The PS2 was thoroughly broken via crafted PS1 memory save, yet the PS2 and games live quite a healthy life, only diminished by new technology, not via piracy.
Sony's best move would have been to give more freedom in developing and sideloading apps front and center in the XMB. As many have said, given homebrew access to everything, the only remaining interested party for jailbreaking would be pirates, which seem to largely piggyback on the homebrew devs to do all the hard work. Discless play option for all games delivered via disc would be nice too (main reason I did the PS2 was to load all my games from HD. I legitimately own maybe 60 PS2 discs and I hate managing physical media.
I will say that more expensive is not always better. In most reasonable places, the degree requirement is little more than a technicality, with managers and local team far removed from HR making the call so long as HR allows them.
First, I want to see *some* sort of check and balance on college expenses. Every examination of college prices over the past 30 years has shown horribly high growth relative to earning. Most things I read agree the problem was good intentions, making loans for education extremely safe, but has lead to colleges taking the blank checks, running up expenses through the roof, and the payback protections to lenders turning graduates practically into indentured servants, unable to escape that creditor no matter how little they have and even bankruptcy not being a way out. The answer is not insanely easy loans, there has got to be a better way.
In terms of going with what's there, start with a community college. It's a total waste to piss away more money on the basics in the first two years of college. After a couple of years, go to a state college with a good co-op/intern program. Use the co-op program, do not simply take the classes and get out, get some professional experience on your resume and subsidize the extra cost of state college with your pay.
Do *not* get too hung up on the prestige of one school versus another. At least when I look at resumes, professional experience matters most, low GPA can give me concerns, and which school figures prominently in the don't care area. One exception being I laugh at people with 'bachelor's' degrees from ripoff places like devry, phoenix, etc. I'd personally rather have someone without a degree than a sucker who fell for those places. However, I'm not allowed to entertain people without 4 year degrees by company policy, so unfortunately your chances of dropping out and making it within the rules of established company is nearly zero. All the examples of rich dropouts are those who were never 'hired' by anyone, but sold product and services directly to people who only look at the quality of the product and promise, not at their resume.
Saturation has devalued the prospects of a degree, but not having a degree is in no way an advantage over having a degree. While a degree is further away from guaranteeing a job, not having a degree will guarantee that you cannot get certain jobs.
Just like DRM, a measure that will only hurt legitimate customers.
If they are trying to jailbreak the device, they will have no compunction about designing and releasing hacks that either spoof using existing hardware or new hardware capable of spoofing if some implementations are completely incapable of doing so.
I will say to those who insist on hacking the PS3, just buy a damn computer. A comparably capable system is now relatively cheap, will almost certaintly either have HDMI directly or a port that is HDMI compatible with a totally passive adapter. PS3 BD accessories can be added to a PC via 3 bucks of bluetooth dongle if the system doesn't have it baked in. Linux distros are pretty usable nowadays if the Windows license bumps price up too much.
Maybe the PS3 slim is quieter, but you'd be hard pressed to build a computer noiser than the fat PS3, so I doubt it is for quiet operation. Simplicity of one device is nice, but Sony is obviously not going to help you on that and it's better to purchase devices where the manufacturer will not be fighting you every step of the way to keep you from doing what they want.
To say Linux 'may support D3D better than MS' while referencing lack of D3D 10+ on WinXP is a tad disingenuous.
Unless you are saying that the community is going to meaningfully backport full D3D 10/11 to RedHat 7.2 that is (WinXP and RedHat 7.2 came out roughly at the same time). I doubt you'll see this work seriously put to use in anything even as old as Vista with respect to the linux world
There are sometimes unavoidable complexities, however I know first-hand companies providing 'product' and 'services' rapidly prioritize services. At first, the services may be a 'necessary evil' to enable the complex software, but the revenue quickly becomes intoxicating and soon any effort toward ease-of-use and out-of-the-box usability becomes a threat to services revenue.
It makes no sense for a manufactured part to work like this from a business perspective. The per-unit cost to produce these parts must be enough to cover full capability (or else they are selling at a loss, which is very sketchy to do). They can deliver the full function at the same price point, and in a 'theoretical' competitive market, this means they would be forced to do so by competition. The fact they can arbitrarily bump up the price on the same exact part by 50 bucks and get away with it is an indication of either bad business judgement or a very broken microprocessor market.
In your example, your provider is using broadcast to mitigate costs. Your household not decoding the bandwidth alloted for premium content does not affect the per-unit price of the content. Similarly, software incurs no per-unit manufacturing cost for unusable content, so it can work for them.
This would be like your cable company unicasting to each house all the content they pay for. It simply wouldn't make sense to unicast unusable content to your house as the incremental cost of doing that per non-paying customer would be significant.
MS has been nothing if not consistent in mobile phone marketshare. Up til now, I'd characterize it as not even really trying seriously. Now that they have started to try in earnest, every move they make is a huge head scratcher.
Kin is a shining example of MS not 'getting it'.
Every demo and discussion of WinMo7 seems to show that not only do they not get it, but they are actively screwing over WinMo6 users too. Sideloaded apps? No, copying Apple means none of that. Copy and paste? No, they copy iPhone 2G. Multitasking? Again... no.. Decent UI? No, that would mean knocking off Apple *too* much....
Android is taking it without any contest (though I like WebOS better).
Because everything about the revamp of WinMo7 was to mimic Apple. Remove multitasking intentionally, remove copy and paste intentionally (even Apple rectified that long ago, but MS seems enamored of that).
MS observed that they are firmly in the 'other' category in market share, took a glance and saw Apple with the biggest slice at the time, didn't look at trend data to see where it was going nor made the connection about partners vs homegrown phone, and shamelessly started ripping it off inconsistently, but applying their relatively poor UI sense to the base concepts exhibited by Apple's phone.
Now, Android is going strong due to technical capabilities and flexibility afforded to phone makers MS simply can *not* match with a business model they can be comfortable with. So they hope to extract money by giving partners an iPhone knockoff rather than trying to truly innovate.
Windows Phone 7 will absolutely inherit the legacy of Kin.
Speaking as one who routinely works on open and closed projects, believing the documentation would be tempting, but usually a mistake.
The driver reflects the reality. If well commented (particularly if it has developers venting frustration), it really reflects the reality of how that doc got implemented in reality.
Often documentation is first written, then parts fabricated/code developed. When the fabricated parts come in, often there are minor different and/or incorrect interpretations of the spec, major enough to make the doc unusable, often minor enough to work with a change to the driver. When this happens, the driver will get updated, but going back to the documentation... No, not so much.
Particularly when it comes to the 'what it could do' part, at best it's not already done because they decided not to fund it and it is simply untested and may or may not work. Frequently it's because that capability was so fubared in testing that the feature was thrown over the fence to make a schedule.
For the most part, on the vendor side it currently makes a fair amount of sense. A lot of money is being currently dropped on the 'cloud' buzzword by the market. Now, the wisdom of the market to be crazy over cloud, that's another story.... I do think HP is awfully optimistic by dropping $2 billion on 3par, hoping to recoup the losses before the market wakes up from the 'cloud' dream.
You are right that if they want all the video-on-demand, full quality home movie storing, and similar behavior that is really needed to make these long shots pay off, they'd have to push for synchronous 100mbit or better for wider markets.
The article suggests that they patented over-committed storage. I don't see how that is unique or different. NetApp does this out of the box, you can make linux do this if you know what you are doing, VMWare, qemu, basically every virtualization solution enables over-commited storage, and many use data dedupe to automatically reclaim storage when images happen to converge.
I presume there has to be more to it than that, unless they think 3par did it before linux, solaris, and ontap did it, which I doubt...
I don't think TPM-on-Die is something that Intel would've needed to shell out $2B for. It's a straightforward device designed to be implementable with as little cost as possible. Intel has done far more complex things in house and adding TPM on-die would probably take them a trivial amount of time if they cared to do so. Putting aside that, I don't see that as a huge differentiator in the market. First, because even if people by large explicitly cared, then AMD could easily do it too, and even if they didn't, I'm told that TPMs are dirt cheap, so having them on a system board is trivial. Secondly, there are some who care, but by and large this stuff is simply flat out ignored by the vast majority of the market. TPMs are nearly ubiquitous as they are mandated by certain industry standards, not due to overwhelming explicit customer interest. Finally, for those that do care, it's a boolean, does it exist, or does it not. There's no comparison of any performance metric (TPMs can be slower/faster, but no one cares today), so the only metric a system vendor cares about is price, i.e. for TPM market it's a race to the cheapest. Intel's MO has not been about investing huge amounts to get into a market that by definition is anti-margin.
However, DIMMs are even more ubiquitous and also have the room to differentiate on latency, throughput, power consumption, and capacity and extract a certain premium.
Ultimately though, I have to concur that having traction in mobile devices is almost certainly the key. 'Apple' tie-in may have been superfluous, but it does show that Infineon has share in the mobile device arena, whereas Intel has nearly none. Intel sees mobile devices displacing much of their current target market, so they have to do something.
It may have been an entertaining sort of flick, but I wouldn't give it suspenseful. Nor would I give it particularly any credit for being particularly thought provoking.
To be suspenseful, it would have required that the story was not 99.9% predictable. In a single viewing of a 90 second trailer, the entire plot is already known, all plot twists are pretty well trivially guessed because we've seen this same basic film countless times already. You simply can't build suspense in that sort of flick.
To be thought provoking, it would have to be subtle or somehow distinct from the general sentiment beaten into the minds of the general populace over and over and over again by simply looking at TV or internet for about 15 seconds.
It was about as suspenseful and thought provoking as a fireworks show. Sure, it can be fairly called good by some standard, it's shiny and nice to look at and has 'oohs' and 'aahs', but it doesn't have any particular depth that warrants points in the suspense/thoughtfulness aspect of evaluating a movie.
His point on privacy is not the MAC as part of the address, but enumaration of hosts that NAT 'mitigated'. Some consider that a privacy risk, I personally think it is overblown. If people NATed for the privacy explicitly, then why would it be so bad if people got to make a choice rather than have to NAT?
Agreed about the router stuff. People are scared because suddenly endusers will be empowered to not NAT, and users were implicitly firewalled through having NAT forced on them. If they don't need it, they may not use firewalls. I find this asinine as well.
I also agree about non-routable addresses, though fc00::/7 addresses are ULA prefixed addresses, not 'link-local', which are fe80::/64. ULA is the correct technology to replace private addresses though, so that was just a nitpick.
So some theories come to mind: -You were/are misdiagnosed -You have it, but in a degree less than others -ADHD left unmedicated is real and real for you, but may be able to actually help rather than hinder.
Basically, I lack the personal experience to dismiss ADHD, but I also don't have the experience to say 'yeah, it's definitely bad'. I've never personally met an ADHD diagnosed person who I could be convinced did unarguably better in life by being on drugs. Some say Ritilin inducing focus rather than increased hyperactivity is proof the person is ADHD and should be treated, but I think even among those, some benefit from the lack of apparent focus, even if they are hard to follow in day to day conversations. Growing up, one kid was diagnosed ADHD and their family declined treatment. That kid was impossible to follow, would change topics sometimes without even completing a sentence. In the early years of school, he did terrible. Then, around 10 years old or so, began consistently proving himself an absolute genius by the standards he was measured with. He remained as fidgety and hard to follow in conversation as ever, but as other things started mattering in school more than that, he displayed unique capacity. This continued until at least high school with no signs of change (though the physical fidgeting he started controlling with maturity, staying on topic was never something he did). Another kid did take the Ritilin. He did become easier to talk to, and generally more focused at the task at hand. He even did well enough in school, but I wonder if natural coping mechanisms and a more accommodating environment would have allowed him to reach greater potential. </armchairpsychologist>
It has to be a computer analogy. This is kinda like when you are uploading files, but need them to go faster. You do that by leaning the computer back so the bits flow out of the back of it faster. Same deal here.
Papermaster wasn't a chip-freak, he was an executive over chip-freaks. His responsibilities in both worlds were probably sufficiently abstract so as not to matter much.
He may not have personally designed the antenna, but it doesn't mean he had no responsibility (or that the grunt-level engineer didn't get fired long ago without a lot of coverage). It could have very well been the case that Apple's test organization noted this problem, and making the call as to do something or not went to Papermaster. I don't know if other Apple execs would have made the same call and he just happened to be in the wrong place, or if he brought some sort of mentality where development gets the benefit of the doubt when they downplay the importance of a problem and/or describe a 'reasonable' workaround.
It's all speculation, but there are plenty of scenarios where Papermaster has a hand in the problem. Of course, I would say Steve Jobs himself did things that exacerbated a relatively minor issue into the debacle it became. The problem was minor, but Jobs denial and outright ridicule were what caused this to be a big problem. If Jobs had gotten quality, honest data, he could have immediately came out and said they recognized the issue, you can avoid it by holding it a different way for now, but we will soon have Apple stores ready to apply a fix to your phones, it would've been no problem. The fix could've been a cheap decal that essentially preserved the look and feel when applied correctly. Of course in a company like Apple, where the CEO's image/personality are central to their health, they throw other guys under the bus if they can preserve that CEO. It's an interesting relationship, Apple is nothing without Jobs, and Jobs is nothing without Apple (the days of NeXT demonstrated that fairly clearly).
lxc exists in linux as a Zones alternative. I don't know first hand, but some would say systemtap is on the level of DTrace. btrfs may eventually provide zfs parity (but not today, even if considered stable the featureset lags in some ways).
If I have even a pretty sophisticated script written for perl 5.6, it will almost certainly work exactly the same in perl 5.10, even if I make use of CPAN sourced content. If I write a complex script for python 2.3, python 2.7 is likely to break it. As a community/implementation, python has a goal of providing what they feel the best experience at the time is, even if it means script authors have to pay a significant maintenance price to keep up. In Perl, the development is a lot more conservative, being very careful to avoid changing existing behavior even if it means an interface that was designed poorly in the first place gets the intuitive name/functions and the better implementation has to settle for a slightly odd naming convention to coexist without breaking scripts in the while.
Python might have matured by now (haven't kept track), but back in the day, Perl::DBI provided an *extremely* consistent DB abstraction, whereas the python database access varied greatly from one DB to another.
At the end of the day, any language can be used to do whatever generally, it's mostly a matter of taste and deciding which communities most closely aligns with the tradeoffs you think best.
Many builds I've done have used integrated where the toughest task the card would have is compiz/aero/video scaling. Memory bandwidth and contention will only kill you if you do something significantly more than that.
I do agree that the flagship is overrated, and while the 8800* parts were afflicted by poor quality, that is not a good reason to extrapolate across the board on the quality of midrange parts. Generally, the benchmarks are what you get and quality isn't a big problem.
His last point has some merit though, a 4870 can perform admirably against the current generation and can be had at lower prices. Counteracting this though is that for a little more you can have a current midrange that eats less electricity/puts out less heat to get roughly the same performance.
NetApp is suing Sun (and now Oracle) over ZFS because they *claim* it violates patents they hold that they implemented in their own WAFL fs. WAFL does predate ZFS. NetApp was granted patents in WAFL that ZFS seems to also do, but prior-art may have caused those patents to be invalid.
They are suing vendors that also use ZFS probably because those vendors are either licensing from Oracle (in which case indemnification may just pass this on) or are using FreeBSD, which makes the link between the vendor and Oracle a bit more odd and possible has the vendor on the hook for liability.
They are not saying "on a NAS", they are saying ZFS infringes WAFL, regardless of whether it is on a NAS. My impression is that currently some prior art is seeming to render those claims moot, but the crux of it is not it being on a NAS, the crux of it is ZFS as a technology versus WAFL as a technology regardless of context. The comparison of 'x on the internet' isn't quite spot on, it's at least better than that.
In terms of going after the 'users' rather than the 'developers', the relationship here is certainly questionable. I've seen cases where something like this is brought upon a vendor who is legally entitled to pretty much pass the liability on to a supplier. If NAS vendor X gets sued and was using Solaris, they may have a contract to pass the entire mess to Oracle. However, if NAS vendor X is using FreeBSD, NAS vendor X may well be on the hook for use of that technology.
Slashdot Mirror
The PS2 was thoroughly broken via crafted PS1 memory save, yet the PS2 and games live quite a healthy life, only diminished by new technology, not via piracy.
Sony's best move would have been to give more freedom in developing and sideloading apps front and center in the XMB. As many have said, given homebrew access to everything, the only remaining interested party for jailbreaking would be pirates, which seem to largely piggyback on the homebrew devs to do all the hard work. Discless play option for all games delivered via disc would be nice too (main reason I did the PS2 was to load all my games from HD. I legitimately own maybe 60 PS2 discs and I hate managing physical media.
I will say that more expensive is not always better. In most reasonable places, the degree requirement is little more than a technicality, with managers and local team far removed from HR making the call so long as HR allows them.
First, I want to see *some* sort of check and balance on college expenses. Every examination of college prices over the past 30 years has shown horribly high growth relative to earning. Most things I read agree the problem was good intentions, making loans for education extremely safe, but has lead to colleges taking the blank checks, running up expenses through the roof, and the payback protections to lenders turning graduates practically into indentured servants, unable to escape that creditor no matter how little they have and even bankruptcy not being a way out. The answer is not insanely easy loans, there has got to be a better way.
In terms of going with what's there, start with a community college. It's a total waste to piss away more money on the basics in the first two years of college. After a couple of years, go to a state college with a good co-op/intern program. Use the co-op program, do not simply take the classes and get out, get some professional experience on your resume and subsidize the extra cost of state college with your pay.
Do *not* get too hung up on the prestige of one school versus another. At least when I look at resumes, professional experience matters most, low GPA can give me concerns, and which school figures prominently in the don't care area. One exception being I laugh at people with 'bachelor's' degrees from ripoff places like devry, phoenix, etc. I'd personally rather have someone without a degree than a sucker who fell for those places. However, I'm not allowed to entertain people without 4 year degrees by company policy, so unfortunately your chances of dropping out and making it within the rules of established company is nearly zero. All the examples of rich dropouts are those who were never 'hired' by anyone, but sold product and services directly to people who only look at the quality of the product and promise, not at their resume.
Saturation has devalued the prospects of a degree, but not having a degree is in no way an advantage over having a degree. While a degree is further away from guaranteeing a job, not having a degree will guarantee that you cannot get certain jobs.
Just like DRM, a measure that will only hurt legitimate customers.
If they are trying to jailbreak the device, they will have no compunction about designing and releasing hacks that either spoof using existing hardware or new hardware capable of spoofing if some implementations are completely incapable of doing so.
I will say to those who insist on hacking the PS3, just buy a damn computer. A comparably capable system is now relatively cheap, will almost certaintly either have HDMI directly or a port that is HDMI compatible with a totally passive adapter. PS3 BD accessories can be added to a PC via 3 bucks of bluetooth dongle if the system doesn't have it baked in. Linux distros are pretty usable nowadays if the Windows license bumps price up too much.
Maybe the PS3 slim is quieter, but you'd be hard pressed to build a computer noiser than the fat PS3, so I doubt it is for quiet operation. Simplicity of one device is nice, but Sony is obviously not going to help you on that and it's better to purchase devices where the manufacturer will not be fighting you every step of the way to keep you from doing what they want.
To say Linux 'may support D3D better than MS' while referencing lack of D3D 10+ on WinXP is a tad disingenuous.
Unless you are saying that the community is going to meaningfully backport full D3D 10/11 to RedHat 7.2 that is (WinXP and RedHat 7.2 came out roughly at the same time). I doubt you'll see this work seriously put to use in anything even as old as Vista with respect to the linux world
There are sometimes unavoidable complexities, however I know first-hand companies providing 'product' and 'services' rapidly prioritize services. At first, the services may be a 'necessary evil' to enable the complex software, but the revenue quickly becomes intoxicating and soon any effort toward ease-of-use and out-of-the-box usability becomes a threat to services revenue.
It makes no sense for a manufactured part to work like this from a business perspective. The per-unit cost to produce these parts must be enough to cover full capability (or else they are selling at a loss, which is very sketchy to do). They can deliver the full function at the same price point, and in a 'theoretical' competitive market, this means they would be forced to do so by competition. The fact they can arbitrarily bump up the price on the same exact part by 50 bucks and get away with it is an indication of either bad business judgement or a very broken microprocessor market.
In your example, your provider is using broadcast to mitigate costs. Your household not decoding the bandwidth alloted for premium content does not affect the per-unit price of the content. Similarly, software incurs no per-unit manufacturing cost for unusable content, so it can work for them.
This would be like your cable company unicasting to each house all the content they pay for. It simply wouldn't make sense to unicast unusable content to your house as the incremental cost of doing that per non-paying customer would be significant.
MS has been nothing if not consistent in mobile phone marketshare. Up til now, I'd characterize it as not even really trying seriously. Now that they have started to try in earnest, every move they make is a huge head scratcher.
Kin is a shining example of MS not 'getting it'.
Every demo and discussion of WinMo7 seems to show that not only do they not get it, but they are actively screwing over WinMo6 users too. Sideloaded apps? No, copying Apple means none of that. Copy and paste? No, they copy iPhone 2G. Multitasking? Again... no.. Decent UI? No, that would mean knocking off Apple *too* much....
Android is taking it without any contest (though I like WebOS better).
Because everything about the revamp of WinMo7 was to mimic Apple. Remove multitasking intentionally, remove copy and paste intentionally (even Apple rectified that long ago, but MS seems enamored of that).
MS observed that they are firmly in the 'other' category in market share, took a glance and saw Apple with the biggest slice at the time, didn't look at trend data to see where it was going nor made the connection about partners vs homegrown phone, and shamelessly started ripping it off inconsistently, but applying their relatively poor UI sense to the base concepts exhibited by Apple's phone.
Now, Android is going strong due to technical capabilities and flexibility afforded to phone makers MS simply can *not* match with a business model they can be comfortable with. So they hope to extract money by giving partners an iPhone knockoff rather than trying to truly innovate.
Windows Phone 7 will absolutely inherit the legacy of Kin.
Speaking as one who routinely works on open and closed projects, believing the documentation would be tempting, but usually a mistake.
The driver reflects the reality. If well commented (particularly if it has developers venting frustration), it really reflects the reality of how that doc got implemented in reality.
Often documentation is first written, then parts fabricated/code developed. When the fabricated parts come in, often there are minor different and/or incorrect interpretations of the spec, major enough to make the doc unusable, often minor enough to work with a change to the driver. When this happens, the driver will get updated, but going back to the documentation... No, not so much.
Particularly when it comes to the 'what it could do' part, at best it's not already done because they decided not to fund it and it is simply untested and may or may not work. Frequently it's because that capability was so fubared in testing that the feature was thrown over the fence to make a schedule.
For the most part, on the vendor side it currently makes a fair amount of sense. A lot of money is being currently dropped on the 'cloud' buzzword by the market. Now, the wisdom of the market to be crazy over cloud, that's another story.... I do think HP is awfully optimistic by dropping $2 billion on 3par, hoping to recoup the losses before the market wakes up from the 'cloud' dream.
You are right that if they want all the video-on-demand, full quality home movie storing, and similar behavior that is really needed to make these long shots pay off, they'd have to push for synchronous 100mbit or better for wider markets.
The article suggests that they patented over-committed storage. I don't see how that is unique or different. NetApp does this out of the box, you can make linux do this if you know what you are doing, VMWare, qemu, basically every virtualization solution enables over-commited storage, and many use data dedupe to automatically reclaim storage when images happen to converge.
I presume there has to be more to it than that, unless they think 3par did it before linux, solaris, and ontap did it, which I doubt...
I don't think TPM-on-Die is something that Intel would've needed to shell out $2B for. It's a straightforward device designed to be implementable with as little cost as possible. Intel has done far more complex things in house and adding TPM on-die would probably take them a trivial amount of time if they cared to do so. Putting aside that, I don't see that as a huge differentiator in the market. First, because even if people by large explicitly cared, then AMD could easily do it too, and even if they didn't, I'm told that TPMs are dirt cheap, so having them on a system board is trivial. Secondly, there are some who care, but by and large this stuff is simply flat out ignored by the vast majority of the market. TPMs are nearly ubiquitous as they are mandated by certain industry standards, not due to overwhelming explicit customer interest. Finally, for those that do care, it's a boolean, does it exist, or does it not. There's no comparison of any performance metric (TPMs can be slower/faster, but no one cares today), so the only metric a system vendor cares about is price, i.e. for TPM market it's a race to the cheapest. Intel's MO has not been about investing huge amounts to get into a market that by definition is anti-margin.
However, DIMMs are even more ubiquitous and also have the room to differentiate on latency, throughput, power consumption, and capacity and extract a certain premium.
Ultimately though, I have to concur that having traction in mobile devices is almost certainly the key. 'Apple' tie-in may have been superfluous, but it does show that Infineon has share in the mobile device arena, whereas Intel has nearly none. Intel sees mobile devices displacing much of their current target market, so they have to do something.
It may have been an entertaining sort of flick, but I wouldn't give it suspenseful. Nor would I give it particularly any credit for being particularly thought provoking.
To be suspenseful, it would have required that the story was not 99.9% predictable. In a single viewing of a 90 second trailer, the entire plot is already known, all plot twists are pretty well trivially guessed because we've seen this same basic film countless times already. You simply can't build suspense in that sort of flick.
To be thought provoking, it would have to be subtle or somehow distinct from the general sentiment beaten into the minds of the general populace over and over and over again by simply looking at TV or internet for about 15 seconds.
It was about as suspenseful and thought provoking as a fireworks show. Sure, it can be fairly called good by some standard, it's shiny and nice to look at and has 'oohs' and 'aahs', but it doesn't have any particular depth that warrants points in the suspense/thoughtfulness aspect of evaluating a movie.
His point on privacy is not the MAC as part of the address, but enumaration of hosts that NAT 'mitigated'. Some consider that a privacy risk, I personally think it is overblown. If people NATed for the privacy explicitly, then why would it be so bad if people got to make a choice rather than have to NAT?
Agreed about the router stuff. People are scared because suddenly endusers will be empowered to not NAT, and users were implicitly firewalled through having NAT forced on them. If they don't need it, they may not use firewalls. I find this asinine as well.
I also agree about non-routable addresses, though fc00::/7 addresses are ULA prefixed addresses, not 'link-local', which are fe80::/64. ULA is the correct technology to replace private addresses though, so that was just a nitpick.
So some theories come to mind:
-You were/are misdiagnosed
-You have it, but in a degree less than others
-ADHD left unmedicated is real and real for you, but may be able to actually help rather than hinder.
Basically, I lack the personal experience to dismiss ADHD, but I also don't have the experience to say 'yeah, it's definitely bad'. I've never personally met an ADHD diagnosed person who I could be convinced did unarguably better in life by being on drugs. Some say Ritilin inducing focus rather than increased hyperactivity is proof the person is ADHD and should be treated, but I think even among those, some benefit from the lack of apparent focus, even if they are hard to follow in day to day conversations. Growing up, one kid was diagnosed ADHD and their family declined treatment. That kid was impossible to follow, would change topics sometimes without even completing a sentence. In the early years of school, he did terrible. Then, around 10 years old or so, began consistently proving himself an absolute genius by the standards he was measured with. He remained as fidgety and hard to follow in conversation as ever, but as other things started mattering in school more than that, he displayed unique capacity. This continued until at least high school with no signs of change (though the physical fidgeting he started controlling with maturity, staying on topic was never something he did). Another kid did take the Ritilin. He did become easier to talk to, and generally more focused at the task at hand. He even did well enough in school, but I wonder if natural coping mechanisms and a more accommodating environment would have allowed him to reach greater potential.
</armchairpsychologist>
It has to be a computer analogy. This is kinda like when you are uploading files, but need them to go faster. You do that by leaning the computer back so the bits flow out of the back of it faster. Same deal here.
Papermaster wasn't a chip-freak, he was an executive over chip-freaks. His responsibilities in both worlds were probably sufficiently abstract so as not to matter much.
He may not have personally designed the antenna, but it doesn't mean he had no responsibility (or that the grunt-level engineer didn't get fired long ago without a lot of coverage). It could have very well been the case that Apple's test organization noted this problem, and making the call as to do something or not went to Papermaster. I don't know if other Apple execs would have made the same call and he just happened to be in the wrong place, or if he brought some sort of mentality where development gets the benefit of the doubt when they downplay the importance of a problem and/or describe a 'reasonable' workaround.
It's all speculation, but there are plenty of scenarios where Papermaster has a hand in the problem. Of course, I would say Steve Jobs himself did things that exacerbated a relatively minor issue into the debacle it became. The problem was minor, but Jobs denial and outright ridicule were what caused this to be a big problem. If Jobs had gotten quality, honest data, he could have immediately came out and said they recognized the issue, you can avoid it by holding it a different way for now, but we will soon have Apple stores ready to apply a fix to your phones, it would've been no problem. The fix could've been a cheap decal that essentially preserved the look and feel when applied correctly. Of course in a company like Apple, where the CEO's image/personality are central to their health, they throw other guys under the bus if they can preserve that CEO. It's an interesting relationship, Apple is nothing without Jobs, and Jobs is nothing without Apple (the days of NeXT demonstrated that fairly clearly).
lxc exists in linux as a Zones alternative.
I don't know first hand, but some would say systemtap is on the level of DTrace.
btrfs may eventually provide zfs parity (but not today, even if considered stable the featureset lags in some ways).
If I have even a pretty sophisticated script written for perl 5.6, it will almost certainly work exactly the same in perl 5.10, even if I make use of CPAN sourced content. If I write a complex script for python 2.3, python 2.7 is likely to break it. As a community/implementation, python has a goal of providing what they feel the best experience at the time is, even if it means script authors have to pay a significant maintenance price to keep up. In Perl, the development is a lot more conservative, being very careful to avoid changing existing behavior even if it means an interface that was designed poorly in the first place gets the intuitive name/functions and the better implementation has to settle for a slightly odd naming convention to coexist without breaking scripts in the while.
Python might have matured by now (haven't kept track), but back in the day, Perl::DBI provided an *extremely* consistent DB abstraction, whereas the python database access varied greatly from one DB to another.
At the end of the day, any language can be used to do whatever generally, it's mostly a matter of taste and deciding which communities most closely aligns with the tradeoffs you think best.
Many builds I've done have used integrated where the toughest task the card would have is compiz/aero/video scaling. Memory bandwidth and contention will only kill you if you do something significantly more than that.
I do agree that the flagship is overrated, and while the 8800* parts were afflicted by poor quality, that is not a good reason to extrapolate across the board on the quality of midrange parts. Generally, the benchmarks are what you get and quality isn't a big problem.
His last point has some merit though, a 4870 can perform admirably against the current generation and can be had at lower prices. Counteracting this though is that for a little more you can have a current midrange that eats less electricity/puts out less heat to get roughly the same performance.
NetApp is suing Sun (and now Oracle) over ZFS because they *claim* it violates patents they hold that they implemented in their own WAFL fs. WAFL does predate ZFS. NetApp was granted patents in WAFL that ZFS seems to also do, but prior-art may have caused those patents to be invalid.
They are suing vendors that also use ZFS probably because those vendors are either licensing from Oracle (in which case indemnification may just pass this on) or are using FreeBSD, which makes the link between the vendor and Oracle a bit more odd and possible has the vendor on the hook for liability.
They are not saying "on a NAS", they are saying ZFS infringes WAFL, regardless of whether it is on a NAS. My impression is that currently some prior art is seeming to render those claims moot, but the crux of it is not it being on a NAS, the crux of it is ZFS as a technology versus WAFL as a technology regardless of context. The comparison of 'x on the internet' isn't quite spot on, it's at least better than that.
In terms of going after the 'users' rather than the 'developers', the relationship here is certainly questionable. I've seen cases where something like this is brought upon a vendor who is legally entitled to pretty much pass the liability on to a supplier. If NAS vendor X gets sued and was using Solaris, they may have a contract to pass the entire mess to Oracle. However, if NAS vendor X is using FreeBSD, NAS vendor X may well be on the hook for use of that technology.
NetApp has been in a legal battle over WAFL v. ZFS from before the Oracle takeover. Oracle is keenly aware of all of this.