satellites. It could also put us in a position to do missions bigger than our current launch capability - which may be a very neat trick for say a Mars mission. I doubt we'll be building more Saturn Vs.
Oh, and unless you're really patient, moving from satellite to satellite takes a fair bit of fuel (a little nudge goes a long way if you're willing to wait, but with each orbit lasting a day it will be probably weeks between encounters if you don't want to do large burns).
So what if it does? They know when the satellites run out, it's not like they one day look at the dashboard and discover they're in the red and need a top up right now. Say a year long mission to top up 10 satellites sound like a perfectly reasonable duration for me. I must admit, I don't see huge wins for this, but it's skills that will only become more valuable the more satellites and things we put up there.
Your best guide to entrapment. Basically if you're in a swarm, chances are very slim you'll find any entrapment defense since you were already predisposed to commit the crime. However in a civil case you may get some help from the unclean hands doctrine, they can't cause copyright infringement and then claim damages from it. They can only claim damages on things you did on your own.
Tell people here that you use GPL-licensed code in a closed-source product and see how fast you'll be accused of stealing.
Pirating a song has no commercial profit motive. Violating the GPL (in most cases) does.
That doesn't make it stealing, only commercial copyright infringement. The code is still there in the GPL software, it hasn't been removed from anyone's possession. Of course in common speech we generally use "steal" in many meanings that don't actually match the legal definition, like for example plagiarism is often referred to as "He stole my work" or it is used figuratively like "He stole a kiss". The irony is thick here because you're yourself using a word "pirating" which literally means "stealing at sea" to argue your point, in reality copyright infringement is neither stealing nor piracy. But now many of the pirates embrace the misnomer rather than reject it, trying to give it a Robin Hood aura - who was stealing.
In other words no wonder the legal system decided to keep their own definitions, distinct from all the strange things people call something. And in that system you don't get to call yourself a pirate unless you go out to sea, raise the Jolly Roger (this step actually optional) and start plundering. Meanwhile the copyright holders will call it stealing and the copyright infringers will call it pirating and in the end it only matters if people think it's right or wrong, this whole "likened to something else that people may or may not think is wrong" is overrated. It seems to me most people are able to make up their own opinion of this distinct from say shop lifting, and the MPAA/RIAA might not like the answer.
From all the reports coming out of AMD, they're doing no more than what every ARM SoC vendor is doing and including GPU cores on the CPU die, which they were doing well before AMD released the Fusion line.
Their goal is far more than that, it's not just about the die but integrating CPU and GPU cores into what they call a Heterogeneous System Architecture (HSA) where they live in the same address space and you can alternate between CPU and GPU processing with extremely little overhead. It's a huge change in the way you think of computing. The downside is that nothing changes without software support, your regular CPU or GPU-based code will take no advantage of it and in practice AMD doesn't have the weight to throw around to make people write for HSA, not to mention you're locking yourself into an AMD solution. In short, it's a bit too niche and they haven't really gotten much synergy from it.
If Intel wants to bend consumers over, they are already in a position to do so. However, they seem to be sticking to their roadmap despite the fact that AMD has been falling farther and farther behind.
Of course they are, because their process and IPC improvements is how they have such a huge gross margin - I think around 62%. AMD has been in the 40s but their last quarter was an abysmal 37%. Look at this chart over die sizes. From Lynnfield in 2009 to Ivy Bridge in 2012 their mainstream die has shrunk from around 300mm^2 to 150mm^2 which makes the chips far cheaper to produce while their prices stay high and Intel pockets the difference. That might be good for Intel but with fierce competition they could have easily delivered an 8-core chip for $332 instead of a 4-core IVB. And with AMD increasingly bailing on the traditional CPU market, it's not going to get better.
It might take 100 years for us to run out of oil completely but how long is it before it simply becomes too expensive for a large part of the population to afford to drive to work every day?
At least for vast groups of employees today I would say the answer is telecommuting, not moving downtown which is crazy expensive and while you have mass transit you also have congestion and many other issues. More automation, more self-service, more telepresence of knowledge workers and more robots and remote control for physical labor. Both the culture and the tools for it are a work in progress but ultimately it'll come down to economics - if travel costs become a huge burden both on salary requirements and finding the right people employers will adapt. In fact it's already started with quite a few people I know working on virtual teams, where they have the physical facilities and social environment of an office but the people they actually work with are located somewhere else.
I would also argue that a lot of people can't actually save that much by not commuting, because they want/need the car for other reasons so they're still seeing value loss and maintenance and repairs and insurance and taxes and whatnot - it's only the marginal cost of miles driven in fuel and wear that they save. The big savings you only get if you can skip the car altogether and manage on some combination of mass transit, taxis, rentals, car pools and such. Because there will always be exceptions where mass transit just isn't going to go from where you are to where you want when you want it. And I don't think people are willing to give up that freedom easily.
That has always been the problem. Who determines how much I need, and what the definition of 'need' is anyway, and who determines my ability. Who is more qualified than I am to make those decisions as they apply to me?
Whether you are more needy than all the other people who also want something of a limited resource? You may be the most knowledgeable about your own needs but also the least objective. And if there's no relationship between ability and reward because it's all based on need you have an equally strong biased interest in not measuring your ability correctly too. Why work hard for no benefit? So then you have to bring in arbitrators to determine if you're really that useless and needy as you claim, but then they aren't neutral but rather biased and corrupt. Then it becomes more about gaming the system than actual abilities and needs, which is a self-enforcing circle. The less actual ability and need matter, the more people try to game the system and the more corrupt it gets.
By US standards I'm probably a socialist in that I want good social safety nets but for general employment you need rewards to be related to effort and results, not just needs. Because I do a kick-ass job and deliver great value to society I feel I deserve more money than the person who does a crap job, even if we're practically equal and as such have the same needs. Real needs like health care I think should be covered, but I don't feel bad about me eating out at a fancy restaurant or going on a two week vacation to a tropical getaway and he doesn't even if does his job to the best of his ability - it's just not that good. I'm not too hot on mass wealth redistribution though, only that there's a base floor provided for everyone.
WHY OH WHY is this not being sold with a full OS that can run non-web-based apps? I mean, surely it wouldn't cost any more money to put Debian (or Ubuntu, or Mint, or whatever) on this thing and let us run both browser stuff *and* regular Linux apps, right? What's the rationale for limiting it?
1) The whole reason for Chromebook is to push the Google bramd and Google products, it's what makes this have a business case. 2) Linux is perceived as a very technical OS for nerds, which is clearly not the market they're going for but to be a "webapp computer"
I mean there are already Linux distributions if you want to run Linux apps and Chrome and I don't think Google want their Chromebook to be compared to those. With google docs for office needs, gmail for email and facebook etc. for social media, online services like banking and webmail, stupid flash games for entertainment and whatnot they're pretty covered... it's not me, but I'm not surprised if there are people that fit the category. And I think there's very little crossover to people that miss their Linux apps.
That is indeed true -- the differences is that companies (tend) to go out of business if they don't value their product, i.e. fix bugs.
Meh, there's plenty of proprietary software out there that is buggy but they stay in business because they deliver what most of the users want most of the time. Open source has a tendency to throw out the old and in with the new despite nobody actually asking for it, because it's supposedly in some way better - often supported by use cases written by their proponents that cherry pick the advantages and ignore the drawbacks. It's like saying DVORAK is superior to QWERTY, so let's just drop QWERTY support. You know what? I don't care, I got 25 years of muscle memory of QWERTY and it works more than good enough, if you start fucking with that you're only introducing pain. Maybe I'm just an old fart but my Win7 desktop (and before that KDE desktop) looks very similar to the Win95 desktop I had 17 years ago. And I like it that way.
It's great that you introduce new things, but for the most part there's no reason to remove things that work but far too often it's the victim of rewrite mania where you only implement the new way and the old way well you shouldn't be using that anyway so get with the program. Despite all the wailing over Microsoft's ribbon many open source apps decide to throw me a curve ball like that too and while in theory you can get around it there's usually a lot of pain involved in not using the mainline version that's actively developed and supported or switching distros that all tend to have their own quirks. It's something of a 90/10 rule, at least 90% of the time I just want something that works well in a way I know, the last 10% I can experiment with - but preferably not feel experimented on. I don't want to be a forced guinea pig for your (probably bad) idea.
Things like survival of the fittest, subjugation of women, slavery, genocide, infanticide, etc. all would be prevalent. Moral codes that put an end to those all stemmed from societies that believed there was a greater purpose, outside of themselves.
Except for oh say all the societies that institutionalized those bad characteristics because $deity told them so? You should try reading some of those books sometime, there's very little there that sound anything like "all men are created free and equal", most of them are "all other gods are false" "convert the unbelievers" "do as I say and get rewarded, don't do as I say and get punished" - even the post-Jesus book when God wasn't genocidal on Sodoma and Gomorrah and incesticidal by killing all the first born sons in Egypt contains some pretty heavy stuff. For at least 1900 out of the last 2000 years Christianity has had no problem with the subjugation of women, stop trying to make revisionist history to pretend that they did.
And several thousand innocent people died in the previous ones mentioned. However, because they were almost down to a man and woman "infidels," they didn't garner anywhere near the sympathy this one shooting got. A Muslim girl was attacked by a Muslim extremist. That is why they could muster a normal level of outrage over this.
It's no coincidence that Maddie McCann was a girl, white, blond and cute either, across 7 billion people there's probably kids that disappear every day but a two line notice a day doesn't get anyone's attention. Sometimes the media just have to pick an ideal poster child and create a shit storm over one single case, that really can get people's blood boiling - she's hardly the first nor last Muslim girl to die at the hands of the Taliban. What makes this case stand out is that she wasn't some kind of collateral damage in a suicide bombing or the victim of random attacks on girl schools, she was the victim of an assassination attempt. That the Taliban is so intimidated by a little girl barely into her teens whose worst crime was to want an education that they send killers after her is so... pathetic. It goes over the top from vicious and intimidating to just sad.
It'd be a great world if everybody stood up for each other, but reality is most people just like to get out of harm's way. It's the whole basis of Niemöller's First they came... poem, this case isn't about where it begins but about where it ends. That the Taliban will come for you too even if you're Muslim, even if you are innocent, even if you've done nothing to help the US or anyone else Pakistan doesn't like because they're crazy fundamentalists that won't ever stop and can't be reasoned with. For terror to work you have to believe that if you give in to the terror you'll be left alone. Now they've gone so over the top that the only choice is to fight them, no matter how bloody it gets surrender is not an option. Kind of like what Churchill promised when he took over as Prime Minister:
I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat. We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. We have before us many, many long months of struggle and of suffering. You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word: Victory. Victory at all costs - Victory in spite of all terror - Victory, however long and hard the road may be, for without victory there is no survival.
That is already happening! Didn't you hear of the 14 year old girl who got shot in the face because she was intolerant to the nice people of the Taliban. The Taliban, those nice people who only try to spread the religion of tolerance and respect? That shall teach her a lesson! Huh?
There's very little need to spread Islam in Pakistan, it's already at 97% or so. It's just not the kind of fundamentalist theocracy the Taliban want it to be. This is basically 16th century England where Bloody Mary burned Christians at the stake for being Protestants and not Roman Catholics. Most Pakistanis don't like the US much so the Taliban attack them to gather support and trying to make Muslims unite against the US, but in reality they're primarily in a civil war. Send five terrorists, wait for US reprisal, recruit ten new and while drawing attention away from shit like this - at least until now. Sign up to fight the US sure, sign to kill 14yo girls over wanting an education? I doubt that has the same appeal, at least I hope not...
My guess as to the mechanism behind it is that people don't have enough time (nor interest) to join every social group there is.
Many groups are as much defined by who they're not as who they are, so they're mutually exclusive even when you do have choices. And even if they aren't events still conflict so you have to prioritize what people you hang out with.
Which is exactly what rubs me the wrong way with RMS, he doesn't want coexistence or choice. In his ideal world there is nothing but free software and you will use it because using anything else is "unethical". I much prefer the people who strive for OSS software to win on its own merits - functionality, quality, cost etc. because it's the superior solution and not just by ideology. One sounds more like a religion "Thou shalt not have any other software but Free" and the other more like a self-help community "Use it if you like it, if not that's fine too or you could chip in and help us make it better." Worst are those that think attack is the best defense saying all the things you can't find are things that are stupid and you don't need. That's not RMS, but quite a few of his followers.
Sad, but true, that anytime you get a thousand or so people together in a group, even if they're mostly young and apparently healthy, you're gonna lose one every year or so.
Leading causes being major physical trauma like car crashes, falling from great heights or heavy objects land/collapse over you as well as suicides, for most of these it doesn't matter if you're a top athlete or a tub of lard.
Nokia was not a "successful company" that Elop took over and ran into the ground; Nokia was a "quickly failing company" that Elop has been trying to wrestle out of a nose dive. The alliance with Microsoft has changed the plummet from free fall, to a slightly shallower trajectory.
Economically Nokia wasn't in a nose dive when he took over, yes they were losing a market segment to iPhone/Android but they were still covering their costs through their massive feature phone sales and needed to reinvent itself to take back the high end market and start making profit again. I'll spare the discussion on whether Nokia could have salvaged one of their own systems or gone with Microsoft for another day, but no doubt the single biggest reason for their crash is how. When you're making a switch like that, you can either talk up the new system (the last one was good, the new one is great) or you can talk down the old system. His "burning platform" memo basically told all their customers that they were idiots who still bought Nokia because they sold obsolete dog poop.
That basically killed all of Nokia's sales - even those who didn't really compete against iPhone/Android in the first place. It turned a market problem (we're losing the high end) into an economic crisis. They could have just introduced Microsoft as their partner for smart phones, instead it became an "abandon ship, nothing of salvage value to keep here" message to the market. Shallower trajectory, what are you smoking? Elop pointed the nose straight down, claiming they'll be able to pull up again before they hit the ground. He must be praying pretty hard for rave reviews of Windows 8 right now, otherwise he'll need even bigger miracles to do that.
That's not how Apple works. Their business model is to identify market segments with no competitors, enter them, hype their product until it's identified with that market segment,
I guess it worked on you then since you've forgotten all these MP3 players (Creative etc.), phones (Nokia, Sony Ericsson etc.), tablets (Microsoft etc.) that was before Apple. Of course they've picked their angle of attack to find trendsetters and increase market share quick, but I'd say Apply has pushed a fair number of competitors aside. They're really not into green-fielding completely new types of products, they ambush niches and rapidly increase their size into big markets. I do agree they're looking to be the biggest player though they won't start anything where they'll be second or third fiddle.
The 8150 has many problems, but that's the first time I see anyone complain about its upgrade path. The thing is the 8150 is currently the flagship.
I guess his point is that the flagship is getting "smaller", in 2009-2010 a top of the line Phenom II was pretty good compared to Intel. Now their top of the line is retailing for less than Intel's second tier CPU (3570K) on their second tier platform (LGA1155). If you want a better processor than that, AMD doesn't have anything to deliver.
AMD's fault in was keeping the details hidden before releasing Bulldozer. Bulldozer isn't far off the I7s ( at least, not the 1000$ extremes ), but neither were the Phenom IIs.
If and only if you use well threaded applications that can evenly distribute loads across 8 threads. In single threaded performance the FX-8150 is slower than the Intel Pentium G620 (slowest Sandy Bridge chip) and the I7-3770K offers 62% (Cinebench 11.5 single threaded) higher performance for $332. In good cases it offers 80-90% of the 3770K performance - running at a 125W vs 77W TDP for the 3770K including the integrated graphics. In CPU benchmarks Anandtech found that system consumption increased between idle and full load with 145W and 66W respectively including PSU loss, but the figures are comparable. Together it means the Bulldozer spends about 145/(0.8 to 0.9)/66 = 2.44-2.74W to compute what the 3770K does with 1W.
So to sum it up, in many workloads with single/mixed threads - where performance is capped by the speed of one thread - it's not performing well. And in the cases where it does perform well, it doesn't perform efficiently. That means higher power bill, more expensive and loud cooling and lower battery life - not that you'd put this one in a laptop but for AMDs chips in general. Granted this is the latter half of the FX-8150's life cycle, initially it would be pitted against the 2600K but it didn't perform well to start with either and while.new Piledriver chips are out any day now it's only half a year left until Intel comes with Haswell too. The Piledriver upgrade is reportedly quite evolutionary, so I doubt Piledriver vs Haswell will fare any better than Bulldozer vs Ivy.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless there is a straightforward way for the toolkits, i.e. Qt, gtk, etc. to use a single new protocol for "virtualized" displays they will have to maintain seperate implementations for Wayland and X11.
At least Qt already keeps separate graphics backends for Windows, Mac and Linux, a quick search suggests they already have Wayland mostly working as a backend.
I remember in `99 I compiled XFree86 at home and it took 3 days to compile. Later when I first heard about X.org people were saying, they are modernizing the code. And sure enough, I tried it and it compiled in just a few hours.
If I recall correctly one of the first orders of business for x.org was splitting it up into modules rather than one gigantic monolithic project. Compiling the whole stack was not significantly faster, so most likely you're comparing compiling the core server to compiling everything including the kitchen sink but it allowed developers to work more independently and spend less time waiting for compiles.
It goes the other way: unless you design for network transparency from day one, you're not going to get it and have it perform well. There's no way to decently get network transparency as a layer on top of the window system. VNC and RDP are horrible kludges and perform like crap.
Maybe with all the fancy animations and shadows and transparency and 3D effects it just *isn't* going to work well? I can't be arsed to look up the bandwidth or latency of the 16x PCIe connection to my graphics card but I'm pretty sure it's off the charts compared to my fairly speed fiber Internet connection. Seems to me that either HTML if you want a "generic" client or a thick client that only sends and retrieves the data you need beats trying to push pixels around. Yes it's convenient in that all your applications work remotely like they do locally but I can't for the life of me imagine that it's actually efficient.
x.org split off from XFree86 over licensing arguments, if I recall properly.
That was the breaking point but there was very much tension between XFree86's Core Team and the other developers over the development model. Both the developers and distros rapidly abandoned XFree86 so their first release under the new license was essentially already dead and buried. It was something of an eye opener to see how quickly you could go from being president for XFree86, used in pretty much every form of *nix systems to having an empty title while all the people and all the work continued over at x.org. It really goes to show that open source projects are at the mercy of the grassroots, if you act like a dick or an idiot your project will be forked and dead like if someone pulled the rug out from under you.
In general, everybody dealing with computers can benefit from a bit of programming knowledge, not only admins. The rule of thumb is: if you're doing a repetitive, braindead job, you're doing it wrong. Computers are built to do exactly that. A small script can automate a lot of work for you, if you have that skill it can help you tremendously.
Let me guess, you're a developer? Yes, yes and it'd be great if developers understand a little about sysadmin so they knew how their software would be run... oh and understand the business a little better... oh and understand support and the issues their having.... oh and understand the sales and marketing people who little who has to try to sell this stuff... oh and understand the economists so we actually do things profitable too... and, yeah okay there's a zillion things that would be somewhat useful. I don't mean everybody should put on blinders and just stare at their own little piece of the big picture, but most people have plenty improvement potential in their own job rather than go off to learn the basics of an entirely different job. You're probably comparing the speed it'd take you to whip up a script rather than solve it the manual way, not the time it'd take them.
I'm barely qualified to change windshield wipers, tires, light bulbs and at a stretch possibly oil on a car. An auto mechanic would probably think I'm a total n00b and I'm sure to him many things looks super easy and he can't understand why people don't bother learning the basics of auto maintenance and repair - though I'm sure he doesn't mind the business. Well life's too short to learn all those things I don't have any particular need or interest in learning and so is work life too. I have no problem with people that choose to be specialists, sure you need some "glue" people to make them talk to each other but the value of real experts who know their area inside and out is immeasurable. If it's not a big deal that needs automation they'll just do it, if it is a big deal they'll get on the phone or email or talk to their boss and find someone who can automate it.
Besides I thought most developers hated most wannabe developers that pop out some kind of abomination in VBA or something similar and when it outgrows their limited skills the whole pile is dropped on somebody on the IT side. Code hacks aren't exactly know to build things that are reliable, maintainable or even sane. I certainly wouldn't want to give them the impression that it's so easy anybody could do it as a side gig to their normal job, that's a disaster waiting to happen. Yes yes, we get it you're doing something very important in automating all the crazy that'd otherwise be a huge time sink. But those other people are probably also doing something fairly essential to the business or else they wouldn't be there. I'm sure they all wish you'd understand some of their job, but you'd feel spread pretty thin then wouldn't you?
Negotiation, intimidation and retaliation are three sides of the same coin (hint: they overlap). Even in a win-win situation it's about who should get most of the winnings. And the only really credible threat you have in those negotiations is to not make a deal, but say "this is going to hurt you more than it hurts me, next time give me a better deal". Likewise with this patent case, I'm sure some bigwigs have said that if Apple does this then no more rebates for you and now have to follow through on it. It's not so much about being mean as making your threats have teeth - if you always ended up signing the contract anyway then you're all bark and no bite.
However, when you start getting into repair you're talking about a massive increase in cost and decrease in reusability of the refueling ship.
It might not be Hubble-class replacement jobs we're talking about, it may be changing the windshield wipers but there's nobody to do it because it's 36000 km away from the nearest service station. Yes, each repair job will probably be a custom fit but I imagine this refuel/repair course is laid out before it even launches, I doubt it'll be orbiting up there waiting for customers.
And if you don't do repair, then you need to design the satellites to have components that last for decades but a fuel supply which lasts much less - why not just launch it with a lifetime fuel load?
Weight and size constraints? Big rockets costs big money, if you can get away with a smaller launch vehicle and a top up in orbit maybe it will be cheaper. Personally I'm thinking more about big military satellites in low earth orbit that may need this much more often than GEO satellites. It could also put us in a position to do missions bigger than our current launch capability - which may be a very neat trick for say a Mars mission. I doubt we'll be building more Saturn Vs.
Oh, and unless you're really patient, moving from satellite to satellite takes a fair bit of fuel (a little nudge goes a long way if you're willing to wait, but with each orbit lasting a day it will be probably weeks between encounters if you don't want to do large burns).
So what if it does? They know when the satellites run out, it's not like they one day look at the dashboard and discover they're in the red and need a top up right now. Say a year long mission to top up 10 satellites sound like a perfectly reasonable duration for me. I must admit, I don't see huge wins for this, but it's skills that will only become more valuable the more satellites and things we put up there.
Your best guide to entrapment. Basically if you're in a swarm, chances are very slim you'll find any entrapment defense since you were already predisposed to commit the crime. However in a civil case you may get some help from the unclean hands doctrine, they can't cause copyright infringement and then claim damages from it. They can only claim damages on things you did on your own.
Tell people here that you use GPL-licensed code in a closed-source product and see how fast you'll be accused of stealing.
Pirating a song has no commercial profit motive. Violating the GPL (in most cases) does.
That doesn't make it stealing, only commercial copyright infringement. The code is still there in the GPL software, it hasn't been removed from anyone's possession. Of course in common speech we generally use "steal" in many meanings that don't actually match the legal definition, like for example plagiarism is often referred to as "He stole my work" or it is used figuratively like "He stole a kiss". The irony is thick here because you're yourself using a word "pirating" which literally means "stealing at sea" to argue your point, in reality copyright infringement is neither stealing nor piracy. But now many of the pirates embrace the misnomer rather than reject it, trying to give it a Robin Hood aura - who was stealing.
In other words no wonder the legal system decided to keep their own definitions, distinct from all the strange things people call something. And in that system you don't get to call yourself a pirate unless you go out to sea, raise the Jolly Roger (this step actually optional) and start plundering. Meanwhile the copyright holders will call it stealing and the copyright infringers will call it pirating and in the end it only matters if people think it's right or wrong, this whole "likened to something else that people may or may not think is wrong" is overrated. It seems to me most people are able to make up their own opinion of this distinct from say shop lifting, and the MPAA/RIAA might not like the answer.
From all the reports coming out of AMD, they're doing no more than what every ARM SoC vendor is doing and including GPU cores on the CPU die, which they were doing well before AMD released the Fusion line.
Their goal is far more than that, it's not just about the die but integrating CPU and GPU cores into what they call a Heterogeneous System Architecture (HSA) where they live in the same address space and you can alternate between CPU and GPU processing with extremely little overhead. It's a huge change in the way you think of computing. The downside is that nothing changes without software support, your regular CPU or GPU-based code will take no advantage of it and in practice AMD doesn't have the weight to throw around to make people write for HSA, not to mention you're locking yourself into an AMD solution. In short, it's a bit too niche and they haven't really gotten much synergy from it.
If Intel wants to bend consumers over, they are already in a position to do so. However, they seem to be sticking to their roadmap despite the fact that AMD has been falling farther and farther behind.
Of course they are, because their process and IPC improvements is how they have such a huge gross margin - I think around 62%. AMD has been in the 40s but their last quarter was an abysmal 37%. Look at this chart over die sizes. From Lynnfield in 2009 to Ivy Bridge in 2012 their mainstream die has shrunk from around 300mm^2 to 150mm^2 which makes the chips far cheaper to produce while their prices stay high and Intel pockets the difference. That might be good for Intel but with fierce competition they could have easily delivered an 8-core chip for $332 instead of a 4-core IVB. And with AMD increasingly bailing on the traditional CPU market, it's not going to get better.
It might take 100 years for us to run out of oil completely but how long is it before it simply becomes too expensive for a large part of the population to afford to drive to work every day?
At least for vast groups of employees today I would say the answer is telecommuting, not moving downtown which is crazy expensive and while you have mass transit you also have congestion and many other issues. More automation, more self-service, more telepresence of knowledge workers and more robots and remote control for physical labor. Both the culture and the tools for it are a work in progress but ultimately it'll come down to economics - if travel costs become a huge burden both on salary requirements and finding the right people employers will adapt. In fact it's already started with quite a few people I know working on virtual teams, where they have the physical facilities and social environment of an office but the people they actually work with are located somewhere else.
I would also argue that a lot of people can't actually save that much by not commuting, because they want/need the car for other reasons so they're still seeing value loss and maintenance and repairs and insurance and taxes and whatnot - it's only the marginal cost of miles driven in fuel and wear that they save. The big savings you only get if you can skip the car altogether and manage on some combination of mass transit, taxis, rentals, car pools and such. Because there will always be exceptions where mass transit just isn't going to go from where you are to where you want when you want it. And I don't think people are willing to give up that freedom easily.
That has always been the problem. Who determines how much I need, and what the definition of 'need' is anyway, and who determines my ability. Who is more qualified than I am to make those decisions as they apply to me?
Whether you are more needy than all the other people who also want something of a limited resource? You may be the most knowledgeable about your own needs but also the least objective. And if there's no relationship between ability and reward because it's all based on need you have an equally strong biased interest in not measuring your ability correctly too. Why work hard for no benefit? So then you have to bring in arbitrators to determine if you're really that useless and needy as you claim, but then they aren't neutral but rather biased and corrupt. Then it becomes more about gaming the system than actual abilities and needs, which is a self-enforcing circle. The less actual ability and need matter, the more people try to game the system and the more corrupt it gets.
By US standards I'm probably a socialist in that I want good social safety nets but for general employment you need rewards to be related to effort and results, not just needs. Because I do a kick-ass job and deliver great value to society I feel I deserve more money than the person who does a crap job, even if we're practically equal and as such have the same needs. Real needs like health care I think should be covered, but I don't feel bad about me eating out at a fancy restaurant or going on a two week vacation to a tropical getaway and he doesn't even if does his job to the best of his ability - it's just not that good. I'm not too hot on mass wealth redistribution though, only that there's a base floor provided for everyone.
WHY OH WHY is this not being sold with a full OS that can run non-web-based apps? I mean, surely it wouldn't cost any more money to put Debian (or Ubuntu, or Mint, or whatever) on this thing and let us run both browser stuff *and* regular Linux apps, right? What's the rationale for limiting it?
1) The whole reason for Chromebook is to push the Google bramd and Google products, it's what makes this have a business case.
2) Linux is perceived as a very technical OS for nerds, which is clearly not the market they're going for but to be a "webapp computer"
I mean there are already Linux distributions if you want to run Linux apps and Chrome and I don't think Google want their Chromebook to be compared to those. With google docs for office needs, gmail for email and facebook etc. for social media, online services like banking and webmail, stupid flash games for entertainment and whatnot they're pretty covered... it's not me, but I'm not surprised if there are people that fit the category. And I think there's very little crossover to people that miss their Linux apps.
That is indeed true -- the differences is that companies (tend) to go out of business if they don't value their product, i.e. fix bugs.
Meh, there's plenty of proprietary software out there that is buggy but they stay in business because they deliver what most of the users want most of the time. Open source has a tendency to throw out the old and in with the new despite nobody actually asking for it, because it's supposedly in some way better - often supported by use cases written by their proponents that cherry pick the advantages and ignore the drawbacks. It's like saying DVORAK is superior to QWERTY, so let's just drop QWERTY support. You know what? I don't care, I got 25 years of muscle memory of QWERTY and it works more than good enough, if you start fucking with that you're only introducing pain. Maybe I'm just an old fart but my Win7 desktop (and before that KDE desktop) looks very similar to the Win95 desktop I had 17 years ago. And I like it that way.
It's great that you introduce new things, but for the most part there's no reason to remove things that work but far too often it's the victim of rewrite mania where you only implement the new way and the old way well you shouldn't be using that anyway so get with the program. Despite all the wailing over Microsoft's ribbon many open source apps decide to throw me a curve ball like that too and while in theory you can get around it there's usually a lot of pain involved in not using the mainline version that's actively developed and supported or switching distros that all tend to have their own quirks. It's something of a 90/10 rule, at least 90% of the time I just want something that works well in a way I know, the last 10% I can experiment with - but preferably not feel experimented on. I don't want to be a forced guinea pig for your (probably bad) idea.
Things like survival of the fittest, subjugation of women, slavery, genocide, infanticide, etc. all would be prevalent. Moral codes that put an end to those all stemmed from societies that believed there was a greater purpose, outside of themselves.
Except for oh say all the societies that institutionalized those bad characteristics because $deity told them so? You should try reading some of those books sometime, there's very little there that sound anything like "all men are created free and equal", most of them are "all other gods are false" "convert the unbelievers" "do as I say and get rewarded, don't do as I say and get punished" - even the post-Jesus book when God wasn't genocidal on Sodoma and Gomorrah and incesticidal by killing all the first born sons in Egypt contains some pretty heavy stuff. For at least 1900 out of the last 2000 years Christianity has had no problem with the subjugation of women, stop trying to make revisionist history to pretend that they did.
And several thousand innocent people died in the previous ones mentioned. However, because they were almost down to a man and woman "infidels," they didn't garner anywhere near the sympathy this one shooting got. A Muslim girl was attacked by a Muslim extremist. That is why they could muster a normal level of outrage over this.
It's no coincidence that Maddie McCann was a girl, white, blond and cute either, across 7 billion people there's probably kids that disappear every day but a two line notice a day doesn't get anyone's attention. Sometimes the media just have to pick an ideal poster child and create a shit storm over one single case, that really can get people's blood boiling - she's hardly the first nor last Muslim girl to die at the hands of the Taliban. What makes this case stand out is that she wasn't some kind of collateral damage in a suicide bombing or the victim of random attacks on girl schools, she was the victim of an assassination attempt. That the Taliban is so intimidated by a little girl barely into her teens whose worst crime was to want an education that they send killers after her is so... pathetic. It goes over the top from vicious and intimidating to just sad.
It'd be a great world if everybody stood up for each other, but reality is most people just like to get out of harm's way. It's the whole basis of Niemöller's First they came... poem, this case isn't about where it begins but about where it ends. That the Taliban will come for you too even if you're Muslim, even if you are innocent, even if you've done nothing to help the US or anyone else Pakistan doesn't like because they're crazy fundamentalists that won't ever stop and can't be reasoned with. For terror to work you have to believe that if you give in to the terror you'll be left alone. Now they've gone so over the top that the only choice is to fight them, no matter how bloody it gets surrender is not an option. Kind of like what Churchill promised when he took over as Prime Minister:
I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat. We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. We have before us many, many long months of struggle and of suffering. You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word: Victory. Victory at all costs - Victory in spite of all terror - Victory, however long and hard the road may be, for without victory there is no survival.
That is already happening! Didn't you hear of the 14 year old girl who got shot in the face because she was intolerant to the nice people of the Taliban. The Taliban, those nice people who only try to spread the religion of tolerance and respect? That shall teach her a lesson! Huh?
There's very little need to spread Islam in Pakistan, it's already at 97% or so. It's just not the kind of fundamentalist theocracy the Taliban want it to be. This is basically 16th century England where Bloody Mary burned Christians at the stake for being Protestants and not Roman Catholics. Most Pakistanis don't like the US much so the Taliban attack them to gather support and trying to make Muslims unite against the US, but in reality they're primarily in a civil war. Send five terrorists, wait for US reprisal, recruit ten new and while drawing attention away from shit like this - at least until now. Sign up to fight the US sure, sign to kill 14yo girls over wanting an education? I doubt that has the same appeal, at least I hope not...
My guess as to the mechanism behind it is that people don't have enough time (nor interest) to join every social group there is.
Many groups are as much defined by who they're not as who they are, so they're mutually exclusive even when you do have choices. And even if they aren't events still conflict so you have to prioritize what people you hang out with.
Which is exactly what rubs me the wrong way with RMS, he doesn't want coexistence or choice. In his ideal world there is nothing but free software and you will use it because using anything else is "unethical". I much prefer the people who strive for OSS software to win on its own merits - functionality, quality, cost etc. because it's the superior solution and not just by ideology. One sounds more like a religion "Thou shalt not have any other software but Free" and the other more like a self-help community "Use it if you like it, if not that's fine too or you could chip in and help us make it better." Worst are those that think attack is the best defense saying all the things you can't find are things that are stupid and you don't need. That's not RMS, but quite a few of his followers.
Sad, but true, that anytime you get a thousand or so people together in a group, even if they're mostly young and apparently healthy, you're gonna lose one every year or so.
Leading causes being major physical trauma like car crashes, falling from great heights or heavy objects land/collapse over you as well as suicides, for most of these it doesn't matter if you're a top athlete or a tub of lard.
Nokia was not a "successful company" that Elop took over and ran into the ground; Nokia was a "quickly failing company" that Elop has been trying to wrestle out of a nose dive. The alliance with Microsoft has changed the plummet from free fall, to a slightly shallower trajectory.
Economically Nokia wasn't in a nose dive when he took over, yes they were losing a market segment to iPhone/Android but they were still covering their costs through their massive feature phone sales and needed to reinvent itself to take back the high end market and start making profit again. I'll spare the discussion on whether Nokia could have salvaged one of their own systems or gone with Microsoft for another day, but no doubt the single biggest reason for their crash is how. When you're making a switch like that, you can either talk up the
new system (the last one was good, the new one is great) or you can talk down the old system. His "burning platform" memo basically told all their customers that they were idiots who still bought Nokia because they sold obsolete dog poop.
That basically killed all of Nokia's sales - even those who didn't really compete against iPhone/Android in the first place. It turned a market problem (we're losing the high end) into an economic crisis. They could have just introduced Microsoft as their partner for smart phones, instead it became an "abandon ship, nothing of salvage value to keep here" message to the market. Shallower trajectory, what are you smoking? Elop pointed the nose straight down, claiming they'll be able to pull up again before they hit the ground. He must be praying pretty hard for rave reviews of Windows 8 right now, otherwise he'll need even bigger miracles to do that.
That's not how Apple works. Their business model is to identify market segments with no competitors, enter them, hype their product until it's identified with that market segment,
I guess it worked on you then since you've forgotten all these MP3 players (Creative etc.), phones (Nokia, Sony Ericsson etc.), tablets (Microsoft etc.) that was before Apple. Of course they've picked their angle of attack to find trendsetters and increase market share quick, but I'd say Apply has pushed a fair number of competitors aside. They're really not into green-fielding completely new types of products, they ambush niches and rapidly increase their size into big markets. I do agree they're looking to be the biggest player though they won't start anything where they'll be second or third fiddle.
The 8150 has many problems, but that's the first time I see anyone complain about its upgrade path. The thing is the 8150 is currently the flagship.
I guess his point is that the flagship is getting "smaller", in 2009-2010 a top of the line Phenom II was pretty good compared to Intel. Now their top of the line is retailing for less than Intel's second tier CPU (3570K) on their second tier platform (LGA1155). If you want a better processor than that, AMD doesn't have anything to deliver.
AMD's fault in was keeping the details hidden before releasing Bulldozer. Bulldozer isn't far off the I7s ( at least, not the 1000$ extremes ), but neither were the Phenom IIs.
If and only if you use well threaded applications that can evenly distribute loads across 8 threads. In single threaded performance the FX-8150 is slower than the Intel Pentium G620 (slowest Sandy Bridge chip) and the I7-3770K offers 62% (Cinebench 11.5 single threaded) higher performance for $332. In good cases it offers 80-90% of the 3770K performance - running at a 125W vs 77W TDP for the 3770K including the integrated graphics. In CPU benchmarks Anandtech found that system consumption increased between idle and full load with 145W and 66W respectively including PSU loss, but the figures are comparable. Together it means the Bulldozer spends about 145/(0.8 to 0.9)/66 = 2.44-2.74W to compute what the 3770K does with 1W.
So to sum it up, in many workloads with single/mixed threads - where performance is capped by the speed of one thread - it's not performing well. And in the cases where it does perform well, it doesn't perform efficiently. That means higher power bill, more expensive and loud cooling and lower battery life - not that you'd put this one in a laptop but for AMDs chips in general. Granted this is the latter half of the FX-8150's life cycle, initially it would be pitted against the 2600K but it didn't perform well to start with either and while.new Piledriver chips are out any day now it's only half a year left until Intel comes with Haswell too. The Piledriver upgrade is reportedly quite evolutionary, so I doubt Piledriver vs Haswell will fare any better than Bulldozer vs Ivy.