The A7 is a lower power and more performant derivative of the A8, which performs worse than the A9. I understand well enough. There are more powerful dev platforms available for this price.
It's a dual core Cortex A7, the thing is less capable than a three year old smatphone. It's not clear from the summary or the article what the point of this thing is.
It doesn't really matter what caused the failure; the sensors are telling the car that the temperature in the battery is rising slowly but uncontrollably, and that the driver needs to get out ASAP... the cause is not relevant to the driver at that point.
Are you including Glocks in your "plastic guns are a horrible idea" statement? Because they are generally considered to be of above-average reliability, and are substantially (but obviously not entirely) made out of plastic.
They're not moving where the light lands. They're shining fixed coloured LEDs at a DLP chip, which is reflecting the light into your eye. This is basically just a microprojector shining into your eye. Instead of a colour wheel, they alternate between each coloured LED.
No, I'm saying that the assertion that they doctored the test by using a GT 630 because it is slower than the iGPU in the 4770k is false. The post making this assertion bases it on the assumption that the iGPU that they disabled was the Iris Pro 5200 (which is faster than a 630) when in fact the reverse is true, the iGPU being disabled was the Intel HD 4600, which is slower than a 630.
I'm making no value judgements of AMD's APU whatsoever. Merely correcting a falsehood.
Google provides something like 90% of Mozilla's revenue because they slightly outbid Microsoft and Yahoo for the contract. If Microsoft or Yahoo outbid Google when the current contract expires in November 2014, then Google won't be providing 90% of their revenue anymore.
It's worth pointing out that Google is paying three times more ($300 million per year) for their current contract than their last one, because Microsoft and Yahoo bid so aggressively, so it's not like there isn't a large demand for Mozilla's ad space.
Even businessland has largely abandoned IE6 in most of the world... the marketshare of IE6 in North America is 0.2%. China is the only country with any significant use of IE6.
It has no network ports, and the Nintendo USB ethernet adapter doesn't work on it, even if it does have a USB port.
Even if it COULD get connected to a network, $99 to stream 480i Netflix is silly when you can buy devices that will stream 1080p Netflix to your TV for less than half that price.
I'm not saying Cisco isn't being the good guy here. They are. For their own gain, sure, but the result is the same. That's quite separate from my dislike of the BSD license.
They're releasing both the source and the binary... I get the feeling the binary release and the way that Cisco hosts it and Firefox downloads it on-demand has something to do with how the licensing works, that you wouldn't be covered by Cisco's patent payments if you compiled the source yourself.
1280x768 per eye on a 90 degree FoV will appear to be enormously higher resolution than 1280x800 per eye on a 210 degree FoV. For a given fixed resolution, the wider a FoV you stretch it over, the less pixels are in the center of your vision that you focus on.
Considering that the InfinitEye and the Rift dev prototype use roughly similar screens at about the same distance from the eye, they should appear to the user to be about the same effective resolution (painfully low): the InfinitEye will just extend further into your peripheral vision.
Of all the many serious problems with the Oculus Rift, field of view is not a pressing one... they're planning to address the most serious things as best they can by the consumer launch, but when faced with painfully low resolution (and the InfinitEye has the same perceived resolution as the Rift, since all the extra pixels are shoved into peripheral vision) or near incompatibility with myopia, FoV isn't as important.
As has been pointed out, go look up the prices for Seiki 4K displays. I've seen the 50" model under $1000, and their 39" model for a bunch less than that.
Slashdot Mirror
The A7 is a lower power and more performant derivative of the A8, which performs worse than the A9. I understand well enough. There are more powerful dev platforms available for this price.
It's a dual core Cortex A7, the thing is less capable than a three year old smatphone. It's not clear from the summary or the article what the point of this thing is.
It doesn't really matter what caused the failure; the sensors are telling the car that the temperature in the battery is rising slowly but uncontrollably, and that the driver needs to get out ASAP... the cause is not relevant to the driver at that point.
Are you including Glocks in your "plastic guns are a horrible idea" statement? Because they are generally considered to be of above-average reliability, and are substantially (but obviously not entirely) made out of plastic.
They're not moving where the light lands. They're shining fixed coloured LEDs at a DLP chip, which is reflecting the light into your eye. This is basically just a microprojector shining into your eye. Instead of a colour wheel, they alternate between each coloured LED.
No, I'm saying that the assertion that they doctored the test by using a GT 630 because it is slower than the iGPU in the 4770k is false. The post making this assertion bases it on the assumption that the iGPU that they disabled was the Iris Pro 5200 (which is faster than a 630) when in fact the reverse is true, the iGPU being disabled was the Intel HD 4600, which is slower than a 630.
I'm making no value judgements of AMD's APU whatsoever. Merely correcting a falsehood.
The 4770K has an Intel HD 4600, not an Iris Pro 5200. The nVidia GPU is faster than the 4600 in the CPU tested.
The only 4770 series chip to feature Iris Pro is the 4770R.
Reference: http://ark.intel.com/products/family/75023
Mozilla only gets funding from Google because Google slightly outbid Microsoft and Yahoo.
Google provides something like 90% of Mozilla's revenue because they slightly outbid Microsoft and Yahoo for the contract. If Microsoft or Yahoo outbid Google when the current contract expires in November 2014, then Google won't be providing 90% of their revenue anymore.
It's worth pointing out that Google is paying three times more ($300 million per year) for their current contract than their last one, because Microsoft and Yahoo bid so aggressively, so it's not like there isn't a large demand for Mozilla's ad space.
Even businessland has largely abandoned IE6 in most of the world... the marketshare of IE6 in North America is 0.2%. China is the only country with any significant use of IE6.
It has no network ports, and the Nintendo USB ethernet adapter doesn't work on it, even if it does have a USB port.
Even if it COULD get connected to a network, $99 to stream 480i Netflix is silly when you can buy devices that will stream 1080p Netflix to your TV for less than half that price.
It also lacks networking support. How exactly will it stream Netflix without a network connection?
Even if it did have a network connection, it's $99 for a box limited to 480p, when there are boxes that will stream 1080p that cost $39...
I'm not speculating, but repeating what they've specifically said they will do.
Yes, because a 600 kilo 4.9 cubic metre F1-style sports car is the same as a 2,100 kilo 14.0 cubic metre luxury hatchback sedan.
The pricing scheme is supposed to be set lower than an equivalent amount of gasoline in the local market, so there's that.
I'm not saying Cisco isn't being the good guy here. They are. For their own gain, sure, but the result is the same. That's quite separate from my dislike of the BSD license.
So, by your definition then, public domain is open source?
From TFA: "Cisco is going to release, under the BSD license"
Of course, I personally don't consider the BSD license to be opensource, since it lacks copyleft provisions to actually make the source open.
They're releasing both the source and the binary... I get the feeling the binary release and the way that Cisco hosts it and Firefox downloads it on-demand has something to do with how the licensing works, that you wouldn't be covered by Cisco's patent payments if you compiled the source yourself.
1280x768 per eye on a 90 degree FoV will appear to be enormously higher resolution than 1280x800 per eye on a 210 degree FoV. For a given fixed resolution, the wider a FoV you stretch it over, the less pixels are in the center of your vision that you focus on.
Considering that the InfinitEye and the Rift dev prototype use roughly similar screens at about the same distance from the eye, they should appear to the user to be about the same effective resolution (painfully low): the InfinitEye will just extend further into your peripheral vision.
Of all the many serious problems with the Oculus Rift, field of view is not a pressing one... they're planning to address the most serious things as best they can by the consumer launch, but when faced with painfully low resolution (and the InfinitEye has the same perceived resolution as the Rift, since all the extra pixels are shoved into peripheral vision) or near incompatibility with myopia, FoV isn't as important.
As has been pointed out, go look up the prices for Seiki 4K displays. I've seen the 50" model under $1000, and their 39" model for a bunch less than that.
Or I just have a very small apartment? It's actually more like 7.5-8 feet, having measured it.
I sit 6 feet away from an 80" projection screen. Tell me more about how going past 1080p has no value.
50" 4K TVs go for under $1000, how much cheaper do you think they're going to get?
Now, a 60Hz display for that price... And don't get me started on 4K projector prices...