Don't forget Kinect units, millions of them, watching... [__O_OO__] Used since launch to make the AI a bit "stronger"... and we're just (recklessly) starting.* But we already put Kinect units even on killer quadcopters; we do it ourselves! O_o
Don't forget one of the 'eyes' is an IR projector. It does more than project the structured light beam so Kinect can sense depth, too. It can also be used to beam images into your brain! Since we can't see infrared, our conscious mind won't ever notice. It sits there, quietly beaming images into your subconscious...
right, but scrolling down is easy, scrolling sideways can be a pain. Not everyone makes sure their lines don't exceed 80 characters.
Funny enough, but vim doesn't (by default) enable horizontal scrolling - it wraps the line. It does look awful but with a little resizing of the terminal the number of lines that exceed the width doesn't get too bad.
It looks uglier, but it saves on having to scroll horizontally for the few abnormally long lines. It also doesn't word wrap so it makes it more obvious that the line was split by vim and not in the file.
Why in the world anyone would choose a 1920x1080 monitor over 1920x1200 is beyond me. I can't wait until the day those bastard TV "monitors" die.
Easy. It costs less. Because 1080p hardware is cheap, really cheap. 1920x1200 hardware isn't so cheap, but is very easily available.
Ever spec'ed a laptop costing $500 or less? Worthless hardware. In the end, $1000 seems to be the minimum to spend on a laptop where things start getting decent - screen and GPU.
Hell, watch the arguments when someone brings up "Apple is overprised" arguments - sure they command a premium, but they can contain some nice stuff - like 1920x1200 screens (MacBook Pro 17"). Similar PC laptops will be cheaper, but you're still looking at easily $1200+.
The enterprise business sucks - the hardware is sold at the tiniest of margins and it's all made up in support. Sure it can be lucrative if you can entice your business to go all your brand, but that requires a wide product line. Apple's not going for that - they don't want a wide product line - they want narrowly focused.
Dell has a wide product line and offers a million combinations of their product. Apple offers what, 6 product lines with 2 or 3 combinations in each?
Enterprises are the cheapest people on earth. Apple's known for their big margins. You think Apple wants that business? The fact that people are buying Macs for the workplace is just icing - Apple honestly doesn't care.
It's the same reason they don't have a netbook entry - let everyone else fight in the $300 market that barely makes any money. Meanwhile, make a premium laptop with more power and performance at a nicer price point (the Air's Core2Duo may be ancient, but outclasses the Atom, and nVidia graphics beats Intel, and big SSDs, high res displays, etc.).
Apple doesn't care - there's no money to be made in enterprise.
There is this tiny, tiny little gap that the malware cannot cross if the user has a brain: To install the malware, the user has to willingly enter their administrator password. No administrator password, no malware.
Users will do even very sophisticated things to do what they want. Even if it involves installing a bunch of malware or opening a bunch of security holes in their PC.
It's how iPhones get jailbroken ("users want apps for FREE"). Or alternative Android Markets are installed (free apps!). Even if they have to install things like OpenSSH and SSH into their phones, they'll do it.
Hell, have you seen some of the Facebook spams these days? "Copy and paste this javascript", etc.
Man, that's a bit amateurish on the side of the phishers.
They had access to a *SONY* server. The same Sony who just admitted issues on their systems. Surely they should've just set up a fake phishing site imitating Sony? I mean, set up a realistic looking Sony form asking for way more information than you need, host it on Sony server so Sony's domain points to it, put it in a plausible looking path, and send out an email faking a Sony return address.
Honestly, this would present such a great phishing and drive-by-download install opportunity, I'm surprised they didn't use it. It originates from a Sony email address, the link points to a Sony server (and even if they type it in themselves, it's still Sony's domain), but a third party is really phishing that information. I'd guess you'd get a good chunk of people filling that information in. Forward them to the real Sony login page...
If they had access to the Sony SSL server... oh my.
Something like this would pass most of the basic sniff tests for phish emails and make it almost impossible to determine if it's really Sony or a phisher using Sony's server.
The best way to do this prank is to not move ALL the icons away. Leave a few of them there so they work. It'll puzzle the hell out of them as they can't seem to figure out why some icons work (consistently, too) but others just refuse.
You'll also find out who notices that the icons highlights.
Remember that Apple always ignores everyones patents when it doesn't feel like paying for them (all the Nokia thing),
Wow. Apple did not ignore the patents. In fact, Apple was licesning the patents. Except Nokia was evil and wanted to be greedy. Seeing that Apple owns some patents that Nokia wants to license, Nokia makes it a so that if Apple wants to license Nokia's patents, Apple would have to license Nokia those touch screen patents.
Except, Nokia previously agreed to license everyone ELSE (under RAND terms) those same patents Nokia accuses Apple of violating. The "ND" part stands for "non-discriminatory" which means Apple should pay the same price that everyone else. Not the same price AND patent licenses. It also means that all Apple has to do is pay the fees, and Nokia has to suck it up.
I didn't think this misinformation was still going on wrt the Nokia-Apple patent suit.
And if Apple was ignoring other's patents, you'd think everyone else in 3GSM would be suing by now seeing as how the iPhone has pretty much claimed a large majority of the profits in the mobile sector. (Hint: Nokia did not invent all of GSM)
Is it possible this thing's major failing is that few people have heard of it? (ignoring that if it comes from Apple, it's probably a proprietary standard with licensing fees to match...)
Well, it used to be called Light Peak, and it's an Intel technology that Apple is championing. It's all Intel. It's basically DisplayPort plus x2 PCIe.
The Thunderbolt name is actually trademarked by Intel, so they're probably going to promote it heavily.
And Intel is promoting it heavily - the Intel chipsets all have Thunderbolt controllers built in. Whereas, if you wanted USB 3.0, the manufacturer will have to throw in a separate chip and supporting components for that - USB 3.0 isn't coming to Intel chipsets until next year.
This is an issue as laptop manufacturers who want USB 3.0 have to throw in a separate chip (lots of $$$) and its support components, while Thunderbolt comes "for free". At least, if the laptop runs Intel chips with an Intel chipset.
As for dead in the water - it's hard to tell. A lot of manufacturers have thrown their hats into the ring of Thunderbolt accessories - hard drives, capture carts, etc. It can provide up to 10W of power (4x USB, but short of FireWire power), plus with daisy chaining and the like.
The best answer is that it's really to replace FireWire moreso than supplant USB 3.0. FW3200 is pretty much dead.
Absolutely. If I go down to the supermarket I might have to compare unit prices, total cash etc - so a small calculator in my pocket is a good idea.
Or just learn to do that kind of simple everyday math in your head. An exact value is almost never needed - just a rough estimate. If you're calculating unit prices and you have to start carrying more than 2 sigfigs, they're close enough (a few pennies). If you're buying so much that it matters, well you'd be sitting at your desk with a spreadsheet and arranging discounts that way.
It's kind of a pity people seem to nee dot whip out a calculator for even basic math of not-very-big-numbers, or lack the ability to estimate. Hell, one should be able to look at the change in their pocket and figure out that if they don't have exact, still figure out what would get them to a convenient amount (e.g., if you have two pennies and the price ends in a "7" you can use the two and get a nickel back rather than 3 pennies). I never understood the jars full of coins - and always detested when I had a pocket full of change of various denominations and knew there was no way to make convenient change.
It's why we use the 1-5-10-25 system for coins - it's algorithmically simple to make change ("greedy" algorithm) and adds really quickly.
And while I don't calculate the exact totals, I know roughly how much everything costs and add tax, so I have a ceiling amount - if it costs more, something's wrong. (A bit tricky with groceries since some of it is taxed and some isn't, but if you're determining ceilings, it works).
If you have an older unit that needs service, Sony won't railroad you into a newer unit.
True. But they won't give you old firmware either. If my 3.15 PS3 goes, sure Sony will replace it with a new PS3. But it'll run 3.61 instead. Even if you ask, they'll say no.
I'm sorry, but Sony should compensate me with a new PS3 so I can continue using my PS3 for the purpose I bought it for - OtherOS AND games. Not exclusive-OR.
What you do to an Xbox is jailbreaking because you patch the BIOS to accept unsigned executables. Having used the BIOS reflash method on my 1.1 I am sure about this. It's not about chroot jails, you are overthinking this.
Depends on the Xbox. The latest versions of them used ROMs and can't be reflashed. They have to use a traditional jailbreak instead or an LPC boot (modchip).
Still, "jailbreaking" is meaning less about chroot jails and now refers to "doing stuff they didn't let me do". Though the Android folks like to call it "rooting" instead.
You are right, but there is a timing for an open standard be successful, and skype just managed to get so widespread usage that any open standard will be sidelined as long as skype does not want to play ball. I'm afraid to say that this purchase was a bright move from the Redmond dinosaur, perhaps there are still people there with brains...
I think the VoIP standards were available before Skype made it big. Heck telephony over the internet was around since hte early 90's, even encrypted (PGPfone anyone?).
No, the reason Skype worked was it... just worked. No crappy port forward configurations in the router, no dozens of firewall settings need to be changed, etc. It. Just. Worked. You started it up, it ran.and connected.
Sure NAT and STUN are hacks, but they do work through most firewalls just fine, and Skype's architecture ensures it can get through firewalls easily enough.
Moving to IPv6 isn't a solution - it's not like everyone's going to run IPv6 without a firewall. And convincing Joe Average to figure out how to configure their router to let IPv6 through for their SIP phone... not happening.
Hell, Apple, release the FaceTime specs already as well - it too Just Works(tm) without firewall configuration.
Load the RTL in them and bang away. Neat stuff. Run godawful slow, but that's FPGAs for you (timing is usually a killer). Though it's usually much faster than pure software sims. I think these things ran Linux too - they had the classic Tux penguin when you power 'em up.
My point being...shrink other internal bits rather than the universal item that is handled by users often.
Often? Even when I worked on new phone designs and had SIMs I rarely inserted/removed them more than once a day, usually only because someone else needed the SIM for testing, or I had to trade hardware. Normally my SIM stays stuck in the hardware.
And I doubt a lot of people are buying a new SIM every day - world travellers might have a whole pocketful of SIMs as they go to a different country every day, but that's more of an unusual edge case moreso than common behavior. For a very large majority of people, the SIM is handled twice per phone - once to insert it, once to remove it to be inserted into a new phone. And for a lot of phones, the SIM slot seems to be in a spot as an afterthough. I have had many "oh crap" moments when inserting and removing the SIM card seems to force it to bend at larger-than-preferred angles... or ones that fail to put an adequate wedge so you have to use a screwdriver to remove it...
Compare this with say, the microSD card where constant access is required for the most part (it's the whole point). Though on many phone designs, they seem to put the damn card in the most inaccesible places that require removing the battery - completely defeating the purpose. Or hell, still behind the battery cover so constant access wears the cover down until it constantly falls off.
I thought microSIMs were Apple-only, until I ran into a Chinese smartphone that used it (and ran Android - AOSP).
We had to do some development work on it that involved actually having to solder wires to the phone to a standard SIM socket so our SIM tester could use it.
And why are people complaining about handling these SIM cards? The average user may really only handle their phone twice - the first time to install it after buying the phone, and second to remove it for their new phone. Are people really handling it like a daily use item like the microSD cards?
And interestingly, it seems the iPhone 3GS and iPhone 4 are one of the very few phones to implement "SIM Hot Swap" - if you notice most phones, the SIM is only accessible if you remove the battery. The reason for this is so the phone will be off when the SIM is removed. ETSI actually has a hot-swap spec so you could remove the SIM while the phone is on, and insert a new one and have it automatically reattach as the new SIM. It's a pile of tests for a very minimal feature, so 99.999% of cellphones don't implement it. The iPhone/iPhone 3G don't (they have a switch that hard-powers off the phone).
It's a difficult problem because it requires reinitializing the telephony stack - not easy.
I think it was sold because of pride. How could a CPU giant license designs from puny ARM from England?!
Actually, they had a microarchitecture license that let them implement the instruction set any way they wish. Most licensees are just given the RTL and that's it. ARM's been a bit more generous lately since then - letting Qualcomm (Snapdragon) and Apple to also purchase such licenses.
Intel came about it through Compaq lawsuit settlement who got it via purchasing DEC. They inherited the StrongARM, then their own chip designers created XScale. They then sold the entire division to Marvell.
To this day, though, StrongARM/XScale remains the truly independent reimplementation of ARM and ARM's tools all mention it separately from ARM's designs.
Unfortunately, iPhones are still selling like hotcakes, so I'm not convinced this is the reason. But I really, really don't like either direction. If people could be bothered to learn anywhere near as much about their computers as they typically understand about their cars, we wouldn't have this situation.
Users are complaining though. Check/. everytime an App Store article comes out and watch all the Android is better folk chime in on how the Market is freer.
The thing is, though, people don't care. They have a list of things they want, and I'm sure for a large majority, "being able to do what I want with it" is far down. Something like "I want to make a freaking phone call" is much higher up. And iPhones aren't selling as well as Androids - there are more Android phones sold than iPhones, and has been for many months now. (And here's why Apple probably doesn't care - 7% marketshare, but 57% of the entire sector's profits).
And people knowing much about cars? Honestly, that's a laugh. They know a little bit only because their driver's ed course taught them. If you want to license all computer users, go right ahead. But I can also say quite confidently that the vast majority of people don't know that much about cars period - not even simple things like ensuring the tires are at the right pressure.
Funny thing is, I think Sony really did manage to get away without a real security division. And Nintendo's probably next.
Microsoft, being Microsoft, would probably be attacked so often there's an alarm that goes off when the number of detected attacks falls. After all, every script kiddie and hacker wants to go after Microsoft and its insecure software. So they're probably spending tons of time and money on security - things like defense in depth (firewalls, machines that can only access data it needs, etc), monitoring, and probably many layers of systems and protections.
DItto other big sites like Amazon. But companies like Sony and others probably not so much. In fact, I'd guess a large majority of sites have known vulnerabilities ripe for the asking (seeing the spread of javascript worms across websites), it's just they're unheard of or no one's really bothered going after joe's website. All hell will break loose should Microsoft or Amazon be attacked - not from the data stolen, but the exploit itself would pretty much make a good chunk of everyone vulnerable.
And Sony - why would people even bother? Mostly out of the way and not really looking like it offers much. Until, I suppose the failoverfl0w guys discovered that the PS3 had so many fundamental flaws in security, maybe it extended to Sony's online properties as ewll.
Sony just got lucky - flaws like this are pretty fundamental. Hell, I think Microsoft suffered something like this in the early days (it's Microsoft) so they clamped things down on their front-facing servers. And hell, I bet Apple is attacked just as much trying to get in through iTunes or something. But Sony? Other than maybe a few MMORPGs, an unheard of music service and PSN, meh.
I bet the attackers would probably go after Nintendo next - I also don't think they've secured things too well and are probably vulnerable. Just no one's really bothered to attack them.
Honestly, if compared amongst the console makers, Apple's the most dev-friendly. You think the App Store process is bad? Try going through cert with Microsoft/Nintendo/Sony.
Hell, try being a dev for Microsoft/Nintendo/Sony. No garage development at all there - NDAs up the wazoo and secure offices separate from the residence of any employee.
Hell, developing for Apple is cheap and painless by comparison (cost of mac + cost of iOS device + $100/year). No need for offices, expensive devkits ($5000 for a Wii/DS/etc one, $10,000 for PS3 or Xbox360) that are leased (you must return them!), tedious certification processes, and cash outlays to manufacturing once approved (you have to buy the discs ahead of time and sell/distribute/market yourself).
Apple's walled garden are built from knee-high walls compared to the fortress walls of the big console devs.
in fact, if you're not already an established developer with games published, it's pretty much a forget it notion. Of the three, only Microsoft these days allows easy access to homebrew development. The only way to break in is get lucky with Xbox Live Indie Arcade (like Braid), or get popular on another platform (iOS devices count - Angry Birds anyone?), or through establishment. It's more of a "we'll call you" deal.
No NAT with IPV6; there are so many addresses that it's totally unnecessary. What, people want to do it anyway?
Well, if I want every lightbulb to have a consistent IP address when my ISP decides to give me a new prefix, I'd rather not want to renumber everything inside it. Or adjust all the settings.
Can you imagine? Your ISP decides to give you a new prefix and you'd have to program it into your switches so they can talk to the right lightbulbs again.
One of the benefits of NAT was the internal network was separated from the external - changes to the external IP addresses didn't influence the internal ones - simplifying management and administration. Some places don't mind going through the rigamarole, but I'm sure most homes have better things to do than manage their networks (if they even know how).
Sure you can assign more IPv6 addresses to ensure that your home server is always FC00::100, but having to know all the IP addresses of each machine when diagnosing things just gets to be a pain. Yes, you can use DHCPv6 to staticly assign addresses, but given how badly most devices handle DHCP IP address changes, it'll be a reboot fest.
You chose to show your work, or didn't. If you got the right answer, full marks regardless. If you didn't, but showed your work and it was a simple error, a small point loss (the amount depended on the error - stupid errors started counting more as the term went on in an attempt to train students to be more careful). If you didn't show work at all, a zero.
Bonus points if you know of another way to estimate the answer to show you're in the right ballpark. Even if all you did was work out what the sign of the answer should be.
Oh yeah, and if you want to contest your mark, you had to write your answer on the paper in *PEN*. You could use pencil, but if there was a grading mistake, tough. And neatness counts - no big splotches of crossed out ink - you are allowed some mess, but it had to be neatly crossed out and not excessive. You were allowed to use scratch paper to do rough work which you transferred neatly to the test paper for big problems. Smaller problems you were confident on were done right then and there, but less confident answers you did on scratch paper first.
And yes, there was the standard time pressure. The goal being it's also about time management. Some made it particularly fun by giving every question the same weight.
I've always wondered - those who want to ban all WiFi - do they also want to ban all microwave ovens as well? After all, one of the reasons why the 2.4GHz band is ISM and unlicensed is because people have these huge 700-1kW+ radio transmitters in their homes centered around 2.4GHz.
Sure it's shielded, but if your microwave's more than a few years old the RF seals around the door are probably degrading and leaking.
Modern WiFi is mostly immune due to new antenna technologies, beamforming and such, but it's one of the reasons why using a microwave often took down WiFi.
And nevermind all those "EMF Sensitivity" cases - there's one confirmed case and he has to live as a hermit far from civilizatoin because of it - they couldn't even use a digital camera. Especially if you're trying to convince me you're sensitive to WiFi whilst using your microwave.
Actually scratch that. Tell that to ANY modern pilot, be he military or civilian. For added bonus, tell that to greens all over the world and be lynched on the spot, as unstable aircraft are significantly more fuel efficient and can only be flown with fly-by-wire. Trying to fly it manually will result in very spectacular and fiery ending.
There are no unstable aircraft. All aircraft are stable otherwise they won't be controllable. There are SOME aircraft that are staticly unstable - computerized flight controls make them stable during flight.
But those are rare - mostly limited to fighter jets because staticly unstable aircraft are required for maneuverability.
Your Boeings and Airbuses that serve commercial aviation are inherently stable. The reason they're fly-by-wire is simple - weight - wire is cheaper, lighter and more reliable than steel cables and hydraulics being routed everywhere in an aircraft, and it puts the computer in the loop for autopilots and such, as well as offering things like desensitizing controls so the aircraft isn't so touchy.
Modern aircraft can be put into a computer bypass mode - the reason they're not is they're touchy at high altiudes and velocities, especially since the margin for error is *very* small. You can't go too fast as the center of pressure (lift) moves too far back the aircraft (verge of dynamic instability), and you can't go too slow because you'll stall. This window is only a few knots big. Computers are far better at doing this and can react faster, so that's why the autopilot's usually engaged during cruise.
When it comes time to land, the window is much wider and can be landed manually with no issues. There aren't many airports with full autoland, so the pilot still has to do it. You can still stick'n'rudder the big jetliners.
And in general aviation, most of the fleet's all inherently stable and still connected using steel cables - there's very few true fly-by-wire systems out there. Heck the autopilot's often done using trim controls and only does one axis (or two).
Slashdot Mirror
Are these the same users that we complained about earlier who don't dare click randomly on the screen for fear of breaking something?
Hard to squirrel away the two - they're bold enough to click random links on emails, but not bold enough to click on various buttons in programs...
Don't forget one of the 'eyes' is an IR projector. It does more than project the structured light beam so Kinect can sense depth, too. It can also be used to beam images into your brain! Since we can't see infrared, our conscious mind won't ever notice. It sits there, quietly beaming images into your subconscious...
Funny enough, but vim doesn't (by default) enable horizontal scrolling - it wraps the line. It does look awful but with a little resizing of the terminal the number of lines that exceed the width doesn't get too bad.
It looks uglier, but it saves on having to scroll horizontally for the few abnormally long lines. It also doesn't word wrap so it makes it more obvious that the line was split by vim and not in the file.
Easy. It costs less. Because 1080p hardware is cheap, really cheap. 1920x1200 hardware isn't so cheap, but is very easily available.
Ever spec'ed a laptop costing $500 or less? Worthless hardware. In the end, $1000 seems to be the minimum to spend on a laptop where things start getting decent - screen and GPU.
Hell, watch the arguments when someone brings up "Apple is overprised" arguments - sure they command a premium, but they can contain some nice stuff - like 1920x1200 screens (MacBook Pro 17"). Similar PC laptops will be cheaper, but you're still looking at easily $1200+.
Apple doesn't want the enterprise business.
The enterprise business sucks - the hardware is sold at the tiniest of margins and it's all made up in support. Sure it can be lucrative if you can entice your business to go all your brand, but that requires a wide product line. Apple's not going for that - they don't want a wide product line - they want narrowly focused.
Dell has a wide product line and offers a million combinations of their product. Apple offers what, 6 product lines with 2 or 3 combinations in each?
Enterprises are the cheapest people on earth. Apple's known for their big margins. You think Apple wants that business? The fact that people are buying Macs for the workplace is just icing - Apple honestly doesn't care.
It's the same reason they don't have a netbook entry - let everyone else fight in the $300 market that barely makes any money. Meanwhile, make a premium laptop with more power and performance at a nicer price point (the Air's Core2Duo may be ancient, but outclasses the Atom, and nVidia graphics beats Intel, and big SSDs, high res displays, etc.).
Apple doesn't care - there's no money to be made in enterprise.
The problem is something known as the Dancing Bunnies Problem (or Dancing Pigs)
Users will do even very sophisticated things to do what they want. Even if it involves installing a bunch of malware or opening a bunch of security holes in their PC.
It's how iPhones get jailbroken ("users want apps for FREE"). Or alternative Android Markets are installed (free apps!). Even if they have to install things like OpenSSH and SSH into their phones, they'll do it.
Hell, have you seen some of the Facebook spams these days? "Copy and paste this javascript", etc.
The era where the "Honor System Virus" is now.
Man, that's a bit amateurish on the side of the phishers.
They had access to a *SONY* server. The same Sony who just admitted issues on their systems. Surely they should've just set up a fake phishing site imitating Sony? I mean, set up a realistic looking Sony form asking for way more information than you need, host it on Sony server so Sony's domain points to it, put it in a plausible looking path, and send out an email faking a Sony return address.
Honestly, this would present such a great phishing and drive-by-download install opportunity, I'm surprised they didn't use it. It originates from a Sony email address, the link points to a Sony server (and even if they type it in themselves, it's still Sony's domain), but a third party is really phishing that information. I'd guess you'd get a good chunk of people filling that information in. Forward them to the real Sony login page...
If they had access to the Sony SSL server... oh my.
Something like this would pass most of the basic sniff tests for phish emails and make it almost impossible to determine if it's really Sony or a phisher using Sony's server.
The best way to do this prank is to not move ALL the icons away. Leave a few of them there so they work. It'll puzzle the hell out of them as they can't seem to figure out why some icons work (consistently, too) but others just refuse.
You'll also find out who notices that the icons highlights.
Wow. Apple did not ignore the patents. In fact, Apple was licesning the patents. Except Nokia was evil and wanted to be greedy. Seeing that Apple owns some patents that Nokia wants to license, Nokia makes it a so that if Apple wants to license Nokia's patents, Apple would have to license Nokia those touch screen patents.
Except, Nokia previously agreed to license everyone ELSE (under RAND terms) those same patents Nokia accuses Apple of violating. The "ND" part stands for "non-discriminatory" which means Apple should pay the same price that everyone else. Not the same price AND patent licenses. It also means that all Apple has to do is pay the fees, and Nokia has to suck it up.
I didn't think this misinformation was still going on wrt the Nokia-Apple patent suit.
And if Apple was ignoring other's patents, you'd think everyone else in 3GSM would be suing by now seeing as how the iPhone has pretty much claimed a large majority of the profits in the mobile sector. (Hint: Nokia did not invent all of GSM)
Well, it used to be called Light Peak, and it's an Intel technology that Apple is championing. It's all Intel. It's basically DisplayPort plus x2 PCIe.
The Thunderbolt name is actually trademarked by Intel, so they're probably going to promote it heavily.
And Intel is promoting it heavily - the Intel chipsets all have Thunderbolt controllers built in. Whereas, if you wanted USB 3.0, the manufacturer will have to throw in a separate chip and supporting components for that - USB 3.0 isn't coming to Intel chipsets until next year.
This is an issue as laptop manufacturers who want USB 3.0 have to throw in a separate chip (lots of $$$) and its support components, while Thunderbolt comes "for free". At least, if the laptop runs Intel chips with an Intel chipset.
As for dead in the water - it's hard to tell. A lot of manufacturers have thrown their hats into the ring of Thunderbolt accessories - hard drives, capture carts, etc. It can provide up to 10W of power (4x USB, but short of FireWire power), plus with daisy chaining and the like.
The best answer is that it's really to replace FireWire moreso than supplant USB 3.0. FW3200 is pretty much dead.
Or just learn to do that kind of simple everyday math in your head. An exact value is almost never needed - just a rough estimate. If you're calculating unit prices and you have to start carrying more than 2 sigfigs, they're close enough (a few pennies). If you're buying so much that it matters, well you'd be sitting at your desk with a spreadsheet and arranging discounts that way.
It's kind of a pity people seem to nee dot whip out a calculator for even basic math of not-very-big-numbers, or lack the ability to estimate. Hell, one should be able to look at the change in their pocket and figure out that if they don't have exact, still figure out what would get them to a convenient amount (e.g., if you have two pennies and the price ends in a "7" you can use the two and get a nickel back rather than 3 pennies). I never understood the jars full of coins - and always detested when I had a pocket full of change of various denominations and knew there was no way to make convenient change.
It's why we use the 1-5-10-25 system for coins - it's algorithmically simple to make change ("greedy" algorithm) and adds really quickly.
And while I don't calculate the exact totals, I know roughly how much everything costs and add tax, so I have a ceiling amount - if it costs more, something's wrong. (A bit tricky with groceries since some of it is taxed and some isn't, but if you're determining ceilings, it works).
True. But they won't give you old firmware either. If my 3.15 PS3 goes, sure Sony will replace it with a new PS3. But it'll run 3.61 instead. Even if you ask, they'll say no.
I'm sorry, but Sony should compensate me with a new PS3 so I can continue using my PS3 for the purpose I bought it for - OtherOS AND games. Not exclusive-OR.
Depends on the Xbox. The latest versions of them used ROMs and can't be reflashed. They have to use a traditional jailbreak instead or an LPC boot (modchip).
Still, "jailbreaking" is meaning less about chroot jails and now refers to "doing stuff they didn't let me do". Though the Android folks like to call it "rooting" instead.
I think the VoIP standards were available before Skype made it big. Heck telephony over the internet was around since hte early 90's, even encrypted (PGPfone anyone?).
No, the reason Skype worked was it ... just worked. No crappy port forward configurations in the router, no dozens of firewall settings need to be changed, etc. It. Just. Worked. You started it up, it ran.and connected.
Sure NAT and STUN are hacks, but they do work through most firewalls just fine, and Skype's architecture ensures it can get through firewalls easily enough.
Moving to IPv6 isn't a solution - it's not like everyone's going to run IPv6 without a firewall. And convincing Joe Average to figure out how to configure their router to let IPv6 through for their SIP phone... not happening.
Hell, Apple, release the FaceTime specs already as well - it too Just Works(tm) without firewall configuration.
They're really much fancier versions of these FPGA solutions I've seen - http://www.synopsys.com/Systems/FPGABasedPrototyping/CHIPit/Pages/default.aspx
Load the RTL in them and bang away. Neat stuff. Run godawful slow, but that's FPGAs for you (timing is usually a killer). Though it's usually much faster than pure software sims. I think these things ran Linux too - they had the classic Tux penguin when you power 'em up.
Often? Even when I worked on new phone designs and had SIMs I rarely inserted/removed them more than once a day, usually only because someone else needed the SIM for testing, or I had to trade hardware. Normally my SIM stays stuck in the hardware.
And I doubt a lot of people are buying a new SIM every day - world travellers might have a whole pocketful of SIMs as they go to a different country every day, but that's more of an unusual edge case moreso than common behavior. For a very large majority of people, the SIM is handled twice per phone - once to insert it, once to remove it to be inserted into a new phone. And for a lot of phones, the SIM slot seems to be in a spot as an afterthough. I have had many "oh crap" moments when inserting and removing the SIM card seems to force it to bend at larger-than-preferred angles... or ones that fail to put an adequate wedge so you have to use a screwdriver to remove it...
Compare this with say, the microSD card where constant access is required for the most part (it's the whole point). Though on many phone designs, they seem to put the damn card in the most inaccesible places that require removing the battery - completely defeating the purpose. Or hell, still behind the battery cover so constant access wears the cover down until it constantly falls off.
I thought microSIMs were Apple-only, until I ran into a Chinese smartphone that used it (and ran Android - AOSP).
We had to do some development work on it that involved actually having to solder wires to the phone to a standard SIM socket so our SIM tester could use it.
And why are people complaining about handling these SIM cards? The average user may really only handle their phone twice - the first time to install it after buying the phone, and second to remove it for their new phone. Are people really handling it like a daily use item like the microSD cards?
And interestingly, it seems the iPhone 3GS and iPhone 4 are one of the very few phones to implement "SIM Hot Swap" - if you notice most phones, the SIM is only accessible if you remove the battery. The reason for this is so the phone will be off when the SIM is removed. ETSI actually has a hot-swap spec so you could remove the SIM while the phone is on, and insert a new one and have it automatically reattach as the new SIM. It's a pile of tests for a very minimal feature, so 99.999% of cellphones don't implement it. The iPhone/iPhone 3G don't (they have a switch that hard-powers off the phone).
It's a difficult problem because it requires reinitializing the telephony stack - not easy.
Actually, they had a microarchitecture license that let them implement the instruction set any way they wish. Most licensees are just given the RTL and that's it. ARM's been a bit more generous lately since then - letting Qualcomm (Snapdragon) and Apple to also purchase such licenses.
Intel came about it through Compaq lawsuit settlement who got it via purchasing DEC. They inherited the StrongARM, then their own chip designers created XScale. They then sold the entire division to Marvell.
To this day, though, StrongARM/XScale remains the truly independent reimplementation of ARM and ARM's tools all mention it separately from ARM's designs.
Users are complaining though. Check /. everytime an App Store article comes out and watch all the Android is better folk chime in on how the Market is freer.
The thing is, though, people don't care. They have a list of things they want, and I'm sure for a large majority, "being able to do what I want with it" is far down. Something like "I want to make a freaking phone call" is much higher up. And iPhones aren't selling as well as Androids - there are more Android phones sold than iPhones, and has been for many months now. (And here's why Apple probably doesn't care - 7% marketshare, but 57% of the entire sector's profits).
And people knowing much about cars? Honestly, that's a laugh. They know a little bit only because their driver's ed course taught them. If you want to license all computer users, go right ahead. But I can also say quite confidently that the vast majority of people don't know that much about cars period - not even simple things like ensuring the tires are at the right pressure.
Funny thing is, I think Sony really did manage to get away without a real security division. And Nintendo's probably next.
Microsoft, being Microsoft, would probably be attacked so often there's an alarm that goes off when the number of detected attacks falls. After all, every script kiddie and hacker wants to go after Microsoft and its insecure software. So they're probably spending tons of time and money on security - things like defense in depth (firewalls, machines that can only access data it needs, etc), monitoring, and probably many layers of systems and protections.
DItto other big sites like Amazon. But companies like Sony and others probably not so much. In fact, I'd guess a large majority of sites have known vulnerabilities ripe for the asking (seeing the spread of javascript worms across websites), it's just they're unheard of or no one's really bothered going after joe's website. All hell will break loose should Microsoft or Amazon be attacked - not from the data stolen, but the exploit itself would pretty much make a good chunk of everyone vulnerable.
And Sony - why would people even bother? Mostly out of the way and not really looking like it offers much. Until, I suppose the failoverfl0w guys discovered that the PS3 had so many fundamental flaws in security, maybe it extended to Sony's online properties as ewll.
Sony just got lucky - flaws like this are pretty fundamental. Hell, I think Microsoft suffered something like this in the early days (it's Microsoft) so they clamped things down on their front-facing servers. And hell, I bet Apple is attacked just as much trying to get in through iTunes or something. But Sony? Other than maybe a few MMORPGs, an unheard of music service and PSN, meh.
I bet the attackers would probably go after Nintendo next - I also don't think they've secured things too well and are probably vulnerable. Just no one's really bothered to attack them.
Honestly, if compared amongst the console makers, Apple's the most dev-friendly. You think the App Store process is bad? Try going through cert with Microsoft/Nintendo/Sony.
Hell, try being a dev for Microsoft/Nintendo/Sony. No garage development at all there - NDAs up the wazoo and secure offices separate from the residence of any employee.
Hell, developing for Apple is cheap and painless by comparison (cost of mac + cost of iOS device + $100/year). No need for offices, expensive devkits ($5000 for a Wii/DS/etc one, $10,000 for PS3 or Xbox360) that are leased (you must return them!), tedious certification processes, and cash outlays to manufacturing once approved (you have to buy the discs ahead of time and sell/distribute/market yourself).
Apple's walled garden are built from knee-high walls compared to the fortress walls of the big console devs.
in fact, if you're not already an established developer with games published, it's pretty much a forget it notion. Of the three, only Microsoft these days allows easy access to homebrew development. The only way to break in is get lucky with Xbox Live Indie Arcade (like Braid), or get popular on another platform (iOS devices count - Angry Birds anyone?), or through establishment. It's more of a "we'll call you" deal.
Well, if I want every lightbulb to have a consistent IP address when my ISP decides to give me a new prefix, I'd rather not want to renumber everything inside it. Or adjust all the settings.
Can you imagine? Your ISP decides to give you a new prefix and you'd have to program it into your switches so they can talk to the right lightbulbs again.
One of the benefits of NAT was the internal network was separated from the external - changes to the external IP addresses didn't influence the internal ones - simplifying management and administration. Some places don't mind going through the rigamarole, but I'm sure most homes have better things to do than manage their networks (if they even know how).
Sure you can assign more IPv6 addresses to ensure that your home server is always FC00::100, but having to know all the IP addresses of each machine when diagnosing things just gets to be a pain. Yes, you can use DHCPv6 to staticly assign addresses, but given how badly most devices handle DHCP IP address changes, it'll be a reboot fest.
My teachers did it Differently(tm).
You chose to show your work, or didn't. If you got the right answer, full marks regardless. If you didn't, but showed your work and it was a simple error, a small point loss (the amount depended on the error - stupid errors started counting more as the term went on in an attempt to train students to be more careful). If you didn't show work at all, a zero.
Bonus points if you know of another way to estimate the answer to show you're in the right ballpark. Even if all you did was work out what the sign of the answer should be.
Oh yeah, and if you want to contest your mark, you had to write your answer on the paper in *PEN*. You could use pencil, but if there was a grading mistake, tough. And neatness counts - no big splotches of crossed out ink - you are allowed some mess, but it had to be neatly crossed out and not excessive. You were allowed to use scratch paper to do rough work which you transferred neatly to the test paper for big problems. Smaller problems you were confident on were done right then and there, but less confident answers you did on scratch paper first.
And yes, there was the standard time pressure. The goal being it's also about time management. Some made it particularly fun by giving every question the same weight.
I've always wondered - those who want to ban all WiFi - do they also want to ban all microwave ovens as well? After all, one of the reasons why the 2.4GHz band is ISM and unlicensed is because people have these huge 700-1kW+ radio transmitters in their homes centered around 2.4GHz.
Sure it's shielded, but if your microwave's more than a few years old the RF seals around the door are probably degrading and leaking.
Modern WiFi is mostly immune due to new antenna technologies, beamforming and such, but it's one of the reasons why using a microwave often took down WiFi.
And nevermind all those "EMF Sensitivity" cases - there's one confirmed case and he has to live as a hermit far from civilizatoin because of it - they couldn't even use a digital camera. Especially if you're trying to convince me you're sensitive to WiFi whilst using your microwave.
There are no unstable aircraft. All aircraft are stable otherwise they won't be controllable. There are SOME aircraft that are staticly unstable - computerized flight controls make them stable during flight.
But those are rare - mostly limited to fighter jets because staticly unstable aircraft are required for maneuverability.
Your Boeings and Airbuses that serve commercial aviation are inherently stable. The reason they're fly-by-wire is simple - weight - wire is cheaper, lighter and more reliable than steel cables and hydraulics being routed everywhere in an aircraft, and it puts the computer in the loop for autopilots and such, as well as offering things like desensitizing controls so the aircraft isn't so touchy.
Modern aircraft can be put into a computer bypass mode - the reason they're not is they're touchy at high altiudes and velocities, especially since the margin for error is *very* small. You can't go too fast as the center of pressure (lift) moves too far back the aircraft (verge of dynamic instability), and you can't go too slow because you'll stall. This window is only a few knots big. Computers are far better at doing this and can react faster, so that's why the autopilot's usually engaged during cruise.
When it comes time to land, the window is much wider and can be landed manually with no issues. There aren't many airports with full autoland, so the pilot still has to do it. You can still stick'n'rudder the big jetliners.
And in general aviation, most of the fleet's all inherently stable and still connected using steel cables - there's very few true fly-by-wire systems out there. Heck the autopilot's often done using trim controls and only does one axis (or two).