They have written code. What they haven't done is documented their protocol. They've used AGPL, which barely meets the definition of F/OSS, meaning that most people wanting to do an independent implementation can't look at their code, and their ad-hoc protocol has never had any kind of even half-arsed peer review, let alone the kind that would be required to ensure that it actually enforces the kinds of privacy guarantees that they want.
they've hit the government's blacklist due to repeated failures to deliver.
When did they change the procurement practices? Traditionally, repeated failure to deliver means lots of experience with government contracts, move to the top of the list.
Actually that heavily depends on your ISP, while cable always is shared, DSL is not
I can't help think that this phrase was something repeated by ADSL providers. With cable, the last-mile connection is a bus, whereas it's a point-to-point link with ADSL, but in terms of consumer experience this has absolutely no impact. You aren't sharing a single 10Mb/s last-mile connection when you buy a 10Mb/s cable connection. With DOCSIS 3, you've got about 40-50Mb/s per channel (less for the US version than the European version due to 6MH` vs 8MHz channels), and you've got at least 4 channels, and likely quite a lot more. Your cable modem restricts you to using some smaller amount, but the total amount of last-mile bandwidth is often more than the number of subscribers per segment multiplied by their advertised speed.
Beyond the last hop, however, the situation is identical between ADSL and cable. A number of ADSL customers or a number of cable segments (each containing multiple customers) will be connected to the same link. The ratio between the amount of bandwidth available on the upstream link and the maximum amount of bandwidth that it's possible for all of the downstream users to try to use is somewhere between 1:10 and 1:50, depending on your ISP. 1:20 is usually a reasonable number, because different peak usage times mean that this level of service typically lets everyone saturate their link when they want to.
Seriously,.NET 2.0 came out in 2005. What's changed between 2005 and 2012 that makes you unable to learn something a bit new? Even.NET 1.0 which (aside from similarities to Java) was basically a new platform is only about a decade old, yet you apparently managed to learn it. If you're asking whether you can learn a new platform, rather than just learning it, then you might be to old...
It was used as a desktop chip. (Don't recall a lot of mobile devices in 1987.)
You might remember the Apple Newton. The reason ARM was spun out from Acorn was that Apple wanted to use their CPU, but didn't want to buy it from a direct competitor. Having a spin-out that provided CPUs for both of them was fine.
What prevented it from going into a rack-mount server?
No one tried it? It simply wasn't a market ARM aimed at. The two operating systems that ran on it were NewtonOS and RiscOS, neither of which was aimed at servers. They could have ported something else, but Linux didn't exist for 4 years and wasn't really credible for a decade later, BSD still needed an AT&T license, and since this was the '80s the phrase 'UNIX security' was still followed by a chortle. The server market was owned by Novell at the low end and big-iron vendors at the high end.
But ARM servers? People have been trying to sell those as long as ARM has been around.
No they haven't. ARM2 was definitely a mobile / desktop chip. Up until AMR6 they were mainly aiming at this same market, and then focussed almost exclusively on embedded. Cortex A8 was the first that anyone seriously thought about putting in a server, but ARM wasn't pushing it in that direction. Cortex A15 is the first chip that they've designed aimed at servers and we're only just seeing shipping silicon for it now (and most of that is aimed at tablets). ARM has definitely identified the low-power server market as one that they want to be in, but they're only just bringing to market the first generation of chips aimed at it, and then only in a slightly half-hearted way. The ARMv8 designs that should be appearing in the first half of next year are going to be their first serious contender there.
Of course, I suppose it depends a lot on what you mean by 'server'. A lot of traditional file server roles in small businesses have been replaced by ARM-based NAS appliances over the past few years, although MIPS still has a pretty good presence in this market.
How easy is it to migrate elsewhere? With SOGO, the server-side state is all either stored in formats that make it easy to export, or in some other application (e.g. your IMAP server). If you decide in 3 years time to move to something that better suits your business needs then it's easy and cheap. If you want to migrate from Exchange (preserving email history, calendars, and so on) then how easy is it? You should always consider the cost of migrating away from a product when you chose it.
Actually, they're not. Boats are much more efficient for cargo, but a fast boat from the UK to the USA takes over a week. That means that you need to take enough food for a week, have enough space to keep people entertained for a week, have people employed to clean the cabins en voyage and so on. Your passengers also have to be able to spare a week or two each way for the journey. Boats are fine for short trips, although loading and unloading can quickly become a bottleneck, which drives up the cost because harbour space is a finite resource.
Why? Atoms are a model for the universe that comes from a mind that thinks in terms of countable quantities. A mind that thinks in terms of continuous values might discover quantum mechanics early on and regard atoms as probability distributions of different types of force.
I haven't used Windows for a few years, but from reading articles on the subject I was under the impression that the user was presented with a dialog the first time they run IE10 asking if they wish to enable the header. The advertisers' complaint seems to be more that it's easy to enable in IE10, whereas other browsers require you to hunt in menus or in settings.
The point of the Rosetta Stone was that it contained translations of the same passage into a mixture of languages we understood and ones we didn't. It could then be used as a key to understand the languages that we couldn't yet translate. An equivalent for this would be a passage in English, and two translations of it into languages read by aliens five billion years into the future. So, no.
Nowadays? There's so little difference between the specs of processors that I might as well just buy Intel. There's no compelling reason to go AMD any more, so nobody's buying them.
Depends on the market. For example, when I built my NAS I was originally looking at Atom. Intel, however, cripples the chipsets and so the only way of getting a decent number of SATA connections on a mini-ITX system was to go with an AMD Fusion board.
it wouldn't have been unthinkable for Apple to buy 100%
Yes it would. That was exactly the situation that they'd been in with IBM and Motorola and wanted to avoid. By going with Intel, they are paying 10% of the R&D costs. Well, maybe 20% once you factor in Intel's profit. With IBM, they were paying 100% because IBM had no other customers with the same (or even very similar) requirements. With AMD, they'd have been paying at least 50%. Being one of the largest customers, but still a minority is a really nice position to be in. Your supplier gives you good deals, because a lot of their profit comes from the kinds of volume that you order, but at the same time you're not totally financing their R&D and they have enough total capacity that a production glitch won't affect you because they'll just restrict the supply to some of their less-favoured customers.
Apple had a very good reason for ignoring AMD, which had nothing to do with the quality of their CPUs: AMD did not have the supply chain in place for that kind of volume. Apple's market share was around half of AMD's, meaning that they would have been buying half as many chips as AMD was producing in total. Part of the point of AMD spinning out Global Foundries was to make it possible for them to easily ramp up capacity by getting other companies to fab their chips. Unfortunately, they've been quite slow to build the relationships needed to do this. Without that, AMD can maybe get a high-profile customer (although they have a few of those in the form of supercomputers) but they can't get a new high-volume customer. Apple is one of Intel's biggest customers, but there are others of a similar magnitude, and it's nothing like even 50% of Intel's total sales, so it was relatively easy for Intel to absorb the increased demand: scaling up production by 5-10% is a lot easer than scaling up by 50%.
Slashdot Mirror
Or make you liable for it, not until some arbitrary age, but until it demonstrates the ability to be a functioning member of society.
No, that would be the UK. See: EDS.
They have written code. What they haven't done is documented their protocol. They've used AGPL, which barely meets the definition of F/OSS, meaning that most people wanting to do an independent implementation can't look at their code, and their ad-hoc protocol has never had any kind of even half-arsed peer review, let alone the kind that would be required to ensure that it actually enforces the kinds of privacy guarantees that they want.
they've hit the government's blacklist due to repeated failures to deliver.
When did they change the procurement practices? Traditionally, repeated failure to deliver means lots of experience with government contracts, move to the top of the list.
Actually that heavily depends on your ISP, while cable always is shared, DSL is not
I can't help think that this phrase was something repeated by ADSL providers. With cable, the last-mile connection is a bus, whereas it's a point-to-point link with ADSL, but in terms of consumer experience this has absolutely no impact. You aren't sharing a single 10Mb/s last-mile connection when you buy a 10Mb/s cable connection. With DOCSIS 3, you've got about 40-50Mb/s per channel (less for the US version than the European version due to 6MH` vs 8MHz channels), and you've got at least 4 channels, and likely quite a lot more. Your cable modem restricts you to using some smaller amount, but the total amount of last-mile bandwidth is often more than the number of subscribers per segment multiplied by their advertised speed.
Beyond the last hop, however, the situation is identical between ADSL and cable. A number of ADSL customers or a number of cable segments (each containing multiple customers) will be connected to the same link. The ratio between the amount of bandwidth available on the upstream link and the maximum amount of bandwidth that it's possible for all of the downstream users to try to use is somewhere between 1:10 and 1:50, depending on your ISP. 1:20 is usually a reasonable number, because different peak usage times mean that this level of service typically lets everyone saturate their link when they want to.
Seriously, .NET 2.0 came out in 2005. What's changed between 2005 and 2012 that makes you unable to learn something a bit new? Even .NET 1.0 which (aside from similarities to Java) was basically a new platform is only about a decade old, yet you apparently managed to learn it. If you're asking whether you can learn a new platform, rather than just learning it, then you might be to old...
It was used as a desktop chip. (Don't recall a lot of mobile devices in 1987.)
You might remember the Apple Newton. The reason ARM was spun out from Acorn was that Apple wanted to use their CPU, but didn't want to buy it from a direct competitor. Having a spin-out that provided CPUs for both of them was fine.
What prevented it from going into a rack-mount server?
No one tried it? It simply wasn't a market ARM aimed at. The two operating systems that ran on it were NewtonOS and RiscOS, neither of which was aimed at servers. They could have ported something else, but Linux didn't exist for 4 years and wasn't really credible for a decade later, BSD still needed an AT&T license, and since this was the '80s the phrase 'UNIX security' was still followed by a chortle. The server market was owned by Novell at the low end and big-iron vendors at the high end.
According to our study, arsenic was 100% effective in treating cancer. None of our patients died of cancer!
But ARM servers? People have been trying to sell those as long as ARM has been around.
No they haven't. ARM2 was definitely a mobile / desktop chip. Up until AMR6 they were mainly aiming at this same market, and then focussed almost exclusively on embedded. Cortex A8 was the first that anyone seriously thought about putting in a server, but ARM wasn't pushing it in that direction. Cortex A15 is the first chip that they've designed aimed at servers and we're only just seeing shipping silicon for it now (and most of that is aimed at tablets). ARM has definitely identified the low-power server market as one that they want to be in, but they're only just bringing to market the first generation of chips aimed at it, and then only in a slightly half-hearted way. The ARMv8 designs that should be appearing in the first half of next year are going to be their first serious contender there.
Of course, I suppose it depends a lot on what you mean by 'server'. A lot of traditional file server roles in small businesses have been replaced by ARM-based NAS appliances over the past few years, although MIPS still has a pretty good presence in this market.
An unmanned boat would not really make sense for carrying passengers...
How easy is it to migrate elsewhere? With SOGO, the server-side state is all either stored in formats that make it easy to export, or in some other application (e.g. your IMAP server). If you decide in 3 years time to move to something that better suits your business needs then it's easy and cheap. If you want to migrate from Exchange (preserving email history, calendars, and so on) then how easy is it? You should always consider the cost of migrating away from a product when you chose it.
You have solved the first part of the puzzle. The second part is working out how to fit them all into a car.
Actually, they're not. Boats are much more efficient for cargo, but a fast boat from the UK to the USA takes over a week. That means that you need to take enough food for a week, have enough space to keep people entertained for a week, have people employed to clean the cabins en voyage and so on. Your passengers also have to be able to spare a week or two each way for the journey. Boats are fine for short trips, although loading and unloading can quickly become a bottleneck, which drives up the cost because harbour space is a finite resource.
“It only takes 20 years for a liberal to become a conservative without changing a single idea.”
- Robert Anton Wilson
The way some people carry on, you'd think that teleprompters had had to be specially invented just for Obama.
I thought they were invented by Steve Jobs.
I'll just never understand why anyone would care about what covers their feet as long as they are comfortable.
Perhaps your feet have different requirements to others?
Why? Atoms are a model for the universe that comes from a mind that thinks in terms of countable quantities. A mind that thinks in terms of continuous values might discover quantum mechanics early on and regard atoms as probability distributions of different types of force.
I haven't used Windows for a few years, but from reading articles on the subject I was under the impression that the user was presented with a dialog the first time they run IE10 asking if they wish to enable the header. The advertisers' complaint seems to be more that it's easy to enable in IE10, whereas other browsers require you to hunt in menus or in settings.
The point of the Rosetta Stone was that it contained translations of the same passage into a mixture of languages we understood and ones we didn't. It could then be used as a key to understand the languages that we couldn't yet translate. An equivalent for this would be a passage in English, and two translations of it into languages read by aliens five billion years into the future. So, no.
I'm British and I've never heard that. Checking on urban dictionary, apparently no one else has either...
Nowadays? There's so little difference between the specs of processors that I might as well just buy Intel. There's no compelling reason to go AMD any more, so nobody's buying them.
Depends on the market. For example, when I built my NAS I was originally looking at Atom. Intel, however, cripples the chipsets and so the only way of getting a decent number of SATA connections on a mini-ITX system was to go with an AMD Fusion board.
I think his point is that people who can't tell the difference between 1, 0, and -1 probably didn't get a great deal when they sold...
it wouldn't have been unthinkable for Apple to buy 100%
Yes it would. That was exactly the situation that they'd been in with IBM and Motorola and wanted to avoid. By going with Intel, they are paying 10% of the R&D costs. Well, maybe 20% once you factor in Intel's profit. With IBM, they were paying 100% because IBM had no other customers with the same (or even very similar) requirements. With AMD, they'd have been paying at least 50%. Being one of the largest customers, but still a minority is a really nice position to be in. Your supplier gives you good deals, because a lot of their profit comes from the kinds of volume that you order, but at the same time you're not totally financing their R&D and they have enough total capacity that a production glitch won't affect you because they'll just restrict the supply to some of their less-favoured customers.
Apple had a very good reason for ignoring AMD, which had nothing to do with the quality of their CPUs: AMD did not have the supply chain in place for that kind of volume. Apple's market share was around half of AMD's, meaning that they would have been buying half as many chips as AMD was producing in total. Part of the point of AMD spinning out Global Foundries was to make it possible for them to easily ramp up capacity by getting other companies to fab their chips. Unfortunately, they've been quite slow to build the relationships needed to do this. Without that, AMD can maybe get a high-profile customer (although they have a few of those in the form of supercomputers) but they can't get a new high-volume customer. Apple is one of Intel's biggest customers, but there are others of a similar magnitude, and it's nothing like even 50% of Intel's total sales, so it was relatively easy for Intel to absorb the increased demand: scaling up production by 5-10% is a lot easer than scaling up by 50%.
Nonsense. They'd have created filters for adding purple haze and sold them to J.J. Abrams.