Have you read about the vulnerability requirements? You have to already control the machine before you can use these. If these are a problem, you already have a much bigger problem.
Nothing for a very long time if they decide to go ahead. They introduced JavaScript as a VBA alternative in 2013. It's now 4 years later and while they've added a lot of APIs, there are still a ton left to go.
Splitting their API resources between Python and JS seems like the perfect way to get neither any time soon (and a great way to bike shed both out of existence altogether).
There's some truth here. You stick with what you know. 60 something percent of students are using Chromebooks. If MS wants them to use Office later, they have to make sure it's available as soon as possible.
There's a fundamental priority difference between webOS and iOS/Android.
Let's first take a look at macOS (this basically applies to Windows as well). How do you open an app? First, you check the dock for commonly-used applications. If they aren't there, you search the applications folder (or launchpad in newer versions) or use +Space to search for it. Notice that dock offers direct access, but other apps require extra steps.
Window managing is what a desktop OS is all about -- NOT opening apps. You have Spaces/Mission Control to group apps (because positional memorization is important to humans -- I suspect 2D spaces were superior in that regard to the 1D mission control desktops). You can drag windows around, resize them, put them side-by-side, etc. Closing Apps is also first-class with with just a +Q. Notifications are unobtrusive popups. Minor settings are available in the tray and major settings in Preferences (accessible by icon).
webOS follows that paradigm closely. Common apps go in the launcher. Less common apps are either in the app drawer or JustType to search for it. Launcher offers direct access, but everything else takes extra steps.
The primary view for webOS is for window managing. You have a 1D set of apps that you can move into Groups. Closing apps is a simple swipe up. There exists room to add things like side-by-side apps, but most of the devices were never big enough. Notifications are unobtrusive popups. Minor settings are available by clicking on the tray. Major settings are available in the settings view and accessible by icon.
The reason the webOS UI is so good is because webOS is the desktop paradigm you've been using for years.
Android and iOS have adopted many of these patterns, but they still feel foreign. Why? because launching apps reigns supreme. Instead of multi-tasking being the default view, their default is showing apps on the home screen. To change tasks, you have to switch into another, secondary mode and then back out of it. Android's and iOS's UI paradigm is upside down. First-class app opening with second-class task managing is bad UI.
In webOS, users tend to close uncommon apps and leave their common ones running which makes freeing resources the default (good for constrained systems). In iOS or Android, users simply cannot be bothered to use an out-of-the-way, second-class task switcher and don't even realize there are dozens of open apps.
Instead iOS/Android app icons become a poor, ad-hoc task manager that is ill-equipped to manage apps and completely unable to kill them.
That's a very disingenuous opinion. There is a very large physiological difference between genders and an infinitesimally small one between skin tones. Likewise there is a very large body of evidence to back up the former differences and only the ravings of quack racists to back up the latter.
Toshiba bought out Westinghouse a few years ago (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westinghouse_Electric_Corporation#Timeline_of_company_evolution) as part of a plan to increase investment in nuclear power (they'd already bought most of the nuclear division around a decade before that).
My wife's brother worked on the SC plants. According to him, Westinghouse was tasked with making new designs with inexperienced teams. One of their bright ideas was to prefab the plant (to save engineer time and money I'd guess) instead of making a design tailored to the specific location. As anyone could foresee, they've spent billions of dollars ever since tailoring it bit by bit. That leads to huge wastes (15M/week -- on the site alone -- as everyone sits around waiting for corporate and government bureaucracy to reach an agreement).
You may have a point about Haskell, but not about ML. Further, SML basically gets everything right that Haskell gets wrong.
SML isn't lazy. Humans don't think in terms of lazy evaluation. Even though Haskell is much more popular and has much better tools, MLton will usually compile faster code.
SML allows side effects. Haskell talks about purity, but the presence and reliance on unsafePerformIO shows that purity has limits. The practical answer is to write without side effects then add them to designated parts of the codebase which gets you most of the benefits of purity without all the overhead and headaches for the last 5% of your program.
SML is immutable by default, but allows mutation if needed. Making everything immutable is great for some problems (eg, concurrency), but is generally bad for performance (determining when in-place mutation can occur instead of a new allocation is a hard, branchy problem).
The biggest question is why SML isn't ruling the world. Consider golang vs SML. SML is about as fast, has a similar concurrency model in CML extensions, has a much better type system, and has much more simple syntax (despite being a more powerful syntax). Golang is used because the tooling is very nice, but why did Google choose to pour resources into golang (or even make it in the first place) when a better solution exists? Because familiar beats everything.
In schools where SML is taught as a first language, nobody has problems learning it (compared to imperative languages). A lot of such people I've talked to even prefer the syntax. Most schools teach a language with a C-derived syntax and approach, so those devs learn to prefer that (and usually never even see ML-style syntax). Haskell has issues with popularity because of complexity. SML has issues with popularity because "popularity begets popularity".
Most serious JS is definitely NOT open to the public. Common libraries certainly are (and the JS community is very aggressive about pushing the programming envelope), but most significant projects are closed source. You could argue that you can see the source anyway, but between babel transformations and minification, the output is obfuscated (to say differently would be similar to arguing that C projects are open because you can disassemble them).
Paying 3.75 million for what is probably the most detailed study the industry has ever had. A team of market researchers would cost far more and yield far inferior results (even in anonymous studies, people lie and/or forget).
Democrats said he was an outstanding, honest man when he dropped the case (while Republicans decried him as dishonest). When the case came back up, the Democrats and Republicans both completely flipped positions. I don't know if he's playing politics or not, but it seems obvious that everyone's hatred/love is tied to their party rather than the truth.
In any case, what could he have done differently? He announced the case closed going into election season. If he didn't mention the new evidence at all, then congress would have him for perjury sooner or later. If he released after and Hillary won, everyone would say he killed the investigation so Hillary could win. If he released before and Trump won, he would be accused of bringing up the investigation again so Hillary would lose.
Given that Hillary looks to win the election, he can claim that his release didn't adversely affect the election. That's about the best outcome he could hope for.
EPB offers fiber because last-mile fiber was part of the new smart grid power system (and why not use all the extra bandwidth). The actual company offering the service is EPB Fiber Optics which leases the lines from EPB.
NOTHING keeps Comcast from leasing those same lines at the same rates (or even bringing a case to court that the cost is too high). They simply refuse and instead offer sub-par services with 300GB data caps (guaranteed to run huge overages if you're a cord-cutter). Your territory idea only works when greedy corporations with state-granted monopolies aren't in the mood to abuse the people locked into their service.
For the record, EPB is good enough at their job that they already have agreements to do the same thing in north-west Georgia and are still in talks to offer the same thing in north-east Alabama. People want and need good services from companies that aren't out to screw them over and they'll go wherever necessary to make that happen.
Your control of what you make ends when you sell it to someone else. In the digital age, this means selling something opens you up to that person having an infinite number of copies. The only difference is that the government believes selling what you bought is reason enough to strip you of your "god-given rights" it claims to provide, to steal all that you have worked for, to take away freedom and inflict permanent harm.
What about the poor author then?
There are many means of making money without harming others. The first is to not sell something unless you get the price you desire (this is what developers do as do book authors when you consider that most books are out of print within 5 years). The second is patronage by someone interested in your continued creation of works (a very ancient and proven tradition). The third (and particularly relevant to musicians) is to offer performances for a fee. There are alternatives, but using the government as your personal mafia is a much lazier solution for corrupt artists and businessmen.
The team who made alphago deserve credit, but their approach (from a high level) isn't so revolutionary. Go AI devs moved away from solely using brute force tree pruning (like what deep blue used) a long time ago.
The first big change was to use pattern recognition (matching sub-sections of the game with already known patterns) to prune faster. The second (and far more revolutionary) change was to apply an upper confidence bound based on a monte carlo simulation. This is where computers gained the ability to bypass those billions of moves with a margin for error. The third was the use of neural nets as a way to balance between brute force and pattern matching while managing the confidence levels of the monte carlo simulations.
The biggest difference with Alphago is corporate backing. I don't know how many people Google hired for the job, but the paper lists 20 (so probably more than that). Buying and running supercomputers is extremely expensive as well. With the exception of darkforest (Facebook's go machine which, as expected, appears to use a similar design), most teams consist of a very few people on small budgets without someone willing to spend millions to buy and run supercomputers for them.
I believe the official Guinness record is 8.429GHz on an AMD pre-release bulldozer in 2011. Another record was set at 8.723GHz on an AMD FX-8370 in 2013, but I don't recall it being "official".
Companies don't pay FICA taxes (the contractor pays all of them instead instead of splitting them 50/50 with the employer). Some states don't require companies to pay workers comp on contractors instead. Contractors also don't get overtime, travel compensation, 401k matching, insurance benefits, etc (there's not even a minimum wage)
If a contractor works for anywhere close to the same hourly as an equivalent employee, that contractor will be making a lot less.
I forgot to mention Nvidia's Denver core. They dropped it in favor of A57 and I don't think we'll be seeing it again for a while. The original reason for making it seemed to be for x86 emulation (literally the next generation of transmeta), but their lawsuit settlement with Intel sunk that ship leaving them to repurpose the architecture for ARM. I like the transmeta idea, but like bulldozer it seems a little less good in practice at present. I think we'll see something similar return in a few years, but for now I think fixed-function reigns supreme.
Looking at the latest in the ARM landscape, we have Apple A9, Qualcomm Kryo, ARM A57, ARM A72, and AMD A12. We can probably expect a small jump in Apple's performance next year along with a second revision of Kryo, but nothing competitive with Intel. A57 is being dropped for the fixed A72 since Apple screwed over ARM (tl;dr Apple shipped a new architecture in 2 years while ARM took almost 4 years for an inferior product -- everyone in the industry knows that design to shipping a new architecture is 4-5 years indicating either ARM screwed over all their non-apple partners (and themselves) by giving Apple a head start or Apple forced ARM to adopt a new ISA when they'd already had a couple years to work on int). Of all these architectures, I think only A72, AMD's A57 implementation, and AMD's A12 are worth focusing on.
A72 is supposedly close to the performance of Intel's core M processors, but I'm willing to bet that the default A72 can't actually compete with Skylake's wide dispatch, SMT, and vector units. The biggest question in this area isn't actually the CPU so much as all the "uncore" parts surrounding it. Even if it could have these things in theory, the companies controlling most of the patents in this area aren't using the A72 (AMD, Intel, IBM, Oracle, etc).
AMD's first generation of ARM processor (launching next year) is an A57 server part, but is probably going to be faster than most A72s in practice because it can be manufactured on a high-performance (rather than bulk) fab process and will have faster buses, faster memory, much larger caches, and even some parts of the core (like the branch predictor) may well be replaced with better systems while AMD's reworking the entire architecture for the new fab. This chip will probably be competitive in the low-power server market, but most likely won't be aimed at anything mobile.
Not much is known about AMD's A12, but for the first time, an ARM company seems to be moving into the higher-performance mobile segment. AMD failed with bulldozer (and has taken the heat for beating that dead horse for the past few years), but they at least had the sense to hire Jim Keller to help them make a couple new, next-gen architectures. While AMD has money troubles, it's in the intellectual property sweet spot to be able to put together a competitive chip. This is the chip I think Linus is wanting, but it's been pushed to 2017.
The complete unknown is Intel. They bought DEC and StrongARM was along for the ride, but they sold it in '97. They then made XScale only to sell it to Marvell in '06. I find it hard to believe that Intel's not experimenting with ARM design again. Even if they could make x86 compete in the low-end (atom has been a failure in that regard), convincing companies to switch will probably prove impossible as the current situation with lots of competing CPU providers works to their fiscal advantage. Apple won't be giving up the freedom to make their own chips (nor will Samsung). That said, I don't think we'll be seeing an Intel ARM chip before 2018-19.
tl;dr -- the current chips can't compete with Intel. The ones that can don't launch until 2017 or later.
While success is desirable, all the companies that signed deals with Marvell are required to make a movie every few years to avoid the movie rights reverting back to Marvell.
We saw this same thing happen with the Sony reboot of Spiderman. It was cheaper to make a couple of terrible films than to have the rights revert back to Disney where Sony would never get a chance at the intellectual property again.
No matter which side you support (or if you're an Egalitarian like me) researching and fact-checking are important. Just because a group that hates MRA says RooshV is one does not make it so. The fact that those sources are either mis-informed or are deliberately mis-characterizing should raise questions about what they say in the future.
EDIT: to clarify my position, I am Egalitarian and see that both men and women have problems, but unlike many people, I'm not afraid of examining all sides just because some of them are slandered or they disagree with my current perceptions. Facts over buzzwords...
Return of Kings is anti-MRA anyway. He's a pickup artist and believes that men's rights is a lost cause and everyone should be scamming women instead.
For those who want a thousand-foot overview: The fact is that men and women have problems. Men have far bigger family problems and a huge percent of men regularly get screwed over by the legal system (just ask any divorce or family court lawyer or look at the statistics). When men find out just how bad the situation is (both this and other issues) and what a big risk relationships with women are, they do one of three things: opt out of relationships (the majority and becoming a huge social force), become pick-up artists (second most popular), or lobby for change as MRAs/Egalitarians.
The problem is multi-sided. PUA (pickup artists) consider MGTOW (opt-out) and MRA to be losers. MGTOW consider PUA to be risky and MRA to be trying to solve an unsolvable problem. MRA consider MGTOW to be passively protesting and consider PUA to be scum that hurt the cause by constantly mistreating and slandering women.
Feminists (to be clear, the rather extreme ones that control much of the media, not the ones like most of the planet) consider MGTOW to be losers, ignore MRA, and claim PUAs abuse is actually from the MRA. These Extremist-Feminists make things worse by actively and loudly fighting against the MRAs legitimate concerns (shared parenting, family court reform, male genital mutilation, criminal justice equality, recognizing male victims, etc). The fact that you are reading an article claiming a PUA is an MRA (despite his stating many times that he despises MRA) shows that either no research or mis-characterization is at work here. This only fuels the MRA to focus on the Extreme Feminists in power as the primary obstacle and the fight continues (when in fact, most MRA agree with many women's issues).
When politics control social equality, everyone loses (except the politicians and their spokespeople).
Slashdot Mirror
Have you read about the vulnerability requirements? You have to already control the machine before you can use these. If these are a problem, you already have a much bigger problem.
Try gnumeric. It's fast and allows Python scripting too.
Nothing for a very long time if they decide to go ahead. They introduced JavaScript as a VBA alternative in 2013. It's now 4 years later and while they've added a lot of APIs, there are still a ton left to go.
Splitting their API resources between Python and JS seems like the perfect way to get neither any time soon (and a great way to bike shed both out of existence altogether).
There's some truth here. You stick with what you know. 60 something percent of students are using Chromebooks. If MS wants them to use Office later, they have to make sure it's available as soon as possible.
There's a fundamental priority difference between webOS and iOS/Android.
Let's first take a look at macOS (this basically applies to Windows as well). How do you open an app? First, you check the dock for commonly-used applications. If they aren't there, you search the applications folder (or launchpad in newer versions) or use +Space to search for it. Notice that dock offers direct access, but other apps require extra steps.
Window managing is what a desktop OS is all about -- NOT opening apps. You have Spaces/Mission Control to group apps (because positional memorization is important to humans -- I suspect 2D spaces were superior in that regard to the 1D mission control desktops). You can drag windows around, resize them, put them side-by-side, etc. Closing Apps is also first-class with with just a +Q. Notifications are unobtrusive popups. Minor settings are available in the tray and major settings in Preferences (accessible by icon).
webOS follows that paradigm closely. Common apps go in the launcher. Less common apps are either in the app drawer or JustType to search for it. Launcher offers direct access, but everything else takes extra steps.
The primary view for webOS is for window managing. You have a 1D set of apps that you can move into Groups. Closing apps is a simple swipe up. There exists room to add things like side-by-side apps, but most of the devices were never big enough. Notifications are unobtrusive popups. Minor settings are available by clicking on the tray. Major settings are available in the settings view and accessible by icon.
The reason the webOS UI is so good is because webOS is the desktop paradigm you've been using for years.
Android and iOS have adopted many of these patterns, but they still feel foreign. Why? because launching apps reigns supreme. Instead of multi-tasking being the default view, their default is showing apps on the home screen. To change tasks, you have to switch into another, secondary mode and then back out of it. Android's and iOS's UI paradigm is upside down. First-class app opening with second-class task managing is bad UI.
In webOS, users tend to close uncommon apps and leave their common ones running which makes freeing resources the default (good for constrained systems). In iOS or Android, users simply cannot be bothered to use an out-of-the-way, second-class task switcher and don't even realize there are dozens of open apps. Instead iOS/Android app icons become a poor, ad-hoc task manager that is ill-equipped to manage apps and completely unable to kill them.
Facts don't care about your feelings.
Toshiba bought out Westinghouse a few years ago (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westinghouse_Electric_Corporation#Timeline_of_company_evolution) as part of a plan to increase investment in nuclear power (they'd already bought most of the nuclear division around a decade before that).
My wife's brother worked on the SC plants. According to him, Westinghouse was tasked with making new designs with inexperienced teams. One of their bright ideas was to prefab the plant (to save engineer time and money I'd guess) instead of making a design tailored to the specific location. As anyone could foresee, they've spent billions of dollars ever since tailoring it bit by bit. That leads to huge wastes (15M/week -- on the site alone -- as everyone sits around waiting for corporate and government bureaucracy to reach an agreement).
SML isn't lazy. Humans don't think in terms of lazy evaluation. Even though Haskell is much more popular and has much better tools, MLton will usually compile faster code.
SML allows side effects. Haskell talks about purity, but the presence and reliance on unsafePerformIO shows that purity has limits. The practical answer is to write without side effects then add them to designated parts of the codebase which gets you most of the benefits of purity without all the overhead and headaches for the last 5% of your program.
SML is immutable by default, but allows mutation if needed. Making everything immutable is great for some problems (eg, concurrency), but is generally bad for performance (determining when in-place mutation can occur instead of a new allocation is a hard, branchy problem).
The biggest question is why SML isn't ruling the world. Consider golang vs SML. SML is about as fast, has a similar concurrency model in CML extensions, has a much better type system, and has much more simple syntax (despite being a more powerful syntax). Golang is used because the tooling is very nice, but why did Google choose to pour resources into golang (or even make it in the first place) when a better solution exists? Because familiar beats everything.
In schools where SML is taught as a first language, nobody has problems learning it (compared to imperative languages). A lot of such people I've talked to even prefer the syntax. Most schools teach a language with a C-derived syntax and approach, so those devs learn to prefer that (and usually never even see ML-style syntax). Haskell has issues with popularity because of complexity. SML has issues with popularity because "popularity begets popularity".
The same companies that will do anything to get programmers except training them?
Most serious JS is definitely NOT open to the public. Common libraries certainly are (and the JS community is very aggressive about pushing the programming envelope), but most significant projects are closed source. You could argue that you can see the source anyway, but between babel transformations and minification, the output is obfuscated (to say differently would be similar to arguing that C projects are open because you can disassemble them).
Paying 3.75 million for what is probably the most detailed study the industry has ever had. A team of market researchers would cost far more and yield far inferior results (even in anonymous studies, people lie and/or forget).
Democrats said he was an outstanding, honest man when he dropped the case (while Republicans decried him as dishonest). When the case came back up, the Democrats and Republicans both completely flipped positions. I don't know if he's playing politics or not, but it seems obvious that everyone's hatred/love is tied to their party rather than the truth.
In any case, what could he have done differently? He announced the case closed going into election season. If he didn't mention the new evidence at all, then congress would have him for perjury sooner or later. If he released after and Hillary won, everyone would say he killed the investigation so Hillary could win. If he released before and Trump won, he would be accused of bringing up the investigation again so Hillary would lose.
Given that Hillary looks to win the election, he can claim that his release didn't adversely affect the election. That's about the best outcome he could hope for.
EPB offers fiber because last-mile fiber was part of the new smart grid power system (and why not use all the extra bandwidth). The actual company offering the service is EPB Fiber Optics which leases the lines from EPB.
NOTHING keeps Comcast from leasing those same lines at the same rates (or even bringing a case to court that the cost is too high). They simply refuse and instead offer sub-par services with 300GB data caps (guaranteed to run huge overages if you're a cord-cutter). Your territory idea only works when greedy corporations with state-granted monopolies aren't in the mood to abuse the people locked into their service.
For the record, EPB is good enough at their job that they already have agreements to do the same thing in north-west Georgia and are still in talks to offer the same thing in north-east Alabama. People want and need good services from companies that aren't out to screw them over and they'll go wherever necessary to make that happen.
Your control of what you make ends when you sell it to someone else. In the digital age, this means selling something opens you up to that person having an infinite number of copies. The only difference is that the government believes selling what you bought is reason enough to strip you of your "god-given rights" it claims to provide, to steal all that you have worked for, to take away freedom and inflict permanent harm.
What about the poor author then?
There are many means of making money without harming others. The first is to not sell something unless you get the price you desire (this is what developers do as do book authors when you consider that most books are out of print within 5 years). The second is patronage by someone interested in your continued creation of works (a very ancient and proven tradition). The third (and particularly relevant to musicians) is to offer performances for a fee. There are alternatives, but using the government as your personal mafia is a much lazier solution for corrupt artists and businessmen.
The team who made alphago deserve credit, but their approach (from a high level) isn't so revolutionary. Go AI devs moved away from solely using brute force tree pruning (like what deep blue used) a long time ago.
The first big change was to use pattern recognition (matching sub-sections of the game with already known patterns) to prune faster. The second (and far more revolutionary) change was to apply an upper confidence bound based on a monte carlo simulation. This is where computers gained the ability to bypass those billions of moves with a margin for error. The third was the use of neural nets as a way to balance between brute force and pattern matching while managing the confidence levels of the monte carlo simulations.
The biggest difference with Alphago is corporate backing. I don't know how many people Google hired for the job, but the paper lists 20 (so probably more than that). Buying and running supercomputers is extremely expensive as well. With the exception of darkforest (Facebook's go machine which, as expected, appears to use a similar design), most teams consist of a very few people on small budgets without someone willing to spend millions to buy and run supercomputers for them.
I believe the official Guinness record is 8.429GHz on an AMD pre-release bulldozer in 2011. Another record was set at 8.723GHz on an AMD FX-8370 in 2013, but I don't recall it being "official".
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/bulldozer-amd-overclock-guinness-record,13431.html
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/09/02/amd_fx_series/
Companies don't pay FICA taxes (the contractor pays all of them instead instead of splitting them 50/50 with the employer). Some states don't require companies to pay workers comp on contractors instead. Contractors also don't get overtime, travel compensation, 401k matching, insurance benefits, etc (there's not even a minimum wage)
If a contractor works for anywhere close to the same hourly as an equivalent employee, that contractor will be making a lot less.
Ah, the old Hans Reiser retirement plan.
New joke
Person A: "What's 0.1 + 0.2?"
Person B: "Let me check my computer, one sec... OK, looks like around 0.30000000000000004."
I forgot to mention Nvidia's Denver core. They dropped it in favor of A57 and I don't think we'll be seeing it again for a while. The original reason for making it seemed to be for x86 emulation (literally the next generation of transmeta), but their lawsuit settlement with Intel sunk that ship leaving them to repurpose the architecture for ARM. I like the transmeta idea, but like bulldozer it seems a little less good in practice at present. I think we'll see something similar return in a few years, but for now I think fixed-function reigns supreme.
Looking at the latest in the ARM landscape, we have Apple A9, Qualcomm Kryo, ARM A57, ARM A72, and AMD A12. We can probably expect a small jump in Apple's performance next year along with a second revision of Kryo, but nothing competitive with Intel. A57 is being dropped for the fixed A72 since Apple screwed over ARM (tl;dr Apple shipped a new architecture in 2 years while ARM took almost 4 years for an inferior product -- everyone in the industry knows that design to shipping a new architecture is 4-5 years indicating either ARM screwed over all their non-apple partners (and themselves) by giving Apple a head start or Apple forced ARM to adopt a new ISA when they'd already had a couple years to work on int). Of all these architectures, I think only A72, AMD's A57 implementation, and AMD's A12 are worth focusing on.
A72 is supposedly close to the performance of Intel's core M processors, but I'm willing to bet that the default A72 can't actually compete with Skylake's wide dispatch, SMT, and vector units. The biggest question in this area isn't actually the CPU so much as all the "uncore" parts surrounding it. Even if it could have these things in theory, the companies controlling most of the patents in this area aren't using the A72 (AMD, Intel, IBM, Oracle, etc).
AMD's first generation of ARM processor (launching next year) is an A57 server part, but is probably going to be faster than most A72s in practice because it can be manufactured on a high-performance (rather than bulk) fab process and will have faster buses, faster memory, much larger caches, and even some parts of the core (like the branch predictor) may well be replaced with better systems while AMD's reworking the entire architecture for the new fab. This chip will probably be competitive in the low-power server market, but most likely won't be aimed at anything mobile.
Not much is known about AMD's A12, but for the first time, an ARM company seems to be moving into the higher-performance mobile segment. AMD failed with bulldozer (and has taken the heat for beating that dead horse for the past few years), but they at least had the sense to hire Jim Keller to help them make a couple new, next-gen architectures. While AMD has money troubles, it's in the intellectual property sweet spot to be able to put together a competitive chip. This is the chip I think Linus is wanting, but it's been pushed to 2017.
The complete unknown is Intel. They bought DEC and StrongARM was along for the ride, but they sold it in '97. They then made XScale only to sell it to Marvell in '06. I find it hard to believe that Intel's not experimenting with ARM design again. Even if they could make x86 compete in the low-end (atom has been a failure in that regard), convincing companies to switch will probably prove impossible as the current situation with lots of competing CPU providers works to their fiscal advantage. Apple won't be giving up the freedom to make their own chips (nor will Samsung). That said, I don't think we'll be seeing an Intel ARM chip before 2018-19.
tl;dr -- the current chips can't compete with Intel. The ones that can don't launch until 2017 or later.
The XD at the end of the URL made me think it wasn't real.... I should have known better
While success is desirable, all the companies that signed deals with Marvell are required to make a movie every few years to avoid the movie rights reverting back to Marvell.
We saw this same thing happen with the Sony reboot of Spiderman. It was cheaper to make a couple of terrible films than to have the rights revert back to Disney where Sony would never get a chance at the intellectual property again.
RooshV is a PUA (pick-up artist), masculanist, and anti-MRA and has been for years (see http://www.rooshv.com/mens-rig... or http://www.rooshv.com/the-mens...)
No matter which side you support (or if you're an Egalitarian like me) researching and fact-checking are important. Just because a group that hates MRA says RooshV is one does not make it so. The fact that those sources are either mis-informed or are deliberately mis-characterizing should raise questions about what they say in the future.
EDIT: to clarify my position, I am Egalitarian and see that both men and women have problems, but unlike many people, I'm not afraid of examining all sides just because some of them are slandered or they disagree with my current perceptions. Facts over buzzwords...
Return of Kings is anti-MRA anyway. He's a pickup artist and believes that men's rights is a lost cause and everyone should be scamming women instead.
For those who want a thousand-foot overview: The fact is that men and women have problems. Men have far bigger family problems and a huge percent of men regularly get screwed over by the legal system (just ask any divorce or family court lawyer or look at the statistics). When men find out just how bad the situation is (both this and other issues) and what a big risk relationships with women are, they do one of three things: opt out of relationships (the majority and becoming a huge social force), become pick-up artists (second most popular), or lobby for change as MRAs/Egalitarians.
The problem is multi-sided. PUA (pickup artists) consider MGTOW (opt-out) and MRA to be losers. MGTOW consider PUA to be risky and MRA to be trying to solve an unsolvable problem. MRA consider MGTOW to be passively protesting and consider PUA to be scum that hurt the cause by constantly mistreating and slandering women.
Feminists (to be clear, the rather extreme ones that control much of the media, not the ones like most of the planet) consider MGTOW to be losers, ignore MRA, and claim PUAs abuse is actually from the MRA. These Extremist-Feminists make things worse by actively and loudly fighting against the MRAs legitimate concerns (shared parenting, family court reform, male genital mutilation, criminal justice equality, recognizing male victims, etc). The fact that you are reading an article claiming a PUA is an MRA (despite his stating many times that he despises MRA) shows that either no research or mis-characterization is at work here. This only fuels the MRA to focus on the Extreme Feminists in power as the primary obstacle and the fight continues (when in fact, most MRA agree with many women's issues).
When politics control social equality, everyone loses (except the politicians and their spokespeople).