On 2): they will do the itunes activation for you in the store. They did mine. 3 minutes.
On 3): itunes automatically converts wma to mp3
On 6): iphones look like USB removable storage/drives. You can plug one in and manually manage the music with any shell you want, if that's what you want.
Huh? If an iphone draws "FAR more" current when charging than the USB spec allows, then it wouldn't charge when connected to many host, probably most, depending on your definition of "FAR." It might even damage some. Since that's not happening, I'm guessing you're confused on this topic somehow. Also suspect is the phrase "[more current than] the usb spec would normally allow." Are you suggesting Apple/iphone got some kind of an exemption/modification to the USB spec (i.e., more than "normal" current allowed) and magically retrofitted all existing USB hosts to accomodate it?
I'm not even going to address "funky wiring of signals" because, well, it's funky use of language.
Hillary Clinton, Tipper Gore. Both left-wingers. Both involved in trying to censor entertainment. Can't think of any right-wingers into that off the top of my head.
Get back to me when you have at least a vague idea of what the word "subsidy" means. Your fantastic (and wholly unsubstantiated) ideas about what might have been had the US not built its highway system (which many consider a huge success overall, in terms of return on investment) in no way provides anything like evidence that the oil companies are subsidized by taxpayer money in the US. They may be, but so far you and your pals have used some 1000+ words to utterly fail at showing that is the case,
(I feel silly pointing out that, if you could indeed produce energy as simply and cheaply as you suggest, you would certainly be doing so or you'd be a fool. But then again it's not nice to call people "fools".)
"commondreams.org" is not a reliable source, sorry. Nor is "kicktheoilabit.org" Your mms.gov links do not support your spurious allegations in any way, shape, or form. Are you just trolling or are you deranged enough to think those links are actually relevant?
I claim that the oil companies receive no subsidies through tax breaks, federally funded R&D, etc. That is a point of public record, and if you need to find a source then do it. I know it to be so for various reasons, and not from the quick googling I did earlier. You are entitled to your beliefs, and if you are living in the US then you are entitled to keep your head in the sand. But that does not change the fact that the oil industry does not receive a lot of money at the hand of the taxpayer.
No, by pointing out the fact that all of the examples on the two websites you mention are equally flawed and/or completely undocumented, I am demonstrating that your claims about oil subsidies remain unproven.
There's not a single shred of evidence to support any of the claims at either of those websites, and even if there were, only a ridiculous fool would consider 90% of the listed items to be a "subsidy." For example: "The U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve" and "Construction and protection of the nation's highway system." These are "subsidies?" Give me a break.
If it's not obviously fraudulent what good would a trial do? Let judges and juries listen to people claim who said what? Not worth it, and open to too much abuse ("OOh! They lied to me too!")
That's great, but can you provide any sources so we can learn more. I hear people say this stuff all the time, but there's never anything to back it up.
OK, sure -- for fraudulent loans that sounds fine. But "subprime" does not mean fraudulent. It just means a loan made to someone with less than stellar credit. When banks weren't making many subprime loans in the 80's and 90's, the Clinton administration went after them and fined them because "everyone deserves to own a home." You can't turn around and punish them for doing exactly what we wanted them to do in the interest of "fairness."
This line is getting tiresome. Sure the fraudsters, if there are any, are at fault. BUT I'M NOT AND NEITHER ARE MOST OF US SO WHY SHOULD WE PAY TO FIX IT?!
If you're respinning your ASICs you're not doing it right. You're also wasting $500k to $millions per spin, which would be far better spent on verification. I guess if you're picking a random roomful of people, and think it's a simple task to integrate and verify a cpu core or other IP, then trial and error is pretty much your only choice. Us professionals prefer to do it right the first time.
Call bullshit all you want Mr. Armchair ASIC Designer. When you've taped out a nanometer-level ASIC you'll have an opinion on the subject worth listening to.
A great number of ASICs include CPU cores! Many have DSP cores too! What now?;) GPUs certainly are application-specific; they process graphics! CPUs that most people think of when they hear "CPU", like an Intel x86, are standard products (ASSPs) but they tend to be made as "full-custom" because the volumes are high enough to justify expensive and time-consuming hand-layout of every transistor to get a smaller die (lower piece-price) and better performance. But anyone can buy them, which makes them "standard products.". ASICs, on the other hand, tend to be made for one customer only. ASSPs are ASICs made to be generic enough to appeal to more than one customer. And there are far, far more CPUs inside ASICs than Intel and IBM has ever sold. Ever hear of ARM?
If this is true, then you should know the name of the ASIC vendor that manufactured the chip for ATI (and helped with the physical design.) Do you know the name of that company?
there would be few people in the industry that would call a GPU an ASIC
Huh? I'm in the industry, and I'd call a GPU an ASIC. ASIC means Application-Specific Integrated Circuit. A GPU is application specific, and it's an integrated circuit, is it not? I mean, GPUs aren't full custom designs, nor are they ASSPs (Application-Specific Standard Product) so what are they if not ASICs? (Note: I work for an ASIC vendor and have been involved in designing many GPUs!)
Slashdot Mirror
You are confused, and the dangerous part is you're confused and adamantly think you're not. The USB spec requires that devices use no more than 500mA.
You might want to do your own research instead of trusting what some wannabe engineer says on an internet forum.
On 2): they will do the itunes activation for you in the store. They did mine. 3 minutes.
On 3): itunes automatically converts wma to mp3
On 6): iphones look like USB removable storage/drives. You can plug one in and manually manage the music with any shell you want, if that's what you want.
There is no 32GB iphone at this time. There's an 8GB and a 16GB. Only those.
Huh? If an iphone draws "FAR more" current when charging than the USB spec allows, then it wouldn't charge when connected to many host, probably most, depending on your definition of "FAR." It might even damage some. Since that's not happening, I'm guessing you're confused on this topic somehow. Also suspect is the phrase "[more current than] the usb spec would normally allow." Are you suggesting Apple/iphone got some kind of an exemption/modification to the USB spec (i.e., more than "normal" current allowed) and magically retrofitted all existing USB hosts to accomodate it?
I'm not even going to address "funky wiring of signals" because, well, it's funky use of language.
Hillary Clinton, Tipper Gore. Both left-wingers. Both involved in trying to censor entertainment. Can't think of any right-wingers into that off the top of my head.
No, he's right. It's "always." If you need to "interact" with an object you just make a little flash or java window in the webpage.
Obama will vote for FISA. "Change" my shiny metal ass.
Get back to me when you have at least a vague idea of what the word "subsidy" means. Your fantastic (and wholly unsubstantiated) ideas about what might have been had the US not built its highway system (which many consider a huge success overall, in terms of return on investment) in no way provides anything like evidence that the oil companies are subsidized by taxpayer money in the US. They may be, but so far you and your pals have used some 1000+ words to utterly fail at showing that is the case,
(I feel silly pointing out that, if you could indeed produce energy as simply and cheaply as you suggest, you would certainly be doing so or you'd be a fool. But then again it's not nice to call people "fools".)
"commondreams.org" is not a reliable source, sorry. Nor is "kicktheoilabit.org" Your mms.gov links do not support your spurious allegations in any way, shape, or form. Are you just trolling or are you deranged enough to think those links are actually relevant?
I claim that the oil companies receive no subsidies through tax breaks, federally funded R&D, etc. That is a point of public record, and if you need to find a source then do it. I know it to be so for various reasons, and not from the quick googling I did earlier. You are entitled to your beliefs, and if you are living in the US then you are entitled to keep your head in the sand. But that does not change the fact that the oil industry does not receive a lot of money at the hand of the taxpayer.
There are crimes other than murder.
No, by pointing out the fact that all of the examples on the two websites you mention are equally flawed and/or completely undocumented, I am demonstrating that your claims about oil subsidies remain unproven.
There's not a single shred of evidence to support any of the claims at either of those websites, and even if there were, only a ridiculous fool would consider 90% of the listed items to be a "subsidy." For example: "The U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve" and "Construction and protection of the nation's highway system." These are "subsidies?" Give me a break.
If it's not obviously fraudulent what good would a trial do? Let judges and juries listen to people claim who said what? Not worth it, and open to too much abuse ("OOh! They lied to me too!")
Why 3 seedings per year? You plant the switchgrass just once. Then to harvest you mow it, collect the cuttings, and bale them up like hay.
That's great, but can you provide any sources so we can learn more. I hear people say this stuff all the time, but there's never anything to back it up.
OK, sure -- for fraudulent loans that sounds fine. But "subprime" does not mean fraudulent. It just means a loan made to someone with less than stellar credit. When banks weren't making many subprime loans in the 80's and 90's, the Clinton administration went after them and fined them because "everyone deserves to own a home." You can't turn around and punish them for doing exactly what we wanted them to do in the interest of "fairness."
Hahaha, you're an angry little idiot, aren't you?
So you prefer anecdote to the actual data and evidence to the contrary in the link he provided? Interesting.
This line is getting tiresome. Sure the fraudsters, if there are any, are at fault. BUT I'M NOT AND NEITHER ARE MOST OF US SO WHY SHOULD WE PAY TO FIX IT?!
If you're respinning your ASICs you're not doing it right. You're also wasting $500k to $millions per spin, which would be far better spent on verification. I guess if you're picking a random roomful of people, and think it's a simple task to integrate and verify a cpu core or other IP, then trial and error is pretty much your only choice. Us professionals prefer to do it right the first time.
Call bullshit all you want Mr. Armchair ASIC Designer. When you've taped out a nanometer-level ASIC you'll have an opinion on the subject worth listening to.
A great number of ASICs include CPU cores! Many have DSP cores too! What now? ;) GPUs certainly are application-specific; they process graphics! CPUs that most people think of when they hear "CPU", like an Intel x86, are standard products (ASSPs) but they tend to be made as "full-custom" because the volumes are high enough to justify expensive and time-consuming hand-layout of every transistor to get a smaller die (lower piece-price) and better performance. But anyone can buy them, which makes them "standard products.". ASICs, on the other hand, tend to be made for one customer only. ASSPs are ASICs made to be generic enough to appeal to more than one customer. And there are far, far more CPUs inside ASICs than Intel and IBM has ever sold. Ever hear of ARM?
Wow, you're easily impressed ;)
If this is true, then you should know the name of the ASIC vendor that manufactured the chip for ATI (and helped with the physical design.) Do you know the name of that company?