How useful! Google's e-mail service works perfectly with other Google products! Nothing like proprietary solutions to problems with standard solutions.../s
And it's not iOS, it's WP8 - but it applies to pretty much every OS out there that does not involve a lot of Google.
Exchange is just the protocol, nothing stops Google from implementing it, allowing for easy data and mail syncing with support for pretty much everything you'd need on a phone. They did this until recently, when they decided they'd pull the plug (which effectively pulled the plug on WP8 contacts and calendar syncing with Google until GDR2 came out - and we still don't have push mail) and make it a premium-only feature.
There is no middleman, Google's servers are (or rather were) the exchange servers.
Long answer: Any large store (supermarket and up) has one of those things at every cashier station. Typically, low-denomination bills are simply accepted without any non-trivial checks. 50€ and up and you may start raising some flags (50€ banknotes are supposedly, by far, the most common counterfeit of all Euro banknotes) - mostly they'll go in the machine and that's it.
The "fun" starts with 100€ banknotes - you don't see those much in your average store. Try to pay with a 200€ and the manager will probably be called to double-check it. Try to pay with one or more 500€ banknotes and you're in for a wait while the manager checks them out.
Since nobody in their right minds tries to pay stuff with 100€+ banknotes in the vast majority of cases, and most cash purchases are in coins and/or 5€, 10€ and 20€ (50€ banknotes are popular with somewhat older people who don't have or prefer not to use cards, but are otherwise only seen when an ATM inexplicably gives you one or two instead of smaller denominations), the typical cash experience does not involve getting your cash "validated".
That's different, you're talking about an abstract case.
Can you take a person who has lung cancer and say: "Smoking definitely caused this. There is no way in hell that this was caused by radiation exposure or other some other thing." Of course not. And that's a question that is better understood than the intricacies of climate change.
Besides, let me illustrate why your reasoning is flawed with an analogy - let's assume that smoking is inevitable (cyclical climate change) but radiation isn't (climate change due to human actions). If you look only at smoking, you'll see that 100% of cancer cases happened after smoking - you've learned nothing, since smoke is inevitable in our scenario. If you stick to this line of investigation, you'll quickly find scientific evidence that smoking does cause cancer.If no other possibilities are allowed, you might conclude that all cases of cancer were caused by smoking. This is nonsense. However, if you don't ignore the other possibilities, you'll notice that they too can cause cancer. By focusing on a single possibility that does contribute to the problem, but is not the only cause, you have now reached an implicit false conclusion that cancer is caused by smoking only - the matter is treated as understood. Meanwhile, radiation is still causing cancer.
Back to the matter at hand, if you focus on a single factor that may cause climate change and ignore the others, you'll reach the conclusion is caused by that factor, period. While not strictly untrue, it is incomplete. It's essentially a political trick to get favorable "science" by restricting it to the issues that are convenient for whoever is in charge.
Your point does not follow from your last sentence. In any case...
Sure, in some cases you can have enough control to allow for a more selective approach. When you're talking about a system where you can't guarantee the independence of the small portion you're examining, you're inviting misinterpretations that would've been avoided by keeping the rest of the system in mind.
That's not the problem, the problem is that they were being tasked with a *wink* independent *wink* study that is definitely not *wink* supposed to benefit climate change deniers *wink*.
Of course, open-minded studies are always needed, but this specific one reeks of political interference.
Easy, we refuse to export products that are known to be used in executions - it doesn't matter if we sold the one used for executions in the first place. If there's a chance it'll be used for executions, it goes nowhere.
You're comparing Apples to Oranges (no pun intended).
On the exact same hardware (2013 MacBook Air), Windows gets notably worse battery life than OS X - most likely due in great part to unoptimized drivers written by Apple for Windows, compared to those written for OS X.
There are several reasons why the Surface Pro 2 has inferior battery life beyond the hypothetical "Windows has crap power management.":
- It has a smaller battery. - It has different components (Apple has a lot more experience with components for Ultrabook-class devices and probably more influence over suppliers). - It has a wacom digitizer and a capacitive touchscreen (these will inevitably contribute to a shorter battery life, by how much is hard to say).
Surface Pro has a smaller battery than a MacBook Air. Similar hardware with a smaller battery means it won't last as long.
On a MacBook Air, driver optimizations by Apple for OS X (and their most likely inferior drivers for Windows) are most likely a very significant advantage that OS X has over Windows.
It wouldn't use more power if it didn't have the eye candy. Of course hardware acceleration vs. software rendering is a no brainer - the issue is that the question has been raised in the first place.
Comparing a Surface Pro to an iPad is about as useful as comparing a bus to a small car. Of course the small car uses less fuel, but I'd like to see a bus full of people crammed into said car.
The iPad and the tablets that it inspired are the new netbooks: barely useful for anything beyond simple tasks. The Surface Pro and similar tablets are ultabooks stuffed into tablets - this has advantages and disadvantages.
As for OS X, that is indeed somewhat misterious, but it probably boils down to:
- Driver optimizations: having a very limited set of hardware that needs to be supported makes it much easier to optimize drivers (and if needed the OS itself).
- Bloatware: my Ativ Smart PC Pro came with at least three Samsung applications that constantly run in the background and (way too often) interact with the user. Control panel thingies for this and that driver don't help, either. Some of those probably misbehave and screw up the scheduler enough to measurably reduce idle time. These are not present on OS X.
- UI: I'm not sure just how much hardware acceleration OS X uses, but Windows Vista/7 with Aero and Windows 8 at all times have hardware accelerated graphics for their UIs - eye candy in exchange for power consumption.
- Unusually low-power hardware: I can imagine Apple applying pressure for individual components' power consumption to be lowered - the screen comes to mind as a likely culprit.
Unoptimized drivers, most likely. Apple has the benefit of being able to tune pretty much everything. And I doubt they put too much effort into their Windows drivers.
You sync the panel's refresh rate to the application's. Say a frame gets delayed (40 fps instead of 60fps, for instance), traditionally, the monitor is blissfully ignorant of that fact and just refreshes whatever it is given when the time comes. Nvidia's solution is to have the GPU signal the LCD's controller, telling it when to refresh. This allows the monitor to refresh when the frame is done rendering, instead of at a fixed point in time.
It's essentially a method for allowing the panel to be refreshed on cue, keeping everything in sync. This avoids tearing (Incomplete frame in the bu.ffer) and lag (with vSync on, a frame takes longer to render and is thus forced to wait until the next refresh time - here the monitor waits for the GPU)
That's not quite the angle they're going for, but there are such solutions, involving a special "no refresh" signal (I assume) and an LCD controller with a framebuffer that is used to refresh the panel if there is no change, allowing the GPU to be idled.
My bad, got things mixed up. I had already read it, so I'd forgotten about the Red Hat Linux part. It does use Lynx, which is what I was referring to, to interface with systems not designed for TCP/IP communication.
Slashdot Mirror
At this time, I'm taking the whole thing with a handful of salt. It's not totally impossible, though.
How useful! Google's e-mail service works perfectly with other Google products! Nothing like proprietary solutions to problems with standard solutions... /s
And it's not iOS, it's WP8 - but it applies to pretty much every OS out there that does not involve a lot of Google.
Google does not support IMAP push, while they did support push e-mail with exchange, so it's a step back in any case.
Exchange is just the protocol, nothing stops Google from implementing it, allowing for easy data and mail syncing with support for pretty much everything you'd need on a phone. They did this until recently, when they decided they'd pull the plug (which effectively pulled the plug on WP8 contacts and calendar syncing with Google until GDR2 came out - and we still don't have push mail) and make it a premium-only feature.
There is no middleman, Google's servers are (or rather were) the exchange servers.
Google doesn't support IMAP push. Neat, huh?
Short answer: Yes, but you'll never notice them.
Long answer: Any large store (supermarket and up) has one of those things at every cashier station. Typically, low-denomination bills are simply accepted without any non-trivial checks. 50€ and up and you may start raising some flags (50€ banknotes are supposedly, by far, the most common counterfeit of all Euro banknotes) - mostly they'll go in the machine and that's it.
The "fun" starts with 100€ banknotes - you don't see those much in your average store. Try to pay with a 200€ and the manager will probably be called to double-check it. Try to pay with one or more 500€ banknotes and you're in for a wait while the manager checks them out.
Since nobody in their right minds tries to pay stuff with 100€+ banknotes in the vast majority of cases, and most cash purchases are in coins and/or 5€, 10€ and 20€ (50€ banknotes are popular with somewhat older people who don't have or prefer not to use cards, but are otherwise only seen when an ATM inexplicably gives you one or two instead of smaller denominations), the typical cash experience does not involve getting your cash "validated".
That's different, you're talking about an abstract case.
Can you take a person who has lung cancer and say: "Smoking definitely caused this. There is no way in hell that this was caused by radiation exposure or other some other thing." Of course not. And that's a question that is better understood than the intricacies of climate change.
Besides, let me illustrate why your reasoning is flawed with an analogy - let's assume that smoking is inevitable (cyclical climate change) but radiation isn't (climate change due to human actions).
If you look only at smoking, you'll see that 100% of cancer cases happened after smoking - you've learned nothing, since smoke is inevitable in our scenario. If you stick to this line of investigation, you'll quickly find scientific evidence that smoking does cause cancer.If no other possibilities are allowed, you might conclude that all cases of cancer were caused by smoking. This is nonsense.
However, if you don't ignore the other possibilities, you'll notice that they too can cause cancer.
By focusing on a single possibility that does contribute to the problem, but is not the only cause, you have now reached an implicit false conclusion that cancer is caused by smoking only - the matter is treated as understood. Meanwhile, radiation is still causing cancer.
Back to the matter at hand, if you focus on a single factor that may cause climate change and ignore the others, you'll reach the conclusion is caused by that factor, period. While not strictly untrue, it is incomplete. It's essentially a political trick to get favorable "science" by restricting it to the issues that are convenient for whoever is in charge.
Your point does not follow from your last sentence. In any case...
Sure, in some cases you can have enough control to allow for a more selective approach. When you're talking about a system where you can't guarantee the independence of the small portion you're examining, you're inviting misinterpretations that would've been avoided by keeping the rest of the system in mind.
You can't selectively investigate one possibility while completely ignoring the other.
That's not the problem, the problem is that they were being tasked with a *wink* independent *wink* study that is definitely not *wink* supposed to benefit climate change deniers *wink*.
Of course, open-minded studies are always needed, but this specific one reeks of political interference.
Well, software that generates a thousand copies of junk (seriously, the spam folder of all things...) isn't very typical.
Easy, we refuse to export products that are known to be used in executions - it doesn't matter if we sold the one used for executions in the first place. If there's a chance it'll be used for executions, it goes nowhere.
Hindenburg.
You're comparing Apples to Oranges (no pun intended).
On the exact same hardware (2013 MacBook Air), Windows gets notably worse battery life than OS X - most likely due in great part to unoptimized drivers written by Apple for Windows, compared to those written for OS X.
There are several reasons why the Surface Pro 2 has inferior battery life beyond the hypothetical "Windows has crap power management.":
- It has a smaller battery.
- It has different components (Apple has a lot more experience with components for Ultrabook-class devices and probably more influence over suppliers).
- It has a wacom digitizer and a capacitive touchscreen (these will inevitably contribute to a shorter battery life, by how much is hard to say).
Surface Pro has a smaller battery than a MacBook Air. Similar hardware with a smaller battery means it won't last as long.
On a MacBook Air, driver optimizations by Apple for OS X (and their most likely inferior drivers for Windows) are most likely a very significant advantage that OS X has over Windows.
Linux has better battery life? Not last time I checked.
Any specific configurations known to have better battery life?
It wouldn't use more power if it didn't have the eye candy.
Of course hardware acceleration vs. software rendering is a no brainer - the issue is that the question has been raised in the first place.
Comparing a Surface Pro to an iPad is about as useful as comparing a bus to a small car. Of course the small car uses less fuel, but I'd like to see a bus full of people crammed into said car.
The iPad and the tablets that it inspired are the new netbooks: barely useful for anything beyond simple tasks.
The Surface Pro and similar tablets are ultabooks stuffed into tablets - this has advantages and disadvantages.
As for OS X, that is indeed somewhat misterious, but it probably boils down to:
- Driver optimizations: having a very limited set of hardware that needs to be supported makes it much easier to optimize drivers (and if needed the OS itself).
- Bloatware: my Ativ Smart PC Pro came with at least three Samsung applications that constantly run in the background and (way too often) interact with the user. Control panel thingies for this and that driver don't help, either. Some of those probably misbehave and screw up the scheduler enough to measurably reduce idle time. These are not present on OS X.
- UI: I'm not sure just how much hardware acceleration OS X uses, but Windows Vista/7 with Aero and Windows 8 at all times have hardware accelerated graphics for their UIs - eye candy in exchange for power consumption.
- Unusually low-power hardware: I can imagine Apple applying pressure for individual components' power consumption to be lowered - the screen comes to mind as a likely culprit.
In that case you're blind.
Unoptimized drivers, most likely. Apple has the benefit of being able to tune pretty much everything. And I doubt they put too much effort into their Windows drivers.
That's clearly beside the point - and untrue.
He obviously bought the product - losing a customer with horrible customer support is always bad.
You sync the panel's refresh rate to the application's.
Say a frame gets delayed (40 fps instead of 60fps, for instance), traditionally, the monitor is blissfully ignorant of that fact and just refreshes whatever it is given when the time comes.
Nvidia's solution is to have the GPU signal the LCD's controller, telling it when to refresh. This allows the monitor to refresh when the frame is done rendering, instead of at a fixed point in time.
It's essentially a method for allowing the panel to be refreshed on cue, keeping everything in sync. This avoids tearing (Incomplete frame in the bu.ffer) and lag (with vSync on, a frame takes longer to render and is thus forced to wait until the next refresh time - here the monitor waits for the GPU)
That's not quite the angle they're going for, but there are such solutions, involving a special "no refresh" signal (I assume) and an LCD controller with a framebuffer that is used to refresh the panel if there is no change, allowing the GPU to be idled.
My bad, got things mixed up. I had already read it, so I'd forgotten about the Red Hat Linux part. It does use Lynx, which is what I was referring to, to interface with systems not designed for TCP/IP communication.
Technically, it's not open source software. It's a proprietary Unix-compatible OS (yeah, that's still a thing).
The headline is wrong since it has essentially nothing to do with Linux.