Sure they do: Options -> Under the Hood. There's a checkbox for SSL 3.0, and one for TLS 1.0. So, similar to what the poster above you said, it looks like they don't expose TLS 1.1/1.2 in releases yet.
I wish I could believe you were just trolling. But I think you might actually be serious.
You've got a problem, bud. That laptop looks hardly anything like mac books. The login logo looks nothing like an Apple. Companies have been putting their logo on that part of the frame for ages (such as my 7 year old Dell laptop). Black bezels are nothing new or unique to Apple (for example, see Sony Vaios for years).
And to your sig, Google doesn't claim to be about openness. They make some of those claims about Android. Wholly different things.
As I said, I'm no Intel shill. I'm running an AMD based computer that I built, if that helps.
No, I like the Tech Report because their methods are transparent, scientific, and generally reproducible, from what I've seen on other sites. They also produce great in-depth articles, digging through CPU and GPU architecture. And if it helps your inferiority complex any, they were all for AMD a few years back when Intel was struggling with Pentium D and such. Not even grudgingly accepting, but enthusiastic.
First time I've encountered PassMark. Tell me, why do you place all of your trust in it? I looked at their website. I could find nothing but bland and technically insufficient description of what they test... which is almost entirely synthetic benchmarks anyway. No implementation details, closed source, small suite. Submissions aren't transparent, and for all you know they're playing games with the numbers, either intentionally, or through shitty code. It doesn't even report the results in each section of the test, and applies some "weighted average," the details of which they choose not to declare. How does their software detect hardware? Are fanboys stupid enough to try to spoof it, just to screw with results? Does the testload they provide match what you do with your computer, or any real-world consumer use?
Sorry, but I'll take real applications, real world usage, transparent methods, transparent metrics, and a staff of knowledgeable technical writers over some commercial, closed benchmark any day.
It's ironic. You ask me if the fact that one source contradicts mine would make me reconsider. The answer? Sure, with evidence. It's troubling, at the very least. But what about the reverse. Do you question your beliefs, given that multiple other sources disagree? Or do you stick to PassMark, because it shows what you want it to show? Here's something that should give you pause: Symantec endorses PassMark, as PassMark gave them some of the highest marks for Symantec antivirus performance, both consumer grade and small business. That should set off alarms for anyone who has ever used Symantec software before.
Shrinking transistors isn't brute force, per se. It makes things faster, and if done correctly (read: not like AMD's 32nm process, which consumes just as much power at load as older generations), it reduces power. And it's not just shrinking. Intel's move to FINFETs is a great example of that. I fear people outside of the industry don't grasp what all goes into this fundamental change.
On the memory front, things are changing... things have to. Memory (DRAM) can't be shrunk just by transistor shrinks. Research is being done on things like spintronics and phase change. These things will get there in time. And with shrinking transistors you can get shrinking SRAM, which is directly integrated on-chip, meaning high-speed and no interconnects. SRAM is one of the faster memory types around, and you can't beat not having any real interconnects. Building bigger caches, which you seem to deride, through transistor shrinks, which you deride, allows using more and more of the fastest memory cheaply available.
More than that, there's a ton of work always done in memory prediction on the CPU. Predicting what is coming next, pre-fetching it before its needed. Tons of work is still being done in this area, and it lessens the impact of slower memories.
Interconnects? Optical is probably a long way out, from what I've seen in literature. Could be some company is well ahead of published research, though. Nonetheless, 3D integration will probably happen first... and effectively eliminate a lot of these slow buses. Companies have been talking about this for ages, IBM is throwing R&D at it, rumors suggest TSMC wants to manufacture it by end of next year, last I saw.
So, sorry... I disagree, and can't help but wonder if you did much looking at all before complaining.
Actually, from that same article, an $80 card (HD 6670) often provides double the performance of the 6550 IGP. Sorry, but the IGP scores aren't spectacular for the A-3850. You could get away with less on the discrete side to match it, and this is with an i3-2100, which costs less than the A-3850, and is faster (and more power-efficient) at CPU-based tasks.
By all means, the A-3850 probably provides playability for the lowest upfront cost (well, not sure about that, I'd imagine you can get the same or cheaper by buying generation-old CPUs that offer similar performance for cheap, plus discrete graphics, which is exactly what the text in the article suggests). But you just get playability. Right now. In some games... already struggling in newer ones. But you'll be replacing it in a year, or buying that discrete graphics card... just to find yourself quickly CPU-bound (already are with the discrete 6670 on some games).
So, I'm having trouble buying that the A-3850 is a good value for the gamer, or that it's going to save them much money. If you're not gaming, the Intel IGP is just fine, and has some fun new features like assisted encoding (not just decoding), making it faster and more efficient.
The only real benefit I see from the A-3850 is lower power draw at idle. If I was running a system 24/365, that might add up. I'd estimate my system is only up about 3000 hours a year, though. The A-3850 uses, from other Tech Report articles, about 25 W less at idle with the IGP only and compared to the i3-2100 with a discrete 6670. At 95% idle and with the power rate in my area, that's $6.47/year more, using your 100 W at-load differential. Is my use below average? Fine, let's expand the numbers to 24/365 operation (8760 hours), still keeping the same 95% idle figure (which unfairly inflates the usage time, when most of the time added - e.g. when people are sleeping or at work/school - will be at idle). The hypothetical Intel rig will consume an extra $18.89 a year.
Over three years, with a compromise on power use: $30 (power) + $35 (A-3850 price - i3-2100 price + your claimed motherboard differential) + $60 (graphics at least equal if not better than the A-3850) = $125. Subtract from that the amount you spend upgrading the whole "APU" (stupid name), which likely completely wipes this out, or the ~$50 you might spend on a discrete part and the corresponding difference in the power consumption differential... From a cost perspective, it's more or less a wash. You might come out slightly ahead, I'll enjoy a more capable system for three years and not have to putz around upgrading it.
No where close to 10% or 30% of the cost, though. That's mainly my point. I'm not trying to advocate Intel. I think people should look through the numbers and work out what's best for them based on what they use. Shock claims of 10% or 30% TCO are just FUD. Ironic that despite that being demonstrably false, in your eyes, it's me who's flamebaiting.
Stop being so willfully obtuse. Intel sells parts all over the range, competing at nearly every pricepoint, and in general offering a better value proposition to boot (performance/price). For example:
So yeah, cut the fanboy crap, and the FUD about Intel being so expensive. You can get newer Intel parts just a hair above $100, and they're still good in that range. At least as good as, if not better than, similarly prices AMD chips.
A TENTH of the price? Yeah, maybe if you compare the most expensive Intel part to the least expensive AMD part, and completely ignore all those other Intel SKUs. I'm not sure if you're being dishonest, or are just really that obtuse.
I don't see any pricepoint where AMD offers a better value than Intel. They do have parts that are just plain cheaper - a quick search of Newegg indicates that only AMD has a new chip for under $40, an older Sempron. Above that, you can find similarly priced Intel and AMD chips right on up. Have you taken the time to look? Have you taken the time to compare? Or are you just a fanboy spreading FUD, or a non-fanboy who just hasn't changed their song in about 8 years? For reference, look at a chart like this one: http://techreport.com/articles.x/21208/18
A specific example from that chart: Intel's i5-2400, destroying the AMD lineup, yet priced the same as the X6 1075T and X4 980, and less than the X6 1100T, which it soundly trounces.
This is the case right down to the $100 range, too, about the lowest that chart goes.
I just don't understand how people can support AMD, except out of a root-for-the-underdog mentality, ignoring all else. Intel has design superiority, process capability superiority, technology superiority, manufacturing volume superiority. Given those advantages, you really think Intel is going to just leave a whole segment of the market to AMD? Sure, they're going to sell their parts at the highest prices they can first, but not everyone is buying $300 processors.
You're right, but for the wrong reasons. I could substitute "gasoline" for "water" in what you said and it would sound equally plausible.
If I'm understanding you correctly. I'm not sure I am, I'm still parsing and reparsing what you said.
Regardless, to the GP: don't use the power generated by combusting the hydrogen to pump the water uphill. Let electrolysis form gas which will naturally want to rise to the top of the hill, and burn it there to turn it back into water.
I'll draw and quarter you or simply shank you with a rusty spoon. Your choice. Still want to call the less bad option "good?"
Good and bad are more toward the side of absolutes, not relativism. Being shanked is better than being slowly tortured to death. That doesn't make being shanked "good."
And just to clarify, that second one wasn't to address you point, but your manner of making it. Just because someone doesn't have the same preference as you, does not make them insane.
I disable images in all of my browsers, and open them up in my image viewer of choice, like any sane person would prefer to do.
I also occasionally use a Python script to fetch webpages for me, pull out the body text and save it so that I can read it in my text editor of choice. Like any sane person would prefer to do.
It doesn't matter if 1, 5, or 100 of them had political motivations. It is evident from the aftermath and the images and videos captured during the event that most did not. The riots weren't remotely close to some idealistic movement, some political free speech, not as whole. Probably not even in part, because honestly, who would be stupid enough to tie their political movement to rioting and theft? (Other than the neo-anarchists, of course).
No, not really. All they need to sniff your packets is a client that can connect to your network (e.g. a laptop or phone). Doesn't stop them from using a completely separate system for their internal communications.
Only if they use the new hardware division to do things others can't - if they play favorites. If they treat all sides the same - give them all the same access to resources, technical info, dev builds, etc. - but the now-Google MMI hardware does it better... Well, that just gives the other players a model to follow. Namely, that they shouldn't think that screwing with the Android UI to have their own unique footprint is necessarily a good thing, especially if it sacrifices optimization and usability.
Sending phone to the devs to support CM - that's awesome. Hadn't heard that previously... I'll have to take a good look at Samsung phones in the future.
Actually, it showed up for me not long after I joined. It's not just for long-time participants. It's seems to be for anyone who registers and is semi-active.
You can if you root. And hopefully, with Google at the helm, that will become very easy to do.
I was hesitant to root with my phone (first-gen Droid). But after having done it and used it for a while, and found all the things I can do... Every Android phone I own will be rooted.
Your questions are irrelevant when directed at the ruling class. That's the case here. Of course they're going to protect their own asses.
To your point, though, it's a revolution - the point is to do things the rulers don't like. Whatever free speech laws you perceive to be different now don't matter, because the whole point of the revolution is to shrug of those laws and systems. It's not like a colonist could make threats against the crown within range of loyalists or redcoats and not be punished. But when enough start doing it... the "restriction" begin not to matter.
What "current restrictions" are you talking about, anyway? I'm wholly unsure by the end of your post if you're talking about Egypt or about the USA. If it's Egypt... well, the military is in power. Military types seem to like hierarchies and order. Revolutions are usually pretty messy affairs, it's not exactly insightful to point out that they might want to stamp it out (and keep themselves in power).
Slashdot Mirror
Sure they do: Options -> Under the Hood. There's a checkbox for SSL 3.0, and one for TLS 1.0. So, similar to what the poster above you said, it looks like they don't expose TLS 1.1/1.2 in releases yet.
Not even those, any more many sites use JS to check for Flash and the installed version :/
I wish I could believe you were just trolling. But I think you might actually be serious.
You've got a problem, bud. That laptop looks hardly anything like mac books. The login logo looks nothing like an Apple. Companies have been putting their logo on that part of the frame for ages (such as my 7 year old Dell laptop). Black bezels are nothing new or unique to Apple (for example, see Sony Vaios for years).
And to your sig, Google doesn't claim to be about openness. They make some of those claims about Android. Wholly different things.
To be fair, it could be either.
Ha, get over yourself.
As I said, I'm no Intel shill. I'm running an AMD based computer that I built, if that helps.
No, I like the Tech Report because their methods are transparent, scientific, and generally reproducible, from what I've seen on other sites. They also produce great in-depth articles, digging through CPU and GPU architecture. And if it helps your inferiority complex any, they were all for AMD a few years back when Intel was struggling with Pentium D and such. Not even grudgingly accepting, but enthusiastic.
First time I've encountered PassMark. Tell me, why do you place all of your trust in it? I looked at their website. I could find nothing but bland and technically insufficient description of what they test... which is almost entirely synthetic benchmarks anyway. No implementation details, closed source, small suite. Submissions aren't transparent, and for all you know they're playing games with the numbers, either intentionally, or through shitty code. It doesn't even report the results in each section of the test, and applies some "weighted average," the details of which they choose not to declare. How does their software detect hardware? Are fanboys stupid enough to try to spoof it, just to screw with results? Does the testload they provide match what you do with your computer, or any real-world consumer use?
Sorry, but I'll take real applications, real world usage, transparent methods, transparent metrics, and a staff of knowledgeable technical writers over some commercial, closed benchmark any day.
It's ironic. You ask me if the fact that one source contradicts mine would make me reconsider. The answer? Sure, with evidence. It's troubling, at the very least. But what about the reverse. Do you question your beliefs, given that multiple other sources disagree? Or do you stick to PassMark, because it shows what you want it to show? Here's something that should give you pause: Symantec endorses PassMark, as PassMark gave them some of the highest marks for Symantec antivirus performance, both consumer grade and small business. That should set off alarms for anyone who has ever used Symantec software before.
This is baiting, but I'll reply...
Shrinking transistors isn't brute force, per se. It makes things faster, and if done correctly (read: not like AMD's 32nm process, which consumes just as much power at load as older generations), it reduces power. And it's not just shrinking. Intel's move to FINFETs is a great example of that. I fear people outside of the industry don't grasp what all goes into this fundamental change.
On the memory front, things are changing... things have to. Memory (DRAM) can't be shrunk just by transistor shrinks. Research is being done on things like spintronics and phase change. These things will get there in time. And with shrinking transistors you can get shrinking SRAM, which is directly integrated on-chip, meaning high-speed and no interconnects. SRAM is one of the faster memory types around, and you can't beat not having any real interconnects. Building bigger caches, which you seem to deride, through transistor shrinks, which you deride, allows using more and more of the fastest memory cheaply available.
More than that, there's a ton of work always done in memory prediction on the CPU. Predicting what is coming next, pre-fetching it before its needed. Tons of work is still being done in this area, and it lessens the impact of slower memories.
Interconnects? Optical is probably a long way out, from what I've seen in literature. Could be some company is well ahead of published research, though. Nonetheless, 3D integration will probably happen first... and effectively eliminate a lot of these slow buses. Companies have been talking about this for ages, IBM is throwing R&D at it, rumors suggest TSMC wants to manufacture it by end of next year, last I saw.
So, sorry... I disagree, and can't help but wonder if you did much looking at all before complaining.
Actually, from that same article, an $80 card (HD 6670) often provides double the performance of the 6550 IGP. Sorry, but the IGP scores aren't spectacular for the A-3850. You could get away with less on the discrete side to match it, and this is with an i3-2100, which costs less than the A-3850, and is faster (and more power-efficient) at CPU-based tasks.
By all means, the A-3850 probably provides playability for the lowest upfront cost (well, not sure about that, I'd imagine you can get the same or cheaper by buying generation-old CPUs that offer similar performance for cheap, plus discrete graphics, which is exactly what the text in the article suggests). But you just get playability. Right now. In some games... already struggling in newer ones. But you'll be replacing it in a year, or buying that discrete graphics card... just to find yourself quickly CPU-bound (already are with the discrete 6670 on some games).
So, I'm having trouble buying that the A-3850 is a good value for the gamer, or that it's going to save them much money. If you're not gaming, the Intel IGP is just fine, and has some fun new features like assisted encoding (not just decoding), making it faster and more efficient.
The only real benefit I see from the A-3850 is lower power draw at idle. If I was running a system 24/365, that might add up. I'd estimate my system is only up about 3000 hours a year, though. The A-3850 uses, from other Tech Report articles, about 25 W less at idle with the IGP only and compared to the i3-2100 with a discrete 6670. At 95% idle and with the power rate in my area, that's $6.47/year more, using your 100 W at-load differential. Is my use below average? Fine, let's expand the numbers to 24/365 operation (8760 hours), still keeping the same 95% idle figure (which unfairly inflates the usage time, when most of the time added - e.g. when people are sleeping or at work/school - will be at idle). The hypothetical Intel rig will consume an extra $18.89 a year.
Over three years, with a compromise on power use: $30 (power) + $35 (A-3850 price - i3-2100 price + your claimed motherboard differential) + $60 (graphics at least equal if not better than the A-3850) = $125. Subtract from that the amount you spend upgrading the whole "APU" (stupid name), which likely completely wipes this out, or the ~$50 you might spend on a discrete part and the corresponding difference in the power consumption differential... From a cost perspective, it's more or less a wash. You might come out slightly ahead, I'll enjoy a more capable system for three years and not have to putz around upgrading it.
No where close to 10% or 30% of the cost, though. That's mainly my point. I'm not trying to advocate Intel. I think people should look through the numbers and work out what's best for them based on what they use. Shock claims of 10% or 30% TCO are just FUD. Ironic that despite that being demonstrably false, in your eyes, it's me who's flamebaiting.
Stop being so willfully obtuse. Intel sells parts all over the range, competing at nearly every pricepoint, and in general offering a better value proposition to boot (performance/price). For example:
http://techreport.com/articles.x/21208/18
So yeah, cut the fanboy crap, and the FUD about Intel being so expensive. You can get newer Intel parts just a hair above $100, and they're still good in that range. At least as good as, if not better than, similarly prices AMD chips.
This is modded insightful? Sheesh.
A TENTH of the price? Yeah, maybe if you compare the most expensive Intel part to the least expensive AMD part, and completely ignore all those other Intel SKUs. I'm not sure if you're being dishonest, or are just really that obtuse.
I don't see any pricepoint where AMD offers a better value than Intel. They do have parts that are just plain cheaper - a quick search of Newegg indicates that only AMD has a new chip for under $40, an older Sempron. Above that, you can find similarly priced Intel and AMD chips right on up. Have you taken the time to look? Have you taken the time to compare? Or are you just a fanboy spreading FUD, or a non-fanboy who just hasn't changed their song in about 8 years? For reference, look at a chart like this one: http://techreport.com/articles.x/21208/18
A specific example from that chart: Intel's i5-2400, destroying the AMD lineup, yet priced the same as the X6 1075T and X4 980, and less than the X6 1100T, which it soundly trounces.
This is the case right down to the $100 range, too, about the lowest that chart goes.
I just don't understand how people can support AMD, except out of a root-for-the-underdog mentality, ignoring all else. Intel has design superiority, process capability superiority, technology superiority, manufacturing volume superiority. Given those advantages, you really think Intel is going to just leave a whole segment of the market to AMD? Sure, they're going to sell their parts at the highest prices they can first, but not everyone is buying $300 processors.
You're right, but for the wrong reasons. I could substitute "gasoline" for "water" in what you said and it would sound equally plausible.
If I'm understanding you correctly. I'm not sure I am, I'm still parsing and reparsing what you said.
Regardless, to the GP: don't use the power generated by combusting the hydrogen to pump the water uphill. Let electrolysis form gas which will naturally want to rise to the top of the hill, and burn it there to turn it back into water.
Wow, the way you wrangled that old wisdom about being nice into a wording that is anything but is almost artful
I'll draw and quarter you or simply shank you with a rusty spoon. Your choice. Still want to call the less bad option "good?"
Good and bad are more toward the side of absolutes, not relativism. Being shanked is better than being slowly tortured to death. That doesn't make being shanked "good."
They block 80 and 443 by default?! Those are standard HTTP and HTTPS. How on earth can you log into any website to fix that?
And just to clarify, that second one wasn't to address you point, but your manner of making it. Just because someone doesn't have the same preference as you, does not make them insane.
I agree.
I disable images in all of my browsers, and open them up in my image viewer of choice, like any sane person would prefer to do.
I also occasionally use a Python script to fetch webpages for me, pull out the body text and save it so that I can read it in my text editor of choice. Like any sane person would prefer to do.
That's just pedantic.
It doesn't matter if 1, 5, or 100 of them had political motivations. It is evident from the aftermath and the images and videos captured during the event that most did not. The riots weren't remotely close to some idealistic movement, some political free speech, not as whole. Probably not even in part, because honestly, who would be stupid enough to tie their political movement to rioting and theft? (Other than the neo-anarchists, of course).
It's not ironic, it's /. I expect half of the comments to have no relation to reality.
No, not really. All they need to sniff your packets is a client that can connect to your network (e.g. a laptop or phone). Doesn't stop them from using a completely separate system for their internal communications.
Only if they use the new hardware division to do things others can't - if they play favorites. If they treat all sides the same - give them all the same access to resources, technical info, dev builds, etc. - but the now-Google MMI hardware does it better... Well, that just gives the other players a model to follow. Namely, that they shouldn't think that screwing with the Android UI to have their own unique footprint is necessarily a good thing, especially if it sacrifices optimization and usability.
Which actually includes some odd things like set-top boxes and cable modems, at least according to the MMI websites.
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Sending phone to the devs to support CM - that's awesome. Hadn't heard that previously... I'll have to take a good look at Samsung phones in the future.
Actually, it showed up for me not long after I joined. It's not just for long-time participants. It's seems to be for anyone who registers and is semi-active.
You can if you root. And hopefully, with Google at the helm, that will become very easy to do.
I was hesitant to root with my phone (first-gen Droid). But after having done it and used it for a while, and found all the things I can do... Every Android phone I own will be rooted.
Your questions are irrelevant when directed at the ruling class. That's the case here. Of course they're going to protect their own asses.
To your point, though, it's a revolution - the point is to do things the rulers don't like. Whatever free speech laws you perceive to be different now don't matter, because the whole point of the revolution is to shrug of those laws and systems. It's not like a colonist could make threats against the crown within range of loyalists or redcoats and not be punished. But when enough start doing it... the "restriction" begin not to matter.
What "current restrictions" are you talking about, anyway? I'm wholly unsure by the end of your post if you're talking about Egypt or about the USA. If it's Egypt... well, the military is in power. Military types seem to like hierarchies and order. Revolutions are usually pretty messy affairs, it's not exactly insightful to point out that they might want to stamp it out (and keep themselves in power).