"In addition, Intel said it's working on bundling the optical fiber with copper wire so Light Peak can be used to power devices plugged into the PC, he said."
Not definitive, but it sounds like they very well might do power as well.
Indeed. With overhead it's actually more like 300MB/sec. My SSD does 285MB/sec. There are some that will do more than 300, and it's incredibly easy to get over 300MB/sec of potential speed (ignoring the SATA II bottleneck) with certain RAID configurations (where the drives are bottlenecked by a single SATA cable, such as those 2x2.5" to 1x3.5" converter things that you can get).
Sorry to reply to myself, but I am in effect going to now argue against what I just said (though it's more of a rant without any direction... feel free not to read it:) ).
I only stated what I have at my apartment because I feel that it represents the general population better than if I were to also state that I have 2 colocated servers using a total of 32 IP addresses. Do these stats count virtual servers as devices? My 2 physical servers have a good 10 or 12 VMs running, a couple of which are actually NAT'd (the rest have at least 1 external IP address).
Another thing that would point to a lower device:IP ratio is my University... most standard lab computers are NAT'd behind only a few IP addresses, but each CS lab computer (and I imagine many of the engineering ones as well) has an external IP, and many departments on campus are given their own blocks.
It'd also be smart to factor in how IP blocks are allocated... I used to just have a/30, which gave me *one* usable IP address out of 4 after the network, broadcast, and gateway. That's quite a bad ratio, but a similar thing could be said for my 2/28s. 6 of those IPs are unusable for my servers themselves.
So my guess is that if the study's numbers are correct, it's probably due to businesses and Universities (doesn't, or didn't IBM have even their phones all on external IPs?).
I try not to look at this as comparing it to the world's population, but comparing it to the number of claimed "used up" IP addresses. With all of the doomsday talk going on I'd swear we're using at least 3 billion IPs by now. Is the ratio of devices to IPs really only (roughly) 2:1?
It seems low to me as well. People constantly talk about how we're almost out of IPv4 addresses (4 billion). I'm single, and in my apartment I have 1 IP address for 6 internet-connected devices. Are there really that many devices that are either not NAT'd or the only thing behind a router/gateway? Granted, I'm also a nerd who likes gadgets, but my family isn't, and they have 1 IP address with 8 internet-connected devices (all the kids are moved out, but I'm sure some of those wouldn't be there if not for our own entertainment when we visit). I can't believe the ratio of devices to IP addresses is as low as it is.
It's much, much more powerful than what you see in the/. summary, and more powerful than what iPhone has. Yes, part of the update is overdue, but they went above and beyond.
One such anonymous programmer points out that he was paid $150,000 per year, whereas the software he wrote was generating $100,000 per day.
Wrong. The very large amount of money your boss invested (and risked), along with the algorithm that you coded (which your boss likely gave you pseudo code for) was generating $100,000 per day.
Wow, if consumers are entitled to get content for free, why don't all of them do it? And if they did, why would content creators create it in the first place? Why do certain people think they deserve to get content for free while others pay for it? Sounds kind of arrogant to me. *Someone* has to pay for it. Why not you? Are you really that special?
Two random examples (one of which is incredibly unlikely) that have complicated solutions do not mean that you should be able to pirate whatever you want.
One final note: depriving someone of a potential sale is not theft, unless you are prepared to say that competing businesses are "stealing" from each other.
How are those in any way even remotely similar? One is competition, and one is using the creativity and work of someone without compensating them. That's theft.
Nobody said they are entitled to get money, just that they should be able to expect to be paid by people who use their products. In "free market capitalism," (which you should read up on sometime), when I use a product, I pay the entity that created that product (sometimes that's through another vendor, and sometimes that company says that the price is $0).
Except it's a completely normal thing for people to fly with zero bags, just as it's a completely normal thing for people to fly with 2 or 3 bags. Why should the person with 0 bags pay as much as the person with 2 or 3?
What's the point? It would be so much easier to just use android and set Baidu as the search engine (since I'm sure that's the motivation behind this).
Then (if they don't already) petition to get the travel search sites to also show (and include in the searched-for price) the price you would pay for however many bags you want to bring/check.
It costs money to fly you. It costs more money to fly your bags. If I'm not bringing any bags, I don't want to pay for your bags. If I'm bringing bags, I'll gladly pay for them myself. This is a much better solution than before. You can't complain about airlines screwing you over... think how many airlines have gone out of business in the last decade. Many haven't even made a profit in quite some time. How can you blame them for raising prices if they aren't even making a profit?
We've seen it in *this thread!* People are misunderstanding what Jobs said -- even on slashdot! The people here are supposed to be intelligent. Imagine how confused normal users must be. You know very well that Jobs phrased it that way in order to mislead people. He does it all the time.
The number he gave was entirely useless without knowing the actual drop rate. Remember that what he was trying to do is vindicate the *antenna,* which means that he was comparing to other phones, not overall drop rates.
Weasel words can be completely factual objective statements with the intention of making people believe something false, and in this case they most certainly were.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.zdnet.com/news/intels-light-peak-to-cut-the-cables/346181
"In addition, Intel said it's working on bundling the optical fiber with copper wire so Light Peak can be used to power devices plugged into the PC, he said."
Not definitive, but it sounds like they very well might do power as well.
Indeed. With overhead it's actually more like 300MB/sec. My SSD does 285MB/sec. There are some that will do more than 300, and it's incredibly easy to get over 300MB/sec of potential speed (ignoring the SATA II bottleneck) with certain RAID configurations (where the drives are bottlenecked by a single SATA cable, such as those 2x2.5" to 1x3.5" converter things that you can get).
Sorry to reply to myself, but I am in effect going to now argue against what I just said (though it's more of a rant without any direction... feel free not to read it :) ).
/30, which gave me *one* usable IP address out of 4 after the network, broadcast, and gateway. That's quite a bad ratio, but a similar thing could be said for my 2 /28s. 6 of those IPs are unusable for my servers themselves.
I only stated what I have at my apartment because I feel that it represents the general population better than if I were to also state that I have 2 colocated servers using a total of 32 IP addresses. Do these stats count virtual servers as devices? My 2 physical servers have a good 10 or 12 VMs running, a couple of which are actually NAT'd (the rest have at least 1 external IP address).
Another thing that would point to a lower device:IP ratio is my University... most standard lab computers are NAT'd behind only a few IP addresses, but each CS lab computer (and I imagine many of the engineering ones as well) has an external IP, and many departments on campus are given their own blocks.
It'd also be smart to factor in how IP blocks are allocated... I used to just have a
So my guess is that if the study's numbers are correct, it's probably due to businesses and Universities (doesn't, or didn't IBM have even their phones all on external IPs?).
I try not to look at this as comparing it to the world's population, but comparing it to the number of claimed "used up" IP addresses. With all of the doomsday talk going on I'd swear we're using at least 3 billion IPs by now. Is the ratio of devices to IPs really only (roughly) 2:1?
It seems low to me as well. People constantly talk about how we're almost out of IPv4 addresses (4 billion). I'm single, and in my apartment I have 1 IP address for 6 internet-connected devices. Are there really that many devices that are either not NAT'd or the only thing behind a router/gateway? Granted, I'm also a nerd who likes gadgets, but my family isn't, and they have 1 IP address with 8 internet-connected devices (all the kids are moved out, but I'm sure some of those wouldn't be there if not for our own entertainment when we visit). I can't believe the ratio of devices to IP addresses is as low as it is.
It's much, much more powerful than what you see in the /. summary, and more powerful than what iPhone has. Yes, part of the update is overdue, but they went above and beyond.
well-designed,
+5, Funny
One such anonymous programmer points out that he was paid $150,000 per year, whereas the software he wrote was generating $100,000 per day.
Wrong. The very large amount of money your boss invested (and risked), along with the algorithm that you coded (which your boss likely gave you pseudo code for) was generating $100,000 per day.
Wow, if consumers are entitled to get content for free, why don't all of them do it? And if they did, why would content creators create it in the first place? Why do certain people think they deserve to get content for free while others pay for it? Sounds kind of arrogant to me. *Someone* has to pay for it. Why not you? Are you really that special?
Two random examples (one of which is incredibly unlikely) that have complicated solutions do not mean that you should be able to pirate whatever you want.
The creator of the game is deprived of a sale. There's a reason I was contesting your "one final note" and not your point #2.
One final note: depriving someone of a potential sale is not theft, unless you are prepared to say that competing businesses are "stealing" from each other.
How are those in any way even remotely similar? One is competition, and one is using the creativity and work of someone without compensating them. That's theft.
Yes they most certainly are entitled to try to prevent you from stealing their products. Their business model is their choice, not yours.
So... should murderers be let off just because in their moral code it's ok to kill?
Nobody said they are entitled to get money, just that they should be able to expect to be paid by people who use their products. In "free market capitalism," (which you should read up on sometime), when I use a product, I pay the entity that created that product (sometimes that's through another vendor, and sometimes that company says that the price is $0).
Except it's a completely normal thing for people to fly with zero bags, just as it's a completely normal thing for people to fly with 2 or 3 bags. Why should the person with 0 bags pay as much as the person with 2 or 3?
What's the point? It would be so much easier to just use android and set Baidu as the search engine (since I'm sure that's the motivation behind this).
Then (if they don't already) petition to get the travel search sites to also show (and include in the searched-for price) the price you would pay for however many bags you want to bring/check.
It costs money to fly you. It costs more money to fly your bags. If I'm not bringing any bags, I don't want to pay for your bags. If I'm bringing bags, I'll gladly pay for them myself. This is a much better solution than before. You can't complain about airlines screwing you over... think how many airlines have gone out of business in the last decade. Many haven't even made a profit in quite some time. How can you blame them for raising prices if they aren't even making a profit?
than to *other* passengers (who don't have as much luggage)... in case my typo made it unclear.
Then the airline will be providing you with more service than to passengers and you will rightfully pay more.
We've seen it in *this thread!* People are misunderstanding what Jobs said -- even on slashdot! The people here are supposed to be intelligent. Imagine how confused normal users must be. You know very well that Jobs phrased it that way in order to mislead people. He does it all the time.
The number he gave was entirely useless without knowing the actual drop rate. Remember that what he was trying to do is vindicate the *antenna,* which means that he was comparing to other phones, not overall drop rates.
It's a statement of fact, yes, with the intention of misleading mindless masses into believing something entirely different. Steve could have given the numbers. He lied about not being allowed to. AT&T has published them in the past -- http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/28/atandt-says-its-closing-the-gap-on-dropped-calls/
Weasel words can be completely factual objective statements with the intention of making people believe something false, and in this case they most certainly were.
"Did you watch the press conference?"
It looks like Mr. Jobs succeeded. The entire thing was full of misleading "facts." Look up at other discussions in this thread.