no tax increase for me, and I don't have to pay your healthcare bill!!!!!
Re:Bush Wins Florida and Ohio! It's a clear Bush w
on
Election Day Discussion
·
· Score: 0, Troll
On the contrary, sir. Terrorists will.
It's over, and with the right result. Uncontestably. Too wide of a margin or absentees and provisionals and disputeds combined to matter. It's called and over.
And thankfully I might now be able to tolerate this liberal cespool. I can't bear this place during the three months before an election.
Thanks for all looking like funny clowns in this thread. It's almost as fun as reading the weeping on SA.
Thanks for apologizing for your bad attitude. Without that I wouldn't be replying. Your wife is right, BTW.
An optical shrink within a certain limit reduces switching power invariably . . . blah blah irrelevant blah . . . Doesn't this imply that there is power loss as a direct result of shrinkage?
Yes, but an example of a shrink, accompanied by a voltage drop, that reduced power in one case, even if you try to account for the voltage drop, does not show that a shrink implies a power reduction in all cases.
Analytically --
Both the gate and diffusion caps scale linearly with W if L remains constant, otherwise the caps scale with area (one dimension vs. both dimension shrink.) Now, doesn't this automatically guarantee a drop in _switching_ power?
L does not remain constant. W/L is the transistor gain. And you're ignoring the (dominant) wiring capacitance.
Rush-through is more complicated so I don't have a clear answer. I've seen it get worse due to higher current in the linear region and bad project slopes. But I do know leakage gets WORSE as the devices get smaller, and this starts to offset the reduction due to scaling (partially due to channel width decrease, partially due to heavy doping).
I think you're making this up as you go along. Or maybe you got your EE in another country or something. "project slopes?" "Linear region" operation for digital circuits? WTF?
In practice --
Downsizing. We use smaller devices on paths with positive margin. The result? Lower power.
So I think based on these three example it is possible to demonstrate that a pure optical shrink results in lower power at the same Vcc/Freq.
No, based on those three examples and your conclusion, we can only be sure that you need to re-take logic and/or proofs.
Oh, BTW. You accused me of "googling for 1st year circuits material" yet you spew:
http://6371.lcs.mit.edu/currentsemester/handouts/L 07.pdf = Intro to CMOS for the non-engineer. Little stick-man icons, replacing transistors with little switch symbols, and most importantly not a single mention of power comsumption.
http://processorfinder.intel.com/scripts/details.a sp?sSpec=SL28R&ProcFam=47&PkgType=ALL&SysBusSpd=AL L&CorSpd=ALL - broken link even after fixing the slashdot mangling. I suspect it has to do with power consumption of specific cores. Which is irrelevant, see above.
http://6371.lcs.mit.edu/currentsemester/handouts/L 06.pdf = more of the same, comic sans font, lots of stick men with question marks above their heads. I went to MIT -- this is the stuff they show journalism majors who are naieve enough to take intro to electronics for a science elective.
Yeah, and god forbid my wife and I have a little privacy, or a quiet dinner without guests.
Our friends call first. You should too.
Sounds like it's not a problem for you, really, or you'd know how it feels when you've had too many friends and guests "drop-in" and be able to empathize a bit.
You've clicked the date you want already -- but what's that? Add an event gives you some lovely drop-downs without defaulting to the day you clicked: Date: [Month] [Day]
Sign up for an account. Fill in all the form fields. Choose username "randy". Submit. Aren't you thrilled that you get to go "back" in "your browser" to an empty set of fields and fill them in all over again while you guess another, probably used, name? Want suggested available similar names? Not here. Sorry.
I could go on. Seriously. But the point is the grandparent is right -- this is sloppy code and a painful user interface. It fail's to deliver what most orkut/friendster users would consider the minimum functionality.
OK, I expect a new technology. You did too -- right? Seems like we believe the airlines and the FAA and/or FCC when they tell us that cellphones can interfere with airplane communication and/or navigation systems (anything's possible right? can't be too careful at 20k ft. right?)
But then I read:
Until now, there have been concerns that cellphone use during flight could disrupt cell networks or interfere with the plane's navigation systems. The F.C.C., which has jurisdiction over ground communication, forbids the use of cellphones in flight out of concern that passengers calling from the air could overwhelm the nation's system of cell towers. That policy is currently under review and is likely to be modified this October, according to Lauren Patrich, an F.C.C. spokeswoman.
Whoah -- "until now?" The "policy is currently under review and is likely to be modified this October?" OMGWTFBBQ?
But alas, it's not that simple:
For its part, the F.A.A., which governs in-flight communications, recommends that airlines forbid the use of any device - including cellphones and pagers - that transmits signals, because of the risk of interference.
Woot! Administrative deathmatch -- FCC vs. FAA! Who will win!? Are you rrrready to tuuuune-to-this-freeeeequency?
Two newly proposed solutions will allow passengers to use their own cellphones to place calls in flight in a way that their makers say addresses both concerns. Unlike the current seat-back phone system, airlines will not have to pay for costly interior wiring. Instead, a small cell tower, known as a picocell, will be installed inside the cabin. Cellphone signals will be picked up by that cell, and then, depending on the system, relayed either first to a satellite or directly to the ground.
What's that? Not just a policy revision. Sigh. Actually a technological product that might prevent the FCC/FAA battle from ever taking place? Say it aint so . .
AirCell of Louisville, Colo., a large provider of in-flight communications services, has proposed a system that would bypass existing cellphone towers on the ground and direct calls instead to a separate grouping of receivers installed throughout the country. Equipment inside the plane would effectively create a cabin-wide hot spot handling voice and Internet communications.
Bah, it's true. They have a sufficiently expensive product to but that will allow them to charge sufficiently high fees so that we don't all ever have to know the truth about whether or not calling your sweetie from 30k ft. will crash the plane and they can still charge $5/min for airtime and the FCC doesn't have to kick the FAA's ass in public and all is well.
The AirCell system can handle any of the three digital phone standards in use by the American carriers: C.D.M.A., T.D.M.A. or G.S.M. Signals from each phone would be received by the plane's picocell, and then translated into one digital signal that would be sent to one of AirCell's terrestrial receivers. (To keep costs down, those receivers could be situated next to ones operated by cellphone carriers.) The signals would be separated and sent to the customer's carrier for routing and billing.
"Keep costs down." Did you see what he did there? He made you think they really want to keep costs down. Because it's worth it to take a percentage of smaller number if the average guy gets a break!
The system is designed to be able to transmit signals a distance of 50,000 feet, and hand them off from one ground receiver to the next while a caller is moving at 600 miles per hour. Because of the height at which planes fly, only 150 cell sites will be needed to provide coverage across the continental United States, according to Jack Blumenstein, AirCell's chief executive officer.
150 x what, $15 million? $10 million? I have no idea. But I bet the break-even point is at about 200 phone-fligh
I can easily get to at least 1% of 10,000 households by foot in my average, suburban town.
If you go to anything close to 10k households in my average, suburban town and lurk about knowing no one, trying to meet new "friends" at their homes, you'll be explaining yourself to the local constabulary forthwith!
It's not more than a zip-code structured Orkut community system. Or at least not much more. Maybe less in some ways.
I tried it. I even registered my "neighborhood" since none existed in my zip code (or presumably near, since none were offerered.)
It's faster than orkut/friendster/etc. but no faster than these services were when they started (i.e, before they got slammed with more load than they anticipated or were prepared to pay for.) We'll see how snappy those pages are in a few months.
The UI is pretty good and intuitive, but there are some annoyances. For example, when I registered I filled out some 12 fields of info including user name and submitted. Of course, my username was already in use, but rather than present the otherwise-ok-filled-in form and let me change the username, or offer similar alternatives, it made me go "back" in my browser and re-enter everything into the emptied fields. That happened twice (I saved the info the 2nd time in anticipation, but it's still unnecessarily unfriendly.)
Now that I'm in I seem to have control over a bit more than the competition websites offer. I have a profile where I can "share info about [my]self", a directory of users (me), an event calendar (nothing happening), photo albums (all empty,) matches (others in my community, of which there are currently 0,) reviews (nada,) polls (I plan to create a poll to surrender my neighbors' land to me, vote alone, and win, bwahaha), see who's online now (and thus not initiate my plan to claim their land for my own, since they're probably home,) email everyone in my neighborhood in one fell swoop (local spammer heaven!) or arrange/join a carpool.
All of which sounds really neat, if not entirely original and a bit milquetoast (hey -- no "C.A." a la craigslist?) Or at least it would be if there were anyone else registered in the area.
Which brings me to my final question -- how much do these ads cost?
I didn't get that from TFA -- where did it say they will re-enable the disabled bluetooth features for a fee? If this is indeed true then, yeah -- it's a BS money grab.
As I understand it, they will seel you a physical cable that can accomplish the downloading pictures or synching, or you can use their secure service to send pics to others or the net. Either way, you still have to use VZW's private server and/or a cable -- no full bluetooth.
Oh, and whichever two mods decided that my honest inquiry and/or failure to blindly accept the spin of the story without question was a troll are wrong. That's not trolling. It's called "looking at the other side" and "trying to learn the truth." Alien concepts, I'm sure.
All mobile phone companies do this and, IMHO, Sprint is the worst. But, let's note from TFA:
Verizon says that crippling Bluetooth implementation is a "fraud prevention" tactic to prevent strangers from sending unsolicited text messages to your phone. Whatever.
I'd have preferred a little more rebuttal than "whatever." That is -- could Verizon be telling the truth here? Are there security holes in bluetooth's serial port and file-transfer functions? What about in motorola's implementation in this particular phone? If not, then OK -- this is a shameless money grab and nothing more, hiding under a false veneer of "maintaining user privacy."
But, and I don't know enough about bluetooth in general, or bluetooth as implemented by motorola in their phones to say, but if there are indeed security holes in motorola's implementation that could get me blue-jacked (spammed with messages I can't stop, files/info/pics copied from my phone without permission, etc.) I'd be glad that Verizon turned off these options.
Then again, they could turn them off by default and leave a way for the less-nervous users to turn it back on. Or maybe just turn it on when you need it (such as when sync'ing or sending pics to a PC.)
Hm, the more I think about it, the more it seems like there maybe better solutions. But I'm hesitant to say that for sure until I understand more. There may be good reasons for diabling these features, and work-arounds may have jad problems as well. I dunno. I suspect this reviewer doesn't either.
In my experience, Verizon is one of the few carriers who tests the heck out of phones and often forced mfg'ers to make software changes to ensure stability and compatibility with the network before certifying them. In contrast, Sprint seems like they'll OK any phone sight unseen, and ship it to customers before they're even sure it will work well on their network. I've had to have several (new) Sprint phones' software updated just to work.
Any bluetooth experts or motorola employees out there who might be able to shed some light on how suceptible to "fraud" or "spam" this thing really is?
The free ipod thing, which has been joined by the new "free flatscreen" thing is turning every part of the internet that didn't totally suck (like slasdot and fatwallet and . . ) into a spamfest.
Frankly, I'd like to see/. handle the "free *" spam sigs and posts the same way that the SomethingAwful forums do -- permaban.
Now mod me as offtopic, overrated, trolling flamebait. I know you want to because you want a free ipod too, and you're in so late in this pyramid scheme that you have no chance to get one, so you have to lash out somewhere . . . .
I'd hate to learn that anything happened to New Here.
I was thinking it was not really a person but maybe a perl script that replies automatically when/new here/i is true on a wget slashdot.org. Maybe his box or pipe is down?
I'm looking for anything to backup the claim that geometry reduction invariably reduces power, even if the operating voltage is the same, regardless of wiring pitch or spacing, or any other possible factor.
If you'd just check the thread history without being angry, you'd see this is the only claim with which I've a problem.
Optical shrink has lots of effects. Some good, some bad. Mostly good. But it doesn't guarantee you a drop in total power dissipation for the same circuit at the same frequency.
Other factors also effect power. That's all I've been trying to say. And you keep arguing it, but only talkling about Ceff vs. Ctotal. Until now.
And I'm really spending too much time on it. As are you:)
I'm on no hook. But of course Ceff != Ctotal. I searched my posts and can't find an example of me claiming otherwise.
In the process I also noticed that it wasn't you that said "Of cause [sic] if you drop the dimention [sic] the power consumption decreases" it was brejc8.
This was and is about power and whether or not the same circuit, at the same voltage, will necessarily consume less power.
Apparently you entered the conversation in the middle, and latched onto something (not sure what) I said that made you think I'm arguing about Ceff and Ctotal. I'm not.
Ceff vs. Ctotal is irrelevant unless you can show that Ctotal (or Ceff, doesn't matter which to my point!) is necessarily reduced by process shrink, and that this reduction is never offset by anything else, so that power consumption is guaranteed to drop if geometry is reduced.
That's the claim you made with which I disagreed. I still disagree. Your capacitance red herring doesn't help you with this unsupportable claim.
Neither does that 1996 IEEE paper.
I remember the fun and games of '96, ignoring signal integrity, "what's cross capacitance?," "why bother with 3d extraction . . . " I guess the relative simplicity of the 0.5um to 0.35um, or 0.35um to 0.25um shrink might yield to your simplistic claim -- though I doubt it -- I can't be sure since every process I know also dropped VDD at that node, which usually happens.)
But I'm holding out for something, anything, that supports your assertion that geometry reduction invariably reduces power, even if voltage is the same. Until such is provided you will ignored.
I turned down Intel 8 over years ago. And last year again. I'm a staff-level ASIC designer with 8 years experience in physical design (including cell-based, COT, and full custom,) STA, signal integrity, and mixed signal/analog design. I know what a timing tools is. PrimeTime and NanoSim are my favorites. In contrast, your an angry child who likes arguing on the internet but can't support any of his claims.
I've tried to be nice and explain, with references, and you're still just harping on in your rude style about things you understand just enough about to be assertively mistaken. Despite my patient suffering of your obstinate, yet unsupported claims, you still haven't produced anything to back up your claim that "process shrinks necessarily provide power reduction."
No one is likely to waste much time trying to help a cocky brat like you understand how confused you are, at least I'm not going to waste any more of mine.
Slashdot Mirror
This opinionated, factless claim is not in any way informative.
Sore loser.
how about this one?
turn on the news -- Kerry conceded.
it's over with a fat 4-million-voter mandate
no more crying
four more years!
no tax increase for me, and I don't have to pay your healthcare bill!!!!!
On the contrary, sir. Terrorists will.
It's over, and with the right result. Uncontestably. Too wide of a margin or absentees and provisionals and disputeds combined to matter. It's called and over.
And thankfully I might now be able to tolerate this liberal cespool. I can't bear this place during the three months before an election.
Thanks for all looking like funny clowns in this thread. It's almost as fun as reading the weeping on SA.
Tata lovey.
No; late. Democrats vote tomorrow, November 3. Only registered Republicans may vote today.
I'm sorry, really. You've some serious replies already. But I can't resist the troll. You mean:
too much
. . . and . . .
non-existent
Work a bit harder on that spelling and grammar before you try to show "the world" what trend to follow.
Thanks for apologizing for your bad attitude. Without that I wouldn't be replying. Your wife is right, BTW.
L 07.pdf = Intro to CMOS for the non-engineer. Little stick-man icons, replacing transistors with little switch symbols, and most importantly not a single mention of power comsumption.
a sp?sSpec=SL28R&ProcFam=47&PkgType=ALL&SysBusSpd=AL L&CorSpd=ALL - broken link even after fixing the slashdot mangling. I suspect it has to do with power consumption of specific cores. Which is irrelevant, see above.
L 06.pdf = more of the same, comic sans font, lots of stick men with question marks above their heads. I went to MIT -- this is the stuff they show journalism majors who are naieve enough to take intro to electronics for a science elective.
An optical shrink within a certain limit reduces switching power invariably . . . blah blah irrelevant blah . . . Doesn't this imply that there is power loss as a direct result of shrinkage?
Yes, but an example of a shrink, accompanied by a voltage drop, that reduced power in one case, even if you try to account for the voltage drop, does not show that a shrink implies a power reduction in all cases.
Analytically --
Both the gate and diffusion caps scale linearly with W if L remains constant, otherwise the caps scale with area (one dimension vs. both dimension shrink.) Now, doesn't this automatically guarantee a drop in _switching_ power?
L does not remain constant. W/L is the transistor gain. And you're ignoring the (dominant) wiring capacitance.
Rush-through is more complicated so I don't have a clear answer. I've seen it get worse due to higher current in the linear region and bad project slopes. But I do know leakage gets WORSE as the devices get smaller, and this starts to offset the reduction due to scaling (partially due to channel width decrease, partially due to heavy doping).
I think you're making this up as you go along. Or maybe you got your EE in another country or something. "project slopes?" "Linear region" operation for digital circuits? WTF?
In practice --
Downsizing. We use smaller devices on paths with positive margin. The result? Lower power.
So I think based on these three example it is possible to demonstrate that a pure optical shrink results in lower power at the same Vcc/Freq.
No, based on those three examples and your conclusion, we can only be sure that you need to re-take logic and/or proofs.
Oh, BTW. You accused me of "googling for 1st year circuits material" yet you spew:
http://6371.lcs.mit.edu/currentsemester/handouts/
http://processorfinder.intel.com/scripts/details.
http://6371.lcs.mit.edu/currentsemester/handouts/
Yeah, and god forbid my wife and I have a little privacy, or a quiet dinner without guests.
;)
Our friends call first. You should too.
Sounds like it's not a problem for you, really, or you'd know how it feels when you've had too many friends and guests "drop-in" and be able to empathize a bit.
Good luck with that; hang in there
Fine? Try these:
;)
Select a calendar week view.
You get: Parse error: parse error, unexpected T_STRING in F:\ineighbors\calendar\weekview.php on line 6
"F:" -- running on IIS. That explains a lot.
Click a date to add an event.
You've clicked the date you want already -- but what's that? Add an event gives you some lovely drop-downs without defaulting to the day you clicked: Date: [Month] [Day]
Sign up for an account. Fill in all the form fields. Choose username "randy". Submit. Aren't you thrilled that you get to go "back" in "your browser" to an empty set of fields and fill them in all over again while you guess another, probably used, name? Want suggested available similar names? Not here. Sorry.
I could go on. Seriously. But the point is the grandparent is right -- this is sloppy code and a painful user interface. It fail's to deliver what most orkut/friendster users would consider the minimum functionality.
Which means it will be wildly successful
I don't know the reason. What is it?
OK, I expect a new technology. You did too -- right? Seems like we believe the airlines and the FAA and/or FCC when they tell us that cellphones can interfere with airplane communication and/or navigation systems (anything's possible right? can't be too careful at 20k ft. right?)
But then I read:
Until now, there have been concerns that cellphone use during flight could disrupt cell networks or interfere with the plane's navigation systems. The F.C.C., which has jurisdiction over ground communication, forbids the use of cellphones in flight out of concern that passengers calling from the air could overwhelm the nation's system of cell towers. That policy is currently under review and is likely to be modified this October, according to Lauren Patrich, an F.C.C. spokeswoman.
Whoah -- "until now?" The "policy is currently under review and is likely to be modified this October?" OMGWTFBBQ?
But alas, it's not that simple:
For its part, the F.A.A., which governs in-flight communications, recommends that airlines forbid the use of any device - including cellphones and pagers - that transmits signals, because of the risk of interference.
Woot! Administrative deathmatch -- FCC vs. FAA! Who will win!? Are you rrrready to tuuuune-to-this-freeeeequency?
Two newly proposed solutions will allow passengers to use their own cellphones to place calls in flight in a way that their makers say addresses both concerns. Unlike the current seat-back phone system, airlines will not have to pay for costly interior wiring. Instead, a small cell tower, known as a picocell, will be installed inside the cabin. Cellphone signals will be picked up by that cell, and then, depending on the system, relayed either first to a satellite or directly to the ground.
What's that? Not just a policy revision. Sigh. Actually a technological product that might prevent the FCC/FAA battle from ever taking place? Say it aint so . .
AirCell of Louisville, Colo., a large provider of in-flight communications services, has proposed a system that would bypass existing cellphone towers on the ground and direct calls instead to a separate grouping of receivers installed throughout the country. Equipment inside the plane would effectively create a cabin-wide hot spot handling voice and Internet communications.
Bah, it's true. They have a sufficiently expensive product to but that will allow them to charge sufficiently high fees so that we don't all ever have to know the truth about whether or not calling your sweetie from 30k ft. will crash the plane and they can still charge $5/min for airtime and the FCC doesn't have to kick the FAA's ass in public and all is well.
The AirCell system can handle any of the three digital phone standards in use by the American carriers: C.D.M.A., T.D.M.A. or G.S.M. Signals from each phone would be received by the plane's picocell, and then translated into one digital signal that would be sent to one of AirCell's terrestrial receivers. (To keep costs down, those receivers could be situated next to ones operated by cellphone carriers.) The signals would be separated and sent to the customer's carrier for routing and billing.
"Keep costs down." Did you see what he did there? He made you think they really want to keep costs down. Because it's worth it to take a percentage of smaller number if the average guy gets a break!
The system is designed to be able to transmit signals a distance of 50,000 feet, and hand them off from one ground receiver to the next while a caller is moving at 600 miles per hour. Because of the height at which planes fly, only 150 cell sites will be needed to provide coverage across the continental United States, according to Jack Blumenstein, AirCell's chief executive officer.
150 x what, $15 million? $10 million? I have no idea. But I bet the break-even point is at about 200 phone-fligh
I can easily get to at least 1% of 10,000 households by foot in my average, suburban town.
If you go to anything close to 10k households in my average, suburban town and lurk about knowing no one, trying to meet new "friends" at their homes, you'll be explaining yourself to the local constabulary forthwith!
And we like it that way!
Or do we?
Like phone book, mapping and even dating websites, I imagine you could limit your search to a distance radius from where you are located.
:)
And when you go and register, you will find that your imagination offers much, much more than reality in this case
Oh yeah? I've a question about this chicken and this egg... Simple answer: If you build it, they will come.
I built it (01760) -- when will they come? There's nobody even close as far as I can tell.
OK, I was going to ask the grandparent poster: "do you get in that many fights -- sheesh!"
:)
And then I read your post. More specifically:
Its great to be able to be able to just walk down the block and drop by
Oh no. The dreaded drop-in. Please -- call first! And if you get no answer or voicemail, leave a short message and don't keep calling.
Seriously -- you inadvertently made his point
It's not more than a zip-code structured Orkut community system. Or at least not much more. Maybe less in some ways.
I tried it. I even registered my "neighborhood" since none existed in my zip code (or presumably near, since none were offerered.)
It's faster than orkut/friendster/etc. but no faster than these services were when they started (i.e, before they got slammed with more load than they anticipated or were prepared to pay for.) We'll see how snappy those pages are in a few months.
The UI is pretty good and intuitive, but there are some annoyances. For example, when I registered I filled out some 12 fields of info including user name and submitted. Of course, my username was already in use, but rather than present the otherwise-ok-filled-in form and let me change the username, or offer similar alternatives, it made me go "back" in my browser and re-enter everything into the emptied fields. That happened twice (I saved the info the 2nd time in anticipation, but it's still unnecessarily unfriendly.)
Now that I'm in I seem to have control over a bit more than the competition websites offer. I have a profile where I can "share info about [my]self", a directory of users (me), an event calendar (nothing happening), photo albums (all empty,) matches (others in my community, of which there are currently 0,) reviews (nada,) polls (I plan to create a poll to surrender my neighbors' land to me, vote alone, and win, bwahaha), see who's online now (and thus not initiate my plan to claim their land for my own, since they're probably home,) email everyone in my neighborhood in one fell swoop (local spammer heaven!) or arrange/join a carpool.
All of which sounds really neat, if not entirely original and a bit milquetoast (hey -- no "C.A." a la craigslist?) Or at least it would be if there were anyone else registered in the area.
Which brings me to my final question -- how much do these ads cost?
I didn't get that from TFA -- where did it say they will re-enable the disabled bluetooth features for a fee? If this is indeed true then, yeah -- it's a BS money grab.
As I understand it, they will seel you a physical cable that can accomplish the downloading pictures or synching, or you can use their secure service to send pics to others or the net. Either way, you still have to use VZW's private server and/or a cable -- no full bluetooth.
Oh, and whichever two mods decided that my honest inquiry and/or failure to blindly accept the spin of the story without question was a troll are wrong. That's not trolling. It's called "looking at the other side" and "trying to learn the truth." Alien concepts, I'm sure.
All mobile phone companies do this and, IMHO, Sprint is the worst. But, let's note from TFA:
Verizon says that crippling Bluetooth implementation is a "fraud prevention" tactic to prevent strangers from sending unsolicited text messages to your phone. Whatever.
I'd have preferred a little more rebuttal than "whatever." That is -- could Verizon be telling the truth here? Are there security holes in bluetooth's serial port and file-transfer functions? What about in motorola's implementation in this particular phone? If not, then OK -- this is a shameless money grab and nothing more, hiding under a false veneer of "maintaining user privacy."
But, and I don't know enough about bluetooth in general, or bluetooth as implemented by motorola in their phones to say, but if there are indeed security holes in motorola's implementation that could get me blue-jacked (spammed with messages I can't stop, files/info/pics copied from my phone without permission, etc.) I'd be glad that Verizon turned off these options.
Then again, they could turn them off by default and leave a way for the less-nervous users to turn it back on. Or maybe just turn it on when you need it (such as when sync'ing or sending pics to a PC.)
Hm, the more I think about it, the more it seems like there maybe better solutions. But I'm hesitant to say that for sure until I understand more. There may be good reasons for diabling these features, and work-arounds may have jad problems as well. I dunno. I suspect this reviewer doesn't either.
In my experience, Verizon is one of the few carriers who tests the heck out of phones and often forced mfg'ers to make software changes to ensure stability and compatibility with the network before certifying them. In contrast, Sprint seems like they'll OK any phone sight unseen, and ship it to customers before they're even sure it will work well on their network. I've had to have several (new) Sprint phones' software updated just to work.
Any bluetooth experts or motorola employees out there who might be able to shed some light on how suceptible to "fraud" or "spam" this thing really is?
I'll second that, and not even anonymously.
/. handle the "free *" spam sigs and posts the same way that the SomethingAwful forums do -- permaban.
The free ipod thing, which has been joined by the new "free flatscreen" thing is turning every part of the internet that didn't totally suck (like slasdot and fatwallet and . . ) into a spamfest.
Frankly, I'd like to see
Now mod me as offtopic, overrated, trolling flamebait. I know you want to because you want a free ipod too, and you're in so late in this pyramid scheme that you have no chance to get one, so you have to lash out somewhere . . . .
Mod me offtopic if you must, but where is he?
/new here/i is true on a wget slashdot.org. Maybe his box or pipe is down?
He should have posted his line by now.
I'm a bit worried.
I'd hate to learn that anything happened to New Here.
I was thinking it was not really a person but maybe a perl script that replies automatically when
I hope he's OK!
Nope. Read it again slowly.
:)
I'm looking for anything to backup the claim that geometry reduction invariably reduces power, even if the operating voltage is the same, regardless of wiring pitch or spacing, or any other possible factor.
If you'd just check the thread history without being angry, you'd see this is the only claim with which I've a problem.
Optical shrink has lots of effects. Some good, some bad. Mostly good. But it doesn't guarantee you a drop in total power dissipation for the same circuit at the same frequency.
Other factors also effect power. That's all I've been trying to say. And you keep arguing it, but only talkling about Ceff vs. Ctotal. Until now.
And I'm really spending too much time on it. As are you
I fixed one of those -1 moderations in M2. Stupid, wrong, and borderline flamebait is not Offtopic.
Just FYI, FTR, and in hopes that others might do similarly.
Mod points are overrrated.
M2 points are underrated.
I fixed the stupid moderation in M2. Unfunny is not Offtopic.
Just FYI, and in hopes that others might do similarly.
I don't normally do this, but, the parent really should be modded up, for many reasons.
And despite any tinge of Intel-fanboism your fanboiometer may indicate.
That "desperate" bit was just a well-deserved jab at the cluless grandparent. IMHO.
I'm on no hook. But of course Ceff != Ctotal. I searched my posts and can't find an example of me claiming otherwise. In the process I also noticed that it wasn't you that said "Of cause [sic] if you drop the dimention [sic] the power consumption decreases" it was brejc8.
This was and is about power and whether or not the same circuit, at the same voltage, will necessarily consume less power.
Apparently you entered the conversation in the middle, and latched onto something (not sure what) I said that made you think I'm arguing about Ceff and Ctotal. I'm not.
Listen kid: you're arguing with yourself.
Ceff vs. Ctotal is irrelevant unless you can show that Ctotal (or Ceff, doesn't matter which to my point!) is necessarily reduced by process shrink, and that this reduction is never offset by anything else, so that power consumption is guaranteed to drop if geometry is reduced.
That's the claim you made with which I disagreed. I still disagree. Your capacitance red herring doesn't help you with this unsupportable claim.
Neither does that 1996 IEEE paper.
I remember the fun and games of '96, ignoring signal integrity, "what's cross capacitance?," "why bother with 3d extraction . . . " I guess the relative simplicity of the 0.5um to 0.35um, or 0.35um to 0.25um shrink might yield to your simplistic claim -- though I doubt it -- I can't be sure since every process I know also dropped VDD at that node, which usually happens.)
But I'm holding out for something, anything, that supports your assertion that geometry reduction invariably reduces power, even if voltage is the same. Until such is provided you will ignored.
I turned down Intel 8 over years ago. And last year again. I'm a staff-level ASIC designer with 8 years experience in physical design (including cell-based, COT, and full custom,) STA, signal integrity, and mixed signal/analog design. I know what a timing tools is. PrimeTime and NanoSim are my favorites. In contrast, your an angry child who likes arguing on the internet but can't support any of his claims.
I've tried to be nice and explain, with references, and you're still just harping on in your rude style about things you understand just enough about to be assertively mistaken. Despite my patient suffering of your obstinate, yet unsupported claims, you still haven't produced anything to back up your claim that "process shrinks necessarily provide power reduction."
No one is likely to waste much time trying to help a cocky brat like you understand how confused you are, at least I'm not going to waste any more of mine.
Try being nicer, you might learn something.