CPU throttling is designed to address thermal issues in mobile devices. If the CPU is throttling so much it goes below the lower threshold and is STILL too hot then there is a hardware design issue. I'm extremely curious what software could be causing the CPU to be hot even when it is throttled.
I chose to go with a client/server model. I take my sleek 2-n-1 tablatop with its thermally constrained CPU and remotely connect to my mid tower at the house for anything requiring a more robust environment. It's the best of both worlds except when I can't get on the network which is rare.
At least I have studied blockchain enough to know what I said is true. Too bad all the responses have been ad hominem attacks or misdirection. It's a complex technology to be sure. I've read about it in-depth and still barely understand it.
This has been the banks and governments plan for decades. They've been slowly and methodically desensitizing the population to E-commerce for years. And just when they are about to make the final assault on cash Bitcoin shows up. Everyone laughs at the absurdity at first but Bitcoin has an ace up its sleeve the banks didn't count on. Anonymity. I don't profess to know how it works but one mechanism of cryptocurrency is the transaction can be made anonymously if so desired. This has the banks and world governments scrambling to ban it, control it, or own it. But I'm still holding on to my cash.
What's tiresome is people feigning ignorance that this has been happening for hundreds of years and the US is just as dirty as Russia or any other foreign power. What is also tiring is people denying facts because the source of those facts doesn't meet to their approval. The facts of this information is readily available from numerous sources.
Mueller was caught off guard last month when his original patsys actually showed up in court to testify. I'm sure he hopes these guys won't be bothered to make the trip.
Google does NOT license the OS. It is OSS. What they license is the Google name. If you want to have Google emblazoned anywhere on your phone you must include the full suite of Google Services. You cannot just install the Play Store. If you decide to forego the licensing you cannot put the Google name or logo anywhere on your device except in attribution documents. But you are free to install Android and any app store you so choose other than the Play Store. That doesn't prevent the end use from downloading and installing the Google services themselves. Which is common for those who choose to install custom ROMs.
The Google services in question are not OSS. Which wouldn't be a problem if so many popular 3rd party apps didn't depend on those services to work. The thing is the end user is still free to install the Google services but OEM's know for most users that's too complicated. What they could do is provide an app that's sole purpose is to install the Google packages directly from Google.
They aren't preventing anybody from installing the play store. They are saying if you want to put Google anywhere on the device you've got to include ALL of our services. I can buy any Android device that comes without the play store and install the play store if I want to. What Google is "licensing" is their name on the product. If a product doesn't have the Google name somewhere on it some people will assume it isn't a quality product. It's entirely a perception issue. Samsung actually sells identical hardware where one has the Google Services and the other does not. Which can be installed by the phone's owner if they so choose.
So let me get this straight. Google provides a free as in beer OS (some of it is OSS but not all) for mobile and strong-arms OEM's to included ALL of Google services or else no app store and THAT is bad because even though there are competing app stores they suck. While Apple doesn't even allow competing app stores, browsers (a wrapper called chrome on Apples engine is not a competing browser), or scripting languages and that is OK? I welcome the scrutiny on Google but lets get real.
Nor is it misplaced. Once an organization grows big enough that the top doesn't know every employee by name it is susceptible to manipulation by a rogue actor. It's not a matter of if but when someone within a company abuses their position for personal gain. Where it becomes a huge problem is when it IS the top doing the abusing. All of the aforementioned companies have at one time had such a condition.
More bullshit from the bullshit crowd. I've been in software about twice as long as you and I'm intimately familiar with software distribution. 30% is about 25% more than what used to be the standard. I notice you didn't refute any of my claims you just took to attacking me directly. That's always a sign of a person who has no facts to back up their claims.
Regardless of your feelings about Apple, the world owes it a collective thank you for its App Store. It inspired other companies, such as Google with Android and Microsoft with Windows 8/10, to adopt the same app concepts.
"Inspired" them to develop their own vendor lock in methods you mean.
When Apple introduced iTunes it became just another company trying to separate you from your dollar. Before that time it truly was about innovation and creativity. The app store was just another gimmick to squeeze money out of its popularity. Any other company trying to impose a 30% tariff on access to its platform would have been laughable. And their "No you can't put that app in our store because it would allow you to run other apps without our consent" is just precious. Once I saw the direction Apple was headed I did a 180 and stopped advocating for them. I'm glad I did. They've become the epitome of everything Jobs hated.
Not ten minutes after seeing this story posted I get an email from Sony telling me PlayStation VUE is going up by $5. Perhaps one of the media providers is in renegotiation.
It's part of the globalist agenda so any place that wants a one world government/economy is on board. The first place I heard it was implemented was South Africa IINM. To spur the countries adoption of electronic cash One of the banks handed out cards to anyone who wanted one. Everyone wanted one because the first year's purchases would be forgiven at the end of the year! This was well over 20 years ago. Stronger economies are using a slowly introduce the idea until most people are desensitized to its implications approach. Once they reach critical mass they will simply force anyone not on board to get on board or go off the grid.
Primaries are partisan. I don't belong to a party and more and more people are leaving both the major political parties.
They keep losing in the big primaries because folks vote for the pro-corporate establishment candidate.
So you answered your own question. People keep voting for the same insanity over and over!
I think the answer is pretty clear: Because politicians don't do what we want them to do.
Bernie Sanders does. Liz Warren Does. Al Franklin (sp) did until the Dems kicked him to the curb over a minor scandal (mostly so that Kamala Harris could clear him from the 2020 presidential field, thanks Kamala).
NO! None of these people even remotely stand for anything a sane person would want. I would hate to see any of these people in office as they are certifiable idiots. And you proved my entire point by pointing out what happened to Franken. He was ousted by something he did over a decade ago! You didn't even mention the fact that Sanders was almost a lock for the DNC nomination but they didn't want him running so they rigged the primary and made sure he lost! Face it, the reason there are no worthy candidates is people smart enough to be worthy are also smart enough not to run in the first place. And the rare person who would be worthy is summarily ousted by the establishment anyway.
You are a minority. And one banks and government would like to eradicate. There has been a concerted effort for the last 20 years if not longer to eliminate physical cash. If you search "war on cash" you'll find an abundance of articles over the years on it. There are numerous reasons for this. First, the government wants to know your every move and tracking your spending is one of the easiest ways to do this. They say it's to root out illicit activity but who's to say HOW they actually use it? Second, if you have physical cash you don't need a bank. You can transact directly with anyone without a bank getting a percentage of the transaction like they do when you use a credit/debit card. It's also why banks and governments are fighting blockchain currency tooth and nail as it is digital but it removes the two reasons they wanted to go digital in the first place.
Why the heck don't we just elect the kinds of politicians who will force Comcast to do what we want them to do?
Because someone like that would never run for election. And if they did the reigning political forces would crucify him by any means necessary. You can see it right now. Trump isn't technically a Democrat OR a Republican and he's certainly no politician. Both parties have been doing everything in their power to either oust him or bring him under their control. The reason it hasn't worked is he doesn't care about his political clout only about getting what he wants. Who wants to put themselves and their family through that kind of heartache?
The reason we need net neutrality to begin with is the telcos and cablecos leveraged government granted monopolies for their telephone/cable services and used them for their new internet service. They successfully prevented new ISPs from entering their markets by barring use of the infrastructure already in place and the new ISPs were barred from running their own by said government mandate. Had the government repealed the mandate to allow other entities to negotiate running their own cable perhaps your argument would be valid. But since the mandate is still in place and existing ISP companies are spending billions lobbying state governments to keep any competition out we end up here with content providers also being the gatekeepers to subscribers. We've already seen the result. Netflix offered to save AT&T millions of dollars by placing content delivery network (CDN) servers inside AT&T's network. This would have alleviated hundreds of terabytes of traffic through the backbone. AT&T refused for years and Netflix subscribers on AT&T (Verizon too) got buffering signals frequently. Then when enough AT&T customers complained about it AT&T told Netflix they could alleviate the buffering by paying AT&T a toll! Why? Because AT&T has their own PPV content they want to sell and Netflix is a competitor to that service. The Time Warner acquisition will only increase the animosity to third party content providers. AT&T's only real competition to their ISP is Comcast or Charter (Spectrum) depending on what market it is. Alphabet and any other company looking to become an ISP still has an uphill battle in the majority of US states with local municipalities going to war against state government to get permission to let them in.
Realistically, this just means we'll stream higher resolution content and a higher framerate,
Perhaps, but more likely households will be doing multiple streams. Dad can watch his action/explosion drama while mom binges her romcom and little Suzy watches the latest teen craze.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you for providing a detailed explanation. I appreciate being educated instead of berated.
CPU throttling is designed to address thermal issues in mobile devices. If the CPU is throttling so much it goes below the lower threshold and is STILL too hot then there is a hardware design issue. I'm extremely curious what software could be causing the CPU to be hot even when it is throttled.
I chose to go with a client/server model. I take my sleek 2-n-1 tablatop with its thermally constrained CPU and remotely connect to my mid tower at the house for anything requiring a more robust environment. It's the best of both worlds except when I can't get on the network which is rare.
At least I have studied blockchain enough to know what I said is true. Too bad all the responses have been ad hominem attacks or misdirection. It's a complex technology to be sure. I've read about it in-depth and still barely understand it.
This has been the banks and governments plan for decades. They've been slowly and methodically desensitizing the population to E-commerce for years. And just when they are about to make the final assault on cash Bitcoin shows up. Everyone laughs at the absurdity at first but Bitcoin has an ace up its sleeve the banks didn't count on. Anonymity. I don't profess to know how it works but one mechanism of cryptocurrency is the transaction can be made anonymously if so desired. This has the banks and world governments scrambling to ban it, control it, or own it. But I'm still holding on to my cash.
What's tiresome is people feigning ignorance that this has been happening for hundreds of years and the US is just as dirty as Russia or any other foreign power. What is also tiring is people denying facts because the source of those facts doesn't meet to their approval. The facts of this information is readily available from numerous sources.
Mueller was caught off guard last month when his original patsys actually showed up in court to testify. I'm sure he hopes these guys won't be bothered to make the trip.
Google does NOT license the OS. It is OSS. What they license is the Google name. If you want to have Google emblazoned anywhere on your phone you must include the full suite of Google Services. You cannot just install the Play Store. If you decide to forego the licensing you cannot put the Google name or logo anywhere on your device except in attribution documents. But you are free to install Android and any app store you so choose other than the Play Store. That doesn't prevent the end use from downloading and installing the Google services themselves. Which is common for those who choose to install custom ROMs.
The Google services in question are not OSS. Which wouldn't be a problem if so many popular 3rd party apps didn't depend on those services to work. The thing is the end user is still free to install the Google services but OEM's know for most users that's too complicated. What they could do is provide an app that's sole purpose is to install the Google packages directly from Google.
They aren't preventing anybody from installing the play store. They are saying if you want to put Google anywhere on the device you've got to include ALL of our services. I can buy any Android device that comes without the play store and install the play store if I want to. What Google is "licensing" is their name on the product. If a product doesn't have the Google name somewhere on it some people will assume it isn't a quality product. It's entirely a perception issue. Samsung actually sells identical hardware where one has the Google Services and the other does not. Which can be installed by the phone's owner if they so choose.
So let me get this straight. Google provides a free as in beer OS (some of it is OSS but not all) for mobile and strong-arms OEM's to included ALL of Google services or else no app store and THAT is bad because even though there are competing app stores they suck. While Apple doesn't even allow competing app stores, browsers (a wrapper called chrome on Apples engine is not a competing browser), or scripting languages and that is OK? I welcome the scrutiny on Google but lets get real.
Sorry...I don't know Engrish
Mistrust of major companies isn't new
Nor is it misplaced. Once an organization grows big enough that the top doesn't know every employee by name it is susceptible to manipulation by a rogue actor. It's not a matter of if but when someone within a company abuses their position for personal gain. Where it becomes a huge problem is when it IS the top doing the abusing. All of the aforementioned companies have at one time had such a condition.
More bullshit from the bullshit crowd. I've been in software about twice as long as you and I'm intimately familiar with software distribution. 30% is about 25% more than what used to be the standard. I notice you didn't refute any of my claims you just took to attacking me directly. That's always a sign of a person who has no facts to back up their claims.
Regardless of your feelings about Apple, the world owes it a collective thank you for its App Store. It inspired other companies, such as Google with Android and Microsoft with Windows 8/10, to adopt the same app concepts.
"Inspired" them to develop their own vendor lock in methods you mean.
When Apple introduced iTunes it became just another company trying to separate you from your dollar. Before that time it truly was about innovation and creativity. The app store was just another gimmick to squeeze money out of its popularity. Any other company trying to impose a 30% tariff on access to its platform would have been laughable. And their "No you can't put that app in our store because it would allow you to run other apps without our consent" is just precious. Once I saw the direction Apple was headed I did a 180 and stopped advocating for them. I'm glad I did. They've become the epitome of everything Jobs hated.
Not ten minutes after seeing this story posted I get an email from Sony telling me PlayStation VUE is going up by $5. Perhaps one of the media providers is in renegotiation.
So...you want them to flip it and offer the 2 million to anyone who turns in a pirate radio operator? You'll have pirate bounty hunters lined up!
With an alarming 68% of all energy produced going to waste regardless of how it was generated it makes more sense to improve how the energy is used.
Anyone know anything about Bitchute?
It's part of the globalist agenda so any place that wants a one world government/economy is on board. The first place I heard it was implemented was South Africa IINM. To spur the countries adoption of electronic cash One of the banks handed out cards to anyone who wanted one. Everyone wanted one because the first year's purchases would be forgiven at the end of the year! This was well over 20 years ago. Stronger economies are using a slowly introduce the idea until most people are desensitized to its implications approach. Once they reach critical mass they will simply force anyone not on board to get on board or go off the grid.
show up to your primary.
Primaries are partisan. I don't belong to a party and more and more people are leaving both the major political parties.
They keep losing in the big primaries because folks vote for the pro-corporate establishment candidate.
So you answered your own question. People keep voting for the same insanity over and over!
I think the answer is pretty clear: Because politicians don't do what we want them to do.
Bernie Sanders does. Liz Warren Does. Al Franklin (sp) did until the Dems kicked him to the curb over a minor scandal (mostly so that Kamala Harris could clear him from the 2020 presidential field, thanks Kamala).
NO! None of these people even remotely stand for anything a sane person would want. I would hate to see any of these people in office as they are certifiable idiots. And you proved my entire point by pointing out what happened to Franken. He was ousted by something he did over a decade ago! You didn't even mention the fact that Sanders was almost a lock for the DNC nomination but they didn't want him running so they rigged the primary and made sure he lost! Face it, the reason there are no worthy candidates is people smart enough to be worthy are also smart enough not to run in the first place. And the rare person who would be worthy is summarily ousted by the establishment anyway.
You are a minority. And one banks and government would like to eradicate. There has been a concerted effort for the last 20 years if not longer to eliminate physical cash. If you search "war on cash" you'll find an abundance of articles over the years on it. There are numerous reasons for this. First, the government wants to know your every move and tracking your spending is one of the easiest ways to do this. They say it's to root out illicit activity but who's to say HOW they actually use it? Second, if you have physical cash you don't need a bank. You can transact directly with anyone without a bank getting a percentage of the transaction like they do when you use a credit/debit card. It's also why banks and governments are fighting blockchain currency tooth and nail as it is digital but it removes the two reasons they wanted to go digital in the first place.
Why the heck don't we just elect the kinds of politicians who will force Comcast to do what we want them to do?
Because someone like that would never run for election. And if they did the reigning political forces would crucify him by any means necessary. You can see it right now. Trump isn't technically a Democrat OR a Republican and he's certainly no politician. Both parties have been doing everything in their power to either oust him or bring him under their control. The reason it hasn't worked is he doesn't care about his political clout only about getting what he wants. Who wants to put themselves and their family through that kind of heartache?
The reason we need net neutrality to begin with is the telcos and cablecos leveraged government granted monopolies for their telephone/cable services and used them for their new internet service. They successfully prevented new ISPs from entering their markets by barring use of the infrastructure already in place and the new ISPs were barred from running their own by said government mandate. Had the government repealed the mandate to allow other entities to negotiate running their own cable perhaps your argument would be valid. But since the mandate is still in place and existing ISP companies are spending billions lobbying state governments to keep any competition out we end up here with content providers also being the gatekeepers to subscribers. We've already seen the result. Netflix offered to save AT&T millions of dollars by placing content delivery network (CDN) servers inside AT&T's network. This would have alleviated hundreds of terabytes of traffic through the backbone. AT&T refused for years and Netflix subscribers on AT&T (Verizon too) got buffering signals frequently. Then when enough AT&T customers complained about it AT&T told Netflix they could alleviate the buffering by paying AT&T a toll! Why? Because AT&T has their own PPV content they want to sell and Netflix is a competitor to that service. The Time Warner acquisition will only increase the animosity to third party content providers. AT&T's only real competition to their ISP is Comcast or Charter (Spectrum) depending on what market it is. Alphabet and any other company looking to become an ISP still has an uphill battle in the majority of US states with local municipalities going to war against state government to get permission to let them in.
Realistically, this just means we'll stream higher resolution content and a higher framerate,
Perhaps, but more likely households will be doing multiple streams. Dad can watch his action/explosion drama while mom binges her romcom and little Suzy watches the latest teen craze.