It was racked up in that Bailout that Obama said had to be done or everything would collapse- and that it'd get things moving again. Neither of which were likely to be true. The only goofball is the one that misses the critical details and blames it on the prior administration- when it's the things Obama's been doing that have actually worsened things overall and in a manner that it'll probably take a decade or two to fully realize. (It should be noted that the triggers for the Mortgage Crisis were set in Clinton's watch under a similar Democratically ran Congress.)
Heh... Why am I unsurprised...to the point of having reported a loss of positive control over the card in their damn system and getting a new card issued?
Couldn't be because they ARE lying and have been for a bit now on a LOT of things, could it?
The problem is that you're centralizing the stuff to the payment processor now- which while it's more secure, it's a much more lucrative target. Effort's vastly higher, yes, but the payoff's porportionate.
The problem is that this is not the same thing as what was discussed earlier. There's no limits (other than to the limit of your acct or the daily limit if it's a debit card...) and it's not Credit he's describing, but more of a very, very limited ACH transaction.
- Slower than the iPad (same CPU, MUCH slower GPU)
1) Same CPU equates to roughly the same performance for regular tasks like UI, browser, etc. since the speed in 3D doesn't equate to 2D stuff. 2) It's only about 1.5 or so times faster than the Xoom, based on the benchmark results (Magic word there...benchmarks...)- so not so much slower like you're making it out to be. Resolutions can tump things into a slower framerate.
Slower than it should be on top of that (everything runs slower in Honeycomb than Gingerbread on identical hardware)
Seems to be more an issue with the Xoom. My Nook Color's roughly on a par with Gingerbread (well...CM7's got Bluetooth support and the hacked Honeycomb doesn't... Since I've got an Iconia now, the Nook's going to CM7 to be fully useful by way of PAN and Keyboard support...) and the Iconia doesn't seem...laggy...like the Xoom is on the same SoC for all intents and purposes. Moto...go figure...
Heavier than the iPad
My Iconia's not really any heavier than the Xoom. However, having handed it over to several iPad owners, they couldn't understand the rancor about it being "heavier" that was coming from some quarters. Weight differences were almost negligible in their opinion.
Crappier screen than the iPad (wider, yay, but viewing angles that are an entire generation behind)
Heh... No argument there.
Lower video compatibility (Once again, slower playback than non-Honeycomb Tegra 2 tablets)
That isn't a function of the Honeycomb/non-Honeycomb difference, per se. It's setting up the decode/playback through the DSP and it takes care of most of the load-lifting. Sounds like a display driver boo-boo or a weak DSP program for the video formats, if you ask me...
The same price
Heh... No argument there. Lame, really, when I've got the better execution of the idea in hand now.
Capable of reading MicroSD cards.... someday?
Ouch. Heh... My Iconia and my NC seem to be able to grasp hotpluggable MicroSD. I'd call that lame, yet again.
I'm unsurprised that the Xoom figures aren't pretty. Moto's apparently done a botch on both the Xoom and the Atrix. Doesn't mean that the follow-on tablets (Iconia, eeePC convertable, etc...) are the same story. And it's silly to have articles like this out at this stage as others have pointed out- it's not Android so much as it's Motorola we're talking about in this story.
I don't know about that. Coupled with a bluetooth keyboard, my A500 matches most netbooks in capabilities and performance and is more portable/usable even without the keyboard for many uses you'd use a netbook for.
Your statement is inaccurate. Until this week, there was only the Xoom. This week, Acer's play showed up. $150 less than the Xoom with at least a slightly better configuration than the same. And, your G was only $300 because you caught a deal somewhere- retail storefront's only $50 less than what I paid for my Iconia A500 on Tuesday.
Uh, no... It's more because they're trying to get INFRASTRUCTURE in right so that you have no bottlenecks in the rendering path that are avoidable. You're watching the devs work towards what NVidia and AMD have already had 10+ years at doing for their couple of year's at it so far. It's NOT like the old drivers that you just needed to know how to submit verticies and textures to the rasterization engine quickly like with RagePRO, Rage128, and G200/400 cards (I should know about BOTH classes of hardware...I was one of the UtahGLX devs and I did work for one of the big two as a contractor years back- on the class of hardware we're talking about. Coding for modern 3D cards is NOT easy or simple.) Quite simply the bulk of the stuff was made available- just not the compressed video stream decode parts, mainly because it requires knowledge to turn on/off the DRM components of the whole path. They're constrained by contractual obligations to NOT give that out.
Define OpenGL heavy. The drivers typically fall flat on their face compared to NVidia when your developer "oopsed" something on a shader or a call- basically, the drivers are less tolerant of errors in coding than NVidia's. As for WINE...don't know, it's been a bit since I've tried doing much in it. I port titles after hours so I tend to not rely on band-aids to get games to play... (:-D )
Considering that the remark that NVidia's drivers working well is a Your Mileage May Vary Considerably (Fermi not being well supported under Nouveau, NVidia dropping 2D driver support and pointing people to Nouveau for initial bring up, and select Fermi chipsets NOT being supported (GT440, for example...)) you MIGHT just want to moderate your remarks on that score.
Actually, it's more of one now than then. Most of your gripes are with similar implementations of systems, etc. What the GP poster was getting at is that the APIs aren't even close to the painful situation you're describing. Unless you have an abstraction layer in the mix, you're going to have to re-work major portions of your code on the server.
My first thought was that of "When will they pull an "OtherOS Removal" on it or a "Rootkit" (if it's not already done...), which was quickly followed by your remarks.
Don't be a tool and justify an over-the-top reaction to things here. The odds are extremely good that a child pornographer isn't going to be firing back at Police- and if they are it takes but a moment to up the levels. Justifying this by being concerned about "coming home to their wife" is to justify all sorts of things. Sorry, but what you propose is actually quite illegal on the part of the Police actually.
Be sure you're talking about the Nuclear Power that TEPCO is using. Liquid Salt Thorium and Pebble Bed Reactors don't pose the risks you mention, for example.
Depends on whether you're talking civil or criminal code. Some things CAN be waived by contract. The laws that aren't impacted in the civil space are ones where the law explicitly states that you can't waive something. You can't waive your protections from deceptive trade practices as an example. Your examples are good ones where you can't waive your rights. However, you can waive many of your employee rights to a court trial and let things be settled by arbitration- as an example of something that CAN be done by contract.
Actually, there's quite a few consumer protection laws in the varying states that you CAN'T just simply agree away your rights- you'd need a Lawyer present and the said Lawyer having advised you that carrying out the transaction voids part or all of your legal rights. Putting verbiage in an EULA of this nature would imply willful violation of the laws in question and would make it worse for the company doing it. It's a bit of a shame that my damages aren't large and you can't really use it in a Class Action suit (well, nobody's tried, I suppose...) but the whole thing is in violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act as an example- and the Court will hammer them with sextuple damages (Triple Actual and then doubled for aggrivation/pain/suffering/etc.) as a result of attempting to skirt the law that way.
What is the official position on Mathematical Expressions?
Per Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co. v. Radio Corp. of America, 306 U.S. 86, 94, 40 USPQ 199, 202 (1939):
While a scientific truth, or the mathematical expression of it, is not patentable invention, a novel and useful structure created with the aid of knowledge of scientific truth may be.
You shouldn't allow patents that touch on a Scientific Truth or Mathematical Expression thereof- which most of the idiot software patents actually fall under. Sadly Bilski didn't go far enough to state this, though they did correct a lot of the bogus stuff. They COULD have went upon Bilski with this and probably won since the thing pretty much fails there. I think they're going for larger fish.
The patent has "source code" accompanied with it. Unfortunately, it's just psuedocode. Source code doesn't get you there- all that happens to be is another language expressing the SAME THING as the patent claims. Both of which, more often than not, express merely a mathematical expression, otherwise known as an Algorithm. In short, there's VERY LITTLE that should be deemed patentable in the space. LZW might've been patentable...if it was on a specific system as part thereof. Not as it was patented, though. This patent's even LESS than LZW's was.
This is a federal case, so it could potentially get appealed all of the way to the Supreme Court (and Google has sufficient funds to do so).
And they will probably go the distance with it in a manner like Bilski was ran- this is the camel's nose in the tent and it's not like it's really valid on several different fronts. (Based on what I'm about to mention, it might be that this is the plan on this...I can't say...)
Besides, there's some very likely prior art. The initial release of NLANR Squid (v. 1.0) was on July of 1996. When it was released, some six months before the Bedrock patent was filed, it was the inheritor of the Harvest HTTP Cache research project's code and resources, which a reduction to practice places it at about a year and a half prior to the Bedrock filing. At it's core, there is the very implementation of what is described in Bedrock's patent as it uses a hash with external chaining and expiry on the fly- it's how the whole thing does fast lookup and aging on the contents in the cache to begin with. It's how it works so "nicely" and what made it special back when it was implemented.
Slashdot Mirror
Uh... NO.
It was racked up in that Bailout that Obama said had to be done or everything would collapse- and that it'd get things moving again. Neither of which were likely to be true. The only goofball is the one that misses the critical details and blames it on the prior administration- when it's the things Obama's been doing that have actually worsened things overall and in a manner that it'll probably take a decade or two to fully realize. (It should be noted that the triggers for the Mortgage Crisis were set in Clinton's watch under a similar Democratically ran Congress.)
According to some of the PS3 Dev crowd...not even that...
Heh... Why am I unsurprised...to the point of having reported a loss of positive control over the card in their damn system and getting a new card issued?
Couldn't be because they ARE lying and have been for a bit now on a LOT of things, could it?
The problem is that you're centralizing the stuff to the payment processor now- which while it's more secure, it's a much more lucrative target. Effort's vastly higher, yes, but the payoff's porportionate.
The problem is that this is not the same thing as what was discussed earlier. There's no limits (other than to the limit of your acct or the daily limit if it's a debit card...) and it's not Credit he's describing, but more of a very, very limited ACH transaction.
The CPU's not really the hard part... The GPU is...
Heh...
1) Same CPU equates to roughly the same performance for regular tasks like UI, browser, etc. since the speed in 3D doesn't equate to 2D stuff.
2) It's only about 1.5 or so times faster than the Xoom, based on the benchmark results (Magic word there...benchmarks...)- so not so much slower like you're making it out to be. Resolutions can tump things into a slower framerate.
Seems to be more an issue with the Xoom. My Nook Color's roughly on a par with Gingerbread (well...CM7's got Bluetooth support and the hacked Honeycomb doesn't... Since I've got an Iconia now, the Nook's going to CM7 to be fully useful by way of PAN and Keyboard support...) and the Iconia doesn't seem...laggy...like the Xoom is on the same SoC for all intents and purposes. Moto...go figure...
My Iconia's not really any heavier than the Xoom. However, having handed it over to several iPad owners, they couldn't understand the rancor about it being "heavier" that was coming from some quarters. Weight differences were almost negligible in their opinion.
Heh... No argument there.
That isn't a function of the Honeycomb/non-Honeycomb difference, per se. It's setting up the decode/playback through the DSP and it takes care of most of the load-lifting. Sounds like a display driver boo-boo or a weak DSP program for the video formats, if you ask me...
Heh... No argument there. Lame, really, when I've got the better execution of the idea in hand now.
Ouch. Heh... My Iconia and my NC seem to be able to grasp hotpluggable MicroSD. I'd call that lame, yet again.
I'm unsurprised that the Xoom figures aren't pretty. Moto's apparently done a botch on both the Xoom and the Atrix. Doesn't mean that the follow-on tablets (Iconia, eeePC convertable, etc...) are the same story. And it's silly to have articles like this out at this stage as others have pointed out- it's not Android so much as it's Motorola we're talking about in this story.
I don't know about that. Coupled with a bluetooth keyboard, my A500 matches most netbooks in capabilities and performance and is more portable/usable even without the keyboard for many uses you'd use a netbook for.
Your statement is inaccurate. Until this week, there was only the Xoom. This week, Acer's play showed up. $150 less than the Xoom with at least a slightly better configuration than the same. And, your G was only $300 because you caught a deal somewhere- retail storefront's only $50 less than what I paid for my Iconia A500 on Tuesday.
Don't you really mean Kleptocracy?
Comparing "modern" Liberals or Conservatives, I find little different...
Uh, no... It's more because they're trying to get INFRASTRUCTURE in right so that you have no bottlenecks in the rendering path that are avoidable. You're watching the devs work towards what NVidia and AMD have already had 10+ years at doing for their couple of year's at it so far. It's NOT like the old drivers that you just needed to know how to submit verticies and textures to the rasterization engine quickly like with RagePRO, Rage128, and G200/400 cards (I should know about BOTH classes of hardware...I was one of the UtahGLX devs and I did work for one of the big two as a contractor years back- on the class of hardware we're talking about. Coding for modern 3D cards is NOT easy or simple.) Quite simply the bulk of the stuff was made available- just not the compressed video stream decode parts, mainly because it requires knowledge to turn on/off the DRM components of the whole path. They're constrained by contractual obligations to NOT give that out.
Define OpenGL heavy. The drivers typically fall flat on their face compared to NVidia when your developer "oopsed" something on a shader or a call- basically, the drivers are less tolerant of errors in coding than NVidia's. As for WINE...don't know, it's been a bit since I've tried doing much in it. I port titles after hours so I tend to not rely on band-aids to get games to play... ( :-D )
Considering that the remark that NVidia's drivers working well is a Your Mileage May Vary Considerably (Fermi not being well supported under Nouveau, NVidia dropping 2D driver support and pointing people to Nouveau for initial bring up, and select Fermi chipsets NOT being supported (GT440, for example...)) you MIGHT just want to moderate your remarks on that score.
Actually, it's more of one now than then. Most of your gripes are with similar implementations of systems, etc. What the GP poster was getting at is that the APIs aren't even close to the painful situation you're describing. Unless you have an abstraction layer in the mix, you're going to have to re-work major portions of your code on the server.
My first thought was that of "When will they pull an "OtherOS Removal" on it or a "Rootkit" (if it's not already done...), which was quickly followed by your remarks.
Here's a hint: They don't control one of the two parties...
Don't be a tool and justify an over-the-top reaction to things here. The odds are extremely good that a child pornographer isn't going to be firing back at Police- and if they are it takes but a moment to up the levels. Justifying this by being concerned about "coming home to their wife" is to justify all sorts of things. Sorry, but what you propose is actually quite illegal on the part of the Police actually.
Be sure you're talking about the Nuclear Power that TEPCO is using. Liquid Salt Thorium and Pebble Bed Reactors don't pose the risks you mention, for example.
Depends on whether you're talking civil or criminal code. Some things CAN be waived by contract. The laws that aren't impacted in the civil space are ones where the law explicitly states that you can't waive something. You can't waive your protections from deceptive trade practices as an example. Your examples are good ones where you can't waive your rights. However, you can waive many of your employee rights to a court trial and let things be settled by arbitration- as an example of something that CAN be done by contract.
Actually, there's quite a few consumer protection laws in the varying states that you CAN'T just simply agree away your rights- you'd need a Lawyer present and the said Lawyer having advised you that carrying out the transaction voids part or all of your legal rights. Putting verbiage in an EULA of this nature would imply willful violation of the laws in question and would make it worse for the company doing it. It's a bit of a shame that my damages aren't large and you can't really use it in a Class Action suit (well, nobody's tried, I suppose...) but the whole thing is in violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act as an example- and the Court will hammer them with sextuple damages (Triple Actual and then doubled for aggrivation/pain/suffering/etc.) as a result of attempting to skirt the law that way.
ROFLMAO! Thank you for making my day there.
What is the official position on Mathematical Expressions?
Per Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co. v. Radio Corp. of America, 306 U.S. 86, 94, 40 USPQ 199, 202 (1939):
You shouldn't allow patents that touch on a Scientific Truth or Mathematical Expression thereof- which most of the idiot software patents actually fall under. Sadly Bilski didn't go far enough to state this, though they did correct a lot of the bogus stuff. They COULD have went upon Bilski with this and probably won since the thing pretty much fails there. I think they're going for larger fish.
The patent has "source code" accompanied with it. Unfortunately, it's just psuedocode. Source code doesn't get you there- all that happens to be is another language expressing the SAME THING as the patent claims. Both of which, more often than not, express merely a mathematical expression, otherwise known as an Algorithm. In short, there's VERY LITTLE that should be deemed patentable in the space. LZW might've been patentable...if it was on a specific system as part thereof. Not as it was patented, though. This patent's even LESS than LZW's was.
And they will probably go the distance with it in a manner like Bilski was ran- this is the camel's nose in the tent and it's not like it's really valid on several different fronts. (Based on what I'm about to mention, it might be that this is the plan on this...I can't say...)
Besides, there's some very likely prior art. The initial release of NLANR Squid (v. 1.0) was on July of 1996. When it was released, some six months before the Bedrock patent was filed, it was the inheritor of the Harvest HTTP Cache research project's code and resources, which a reduction to practice places it at about a year and a half prior to the Bedrock filing. At it's core, there is the very implementation of what is described in Bedrock's patent as it uses a hash with external chaining and expiry on the fly- it's how the whole thing does fast lookup and aging on the contents in the cache to begin with. It's how it works so "nicely" and what made it special back when it was implemented.