It didn't answer the questions that were read out loud, though. It answered the questions that were fed to it electronically. I can't imagine that Watson would have done nearly as well if it had to do speech recognition using the same audio inputs that a human player would (that is, a microphone at its podium).
The only statistics that I've seen show the split was roughly half of players using it primarily as a mobile console, and half of players using it primarily as a fixed console.
Saying that the PS3 and 360 supported 1080p is like saying the Switch supports 1080p. In a handful of games, maybe, but most PS3/360 games were closer to 720p, if not lower (Halo 3 ran at 640p, for example), and the first few revisions of the 360 didn't support 1080p output over anything but VGA. They were what the Wii U had to compete with for the first year of its life. Of course, even "720p-ish" graphics of the PS3 and 360 were a big step up over the Wii's notoriously soft 480p output. There's a reason why there has been so much interest in third-party GameCube 480p solutions (now finally available since the GCN digital video output has been reverse engineered) despite the fact that it's been cheap and easy to play GameCube games at 480p using a Wii with component cables.
The Switch is better seen as huge upgrade over its handheld competitors, one that just happens to have built-in support for TV-out, like a Game Boy Advance and Game Boy Player all in one. The fact that certain developers like Panic Button have been so successful porting current generation games like Doom to the switch is just a bonus.
Nothing I said was false. I'm talking about Safari (as was the post I was replying to). You're talking about WebKit. Safari is a web browser. WebKit is a layout engine. They are not the same thing.
WebKit is cross-platform. Safari isn't. Safari and Chromium are web browsers. Chromium's Blink is a fork of WebKit. The post I was replying to asked "What about Safari?"
A quick look at Chromium's github shows regular updates every few minutes. That doesn't sound much like a cathedral or a corporate tower to me. Even if Google is maintaining control of the project (and they seem to do so to a much lesser degree than Torvalds controls the Linux kernel), the development is clearly happening in the public, with every individual check-in available to merge.
It isn't cross-platform (isn't an option for 90% of computer users) and isn't necessarily all that different from Chromium (whose Blink engine is a fork of WebKit).
ARDI Executor did this decades ago, building an emulator with a clean-room reverse engineered Mac OS 7 compatibility layer. Nobody has touched it in many years, but after it died off the author released it under the MIT license.
Wouldn't it make more sense to have modernized and improve Executor rather than starting from scratch?
There is the possibility of SpaceX getting some of the launches for NASA that SLS would have done. There is also a possibility that they might get some business with BFR that FH was too expensive for, since BFR is supposed to be fully re-usable on both stages (not to mention the fact that SpaceX has yet to recover an FH core stage). They may also have been able to combine other multi-satellite launches: if memory serves, they've done eight launches for Iridium so far, for example.
If anything, I think there's a bigger market for BFR than for FH. It should be, in the end, both cheaper and simpler than FH. It makes me wonder why they didn't cancel FH ages ago and put the resources into BFR instead.
The ITU and IEEE don't define the microwave range, they define the UHF band. Regardless of which definition you use for UHF (Bluetooth is not UHF by the IEEE standard), Bluetooth falls into the microwave band.
Sony and Panasonic are the only ones working on it with a goal of shipping products, as far as I can tell. They've got Archival Disc, which is an extension of BluRay, which currently holds 300GB per disc (two sides, each with three layers, 100GB per layer), with plans for up to 1TB per disc on the roadmap. It's basically an extension of BDXL.
They missed their key ship dates, and at present the discs are only commercially available inside of Sony's Optical Disc Archive format, which is basically a cartridge containing many double-sided discs. Current capacities top out at 1.5TB for read/write cartridges, and 3.3TB for write-once cartridges.
Considering that Seagate started work on HAMR in the 90s and has missed (by years) every potential release date they've ever set, and that Western Digital was working on HAMR before abandoning it in favour of MAMR, it has certainly been far more difficult than either of them ever anticipated.
What's changed at this point is that Seagate claims to now be "shipping production drives" (actually validation articles for a limited number of large customers), though they still don't expect to enter mass production with HAMR until 2020, so I take their statements with a grain of salt.
Can you really achieve good power consumption (in relation to performance) or density when you're using a six year old processor from 2012? This thing is positively ancient in CPU terms, something like three to generations behind. It's the contemporary of the iPhone 5 or the Galaxy Note 2.
The latency is usually a much bigger problem with bluetooth audio for me than the quality. It's generally mitigated on phones, since there is latency compensation on the OS level (at least iOS does) for video playback. On a PC, via bluetooth, there may not be the automatic latency compensation, though you can often adjust audio latency manually in some video players.
If neither the OS nor the player compensate for the latency, and you're not using a really low latency audio codec (there's a version of aptx for low latency, IIRC), then you may have lip sync issues with video, and audio latency can also cause problems for certain games.
All that said, there is, at least, a backup. If I'm trying to do something on my phone, and that thing is latency sensitive, and iOS doesn't correct for the latency, then I can always fall back on the dongle. Which, when you think about it, isn't all that different to how I need to use a 3.5mm to quarter inch adapter to use headphones on my desktop PC's DAC.
It's AAC at up to 250 Kbps. Only an audiophile would consider 250 Kbps AAC to be "tone deaf garbage". Personally, I can't tell the difference, and I doubt the vast majority of people can either.
Things have come a long way from the early days of bluetooth audio.
I got a phone that has no headphone jack a few months ago. I didn't notice the difference. I was already using bluetooth headphones on the previous phone anyhow.
You can probably get the same effect with a normal reduced-gravity aircraft (AKA "vomit comet") and turning off the cabin lights;)
That type of aircraft was used to shoot this OK Go music video, with the whole thing being done weightless (it's all one take, but they essentially fast-forward the 50% of the time spent at higher gravity): https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Even at the altitude of the international space station (408 kilometers), gravity is still around 88% as strong as it is on the ground. You feel weightless in orbit because you're in freefall towards the earth (only you keep missing it because you're moving forward really fast), not because of your altitude. A flight at 85k feet might look like space, but you'd be experiencing normal gravity (still less than a percent off sea level at that altitude) inside the aircraft.
Slashdot Mirror
No you can't, because it was always going to be a feature that helped people track you since it required the variable to be reported to web servers.
Fine, OCR from a camera positioned at the podium, then. Humans don't get the questions fed directly into their brain.
It didn't answer the questions that were read out loud, though. It answered the questions that were fed to it electronically. I can't imagine that Watson would have done nearly as well if it had to do speech recognition using the same audio inputs that a human player would (that is, a microphone at its podium).
The only statistics that I've seen show the split was roughly half of players using it primarily as a mobile console, and half of players using it primarily as a fixed console.
Saying that the PS3 and 360 supported 1080p is like saying the Switch supports 1080p. In a handful of games, maybe, but most PS3/360 games were closer to 720p, if not lower (Halo 3 ran at 640p, for example), and the first few revisions of the 360 didn't support 1080p output over anything but VGA. They were what the Wii U had to compete with for the first year of its life. Of course, even "720p-ish" graphics of the PS3 and 360 were a big step up over the Wii's notoriously soft 480p output. There's a reason why there has been so much interest in third-party GameCube 480p solutions (now finally available since the GCN digital video output has been reverse engineered) despite the fact that it's been cheap and easy to play GameCube games at 480p using a Wii with component cables.
The Switch is better seen as huge upgrade over its handheld competitors, one that just happens to have built-in support for TV-out, like a Game Boy Advance and Game Boy Player all in one. The fact that certain developers like Panic Button have been so successful porting current generation games like Doom to the switch is just a bonus.
I was talking about Safari, which would be obvious if you read the post I was replying to. Do try to keep up.
I never said WebKit wasn't cross-platform. I said Safari isn't cross-platform.
Nothing I said was false. I'm talking about Safari (as was the post I was replying to). You're talking about WebKit. Safari is a web browser. WebKit is a layout engine. They are not the same thing.
WebKit is cross-platform. Safari isn't. Safari and Chromium are web browsers. Chromium's Blink is a fork of WebKit. The post I was replying to asked "What about Safari?"
A quick look at Chromium's github shows regular updates every few minutes. That doesn't sound much like a cathedral or a corporate tower to me. Even if Google is maintaining control of the project (and they seem to do so to a much lesser degree than Torvalds controls the Linux kernel), the development is clearly happening in the public, with every individual check-in available to merge.
Chromium is open source. Nothing stops somebody using it as the basis for their browser from doing something different there.
It isn't cross-platform (isn't an option for 90% of computer users) and isn't necessarily all that different from Chromium (whose Blink engine is a fork of WebKit).
ARDI Executor did this decades ago, building an emulator with a clean-room reverse engineered Mac OS 7 compatibility layer. Nobody has touched it in many years, but after it died off the author released it under the MIT license.
Wouldn't it make more sense to have modernized and improve Executor rather than starting from scratch?
There is the possibility of SpaceX getting some of the launches for NASA that SLS would have done. There is also a possibility that they might get some business with BFR that FH was too expensive for, since BFR is supposed to be fully re-usable on both stages (not to mention the fact that SpaceX has yet to recover an FH core stage). They may also have been able to combine other multi-satellite launches: if memory serves, they've done eight launches for Iridium so far, for example.
If anything, I think there's a bigger market for BFR than for FH. It should be, in the end, both cheaper and simpler than FH. It makes me wonder why they didn't cancel FH ages ago and put the resources into BFR instead.
The ITU and IEEE don't define the microwave range, they define the UHF band. Regardless of which definition you use for UHF (Bluetooth is not UHF by the IEEE standard), Bluetooth falls into the microwave band.
Bluetooth is both microwave and UHF, since they overlap.
Bluetooth operates in 2.400 to 2.485 GHz.
Microwave covers 300 MHz to 300 GHz.
UHF covers 300 MHz to 3 GHz.
Sony and Panasonic are the only ones working on it with a goal of shipping products, as far as I can tell. They've got Archival Disc, which is an extension of BluRay, which currently holds 300GB per disc (two sides, each with three layers, 100GB per layer), with plans for up to 1TB per disc on the roadmap. It's basically an extension of BDXL.
They missed their key ship dates, and at present the discs are only commercially available inside of Sony's Optical Disc Archive format, which is basically a cartridge containing many double-sided discs. Current capacities top out at 1.5TB for read/write cartridges, and 3.3TB for write-once cartridges.
Considering that Seagate started work on HAMR in the 90s and has missed (by years) every potential release date they've ever set, and that Western Digital was working on HAMR before abandoning it in favour of MAMR, it has certainly been far more difficult than either of them ever anticipated.
What's changed at this point is that Seagate claims to now be "shipping production drives" (actually validation articles for a limited number of large customers), though they still don't expect to enter mass production with HAMR until 2020, so I take their statements with a grain of salt.
Can you really achieve good power consumption (in relation to performance) or density when you're using a six year old processor from 2012? This thing is positively ancient in CPU terms, something like three to generations behind. It's the contemporary of the iPhone 5 or the Galaxy Note 2.
The latency is usually a much bigger problem with bluetooth audio for me than the quality. It's generally mitigated on phones, since there is latency compensation on the OS level (at least iOS does) for video playback. On a PC, via bluetooth, there may not be the automatic latency compensation, though you can often adjust audio latency manually in some video players.
If neither the OS nor the player compensate for the latency, and you're not using a really low latency audio codec (there's a version of aptx for low latency, IIRC), then you may have lip sync issues with video, and audio latency can also cause problems for certain games.
All that said, there is, at least, a backup. If I'm trying to do something on my phone, and that thing is latency sensitive, and iOS doesn't correct for the latency, then I can always fall back on the dongle. Which, when you think about it, isn't all that different to how I need to use a 3.5mm to quarter inch adapter to use headphones on my desktop PC's DAC.
It's AAC at up to 250 Kbps. Only an audiophile would consider 250 Kbps AAC to be "tone deaf garbage". Personally, I can't tell the difference, and I doubt the vast majority of people can either.
Things have come a long way from the early days of bluetooth audio.
I got a phone that has no headphone jack a few months ago. I didn't notice the difference. I was already using bluetooth headphones on the previous phone anyhow.
> Google kept making changes to its sites that broke other browsers, and we couldn't keep up.
Maybe you would have been able to keep up if you updated your browser more than twice a year?
You can probably get the same effect with a normal reduced-gravity aircraft (AKA "vomit comet") and turning off the cabin lights ;)
That type of aircraft was used to shoot this OK Go music video, with the whole thing being done weightless (it's all one take, but they essentially fast-forward the 50% of the time spent at higher gravity): https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Even at the altitude of the international space station (408 kilometers), gravity is still around 88% as strong as it is on the ground. You feel weightless in orbit because you're in freefall towards the earth (only you keep missing it because you're moving forward really fast), not because of your altitude. A flight at 85k feet might look like space, but you'd be experiencing normal gravity (still less than a percent off sea level at that altitude) inside the aircraft.