So really then the definition of a netbook should be too small to use and too cheap to be of any use. Is the Air way too much for what you get? Yes, but price should never be a characteristic of a class of devices unless the scale is based solely on luxury. Is it too big? No. If an asus is too big to fit into your pocket, you may as well make it big enough to use comfortably. The Air fits in a bag and frankly it fits into what most people use as brief cases these days and not much bigger than a a few legal pads stacked together. Why a netbook needs to be thicker but with a smaller screen size is beyond me. The function between what you call a netbook and the Air is the same. A small, light portable PC with enough capability to run office and communications applications. That's the function. The bulk of this std definition is about physical characteristics which are not germane (or are tangentially) to the actual function. If you can get the same function in various packages, they are the same thing.
They have. It is called the Air. Just because it is large, doesn't mean it is not a netbook. I think the definition of netbook is wrong in that it requires something under a certain size screen (9-11 inches depending on who is talking).
That was tolerance in the standards, not in the physical tolerance of the actual unit/device/etc. Right now the range is very small @ 68 to 75F ambient. They brought it up to 90F ambient.
I wouldn't even be surprised if they included the increase in failure rate, simply to not have to say no increase in failures because of all of the geniuses out there who would be incredulous over that because they can't fathom that their assumptions are not backed by any sort of fact.
I can say with much certainty that most of the big vendors are starting to warm up to this and know that needless cooling is not going to stand up to scrutiny much longer. In fact, Intel is not the only one looking at this. These standards that we apply for acceptable heat and humidity levels were a) never designed for IT equipment and b) were never actually tested. The come from old telecom standards and they were primarily assumptions based on very old technology. Anyone looking at datacenter eff is looking real hard at these and asking themselves, what are the real acceptable ranges for modern equipment, under modern conditions. When this is all said and done, the answers are going to be much more heat tolerance and far greater humidity tolerance in both directions.
I will rephrase your question. Would a.6% increase in the already tiny failure risk be noticeable to someone running a single server when their chances of failure were already so small to begin with that their server was far less likely to fail in the first place?
No, so yes, it is worth it from a cost perspective. They can take the money they save and replace the hardware twice as fast and their already small failure rate is less than half. This is a win all around and actually, the article never said what was the source of the increased failures, heat or particulate in the air. If the latter, this is a huge win for energy efficiency.
Bingo! You stay out my life, I stay out yours. And more specifically, I don't understand why this type of compromise is not discussed more. It seems like the most rational and intelligent way to solve the impasse.... Oh wait, that's why....:-)
There are other services provided such as email, etc that one must account for. Now you can't say, but there are free services, although that is true, but those come at a cost of ads, etc; Also, $600 and $50 are far cries from each other. VZ, and the gang are selling the service of partitioning off these services. Are they gouging? Without a doubt. But is a 1-to-1 ratio of bytes to dollars fair, no? In a sane market, you would probably see a ratio 10-to-1 or even higher for this service. Buying in bulk will always be better.
And the only way to make these markets sane is to have truly open access to pipes to competitors. What the cable cos do and VZ does with DSL (not fiber remember is a travesty). And to suggest the market will work this out without line sharing, is to suggest this is what our neighborhoods should look like...
http://media.npr.org/programs/day/features/2006/aug/xeni_himalayas/3/main4_lg.jpg
and
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e210/kapson/1106/07/1.jpg
Ahhh... They almost did and you want to know what your knights in shining armor did? They exempted themselves from having to abide by the patent (effectively telling RIM that they could continue to service the US Govt) and basically told the rest of us we could go screw. A few weeks later RIM settled for $385 million or so. So what was that idea again?
You know, I thought the same thing (and yes, I know you were joking, but I think you are on to something). I have observed some other FCC auctions and they have a more regular pattern of bidding but I would not be surprised if the eBay sniper approach is being played here. There is a great deal of uncertainty and this may be a way to try to hedge and keep the bidding low.
Yeah, I will be buying a new one soon and the leftovers plus the ease factor would make it nice if they brought it down to say $200 extra but there is no way in hell I will ever pay more than that. Everything else is priced reasonably (drives, etc, not the apple specific stuff like the airplane power adaptor) but RAM seems to be a major disconnect, maybe for those reasons you stated.
Apple charges $700 for 4 GB of ram. Other wise you get 2 with a 2 x 1GB configuration. That means if you buy it on the after market, you need to buy all 4 GBs again... I would love to see them drop the price of memory right now.
Think they haven't thought about that. Just make a cartridge that when removed and then put back in if it thinks there is more ink in it fail. Based on some experience with HP's new #2 cartridges, I think they already have done this.
...but unfortunately not a voting member this kills me. There is a good deal of excellent work done there but this will be a blight that will be a long time in removing.
I was not (and did not) reply to your post. I was replying to the troll in between your post and mine. Read it and what I said in my original post will make a lot more sense to you.
Dude, employees coming to congress and saying this is happening is not equivalent to some nut bag who believes in space aliens giving him an anal probe. The evidence is there for the taking, but it is locked up behind national security claims that no one seems to have the balls to break open and shine the light of day on to see if they are valid. So excuse folks who believe that trust but verify is not a bad way of approaching matters with the government. And oh, black helicopters are your side's boogey man, not his...
No, the copyright office of the USPTO created regulations to clarify what is allowed based on copyright law and this was one of the exceptions. DMCA has nothing to do with this other than the fact that the DMCA (a bill) modified the sections of the federal code (the law) that dictate the regulations that the USPTO can put into place. Based on their regulations, it is in fact not illegal for an individual to unlock a phone.
Well, I am glad to see the grand tradition of not RTFA is still alive after ten years. It is not VTOL. I has foldable wings and classifies as a Light-Sport aircraft (one up from a super light) with low velocity (high lift) horizontal take off and landing. A good old fashioned paved private air strip will suffice. Still stinks in areas around cities.
Slashdot Mirror
So really then the definition of a netbook should be too small to use and too cheap to be of any use. Is the Air way too much for what you get? Yes, but price should never be a characteristic of a class of devices unless the scale is based solely on luxury. Is it too big? No. If an asus is too big to fit into your pocket, you may as well make it big enough to use comfortably. The Air fits in a bag and frankly it fits into what most people use as brief cases these days and not much bigger than a a few legal pads stacked together. Why a netbook needs to be thicker but with a smaller screen size is beyond me. The function between what you call a netbook and the Air is the same. A small, light portable PC with enough capability to run office and communications applications. That's the function. The bulk of this std definition is about physical characteristics which are not germane (or are tangentially) to the actual function. If you can get the same function in various packages, they are the same thing.
They have. It is called the Air. Just because it is large, doesn't mean it is not a netbook. I think the definition of netbook is wrong in that it requires something under a certain size screen (9-11 inches depending on who is talking).
That was tolerance in the standards, not in the physical tolerance of the actual unit/device/etc. Right now the range is very small @ 68 to 75F ambient. They brought it up to 90F ambient.
I wouldn't even be surprised if they included the increase in failure rate, simply to not have to say no increase in failures because of all of the geniuses out there who would be incredulous over that because they can't fathom that their assumptions are not backed by any sort of fact.
I can say with much certainty that most of the big vendors are starting to warm up to this and know that needless cooling is not going to stand up to scrutiny much longer. In fact, Intel is not the only one looking at this. These standards that we apply for acceptable heat and humidity levels were a) never designed for IT equipment and b) were never actually tested. The come from old telecom standards and they were primarily assumptions based on very old technology. Anyone looking at datacenter eff is looking real hard at these and asking themselves, what are the real acceptable ranges for modern equipment, under modern conditions. When this is all said and done, the answers are going to be much more heat tolerance and far greater humidity tolerance in both directions.
I will rephrase your question. Would a .6% increase in the already tiny failure risk be noticeable to someone running a single server when their chances of failure were already so small to begin with that their server was far less likely to fail in the first place?
No, so yes, it is worth it from a cost perspective. They can take the money they save and replace the hardware twice as fast and their already small failure rate is less than half. This is a win all around and actually, the article never said what was the source of the increased failures, heat or particulate in the air. If the latter, this is a huge win for energy efficiency.
Bingo! You stay out my life, I stay out yours. And more specifically, I don't understand why this type of compromise is not discussed more. It seems like the most rational and intelligent way to solve the impasse.... Oh wait, that's why.... :-)
Well you see, if you don't read the email then it does not exist so one needn't act...
There are other services provided such as email, etc that one must account for. Now you can't say, but there are free services, although that is true, but those come at a cost of ads, etc; Also, $600 and $50 are far cries from each other. VZ, and the gang are selling the service of partitioning off these services. Are they gouging? Without a doubt. But is a 1-to-1 ratio of bytes to dollars fair, no? In a sane market, you would probably see a ratio 10-to-1 or even higher for this service. Buying in bulk will always be better. And the only way to make these markets sane is to have truly open access to pipes to competitors. What the cable cos do and VZ does with DSL (not fiber remember is a travesty). And to suggest the market will work this out without line sharing, is to suggest this is what our neighborhoods should look like... http://media.npr.org/programs/day/features/2006/aug/xeni_himalayas/3/main4_lg.jpg and http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e210/kapson/1106/07/1.jpg
Ahhh... They almost did and you want to know what your knights in shining armor did? They exempted themselves from having to abide by the patent (effectively telling RIM that they could continue to service the US Govt) and basically told the rest of us we could go screw. A few weeks later RIM settled for $385 million or so. So what was that idea again?
Then keep the machine you have and turn on system standby/sleep functions. It is free and will save far more power than anything Ars is hocking.
Well, I am glad it is the 25th and not the 2nd of the month...
You know, I thought the same thing (and yes, I know you were joking, but I think you are on to something). I have observed some other FCC auctions and they have a more regular pattern of bidding but I would not be surprised if the eBay sniper approach is being played here. There is a great deal of uncertainty and this may be a way to try to hedge and keep the bidding low.
Yeah, I will be buying a new one soon and the leftovers plus the ease factor would make it nice if they brought it down to say $200 extra but there is no way in hell I will ever pay more than that. Everything else is priced reasonably (drives, etc, not the apple specific stuff like the airplane power adaptor) but RAM seems to be a major disconnect, maybe for those reasons you stated.
Apple charges $700 for 4 GB of ram. Other wise you get 2 with a 2 x 1GB configuration. That means if you buy it on the after market, you need to buy all 4 GBs again... I would love to see them drop the price of memory right now.
Think they haven't thought about that. Just make a cartridge that when removed and then put back in if it thinks there is more ink in it fail. Based on some experience with HP's new #2 cartridges, I think they already have done this.
Yeah, and a wiki is the authoritative end all-be all of information. See here http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/index.html
It is actually Ecma. Ecma no longer stands for European Computer Manufacturers Association. It is just plain ol' Ecma International now.
...but unfortunately not a voting member this kills me. There is a good deal of excellent work done there but this will be a blight that will be a long time in removing.
I was not (and did not) reply to your post. I was replying to the troll in between your post and mine. Read it and what I said in my original post will make a lot more sense to you.
Dude, employees coming to congress and saying this is happening is not equivalent to some nut bag who believes in space aliens giving him an anal probe. The evidence is there for the taking, but it is locked up behind national security claims that no one seems to have the balls to break open and shine the light of day on to see if they are valid. So excuse folks who believe that trust but verify is not a bad way of approaching matters with the government. And oh, black helicopters are your side's boogey man, not his...
No, the copyright office of the USPTO created regulations to clarify what is allowed based on copyright law and this was one of the exceptions. DMCA has nothing to do with this other than the fact that the DMCA (a bill) modified the sections of the federal code (the law) that dictate the regulations that the USPTO can put into place. Based on their regulations, it is in fact not illegal for an individual to unlock a phone.
Well, I am glad to see the grand tradition of not RTFA is still alive after ten years. It is not VTOL. I has foldable wings and classifies as a Light-Sport aircraft (one up from a super light) with low velocity (high lift) horizontal take off and landing. A good old fashioned paved private air strip will suffice. Still stinks in areas around cities.
There is...