Sometimes they did invent it, or do it first. Sometimes they took something pre-existing and polished it enough to be practical. Sometimes it was done better by other companies first. But this sort of describes every major smartphone vendor.
My point is that while there's certainly some of it, Apple isn't entirely "me too". They've had some firsts, like beating everybody else to market with 64-bit ARM by something like a year, and they've generally been something like 3-6 months ahead of the curve in terms of SoC performance in general. They weren't the first to do fingerprint readers, but they were the first to do them well enough for mass-market use. And if the rumours hold and the next iPhone is able to read your fingerprints through the screen, that'd be a big first too.
The low-end ones (they start at $380) have a single long bar of printheads that isn't replaceable, but the higher-end ones use replaceable printhead modules. All of them have both the normal printhead cleaning routines, and they have optical sensors to detect individual clogged nozzles. A clogged nozzle is dealt with in a variety of ways depending on where it's located and which type it is. The individual printheads are staggered and overlap a bit, and a clogged nozzle in the overlap area is just replaced by the overlapping one. A clogged black nozzle that isn't overlapped is replaced on a per-nozzle basis by colour nozzles, and if that isn't available, then it just relies on the fact at at 1200dpi, the dots spread enough to overlap anyhow and a single missing nozzle won't really show up on the page (you'd need two or more adjacent clogged nozzles to produce a visible streak).
It's important to note that these are all business and professional printers, though. They're designed for high volume where nozzles clogged from lack of use isn't a problem.
It's obviously a sendup of the '80s version of The Computer Chronicles. Their set is a close match for layout (including the table shape), their segments are the same, and even the rainbow-coloured title card from the 80s they used.
And yes, the Computer Chronicles was excellent: it didn't run uninterrupted for 19 years without good reason. It was ultimately the Internet that killed it, not lack of quality.
For anyone who would like to see for themselves, most of the 19 year run of the show is available on The Internet Archive:
Then the launch is next week, and the statement that "AMD Launches Ryzen" is false. I should note that it's highly suspicious for a new CPU's review embargo to be on the same day as retail availability.
Yes, but while that solution may be cheaper per-user in the long run, it only does so through enormous economies of scale, as it will cost billions of dollars over hundreds of launches.
A trivial problem to solve when you can just increase the timeout values. I believe the recommendation is to add 2 s per 300 metres. These things don't need to support standard 802.11.
When the alternative is paying $60 million to launch a GEO satellite that has more than half a second of lag because of how far away it is, a cheap balloon seems pretty financially viable to me.
If you can hit an aircraft at an altitude of 65k feet, then it's probably classified as "one of the largest anti-aircraft cannons ever built" rather than a "bb gun".
One would assume that, this being a class action lawsuit filed by a law firm, that the employees don't need to contact a lawyer. They've already done so.
Blackberry reported $2.38 billion in cash reserves for fiscal 2016. They might be hemorrhaging money, but they could have afforded the severance for 300 employees.
Umm, Optical Disc Archive cartridges are not hard disks, they are literally a stack of optical discs in a cartridge. BDXL for the 1.5TB and below cartridges, Archival Disc (which is basically an evolution of BDXL) for 3.3TB and up.
It makes sense, Apple's in-house processors have been a major competitive advantage, particularly at a time when Qualcomm has been leveraging patents to get a near-monopoly in the SoC space. Apple's chips have been a generation ahead of the competition for some time, although their infrequent release schedule mitigates that when everybody else catches up and then passes them before the next A chip is then released.
Using B&H pricing, a 3.3TB raw capacity ODA cartridge is US$188.57, while a 6TB raw capacity LTO7 tape is US$177.83.
So the ODA cartridge (which I think is Archival Disc instead of BDXL like the 1.5TB cart) is a little less than double the price per gig of LTO, but the upside is that the ODA cartridge should have a random access time of a fraction of a second while the LTO tape seek time would be maybe a minute.
And have a real world lifetime of a few years. Archiving data is a tough job. Storing it in an amorphous, heat and light sensitive material is data suicide.
That rather flies in the face of Sony's claim of 50+ year lifespans for current ODA cartridges. I understand that they're offering a 100 year warranty on the gen 2 cartridges that use AD.
> In the 90s and 00s we'd get monthly articles about a new optical format that would store 1TB of data using holograms and fairy dust. None of them ever made it to market. Even now all we have is 100GB quad-layer Blu-rays.
They basically turned into the Archival Disc format, which has a first-generation capacity of 300GB per disc and a second generation capacity of 1TB per disc. The problem is that they keep delaying them: they were originally supposed to launch in 2015.
In the mean time, Sony went ahead and used BDXL for their Optical Disc Archive cartridge format, which stores up to 1.5TB per cartridge by sticking a bunch of BDXL discs into the cartridge. Those have been shipping for years. Once the 300GB discs are finally available, they're expected to use them to refresh their cartridges with capacities of 3.6 TB. They're meant to compete with tape. IIRC they cost a bit more but have much better random access times, and they're still much cheaper than hard disks.
The Wii U is supported by UE3. There's a bunch of UE3 games on the platform.
Armature was planning to port UE4 to the Wii U to release Bloodstained, but it seems like they're going to drop that and replace it with the Switch since the Wii u will have been long discontinued by the time it comes out.
It's a backlog that has only ever grown in spite of SpaceX launching up to 8 times per year, and would likely attract more interest from customers if they were launching regularly and didn't have a many-year manifest to work through. Even if they launched 25 times per year and only continued signing launch contracts at their current rate, they'd probably need at least four years to run out of things to launch. Their poor cadence is a problem that has already cost them business (due to the long wait time), and they could probably just reduce their cadence once they manage to reduce that backlog.
That also assumes that they're not able to increase their market share. They're working on reducing their prices to try to capture more commercial business, they're working on getting government/military contracts in the US, and they've already lost a bunch of business to the competition because of their poor launch cadence. I'm not sure if all of that would be enough to support 25 launches per year in the long term (beyond the time needed to clear out the current manifest), but they do need that sort of cadence in the near term to clear the backlog.
In the long term, if their own constellation ever happens, that's at least an extra 200 or so launches for the initial constellation, and then roughly 30 launches per year to maintain the constellation (due to the 5 to 7 year lifespan SpaceX has given). I'm still pretty skeptical about their constellation, though. I think the odds are that it won't happen.
SpaceX has 56 future launches on their manifest, and that doesn't even include most of their NASA crew launches (only the first one is listed on their manifest). Even at 25 launches per year, it will take SpaceX years to catch up with their backlog. If their own constellation ever takes off, that would also add a large number of additional launches.
It's more about users with modern devices that are still using 32-bit apps that haven't been updated in ages. Those apps may not even support retina displays.
In terms of 32-bit retina devices, the iPhone 4 was the first retina iPhone, while the iPhone 5S was the first 64-bit iPhone. Ditto for the iPad, there were a bunch of retina 32-bit devices.
Apple has tended to offer software support for their older devices for years longer than Google/Microsoft/RIM/etc have. While you could definitely argue that they're still not doing enough in that regard, they're already doing far more than any of the other smartphone manufacturers are.
32-bit code runs fine on 64-bit ARM processors: Apple has been doing it for years. 64-bit ARM is not not a minor extension to 32-bit ARM as is the case on x86, though. Apple may have decided they want to slim down iOS by removing all the 32-bit binaries/libraries, or they may have decided that they want to drop the 32-bit instruction set from their processors to spend the transistors on something else. Or perhaps they've decided to do no such thing, since this is all based on assumptions from a textbox in a beta OS that says such a thing might happen in the future.
Slashdot Mirror
Sometimes they did invent it, or do it first. Sometimes they took something pre-existing and polished it enough to be practical. Sometimes it was done better by other companies first. But this sort of describes every major smartphone vendor.
My point is that while there's certainly some of it, Apple isn't entirely "me too". They've had some firsts, like beating everybody else to market with 64-bit ARM by something like a year, and they've generally been something like 3-6 months ahead of the curve in terms of SoC performance in general. They weren't the first to do fingerprint readers, but they were the first to do them well enough for mass-market use. And if the rumours hold and the next iPhone is able to read your fingerprints through the screen, that'd be a big first too.
The low-end ones (they start at $380) have a single long bar of printheads that isn't replaceable, but the higher-end ones use replaceable printhead modules. All of them have both the normal printhead cleaning routines, and they have optical sensors to detect individual clogged nozzles. A clogged nozzle is dealt with in a variety of ways depending on where it's located and which type it is. The individual printheads are staggered and overlap a bit, and a clogged nozzle in the overlap area is just replaced by the overlapping one. A clogged black nozzle that isn't overlapped is replaced on a per-nozzle basis by colour nozzles, and if that isn't available, then it just relies on the fact at at 1200dpi, the dots spread enough to overlap anyhow and a single missing nozzle won't really show up on the page (you'd need two or more adjacent clogged nozzles to produce a visible streak).
It's important to note that these are all business and professional printers, though. They're designed for high volume where nozzles clogged from lack of use isn't a problem.
It's obviously a sendup of the '80s version of The Computer Chronicles. Their set is a close match for layout (including the table shape), their segments are the same, and even the rainbow-coloured title card from the 80s they used.
And yes, the Computer Chronicles was excellent: it didn't run uninterrupted for 19 years without good reason. It was ultimately the Internet that killed it, not lack of quality.
For anyone who would like to see for themselves, most of the 19 year run of the show is available on The Internet Archive:
https://archive.org/details/co...
Watching early episodes involving the introduction of things like the CD-ROM or the 486 is really fun.
Then the launch is next week, and the statement that "AMD Launches Ryzen" is false. I should note that it's highly suspicious for a new CPU's review embargo to be on the same day as retail availability.
Are they on sale yet? Are there any reviews of it? If the answer to both of those is no, then it hasn't launched.
Yes, but while that solution may be cheaper per-user in the long run, it only does so through enormous economies of scale, as it will cost billions of dollars over hundreds of launches.
A trivial problem to solve when you can just increase the timeout values. I believe the recommendation is to add 2 s per 300 metres. These things don't need to support standard 802.11.
When the alternative is paying $60 million to launch a GEO satellite that has more than half a second of lag because of how far away it is, a cheap balloon seems pretty financially viable to me.
If you can hit an aircraft at an altitude of 65k feet, then it's probably classified as "one of the largest anti-aircraft cannons ever built" rather than a "bb gun".
One would assume that, this being a class action lawsuit filed by a law firm, that the employees don't need to contact a lawyer. They've already done so.
Blackberry reported $2.38 billion in cash reserves for fiscal 2016. They might be hemorrhaging money, but they could have afforded the severance for 300 employees.
Umm, Optical Disc Archive cartridges are not hard disks, they are literally a stack of optical discs in a cartridge. BDXL for the 1.5TB and below cartridges, Archival Disc (which is basically an evolution of BDXL) for 3.3TB and up.
There are up to 30 discs in an ODA cartridge, you're not buying or touching individual BDXL discs.
It makes sense, Apple's in-house processors have been a major competitive advantage, particularly at a time when Qualcomm has been leveraging patents to get a near-monopoly in the SoC space. Apple's chips have been a generation ahead of the competition for some time, although their infrequent release schedule mitigates that when everybody else catches up and then passes them before the next A chip is then released.
Using B&H pricing, a 3.3TB raw capacity ODA cartridge is US$188.57, while a 6TB raw capacity LTO7 tape is US$177.83.
So the ODA cartridge (which I think is Archival Disc instead of BDXL like the 1.5TB cart) is a little less than double the price per gig of LTO, but the upside is that the ODA cartridge should have a random access time of a fraction of a second while the LTO tape seek time would be maybe a minute.
And have a real world lifetime of a few years. Archiving data is a tough job. Storing it in an amorphous, heat and light sensitive material is data suicide.
That rather flies in the face of Sony's claim of 50+ year lifespans for current ODA cartridges. I understand that they're offering a 100 year warranty on the gen 2 cartridges that use AD.
I'm pretty sure that we're all LTO here though.
> In the 90s and 00s we'd get monthly articles about a new optical format that would store 1TB of data using holograms and fairy dust. None of them ever made it to market. Even now all we have is 100GB quad-layer Blu-rays.
They basically turned into the Archival Disc format, which has a first-generation capacity of 300GB per disc and a second generation capacity of 1TB per disc. The problem is that they keep delaying them: they were originally supposed to launch in 2015.
In the mean time, Sony went ahead and used BDXL for their Optical Disc Archive cartridge format, which stores up to 1.5TB per cartridge by sticking a bunch of BDXL discs into the cartridge. Those have been shipping for years. Once the 300GB discs are finally available, they're expected to use them to refresh their cartridges with capacities of 3.6 TB. They're meant to compete with tape. IIRC they cost a bit more but have much better random access times, and they're still much cheaper than hard disks.
The Wii U is supported by UE3. There's a bunch of UE3 games on the platform.
Armature was planning to port UE4 to the Wii U to release Bloodstained, but it seems like they're going to drop that and replace it with the Switch since the Wii u will have been long discontinued by the time it comes out.
Nah, that's Id Tech 6.
It's a backlog that has only ever grown in spite of SpaceX launching up to 8 times per year, and would likely attract more interest from customers if they were launching regularly and didn't have a many-year manifest to work through. Even if they launched 25 times per year and only continued signing launch contracts at their current rate, they'd probably need at least four years to run out of things to launch. Their poor cadence is a problem that has already cost them business (due to the long wait time), and they could probably just reduce their cadence once they manage to reduce that backlog.
That also assumes that they're not able to increase their market share. They're working on reducing their prices to try to capture more commercial business, they're working on getting government/military contracts in the US, and they've already lost a bunch of business to the competition because of their poor launch cadence. I'm not sure if all of that would be enough to support 25 launches per year in the long term (beyond the time needed to clear out the current manifest), but they do need that sort of cadence in the near term to clear the backlog.
In the long term, if their own constellation ever happens, that's at least an extra 200 or so launches for the initial constellation, and then roughly 30 launches per year to maintain the constellation (due to the 5 to 7 year lifespan SpaceX has given). I'm still pretty skeptical about their constellation, though. I think the odds are that it won't happen.
SpaceX has 56 future launches on their manifest, and that doesn't even include most of their NASA crew launches (only the first one is listed on their manifest). Even at 25 launches per year, it will take SpaceX years to catch up with their backlog. If their own constellation ever takes off, that would also add a large number of additional launches.
It's more about users with modern devices that are still using 32-bit apps that haven't been updated in ages. Those apps may not even support retina displays.
In terms of 32-bit retina devices, the iPhone 4 was the first retina iPhone, while the iPhone 5S was the first 64-bit iPhone. Ditto for the iPad, there were a bunch of retina 32-bit devices.
Apple has tended to offer software support for their older devices for years longer than Google/Microsoft/RIM/etc have. While you could definitely argue that they're still not doing enough in that regard, they're already doing far more than any of the other smartphone manufacturers are.
And the iPad 2 will never have this problem, both because it has a 32-bit processor, and because it doesn't run anything newer than iOS 9.3.5.
32-bit code runs fine on 64-bit ARM processors: Apple has been doing it for years. 64-bit ARM is not not a minor extension to 32-bit ARM as is the case on x86, though. Apple may have decided they want to slim down iOS by removing all the 32-bit binaries/libraries, or they may have decided that they want to drop the 32-bit instruction set from their processors to spend the transistors on something else. Or perhaps they've decided to do no such thing, since this is all based on assumptions from a textbox in a beta OS that says such a thing might happen in the future.
They're already slashing construction of new plants and cancelling constructions of a lot of what isn't done yet. Not much more they can do there.