with both endpoints and the cable negotiating on the highest speed that all three of them can support. This is the way that basically all interfaces have worked going back to 300/600/1200 baud modem days (and probably earlier).
The optical cables more than likely are about making a cable that works at speed over longer distances (like 10 meters) than they are about making a higher speed cable. So it will really be that if you need to go 20 ft then you grab a cable that is 20 feet long and which (transparent to you) does fancier stuff in the cable to make it work.
And finally, even if there are 20" cables that are 'faster' than other 20" cables, it doesn't present some sort of unprecedented situation. Have you tried using USB3 speeds over a USB1 cable? People who notice and who care about the performance will use the better cable.
All of you need to turn in your geek cards because you clearly don't understand how computers work.
It took 6 years to bring this technology to market, with hundreds of highly skilled engineers working full time on it, and they never thought of that problem. You, with the benefit of your University of Phoenix associate degree and literally months of Python programming experience, have uncovered critical flaws in the technology within 30 seconds of first hearing about it.
There is some serious stupid happening on this forum.
...and it is clear that you have never been to Silicon Valley or met any of the people who created the computer revolution. Also, where do you think those "talented people from all over the world" go to college?
Other countries have their own systems and maybe do a better job on the general education stuff in their primary schools. Whatever, we do it different, it works for us.
BTW: "Scoreboard" is a sports reference, it means check the score before you talk shit. If you're down 20 points then keep your mouth shut.
American K-12 education is a fashionable whipping boy--but I call bullshit on your claim that US engineers who attended good US engineering schools are inferior to their European counterparts.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that your sample size is small or your company has trouble attracting decent US talent. Or maybe European schools emphasize different things and you are judging the Americans by European standards.
Whatever, but look around dude. Seriously, look at the computer you are typing on. American engineers know how to build stuff. There's some great talent outside the US but there is no denying the overwhelming amount of engineering talent and skill within the US.
I get to keep all my apps? really? How about moving from Windows or Android to iPhone, do I get to keep my Apps?
What about movies. You are saying I can buy movies on an Android phone and then move to a Windows phone and keep my movies? Maybe you can, but how?
It seems like you are talking about 3 different competing ecosystems all with similar levels of lockin. The difference is that one of the ecosystems only works on hardware made by one vendor and the other two kinda suck.
Do you think maybe it is possible that you are completely full of shit?
And since when does Apple not support software on 2+ year old phones? Can you name a single vulnerability for any version of iPhone which doesn't have an available Apple-supported patch?
Any single one. Dating back to the original iPhone from 4 or so years ago. Go ahead, I'll wait.
1. There are alternatives, you can buy an Android phone.
2. If IOS devices made it easy to use another store, then non-technical users would be at more risk. They would get an email that said, "Hey try out this fun app" which would take them to the non-curated store, they would blindly click-through all warnings from the OS and voila, you've got a mobile experience every bit as toxic and unusable as the Windows PC experience--and you've just destroyed Apple's value proposition and their $100B market cap.
What it really boils down to is that most of Apple's critics (a) don't care at all about non-technical users and (b) really want Apple to fail anyway so are happy to argue for Apple to adopt flexibility that would lead to financial disaster for them. Apple fundamentally disagrees on both points so you aren't going to sway them.
Thousands of engineers labored for years to build the hardware and low-level software so that you can prance about writing your Ruby code or whatever the fuck you do that makes you think that you are some sort of tech genius. Those engineers put a lot of effort into making sure that you didn't have to be a semiconductor physics expert in order to use computers and that you weren't going to accidentally set the thing on fire with the wrong set of keystrokes. Compared to those engineers and relative to their turf, you are a moron.
There is value in abstraction. There are a hundred things that you rely on everyday that required some skilled profession to baby-proof and they were happy to do it, because that's what engineers do--and they don't look down their noses at those users as though they are some sort of inferior lifeform.
but he makes more of a positive contribution to the world every day of his adult life than a flea like you could possibly comprehend--and on top of it I am 100% certain that he is smarter and better looking.
1. GSM is a global standard. 2. Nokia agreed to F/RAND standards for licensing all patents required to implement GSM as a condition of making it a global standard 3. Nokia was insisting on disproportionate value from Apple (compared to other licensees) in exchange for the licenses to implement GSM. They wanted either far more money than they were charging other licensees, or unfettered access to Apple's intellectual property (not part of any standard) on a hundred billion dollar business.
"Normally these licenses involve some sort of cross licensing".
Apple wanted to license the technology necessary to implement a global standard in telecommunications, which Nokia is required to offer via reasonable and non-discriminatory terms as per their agreements to get that global standard adopted. Nokia said, "Here's reasonable and non-discriminatory for you, send us all the patents over the iPhone so we can make an exact copy of it and we'll let you use the global standard."
But yeah, somehow Apple is the bad guy in all this.
Since when? They've been buidling hardware for >30 years and have thousands of hardware patents.
The whole case was that Nokia insisted on unfettered access to Apple's intellectual property as a condition of Apple implementing a global standard (which was supposed to be offered under reasonable and non-discriminatory terms).
Slashdot Mirror
in your entire life.
it's supposed to be "for all intensive purposes"
with both endpoints and the cable negotiating on the highest speed that all three of them can support. This is the way that basically all interfaces have worked going back to 300/600/1200 baud modem days (and probably earlier).
The optical cables more than likely are about making a cable that works at speed over longer distances (like 10 meters) than they are about making a higher speed cable. So it will really be that if you need to go 20 ft then you grab a cable that is 20 feet long and which (transparent to you) does fancier stuff in the cable to make it work.
And finally, even if there are 20" cables that are 'faster' than other 20" cables, it doesn't present some sort of unprecedented situation. Have you tried using USB3 speeds over a USB1 cable? People who notice and who care about the performance will use the better cable.
All of you need to turn in your geek cards because you clearly don't understand how computers work.
It took 6 years to bring this technology to market, with hundreds of highly skilled engineers working full time on it, and they never thought of that problem. You, with the benefit of your University of Phoenix associate degree and literally months of Python programming experience, have uncovered critical flaws in the technology within 30 seconds of first hearing about it.
There is some serious stupid happening on this forum.
you clearly know more about signal integrity or market dynamics than Intel or Apple--it would be great if you could teach us all something.
We're waiting...
If you think they do then you have dramatically overestimated the size of the geek market compared to the consumer market.
People still use Windows?
...and it is clear that you have never been to Silicon Valley or met any of the people who created the computer revolution. Also, where do you think those "talented people from all over the world" go to college?
Other countries have their own systems and maybe do a better job on the general education stuff in their primary schools. Whatever, we do it different, it works for us.
BTW: "Scoreboard" is a sports reference, it means check the score before you talk shit. If you're down 20 points then keep your mouth shut.
Both with similar technical backgrounds, but one of them also has a well-rounded general education from a good 4 year school, which one do you pick?
Now suppose you have a hundred resumes, 99 of them have well-rounded general educations and 1 of them doesn't. Get the idea?
American K-12 education is a fashionable whipping boy--but I call bullshit on your claim that US engineers who attended good US engineering schools are inferior to their European counterparts.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that your sample size is small or your company has trouble attracting decent US talent. Or maybe European schools emphasize different things and you are judging the Americans by European standards.
Whatever, but look around dude. Seriously, look at the computer you are typing on. American engineers know how to build stuff. There's some great talent outside the US but there is no denying the overwhelming amount of engineering talent and skill within the US.
I get to keep all my apps? really? How about moving from Windows or Android to iPhone, do I get to keep my Apps?
What about movies. You are saying I can buy movies on an Android phone and then move to a Windows phone and keep my movies? Maybe you can, but how?
It seems like you are talking about 3 different competing ecosystems all with similar levels of lockin. The difference is that one of the ecosystems only works on hardware made by one vendor and the other two kinda suck.
Do you think maybe it is possible that you are completely full of shit?
All music is DRM-free on iTunes and has been for years, and was made DRM-free at Apple's insistence over years of objections from the music industry.
Say what you will about Apple--but they don't tolerate third party bloatware on Macs
Maybe you could redirect your rage at the school system which produced you.
Or better yet, discover girls, move out of Mom's basement, find some more important machine to rage against.
Care to try to boot Dos 1.0 on a modern Macbook?
This is an Android story.
And since when does Apple not support software on 2+ year old phones? Can you name a single vulnerability for any version of iPhone which doesn't have an available Apple-supported patch?
Any single one. Dating back to the original iPhone from 4 or so years ago. Go ahead, I'll wait.
People should buy iPhones to protect themselves from themselves. Android is available if you don't want or need that protection.
The only thing we disagree about is that I think you are a dick for calling nontechnical iPhone users morons.
1. There are alternatives, you can buy an Android phone.
2. If IOS devices made it easy to use another store, then non-technical users would be at more risk. They would get an email that said, "Hey try out this fun app" which would take them to the non-curated store, they would blindly click-through all warnings from the OS and voila, you've got a mobile experience every bit as toxic and unusable as the Windows PC experience--and you've just destroyed Apple's value proposition and their $100B market cap.
What it really boils down to is that most of Apple's critics (a) don't care at all about non-technical users and (b) really want Apple to fail anyway so are happy to argue for Apple to adopt flexibility that would lead to financial disaster for them. Apple fundamentally disagrees on both points so you aren't going to sway them.
But you have other options, see #1.
Thousands of engineers labored for years to build the hardware and low-level software so that you can prance about writing your Ruby code or whatever the fuck you do that makes you think that you are some sort of tech genius. Those engineers put a lot of effort into making sure that you didn't have to be a semiconductor physics expert in order to use computers and that you weren't going to accidentally set the thing on fire with the wrong set of keystrokes. Compared to those engineers and relative to their turf, you are a moron.
There is value in abstraction. There are a hundred things that you rely on everyday that required some skilled profession to baby-proof and they were happy to do it, because that's what engineers do--and they don't look down their noses at those users as though they are some sort of inferior lifeform.
...you aren't happy--but you also aren't an Apple customer.
See how that works?
but he makes more of a positive contribution to the world every day of his adult life than a flea like you could possibly comprehend--and on top of it I am 100% certain that he is smarter and better looking.
Who are you? Answer: Nobody.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/177955-apple-launches-countersuit-vs-nokia-no-punches-pulled-in-court-documents
Which of these statements is false?:
1. GSM is a global standard.
2. Nokia agreed to F/RAND standards for licensing all patents required to implement GSM as a condition of making it a global standard
3. Nokia was insisting on disproportionate value from Apple (compared to other licensees) in exchange for the licenses to implement GSM. They wanted either far more money than they were charging other licensees, or unfettered access to Apple's intellectual property (not part of any standard) on a hundred billion dollar business.
So, who is the bully and who is the victim here?
"Normally these licenses involve some sort of cross licensing".
Apple wanted to license the technology necessary to implement a global standard in telecommunications, which Nokia is required to offer via reasonable and non-discriminatory terms as per their agreements to get that global standard adopted. Nokia said, "Here's reasonable and non-discriminatory for you, send us all the patents over the iPhone so we can make an exact copy of it and we'll let you use the global standard."
But yeah, somehow Apple is the bad guy in all this.
Since when? They've been buidling hardware for >30 years and have thousands of hardware patents.
The whole case was that Nokia insisted on unfettered access to Apple's intellectual property as a condition of Apple implementing a global standard (which was supposed to be offered under reasonable and non-discriminatory terms).