There is a general impression now, apparently correct, that Nvidia is not honest and cannot be trusted. HP bought Nvidia graphics chips, and when they were found defective, neither company was completely honest about fixing the defects, articles say.
An Inquirer article, Nvidia cuts out reviewers for the GTS250, says "IT IS ALWAYS funny when an unethical company turns on its own supporters as Nvidia did with the latest 'all new' GT250 cards. This time however, their PR stunts cross the line from unethical to purposely false, and hilarity ensues."
Another quote from the Inquirer story: "This time however, they crossed the line from plausible deniability to flat out deception. In the middle of last week we heard what Nvidia was up to this time around, but just couldn't believe they would be THAT sleazy."
Now that Intel is integrating faster GPUs into its chipsets, there is a perception that eventually there will be little room for Nvidia.
We see a lot of stories about this kind of thing on Slashdot. Often it is a politician showing that he or she is completely ignorant of technical issues, but wants his or her foolish opinions to be respected.
Maybe it wouldn't be sensible to attend a university that has such technically backward management.
The world will be a better place when all the managers retire who were raised without computers.
I'm not forgetting. What transmitters are there between 500 MHz and 10 GHz? Digital TV. Low power cellular phone transmitters; that's what "cellular" means, many low-power transmitters. The tiny power of Wi-Fi. From 3 GHz and up there are only cordless phones. With a small antenna expect picowatts, not microwatts. The Slashdot story says it is possible to get 50 million times more power than a picowatt, 50 milliwatts.
From Wikipedia: "The maximum power for DTV broadcast classes is also substantially lower; one-fifth of the legal limits for the former full-power analog services."
Fraud -- A deliberate deception to try to get an unfair or unlawful gain.
This Slashdot story says it was submitted by "Al" of Technology Review. I wonder if it is a paid advertisement. It in fact it is an ad presented as a story, that is deception.
In my opinion, this Slashdot story is sensalionalistic nonsense that appears to try to take advantage of the average person's lack of knowledge of radio waves.
Reasons to be skeptical: 1) There is often very poor radio and television reception inside buildings in cities. That's partly because the buildings contain metal reinforcement. There is very little power from electromagnetic radiation.
2) In normal circumstances, a small antenna could never deliver 50 milliwatts of power. It is more likely that a single transmitter will deliver picowatts to a small antenna. A level of 50 milliwatts is a million times what would normally be expected.
3) Nothing changed. The physics of electromagnetic radiation and of reception by antennas has been understood well for decades. There was no new discovery, and none was claimed.
"In some circumstances, florescent light bulbs can draw enough power from a nearby power source to light up." In that case, the nearby power is huge.
From the Slashdot summary: "A team from Intel previously developed a compact sensor capable of drawing 6 microwatts from a 1.0-megawatt TV antenna 4.1 kilometers away." Six microwatts from 1 megawatt is about right.
The estimate of "50 milliwatts" from ambient radiation to charge a cell phone is not. Remember that cell phones are generally inside buildings or inside pockets or purses while someone is driving.
That statement is so crazy that it makes me wonder what the the CEO of Nokia is doing. Doesn't he realize he should stop nonsense like that?
If you agree with the those charges, then logically you should NEVER by something from Symantec and McAfee. If you do business with abusers, expect to be abused.
Some of the articles in "IT Pro" magazine seem to me to be ads. Here are other
articles:
Can Microsoft make a success out of Silverlight? Quote:
"... Microsoft's Silverlight weighs in at just a four-megabyte download, and
apparently takes just 10 seconds to install." Another quote: "So how
has Silverlight fared, and can it really topple Flash?" Silverlight is far, far behind Flash.
Can Google or Microsoft get any
bigger? Quote: "... Google, along with Microsoft, is so large and so
dominant in its sectors, that both firms are hitting a point where their
potential for profitable growth is limited." Another quote: "Certainly
the pair of them own their key markets,..." Google and Microsoft are not a "pair".
This is the article, published today, to which this Slashdot story linked: Has Bing already overtaken yahoo? But that article no
longer exists, apparently. Now that link takes visitors to another article: UPDATED: Bing and Yahoo battle it out for second in
search. Quote: "One stats firm has said Microsoft's Bing has already
caught up to rival Yahoo, just a week after launch - but it's since slipped
back to third." Bing hasn't "slipped back to third", Bing has dived in the
ratings, and is now far behind Yahoo.
You said, "In essence, from our testing it's doing pretty well."
I'm very skeptical. Our October 22, 2011 adoption date may be
delayed. Let everyone else have the hassles, as they did with Vista and
Windows ME, and several versions of DOS. Bringing out unfinished versions has
been very profitable for Microsoft.
Windows XP had very serious, but not obvious, problems until SP2.
Windows 7 is just another version of Windows NT, but Microsoft calls
it an entirely new operating system, and most people accept that.
Every new version of Windows has some features that require a lot more
computing power. That is because, apparently, the hardware manufacturers are
Microsoft's true customers, and they want everyone to be required to buy new
hardware.
Some people have been claiming that "critical updates" to Windows XP
have caused it to be slower. What has been your experience?
Fifth result from Bing on searching for the word "test", copied exactly:
#
*
Domain Not Valid
This domain is not valid. Hosted by Network Solutions.
* test.test.com
* Cached page
"The huge payoffs for those immediately involved in the deal were by far the most important driving force." That does not, however, explain Ted Turner saying that the merger was "better than sex". That must have been sheer ignorance; he lost billions.
"Do we really need those all-inclusive portals anymore?"
There was never a need for all-inclusive portals after the arrival of
the internet. AOL was trying to keep less-knowledgeable people inside its own
sites, and away from the internet, so it could make more money from its ads.
For years, and I suppose even now, an AOL email address meant that the owner
of the address didn't have any technically knowledgeable friends.
The 88 BILLION dollars lost when Time Warner bought AOL has been
considered to be the worst business decision of all time. Maybe the French
selling the Louisiana Purchase to the U.S. government was a worse decision.
But, if we include decisions made by government, then even the U.S. invading
Iraq lost more money.
At the time, even people with little technical knowledge knew that AOL
was not a good company to buy.
Time Warner's CEO, Gerald M.
Levin, who made the decision, called himself an "imperial CEO".
He made huge amounts of money, and didn't seem to care that he caused enormous
troubles for his company, and for all its employees that owned stock.
Just before the merger, Ted Turner called the merger "better than
sex". The problem continues, of course. People with no technical knowledge
assume that, if they don't know something, there is nothing to know.
Technically knowledgeable people get amazingly little respect.
"Experienced pilots (especially test pilots, as he was) also tend to be rather technically astute individuals, so I'm sure Bolden should at least be able to be somewhat in touch with the technical side of things."
I agree, but that knowledge is too limited. What's necessary is someone with design experience, who is also very idealistic.
C was "general-purpose" only for operating system developers. It is easy to make a C compiler for a new processor. When C was invented, users were developing much more limited programs with very limited processors, and the limitations didn't matter as much.
Modern Marvels: Secrets of Oil. Another junk story
on
The Great Ethanol Scam
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I wonder if someone at Slashdot is taking money to post links to junk
articles with hidden agendas. Alcohol is fine for cars. See, for example, Brazil's alcohol cars hit 2 million mark. Cars that use alcohol for fuel are completely reliable. Their exhaust is much better-smelling, too, because the unburnt hydrocarbons are sweet-smelling alcohol.
The article linked by Slashdot discusses problems with the bad design
of fuel systems, not problems with engines.
I understand that the main problem with alcohol in the U.S. is that it
is made from corn. In Brazil it is made from sugar cane, a more efficient
method, and one that fits Brazil's climate.
Slashdot Mirror
The parent comment was my mistake.
Here's a Forbes Magazine interview with the CEO of Nvidia: Nvidia's Plan For Beating Moore's Law: Chief Jen-Hsun Huang on how GPUs could get ahead of CPUs. But read the comments. Readers are not impressed.
There is a general impression now, apparently correct, that Nvidia is not honest and cannot be trusted. HP bought Nvidia graphics chips, and when they were found defective, neither company was completely honest about fixing the defects, articles say.
An Inquirer article, Nvidia cuts out reviewers for the GTS250, says "IT IS ALWAYS funny when an unethical company turns on its own supporters as Nvidia did with the latest 'all new' GT250 cards. This time however, their PR stunts cross the line from unethical to purposely false, and hilarity ensues."
Another quote from the Inquirer story: "This time however, they crossed the line from plausible deniability to flat out deception. In the middle of last week we heard what Nvidia was up to this time around, but just couldn't believe they would be THAT sleazy."
Now that Intel is integrating faster GPUs into its chipsets, there is a perception that eventually there will be little room for Nvidia.
Slashdot could have linked to the article the story submitter wrote for PC Perspectives: SLI on Life Support on the AMD Platform: Oh SNAP!.
This Paymaster?
"I'll bugfix this thing with badgers gnawing on both my arms for that kind of pay."
That's nothing! I'll get the badgers to do the coding.
We see a lot of stories about this kind of thing on Slashdot. Often it is a politician showing that he or she is completely ignorant of technical issues, but wants his or her foolish opinions to be respected.
Maybe it wouldn't be sensible to attend a university that has such technically backward management.
The world will be a better place when all the managers retire who were raised without computers.
It is said that Bing is a recursive acronym for "Bing Is Not Google". I think that is something about which we can all agree: Bing is not Google.
"People shoot at the Goodyear blimp all the time."
It would be scary to ride in the blimp.
Agreed. Also, anyone seriously criminal would just shoot at the blimp, possibly from miles outside the stadium.
I'm not forgetting. What transmitters are there between 500 MHz and 10 GHz? Digital TV. Low power cellular phone transmitters; that's what "cellular" means, many low-power transmitters. The tiny power of Wi-Fi. From 3 GHz and up there are only cordless phones. With a small antenna expect picowatts, not microwatts. The Slashdot story says it is possible to get 50 million times more power than a picowatt, 50 milliwatts.
From Wikipedia: "The maximum power for DTV broadcast classes is also substantially lower; one-fifth of the legal limits for the former full-power analog services."
Fraud -- A deliberate deception to try to get an unfair or unlawful gain.
This Slashdot story says it was submitted by "Al" of Technology Review. I wonder if it is a paid advertisement. It in fact it is an ad presented as a story, that is deception.
In my opinion, this Slashdot story is sensalionalistic nonsense that appears to try to take advantage of the average person's lack of knowledge of radio waves.
Reasons to be skeptical: 1) There is often very poor radio and television reception inside buildings in cities. That's partly because the buildings contain metal reinforcement. There is very little power from electromagnetic radiation.
2) In normal circumstances, a small antenna could never deliver 50 milliwatts of power. It is more likely that a single transmitter will deliver picowatts to a small antenna. A level of 50 milliwatts is a million times what would normally be expected.
3) Nothing changed. The physics of electromagnetic radiation and of reception by antennas has been understood well for decades. There was no new discovery, and none was claimed.
"We are transparent to radio waves..."
The human body is mostly water mixed with salt, which is conductive and therefore opaque to radio waves.
I agree with you. The total amount of energy is tiny, especially when tiny antennas are used.
"... if 1 Megawatt gives you 6 milliwatts..." That's off by a factor of 1,000. One megawatt gave 6 microwatts.
The Nokia press release says they are expecting almost 10,000 times 6 microwatts, all received inside a tiny cell phone that is covered with metal.
"In some circumstances, florescent light bulbs can draw enough power from a nearby power source to light up." In that case, the nearby power is huge.
From the Slashdot summary: "A team from Intel previously developed a compact sensor capable of drawing 6 microwatts from a 1.0-megawatt TV antenna 4.1 kilometers away." Six microwatts from 1 megawatt is about right.
The estimate of "50 milliwatts" from ambient radiation to charge a cell phone is not. Remember that cell phones are generally inside buildings or inside pockets or purses while someone is driving.
That statement is so crazy that it makes me wonder what the the CEO of Nokia is doing. Doesn't he realize he should stop nonsense like that?
If you agree with the those charges, then logically you should NEVER by something from Symantec and McAfee. If you do business with abusers, expect to be abused.
"... In the end, I arrived at the decision that this is simply a timley [timely] story..."
It is not a "timely story". The Slashdot story is completely misleading.
Some of the articles in "IT Pro" magazine seem to me to be ads. Here are other articles:
..." Google and Microsoft are not a "pair".
Can Microsoft make a success out of Silverlight? Quote: "... Microsoft's Silverlight weighs in at just a four-megabyte download, and apparently takes just 10 seconds to install." Another quote: "So how has Silverlight fared, and can it really topple Flash?" Silverlight is far, far behind Flash.
Can Google or Microsoft get any bigger? Quote: "... Google, along with Microsoft, is so large and so dominant in its sectors, that both firms are hitting a point where their potential for profitable growth is limited." Another quote: "Certainly the pair of them own their key markets,
This is the article, published today, to which this Slashdot story linked: Has Bing already overtaken yahoo? But that article no longer exists, apparently. Now that link takes visitors to another article: UPDATED: Bing and Yahoo battle it out for second in search. Quote: "One stats firm has said Microsoft's Bing has already caught up to rival Yahoo, just a week after launch - but it's since slipped back to third." Bing hasn't "slipped back to third", Bing has dived in the ratings, and is now far behind Yahoo.
"... clicking "change" in the bar at the top (without changing any thresholds) fixes the problem..."
Thanks. Works for me in Opera 9.64 and Firefox 3.0.10 on Windows XP.
You said, "In essence, from our testing it's doing pretty well."
I'm very skeptical. Our October 22, 2011 adoption date may be delayed. Let everyone else have the hassles, as they did with Vista and Windows ME, and several versions of DOS. Bringing out unfinished versions has been very profitable for Microsoft.
Windows XP had very serious, but not obvious, problems until SP2.
Windows 7 is just another version of Windows NT, but Microsoft calls it an entirely new operating system, and most people accept that.
Every new version of Windows has some features that require a lot more computing power. That is because, apparently, the hardware manufacturers are Microsoft's true customers, and they want everyone to be required to buy new hardware.
Some people have been claiming that "critical updates" to Windows XP have caused it to be slower. What has been your experience?
Fifth result from Bing on searching for the word "test", copied exactly:
#
*
Domain Not Valid
This domain is not valid. Hosted by Network Solutions.
* test.test.com
* Cached page
It would also be possible to question the sanity of all the people who worked at Time Warner and let him do that.
MOD PARENT UP. That's my understanding, also.
"The huge payoffs for those immediately involved in the deal were by far the most important driving force." That does not, however, explain Ted Turner saying that the merger was "better than sex". That must have been sheer ignorance; he lost billions.
"Do we really need those all-inclusive portals anymore?"
There was never a need for all-inclusive portals after the arrival of the internet. AOL was trying to keep less-knowledgeable people inside its own sites, and away from the internet, so it could make more money from its ads. For years, and I suppose even now, an AOL email address meant that the owner of the address didn't have any technically knowledgeable friends.
The 88 BILLION dollars lost when Time Warner bought AOL has been considered to be the worst business decision of all time. Maybe the French selling the Louisiana Purchase to the U.S. government was a worse decision. But, if we include decisions made by government, then even the U.S. invading Iraq lost more money.
At the time, even people with little technical knowledge knew that AOL was not a good company to buy.
Time Warner's CEO, Gerald M. Levin, who made the decision, called himself an "imperial CEO". He made huge amounts of money, and didn't seem to care that he caused enormous troubles for his company, and for all its employees that owned stock.
Just before the merger, Ted Turner called the merger "better than sex". The problem continues, of course. People with no technical knowledge assume that, if they don't know something, there is nothing to know. Technically knowledgeable people get amazingly little respect.
"Experienced pilots (especially test pilots, as he was) also tend to be rather technically astute individuals, so I'm sure Bolden should at least be able to be somewhat in touch with the technical side of things."
I agree, but that knowledge is too limited. What's necessary is someone with design experience, who is also very idealistic.
C was "general-purpose" only for operating system developers. It is easy to make a C compiler for a new processor. When C was invented, users were developing much more limited programs with very limited processors, and the limitations didn't matter as much.
Is it this? Discovery Channel's "Modern Marvels: Secrets of Oil".
I wonder if someone at Slashdot is taking money to post links to junk articles with hidden agendas. Alcohol is fine for cars. See, for example, Brazil's alcohol cars hit 2 million mark. Cars that use alcohol for fuel are completely reliable. Their exhaust is much better-smelling, too, because the unburnt hydrocarbons are sweet-smelling alcohol.
The article linked by Slashdot discusses problems with the bad design of fuel systems, not problems with engines.
I understand that the main problem with alcohol in the U.S. is that it is made from corn. In Brazil it is made from sugar cane, a more efficient method, and one that fits Brazil's climate.