So, they're running Android and iOS on your computer to run the same binaries as those platforms? If not, it's only emulation and when someone says they're emulating another browser the result is usually not worth it and nowhere close to the actual results on the other platforms.
I think it's more like remote viewing. You're running the real browser on a real device attached to your computer. The tools basically shove your code into that browser, capture the output, and then send the output back to your PC for display and debugging.
As in, you need an iOS and Android device to test with anyways tethered to your PC.
A modern standard ARMv7 instead of the odd ARMv6 would be greatly appreciated too.
The problem is not the SoC - the SoC was designed like that on purpose. It has a powerful GPU coupled with a relatively weak CPU because the CPU's job was just to get the GPU fed.
As in, the chip was designed for media players - where the CPU is only managing how to get the media and feeding said media to the GPU (and the CPU is more than fast enough to do basic audio decoding at the same time).
In fact, if you look around, you can find the same SoC in products you can buy off the shelf today (look in the media player section. If you can buy a Roku 2 or something, guess what? Same SoC).
The Roku 3 uses a much more advanced SoC that is vastly underutilized (dual core A9 plus dual VideoCore) because the SoC was designed for another purpose.
In fact, the SoC is really just a package variant of other SoCs - the silicon is identical to several different part numbers (because designing new SoCs is expensive and takes time, so if you can re-use the silicon to produce 10 different parts for different purposes, it's far more economical).
It isn't all that many years ago that the floating point was handled by either software emulation or a co-processor. Now we're using GPUs as co-processors. There are also audio designs that act as co-processors. Several enterprise systems have encryption co-processors. IBM is notorious for putting specialized processors in their mainframes. Several chips have the GPUs embedded on-chip already.
I'd argue that putting specialized chips on-die doesn't affect the general-purpose nature of the compute core that controls those resources at all. The whole article is red herring trying to establish a distinction between on-chip and off-chip processing that has to do more with the scalability of silicon manufacturing techniques than it does any distinguishing feature of the designs.
Let's face it -- if you want to really accelerate a task, you design silicon specifically for that task and interface it to a general purpose core. The article discusses nothing new in the world of computing.
I think you've nailed what separates a "general purpose" CPU from a specialized core. Specialized cores are not meant to control other cores - your GPU isn't intended to manage data flowing from it to say, a crypto accelerator or even a NIC. It processes data handed to it and managed by something else.
The general purpose core is the manager - it can choose to delegate (push the work to a specialized core) or do it itself (process it on its compute hardware).
Crypto accelerators, GPUs, floating point units, vector units, I/O units, network controllers, audio processors, etc., none of those are designed to be autonomous and operate the system by itself. They rely on a general purpose core to manage the data flows through the system, setting up DMAs, chaining units as necessary to process the data, etc.
You misunderstand the difference between a digital computer and an analog computer. Both are based on 1's and 0's, on and off.
The digital computer is driven by a clock strobe. When the clock strobes, the whole set of circuits accepts and processes the next inputs. As a result, the circuit is stable at the end of each clock cycle.
An analog computer has no clock. Inputs are processed as soon as they arrive. As a result, the circuit is never known to be in a stable state. It's continually in flux based on its inputs.
Actually, no.
What you described are digital computers, one is a traditionally clocked system, while the other is asynchronous (clock-free) system.
An analog computer doesn't use 0s and 1s to compute, but a scale of voltages. Inside it are a bunch of amplifiers (typically operational amplifiers, the term "operational" is important) which calculate.
An op-amp is called that because its properties are such that it can be adapted to perform calculations - common op-amp circuits include the adder (summer), buffer, inverting amplifier (multiply by -1, combine with adder to make subtractor), integrator, differentiator, multiplier/divider (non-inverting amplifier), etc.
Combine these and you'll end up with something that takes input, processes it, and produces output, something a traditional model of a computer does. Now, it's relatively fixed-function in that it's not easily programmable without rewiring it, but early computers WERE analog. Back when digital computers took up rooms, analog computers were plentiful - often as bomb sights and targeting computers in ships and aircraft, and early electronic ignitions for engines were also the same.
And they were often simpler to understand and had fewer parts than their digital counterparts. Of course, digital wins in the end because the ease of programmability means the extra complexity is justified - changing something in an analog computer can mandate rewiring the entire thing, while on a digital one it's change, rebuild, deploy.
Here in Canada, November 11 is called "Remembrance Day". It's the one day of the year when we pay special attention to those who fell in service of our country.
So thanks anyway, Communist China. But shove your slimy promotions of your second-rate trash sideways up your ass.
Not to mention in particular THIS Remembrance day has special attention due to the recent murders of two soldiers on Canadian soil. So much so that even regular retailers are seeing backlash for putting out Christmas decorations right after Halloween.
Sure, there's always a bit of backlash, but this time the story is particularly strong. Enough that poppies are actually running out of stock at various Legions.
If any API can be placed under copyright, it's not because it's an interface, it's because it's software. You can already copyright software, not a big deal there.
That said, I am strongly opposed to expanding the scope of copyright on computer software because I believe protecting APIs would be harmful to the industry that I work in. Potentially costing silicon valley billions in litigation, lost revenue and possibly having a chilling effect on software start-ups in the US. Effectively hobbling American technology industry to the point that innovation must occur outside of the US and be imported. An trade imbalance of innovations and IP could be very harmful to the long term growth of the US, not unlike the current imbalance in manufacturing.
I have a question. The GPL relies on copyright, and in the Linux kernel, there are a bunch of APIs marked EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL, which aren't available to modules that are proprietary. But, if APIs cannot be copyrighted, then in theory, those exports CAN be used by proprietary modules because GPL can't apply - ithe GPL needs copyright to be enforceable.
(If you create a work, it comes under copyright by default which basically means no one can do a thing with it other than fair use. GPL and other copyleft licenses say you can use the software under existing "All Rights Reserved" copyright, OR, if you're willing to agree with a few conditions, you can get a bunch of additional rights as well. So right now, if you want to modify a GPL work or do other stuff with it, you must follow the GPL because otherwise you're violating copyright. But if copyright doesn't exist, then you're free to use the current terms of copyright even if normally you'd be bound by the GPL).
So in theory, EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL shouldn't exist anymore if APIs are not copyrightable, then there's no copyright protecting the API. Ditto for kernel headers and such - it seems a lot of projects take a fair bit of effort stripping out the potentially GPL'd parts of the headers so they can be used freely - which means if headers are required for the API, that need no longer apply.
Yes, the current sentiment is "let's screw Oracle!", but the reality is far more complex, because of unintended and nuanced consequences.
And yes, software deserves its own special IP protection. It should not be copyrightable or patented, becauee it fits poorly in either. Before computers, the intention of the laws was clear. Copyright applied to human works for human consumption - which is why books, photos, music, movies, and all sorts of other works are copyrightable - because they're by humans for human consumption.
Patents are for humans that apply to things. A machine, for example. Here the target isn't other humans, but stuff. You patent machines, because they protect things that do things.
Software is both neither and both. And existing laws and protections do not apply well in either case. Software can be for human consumption (e.g. games), or they can be for things (the firmware that drives your car engine, or example). It makes no sense to copyright software (which is a mechanical transformation of source code, so source code can be copyrighted, but the resulting machine code shouldn't be copyrightable - it's just a mechanical conversion, but that obviously is not supposed to be the case since that makes binaries without protection).
And yet, patents are also strange - because for all those calling to ban software patents, that makes no sense either. Let's say I create some useful thing. If I make it using a mechanism, then I can patent that mechanism. But if I make the mechanism generic and all the magic sauce in software, suddenly that part is no longer patentable?
True IP reform is needed - we need to realize that you have copyrights, they generally protect works destined for human consumption, patents protect machines and things that do stuff, and software, which can be for both, or none. You desire to protect source code and binaries, but copyright really doesn't allow for the latter since it's just a mechanical transformation of the former.
The entire argument in favor of modular phones is highly questionable IMHO. I see little evidence that this will represent a cost savings for consumers, that modular phones offer any serious advantages -- or that this is even something consumers want. It is also highly likely that modular phones will be larger, as modularity implies a component system that is by-definition less space-efficient than factory assembled.
In the beginning, maybe there's a demand, but in the end, not really.
Because we DO have an example to pull from for this - the modern desktop PC. Interchangeable parts, easy to upgrade, pick your CPU, pick your RAM, pick your hard drive/SSD, pick your graphics. Do you want a better NIC, sound card, high speed peripherals?
And yet, you know what sells? Laptops. Smaller, more convenient, but sealed as all heck these days. Though given limited parameters, users really aren't buying new batteries for them so they're starting to be sealed in, the optical drive has long disappeared, and all you can change out is the hard drive and RAM, though even the RAM is starting to be soldered down.
In the early days yes, you used desktops because laptops were portable and portability came with a huge price, namely they were so wimpy that even a modest desktop outran a laptop so badly unless you needed portability, you went desktop.
Sure, desktops still have an advantage if you want "the best of everything" but most people just find the outlay too pricey. It's actually pushed the price of desktops up because that's the only reason to buy them - to get super high end components. A $300 desktop may be a bargain, but for a few bucks more, a laptop can be had with specs similar to that desktop. And it's smaller and portable.
Hell, desktops are getting smaller and harder to upgrade these days.
by mmell (832646) Alter Relationship on Friday November 07, 2014 @02:42PM (#48337609)
It's also shared with your vendor and your credit card company. Same holds true if you use ISIS wallet - someone who is not either your vendor or your credit card provider has access to your credit and purchase information. Guess what - if you use Apple's wallet app, Apple will have access to your purchase data - or did you think Apple just hired all of the world's best psychics and decided to take 'em on faith? But don't worry - you just go ahead and enjoy your applesauce.
Except Apple doesn't.
Apple Pay is a virtual credit card. Google Pay is a debit account linked to a credit card.
When you use Apple Pay, the transaction details are between your bank and the retailer - Apple's involvement is in the set up part of the equation. Just like a credit card.
When you use Google Pay, the retailer hits your debit card (a virtual one when you set up Google Wallet), who then talks to Google to get funds to transfer to the account. Google gets all the transaction details because it's involved in the transaction.
That's the difference - Apple isn't involved at all in the transaction, and I'm sure that's true because every Android fanboy around is going to verify that fact for everyone.
It's also why Apple Pay counts as a card-present transaction, and Google Wallet doesn't.
That said, Zuckerberg (and every other website operator) hopes it will all be video, because video ads tend to make more than static. That's why every website from MSNBC to Slashdot have suddenly tried creating video content, even when it makes no sense.
Plus, video ads are less blockable because users run the real risk of blocking the content they wish to see as well. That's why they pay more. And you can make them unskippable and all that too.
Why do you think all the TV networks have embraced putting TV shows online? Because they realize they can put ads on the stream and the user has to sit through them (or go to the bathroom). Either way, they can't fast forward through them like they can on a DVR.
Bat A finds a bug and switches to a higher PRF to home in for the kill. Bat B hears this and heads over there, also switching to a higher PRF for close in work. It may have been an unintended consequence at first, but bat A loses lock with the second bat coming in on high PRF. This is a successful hunting strategy because you can do less work and let bat A find the bug and you just home in for the kill. Add a ton of evolution and.........here we are. Before the literal minded get their panties all twisted up, I KNOW the bats are not literally planning this out like a cold war sonar operator and I KNOW that the sonar term for PRF is PRR, but I spent many years as a radar tech so I go with what I know;)
Apparently vultures do the same thing - they actually find eagles hunting, and when the eagle finds prey, the vultures rapidly swoop in on the eagle's position. End result is the committee (venue, or volt) of vultures end up forming a wake on the eagle's prey, chasing the eagle away.
So now you have a wake of vultures feeding, the eagle who found them chased out and standing on the sidelines as their meal was stolen from them.
(And seriously, why are there so many words to describe a group of vultures? A group is a committee, venue or volt, when they feed on the ground it's a wake, and a flock in flight is a kettle)
Go to http://www.amazon.com/oc/echo/AFFILIATE DELETED directly instead of trusting that URL above. While the URL above may be safe, we don't need to be teaching people to click on just any link if it's on a trusted source.
I see what you did there... (when you get a "ref=" part in an Amazon URL, it means it's an affiliate link.)
Nice cheap way to earn a few extra bucks by using your own affiliate link, I see, all in the guise of "web surfing safety".
I don't think this was so much of a desire to be innovative as it is to survive. With good-enough editors available on mobile devices, web services, and PCs, MS has to move down-market or risk entire new generations never using or needing their Office software.
The real irony is that Office for iPad worked better as a touch-screen Office than Office did. Anyone who tried to use Office on their Surface RT or Surface found out quickly that touchscreens poorly replicate a mouse and keyboard.
And yet, Microsoft has a product for tablets that's usable on a touchscreen.
And there's a bit of survival to it too - Microsoft actually has in-app purchasing for o365 subscriptions. Yes, they're actually giving Apple 30%. (Though, you could probably make the case that Apple's cut of 30% isn't all too different from selling o365 subscription gift cards at Best Buy and all those places - Best Buy etc. have to make money off them too).
Can we finally solve the age old question as to whether the seat should be left up or down? This is a function based on how many males vs females there are, and how often a male needs to, er, sit.
In a domestic (i.e., household) setting, the simple compromise is toilet LID down. This way EVERYONE has to lift something to do something. If you're a lady, you lift the lid and the seat is down. If you're man doing #1, then you lift the lid and seat together. for #2, you lift just the lid.
Then when you're done, you put the lid back down. If also keeps the bathroom more hygienic as the act of flushing creates a plume of toilet water. Keeping the lid closed keeps that plume within the toilet and not the entire bathroom.
It has the advantage that stuff doesn't accidentally fall into the toilet too.
Why should some mass of teenagers suddenly decided they're going to make a point of attacking high profile "pro-women" geek women? The "lulz" argument only makes sense for the short time it takes to realize they're not out there issuing death threats when the subject is global warming or football, and outside of lulz we're left with not a lot of reasons that would apply to teenagers.
Well, it really started out with a small game called Depression Quest that was getting rather good reviews, which made a bunch of people get all twisted up in a knot because it wasn't a traditional "game". Which because it was made by a woman (who suffered from depression) who was friends with a Kotaku writer. And that was the belief that the ONLY reason Depression Quest was well reviewed was because of that - the game developers were getting in bed with the journalists and thus upvoting those kind of games over say, Call of Duty. (Of course, no such link was ever found other than yes, the two were friends).
Of course, the silly thing is - the "gamers" worried that the nonsense games they play (like say, Call of Duty) will go away in lieu of games that have a purpose and such are completely mistaken and we've got history to prove it.
In books, we have literature and we have pulp. The former is like games like Depression Quest - there's a message and we would be better humans if we heed it. But we also have the pulp - the kind of book that's fascinating to read but really in the end, it's rather meaningless. It's just entertainment.
Likewise, movies are the same - we have the ones that have messages and meanings and intend to spur action. And then we have the summer blockbuster that serves to entertain for a couple of hours and is completely meaningless. Just a couple of hours of fun.
Games have grown up - we can have both games that have meaning and purpose, and games that are completely just for fun. The medium has matured. There's no worry that the "fun" games are going away - like the pulp fiction and blockbuster, they're the games that'll make the most money. Games with messages and the like are out there, but they'll never attract the same kind of money. It doesn't matter how good Depression Quest is, Call of Duty will sell more copies in 5 minutes than Depression Quest would've had the year it's been out. And Depression Quest is free. (Nevermind that reviews on the new Call of Duty game aren't terribly positive either - it's still in the hundreds of millions of dollars).
So a bunch of people have their panties in a knot because of something that's never happened. Sure the games with messages might get better ratings, but so what? Call of Duty can bomb and still make billions. Ask Michael Bay (whose movies rake in the billions) about being scored 2 stars or less on a review.
And yes, games that are meaningless will be poorly reviewed generally, just like blockbusters generally get poor reviews. Does it matter? Not a damn bit.
Once installed on the Mac OS X computer, making use of legittimage Apple developer credentials, the software seems to have been able to infect non-jailbroken iOS devices when those devices were attached to the machine via USB.
No, it wasn't developer credentials, it was enterprise credentials.
Developer credentials is that every year, you get to add up to 100 devices to your "testing" list. You submit that list to Apple and Apple gives you back a.mobileprovisioning file that is signed by Apple containing the list of those 100 devices. Beta testers then install that file on their device and it lets you test unsigned software on it. But 100 devices max, and you can only reset it once a year (so it's not 100 devices, reset it, another 100 devices, etc). You can add devices if you have less than 100 at any time, but to clear it can only be done annually.
An enterprise certificate costs more ($500/year) but it comes with signing rights, so you can make provisioning files, sign apps (so you can bypass the App Store) and other things. Of course, you have to install the enterprise certificate to run enterprise signed apps.
The malware used a legit developer cert ($99/year) to sign the malware app on OS X (you can bypass the Mac App Store by buying a certificate from Apple to sign your own apps as the OS X default is "Mac App Store and Signed Apps Only"). That malware then installs the enterprise provisioning onto a connected iOS device and then pushes the signed malware to it.
Thus, what Apple did was revoke the signing key, revoke the enterprise cert, and install new XProtect signatures to neuter the OS X apps.
After reading the links it's still not clear to me why this is occurring. Is it that sellers charge Australians more just because they can, and if so, are they not able to get away with it elsewhere? Do even huge online retailers like Amazon charge different prices depending on the country the items are going to? I'd have thought the US Federal Trade Commission would be scrutinizing these practices.
For a variety of reasons.
The most obvious ones are Australian distributors with exclusivity deals - for some products like Adobe and Microsoft software, this is the primary reason why it costs more.
Others include legal requirements - taxes, duties, support, warranties and other things, some of which only apply in Australia. So an Australian using this service might lose out on that or may find they need to ship the product back to the US because the Australian depot refuses to service it for not being purchased in Australia. Or maybe Australia forces a product to be warrantied for 2 years or more, while the US version is 90 days to a year, and stuff like that usually gets factored into the price. So some Australians might get confused when the product they buy only has a 1 year warranty because it was purchased through this service rather than through the Australian distributor (where it has 2 years). Apple products come to mind for this - if you buy it in Europe, you get the 2-3 years EU law provides (and pay for it), whereas if you bought it in the US, you get standard 1 year.
$50 To sell isn't really that great of an investment.
Now if these games cost $20.00 back in 1983, then you will not be making any money due to inflation.
Given the cost, they probably were $40 or more back in the day (the actual price of games hasn't changed all that much, but when you take inflation into account, the old games are much more expensive than new games today
Of course, while they were digging in the desert, they really should've looked for all the Apple Lisas and Apple III's that were supposedly buried there as well...
So, why don't the manufacturers of said vehicles include or at least have the option for bigger batteries? The Tesla isn't impractical like a half-kilo smartphone would be.
The Tesla comes with the option of a bigger battery - at first you could buy a 40kWh battery, a 65kWh battery and a 85kWh battery. (Though to simplify the BOM, the 40kWh model was really a 65kWh downrated in software). So you have the option to buy a bigger battery.
Or due to the strangeness in which things work, get the "D" variant and get more distance with the same battery (yes, running two motors is more efficient than one).
Heck, Tesla even has battery change stations for quick boosts - you pay a small fee for a pre-charged battery and the battery gets swapped. (You are basically renting a battery though, so you have to return back to pick up your battery).
Let what sink in? The fact that 3 guys defrauded banks for a cool billion dollars each? The fact that a company with a large fan base is getting sucked under? The fact that this will have a chilling effect on the PC market? Obviously the banks blew it by not noticing the fraud occurring, yet tax payers will drawn in to fix the banks. Tax payers should really be hot about this. I really hope these guys get burned, or at least flow right into a long brisk term in "Federal Pound me in the Ass Prison"!
Intended as punny, not necessarily factually accurate.
Given it's Korea, I suppose taxpayers already are used to supporting Samsung and other companies as well. It's probably even a patriotic thing to cover for the company...
Oh but you still can! You just have to pay even more hard earned cash to get the Discovery2 channel! And if/when that becomes popular they will turn it into another 24/7 reality station and make the Discovery3 channel which will require even more money.
Keep in mind you won't be able to get the Discovery3 channel unless you also pay for the Discovery2 channel which you also can't get unless you pay for the Discovery channel.
Everyone who wants A La Carte, well, this is what happens when channels have to compete for your attention rather than being able to specialize because they were included as part of a bundle.
First, the stations are moving their popular shows around - if you want the full complement of good shows requires buying all the channels in the network.
Second, channels having to compete means even the best channels will only cater to lowest common denominator. Because who wants to run a specialized show that'll be interesting to a few when you can run a crap show that'll get millions of viewers?
Pretty much about the only "good" TV left is PBS, and that's because they don't need to compete for viewers (they're forced by law to be carried by everyone) and through funding arrangements and donations, means they don't have to rely on commercial sales. Which is why their programming is practically commercial free and is ridiculously long (an hour show with 55 minutes of content? Compare to traditional TV with 42). And why they can show programs that are higher quality that appeal to fewer people - they don't need to compete for eyeballs and ads and thus don't have to dumb down TV for ratings purposes.
Discovery, History, etc. - they're all suffering because they know their specialized channels will no longer be viable because the programming appeals to too few, so they'll have to dumb it all down just to appease the masses. So see more stupid reality drama shows and less intelligent programming.
This is exactly what happens. It's not just baddies, corporations do it thousands of times a day. Until DMCA takedown requests are required to submit proof of ownership and have escalating penalties for false/fraudulent claims, this situation will only get worse.
People also lose their accounts. Google won't even tell the people why their Youtube channels have been deleted. You'll get a vague "broke terms", but the reality is people hiding in their corporations do it daily.
And before any of you wankers say "it's a free service, who gives a shit", please GFYS.
No, the problem is NOT the takedown part. It's the "counternotice we'll give the complainer your information" part.
The takedown was fake, but there's nothing we can do about that. The real issue is the fact that Google gave the personal information of the account holder to the people filing the DMCA complaint.
In effect, people have found that they can misuse the DMCA to get personal information. So if I were to somehow hate you, I could file a DMCA request to take down whatever you put up. Then when you go to say it's legal, I get your real name, address and all sorts of other personal information.
Almost makes doxxing someone way too easy if all you do is get Google to hand it over to you.
Hell, if it turns out the personal information is false, then it's a simple matter of having the account closed.
Don't be naive. Of course the efficiency matters at this stage. If this is just as efficient, or more efficient than burning the fuel in a turbine, then it's ready for use now. If it is not, then we know that more research is required. The GP was asking "Is this ready for use, or is this one of those technologies they say we will be using 20 years from now?" He framed that in the question of efficiency because that is how you would measure whether this is a viable method of generation or just a technological marvel.
Well, it's low temperature for starters. It means energy isn't wasted converting the fuel to heat as in a regular turbine. That already gives you a huge efficiency boost since you're not heating a bunch of stuff to thousands of degrees.
Of course, a reason for the low temperature could be it's a slow reaction, but even slow reactions can be useful if you only need a little power at a time. It means a reasonably sized tank could last far longer than a battery.
While it might be a little confusing, it's actually correct. The time HAD traditionally been set to 9:42, then they tweaked it to 9:41 with the introduction of the iPad. (The goal was to match actual local time at the moment when the product is actually revealed, which happens slightly more than 40 minutes after it starts.)
Correct - the screenshots usually are set so the time is right when the image is shown.
The October keynote was especially jarring because the clock was wrong. Yes, I noticed that - the only time the time was right was for the live demos.
Of course, given how boring the keynote was, that was the most interesting thing of the keynote - noticing the time in the photos was wrong.
Newcomers are always to be welcomed. There must be no cabal, there must be no elites, there must be no hierarchy or structure which gets in the way of this openness to newcomers
.
Personally, I lost interest in contributing to it a few years ago when the sort of constructive, well intended stuff I had always contributed began to get reverted on a regular basis. I still contribute occasionally, but only things that are still unlikely to be reverted, that is, minor cleanups of articles that nobody (else) reads.
The problem with Wikipedia is one we've seen with Communism, repeated over again.
Or as Animal Farm put it, "All animals are equal, just some are more equal than others".
We've seen it happen with Wikipedia - the statement you quoted pretty much says "everyone is equal", and we've seen it deteriorate to "everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others".
Before Net Neutrality got on the radar of the mainstream media, everyone involved in the discussion did understand that we were talking only about throttling based on origin or destination, and explicitly not about QOS based on protocol latency needs.
Exactly. Or rather, "like traffic treated like".
So if you want to throttle Netflix, you can, but everything else video related must be throttled as well - YouTube, Vimeo, your own video service, etc.
Throttle VoIP? Likewise, your VoIP is treated identically.
No fast lanes for your own video service while you throttle Netflix.
Slashdot Mirror
So, they're running Android and iOS on your computer to run the same binaries as those platforms? If not, it's only emulation and when someone says they're emulating another browser the result is usually not worth it and nowhere close to the actual results on the other platforms.
I think it's more like remote viewing. You're running the real browser on a real device attached to your computer. The tools basically shove your code into that browser, capture the output, and then send the output back to your PC for display and debugging.
As in, you need an iOS and Android device to test with anyways tethered to your PC.
The problem is not the SoC - the SoC was designed like that on purpose. It has a powerful GPU coupled with a relatively weak CPU because the CPU's job was just to get the GPU fed.
As in, the chip was designed for media players - where the CPU is only managing how to get the media and feeding said media to the GPU (and the CPU is more than fast enough to do basic audio decoding at the same time).
In fact, if you look around, you can find the same SoC in products you can buy off the shelf today (look in the media player section. If you can buy a Roku 2 or something, guess what? Same SoC).
The Roku 3 uses a much more advanced SoC that is vastly underutilized (dual core A9 plus dual VideoCore) because the SoC was designed for another purpose.
In fact, the SoC is really just a package variant of other SoCs - the silicon is identical to several different part numbers (because designing new SoCs is expensive and takes time, so if you can re-use the silicon to produce 10 different parts for different purposes, it's far more economical).
I think you've nailed what separates a "general purpose" CPU from a specialized core. Specialized cores are not meant to control other cores - your GPU isn't intended to manage data flowing from it to say, a crypto accelerator or even a NIC. It processes data handed to it and managed by something else.
The general purpose core is the manager - it can choose to delegate (push the work to a specialized core) or do it itself (process it on its compute hardware).
Crypto accelerators, GPUs, floating point units, vector units, I/O units, network controllers, audio processors, etc., none of those are designed to be autonomous and operate the system by itself. They rely on a general purpose core to manage the data flows through the system, setting up DMAs, chaining units as necessary to process the data, etc.
Actually, no.
What you described are digital computers, one is a traditionally clocked system, while the other is asynchronous (clock-free) system.
An analog computer doesn't use 0s and 1s to compute, but a scale of voltages. Inside it are a bunch of amplifiers (typically operational amplifiers, the term "operational" is important) which calculate.
An op-amp is called that because its properties are such that it can be adapted to perform calculations - common op-amp circuits include the adder (summer), buffer, inverting amplifier (multiply by -1, combine with adder to make subtractor), integrator, differentiator, multiplier/divider (non-inverting amplifier), etc.
Combine these and you'll end up with something that takes input, processes it, and produces output, something a traditional model of a computer does. Now, it's relatively fixed-function in that it's not easily programmable without rewiring it, but early computers WERE analog. Back when digital computers took up rooms, analog computers were plentiful - often as bomb sights and targeting computers in ships and aircraft, and early electronic ignitions for engines were also the same.
And they were often simpler to understand and had fewer parts than their digital counterparts. Of course, digital wins in the end because the ease of programmability means the extra complexity is justified - changing something in an analog computer can mandate rewiring the entire thing, while on a digital one it's change, rebuild, deploy.
Not to mention in particular THIS Remembrance day has special attention due to the recent murders of two soldiers on Canadian soil. So much so that even regular retailers are seeing backlash for putting out Christmas decorations right after Halloween.
Sure, there's always a bit of backlash, but this time the story is particularly strong. Enough that poppies are actually running out of stock at various Legions.
I have a question. The GPL relies on copyright, and in the Linux kernel, there are a bunch of APIs marked EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL, which aren't available to modules that are proprietary. But, if APIs cannot be copyrighted, then in theory, those exports CAN be used by proprietary modules because GPL can't apply - ithe GPL needs copyright to be enforceable.
(If you create a work, it comes under copyright by default which basically means no one can do a thing with it other than fair use. GPL and other copyleft licenses say you can use the software under existing "All Rights Reserved" copyright, OR, if you're willing to agree with a few conditions, you can get a bunch of additional rights as well. So right now, if you want to modify a GPL work or do other stuff with it, you must follow the GPL because otherwise you're violating copyright. But if copyright doesn't exist, then you're free to use the current terms of copyright even if normally you'd be bound by the GPL).
So in theory, EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL shouldn't exist anymore if APIs are not copyrightable, then there's no copyright protecting the API. Ditto for kernel headers and such - it seems a lot of projects take a fair bit of effort stripping out the potentially GPL'd parts of the headers so they can be used freely - which means if headers are required for the API, that need no longer apply.
Yes, the current sentiment is "let's screw Oracle!", but the reality is far more complex, because of unintended and nuanced consequences.
And yes, software deserves its own special IP protection. It should not be copyrightable or patented, becauee it fits poorly in either. Before computers, the intention of the laws was clear. Copyright applied to human works for human consumption - which is why books, photos, music, movies, and all sorts of other works are copyrightable - because they're by humans for human consumption.
Patents are for humans that apply to things. A machine, for example. Here the target isn't other humans, but stuff. You patent machines, because they protect things that do things.
Software is both neither and both. And existing laws and protections do not apply well in either case. Software can be for human consumption (e.g. games), or they can be for things (the firmware that drives your car engine, or example). It makes no sense to copyright software (which is a mechanical transformation of source code, so source code can be copyrighted, but the resulting machine code shouldn't be copyrightable - it's just a mechanical conversion, but that obviously is not supposed to be the case since that makes binaries without protection).
And yet, patents are also strange - because for all those calling to ban software patents, that makes no sense either. Let's say I create some useful thing. If I make it using a mechanism, then I can patent that mechanism. But if I make the mechanism generic and all the magic sauce in software, suddenly that part is no longer patentable?
True IP reform is needed - we need to realize that you have copyrights, they generally protect works destined for human consumption, patents protect machines and things that do stuff, and software, which can be for both, or none. You desire to protect source code and binaries, but copyright really doesn't allow for the latter since it's just a mechanical transformation of the former.
In the beginning, maybe there's a demand, but in the end, not really.
Because we DO have an example to pull from for this - the modern desktop PC. Interchangeable parts, easy to upgrade, pick your CPU, pick your RAM, pick your hard drive/SSD, pick your graphics. Do you want a better NIC, sound card, high speed peripherals?
And yet, you know what sells? Laptops. Smaller, more convenient, but sealed as all heck these days. Though given limited parameters, users really aren't buying new batteries for them so they're starting to be sealed in, the optical drive has long disappeared, and all you can change out is the hard drive and RAM, though even the RAM is starting to be soldered down.
In the early days yes, you used desktops because laptops were portable and portability came with a huge price, namely they were so wimpy that even a modest desktop outran a laptop so badly unless you needed portability, you went desktop.
Sure, desktops still have an advantage if you want "the best of everything" but most people just find the outlay too pricey. It's actually pushed the price of desktops up because that's the only reason to buy them - to get super high end components. A $300 desktop may be a bargain, but for a few bucks more, a laptop can be had with specs similar to that desktop. And it's smaller and portable.
Hell, desktops are getting smaller and harder to upgrade these days.
Except Apple doesn't.
Apple Pay is a virtual credit card. Google Pay is a debit account linked to a credit card.
When you use Apple Pay, the transaction details are between your bank and the retailer - Apple's involvement is in the set up part of the equation. Just like a credit card.
When you use Google Pay, the retailer hits your debit card (a virtual one when you set up Google Wallet), who then talks to Google to get funds to transfer to the account. Google gets all the transaction details because it's involved in the transaction.
That's the difference - Apple isn't involved at all in the transaction, and I'm sure that's true because every Android fanboy around is going to verify that fact for everyone.
It's also why Apple Pay counts as a card-present transaction, and Google Wallet doesn't.
Plus, video ads are less blockable because users run the real risk of blocking the content they wish to see as well. That's why they pay more. And you can make them unskippable and all that too.
Why do you think all the TV networks have embraced putting TV shows online? Because they realize they can put ads on the stream and the user has to sit through them (or go to the bathroom). Either way, they can't fast forward through them like they can on a DVR.
Apparently vultures do the same thing - they actually find eagles hunting, and when the eagle finds prey, the vultures rapidly swoop in on the eagle's position. End result is the committee (venue, or volt) of vultures end up forming a wake on the eagle's prey, chasing the eagle away.
So now you have a wake of vultures feeding, the eagle who found them chased out and standing on the sidelines as their meal was stolen from them.
(And seriously, why are there so many words to describe a group of vultures? A group is a committee, venue or volt, when they feed on the ground it's a wake, and a flock in flight is a kettle)
I see what you did there... (when you get a "ref=" part in an Amazon URL, it means it's an affiliate link.)
Nice cheap way to earn a few extra bucks by using your own affiliate link, I see, all in the guise of "web surfing safety".
The real irony is that Office for iPad worked better as a touch-screen Office than Office did. Anyone who tried to use Office on their Surface RT or Surface found out quickly that touchscreens poorly replicate a mouse and keyboard.
And yet, Microsoft has a product for tablets that's usable on a touchscreen.
And there's a bit of survival to it too - Microsoft actually has in-app purchasing for o365 subscriptions. Yes, they're actually giving Apple 30%. (Though, you could probably make the case that Apple's cut of 30% isn't all too different from selling o365 subscription gift cards at Best Buy and all those places - Best Buy etc. have to make money off them too).
In a domestic (i.e., household) setting, the simple compromise is toilet LID down. This way EVERYONE has to lift something to do something. If you're a lady, you lift the lid and the seat is down. If you're man doing #1, then you lift the lid and seat together. for #2, you lift just the lid.
Then when you're done, you put the lid back down. If also keeps the bathroom more hygienic as the act of flushing creates a plume of toilet water. Keeping the lid closed keeps that plume within the toilet and not the entire bathroom.
It has the advantage that stuff doesn't accidentally fall into the toilet too.
Well, it really started out with a small game called Depression Quest that was getting rather good reviews, which made a bunch of people get all twisted up in a knot because it wasn't a traditional "game". Which because it was made by a woman (who suffered from depression) who was friends with a Kotaku writer. And that was the belief that the ONLY reason Depression Quest was well reviewed was because of that - the game developers were getting in bed with the journalists and thus upvoting those kind of games over say, Call of Duty. (Of course, no such link was ever found other than yes, the two were friends).
Of course, the silly thing is - the "gamers" worried that the nonsense games they play (like say, Call of Duty) will go away in lieu of games that have a purpose and such are completely mistaken and we've got history to prove it.
In books, we have literature and we have pulp. The former is like games like Depression Quest - there's a message and we would be better humans if we heed it. But we also have the pulp - the kind of book that's fascinating to read but really in the end, it's rather meaningless. It's just entertainment.
Likewise, movies are the same - we have the ones that have messages and meanings and intend to spur action. And then we have the summer blockbuster that serves to entertain for a couple of hours and is completely meaningless. Just a couple of hours of fun.
Games have grown up - we can have both games that have meaning and purpose, and games that are completely just for fun. The medium has matured. There's no worry that the "fun" games are going away - like the pulp fiction and blockbuster, they're the games that'll make the most money. Games with messages and the like are out there, but they'll never attract the same kind of money. It doesn't matter how good Depression Quest is, Call of Duty will sell more copies in 5 minutes than Depression Quest would've had the year it's been out. And Depression Quest is free. (Nevermind that reviews on the new Call of Duty game aren't terribly positive either - it's still in the hundreds of millions of dollars).
So a bunch of people have their panties in a knot because of something that's never happened. Sure the games with messages might get better ratings, but so what? Call of Duty can bomb and still make billions. Ask Michael Bay (whose movies rake in the billions) about being scored 2 stars or less on a review.
And yes, games that are meaningless will be poorly reviewed generally, just like blockbusters generally get poor reviews. Does it matter? Not a damn bit.
No, it wasn't developer credentials, it was enterprise credentials.
Developer credentials is that every year, you get to add up to 100 devices to your "testing" list. You submit that list to Apple and Apple gives you back a .mobileprovisioning file that is signed by Apple containing the list of those 100 devices. Beta testers then install that file on their device and it lets you test unsigned software on it. But 100 devices max, and you can only reset it once a year (so it's not 100 devices, reset it, another 100 devices, etc). You can add devices if you have less than 100 at any time, but to clear it can only be done annually.
An enterprise certificate costs more ($500/year) but it comes with signing rights, so you can make provisioning files, sign apps (so you can bypass the App Store) and other things. Of course, you have to install the enterprise certificate to run enterprise signed apps.
The malware used a legit developer cert ($99/year) to sign the malware app on OS X (you can bypass the Mac App Store by buying a certificate from Apple to sign your own apps as the OS X default is "Mac App Store and Signed Apps Only"). That malware then installs the enterprise provisioning onto a connected iOS device and then pushes the signed malware to it.
Thus, what Apple did was revoke the signing key, revoke the enterprise cert, and install new XProtect signatures to neuter the OS X apps.
For a variety of reasons.
The most obvious ones are Australian distributors with exclusivity deals - for some products like Adobe and Microsoft software, this is the primary reason why it costs more.
Others include legal requirements - taxes, duties, support, warranties and other things, some of which only apply in Australia. So an Australian using this service might lose out on that or may find they need to ship the product back to the US because the Australian depot refuses to service it for not being purchased in Australia. Or maybe Australia forces a product to be warrantied for 2 years or more, while the US version is 90 days to a year, and stuff like that usually gets factored into the price. So some Australians might get confused when the product they buy only has a 1 year warranty because it was purchased through this service rather than through the Australian distributor (where it has 2 years). Apple products come to mind for this - if you buy it in Europe, you get the 2-3 years EU law provides (and pay for it), whereas if you bought it in the US, you get standard 1 year.
Given the cost, they probably were $40 or more back in the day (the actual price of games hasn't changed all that much, but when you take inflation into account, the old games are much more expensive than new games today
Of course, while they were digging in the desert, they really should've looked for all the Apple Lisas and Apple III's that were supposedly buried there as well...
The Tesla comes with the option of a bigger battery - at first you could buy a 40kWh battery, a 65kWh battery and a 85kWh battery. (Though to simplify the BOM, the 40kWh model was really a 65kWh downrated in software). So you have the option to buy a bigger battery.
Or due to the strangeness in which things work, get the "D" variant and get more distance with the same battery (yes, running two motors is more efficient than one).
Heck, Tesla even has battery change stations for quick boosts - you pay a small fee for a pre-charged battery and the battery gets swapped. (You are basically renting a battery though, so you have to return back to pick up your battery).
Given it's Korea, I suppose taxpayers already are used to supporting Samsung and other companies as well. It's probably even a patriotic thing to cover for the company...
Everyone who wants A La Carte, well, this is what happens when channels have to compete for your attention rather than being able to specialize because they were included as part of a bundle.
First, the stations are moving their popular shows around - if you want the full complement of good shows requires buying all the channels in the network.
Second, channels having to compete means even the best channels will only cater to lowest common denominator. Because who wants to run a specialized show that'll be interesting to a few when you can run a crap show that'll get millions of viewers?
Pretty much about the only "good" TV left is PBS, and that's because they don't need to compete for viewers (they're forced by law to be carried by everyone) and through funding arrangements and donations, means they don't have to rely on commercial sales. Which is why their programming is practically commercial free and is ridiculously long (an hour show with 55 minutes of content? Compare to traditional TV with 42). And why they can show programs that are higher quality that appeal to fewer people - they don't need to compete for eyeballs and ads and thus don't have to dumb down TV for ratings purposes.
Discovery, History, etc. - they're all suffering because they know their specialized channels will no longer be viable because the programming appeals to too few, so they'll have to dumb it all down just to appease the masses. So see more stupid reality drama shows and less intelligent programming.
No, the problem is NOT the takedown part. It's the "counternotice we'll give the complainer your information" part.
The takedown was fake, but there's nothing we can do about that. The real issue is the fact that Google gave the personal information of the account holder to the people filing the DMCA complaint.
In effect, people have found that they can misuse the DMCA to get personal information. So if I were to somehow hate you, I could file a DMCA request to take down whatever you put up. Then when you go to say it's legal, I get your real name, address and all sorts of other personal information.
Almost makes doxxing someone way too easy if all you do is get Google to hand it over to you.
Hell, if it turns out the personal information is false, then it's a simple matter of having the account closed.
Well, it's low temperature for starters. It means energy isn't wasted converting the fuel to heat as in a regular turbine. That already gives you a huge efficiency boost since you're not heating a bunch of stuff to thousands of degrees.
Of course, a reason for the low temperature could be it's a slow reaction, but even slow reactions can be useful if you only need a little power at a time. It means a reasonably sized tank could last far longer than a battery.
Correct - the screenshots usually are set so the time is right when the image is shown.
The October keynote was especially jarring because the clock was wrong. Yes, I noticed that - the only time the time was right was for the live demos.
Of course, given how boring the keynote was, that was the most interesting thing of the keynote - noticing the time in the photos was wrong.
The problem with Wikipedia is one we've seen with Communism, repeated over again.
Or as Animal Farm put it, "All animals are equal, just some are more equal than others".
We've seen it happen with Wikipedia - the statement you quoted pretty much says "everyone is equal", and we've seen it deteriorate to "everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others".
Exactly. Or rather, "like traffic treated like".
So if you want to throttle Netflix, you can, but everything else video related must be throttled as well - YouTube, Vimeo, your own video service, etc.
Throttle VoIP? Likewise, your VoIP is treated identically.
No fast lanes for your own video service while you throttle Netflix.
That's neutrality - like is treated like.