The term "low power processor" is perhaps semi-accurate because they mainly refer to the "idle power" needed by the processor to keep alive
The real power consumption of a given processor, however, also depends on how "fast" that processor runs.
Processor A that runs at 1Ghz running at full speed often consumes approximately 10X the power needed by processor B that runs at 100Mhz running at full speed
This kind of bullshit technology is always featured here on fanboi central, but never turns into anything real.
Bullshit technology?
Never turns into anything real?
Who says it's bullshit? The thing may not be "useful" today, it does not mean the technology can not be adapted to do something very very useful in the future
... you're attempting to ignore human nature which has clearly demonstrated across the centuries that dead artists are worth more to the buying public than live ones
Maybe I was giving out the impression that I had ignored human nature and if I did, you have my apology
As a human being myself, I do recognize the many silly sides of human nature, including what you have stated above
And because of that, people who know me say that I'm too calculating, to sneaky
You have to balance that against probable customer reaction to a given action. Some things are just obvious, you don't just jack up prices on exisiting work 30 minutes after the death, that looks ghoulish and unfeeling.
Look, Sony doesn't give a damn about their corporate image
Remember what happened when their playstation network got hacked?
Did Sony do anything to protect their users' privacy?
Did Sony do anything to reimburse their users' loss?
Did they?
Nope
Sony is a corporation which doesn't give a jack shit about their customers
Unfortunately, Sony is not alone
Many other corporations are like that, and you know why?
Because of us, the users, are idiots
No matter what those corporations did to us, no matter how much hurt/loss/suffering they cost us, we still pay our hard earned money to buy their products
It's this idiotic behavior of the consumers that keep on feeing the egos of the giant corporations like Sony, and Apple, and Microsoft, and Mosanto, and so on, and so forth
All that amoral corporate bullshit goes right out the window when it's a downloaded song. Suddenly those corps want to have giant discussions about ethics.
Sony is one of those giant goliaths
Sony can do anything, even things that are totally unethical, as long as it remains legal nobody can do shit against Sony
On the other hand, citizens, aka human beings like you and me, are teeny tiny davids
We are nothing, in the eyes of giants like Sony, and their MAFIAA goons
If they want to squash us, they can
They can squash us with or without any excuse
They can change the rules in the middle of the game, and there is nothing we, the teeny tiny davids, can do anything about
They can call us pirates, they can close down our sites, they got all the help from FBI, CIA and every-other-law-enforcement-agency that are for hired
I didn't buy a sandwich today to support the restaurant owner
You may not think that the act of buying a sandwich today means anything, but the following people, if they are decent enough, ought to thank you for it:
1. The restaurant owner 2. The bread maker employed by the restaurant owner 3. The flour maker 4. The wheat planter 5. The city/state/federal government which profited from the taxes paid by the above individuals
The above only talks about one specific ingredient. There are others, like egg, mayonnaise, ham, lettuce, sesame seed, etc...
Shrewd businesses will take the occasional loss in order to foster a loyal customer base.
While I can't argue with the above quote, I need to state that in the case of Sony hiking the price of Whitney Houston CD just after the news of Whitney Houston's death is this:
When you buy a music CD --- that is, if anyone still buy music CDs nowadays, but that's another story altogether --- would you buy a CD just because it is produced by Sony?
Loyalty doesn't play (and pay) in this case, my dear friend
People don't buy music CD just because it was produced by so-and-so corporation, but they buy because they like the songs
If what you say is true, why does copyright exists beyond the artist's life?
Well, it's the politicians who re-wrote the copyright laws, after receiving $$$ from the PACs representing the "copyright owners", aka, the corporations
I admit that my original piece was a little bit incoherent
Sorry for that
My point being - actually, two points ----
1. Most of the open-sourced software do not offer any open-API
2. Many open-sourced software are purposely constructed as such that they are inferior to their commercial counterparts, and GIMP is a perfect example of that
For point 1. I offer Mozilla Firefox as an example of open-source software that offer open API
However, with the rapid version changes of Mozilla Firefox, many plug-ins that used to work with older version no longer work in newer versions
For users who are accustomed to those plugins, we are handicapped whenever an old trusted plugin can no longer be used
For point 2, how hard is it for the author of GIMP to provide 16-bit per channel support?
How many years already the users clamouring for such feature?
You see any change of attitude from the authors of GIMP in this regard?
No. They, the authors of GIMP, just couldn't give a damn of what the users want.
They just do whatever pleases them, and no giving the users the ability to do 16-bit (or more) per channel support seems to be one of the things that please the GIMP authors
The first pic in the link ( motherboard.vice.com ) showing 3 young guys sitting/sleeping besides a concrete fence is suspicious
Caption shows "Foxconn workers in Chengdu" but those 3 young guys were not in Foxconn's uniform, nor any Foxconn identification (signboard, logo) visible
The tone of the article is also suspicious - written by someone who does not have any idea how the Chinese education system (in China) functions
If a Chinese (from China) who has no idea of the American education system writes an article critical of American education system, would you believe the author?
Same principle apply. ( motherboard.vice.com ) should be ashamed for publishing a piece of garbage on its site, and Slashdot should be ashamed for not checking the facts before publishing the story
GIMP does have open APIs. They have less plugins because they have less users.
That is precisely my point
The authors of GIMP, by not even wanting to provide their users to enjoy 16-bit (or more) per channel graphics, artificially restrict the pool of users to their software
Even when they provide open API, not many would want to put time in developing plug-ins for GIMP because the user base just aint there to begin with
... the question that we need to ask is why Open-Source software often fail to equip themselves with open APIs?
True, some open-sourced software, such as Mozilla Firefox, does offer open APIs to aid independent software developers in writing plug-ins and add-ons.
The problem is, open-sourced software that offer open API like Mozilla Firefox are far and few in between. Many other open-sourced failed to offer such conveniences.
Photoshop won't be so popular without the thousands of plug-ins and add-ons.
On the other hand, how many add-ons / plug-ins are available for GIMP?
For crying out loud, the GIMP authors still refuse users the basic 16-bit per channel support !!
But when I went to that article, I found, "Polypropylene is liable to chain degradation from exposure to heat and UV radiation such as that present in sunlight."
Above highlight mine
May I know what percentage of the garbage inside a landfill got the chance to be present in sunlight?
If you can use your brain, I humbly suggest that you use it
Wait a minute...did you recently write an article for 16 concerned scientists?
Yep
Difference between you and me is that I use the brain the God has giventh but you ain't using yours
The fact that sharing IP can be a good thing does not mean that everyone should be required to give away all of their IP all the time.
Umm...
Where did you get the idea that IP holders are required to give away all their IP all the time?
As an IP holder my only fear is that the patents that I own would be mis-used by others
If someone is to file a new patent on top of the research (and/or idea) that my own patent(s) were based upon - such as an refinement / enhancement - then it would be dealt on the case by case basis
Should I object?
On what ground can I object?
Will I object?
Things like that get complicated that is why at times I need to consult others on what my options are
Slashdot Mirror
and Ray used it to send e-mail between different machines in 1971 on the ARPANET. How this 1978 guy's claim has any legs I don't get
There are a lot of things claimed by a lot of people but it does NOT mean they are the actual inventors.
As far as I can recall, I've been using "emails" since 1975
If that 1978 guy wants to claim that he invented "email", let him claim
Those of us who know better, know better
You mean, other than Windows Me?
Bob will get you for that
Melinda Gates.
She was the one in charged of "Bob"
Not that long ago people were lamenting loudly that Google was EVIL
To those who say Google is EVIL :
Are you sure you want to let Google do this?
Why don't you get Facebook and/or Yahoo and/or Microsoft to do this instead?
The term "low power processor" is perhaps semi-accurate because they mainly refer to the "idle power" needed by the processor to keep alive
The real power consumption of a given processor, however, also depends on how "fast" that processor runs.
Processor A that runs at 1Ghz running at full speed often consumes approximately 10X the power needed by processor B that runs at 100Mhz running at full speed
This kind of bullshit technology is always featured here on fanboi central, but never turns into anything real.
Bullshit technology?
Never turns into anything real?
Who says it's bullshit? The thing may not be "useful" today, it does not mean the technology can not be adapted to do something very very useful in the future
... it's legal, and you end up in jail
When you hack cops' computers, it's illegal, and you end up in jail
Head you lose, tail, you also lose
I mean, why should it be that the West always end up footing the bill ?
You do not see Japan or Korea or China or India paying for installation such as this, do you?
Maybe I was giving out the impression that I had ignored human nature and if I did, you have my apology
As a human being myself, I do recognize the many silly sides of human nature, including what you have stated above
And because of that, people who know me say that I'm too calculating, to sneaky
shrug !!
The prophet had people buried in sand in the desert to watch them die for criticizing him
In other words, Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi are so saintly in comparison to that pro-fart
You have to balance that against probable customer reaction to a given action. Some things are just obvious, you don't just jack up prices on exisiting work 30 minutes after the death, that looks ghoulish and unfeeling.
Look, Sony doesn't give a damn about their corporate image
Remember what happened when their playstation network got hacked?
Did Sony do anything to protect their users' privacy?
Did Sony do anything to reimburse their users' loss?
Did they?
Nope
Sony is a corporation which doesn't give a jack shit about their customers
Unfortunately, Sony is not alone
Many other corporations are like that, and you know why?
Because of us, the users, are idiots
No matter what those corporations did to us, no matter how much hurt/loss/suffering they cost us, we still pay our hard earned money to buy their products
It's this idiotic behavior of the consumers that keep on feeing the egos of the giant corporations like Sony, and Apple, and Microsoft, and Mosanto, and so on, and so forth
All that amoral corporate bullshit goes right out the window when it's a downloaded song. Suddenly those corps want to have giant discussions about ethics.
Sony is one of those giant goliaths
Sony can do anything, even things that are totally unethical, as long as it remains legal nobody can do shit against Sony
On the other hand, citizens, aka human beings like you and me, are teeny tiny davids
We are nothing, in the eyes of giants like Sony, and their MAFIAA goons
If they want to squash us, they can
They can squash us with or without any excuse
They can change the rules in the middle of the game, and there is nothing we, the teeny tiny davids, can do anything about
They can call us pirates, they can close down our sites, they got all the help from FBI, CIA and every-other-law-enforcement-agency that are for hired
Us? Nothing
We are worse than ants
At least the ants can bite back
We can't
I didn't buy a sandwich today to support the restaurant owner
You may not think that the act of buying a sandwich today means anything, but the following people, if they are decent enough, ought to thank you for it:
1. The restaurant owner
2. The bread maker employed by the restaurant owner
3. The flour maker
4. The wheat planter
5. The city/state/federal government which profited from the taxes paid by the above individuals
The above only talks about one specific ingredient. There are others, like egg, mayonnaise, ham, lettuce, sesame seed, etc ...
Shrewd businesses will take the occasional loss in order to foster a loyal customer base.
While I can't argue with the above quote, I need to state that in the case of Sony hiking the price of Whitney Houston CD just after the news of Whitney Houston's death is this:
When you buy a music CD --- that is, if anyone still buy music CDs nowadays, but that's another story altogether --- would you buy a CD just because it is produced by Sony?
Loyalty doesn't play (and pay) in this case, my dear friend
People don't buy music CD just because it was produced by so-and-so corporation, but they buy because they like the songs
If what you say is true, why does copyright exists beyond the artist's life?
Well, it's the politicians who re-wrote the copyright laws, after receiving $$$ from the PACs representing the "copyright owners", aka, the corporations
I admit that my original piece was a little bit incoherent
Sorry for that
My point being - actually, two points ----
1. Most of the open-sourced software do not offer any open-API
2. Many open-sourced software are purposely constructed as such that they are inferior to their commercial counterparts, and GIMP is a perfect example of that
For point 1. I offer Mozilla Firefox as an example of open-source software that offer open API
However, with the rapid version changes of Mozilla Firefox, many plug-ins that used to work with older version no longer work in newer versions
For users who are accustomed to those plugins, we are handicapped whenever an old trusted plugin can no longer be used
For point 2, how hard is it for the author of GIMP to provide 16-bit per channel support?
How many years already the users clamouring for such feature?
You see any change of attitude from the authors of GIMP in this regard?
No. They, the authors of GIMP, just couldn't give a damn of what the users want.
They just do whatever pleases them, and no giving the users the ability to do 16-bit (or more) per channel support seems to be one of the things that please the GIMP authors
I hope they lose their shirts.
I am afraid Mosanto will not lose its shirt
The politicians will support them
The politicians will write laws to protect Mosanto
And the courts will side with Mosanto
That's the rule of the law in this modern world we live in
Governments in the world do not need their citizens
Citizens, to most governments in this world are considered "burdens"
Corporations like Mosanto, on the other hand, in the eyes of governments in this world, are "Paymasters"
The first pic in the link ( motherboard.vice.com ) showing 3 young guys sitting/sleeping besides a concrete fence is suspicious
Caption shows "Foxconn workers in Chengdu" but those 3 young guys were not in Foxconn's uniform, nor any Foxconn identification (signboard, logo) visible
The tone of the article is also suspicious - written by someone who does not have any idea how the Chinese education system (in China) functions
If a Chinese (from China) who has no idea of the American education system writes an article critical of American education system, would you believe the author?
Same principle apply. ( motherboard.vice.com ) should be ashamed for publishing a piece of garbage on its site, and Slashdot should be ashamed for not checking the facts before publishing the story
Import tariffs?
Benefiting the interns?
Or enabling the politicians to better lining up their pockets?
GIMP does have open APIs. They have less plugins because they have less users.
That is precisely my point
The authors of GIMP, by not even wanting to provide their users to enjoy 16-bit (or more) per channel graphics, artificially restrict the pool of users to their software
Even when they provide open API, not many would want to put time in developing plug-ins for GIMP because the user base just aint there to begin with
...those who are buying her music after her death are equally parasitic and not really deserving of any breaks.
I fail to see how buying her music shortly after her death is parasitic.
If you really want to support an artist, support the artist when he or she is still alive
What good would it do for Whitney Houston if you go out and buy tons of Whitney Houston CDs after she is dead?
I mean, she's already dead, no matter how much royalty generates from your purchase of her songs / CD won't do her any more good
Just like those who pays hundreds of millions for paintings painted by dead painters.
Who's benefiting?
The painters who are already long dead?
Sony is a profit-oriented corporation
Their mission is to make profit
Whitney Houston's death was a chance for Sony to make more money, so they took it
I really can't blame Sony for doing such a thing, even when it's kind of bad taste
... the question that we need to ask is why Open-Source software often fail to equip themselves with open APIs?
True, some open-sourced software, such as Mozilla Firefox, does offer open APIs to aid independent software developers in writing plug-ins and add-ons.
The problem is, open-sourced software that offer open API like Mozilla Firefox are far and few in between. Many other open-sourced failed to offer such conveniences.
Photoshop won't be so popular without the thousands of plug-ins and add-ons.
On the other hand, how many add-ons / plug-ins are available for GIMP?
For crying out loud, the GIMP authors still refuse users the basic 16-bit per channel support !!
But when I went to that article, I found, "Polypropylene is liable to chain degradation from exposure to heat and UV radiation such as that present in sunlight."
Above highlight mine
May I know what percentage of the garbage inside a landfill got the chance to be present in sunlight?
If you can use your brain, I humbly suggest that you use it
Wait a minute...did you recently write an article for 16 concerned scientists?
Yep
Difference between you and me is that I use the brain the God has giventh but you ain't using yours
The fact that sharing IP can be a good thing does not mean that everyone should be required to give away all of their IP all the time.
Umm ...
Where did you get the idea that IP holders are required to give away all their IP all the time?
As an IP holder my only fear is that the patents that I own would be mis-used by others
If someone is to file a new patent on top of the research (and/or idea) that my own patent(s) were based upon - such as an refinement / enhancement - then it would be dealt on the case by case basis
Should I object?
On what ground can I object?
Will I object?
Things like that get complicated that is why at times I need to consult others on what my options are
Anyone has done any research on Android apps, on the same topic ?