And it makes no sense. The keyboard is trash. The hardware is usually a generation or two behind because Apple is slow to refresh. They are expensive, failure prone...the list goes on. Hipster devs like them and there is a good chance most devs are now hipsters. Which explains a lot. We need to make developers nerds again.
There are PC class power systems you can purchase but they are all made by integrators I have never heard of. Not sure how well I would trust them. That's likely a factor as well. And of course, by the time you could get such systems the battle was long over.
Lets see, bunch of people standing around in lines. Promised attractions were either half-assed or non existent. And we have the high likelihood of lawsuits for both fraud and copyright infringement. Yup its Fyre Festival kids edition. Its on an appropriately smaller scale because kids can't afford to drop several grand on flying out to a tropical island. The have to settle for their parents driving them to a field.
I don't think IBM really ever cared all that much. AIM served to help offset the RnD costs somewhat. But I think IBM primarily made POWER for themselves. They wanted a modern architecture for the growing server market that would both be a decent basis to run VMs of legacy mainframe code on and also natively run modern code at the same time. They show no sign of giving up on the architecture over a decade after Apple dropped them and they sell multiple lines of servers using them. POWER doesn't really have to worry about running non native code or cross platform development because the only things POWER servers run is IBM code. The old model of not selling iron but selling a solution is very much in place today. They sell you the software, server and support all in one package. Unless you get an itemized bill you don't even know how much the systems cost. They also don't seem all that interested in the PC server space either.
Motorola on the other hand seemed more willing and eager for PPC to catch on. It didn't work out but you did see some random machines adopt it for short periods. The BeBox, the half backed second chance at Amiga's, random accelerator cards for various obsolete machines etc. The best shot PPC ever had at getting wide adoption was during the short period Apple licensed Mac clones in the mid 90's. Jobs shut down when he returned. Regardless of whether that was the right move it did mean PPC would never be a serious contender to x86.
Maybe, but there have been attempts to bring ARM to cheap PCs before and its always been still born. The reasons are varied though. For example, the ARM windows tablets failed because they couldn't run 99.99% of windows applications and Microsoft only seemed half way interested in selling them to begin with. ARM Linux laptops could work fine. Most Userland code has an ARM port already anyways but mass production of PC's is expensive.
What Dell can do, System 76 can't. They and others like Purism have dipped their toes into custom PC's that aren't just rebadged generic Chinese machines. But they still aren't bespoke. If they were then we would have 4:3 Linux laptops in production, because I know that the vast majority of Linux laptop users spend more time coding than watching movies.
So if someone has the cash to get a production line up and running for laptops and desktops using ARM chips in purpose made motherboards that have standard RAM slots and expansion slots then I am sure people will buy them. And I think sooner or later that is exactly what will happen. The real question is, will ARM pull it off before RISCV catches up and does it first?
I have and continue to find Ubuntu in commercial products that is has no business being in though. I've seen full building security systems that would be best served by an embedded OS and web interface run on top of full Ubuntu, GNOME and all running on an ATX motherboard in a metal box bolted to the wall. The system is completely headless but it has a GUI. The only reason I can think of why is because Ubuntu is what the developers were familiar with.
Blockchain is a federated ledger. That is pretty cool once you account for all the usual shortcomings of federated systems. The problem with blockchain right now is that its suffering from the same buzzword effect you see with every new tech. Too many people want that juicy VC money so they are all trying to come up with new ways to implement the new buzz word. That means it inevitably becomes the butt of every joke because blockchain is advertised as the solution to every problem.
It isn't, we all know that. It is a solution to some problems. And in cases where it makes sense its very clever indeed. Blockchain has a lot of potential, especially between institutions who's databases may disagree or within logistics networks. I could see financial institutions using it to keep track of transactions and FedEx so they never lose a package again for example. But it has downsides like anything else. We've already seen security issues where enough compromised clients can flip the system and in effect rewrite the history on the ledger. This is very bad. It's also not particularly useful outside of cases where you need a lot of different systems to track the status of a thing that changes hands often.
We should;d just quarantine the Chinese from the internet already. Deny all DNS that resolves to a Chinese address. Probably wouldn't effect that much beyond their hacking anyways. The legitimate Chinese traffic rarely gets past their own great firewall and US citizens aren't exactly going to Baidu. Any US corps that have a business reason are clearly outsourcing traitors who need to be punished anyways. (only partially sarcastic there).
But that's only because authors had a very specific idea of what space combat would look like. And for some reason they imagined large ships fighting in a line of battle like at Trafalgar. Space combat will look nothing like that. Any relation to the terrestrial navy is silly.
What looks cool in fiction usually doesn't pan out in real life.
If you are going to say I'm wrong then you need to back it up with facts.This all dates back to the Rumsfeld commission in 2001. Congress mandated that Donald Rumsfeld, then SecDef investigate the future of mil space. Their specific recommendations were to separate mil space duties into a space corps under the airforce and then later to make it a separate branch. This is all public information and the full report is available. https://aerospace.csis.org/wp-...
It's a very good report, makes strong and sensible arguments for a space force that are still relevant today and even recognized the growing important of commercial space in 2001 before SpaceX was a household name.
To directly quote the report
The U.S. is more dependent on space than any other nation. Yet, the threat
to the U.S. and its allies in and from space does not command the attention
it merits from the departments and agencies of the U.S. Government
charged with national security responsibilities.
Consequently, evaluation of the threat to U.S. space
capabilities currently lacks priority in the
competition for collection and analytic resources.
Failure to develop credible threat analyses could have serious
consequences for the United States. It could leave the U.S. vulnerable to
surprises in space and could result in deferred decisions on developing
space-based capabilities due to the lack of a validated, well-understood
threat.....The ability to restrict or deny freedom of access to and operations in space
is no longer limited to global military powers. Knowledge of space systems
and the means to counter them is increasingly available on the international
market.
This was a clearly recognized threat 18 years ago.
A Space Corps within the Department of the Air Force may be an
appropriate model in its own right or a useful way station in the evolution
toward a Space Department. One model is the Army Air Force’s
relationship to the Army during World War II. Existing Air Force space
forces, facilities, units and personnel, and military space missions could be
transferred to a Corps. A Space Corps could have authority for acquisition
and operation of space systems, perhaps to include both DoD and
Intelligence Community systems, while leveraging existing Air Force
logistics and support functions. Alternative approaches might be modeled
after the relationship of the Marine Corps to the Department of the Navy. A
Space Corps would have many of the same advantages and disadvantages
of a Space Department. However, unlike a Space Department, a Corps
within the Air Force would not eliminate the competition for resources
between air and space platforms that exists within the Air Force today. Nor
would it by itself alleviate the concerns of other Services and agencies over
Air Force space resource allocations.
And there is the recommendation. Form a space corps and then transition to a separate department.
You can have that by promoting everyone currently involved in mil space infrastructure, and having the person at the top start reporting directly to the commander-in-KFC.
I can tell you've never been in the military or worked as a civilian contractor even. It doesn't work that way and your pointless and lame joke shows you are just another moron who can't see past Trump. Orange Man Bad! Amirite?
Easily done by congress declaring how the money shall be spent. Also easily undone by congress declaring how the money shall be spent. So no, there's no guarantees there.
Once again you show your ignorance. Congress already does that. What, do you think the military budget is a blank check? Of course not, its all earmarked. And the generals find ways to spend it on what they want anyways. I recommend you read Pentagon Wars, its a good account of how it works in the real world. It was made into a hilarious movie too but I'd re
Who said I was justifying anything? I am an atheist. I think you are the ones justifying your cowardice. Hating the religion of a bunch of people who aren't going to retaliate and the ones who really need ridicule get off. All because you know they will use violence and you're too much of a pussy to stand up what you believe in.
A lot of people who are ignorant about the issue give it flak because Trump has been publicly pushing for the Space Force.
Truth is this is not a new idea and is one that a lot of very qualified military leaders, policy makers and analysts have talked about for well over a decade. Further more both China and Russia have operational equivalents in place.
So this is a serious and real thing. Not some weird Sci-Fi dream. It's not space marines in power armor conquering planets. Its not Star Trek with ships flying around. Its first and foremost a more sensible way to manage mil space infrastructure with a shorter and dedicated chain of command. It's budget will no longer be cannibalized for terrestrial Air Force projects.
And moving forward they will be better prepared to defend our satellites. China and Russia both are working on small disposable satellites that can be used to disabled others. Shooting one down with a missile is fine and all but makes a big mess and threatens Kessler Syndrome. The new threats can disable our satellites without making such a mess. It would deny space to us but leave it open to our enemies. One of the chief complains placed on the Air Force has been their total neglect in dealing with these new threats.
So like it or not, Trump is right here. The Space Force is a good idea and one the country needs.
That's the reason? After all of the years of abuse? The over priced fragile hardware? The proprietary protocols and connectors? The constant build quality issues? You decide the T2 chip is finally the one that breaks the camel's back. They have almost always had disdain for their customers. I can accept that at one point they may have made some of the best laptops but that was a long time ago and reliability and serviceability have never been great. How can you use free software but run it on hardware that's the opposite?
I committed the sin of over generalizing. There are some tasks that are trivial to multithread and its easy to see which those are. Anything that can take advantage of gpu hardware acceleration can be easily multithreaded. I was talking about everything else, assuming that the gpu tasks were a given.
It's less about fighting over hardware resources and more about race conditions and data dependencies. Some operations simply can't be parallelized by their nature. And others can but the results for the different parts must come out in a certain order. This is a fact of math. We have the order of operations and you cant get around that. If you try to then your results are wrong. Simply put the universe itself is single threaded.
The was you get around this safely and cleanly is redefine just how "big" your threads are. What exactly are you dedicating a thread too? Get large enough and you can find structures that aren't dependent on data from one another to survive and that is where you delineate the threads.
Cute. That isn't the same thing as an interpreter runtime which is a hardware abstraction layer. If you know enough to recognize assembly then I know you know the difference between the java virtual machine and crt0. Stop being obstinate.
Slashdot Mirror
And it makes no sense. The keyboard is trash. The hardware is usually a generation or two behind because Apple is slow to refresh. They are expensive, failure prone...the list goes on. Hipster devs like them and there is a good chance most devs are now hipsters. Which explains a lot. We need to make developers nerds again.
There are PC class power systems you can purchase but they are all made by integrators I have never heard of. Not sure how well I would trust them. That's likely a factor as well. And of course, by the time you could get such systems the battle was long over.
Lets see, bunch of people standing around in lines. Promised attractions were either half-assed or non existent. And we have the high likelihood of lawsuits for both fraud and copyright infringement. Yup its Fyre Festival kids edition. Its on an appropriately smaller scale because kids can't afford to drop several grand on flying out to a tropical island. The have to settle for their parents driving them to a field.
Motorola on the other hand seemed more willing and eager for PPC to catch on. It didn't work out but you did see some random machines adopt it for short periods. The BeBox, the half backed second chance at Amiga's, random accelerator cards for various obsolete machines etc. The best shot PPC ever had at getting wide adoption was during the short period Apple licensed Mac clones in the mid 90's. Jobs shut down when he returned. Regardless of whether that was the right move it did mean PPC would never be a serious contender to x86.
Maybe, but there have been attempts to bring ARM to cheap PCs before and its always been still born. The reasons are varied though. For example, the ARM windows tablets failed because they couldn't run 99.99% of windows applications and Microsoft only seemed half way interested in selling them to begin with. ARM Linux laptops could work fine. Most Userland code has an ARM port already anyways but mass production of PC's is expensive. What Dell can do, System 76 can't. They and others like Purism have dipped their toes into custom PC's that aren't just rebadged generic Chinese machines. But they still aren't bespoke. If they were then we would have 4:3 Linux laptops in production, because I know that the vast majority of Linux laptop users spend more time coding than watching movies. So if someone has the cash to get a production line up and running for laptops and desktops using ARM chips in purpose made motherboards that have standard RAM slots and expansion slots then I am sure people will buy them. And I think sooner or later that is exactly what will happen. The real question is, will ARM pull it off before RISCV catches up and does it first?
I have and continue to find Ubuntu in commercial products that is has no business being in though. I've seen full building security systems that would be best served by an embedded OS and web interface run on top of full Ubuntu, GNOME and all running on an ATX motherboard in a metal box bolted to the wall. The system is completely headless but it has a GUI. The only reason I can think of why is because Ubuntu is what the developers were familiar with.
learn to code became a joke because the same people who told coal miners to do it a few years ago get pissy when told to do the same today.
English must not be your first language. He was mocking Apple's self described "courage" when they removed the headphone jack from the iPhone.
Bugger off? Why should we care what a Brit thinks of our politics. Why do you care about the US military's force organization?
Spectre effects any processor with branch prediction. Itanium has branch prediction therefor it isn't immune.
It's not that straight forward. The courts have already ruled that even private places can be considered public forums once certain criteria are met.
Blockchain is a federated ledger. That is pretty cool once you account for all the usual shortcomings of federated systems. The problem with blockchain right now is that its suffering from the same buzzword effect you see with every new tech. Too many people want that juicy VC money so they are all trying to come up with new ways to implement the new buzz word. That means it inevitably becomes the butt of every joke because blockchain is advertised as the solution to every problem. It isn't, we all know that. It is a solution to some problems. And in cases where it makes sense its very clever indeed. Blockchain has a lot of potential, especially between institutions who's databases may disagree or within logistics networks. I could see financial institutions using it to keep track of transactions and FedEx so they never lose a package again for example. But it has downsides like anything else. We've already seen security issues where enough compromised clients can flip the system and in effect rewrite the history on the ledger. This is very bad. It's also not particularly useful outside of cases where you need a lot of different systems to track the status of a thing that changes hands often.
We should;d just quarantine the Chinese from the internet already. Deny all DNS that resolves to a Chinese address. Probably wouldn't effect that much beyond their hacking anyways. The legitimate Chinese traffic rarely gets past their own great firewall and US citizens aren't exactly going to Baidu. Any US corps that have a business reason are clearly outsourcing traitors who need to be punished anyways. (only partially sarcastic there).
Found the chinese shill. So are you paid to do it or are you one of them working from an office in shenzen?
But that's only because authors had a very specific idea of what space combat would look like. And for some reason they imagined large ships fighting in a line of battle like at Trafalgar. Space combat will look nothing like that. Any relation to the terrestrial navy is silly. What looks cool in fiction usually doesn't pan out in real life.
Considering the last time I bought a mac was around 15 years ago yes. They have had a lot over the years.
The U.S. is more dependent on space than any other nation. Yet, the threat to the U.S. and its allies in and from space does not command the attention it merits from the departments and agencies of the U.S. Government charged with national security responsibilities. Consequently, evaluation of the threat to U.S. space capabilities currently lacks priority in the competition for collection and analytic resources. Failure to develop credible threat analyses could have serious consequences for the United States. It could leave the U.S. vulnerable to surprises in space and could result in deferred decisions on developing space-based capabilities due to the lack of a validated, well-understood threat.....The ability to restrict or deny freedom of access to and operations in space is no longer limited to global military powers. Knowledge of space systems and the means to counter them is increasingly available on the international market.
This was a clearly recognized threat 18 years ago.
A Space Corps within the Department of the Air Force may be an appropriate model in its own right or a useful way station in the evolution toward a Space Department. One model is the Army Air Force’s relationship to the Army during World War II. Existing Air Force space forces, facilities, units and personnel, and military space missions could be transferred to a Corps. A Space Corps could have authority for acquisition and operation of space systems, perhaps to include both DoD and Intelligence Community systems, while leveraging existing Air Force logistics and support functions. Alternative approaches might be modeled after the relationship of the Marine Corps to the Department of the Navy. A Space Corps would have many of the same advantages and disadvantages of a Space Department. However, unlike a Space Department, a Corps within the Air Force would not eliminate the competition for resources between air and space platforms that exists within the Air Force today. Nor would it by itself alleviate the concerns of other Services and agencies over Air Force space resource allocations.
And there is the recommendation. Form a space corps and then transition to a separate department.
You can have that by promoting everyone currently involved in mil space infrastructure, and having the person at the top start reporting directly to the commander-in-KFC.
I can tell you've never been in the military or worked as a civilian contractor even. It doesn't work that way and your pointless and lame joke shows you are just another moron who can't see past Trump. Orange Man Bad! Amirite?
Easily done by congress declaring how the money shall be spent. Also easily undone by congress declaring how the money shall be spent. So no, there's no guarantees there.
Once again you show your ignorance. Congress already does that. What, do you think the military budget is a blank check? Of course not, its all earmarked. And the generals find ways to spend it on what they want anyways. I recommend you read Pentagon Wars, its a good account of how it works in the real world. It was made into a hilarious movie too but I'd re
Who said I was justifying anything? I am an atheist. I think you are the ones justifying your cowardice. Hating the religion of a bunch of people who aren't going to retaliate and the ones who really need ridicule get off. All because you know they will use violence and you're too much of a pussy to stand up what you believe in.
A lot of people who are ignorant about the issue give it flak because Trump has been publicly pushing for the Space Force. Truth is this is not a new idea and is one that a lot of very qualified military leaders, policy makers and analysts have talked about for well over a decade. Further more both China and Russia have operational equivalents in place. So this is a serious and real thing. Not some weird Sci-Fi dream. It's not space marines in power armor conquering planets. Its not Star Trek with ships flying around. Its first and foremost a more sensible way to manage mil space infrastructure with a shorter and dedicated chain of command. It's budget will no longer be cannibalized for terrestrial Air Force projects. And moving forward they will be better prepared to defend our satellites. China and Russia both are working on small disposable satellites that can be used to disabled others. Shooting one down with a missile is fine and all but makes a big mess and threatens Kessler Syndrome. The new threats can disable our satellites without making such a mess. It would deny space to us but leave it open to our enemies. One of the chief complains placed on the Air Force has been their total neglect in dealing with these new threats. So like it or not, Trump is right here. The Space Force is a good idea and one the country needs.
That's the reason? After all of the years of abuse? The over priced fragile hardware? The proprietary protocols and connectors? The constant build quality issues? You decide the T2 chip is finally the one that breaks the camel's back. They have almost always had disdain for their customers. I can accept that at one point they may have made some of the best laptops but that was a long time ago and reliability and serviceability have never been great. How can you use free software but run it on hardware that's the opposite?
Easy to say when its Jesus and the worst you get is bad press. Show me how much you really believe in free speech. Do an arc on Mohammed.
I committed the sin of over generalizing. There are some tasks that are trivial to multithread and its easy to see which those are. Anything that can take advantage of gpu hardware acceleration can be easily multithreaded. I was talking about everything else, assuming that the gpu tasks were a given.
It's less about fighting over hardware resources and more about race conditions and data dependencies. Some operations simply can't be parallelized by their nature. And others can but the results for the different parts must come out in a certain order. This is a fact of math. We have the order of operations and you cant get around that. If you try to then your results are wrong. Simply put the universe itself is single threaded. The was you get around this safely and cleanly is redefine just how "big" your threads are. What exactly are you dedicating a thread too? Get large enough and you can find structures that aren't dependent on data from one another to survive and that is where you delineate the threads.
everything in C is unsafe. That's part of the reason it is so fast. Using C makes you a better programmer.
Cute. That isn't the same thing as an interpreter runtime which is a hardware abstraction layer. If you know enough to recognize assembly then I know you know the difference between the java virtual machine and crt0. Stop being obstinate.