Of course, the NFL is also doing home grown software, so hard to specifically say that whether it is truly the fault of Microsoft or the fault of NFL's guys, and it looks better to blame Microsoft.
Speaking as a user of a similar product, interoperability was the wrong word, but I think I see his point. I always use it with the keyboard attached, just like a laptop. When trying to use it like a tablet (touchscreen only), it's a terrible experience that doesn't work well with most software on Windows. Pen input and touch input are only very occasionally useful, so the experience is overwhelmingly dominated by things that essentially need a keyboard and pointer device.
Moving forward, I think I'll stick to cheaper Android tablets for the things a Tablet can do, and traditional laptop for a Windows system when I need Windows (while tablet+keyboard is very similar experience once settled, it's clumsier than a laptop lid to set up, and much more awkward on the lap than a laptop.
-MS is slow to refresh, so those who want it, already have the current model. Conversely if you are thinking of buying one, you know Kaby Lake iss out and 'any day now', a new Surface model will release.
-The tablet fad has pretty much come and gone. Apple doesn't talk excitedly about the iPad anymore, and that is the poster child for 'tablet'. The novelty and 'maybe this will be better' aspect seems to have largely given way to the reality that for most things, a keyboard and mouse in a laptop form factor is more convenient, and in terms of portability, it may be more portable than a laptop, but mobile phones win on that front. So a tablet is the best way to watch videos and read documents at your home or office, and that's about it. A surface is no better at those tasks than a cheaper android tablet.
-The new microsoft has lost its obsession at beating Apple at its own game, and has re-emphasized how they dominated Apple in the desktops, and is leaving things more in the hands of their partners. Manufacturing hardware is a thankless job, and a diverse ecosystem was what attracted consumers to Microsoft's partners in the first place. Of course Microsoft is currently stuck between Apple doing first party everything and Google offering Android for free, and letting the manufacturers pretty much tailor the platform to a much greater extent than Microsoft does. All this aside, once the market has chosen, it's very hard to make the market change its mind.
Well, this is beyond impractical, but on that specific front, it wouldn't be too hard to do, and I can swear I remember already seeing that. You have barriers that rise up before descending and the walls close over the hole like doors.
Of course, you could only go so far without destabilizing the ground, no way you could practically avoid all the underground infrastructure and have decent paths, the energy required to zip things around that fast would be significant unless you evacuated a lot of the air (like hyperloop), but a car cabin wouldn't be designed for it (instead of sled, a sealed capsule maybe....).
Either way, it won't happen because it would be impossibly expensive even if possible.
Of course if it's a flying car, it's probably going to *have* to be street legal, and therefore can't get away with such a puny lightweight fuselage and lack of cargo capacity. Even if it could, then it's really competing against motorcycles, of which there are a plethora that get over 50 MPG easy, and many that get over 100 MPG.
Physics are simply against flight being efficient, particularly if improvements in traffic control on the ground alleviate the start/stop efficiency penalty of largely ground-based vehicles. Of course that too is a pipe dream right now, but it's at least as plausible as a flying car at this point.
Also, it is a tremendous technical problem. Flight requires a ton of energy compared to rolling around on the ground. Some benefit from not having to stop and start so much and less weight to move around (a pure aircraft bothering with heavy safety features is pointless, they'll fail on the crash no matter what), but even with that benefit today, a small 2 seater piston driven aircraft will make the most obscene SUV look like a Prius efficiency wise.
I would respect them if they said 'it's meant as a recreational vehicle'. If they claimed that it's a viable path to a practicle vehicle, I wouldn't respect that as it's patently obvious that 99.9% of the challenges of this being a practical vehicle would in no way be alleviated by this as a proof of concept. Longevity of a charge, operating at any significant altitude or over non-water surface, etc.
As it stands, it's a jet ski that can stay 'jumped' a long time.
Of course on the other hand, their own words and the whole point of the study would suggest strongly they *wanted* this sort of interpretation, though they could not in good faith do it themselves.
"suggesting the psychedelic state lies above conscious states such as wakeful "
Use of words like 'above' is a specific word choice, though the rest of the sentence tries to soften it, it feels like they have a particular opinion.
"Future studies should assess the extent to which entropy and complexity based measures of signal diversity capture and confer the fundamental property of “richness” of conscious state"
Again, ostensibly this is saying 'we don't know', but phrasing is biased toward 'there's some extent that should be validated'.
Ultimately, the whole study is pretty pointless on the face of it unless there is some presumed value to the measure. So by virtue of even publishing something and presuming the thing has value, they have some opinion that this is meaningful.
Time in dreams is a bit of an interesting concept. It's not like your brain actually has to 'play' the whole scenario, just the salient points and instances that you actually pay attention to, and things that conscious you would have *presumed* to happen may not have played out at all when you were first dreaming it, because we fill in the blanks. E.g. if your dream has you on one end of a field, then another, your remembrance may fill in the blanks and presume you traversed the field, even though that may not have been part of the dream at all when initially encountered.
The issue is that a lot of people are jumping on the characterization of this study of 'increased diversity of signaling' to be a 'better' state of consciousness.
Whatever arguments you might have about psychedelics, this particular study pretty much just says 'signals are more diverse', which in general terms can mean good things or bad things. Quiet signals are generally useless, and overly noisy signals are also useless, so too with 'diversity' of signals in the brain could be presumed to be an equally useless single dimension of measure.
Either a) you have a fully vetted way for a package repository to give you a validated set of updates from a single place
Or b) you just install.apk application from whoever and whenever with little security and no update mechanism (apart from whatever home-grown update mechanism the specific app developer has dreamed up, which is usually none).
If I add a third party apt or yum repository, then I can say 'all packages must be signed by a trusted packager (trusted defined as strictly the only keys that I have accepted)', and further I can add something like chrome's repo and then chrome updates come with the same system update process as everything else, or packagers like rpmfusion can cover a large set of software not quite covered 'first party' but still collected and vetted by *someone*. This is what I feel is missing in the new wave of 'app stores', a total inability to be 'federated' in any significant way.
Correct, Windows with Bing was just a default browser choice, not anything more. It was a way to give their system partners a break on licensing in exchange for a guarantee that their search engine slaps that partners customers in the face (much like internet explorer all over again).
The big problem is that with Android, iOS, and Microsoft, there's no framework for the native app distribution to add trusted parties to the list explicitly. So while it may look good to say 'security', it also just happens to dovetail nicely with 'cut of the revenue goes to the platform owner'.
Contrast with yum or apt, which is extensible to allow third party sources.
Lot of uncertainty in reporting here. It would be a totally bizarre move to have an edition that by default locks to windows store but allows user to select otherwise unless it's a broad change across the board (since the editions would be equally capable, but different defaults).
Of course it could be like 'Windows 8 with bing', where the edition was free just for having a different default browser setting guaranteed (and only through select re-sellers). Trying to lock out direct sales and third party storefronts like Steam and GoG. If it were to succeed, it seems to invite anti-trust scrutiny again.
Actually, strictly speaking today's cellphone is not supercomputer class of 12 years ago, in fact not even really 20 years ago, but that's sane since optimizing for the measures of a supercomputer would have no relevance to anything a person does on a mobile device, and rarely even has relevance for a desktop. If we grossly oversimplify, a 20 year old supercomputer class system is about 10 times as powerful as a modern flagship phone.
But no amount of super fast memory technology will overcome that, and true that it's hard to imagine memory module width being the limiting facet of phone thinness (and besides, phones already are veering off into the 'uncomfortable for the human hand' territory, they really don't need more help on that, though there's always room for weight reduction).
On the power usage, any component trimming helps, but the screen is the biggest draw, then the radio, then the cpu/gpu, and ram is right behind that. It is certainly a power draw significantly higher than all but the aforementioned exceptions.
To further pile on:
Remember Samsung’s burning phones? That won’t be an issue with the LI-RAM because the light system could produce almost no heat.
A *RAM* technology is going to change Li-Ion chemistry to not be so volatile???
This is a pretty terrible article, which may be doing the original research a great disservice (hard to tell from the poor understanding and hyperbole).
Across the industry, benchmarks become a double edged sword when the industry embraces it too much and matures.
There are certain benchmarks that drive technology to make choices that can get them 2-3% wins compared to other things on the market, but that translates into real world performance that can be 50% slower in pretty much anything but the particular benchmark.
Well at least it would mean not having to burn through lancets and strips. If a monitor that did not consume test scripts cost 300 dollars and lasted at least six months, it would have paid for itself in test strips alone.
For at least some type IIs controlling with medication, having continuous monitoring may help them when they over medicate and give them some heads up when their sugar is crashing.
Of course, healthy skepticism about Apple actually pulling it off, but it's far from the worst thing Apple could do.
Yes and my 401k went tumbling down with everyone else. For my 401k, it was survivable since over the course of years investments recovered the losses eventually, but if that was the way my *daily* livelihood worked, I would have been screwed, with my earning ability even under good investment markets crippled for 5 years.
Diversified investments *on average* have good returns, but it's fraught with occasional complete cock ups that make it a poor lifestyle choice for day to day living versus having a healthy amount of liquidity and an actual earned income.
I won't disagree, but grading on a curve, it's at least reasonably viable to do from the couch, contrasted with general browser design, which is expecting to be about 1 foot from the eyes and mouse or touch involved, and the specific websites which mostly are in the same boat with rare exception.
Particularly the way video plugins are generally handled is a bit clunky, not well integrated with the general media and most skins treat vdieo plugins as third class citizens, except for certain special skins dedicated to a specific video add-on...
But even despite how dismal things are from the ideal, still way better than the state of affairs in a web browser from the couch, where your best hope is a clunky keyboard and an air mouse or touchpad.
youtube has it's own plugin that doesn't use a browser, and I use that. The second that kodi launches a browser, it loses pretty much all of it's appeal for me.
Though I will admit their player is crap at dealing with seeking particularly with streaming content or corrupted DVR recordings. If they fixed that I would be wholly ecstatic with my Kodi setup.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, the NFL is also doing home grown software, so hard to specifically say that whether it is truly the fault of Microsoft or the fault of NFL's guys, and it looks better to blame Microsoft.
Speaking as a user of a similar product, interoperability was the wrong word, but I think I see his point. I always use it with the keyboard attached, just like a laptop. When trying to use it like a tablet (touchscreen only), it's a terrible experience that doesn't work well with most software on Windows. Pen input and touch input are only very occasionally useful, so the experience is overwhelmingly dominated by things that essentially need a keyboard and pointer device.
Moving forward, I think I'll stick to cheaper Android tablets for the things a Tablet can do, and traditional laptop for a Windows system when I need Windows (while tablet+keyboard is very similar experience once settled, it's clumsier than a laptop lid to set up, and much more awkward on the lap than a laptop.
I think its largely a combination of things:
-MS is slow to refresh, so those who want it, already have the current model. Conversely if you are thinking of buying one, you know Kaby Lake iss out and 'any day now', a new Surface model will release.
-The tablet fad has pretty much come and gone. Apple doesn't talk excitedly about the iPad anymore, and that is the poster child for 'tablet'. The novelty and 'maybe this will be better' aspect seems to have largely given way to the reality that for most things, a keyboard and mouse in a laptop form factor is more convenient, and in terms of portability, it may be more portable than a laptop, but mobile phones win on that front. So a tablet is the best way to watch videos and read documents at your home or office, and that's about it. A surface is no better at those tasks than a cheaper android tablet.
-The new microsoft has lost its obsession at beating Apple at its own game, and has re-emphasized how they dominated Apple in the desktops, and is leaving things more in the hands of their partners. Manufacturing hardware is a thankless job, and a diverse ecosystem was what attracted consumers to Microsoft's partners in the first place. Of course Microsoft is currently stuck between Apple doing first party everything and Google offering Android for free, and letting the manufacturers pretty much tailor the platform to a much greater extent than Microsoft does. All this aside, once the market has chosen, it's very hard to make the market change its mind.
Well, this is beyond impractical, but on that specific front, it wouldn't be too hard to do, and I can swear I remember already seeing that. You have barriers that rise up before descending and the walls close over the hole like doors.
Of course, you could only go so far without destabilizing the ground, no way you could practically avoid all the underground infrastructure and have decent paths, the energy required to zip things around that fast would be significant unless you evacuated a lot of the air (like hyperloop), but a car cabin wouldn't be designed for it (instead of sled, a sealed capsule maybe....).
Either way, it won't happen because it would be impossibly expensive even if possible.
Of course if it's a flying car, it's probably going to *have* to be street legal, and therefore can't get away with such a puny lightweight fuselage and lack of cargo capacity. Even if it could, then it's really competing against motorcycles, of which there are a plethora that get over 50 MPG easy, and many that get over 100 MPG.
Physics are simply against flight being efficient, particularly if improvements in traffic control on the ground alleviate the start/stop efficiency penalty of largely ground-based vehicles. Of course that too is a pipe dream right now, but it's at least as plausible as a flying car at this point.
Also, it is a tremendous technical problem. Flight requires a ton of energy compared to rolling around on the ground. Some benefit from not having to stop and start so much and less weight to move around (a pure aircraft bothering with heavy safety features is pointless, they'll fail on the crash no matter what), but even with that benefit today, a small 2 seater piston driven aircraft will make the most obscene SUV look like a Prius efficiency wise.
I would respect them if they said 'it's meant as a recreational vehicle'. If they claimed that it's a viable path to a practicle vehicle, I wouldn't respect that as it's patently obvious that 99.9% of the challenges of this being a practical vehicle would in no way be alleviated by this as a proof of concept. Longevity of a charge, operating at any significant altitude or over non-water surface, etc.
As it stands, it's a jet ski that can stay 'jumped' a long time.
Of course on the other hand, their own words and the whole point of the study would suggest strongly they *wanted* this sort of interpretation, though they could not in good faith do it themselves.
"suggesting the psychedelic state lies above conscious states such as wakeful "
Use of words like 'above' is a specific word choice, though the rest of the sentence tries to soften it, it feels like they have a particular opinion.
"Future studies should assess the extent to which entropy and complexity based measures of signal diversity capture and confer the fundamental property of “richness” of conscious state"
Again, ostensibly this is saying 'we don't know', but phrasing is biased toward 'there's some extent that should be validated'.
Ultimately, the whole study is pretty pointless on the face of it unless there is some presumed value to the measure. So by virtue of even publishing something and presuming the thing has value, they have some opinion that this is meaningful.
Time in dreams is a bit of an interesting concept. It's not like your brain actually has to 'play' the whole scenario, just the salient points and instances that you actually pay attention to, and things that conscious you would have *presumed* to happen may not have played out at all when you were first dreaming it, because we fill in the blanks. E.g. if your dream has you on one end of a field, then another, your remembrance may fill in the blanks and presume you traversed the field, even though that may not have been part of the dream at all when initially encountered.
The issue is that a lot of people are jumping on the characterization of this study of 'increased diversity of signaling' to be a 'better' state of consciousness.
Whatever arguments you might have about psychedelics, this particular study pretty much just says 'signals are more diverse', which in general terms can mean good things or bad things. Quiet signals are generally useless, and overly noisy signals are also useless, so too with 'diversity' of signals in the brain could be presumed to be an equally useless single dimension of measure.
Actually, this may be a 'higher' state of consciousness, but that does not necessarily denote 'better'.
Think about hearing someone on the other end of a phone whisper, it's useless because you can't make it out.
Then at a 'normal' speaking level, they make sense and things function.
Then if they yell into the phone, there's no denial there is heightened activity, but it's so noisy and clipping and chaotic as to be useless again.
Increased activity and/or diversity does not always equal better (particularly increased diversity of a signal generally leads to problems).
So 'higher' can still be 'crazy'.
The issue is that it is a boolean situation.
Either a) you have a fully vetted way for a package repository to give you a validated set of updates from a single place
Or b) you just install .apk application from whoever and whenever with little security and no update mechanism (apart from whatever home-grown update mechanism the specific app developer has dreamed up, which is usually none).
If I add a third party apt or yum repository, then I can say 'all packages must be signed by a trusted packager (trusted defined as strictly the only keys that I have accepted)', and further I can add something like chrome's repo and then chrome updates come with the same system update process as everything else, or packagers like rpmfusion can cover a large set of software not quite covered 'first party' but still collected and vetted by *someone*. This is what I feel is missing in the new wave of 'app stores', a total inability to be 'federated' in any significant way.
But is it going to be ARM based? There's unsubstantiated rumors all sorts of ways.
Correct, Windows with Bing was just a default browser choice, not anything more. It was a way to give their system partners a break on licensing in exchange for a guarantee that their search engine slaps that partners customers in the face (much like internet explorer all over again).
The big problem is that with Android, iOS, and Microsoft, there's no framework for the native app distribution to add trusted parties to the list explicitly. So while it may look good to say 'security', it also just happens to dovetail nicely with 'cut of the revenue goes to the platform owner'.
Contrast with yum or apt, which is extensible to allow third party sources.
Lot of uncertainty in reporting here. It would be a totally bizarre move to have an edition that by default locks to windows store but allows user to select otherwise unless it's a broad change across the board (since the editions would be equally capable, but different defaults).
Of course it could be like 'Windows 8 with bing', where the edition was free just for having a different default browser setting guaranteed (and only through select re-sellers). Trying to lock out direct sales and third party storefronts like Steam and GoG. If it were to succeed, it seems to invite anti-trust scrutiny again.
They are going to replace batteries with RAM, that's how amazingly breakthrough this RAM is.
Actually, strictly speaking today's cellphone is not supercomputer class of 12 years ago, in fact not even really 20 years ago, but that's sane since optimizing for the measures of a supercomputer would have no relevance to anything a person does on a mobile device, and rarely even has relevance for a desktop. If we grossly oversimplify, a 20 year old supercomputer class system is about 10 times as powerful as a modern flagship phone.
But no amount of super fast memory technology will overcome that, and true that it's hard to imagine memory module width being the limiting facet of phone thinness (and besides, phones already are veering off into the 'uncomfortable for the human hand' territory, they really don't need more help on that, though there's always room for weight reduction).
On the power usage, any component trimming helps, but the screen is the biggest draw, then the radio, then the cpu/gpu, and ram is right behind that. It is certainly a power draw significantly higher than all but the aforementioned exceptions.
To further pile on:
Remember Samsung’s burning phones? That won’t be an issue with the LI-RAM because the light system could produce almost no heat.
A *RAM* technology is going to change Li-Ion chemistry to not be so volatile???
This is a pretty terrible article, which may be doing the original research a great disservice (hard to tell from the poor understanding and hyperbole).
Across the industry, benchmarks become a double edged sword when the industry embraces it too much and matures.
There are certain benchmarks that drive technology to make choices that can get them 2-3% wins compared to other things on the market, but that translates into real world performance that can be 50% slower in pretty much anything but the particular benchmark.
Sorry, it would have to crop out 95% of the picture to have something stable to show.
Well at least it would mean not having to burn through lancets and strips. If a monitor that did not consume test scripts cost 300 dollars and lasted at least six months, it would have paid for itself in test strips alone.
For at least some type IIs controlling with medication, having continuous monitoring may help them when they over medicate and give them some heads up when their sugar is crashing.
Of course, healthy skepticism about Apple actually pulling it off, but it's far from the worst thing Apple could do.
"inventing the polio victims"
Well that just seems cruel.
Yes and my 401k went tumbling down with everyone else. For my 401k, it was survivable since over the course of years investments recovered the losses eventually, but if that was the way my *daily* livelihood worked, I would have been screwed, with my earning ability even under good investment markets crippled for 5 years.
Diversified investments *on average* have good returns, but it's fraught with occasional complete cock ups that make it a poor lifestyle choice for day to day living versus having a healthy amount of liquidity and an actual earned income.
I won't disagree, but grading on a curve, it's at least reasonably viable to do from the couch, contrasted with general browser design, which is expecting to be about 1 foot from the eyes and mouse or touch involved, and the specific websites which mostly are in the same boat with rare exception.
Particularly the way video plugins are generally handled is a bit clunky, not well integrated with the general media and most skins treat vdieo plugins as third class citizens, except for certain special skins dedicated to a specific video add-on...
But even despite how dismal things are from the ideal, still way better than the state of affairs in a web browser from the couch, where your best hope is a clunky keyboard and an air mouse or touchpad.
youtube has it's own plugin that doesn't use a browser, and I use that. The second that kodi launches a browser, it loses pretty much all of it's appeal for me.
Though I will admit their player is crap at dealing with seeking particularly with streaming content or corrupted DVR recordings. If they fixed that I would be wholly ecstatic with my Kodi setup.