The link has the author describing the quote as well as the context of it.Yes it could be less than reliable but Gizmodo and the author would be guilty of libel if the NVidia CEO didn't say what they claim he said.
I don't know anything about the performance of the GPUs but AMD has the advantage in that NVidia released the 2080 first. They certainly can benchmark the 2080 against their unreleased GPU. The NVidia CEO is not likely to know that the AMD GPU is lousy or good.
My guess would be the price difference is due to the build quality and intended use. These large panels probably have the biggest contrast, better color correction and are designed to be on 24/7 for years compared to consumer TVs. They probably have the smallest bezels so that they can be clustered together and may be extremely thin at the same time. All of that probably costs more in terms of engineering and manufacturing.
What is the price difference? Are we talking a few hundred more or a few thousand? I would bet new ones would cost thousands more. For that price difference, I would just not connect my smart TV.
So your response to a point which shows you haven't thought about your point for a second is to attack someone with inappropriate sexual and homophobic drivel? Ad hominem much?
Can you get 60" monitors without paying a hefty difference? Then how do you control one from 3-10 feet away? Yes the easiest option to not connect the smart TV to the network.
Your assumption is that Rodriguez is still at his admin job with the cartel. Don't you think that by the time he's been named, he's been extracted and possibly given a new identity. If I were Rodriguez that would have been essential of any agreement I made with the Feds.
How different would the outcome have been if they used open source software? Not much different. They flipped the admin. The proprietary license key renewal was a cover for something else that had been planned by the Feds. The admin could have easily sabotaged open source software requiring software to be "upgraded".
I don't know about "ditching". There are scenarios where Enterprises may use SSDs but there are still many use cases where there is little advantage. For example in the consumer space the main advantage is much faster read/write speeds for applications as consumers open and close applications all the time. In the server space, many applications are loaded on startup and occasionally may be rebooted. However rebooting an application is generally the exception. Putting in a SSD will only marginally improve performance especially for the cost difference.
The problem is that where SSDs are used they have significantly less lifespan because they are read/written so often. For example they are not used in long term storage because the cost per GB is so much higher.
Oklahoma is the epitome of what's wrong with the argument. They are one of the states that wants more control of the national park lands in their state. Yet they are so badly managed that they cannot afford their current state parks.
I'm pointing out a major flaw to your argument to decentralization. Splitting up the parks to the states don't make them better, it means there are now 50 managers of the lands. I can't see how that is better.
The history of state management of their lands doesn't support point. For example, the state of Oklahoma has had to severely cut back on their own parks due to budget problems. States will just as quickly sell of their lands.
For the average consumer SSDs are the way to go; however enterprises still need HDDs. Also anyone who needs a lot of storage needs HDDs. While SSDs could be used for large storage needs, the cost is much higher.
They did this despite knowing Stardock had acquired the Star Control IP in 2013 and knowing before hand our announcement schedule. Their actions created confusion in the market as to the origin of Star Control games which is why we have trademark laws.
Think of it like this: "You can make a 'Star Wars' game, but you CANNOT use Luke, Leia, Han, Chewbacca, or any other character, or vehicle, shown in any of the movies, nor can you use the Empire, the Rebellion, or any other named character."
I don't understand your point. If you make a Star Wars game, you need permission from the copyright holder. Currently that owned is Disney as they purchased the IP from Lucas Arts. Any game and material including characters is subject to what the IP holder (Disney) will allow. If they allow you to create a Star Wars game but no Han that is within their rights.
So what do you do? You make Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic
Er what? BioWare worked out a licensing deal with Lucas Arts to make the game. The main reason Luke, Leia, Han, and Chebacca are not in SW: TOR is that it happens 3,000 years before their timeline which would make including those characters nearly impossible as the Star Wars universe does not deal with time travel stories.
StarDock is trying to make Star Control: The Old Republic.
Which requires the permission of the IP Holder which appears to be Ford and Reiche
This is my understanding of IP and it gets complicated.
Ford and Reiche owns:
Copyrights to SC1 and SC2 including code, characters, universe, etc.
Distribution rights by default to SC1 and SC2
Accolade/Atari owned:
Copyright to SC3 including code and artwork but not characters/universe of SC1 or SC2
The trademark of "Star Control"
This is entirely down to the details of the licensing agreement between FordReiche and Accolade. I've found it impossible to know what this was. It doesn't give us information to know who owns copyright, nor who owns trademark.
If Ford and Reiche can object to the sale of SC1 and SC2 on GOG then they have at the minimum distribution rights; however, they derive their distribution rights from owning the copyrights (which Atari acknowledged)
Then you have to ask that question to Stardock as they sued Ford and Reiche first and not the other way around. Ford and Reiche countersued as is their right.
Slashdot Mirror
The link has the author describing the quote as well as the context of it.Yes it could be less than reliable but Gizmodo and the author would be guilty of libel if the NVidia CEO didn't say what they claim he said.
I don't know anything about the performance of the GPUs but AMD has the advantage in that NVidia released the 2080 first. They certainly can benchmark the 2080 against their unreleased GPU. The NVidia CEO is not likely to know that the AMD GPU is lousy or good.
My guess would be the price difference is due to the build quality and intended use. These large panels probably have the biggest contrast, better color correction and are designed to be on 24/7 for years compared to consumer TVs. They probably have the smallest bezels so that they can be clustered together and may be extremely thin at the same time. All of that probably costs more in terms of engineering and manufacturing.
For that price difference, I would buy a smart TV and not connect it to the Internet.
What is the price difference? Are we talking a few hundred more or a few thousand? I would bet new ones would cost thousands more. For that price difference, I would just not connect my smart TV.
So your response to a point which shows you haven't thought about your point for a second is to attack someone with inappropriate sexual and homophobic drivel? Ad hominem much?
Can you get 60" monitors without paying a hefty difference? Then how do you control one from 3-10 feet away? Yes the easiest option to not connect the smart TV to the network.
Or for people like me they make $0 off the smart TV parts as I don't use them.
Depends if you think witness protection doesn't involve new identities which would be the minimum I would request.
Your assumption is that Rodriguez is still at his admin job with the cartel. Don't you think that by the time he's been named, he's been extracted and possibly given a new identity. If I were Rodriguez that would have been essential of any agreement I made with the Feds.
Who would you get to manage your communication system? I doubt El Chapo himself has the expertise to do it.
How different would the outcome have been if they used open source software? Not much different. They flipped the admin. The proprietary license key renewal was a cover for something else that had been planned by the Feds. The admin could have easily sabotaged open source software requiring software to be "upgraded".
I don't know about "ditching". There are scenarios where Enterprises may use SSDs but there are still many use cases where there is little advantage. For example in the consumer space the main advantage is much faster read/write speeds for applications as consumers open and close applications all the time. In the server space, many applications are loaded on startup and occasionally may be rebooted. However rebooting an application is generally the exception. Putting in a SSD will only marginally improve performance especially for the cost difference.
The problem is that where SSDs are used they have significantly less lifespan because they are read/written so often. For example they are not used in long term storage because the cost per GB is so much higher.
Oklahoma is the epitome of what's wrong with the argument. They are one of the states that wants more control of the national park lands in their state. Yet they are so badly managed that they cannot afford their current state parks.
I'm pointing out a major flaw to your argument to decentralization. Splitting up the parks to the states don't make them better, it means there are now 50 managers of the lands. I can't see how that is better.
The history of state management of their lands doesn't support point. For example, the state of Oklahoma has had to severely cut back on their own parks due to budget problems. States will just as quickly sell of their lands.
I would have to say that HDDs are far more reliable than SSDs and probably why they will be in the enterprise a bit longer.
Yes optical storage is still being developed; however, I have to assume that it isn't as practical as HDDs yet for large amounts of data.
I suppose the you've never needed or used a NAS then. You can use SSDs, it'll just be way more expensive and less reliable.
For the average consumer SSDs are the way to go; however enterprises still need HDDs. Also anyone who needs a lot of storage needs HDDs. While SSDs could be used for large storage needs, the cost is much higher.
Stardock never claimed to own the IP. They claimed to own the name.
No, Stardock clearly is claiming they own the Star Control IP. They are not claiming that they own certain things.
They did this despite knowing Stardock had acquired the Star Control IP in 2013 and knowing before hand our announcement schedule. Their actions created confusion in the market as to the origin of Star Control games which is why we have trademark laws.
Think of it like this: "You can make a 'Star Wars' game, but you CANNOT use Luke, Leia, Han, Chewbacca, or any other character, or vehicle, shown in any of the movies, nor can you use the Empire, the Rebellion, or any other named character."
I don't understand your point. If you make a Star Wars game, you need permission from the copyright holder. Currently that owned is Disney as they purchased the IP from Lucas Arts. Any game and material including characters is subject to what the IP holder (Disney) will allow. If they allow you to create a Star Wars game but no Han that is within their rights.
So what do you do? You make Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic
Er what? BioWare worked out a licensing deal with Lucas Arts to make the game. The main reason Luke, Leia, Han, and Chebacca are not in SW: TOR is that it happens 3,000 years before their timeline which would make including those characters nearly impossible as the Star Wars universe does not deal with time travel stories.
StarDock is trying to make Star Control: The Old Republic.
Which requires the permission of the IP Holder which appears to be Ford and Reiche
Accolade/Atari owned:
This is entirely down to the details of the licensing agreement between FordReiche and Accolade. I've found it impossible to know what this was. It doesn't give us information to know who owns copyright, nor who owns trademark.
If Ford and Reiche can object to the sale of SC1 and SC2 on GOG then they have at the minimum distribution rights; however, they derive their distribution rights from owning the copyrights (which Atari acknowledged)
In this case, Stardock sued Ford and Reiche so they were going to have to spend money on lawyers anyway.
and if a judge orders it removed?? with some poorly worded thing that = must be fully purged?
The removal means no new sales. Anyone who had previously purchased it can probably still download it and play it.
Then you have to ask that question to Stardock as they sued Ford and Reiche first and not the other way around. Ford and Reiche countersued as is their right.