If they're only saving a 20% advantage over their US BoM, why even DO it in the first place? Quality's not the same dealing with China. I'd rather be dealing with Taiwan on manufacturing (and even then, that's a relative concept... I'd rather be dealing with a US manufacturing interest...they're less likely to screw around with designs, rip them off, etc. just to make more on their margins...). So you can "save" a couple of million on costs? Odds on, they're not even saving that much on production- it only looks like that on the books because people are only looking at that part of the ledger instead of looking at the part that quality related issues are costing them quite a bit more.
Some vendors are finding that it's actually cheaper to do it Stateside for their products these days.
How about just simply winnowing out the bullsh*t regs that you're referring to as the source of expenses in business (which would be a good portion of the expenses, really...). Most of them are byzantine and largely impossible to abide by in the first place.
Once you rid yourself of the rubbish, it suddenly gets cheaper (Offshoring only LOOKS cheaper on paper- it inevitably makes it more expensive farming stuff out to India, Taiwan, or China...) and your quality will be the same or improve.
Because nobody thinks this stuff through, teaching it at business school or not.
Everybody tries to appease the "stock market" because it's "increasing shareholder value" (Don't you mean shareseller value, guys? Let's be honest here- since there's no real way to obtain value through dividends, etc. you have to sell it off to some bagholder at some point or short it to them...)
So long as the metered rates are relatively sane then it'll be fine. Right now, Verizon's charging me $80/mo for 10Gb of un-metered service and $10/Gb metered past that. Not TOO bad, really, so long as you don't have some idiot game yanking 10Gb worth of updates OTA (Yes, I had a game try that...we'll revisit it when I can afford to be eating an additional $100...which means probably never while it's sitting at the Hotel I'm staying at...).
I'm managing fairly well on this and would do even better with their Fixed LTE service out at the farm (For only $40 more than I'm spending now, I could have a 30Gb un-metered, $10/Gb past that metered service- which out in a rural area, that'd rock...). But then, I'm not streaming content all the time either. I can see some of these modalities being painful to use unless the metered rates were at least slightly less painful.
In Clear's case, it's that they don't have adequate backhaul or tower coverage for what they're subscribing for.
In T-Mobile's case, it's the same thing.
In AT&T's case it's a mix of the alleged by TFA combined with the former I mentioned.
In the case of Verizon it's the same as AT&T, though with them, they've apparently got better backhaul such that they're rolling out rural fixed LTE service in some locations. It's not cheap, but it's on a par with Excede (ViaSat's new service that allegedly has as good as LTE performanced...) for price and bandwidth- but unlike with Excede, when you hit the cap, you basically pay $10/Gb over (and don't seem to be getting throttled at this time...) rather than being throttled back to 128kbps.
Heh... You won't FIND a 1Gbit hub. 1Gbit switch, yes. The switch will allow you to see 800-900 Mbits of the theoretical signalling bandwidth, peer to peer, with the switch typically having an aggregate capacity within it of something like 4-6Gbits for consumer gear. That means the switch can provide a peak somewhere around 2-3 full duplex sessions or 4-6 half duplex actions. Pretty much everyone in the house will have "one gigabit" worth of bandwidth within the network backbone itself.
As for the single machine theory...depends on what you're doing. If you're using point sources, yeah, you'll share the bandwidth. IP Multicast type things will only consume the bandwidth sufficient to provide the feed in question. If you've got 10 subscribers on a 200Mbit video feed in a house, those subscribers will largely consume only about 200Mbits of the total capacity of the switch.
In fact, in rural areas, Verizon's beginning to roll out fixed service LTE with similar bandwidths to the mobile service with data tiers that reflect what they view as typical use (i.e. They offer a 30Gb tier for $120, etc. with the same $10/Gb block over the included data consumption...).
They might, but then they'll face demands for "fair" access by the wireless telcos.
Biggest complaint I've got is the bullshit lines of "unlimited" that they keep using. It's not even "unlimited" data when they throttle- you don't get the theroetical maximum the un-throttled pipe will allow when they do that.
It's because of two things, most likely, that they're doing this- oversubscription and not wanting to cannibalize things until they're ready for that. The subscriber ends with something like LTE can handle the abuse; it's the backhaul that can't cope with the utilization because they went with cheaper links to the towers.
And if you think that the data will be omnipresent and in the total control of these groups, I've got some nifty oceanside real-estate on the Florida Coast to sell you...only a few gators on it...
Short sighted? Really? Is it that or is it that you're looking at pipedreams?
Networks being truly being ubiquitous isn't going to be around for quite a while yet to come. Storage being dirt cheap, yeah. But where is it residing? In some central repository...that can be raided. You're hoping on the sheer volume to prevent it from being nabbed from that repository. Ask all the differing retail and banking interests about that sort of thing and see what they have to say about card/ssn/etc. info being leaked out to the world. "Won't happen," isn't the right answer there.
Without being able to assure network connectivity, they're basically bricks. Without being able to assure network security with 100% certainty, it's insane to put most stuff out on "the cloud".
Even in Star Trek, they didn't have "thin computing" everywhere- you had PADDs and you had Tricorders.
Local storage and offline apps breaks the "in the cloud" model that they've got for ChromeOS.
The big problem then is that they've already got a competing OS that does all of this and more, does it without needing "the cloud" (without utterly ubiquitous (as in absolutely everywhere...) access to "the cloud", the things become bricks or almost so...) - and it's in phones and tablets everywhere making much, much bigger inroads than ChromeOS will probably hope to anytime soon. The intro video on it paints a nifty pictrue...but if Google loses their servers and backups fail, you lose everything just as if you'd not backed it up on a PC, Mac, etc. computer. If you don't have connectivity, you pretty much have an expensive paperweight/doorstop.
It's an answer looking for a problem to fix that other, mostly better, answers have been made for. Tech-wise, it's nifty. Use-wise, it's an iffy proposition in the large at best because your data is with a third party which means you're exposed to leak risks like the credit card leaks over the last couple of years.
Honestly, I'd not be wanting to own up to having read Hubbard's tripe SF...
Odds on, he's full of it. Quick google search on things provides nothing but refrences to Wikipedia's entry on Goal-post Head and people quoting his line as quoted up the discussion thread...
Considering that the device becomes effectively a VERY expensive paperweight when you don't have Internet, there's NO significant advantage. Local functionality? I've seen what they have- many of the companies developing for the hardware are questioning why Google's continuing it at all. They're doing it because Google's forging forward, but they're not putting much efforts into it right now.
You guys in the US have never had to worry about domestic terrorism in the same way before so it is only natural you are still trying to figure out how to deal with it. It is very scary that one of your fellow citizens wants to turn on you but you have no idea exactly who. Many people though deal with this fear by blocking it out and not thinking about it, forcing people to jump through some hoops also forces them to think about it at times when it is very important.
If you think what the TSA's doing is getting people to think about it and resolve it in their heads, you're off your chump.;-D
"Counterterrorism in the airport is a show designed to make people feel better,"
I don't feel better, nor do most other people in fact. It's part of the reason the airline industry's hurting. In the large, most people don't travel any more by air unless they have to because of this tripe.
There's actually nothing in the Constitution setting up that "Constitution Free Zone" as described by the ACLU in that infographic. It's another good example of what's not being abided by.
No... That patent's no longer enforceable. This is 2012. 1992 + 17 = 2009. It expired as a concern several years ago. It also makes anything close to this that doesn't come up with a truly new, patentable twist (the subject patents aren't...) unpatentable.:-D
Ah, but the distinction is insufficient for a utility patent on the implementation. Apple's actions anticipate the other that you mention. It IS Novelty Destroying.
Most of the litigators I know that're good in this space happen to bill at $350/hr. The only bunch I know of that charge $500/hr are people from places like Cravath. Most of the companies that hire those sorts of lawyers don't bother with idiot lawsuits like this one.
As for months of a legal battle, it depends on the "big company" as to whether or not they're willing to piss $100k-1mil on the floor and lose the patent that they spent some $20-50k on getting, along with possibly losing a countersuit if one's filed.
In this case, though, there's a dead-on, you lose piece of prior art involved- Apple patented the base concept in 1992. This isn't some almost item. It's the same concept/implementation- all that's differing is the verbiage in the patent copy for what they're doing and why. I'd put up a fight and counter-sue for damages due to this BS for bringing a frivolous lawsuit (Because it is...).
Slashdot Mirror
Invariable? How about just "inconsistent"?
If they're only saving a 20% advantage over their US BoM, why even DO it in the first place? Quality's not the same dealing with China. I'd rather be dealing with Taiwan on manufacturing (and even then, that's a relative concept... I'd rather be dealing with a US manufacturing interest...they're less likely to screw around with designs, rip them off, etc. just to make more on their margins...). So you can "save" a couple of million on costs? Odds on, they're not even saving that much on production- it only looks like that on the books because people are only looking at that part of the ledger instead of looking at the part that quality related issues are costing them quite a bit more.
Some vendors are finding that it's actually cheaper to do it Stateside for their products these days.
How about just simply winnowing out the bullsh*t regs that you're referring to as the source of expenses in business (which would be a good portion of the expenses, really...). Most of them are byzantine and largely impossible to abide by in the first place.
Once you rid yourself of the rubbish, it suddenly gets cheaper (Offshoring only LOOKS cheaper on paper- it inevitably makes it more expensive farming stuff out to India, Taiwan, or China...) and your quality will be the same or improve.
Because nobody thinks this stuff through, teaching it at business school or not.
Everybody tries to appease the "stock market" because it's "increasing shareholder value" (Don't you mean shareseller value, guys? Let's be honest here- since there's no real way to obtain value through dividends, etc. you have to sell it off to some bagholder at some point or short it to them...)
So long as the metered rates are relatively sane then it'll be fine. Right now, Verizon's charging me $80/mo for 10Gb of un-metered service and $10/Gb metered past that. Not TOO bad, really, so long as you don't have some idiot game yanking 10Gb worth of updates OTA (Yes, I had a game try that...we'll revisit it when I can afford to be eating an additional $100...which means probably never while it's sitting at the Hotel I'm staying at...).
I'm managing fairly well on this and would do even better with their Fixed LTE service out at the farm (For only $40 more than I'm spending now, I could have a 30Gb un-metered, $10/Gb past that metered service- which out in a rural area, that'd rock...). But then, I'm not streaming content all the time either. I can see some of these modalities being painful to use unless the metered rates were at least slightly less painful.
In Clear's case, it's that they don't have adequate backhaul or tower coverage for what they're subscribing for.
In T-Mobile's case, it's the same thing.
In AT&T's case it's a mix of the alleged by TFA combined with the former I mentioned.
In the case of Verizon it's the same as AT&T, though with them, they've apparently got better backhaul such that they're rolling out rural fixed LTE service in some locations. It's not cheap, but it's on a par with Excede (ViaSat's new service that allegedly has as good as LTE performanced...) for price and bandwidth- but unlike with Excede, when you hit the cap, you basically pay $10/Gb over (and don't seem to be getting throttled at this time...) rather than being throttled back to 128kbps.
Heh... You won't FIND a 1Gbit hub. 1Gbit switch, yes. The switch will allow you to see 800-900 Mbits of the theoretical signalling bandwidth, peer to peer, with the switch typically having an aggregate capacity within it of something like 4-6Gbits for consumer gear. That means the switch can provide a peak somewhere around 2-3 full duplex sessions or 4-6 half duplex actions. Pretty much everyone in the house will have "one gigabit" worth of bandwidth within the network backbone itself.
As for the single machine theory...depends on what you're doing. If you're using point sources, yeah, you'll share the bandwidth. IP Multicast type things will only consume the bandwidth sufficient to provide the feed in question. If you've got 10 subscribers on a 200Mbit video feed in a house, those subscribers will largely consume only about 200Mbits of the total capacity of the switch.
In fact, in rural areas, Verizon's beginning to roll out fixed service LTE with similar bandwidths to the mobile service with data tiers that reflect what they view as typical use (i.e. They offer a 30Gb tier for $120, etc. with the same $10/Gb block over the included data consumption...).
They might, but then they'll face demands for "fair" access by the wireless telcos.
Biggest complaint I've got is the bullshit lines of "unlimited" that they keep using. It's not even "unlimited" data when they throttle- you don't get the theroetical maximum the un-throttled pipe will allow when they do that.
It's because of two things, most likely, that they're doing this- oversubscription and not wanting to cannibalize things until they're ready for that. The subscriber ends with something like LTE can handle the abuse; it's the backhaul that can't cope with the utilization because they went with cheaper links to the towers.
They were clandestinely capping, amongst other things.
1, 2, 4 are why I say that this is a folly.
And if you think that the data will be omnipresent and in the total control of these groups, I've got some nifty oceanside real-estate on the Florida Coast to sell you...only a few gators on it...
Short sighted? Really? Is it that or is it that you're looking at pipedreams?
Networks being truly being ubiquitous isn't going to be around for quite a while yet to come. Storage being dirt cheap, yeah. But where is it residing? In some central repository...that can be raided. You're hoping on the sheer volume to prevent it from being nabbed from that repository. Ask all the differing retail and banking interests about that sort of thing and see what they have to say about card/ssn/etc. info being leaked out to the world. "Won't happen," isn't the right answer there.
Without being able to assure network connectivity, they're basically bricks.
Without being able to assure network security with 100% certainty, it's insane to put most stuff out on "the cloud".
Even in Star Trek, they didn't have "thin computing" everywhere- you had PADDs and you had Tricorders.
Local storage and offline apps breaks the "in the cloud" model that they've got for ChromeOS.
The big problem then is that they've already got a competing OS that does all of this and more, does it without needing "the cloud" (without utterly ubiquitous (as in absolutely everywhere...) access to "the cloud", the things become bricks or almost so...) - and it's in phones and tablets everywhere making much, much bigger inroads than ChromeOS will probably hope to anytime soon. The intro video on it paints a nifty pictrue...but if Google loses their servers and backups fail, you lose everything just as if you'd not backed it up on a PC, Mac, etc. computer. If you don't have connectivity, you pretty much have an expensive paperweight/doorstop.
It's an answer looking for a problem to fix that other, mostly better, answers have been made for. Tech-wise, it's nifty. Use-wise, it's an iffy proposition in the large at best because your data is with a third party which means you're exposed to leak risks like the credit card leaks over the last couple of years.
Honestly, I'd not be wanting to own up to having read Hubbard's tripe SF...
Odds on, he's full of it. Quick google search on things provides nothing but refrences to Wikipedia's entry on Goal-post Head and people quoting his line as quoted up the discussion thread...
Considering that the device becomes effectively a VERY expensive paperweight when you don't have Internet, there's NO significant advantage. Local functionality? I've seen what they have- many of the companies developing for the hardware are questioning why Google's continuing it at all. They're doing it because Google's forging forward, but they're not putting much efforts into it right now.
Not all of the Chromebooks use Intel. Some use Qualcomm chips. There's a hint that your info is not 100% accurate. ;-D
Are you counting in the Li-Ion batteries' impact in the case of Hybrids and Electrics? If not, your figures are off.
If you think what the TSA's doing is getting people to think about it and resolve it in their heads, you're off your chump. ;-D
I don't feel better, nor do most other people in fact. It's part of the reason the airline industry's hurting. In the large, most people don't travel any more by air unless they have to because of this tripe.
There's actually nothing in the Constitution setting up that "Constitution Free Zone" as described by the ACLU in that infographic. It's another good example of what's not being abided by.
No... That patent's no longer enforceable. This is 2012. 1992 + 17 = 2009. It expired as a concern several years ago. It also makes anything close to this that doesn't come up with a truly new, patentable twist (the subject patents aren't...) unpatentable. :-D
Ah, but the distinction is insufficient for a utility patent on the implementation. Apple's actions anticipate the other that you mention. It IS Novelty Destroying.
Most of the litigators I know that're good in this space happen to bill at $350/hr. The only bunch I know of that charge $500/hr are people from places like Cravath. Most of the companies that hire those sorts of lawyers don't bother with idiot lawsuits like this one.
As for months of a legal battle, it depends on the "big company" as to whether or not they're willing to piss $100k-1mil on the floor and lose the patent that they spent some $20-50k on getting, along with possibly losing a countersuit if one's filed.
In this case, though, there's a dead-on, you lose piece of prior art involved- Apple patented the base concept in 1992. This isn't some almost item. It's the same concept/implementation- all that's differing is the verbiage in the patent copy for what they're doing and why. I'd put up a fight and counter-sue for damages due to this BS for bringing a frivolous lawsuit (Because it is...).
And...we won't get into the fact that Apple patented the base concept in 1992