Except in the past those exclusive features usually had a reason behind them. Like the hardware didn't support the feature. This time these are mainly things Google can do because it's a monopoly, and no other reason.
PCs don't have problems rendering 4k if you leave everything at normal settings. Sure, if you want to set everything to "insane" levels then that's what you're going to get... insanely low fps.
Consoles will have an easier time because they know the capabilities of the hardware and will just use the settings that deliver acceptable frame rates. What would be nice though would be an option in all console games to set "1080p or 4k" along with a target frame rate of "30 fps or 60 fps"
Title needs a translation. Somebody hacked into our computers that didn't follow basic security guidelines.... oh wait, hard to blame anyone but yourself then.
Netflix costs $3 per person for 4 people to view it, but that includes 5 profiles. So realistically it's rare all 5 people want to watch at the same time. So it's quite easy to pay less than that.
Cable is usually at least $30 to $40 per month for a household. That's 10x as expensive for the cheapest plans available. Not to mention Netflix doesn't have commercials...
You can't compare the average hours per user for cable and netflix. They aren't equal... At best you can compare the cost per person. The number of hours is highly variable, and not to mention it doesn't change the monthly cost anyways...
No kidding, I just bought 128GB of ram for a little over $300. Granted that's for a server with 16 ram slots, but still... Unless you're running windows with 1 GB of RAM you're not going to have to worry about your browser using too much of it.
To me it's not even a performance issue. It's all the crap they tack on slowly. Soon it's going to be like loading up the yahoo home page. You can "hide" those crapware features now... but how long until they decide it's "integrated" into the browser too much to be "disabled"
Fast? Responsive? Wow, you must be use a nice computer... just scrolling is a magnitude slower than Firefox, and Firefox is already slow. Not to mention you can't use adblock so thus pages already load as if you're on dial-up compared to a browser with cookie/advertisement blocking.
Oh, and there are other browsers forked from Firefox if you hate chromium so much. Ones that don't include Mozilla crapware preinstalled.
Well, did you copy that from a script or something? Sounds like a Dr Oz show.
Secure software always leaves a bad taste in your mouth. It uses specific ports so you can easily block it, or change it to the ports you desire for more control. If your remote viewer/support software is purposely trying to punch holes through a firewall then it's definitely NOT something you want to use.
Because the only time I hear about it is when people get sketchy calls, and are told there computer might have a virus. But don't worry, "microsoft" will help them after they install Teamviewer.
Every company around here uses the built-in services. No need to install extra attack vectors. There are plenty of client software, and even phone apps/browser plugins that will connect with the software provided with Windows, Linux, and OS X....
So the question is, why would you want to install software that has the potential to make your system even more insecure? And apparently the login credentials are stored on their hardware, probably "in the cloud" too.? yeah, feeling about a zero chance I'll try their "services"
I don't think there is an OS today that doesn't have built-in remote support... why would you ever install some shady 3rd party program? I guess people get a lot of calls from uh, "Microsoft Support" and then install it...
Exactly. Ooh, they gave me an inside peak to their not very sensitive parts of their operations... it looked peachy. Trust me, it's all good.
No, we don't trust you, and most people like the constitution... that's the point.
So uh, in summary... Slashdot is good for nothing. Even if you did not terrible advertisements and worthless commentary, you're better off with reddit, or god forbid... some conde-naste "tech news" site. I heard they completely destroyed Arstechnica(RIP)
No, if it hasn't been tested by the FCC for that purpose then it can't be sold for it. Simple as that.
If they didn't buy the driver to use the radio, then it won't work.
And most importantly, if the radio is not connected to an antenna, it isn't going to work.
If the seller of the phone believes 90% of the people aren't going to use the FM chip, then they can save lots of money by not having it tested by the FCC, not developing software/buying drivers, and not hooking up the hardware internally.
Even if as you say it's the same exact phone as in Europe, and they have the license for the drivers... they may just not get it tested by the FCC. Then no matter what, it's going to be illegal to activate that radio if it was never tested by the FCC.
Except you didn't pay for the FM radio receiver... maybe software (drivers) license wasn't bought, maybe the testing wasn't done to make sure it didn't interfere with other radios... there are probably lots of reasons. It's not like just turning on the FM receiver is the only part of the equation.
If you're out in the wilderness, and you're relying on your phone as a source for critical information than you have bigger problems than your phone's lack of FM radio reception....
Except you're missing the point. This campaign has been going on for years. If we scrapped the radio stations, and used that for data broadcasts for severe weather, and other information it would be a lot better.
Sooner or later the same problem will be with TV stations. They're all 99% crap now that just promote health crap for people over 50. And no, this "save your data" is completely retarted too, because the USA is one of the few countries with retarded data caps and overages to begin with.
What.. somehow using your phone for downloading data at 4 mbps is vastly different than using netflix... yeah, whatever T-mobile.... We'll all be better off when people realize that these companies are interested in one thing only, controlling the mass media.
They're upset because the young people don't watch TV, or listen to the radio.... that's the point.
Website about the research(note, there is a list of papers too... this "news" is actually from 2015)
https://www.research.ibm.com/l...
Youtube video:
https://youtu.be/q3dIw3uAyE8
And yes... they only have a prototype. There are still lots of possibly, maybe, somedays in this announcment.
This has been researched since the 1960s, but it just was never viable for commercial production. Yes, this is a mojor breakthrough, but it's facing heavy competition. Intel/Micron's new memory tech will be out and it has already been demonstrated to be 1000 times faster than flash.
Not to mention how much of the spectrum is wasted with FM radio. If we got rid of it and used those frequencies for something else we'd all be better off.
Also not to mention that every FM radio chip on a phone I have ever used requires to use headphones for an antenna. So it won't do much good in an emergency unless you wear your headphones 24/7.
pretty sure most phones already have emergency information. Mine almost always blasts a warning whenever there has been a kidnapping, tornado, or other severe weather.... We don't need to use the highly inefficient FM system to distribute warnings anymore.
oh no, a programmer is expected to learn more than one language now? oh wait, that happens about every couple of years.... seems like that person has bigger problems if they feel they got shafted by VB6 EOL.
Slashdot Mirror
Except in the past those exclusive features usually had a reason behind them. Like the hardware didn't support the feature. This time these are mainly things Google can do because it's a monopoly, and no other reason.
PCs don't have problems rendering 4k if you leave everything at normal settings. Sure, if you want to set everything to "insane" levels then that's what you're going to get... insanely low fps. Consoles will have an easier time because they know the capabilities of the hardware and will just use the settings that deliver acceptable frame rates. What would be nice though would be an option in all console games to set "1080p or 4k" along with a target frame rate of "30 fps or 60 fps"
Title needs a translation. Somebody hacked into our computers that didn't follow basic security guidelines.... oh wait, hard to blame anyone but yourself then.
Netflix costs $3 per person for 4 people to view it, but that includes 5 profiles. So realistically it's rare all 5 people want to watch at the same time. So it's quite easy to pay less than that. Cable is usually at least $30 to $40 per month for a household. That's 10x as expensive for the cheapest plans available. Not to mention Netflix doesn't have commercials... You can't compare the average hours per user for cable and netflix. They aren't equal... At best you can compare the cost per person. The number of hours is highly variable, and not to mention it doesn't change the monthly cost anyways...
No kidding, I just bought 128GB of ram for a little over $300. Granted that's for a server with 16 ram slots, but still... Unless you're running windows with 1 GB of RAM you're not going to have to worry about your browser using too much of it. To me it's not even a performance issue. It's all the crap they tack on slowly. Soon it's going to be like loading up the yahoo home page. You can "hide" those crapware features now... but how long until they decide it's "integrated" into the browser too much to be "disabled"
Fast? Responsive? Wow, you must be use a nice computer... just scrolling is a magnitude slower than Firefox, and Firefox is already slow. Not to mention you can't use adblock so thus pages already load as if you're on dial-up compared to a browser with cookie/advertisement blocking. Oh, and there are other browsers forked from Firefox if you hate chromium so much. Ones that don't include Mozilla crapware preinstalled.
What? It runs in safe mode... so then it basically is malware too.
Well, did you copy that from a script or something? Sounds like a Dr Oz show. Secure software always leaves a bad taste in your mouth. It uses specific ports so you can easily block it, or change it to the ports you desire for more control. If your remote viewer/support software is purposely trying to punch holes through a firewall then it's definitely NOT something you want to use.
uhm, if they are on windows they can just use Skype to share their screen....
Because the only time I hear about it is when people get sketchy calls, and are told there computer might have a virus. But don't worry, "microsoft" will help them after they install Teamviewer. Every company around here uses the built-in services. No need to install extra attack vectors. There are plenty of client software, and even phone apps/browser plugins that will connect with the software provided with Windows, Linux, and OS X.... So the question is, why would you want to install software that has the potential to make your system even more insecure? And apparently the login credentials are stored on their hardware, probably "in the cloud" too.? yeah, feeling about a zero chance I'll try their "services"
I don't think there is an OS today that doesn't have built-in remote support... why would you ever install some shady 3rd party program? I guess people get a lot of calls from uh, "Microsoft Support" and then install it...
Exactly. Ooh, they gave me an inside peak to their not very sensitive parts of their operations... it looked peachy. Trust me, it's all good. No, we don't trust you, and most people like the constitution... that's the point.
First they go after the outsiders, the foreigners, and the "illegals"... then they go after you.
So uh, in summary... Slashdot is good for nothing. Even if you did not terrible advertisements and worthless commentary, you're better off with reddit, or god forbid... some conde-naste "tech news" site. I heard they completely destroyed Arstechnica(RIP)
No, if it hasn't been tested by the FCC for that purpose then it can't be sold for it. Simple as that. If they didn't buy the driver to use the radio, then it won't work. And most importantly, if the radio is not connected to an antenna, it isn't going to work. If the seller of the phone believes 90% of the people aren't going to use the FM chip, then they can save lots of money by not having it tested by the FCC, not developing software/buying drivers, and not hooking up the hardware internally. Even if as you say it's the same exact phone as in Europe, and they have the license for the drivers... they may just not get it tested by the FCC. Then no matter what, it's going to be illegal to activate that radio if it was never tested by the FCC.
Except you didn't pay for the FM radio receiver... maybe software (drivers) license wasn't bought, maybe the testing wasn't done to make sure it didn't interfere with other radios... there are probably lots of reasons. It's not like just turning on the FM receiver is the only part of the equation.
If you're out in the wilderness, and you're relying on your phone as a source for critical information than you have bigger problems than your phone's lack of FM radio reception....
Except you're missing the point. This campaign has been going on for years. If we scrapped the radio stations, and used that for data broadcasts for severe weather, and other information it would be a lot better. Sooner or later the same problem will be with TV stations. They're all 99% crap now that just promote health crap for people over 50. And no, this "save your data" is completely retarted too, because the USA is one of the few countries with retarded data caps and overages to begin with. What.. somehow using your phone for downloading data at 4 mbps is vastly different than using netflix... yeah, whatever T-mobile.... We'll all be better off when people realize that these companies are interested in one thing only, controlling the mass media. They're upset because the young people don't watch TV, or listen to the radio.... that's the point.
Website about the research(note, there is a list of papers too... this "news" is actually from 2015) https://www.research.ibm.com/l... Youtube video: https://youtu.be/q3dIw3uAyE8 And yes... they only have a prototype. There are still lots of possibly, maybe, somedays in this announcment.
This has been researched since the 1960s, but it just was never viable for commercial production. Yes, this is a mojor breakthrough, but it's facing heavy competition. Intel/Micron's new memory tech will be out and it has already been demonstrated to be 1000 times faster than flash.
Not to mention how much of the spectrum is wasted with FM radio. If we got rid of it and used those frequencies for something else we'd all be better off.
Also not to mention that every FM radio chip on a phone I have ever used requires to use headphones for an antenna. So it won't do much good in an emergency unless you wear your headphones 24/7.
pretty sure most phones already have emergency information. Mine almost always blasts a warning whenever there has been a kidnapping, tornado, or other severe weather.... We don't need to use the highly inefficient FM system to distribute warnings anymore.
Because mobile network providers are greedy fucks... any other questions?
oh no, a programmer is expected to learn more than one language now? oh wait, that happens about every couple of years.... seems like that person has bigger problems if they feel they got shafted by VB6 EOL.