Considering that each and every iPhone is using a DSP to decode...all Apple has to do is cave and give out a firmware update to whatever the new thing ends up being.
The big problem is that both waste types are highly toxic in faintly differing ways- that are fairly equal in their overall risk to life on this planet. It's just that we think we have a better handle on the Truckload than the handful set of poisons.
The reality is, China's producing vast quantities of pollutants that are actually worse than the "polluting" energy we're replacing with the stuff TFA talks to. They're not winning the race "to make clean energy". They're winning the race to produce the stuff we're using to try to do that cheaper than anyone else.
Admitting that IE may be more dangerous isn't in and of itself a huge problem but it may well invite a lot more questions like "How many internal government systems only work with IE?" - and I bet you anything you like the answer is not "Zero".
I do believe that the aforementioned quote is likely to be the source of the response from the Home Office there. The answer is probably going to be closer to "Most of them". That's not an answer people would like to hear at all- probably less than we want to hear the weasel wording from the Home Office there.
You're picking nits. If you use the shared subset, you're largely programming in OpenGL ES 1.1 or 2.0. Fixed Point should only be used on systems with no HW FP present. Not something you're going to find very often in the bulk of the ES systems these days. Definitely not in the case of anything sporting a Cortex series ARM.
And I'm eagerly waiting for the full-on driver support for AMD parts to show up- as much to be vindicated for the comments I made to Benj Lipchak and others in Marlborough some ages ago as anything else...:-D
I do believe that he said "The other problem is that the majority of available hardware and drivers don't support GL 3.x. No open-source driver does, and in fact most Intel, Radeon, and nVidia hardware already in use can only do GL 2.x."
This would be consistent with my understanding of the subject- and I port games over from Windows to Linux as a second vocation. Only part of the hardware out there really supports 3.0, only recent drivers happen to support it- and NONE of the FOSS drivers support it right at the moment. He's one of the gents working towards making that all happen on the FOSS drivers, so he should probably know what he's talking about.
This is because it's technically superior to xvid/divx, both of which are merely implementations of MPEG4. AVC (h.264) is better. What you don't know is that there were license problems with the MPEG4 implementations on FOSS platforms as well- and largely the same set of them. This is a matter of the problem is still there so why keep a inferior solution when there's no difference picking up the "good" one.
Considering how crazy-careful nasa can be with things, and how any private company is going to cut every possible corner, yes it'll save a bundle, and kill a bunch of astronauts in the process.
For all of their "caution", the following two incidents happened and come immediately to mind:
In the first, they launched in adverse conditions that aggravated a design flaw in the solid fuel booster's design that caused the Challenger to blow up as it ascended into orbit. The design flaw was approved by that "crazy-careful" NASA and the launch was approved by the same, over concerns about the design and the conditions by the subcontractor for the engines. If you saw the high-level design drawings for the sealing system they chose to use in the Space Shuttle booster (the most powerful solid fuel booster developed to date at that time...) when compared against the design they chose to use with the Titan II boosters they added to the Gemini program rockets, you'd see that they cheapened the design in the Shuttle booster- with a vastly more powerful booster. Couple that with conditions that would almost guarantee the failure we saw- and an insistence to launch when NASA knew there was a solid chance of this sort of failure- there's nothing "crazy-careful" in that mix.
In the second, they switched an insulation design for the central fuel tank from one that relied on CFCs (good thing...) without verifying that there might be a problem with it coming off on launch and damaging the fragile ceramic heat shield tiles on the shuttle (bad thing...). The testing applied to the new insulation foam wasn't given as extensive a run of verification as the old stuff was, which led to the eventual issue. No checks of potential damage on the critical heat shield were done- not that they could have repaired the damage or easily got the crew back in one piece if they'd found out that they were in trouble there. No major accounting for damaged heat shield sections or planning for a detected problem (in the form of another shuttle on a rescue mission...) had ever really been done. Again, there's nothing "crazy-careful" in that mix.
In the end, the only reason we've had the track record we have had with NASA in the Shuttle era of the agency has been that there've been few runs at things. Yes, in the past, NASA was crazy-careful, but that was more around the Apollo era of things. They're not so careful these days- else the two incidents wouldn't have transpired the way they did. In the first, they'd have scrubbed the mission for another day, which would have prevented the disaster altogether. In the second, had it happened with the people's attitudes during the Apollo 13 timeframe, they would've done a once-over of the shuttle visually either with monitoring gear or via EVA to ensure the integrity of the shuttle. They would have had contingencies for damage of the nature that happened- and had a backup plan for the crew if they couldn't repair the same. NASA's gotten to where they're probably only slightly better than the commercial interests in safety because they're well under budget (which is why they're trying desperately to keep it all in-house if possible; they can justify what they've got right now- if they outsource, the budget shrinks on them even further...) and they're operating more as a political org instead of an engineering driven one like it used to be. That's not to say they don't have good people and some of the best and brightest- but to characterize them as being vastly better on safety than the commercial interests because they're not going to cut corners, etc. is wrong and mistaken at best.
Heh... That's a used car salesman's pitch of things.
"Smarter" routing algorithms have to be applied to each and every router in the mix that might see the traffic for that to work. Do you see the ISP's ripping every Cisco and Juniper out to accomodate them?
"Tuning" at the "IP packet level"? Perlman said this?
There's a magic size that will increase bandwidth to peak. Smaller stuff means you don't get as much through because of latencies, etc. Larger stuff,you end up getting more and more bandwidth with diminishing returns and worse and worse latency. You can't "increase speed" on a domestic router by playing games with packet sizes- and the MTU isn't something that magically changes things like you think it does...
MTU stands for "Maxium Transfer Unit" and is the maximum amount of data that can be transferred via a single packet on a given media transport. You could get a bit of a boost of speed by dinking with the MTU size a bit on a dialup link because there wasn't any max packet size and they almost always set the MTU rather low. 1500's the max on most stuff these days because that's the atom for an Ethernet or similar networking system. Messing with the MTU can cause serious problems for stuff you're pushing across the wire when it's not within the max of the systems you're routing through. Pretty much everything is at 1500 over the Connected Internet and you'll gain nothing by changing it upwards and downwards just fragments the hell out of your packets.
With the ping being bad it sucks for the end user. With the sheer amount of bandwidth needed, there's no way the feed-ends could keep up with more than a couple hundred to a couple thousand.
An OC-48's only able to really handle about 1200 or so realistically.
If you overbook the bandwidth or server resources, you will degrade things accordingly.
Actually...it's doable technically with only a very, very small number of subscribers.
Latency and bandwidth will kill the whole thing.
You have to use peak values per customer in your figuring for it to even remotely work the way they portrayed this.
Given this:
1.5Mbits/s for the feed per user for SD experience with OnLive.
You can serve roughly as an absolute maximum :
30 users on a T3. 103 users on an OC-3. 404 users on an OC-12. 1658 users on an OC-48.
You can expect about $250-500k/mo recurring costs on that OC-48. As another observation, you will likely need to serve 2/3rds to 3/4ths of those numbers to keep the latency usable because as you fill the pipe to capacity, traffic will be subject to the congestion algorithms in the routers and machines at both ends of the pipe. Now, some will state that they'll place the stuff at the ISP's end of things... Then the ISP gets the joy of this same level of connectivity- and they're bitching about "freeloaders" and "bandwidth problems" right now.
OnLive is snake oil trying to be sold to the game industry as a solution to their "control" problem. It's an alternate DRM play. And it can NEVER work in our lifetime. You can't field enough bandwidth cheaply enough to accomplish it.
You know... People keep bandying that about with abandon. It's unlikely to happen- ever.
1) Buying out means spending roughly 1/3rd their net worth on a company that only provides 1/3rd your income. An income that is less than the money you just spent.
2) Buying out means spending money on a company that's only sort-of related to some of your income and your lines of business (This is the reality there... Apple's still more of a computer company than a phone company...)- they're publicly traded, which translates into a SERIOUS hit to share value because of that stunt if they were to attempt it.
3) I'm sure they'd have some scrutiny from the EU or the FTC over it in the first place, esp. after this pitched filings fight we've seen here.
No, it's unlikely to happen and I wish that people would quit thinking solely in terms of market cap values and saying "well, they'll just buy them out". That doesn't happen all too often and more often than not it ends up having regulatory problems along the way when it does.
Apple could just switch the iPhone to wifi-only connections in a quiet OS update. If they followed it up with the Mac guy telling us that the flexibility of phone networks just results in low reliability and a chaotic environment, enough of us would get enthused about the iWifi Experience to Think Different.
Riiight. If they did that, iPhones would become very less useful to people- it just becomes an overglorified iPod at that point. Keep in mind, there's some mention of WiFi related patents being touched upon as well- that might not even be a bolt-hole for the phones. The iPhone is actually at risk right at the moment- and until you find out what the terms precisely were, you can't know if Nokia's being obnoxious or Apple is (though I'm suspecting Apple's being moreso than Nokia...).
Then they're barely at the threshold of being something to remotely consider for them...
If I were a Shareholder, and they pulled that, I'd be screaming for BoD heads and executive management's as well if they did something stupid like that, though.
There's not enough justification to spend 1/3rd your net worth on a company 1/3rd your net worth just to protect 1/3rd of your revenues (which are smaller than the amounts in question, mind...) when you could have the rights to not worry about it in the big-picture sense for vastly less money. That's not business, that's just egos talking at that point if they were to buy out Nokia.
If Nokia is holding back Apple (and any other entry) due to tower communication technology licensing, that is a very monopolistic tactic, Nokia is not in their right, end of story.
You obviously don't understand how Patents work in the first place.
If I hold a patent I can bar damned near ANYONE from implementing it as a manufacturing endeavor- even with people not doing it for profits. Now, in the act of doing so, I might run afoul of certain anti-trust laws in some countries- but in most cases, I will not.
If Apple's not ponying up the licensing, they shouldn't be allowed to sell their stuff that uses the tech. Now, nobody's disclosed what Apple's been offered as terms for this access. Odds on, it's along the lines of licensing multitouch and a few other things out to all the players in the mobile device space that's part of the GSM consortium- which is par for the course and part of the RAND terms extended to all the GSM consortium members (even though Apple's not a member right at the moment...). If this is the case, Apple's being ill-behaved and should be on the receiving end of this- and I've little doubt in my mind about that being a part of this. Apple's viewing, rightly, that they have some "secret sauce" in multitouch that if they cross-license, there's less value in an iPhone as a result (If multitouch is the only real selling point, it's not as good a product as they're making out to be...;-) )- which would be right.
Unfortunately for Apple, they have to play ball here- or take the iPhone out of circulation because it's infringing and they're unwilling to play by the rules of the game. Unless the terms are disclosed and found to not be RAND, there's little room for Apple to frame this as monopolistic (Patents are monopolies of reproduction given to companies and inventors by governments to foster and promote the furtherance of science and technology...).
I fear that Multitouch is worth quite a bit less than the R&D the phone device companies have pitched in here. It's a nice, nifty feature, but if Bilski is upheld or made more stringent by the SCOTUS, it's worth QUITE a bit less as it's a software patent- not to mention that it's not in the same scope and scale as the stuff Nokia, Qualcomm, and a few others have come up with in this space.
Apple'd be better served by playing ball here on this one as they've quite a bit more to lose than Nokia does in the big-picture sense of things here.
Sounds like you had some real issues going on if you're that defiant. Constant defiance without rationality is not normal.
Please define as "rationality" and "normal".
Keep in mind, though, that a "Type-A" or "Alpha" personality (and these DO exist...) will not fit within the confines of what you're defining as normal- at least during the period we call "youth". There's nothing wrong with those kids other than they have dominant personalities.
Heh... The way they got a chemical relative to Methamphetamine and Cocaine (Methylphenidate, otherwise known as Ritalin to the public...) to be prescribed to kids was very similar.
They're flogging Peripheral Artery Disease cures now on TV? One wonders just precisely what side effects that crap has. I shuddered at the lists of some of the more recent meds for things like depression and cholesterol control...I would think that the illness that the med is fixing would be less severe than the "cure" if that list is even remotely true.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. I strongly suspect that these things fall under "bait-and-switch" laws on the books.
Just because you agreed to it doesn't make the "it" any less fraudulent.
The main problem is...for many, "illegal" really means it's against the law if you're caught out doing it and someone calls you on it.
Perhaps one of the "Bait and Switch" laws on the books would cover this practice...
Considering that each and every iPhone is using a DSP to decode...all Apple has to do is cave and give out a firmware update to whatever the new thing ends up being.
It's been reeking of RICO for a while now, actually.
The big problem is that both waste types are highly toxic in faintly differing ways- that are fairly equal in their overall risk to life on this planet. It's just that we think we have a better handle on the Truckload than the handful set of poisons.
The reality is, China's producing vast quantities of pollutants that are actually worse than the "polluting" energy we're replacing with the stuff TFA talks to. They're not winning the race "to make clean energy". They're winning the race to produce the stuff we're using to try to do that cheaper than anyone else.
I do believe that the aforementioned quote is likely to be the source of the response from the Home Office there. The answer is probably going to be closer to "Most of them". That's not an answer people would like to hear at all- probably less than we want to hear the weasel wording from the Home Office there.
Actually, it's made more of spun glass.
You're picking nits. If you use the shared subset, you're largely programming in OpenGL ES 1.1 or 2.0. Fixed Point should only be used on systems with no HW FP present. Not something you're going to find very often in the bulk of the ES systems these days. Definitely not in the case of anything sporting a Cortex series ARM.
And I'm eagerly waiting for the full-on driver support for AMD parts to show up- as much to be vindicated for the comments I made to Benj Lipchak and others in Marlborough some ages ago as anything else... :-D
I do believe that he said "The other problem is that the majority of available hardware and drivers don't support GL 3.x. No open-source driver does, and in fact most Intel, Radeon, and nVidia hardware already in use can only do GL 2.x."
This would be consistent with my understanding of the subject- and I port games over from Windows to Linux as a second vocation. Only part of the hardware out there really supports 3.0, only recent drivers happen to support it- and NONE of the FOSS drivers support it right at the moment. He's one of the gents working towards making that all happen on the FOSS drivers, so he should probably know what he's talking about.
Aww...skip that...bump it all the way to +11...
This is because it's technically superior to xvid/divx, both of which are merely implementations of MPEG4. AVC (h.264) is better. What you don't know is that there were license problems with the MPEG4 implementations on FOSS platforms as well- and largely the same set of them. This is a matter of the problem is still there so why keep a inferior solution when there's no difference picking up the "good" one.
Nahh... Probably something more along the lines of this...
For all of their "caution", the following two incidents happened and come immediately to mind:
The Challenger Disaster
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Columbia_disaster>The Columbia Disaster
In the first, they launched in adverse conditions that aggravated a design flaw in the solid fuel booster's design that caused the Challenger to blow up as it ascended into orbit. The design flaw was approved by that "crazy-careful" NASA and the launch was approved by the same, over concerns about the design and the conditions by the subcontractor for the engines. If you saw the high-level design drawings for the sealing system they chose to use in the Space Shuttle booster (the most powerful solid fuel booster developed to date at that time...) when compared against the design they chose to use with the Titan II boosters they added to the Gemini program rockets, you'd see that they cheapened the design in the Shuttle booster- with a vastly more powerful booster. Couple that with conditions that would almost guarantee the failure we saw- and an insistence to launch when NASA knew there was a solid chance of this sort of failure- there's nothing "crazy-careful" in that mix.
In the second, they switched an insulation design for the central fuel tank from one that relied on CFCs (good thing...) without verifying that there might be a problem with it coming off on launch and damaging the fragile ceramic heat shield tiles on the shuttle (bad thing...). The testing applied to the new insulation foam wasn't given as extensive a run of verification as the old stuff was, which led to the eventual issue. No checks of potential damage on the critical heat shield were done- not that they could have repaired the damage or easily got the crew back in one piece if they'd found out that they were in trouble there. No major accounting for damaged heat shield sections or planning for a detected problem (in the form of another shuttle on a rescue mission...) had ever really been done. Again, there's nothing "crazy-careful" in that mix.
In the end, the only reason we've had the track record we have had with NASA in the Shuttle era of the agency has been that there've been few runs at things. Yes, in the past, NASA was crazy-careful, but that was more around the Apollo era of things. They're not so careful these days- else the two incidents wouldn't have transpired the way they did. In the first, they'd have scrubbed the mission for another day, which would have prevented the disaster altogether. In the second, had it happened with the people's attitudes during the Apollo 13 timeframe, they would've done a once-over of the shuttle visually either with monitoring gear or via EVA to ensure the integrity of the shuttle. They would have had contingencies for damage of the nature that happened- and had a backup plan for the crew if they couldn't repair the same. NASA's gotten to where they're probably only slightly better than the commercial interests in safety because they're well under budget (which is why they're trying desperately to keep it all in-house if possible; they can justify what they've got right now- if they outsource, the budget shrinks on them even further...) and they're operating more as a political org instead of an engineering driven one like it used to be. That's not to say they don't have good people and some of the best and brightest- but to characterize them as being vastly better on safety than the commercial interests because they're not going to cut corners, etc. is wrong and mistaken at best.
Heh... That's a used car salesman's pitch of things.
"Smarter" routing algorithms have to be applied to each and every router in the mix that might see the traffic for that to work. Do you see the ISP's ripping every Cisco and Juniper out to accomodate them?
"Tuning" at the "IP packet level"? Perlman said this?
There's a magic size that will increase bandwidth to peak. Smaller stuff means you don't get as much through because of latencies, etc. Larger stuff,you end up getting more and more bandwidth with diminishing returns and worse and worse latency. You can't "increase speed" on a domestic router by playing games with packet sizes- and the MTU isn't something that magically changes things like you think it does...
MTU stands for "Maxium Transfer Unit" and is the maximum amount of data that can be transferred via a single packet on a given media transport. You could get a bit of a boost of speed by dinking with the MTU size a bit on a dialup link because there wasn't any max packet size and they almost always set the MTU rather low. 1500's the max on most stuff these days because that's the atom for an Ethernet or similar networking system. Messing with the MTU can cause serious problems for stuff you're pushing across the wire when it's not within the max of the systems you're routing through. Pretty much everything is at 1500 over the Connected Internet and you'll gain nothing by changing it upwards and downwards just fragments the hell out of your packets.
It's an issue of both.
With the ping being bad it sucks for the end user.
With the sheer amount of bandwidth needed, there's no way the feed-ends could keep up with more than a couple hundred to a couple thousand.
An OC-48's only able to really handle about 1200 or so realistically.
If you overbook the bandwidth or server resources, you will degrade things accordingly.
Actually...it's doable technically with only a very, very small number of subscribers.
Latency and bandwidth will kill the whole thing.
You have to use peak values per customer in your figuring for it to even remotely work the way they portrayed this.
Given this:
1.5Mbits/s for the feed per user for SD experience with OnLive.
You can serve roughly as an absolute maximum :
30 users on a T3.
103 users on an OC-3.
404 users on an OC-12.
1658 users on an OC-48.
You can expect about $250-500k/mo recurring costs on that OC-48. As another observation, you will likely need to serve 2/3rds to 3/4ths of those numbers to keep the latency usable because as you fill the pipe to capacity, traffic will be subject to the congestion algorithms in the routers and machines at both ends of the pipe. Now, some will state that they'll place the stuff at the ISP's end of things... Then the ISP gets the joy of this same level of connectivity- and they're bitching about "freeloaders" and "bandwidth problems" right now.
OnLive is snake oil trying to be sold to the game industry as a solution to their "control" problem. It's an alternate DRM play. And it can NEVER work in our lifetime. You can't field enough bandwidth cheaply enough to accomplish it.
You know... People keep bandying that about with abandon. It's unlikely to happen- ever.
1) Buying out means spending roughly 1/3rd their net worth on a company that only provides 1/3rd your income. An income that is less than the money you just spent.
2) Buying out means spending money on a company that's only sort-of related to some of your income and your lines of business (This is the reality there... Apple's still more of a computer company than a phone company...)- they're publicly traded, which translates into a SERIOUS hit to share value because of that stunt if they were to attempt it.
3) I'm sure they'd have some scrutiny from the EU or the FTC over it in the first place, esp. after this pitched filings fight we've seen here.
No, it's unlikely to happen and I wish that people would quit thinking solely in terms of market cap values and saying "well, they'll just buy them out". That doesn't happen all too often and more often than not it ends up having regulatory problems along the way when it does.
Riiight. If they did that, iPhones would become very less useful to people- it just becomes an overglorified iPod at that point. Keep in mind, there's some mention of WiFi related patents being touched upon as well- that might not even be a bolt-hole for the phones. The iPhone is actually at risk right at the moment- and until you find out what the terms precisely were, you can't know if Nokia's being obnoxious or Apple is (though I'm suspecting Apple's being moreso than Nokia...).
Then they're barely at the threshold of being something to remotely consider for them...
If I were a Shareholder, and they pulled that, I'd be screaming for BoD heads and executive management's as well if they did something stupid like that, though.
There's not enough justification to spend 1/3rd your net worth on a company 1/3rd your net worth just to protect 1/3rd of your revenues (which are smaller than the amounts in question, mind...) when you could have the rights to not worry about it in the big-picture sense for vastly less money. That's not business, that's just egos talking at that point if they were to buy out Nokia.
You obviously don't understand how Patents work in the first place.
If I hold a patent I can bar damned near ANYONE from implementing it as a manufacturing endeavor- even with people not doing it for profits. Now, in the act of doing so, I might run afoul of certain anti-trust laws in some countries- but in most cases, I will not.
If Apple's not ponying up the licensing, they shouldn't be allowed to sell their stuff that uses the tech. Now, nobody's disclosed what Apple's been offered as terms for this access. Odds on, it's along the lines of licensing multitouch and a few other things out to all the players in the mobile device space that's part of the GSM consortium- which is par for the course and part of the RAND terms extended to all the GSM consortium members (even though Apple's not a member right at the moment...). If this is the case, Apple's being ill-behaved and should be on the receiving end of this- and I've little doubt in my mind about that being a part of this. Apple's viewing, rightly, that they have some "secret sauce" in multitouch that if they cross-license, there's less value in an iPhone as a result (If multitouch is the only real selling point, it's not as good a product as they're making out to be... ;-) )- which would be right.
Unfortunately for Apple, they have to play ball here- or take the iPhone out of circulation because it's infringing and they're unwilling to play by the rules of the game. Unless the terms are disclosed and found to not be RAND, there's little room for Apple to frame this as monopolistic (Patents are monopolies of reproduction given to companies and inventors by governments to foster and promote the furtherance of science and technology...).
I fear that Multitouch is worth quite a bit less than the R&D the phone device companies have pitched in here. It's a nice, nifty feature, but if Bilski is upheld or made more stringent by the SCOTUS, it's worth QUITE a bit less as it's a software patent- not to mention that it's not in the same scope and scale as the stuff Nokia, Qualcomm, and a few others have come up with in this space.
Apple'd be better served by playing ball here on this one as they've quite a bit more to lose than Nokia does in the big-picture sense of things here.
How about this little investigation into the subject by the EU Parliment?
It happens quite a bit, apparently, if you read into the middle or so of the document.
Please define as "rationality" and "normal".
Keep in mind, though, that a "Type-A" or "Alpha" personality (and these DO exist...) will not fit within the confines of what you're defining as normal- at least during the period we call "youth". There's nothing wrong with those kids other than they have dominant personalities.
Heh... The way they got a chemical relative to Methamphetamine and Cocaine (Methylphenidate, otherwise known as Ritalin to the public...) to be prescribed to kids was very similar.
They're flogging Peripheral Artery Disease cures now on TV? One wonders just precisely what side effects that crap has. I shuddered at the lists of some of the more recent meds for things like depression and cholesterol control...I would think that the illness that the med is fixing would be less severe than the "cure" if that list is even remotely true.