It looks that way because stuff like internet connection 'up to ' and "100% Fruit Juice" rarely go to court. For most people it is too much hassle compared to switching vendors. Or because said vendor offers a nice settlement to keep stuff out of the news. In Germany, there seem to be a lot of cases lately where Volkswagen is paying off plaintiffs in the Diesel affair.
But sometimes, those things go all the way to a verdict in court and the courts are usually not convinced by weasel words. They tend to rule based on the marketing slogans and the court's own understanding of those slogans. Not based on the fine print on page 15.
Alternative: 2. Discover it does not, in fact, do that, by having a nasty accident 3. Sue Tesla for personal injury 4. More profit and Tesla's reputation is in the gutter
Your company could get around it, of course, by running its own server farms and not using the cloud providers, but then you would be at the mercy of whatever jurisdiction you're domiciled in.
You are that anyway - the country where your company resides has a lot more means of putting the pressure on than just confiscating your data. The "Cloud Act" makes you additionally vulnerable to the US if you use US cloud providers.
In effect, that would mean that cloud services are only allowed to work with data from their own country. Or businesses would have to keep stuff on their own servers, as they did for, oh, 30 years or so before the data services in question became common?
It is an IMHO inevitable consequence of US law colliding with EU law. The US say "when ordered, you have to give us the data of your customers worldwide". The EU says "you may not give that data away against our regulations" (especially to foreign countries).
I don't think it is meant as a trade barrier, at least not primarily. And if it is, I have very little sympathy for a country that threatens EU companies with sanctions about a project (North Stream 2) where the US is not even directly involved. And threatens to declare car import from Europe a threat to national security.
Five minutes ago, I saw a fairly insightful post on this article. Logged in to reply.
But now I cannot find that thread anymore, even with browsing at -1 and tolerating the ACs being displayed.
Does some idiot at Slashdot randomly delete posts?? The one I cannot see anymore was not remotely censorship-worthy. Let alone that Slashdot used to be THE place where you could post anything and not have it deleted. That freedom of speech was a major reason for me to join the discussions here. Not anymore it seems.
The obvious example would be The Division 2 recommending 11gbps of vram for 4k 60fps
Didn't know that. That gets really expensive. On the Nvidia side, this means a GTX 1080Ti or RTX 2080Ti. GTX 1080Ti seems almost sold out in Europe, the few offers left start at 800 Euro. RTX 2080Ti offers start at 1000 Euro. The Radeon VII is listed at 750 Euro at some dealers, but not in stock yet. So you need at least a 750 Euro card to have the recommended vram size for Division 2...
10 years old? No Vega necessary then. I guess the Radeon 6670 on my second PC might be sufficient. Performance wise it is on the level of high end cards from 2009.
Reliable data are hard to get, but some people speculate that the Radeon VII barely brings its manufacturing costs, mostly because of the expensive HBM2.
Maybe just a form of "hey look we are still making fast gaming cards" by AMD.
AMD has a history of needing some time to arrive at best driver performance. Vega 64 and Vega 56 were originally significantly weaker than GTX 1080 and GTX 1070. Now they have caught up, just in time to become obsolete...
I'm curious how Navi will work out. It is supposed to be a major step forward, architecture wise.
It could also be a pretext to put pressure on the EU to dump Huawei. Without public evidence, the USA's public accusations of Huawei being a security risk may just be fake news.
But as I posted elsewhere, I don't trust hardware from either country to be free of back doors. The Chinese government probably can force Chinese manufacturers to cooperate. In Cisco hardware (US), hardcoded passwords have already been found. So there is a reasonable suspicion that Chinese hardware may have back doors. There is clear evidence for back doors in US hardware. Best case, it was just sloppiness by the devs. But it could have been at the behest of the NSA too.
And their National Security Letters. Overall, that gives them a legal loophole comparable to what the Chinese Government probably has.
As someone from the EU, I don't trust either. Perhaps we could buy at least some of our stuff from Nokia (Finnish). Seems the politically and legally safest option.
But will Adobe be able to do this better than Nvidia/AMD? These are serious competition with lots of accumulated know-how in graphics. Beating them is a tall order.
More to the point, the Youtube big guns (and those are Sony and NBC Universal, NOT PewDiePie and his ilk) are already protected by code, which will straight up ignore claims against monetized videos of privileged accounts
Then Youtube would lose the safe harbor protections of the DMCA. Of course, you would need to sue Youtube and prove your claim in court. Which means you actually have to be the copyright holder of the infringed work. Which means filing masses of made up claims will fail (and rightly so).
What about going after the client then? Genuine question, as I don't know that much about US law. If the lawyer says "my client lied to me" (and can prove it, for the sake of the argument), wouldn't the punishment go against the client?
And along the rest of the borders they had stuff like barbed wire fences, some mine fields and guard towers with guards that had orders to shoot at refugees. Stuff that would give Trump a massive orgasm if he could find the money for it.
So, not always a wall as in "pile of bricks", but still some sort of serious obstacle
The only ones of the three who built a country-wide wall was Eastern Germany, aka the GDR. I guess Finland and the Soviet union had fortified SOME places, but that is not the same as a wall that spans an entire border.
The logical extension of your steps are: The RTX2070 was a "low end" card up until last week. The GTX1080Ti was magically demoted from high end to "mid tier" due to the release of faster products.
Well, it is somewhat arbitrary. Nvidia tends to release the fastest cards first, within a few weeks. Except the Titan that comes a few months later. We could dispute if the Titan still counts for defining the categories. As you wrote, it could lead to magic demotions after the fact, so I'd arbitrarily exclude the Titan and go with the first wave of releases. With the RTX2060, raw computing power drops below half that of the RTX 20180 Ti => I call that midrange, not high end anymore. Arbitrarily of course, it's not an exact science. The GTX1080Ti is still almost on the level of the RTX2080 and I count it in the high end range.
But to return the question, what exactly makes a product high end to you? Is it enough to have the latest features, even if it is beaten in performance by other models? Compare the GTX1080Ti to the RTX2060, what is higher end?
My "steps below" are mostly based on performance, to a lesser part on the effort the manufacturer put in with memory size, bus width and so on. The exact thresholds are arbitrary of course, but if a GPU has only half of the computing power of the top model, I usually consider it midrange. BTW, by that measure the RTX 2070, compared to the RTX 2080 Ti, would only be a midrange GPU too. Raytracing appears not (yet?) to make for outright superior graphics. Maybe that will be different in the next generation.
About Navi, there are only vague rumors yet, but it seems AMD will aim for "only midrange" with the first models. Perhaps a successor to the Polaris series, which was never considered high end.
It's matter of definitions I guess, to me high end is defined as "the fastest cards in the market, perhaps including one or two steps below". That means RTX 2080 Ti, RTX 2080 and RTX 2070. RTX 2060 is an overpriced midrange card that only looks like high end because it lacks competition from other vendors.
AMD is effectively one generation back. Their midrange stuff is the RX series that is currently on a refresh cycle, with only small improvements over their first generation. It was reasonably competitive with the GTX 1060. Vega was disappointing in the beginning. In recent months it has achieved performance parity with GTX 1070/1080, but that is the high end of yesterday.
When AMD finally comes out with Navi, rumors say mid-2019, Nvidia may have to drop prices from "crazy margins" to "merely good margins".
Getting a bit off topic, but a lot of their market IS the gaming hardware market. On the "low end" where all you need is the capability to run Office and play some videos, most people just use the integrated graphics of Intel/AMD, with Intel being in the majority.
In what you call the mid end market they have just released the RTX 2060 which looks good vs. a Vega 56 so far. Below that, both Nvidia and AMD are still on the last generation. For now I think Nvidia is in a good position and will come out with the "smaller" Geforce cards in the 20 series before AMD's Navi.
I prefer AMD myself, not least because of Nvidia's business practices. But right now, Nvidia seem to be technologically ahead.
Unity claim that they gave, in effect, Improbable several months of warning. But even so, I wonder if this sort of retroactive license change is legal at all. We might yet see a lawsuit over this.
But I think there was also pretty gross negligence on the part of Improbable when they
1) agreed to a license contract that did not require mutual agreement to change the TOS
2) used a system where Unity could just revoke the keys and in effect shut down their business
For comparison, both 1) and 2) are present with one's game collection on Steam too (as well as the question if 1) is legal). On both counts, I hardly trust Steam with the handful of games I "bought" through the service. But building a business on such shaky ground? Never ever.
Insurance company refusing to pay with some feeble excuse?
Happens all the time, they speculate on being not sued because it would be too much hassle for the customer, or said customer cannot afford a lawyer, or whatever. A bunch of crooks as bad as banks. I have sometimes heard bankers called "banksters", but "insuranksters" would also fit.
I really could use something similar on my landline. The technical prerequisites for detecting and preventing caller ID spoofing are there, but where I live (Germany) CLIRO is sadly only available for special called parties like police and emergency services. CLIRO stands for Calling Line Identification Restriction Override and means that the real caller ID is always transferred.
But perhaps something like CLIRO Light could be introduced, where spoofed calls are automatically rejected at the telephone exchange, without or without notifying the called party. I would happily activate something like that. It would kill 90% of all spam calls because the spammers would run a much larger risk of being identified and fined.
The 2080 costs around $800. If you compare based on price/performance, the Vega VII is more attractive if it can match the performance of the 2080. The 16 GB might also be more future-proof with constantly increasing memory requirements in gaming.
Slashdot Mirror
It looks that way because stuff like internet connection 'up to ' and "100% Fruit Juice" rarely go to court. For most people it is too much hassle compared to switching vendors.
Or because said vendor offers a nice settlement to keep stuff out of the news. In Germany, there seem to be a lot of cases lately where Volkswagen is paying off plaintiffs in the Diesel affair.
But sometimes, those things go all the way to a verdict in court and the courts are usually not convinced by weasel words. They tend to rule based on the marketing slogans and the court's own understanding of those slogans. Not based on the fine print on page 15.
Alternative:
2. Discover it does not, in fact, do that, by having a nasty accident
3. Sue Tesla for personal injury
4. More profit and Tesla's reputation is in the gutter
Your company could get around it, of course, by running its own server farms and not using the cloud providers, but then you would be at the mercy of whatever jurisdiction you're domiciled in.
You are that anyway - the country where your company resides has a lot more means of putting the pressure on than just confiscating your data. The "Cloud Act" makes you additionally vulnerable to the US if you use US cloud providers.
In effect, that would mean that cloud services are only allowed to work with data from their own country. Or businesses would have to keep stuff on their own servers, as they did for, oh, 30 years or so before the data services in question became common?
It is an IMHO inevitable consequence of US law colliding with EU law.
The US say "when ordered, you have to give us the data of your customers worldwide". The EU says "you may not give that data away against our regulations" (especially to foreign countries).
I don't think it is meant as a trade barrier, at least not primarily. And if it is, I have very little sympathy for a country that threatens EU companies with sanctions about a project (North Stream 2) where the US is not even directly involved. And threatens to declare car import from Europe a threat to national security.
Five minutes ago, I saw a fairly insightful post on this article. Logged in to reply.
But now I cannot find that thread anymore, even with browsing at -1 and tolerating the ACs being displayed.
Does some idiot at Slashdot randomly delete posts?? The one I cannot see anymore was not remotely censorship-worthy. Let alone that Slashdot used to be THE place where you could post anything and not have it deleted. That freedom of speech was a major reason for me to join the discussions here. Not anymore it seems.
The obvious example would be The Division 2 recommending 11gbps of vram for 4k 60fps
Didn't know that. That gets really expensive. On the Nvidia side, this means a GTX 1080Ti or RTX 2080Ti.
GTX 1080Ti seems almost sold out in Europe, the few offers left start at 800 Euro.
RTX 2080Ti offers start at 1000 Euro.
The Radeon VII is listed at 750 Euro at some dealers, but not in stock yet.
So you need at least a 750 Euro card to have the recommended vram size for Division 2...
10 years old? No Vega necessary then. I guess the Radeon 6670 on my second PC might be sufficient. Performance wise it is on the level of high end cards from 2009.
Reliable data are hard to get, but some people speculate that the Radeon VII barely brings its manufacturing costs, mostly because of the expensive HBM2.
Maybe just a form of "hey look we are still making fast gaming cards" by AMD.
AMD has a history of needing some time to arrive at best driver performance.
Vega 64 and Vega 56 were originally significantly weaker than GTX 1080 and GTX 1070. Now they have caught up, just in time to become obsolete...
I'm curious how Navi will work out. It is supposed to be a major step forward, architecture wise.
It could also be a pretext to put pressure on the EU to dump Huawei. Without public evidence, the USA's public accusations of Huawei being a security risk may just be fake news.
But as I posted elsewhere, I don't trust hardware from either country to be free of back doors. The Chinese government probably can force Chinese manufacturers to cooperate. In Cisco hardware (US), hardcoded passwords have already been found.
So there is a reasonable suspicion that Chinese hardware may have back doors. There is clear evidence for back doors in US hardware. Best case, it was just sloppiness by the devs. But it could have been at the behest of the NSA too.
And their National Security Letters. Overall, that gives them a legal loophole comparable to what the Chinese Government probably has.
As someone from the EU, I don't trust either. Perhaps we could buy at least some of our stuff from Nokia (Finnish). Seems the politically and legally safest option.
But will Adobe be able to do this better than Nvidia/AMD?
These are serious competition with lots of accumulated know-how in graphics. Beating them is a tall order.
More to the point, the Youtube big guns (and those are Sony and NBC Universal, NOT PewDiePie and his ilk) are already protected by code, which will straight up ignore claims against monetized videos of privileged accounts
Then Youtube would lose the safe harbor protections of the DMCA. Of course, you would need to sue Youtube and prove your claim in court. Which means you actually have to be the copyright holder of the infringed work. Which means filing masses of made up claims will fail (and rightly so).
What about going after the client then? Genuine question, as I don't know that much about US law.
If the lawyer says "my client lied to me" (and can prove it, for the sake of the argument), wouldn't the punishment go against the client?
And along the rest of the borders they had stuff like barbed wire fences, some mine fields and guard towers with guards that had orders to shoot at refugees. Stuff that would give Trump a massive orgasm if he could find the money for it.
So, not always a wall as in "pile of bricks", but still some sort of serious obstacle
The only ones of the three who built a country-wide wall was Eastern Germany, aka the GDR.
I guess Finland and the Soviet union had fortified SOME places, but that is not the same as a wall that spans an entire border.
The logical extension of your steps are: The RTX2070 was a "low end" card up until last week. The GTX1080Ti was magically demoted from high end to "mid tier" due to the release of faster products.
Well, it is somewhat arbitrary. Nvidia tends to release the fastest cards first, within a few weeks. Except the Titan that comes a few months later. We could dispute if the Titan still counts for defining the categories. As you wrote, it could lead to magic demotions after the fact, so I'd arbitrarily exclude the Titan and go with the first wave of releases.
With the RTX2060, raw computing power drops below half that of the RTX 20180 Ti => I call that midrange, not high end anymore. Arbitrarily of course, it's not an exact science.
The GTX1080Ti is still almost on the level of the RTX2080 and I count it in the high end range.
But to return the question, what exactly makes a product high end to you? Is it enough to have the latest features, even if it is beaten in performance by other models? Compare the GTX1080Ti to the RTX2060, what is higher end?
My "steps below" are mostly based on performance, to a lesser part on the effort the manufacturer put in with memory size, bus width and so on. The exact thresholds are arbitrary of course, but if a GPU has only half of the computing power of the top model, I usually consider it midrange. BTW, by that measure the RTX 2070, compared to the RTX 2080 Ti, would only be a midrange GPU too.
Raytracing appears not (yet?) to make for outright superior graphics. Maybe that will be different in the next generation.
About Navi, there are only vague rumors yet, but it seems AMD will aim for "only midrange" with the first models. Perhaps a successor to the Polaris series, which was never considered high end.
It's matter of definitions I guess, to me high end is defined as "the fastest cards in the market, perhaps including one or two steps below". That means RTX 2080 Ti, RTX 2080 and RTX 2070. RTX 2060 is an overpriced midrange card that only looks like high end because it lacks competition from other vendors.
AMD is effectively one generation back. Their midrange stuff is the RX series that is currently on a refresh cycle, with only small improvements over their first generation. It was reasonably competitive with the GTX 1060.
Vega was disappointing in the beginning. In recent months it has achieved performance parity with GTX 1070/1080, but that is the high end of yesterday.
When AMD finally comes out with Navi, rumors say mid-2019, Nvidia may have to drop prices from "crazy margins" to "merely good margins".
Getting a bit off topic, but a lot of their market IS the gaming hardware market. On the "low end" where all you need is the capability to run Office and play some videos, most people just use the integrated graphics of Intel/AMD, with Intel being in the majority.
In what you call the mid end market they have just released the RTX 2060 which looks good vs. a Vega 56 so far. Below that, both Nvidia and AMD are still on the last generation. For now I think Nvidia is in a good position and will come out with the "smaller" Geforce cards in the 20 series before AMD's Navi.
I prefer AMD myself, not least because of Nvidia's business practices. But right now, Nvidia seem to be technologically ahead.
Unity claim that they gave, in effect, Improbable several months of warning. But even so, I wonder if this sort of retroactive license change is legal at all. We might yet see a lawsuit over this.
But I think there was also pretty gross negligence on the part of Improbable when they
1) agreed to a license contract that did not require mutual agreement to change the TOS
2) used a system where Unity could just revoke the keys and in effect shut down their business
For comparison, both 1) and 2) are present with one's game collection on Steam too (as well as the question if 1) is legal). On both counts, I hardly trust Steam with the handful of games I "bought" through the service. But building a business on such shaky ground? Never ever.
Insurance company refusing to pay with some feeble excuse?
Happens all the time, they speculate on being not sued because it would be too much hassle for the customer, or said customer cannot afford a lawyer, or whatever. A bunch of crooks as bad as banks. I have sometimes heard bankers called "banksters", but "insuranksters" would also fit.
I really could use something similar on my landline. The technical prerequisites for detecting and preventing caller ID spoofing are there, but where I live (Germany) CLIRO is sadly only available for special called parties like police and emergency services. CLIRO stands for Calling Line Identification Restriction Override and means that the real caller ID is always transferred.
But perhaps something like CLIRO Light could be introduced, where spoofed calls are automatically rejected at the telephone exchange, without or without notifying the called party. I would happily activate something like that. It would kill 90% of all spam calls because the spammers would run a much larger risk of being identified and fined.
The 2080 costs around $800. If you compare based on price/performance, the Vega VII is more attractive if it can match the performance of the 2080. The 16 GB might also be more future-proof with constantly increasing memory requirements in gaming.