They're a foundry. They make a lot of very different products, and don't design them. This limits their capability to design for manufacturing, and doesn't let them tweak their processes to match the designs. That's the disadvantage of abstraction - they have a good general solution which can easily be matched to many uses, but it will never be as good at a specific use than a solution designed explicitly for that use. They're also just a foundry - they only have to compete with the other foundries, not keep up with Intel, as Intel is not their direct competitor.
If you follow the industry and are interested in the details of device design and fabrication, it certainly seems like Intel is rather ahead of the pack.
Oh, I totally agree with you that those are still good and useful things to do.
It's simply a tool, a tool which will improve over time. It's not a cure all, nothing ever is. It can fail, and awareness of your surroundings and common sense are still good things - and always will be. That's no reason to deny the benefits of the tool and decry the users of it.
The things you described aren't just facts, in the abstract - they are problems.
Knowing the king in the 1300s in the isles now known as Great Britain is a fact, not an actionable problem.
Fighting to remember and organize phone numbers, email addresses, physical addresses, etc., is a fact, but more importantly, a problem. Ironically, it's a problem we're mitigating by using our intelligence and creativity to make devices that make this information easily accessible and searchable.
Well, I think your argument is self-negating. Intelligence is not the rote memorization of facts, unless you consider books and computers to be the most intelligent things around.
But aside from that - as usual, I think the truth is somewhere in between your view and the others writing rebuttals.
I have absolutely no problem with conveniently storing data for which it serves no benefit to memorize. And there's far too much data for it to be reasonable to memorize even a small portion of what will be of use to you. That's why we have books and computers... and relevant here, the internet with wireless access. And that can present a trade-off. Before the internet was prevalent, when something broke, I might invest some time figuring out how it works, designing a robust fix, and implementing it. Now, I could save a lot of time by just searching the internet for it - chances are someone has done it before. And the critical thinking and abstractions and everything that would have gone into my solution are lost to the step-by-step directions the internet provides me.
Some will say that technology isn't limiting us in that scenario, because someone still had to figure it out. But that someone wasn't me. Many like me didn't have to. Fewer people will need to, and it's possible society will become more and more dependent on the internet rather than their own abilities. Now, the other side of it is efficiency - time savings. You could argue I could use all the time I save to do something more interesting to me with the same benefits. But I'd hazard a guess that society on the average will use the extra time to stare at a movie or TV show or video game.
Which all assumes, of course, we don't take the more cynical view that most people would just throw their hands up in the air at the problem instead of trying to fix it themselves at all.
And sundials, a crutch for those with a stunted sense of the time of year and ability to judge the position of the sun.
And depending on one's observations of the solar cycle, a crutch for those not well enough in tune with their own circadian rhythm.
And maps, for those with a stunted sense of being able to predict where one will be in the future, and failing to prepare by memorizing maps of the area.
And the internet, just a crutch for those who haven't properly prepared their activities - you should always have several back-ups plans, so you never need to look up a restaurant or anything while out and about.
Anyway. Despite the Neanderthal slant of the GP, I don't disagree that some people use them to escape thinking and any sort of down time, and I don't disagree that that is a bad thing.
Yeowch, flamebait. That might be my first -1 comment.
I'm guessing it provoked the ire of the Android folk? I had originally put in more against Apple to increase the level of levity, but figured I shouldn't provoke that lot. Without it, I guess people took it too seriously.
Oh well, lesson learned. Never try to have a sense of humor when fanboys are around. Guess I'll add that to the list, right after "never get involved in a land war in Asia" and "never go up against a Sicilian when death is on the line."
Google bribed the feds to use Android. Now, Android is pretty secure, because it's on Linux. But it's not as secure as iOS, because not only is iOS based on OS X, OS X itself is based on BSD.
So it obviously makes no sense for an agency which deals with secrets and security to use anything less than the most secure option. Therefore, Google paid them off. Probably not with money, but instead by letting the NSA access all of Google's information on, well, everyone.
Why would Google do that, give up that info for practically nothing? Well, Google isn't stupid. They know Android is a blatant rip off of iOS and that real soon the software patents held against Google will shutter Android. So what does Google do? It makes sure the NSA is using Android. Now, no politician is going to go against the NSA, and hell, it's hard to stop bureaucratic momentum regardless. So the government legitimizes Android; Android is now at the center of national security and is untouchable; and therefore all of Apple's patents are useless.
Yes, I do own funds that trade in tin. Why do you ask?
I agree with most of what you say, and many of your postings, but
Well, it gets all muddled when the people you're going to war with aren't the soldiers of any actual government....that I have some issues with.
Now, whatever you want to call the act of going after those types, that's one thing. But when it leads to taking a nation over, that's a war. When you occupy it and gut its government, that's war. When you perform military operations on foreign soil against the will of the sovereign government, that can be construed as an act of war.
You don't get to say "Yeah we destroyed your military and government, but we weren't attacking you, so it's okay." You don't get to say "Yeah, we're blowing up buildings and convoys on your land, full of your people, without your authorization, but we're not trying to attack you, so it doesn't count." You also don't get to declare war against some non-government group, and as a part of that edict, invade a country without declaring war on that country.
I don't expect that you disagree with this, but the line I italicized is rather open-ended.
Rimmer:The time for talking is over. Now call it extreme if you like, but I propose we hit it hard and we hit it fast, with a major, and I mean major, leaflet campaign.
Seems like it could be a useful tool for analysis. But when the conclusion of the author selling the thing states themselves the following...
PVS-Studio was defeated. Chromium's source code is one of the best we have ever analyzed. We have found almost nothing in Chromium. To be more exact, we have found a lot of errors and this article demonstrates only a few of them. But if we keep in mind that all these errors are spread throughout the source code with the size of 460 Mbytes, it turns out that there are almost no errors at all....it seems like Google and the Chromium team have a pretty good idea what they're doing.
Just be aware of the limitations of the model LBE uses. All root apps like it - including DroidWall, which I use as well - are by their very nature, leaky. If they crash and you don't realize it, they do nothing. If they fail to autostart and you don't realize it, they do nothing. In that small window between when Android boots and LBE/DroidWall autostart, they do nothing. The last case can be helped somewhat by startup managers.
PDroid seeks to shore up those shortcomings, however, it is only available for some ROMs and phones as it makes changes to Android itself. It also only appears to be available on 2.3.x releases of Android. But the upside is that it is not leaky like root background apps, and doesn't crash apps like Cyanogenmod does.
Actually, thanks for reminding me to look this up again. I'd forgotten about it, but would love to get it on my phone...
Well, it is> more visible than DRAM to the end user, so maybe.
But my bet is that a fair chuck of it is going to be in premiums for gimmicky features. I don't know, maybe something like adding in ill-conceived 3D effects. Then you role it out across your entire line, so that everything but the super cheap displays have it. The industry follows suit, and has an excuse for raising prices, increasing their margins. And then, as they continue to improve it, you'll be encouraged to keep upgrading... and lo, the next 5-10 years of their industry is saved.
You assert that the patent originator deserves to be rewarded to allow them to come up with more original ideas. Seems to me that finding someone to give them a stack of cash is a reward. Perhaps the most appropriate and utilitarian of awards. Not everyone has the capability or desire to see something through to volume manufacture.
If they couldn't sell the patents - then were would the innovation be? Not being able to benefit from the patent disincentivizes the research, and not being able to sell the patent or put it to use is simply a barrier to innovation and to products and improvements that would otherwise have a chance to reach the market.
Fair point, I guess the questions hinges on what constitutes an "app." To me, a UI modification or tweak isn't an app. Whether or not the 'researchers' believe the same is the question.
And also completely defeating the purpose of the current system, disrupting the entire ecosystem. There's a chain, here: the app developers include these permissions so that they can profit from providing a free-to-download-app by serving ads, the ads paid for by those believing that they're targeting ads to those most likely to buy their product/service. If the users disrupt the data stream with 'dummy' data, the ad providers don't know how well they're targeting the ads, and the value to the ad purchasers diminishes.
Not that I don't agree (and use software which lets me do the same on an Android phone) but the implications, when applied globally, greatly change the landscape.
I couldn't decide whether to mod you 'Overrated' (because I think you might actually believe what you're saying and are therefore not a Troll or Flamebait) or 'Funny' (because I can't figure out how exactly you're equating the two and it may well be a joke).
So, instead, you get this reply.
Now, understand that this doesn't come from someone who "claim(s) that pirating movies isn't stealing," though I do believe in the right to privacy. Maybe because of that, I don't see your insight into the matter (but apparently as you don't believe both, maybe you don't either). But I'm curious about why you see these things as the same, and why you think that there is an apparently significant intersection between the group that considers downloading movies not to be stealing and the group interested in privacy.
You imply that a reproductions of the Mona Lisa and the details of your life, financial situation, activities, interests, online pseudonyms, and whereabouts are the same. Either you believe that I should be able to search for 'SiMac' on, say, the Pirate Bay and download this information same as I would a movie, or you don't. Which is it?
Because even though I don't think that people should 'pirate' movies and I think I should have a right to privacy - I wouldn't equate the two. Why do you?
Slashdot Mirror
They're a foundry. They make a lot of very different products, and don't design them. This limits their capability to design for manufacturing, and doesn't let them tweak their processes to match the designs. That's the disadvantage of abstraction - they have a good general solution which can easily be matched to many uses, but it will never be as good at a specific use than a solution designed explicitly for that use. They're also just a foundry - they only have to compete with the other foundries, not keep up with Intel, as Intel is not their direct competitor.
If you follow the industry and are interested in the details of device design and fabrication, it certainly seems like Intel is rather ahead of the pack.
No wonder GF has yield problems if the chips have pillars of salt, sodium is terrible for MOSFETs.
Explains a lot, though.
Interesting viewpoint.
Guess all criminals should be punished as minors, then.
We all know what the real danger is. Actual passengers to talk to. We should ban them.
Oh, I totally agree with you that those are still good and useful things to do.
It's simply a tool, a tool which will improve over time. It's not a cure all, nothing ever is. It can fail, and awareness of your surroundings and common sense are still good things - and always will be. That's no reason to deny the benefits of the tool and decry the users of it.
The things you described aren't just facts, in the abstract - they are problems.
Knowing the king in the 1300s in the isles now known as Great Britain is a fact, not an actionable problem.
Fighting to remember and organize phone numbers, email addresses, physical addresses, etc., is a fact, but more importantly, a problem. Ironically, it's a problem we're mitigating by using our intelligence and creativity to make devices that make this information easily accessible and searchable.
Well, I think your argument is self-negating. Intelligence is not the rote memorization of facts, unless you consider books and computers to be the most intelligent things around.
But aside from that - as usual, I think the truth is somewhere in between your view and the others writing rebuttals.
I have absolutely no problem with conveniently storing data for which it serves no benefit to memorize. And there's far too much data for it to be reasonable to memorize even a small portion of what will be of use to you. That's why we have books and computers... and relevant here, the internet with wireless access. And that can present a trade-off. Before the internet was prevalent, when something broke, I might invest some time figuring out how it works, designing a robust fix, and implementing it. Now, I could save a lot of time by just searching the internet for it - chances are someone has done it before. And the critical thinking and abstractions and everything that would have gone into my solution are lost to the step-by-step directions the internet provides me.
Some will say that technology isn't limiting us in that scenario, because someone still had to figure it out. But that someone wasn't me. Many like me didn't have to. Fewer people will need to, and it's possible society will become more and more dependent on the internet rather than their own abilities. Now, the other side of it is efficiency - time savings. You could argue I could use all the time I save to do something more interesting to me with the same benefits. But I'd hazard a guess that society on the average will use the extra time to stare at a movie or TV show or video game.
Which all assumes, of course, we don't take the more cynical view that most people would just throw their hands up in the air at the problem instead of trying to fix it themselves at all.
And sundials, a crutch for those with a stunted sense of the time of year and ability to judge the position of the sun.
And depending on one's observations of the solar cycle, a crutch for those not well enough in tune with their own circadian rhythm.
And maps, for those with a stunted sense of being able to predict where one will be in the future, and failing to prepare by memorizing maps of the area.
And the internet, just a crutch for those who haven't properly prepared their activities - you should always have several back-ups plans, so you never need to look up a restaurant or anything while out and about.
Anyway. Despite the Neanderthal slant of the GP, I don't disagree that some people use them to escape thinking and any sort of down time, and I don't disagree that that is a bad thing.
Just buy rad-hard flash. Sure, it's not as dense, sure, it's expensive... but it is rather robust against radiation. They put it in satellites.
Not sure what kind of shielding they give it though.
Yes, yes, and soon, we will live in a world matching Kurt Vonnegut's description in Harrison Bergeron.
Yeah, I know. This wasn't meant to be taken seriously.
Yeowch, flamebait. That might be my first -1 comment.
I'm guessing it provoked the ire of the Android folk? I had originally put in more against Apple to increase the level of levity, but figured I shouldn't provoke that lot. Without it, I guess people took it too seriously.
Oh well, lesson learned. Never try to have a sense of humor when fanboys are around. Guess I'll add that to the list, right after "never get involved in a land war in Asia" and "never go up against a Sicilian when death is on the line."
It's clear what's going on here.
Google bribed the feds to use Android. Now, Android is pretty secure, because it's on Linux. But it's not as secure as iOS, because not only is iOS based on OS X, OS X itself is based on BSD.
So it obviously makes no sense for an agency which deals with secrets and security to use anything less than the most secure option. Therefore, Google paid them off. Probably not with money, but instead by letting the NSA access all of Google's information on, well, everyone.
Why would Google do that, give up that info for practically nothing? Well, Google isn't stupid. They know Android is a blatant rip off of iOS and that real soon the software patents held against Google will shutter Android. So what does Google do? It makes sure the NSA is using Android. Now, no politician is going to go against the NSA, and hell, it's hard to stop bureaucratic momentum regardless. So the government legitimizes Android; Android is now at the center of national security and is untouchable; and therefore all of Apple's patents are useless.
Yes, I do own funds that trade in tin. Why do you ask?
I agree with most of what you say, and many of your postings, but
Well, it gets all muddled when the people you're going to war with aren't the soldiers of any actual government. ...that I have some issues with.
Now, whatever you want to call the act of going after those types, that's one thing. But when it leads to taking a nation over, that's a war. When you occupy it and gut its government, that's war. When you perform military operations on foreign soil against the will of the sovereign government, that can be construed as an act of war.
You don't get to say "Yeah we destroyed your military and government, but we weren't attacking you, so it's okay." You don't get to say "Yeah, we're blowing up buildings and convoys on your land, full of your people, without your authorization, but we're not trying to attack you, so it doesn't count." You also don't get to declare war against some non-government group, and as a part of that edict, invade a country without declaring war on that country.
I don't expect that you disagree with this, but the line I italicized is rather open-ended.
Rimmer: The time for talking is over. Now call it extreme if you like, but I propose we hit it hard and we hit it fast, with a major, and I mean major, leaflet campaign.
[citation needed]
...why? Are you selling it?
Seems like it could be a useful tool for analysis. But when the conclusion of the author selling the thing states themselves the following...
PVS-Studio was defeated. Chromium's source code is one of the best we have ever analyzed. We have found almost nothing in Chromium. To be more exact, we have found a lot of errors and this article demonstrates only a few of them. But if we keep in mind that all these errors are spread throughout the source code with the size of 460 Mbytes, it turns out that there are almost no errors at all. ...it seems like Google and the Chromium team have a pretty good idea what they're doing.
Just be aware of the limitations of the model LBE uses. All root apps like it - including DroidWall, which I use as well - are by their very nature, leaky. If they crash and you don't realize it, they do nothing. If they fail to autostart and you don't realize it, they do nothing. In that small window between when Android boots and LBE/DroidWall autostart, they do nothing. The last case can be helped somewhat by startup managers.
PDroid seeks to shore up those shortcomings, however, it is only available for some ROMs and phones as it makes changes to Android itself. It also only appears to be available on 2.3.x releases of Android. But the upside is that it is not leaky like root background apps, and doesn't crash apps like Cyanogenmod does.
Actually, thanks for reminding me to look this up again. I'd forgotten about it, but would love to get it on my phone...
Look for:
LBE Privacy Guard
Permissions Denied
I'll bite.
In what manner does Chrome spy on its users?
Well, it is> more visible than DRAM to the end user, so maybe.
But my bet is that a fair chuck of it is going to be in premiums for gimmicky features. I don't know, maybe something like adding in ill-conceived 3D effects. Then you role it out across your entire line, so that everything but the super cheap displays have it. The industry follows suit, and has an excuse for raising prices, increasing their margins. And then, as they continue to improve it, you'll be encouraged to keep upgrading... and lo, the next 5-10 years of their industry is saved.
Nah, that could never happen.
You've answered your own question.
You assert that the patent originator deserves to be rewarded to allow them to come up with more original ideas. Seems to me that finding someone to give them a stack of cash is a reward. Perhaps the most appropriate and utilitarian of awards. Not everyone has the capability or desire to see something through to volume manufacture.
If they couldn't sell the patents - then were would the innovation be? Not being able to benefit from the patent disincentivizes the research, and not being able to sell the patent or put it to use is simply a barrier to innovation and to products and improvements that would otherwise have a chance to reach the market.
Fair point, I guess the questions hinges on what constitutes an "app." To me, a UI modification or tweak isn't an app. Whether or not the 'researchers' believe the same is the question.
And also completely defeating the purpose of the current system, disrupting the entire ecosystem. There's a chain, here: the app developers include these permissions so that they can profit from providing a free-to-download-app by serving ads, the ads paid for by those believing that they're targeting ads to those most likely to buy their product/service. If the users disrupt the data stream with 'dummy' data, the ad providers don't know how well they're targeting the ads, and the value to the ad purchasers diminishes.
Not that I don't agree (and use software which lets me do the same on an Android phone) but the implications, when applied globally, greatly change the landscape.
I couldn't decide whether to mod you 'Overrated' (because I think you might actually believe what you're saying and are therefore not a Troll or Flamebait) or 'Funny' (because I can't figure out how exactly you're equating the two and it may well be a joke).
So, instead, you get this reply.
Now, understand that this doesn't come from someone who "claim(s) that pirating movies isn't stealing," though I do believe in the right to privacy. Maybe because of that, I don't see your insight into the matter (but apparently as you don't believe both, maybe you don't either). But I'm curious about why you see these things as the same, and why you think that there is an apparently significant intersection between the group that considers downloading movies not to be stealing and the group interested in privacy.
You imply that a reproductions of the Mona Lisa and the details of your life, financial situation, activities, interests, online pseudonyms, and whereabouts are the same. Either you believe that I should be able to search for 'SiMac' on, say, the Pirate Bay and download this information same as I would a movie, or you don't. Which is it?
Because even though I don't think that people should 'pirate' movies and I think I should have a right to privacy - I wouldn't equate the two. Why do you?