The headline says: "Benchmarking Utility Shows AMD Ryzen Rapidly Stealing Market Share From Intel". AMD is gaining more marketshare if AMD is in more new PCs It doesn't mean that X% of the total market is going to AMD. It implies that X% of new PCs are AMD compared to Y% in the last several years.
People may still be buying lots of already released Intel hardware and don't feel the need to rebenchmark it.
This is a possibility; however, it can also be true that people are buying existing AMD hardware and not benchmarking it either.
Realistically if there was ever a true Space Corps it would have to be it's own agency as traveling in space is much different than either aeronautical or naval missions. Naval operations will be closer to Space Corps and the dynamics of it is closer to submarine warfare than flying or surface ships. Historically it was part of the Air Force as it required getting through the atmosphere first which is under Air Force expertise.
Well the article isn't saying that people are "replacing" Intels with AMDs. What it is saying is looking at benchmarking numbers, more people are benchmarking AMDs than in previous years. If we go with your assertion then more brand-new hardware is using AMDs in past years. Thus AMD is gaining more marketshare.
That depends if they are "limiting" the data or merely reporting on it. My sense is they are reporting on what they see. From the article itself: "
"While not a definitive measure of market share, there is more than a decade's worth of data to comb through, which Passmark neatly assembled into a graph show how things have shaken out over the years. . . Granted, we're working with a limited data set here—the numbers represent data gathered from a single benchmark."
We should do this right after we re-organize the Navy to be in charge of space cruisers and space carriers. After all how will we get our fighting men to board and annihilate the space vessels of our enemies if they don't have an adequate mode of transportation. The Air Force should focus on more important things like developing anti-teleportation technology which we know those Commie Russians and Chinese are working on right now. Because all these things are way more pressing than any other military problems we have right now.
What a marvelous way to stop innovation in it's tracks.
[sarcasm]How dare people who draw up a contract expect you to abide by the contract when you agree to it. How dare they, sir![/sarcasm]
Forcing the same license requirements on actual changes to the kernel versus imposing the same license restriction on any downstream externally linked code is not going to attract many competent developers or those who specifically employee developers who can extend and enhance the functionality running against the kernel.
Er what? The patches that grsecurity are to the kernel which they are bundling with their code and then enforce new conditions on the kernel.
It seems the only ones who are allowed to reap any monetary rewards from the Linux ecosystem are the GPL cheerleaders collecting their consultant fees for their efforts in spreading the Open Source gospel. And who really cares what Linus thinks? The man seems to have graduated with honors from the Donald Trump public speaking University.
Ad hominem attack. Who cares what the maintainer/developer of Linux says about Linux? Are you daft?
The man basically ported the Unix kernel to the x86 architecture.
Um, you don't know the history of Linux or Unix do you? By port, you mean "write from scratch?" If you knew anything about the history of either you'd know why that statement is woefully ignorant.
He wasn't even the first person to try before Windows swept them to the curb in the early years of the PC.
No one claims he was the first any more than anyone claims that Windows was the first GUI. At least anyone who knows the history of computing.
So while his achievement is impressive he did change water into wine. And he also belongs to the club of people who make a substantial amount of coin while simultaneously telling those lower in the food chain that they need to donate their work for the public good and if they want to make an actual living they should remain in the Republic of the Anonymous Cubicle and take solace in their monkey coding endeavors.
I'm sorry but did I miss the edict from Lord Linus about donating my time and programming skills to the public good, Comrade? I seem to think that any donation I made to Linux was of my own free will and that I wasn't chained to a computer slaving away at code for years while being shocked periodically.
I didn't make an argument, I pointed out a fact. You turned that into your favorite, a false dichotomy.
You said: "So, you confirm it then: Google, Facebook, and wealthy nerds are special interests with lots of money and the power to corrupt the political process in order to push through reuglations that benefit them. Great we got that out of the way."
So now you're lying about what you wrote? You are claiming that Google and Facebook are special interests who are corrupt. So are ISPs according to your own argument.
I can't tell whether you are a really clever troll or just an incredibly stupid moron, but I guess is it's the latter.
You said: "Who loses with net neutrality? Low income people, low volume users, many startups." I said you had to prove that. Then you said: "Actually, legally and politically, the burden of proof is on people who want to create regulations to restrict free markets: " You have to prove what you claim. You don't get to shift the burden of proof when confronted with a lack of evidence.
So, you confirm it then: Google, Facebook, and wealthy nerds are special interests with lots of money and the power to corrupt the political process in order to push through reuglations that benefit them. Great we got that out of the way.
Do you admit that ISPs are special interest? Here's your argument: You can't trust Google and Facebook because they are special interests. My retort: You can't trust ISPs because they are special interests too. You've destroyed your own argument.
Actually, legally and politically, the burden of proof is on people who want to create regulations to restrict free markets: you need to provide clear evidence that the benefits of the proposed regulation outweigh the costs. Feel free to provide such evidence.
Burden of proof fallacy. The burden of proof lies on the person who made the claim. You made the claim, you have to prove it. It's not up to me to prove your point.
Pointing out that Google and Facebook are special interests doesn't mean that there aren't many others; it's not a "dichotomy".
ISPs are not "special interests"? ISPs are a special interest too. If you keep saying that is a negative for Google and Facebook while completing ignoring that ISPs have the same negative, it undermines your arguments.
No, my argument is that "net neutrality" is special interests lobbying and attracts crony capitalists like a rotting carcass attracts flies. Who benefits from net neutrality? Google. Netflix. Facebook. Wealthy nerds.
Ad hominem and false dichotomy fallacy. You are attacking Google and Netflix's point because they are "special interests" (again while ignoring ISPs are the same). Net neutrality benefits them. No one said they didn't. So what? Net neutrality benefits me. I could be a serial murderer or the lowest of human being, a Philadelphia Eagles fan. It doesn't provide any reasoning to the strength of argument of Net Neutrality.
Who loses with net neutrality? Low income people, low volume users, many startups.
Assertion without evidence fallacy. Please provide proof of this since you made the claim, you must provide the evidence.
People and companies don't pay for "pipes" they pay for traffic volume. Traffic consists of wanted and unwanted content.
Your assertion is a false dichotomy in that only Google and Facebook gives me unwanted content and my ISP does not. My ISP gives me unwanted content all the time. They try to redirect my searches at times. They are also my cable company so every time I use their cable box, I receive ads that I didn't want when scrolling. I rented my cable box. I paid for my internet connection. My ISP delivers ads to me regardless.
To use your simplified model, Google and Facebook pay for wanted and unwanted content going to their ISP. You then pay for wanted and unwanted content going from your ISP to your home. Net neutrality makes that model law.
Um no. My agreement with Facebook and Google is that in exchange for free services, I get ads. Your assertion is simply false.
There is no net neutrality right now, so that's delusional.
You mean besides the FCC last year deciding that ISPs where Tier 2?
What is stopping your ISP from delivering poor service is that you wouldn't be interested in buying poor service from them.
Other than the fact I don't really have much of a choice in my location? My city has 3 cable companies; however, I get a choice of exactly 1 in my neighborhood. Satellite broadband is poor. There are no fiber optic options for my neighborhood.
That is another problem with net neutrality: you want your streaming habits to be subsidized by other users. That's why vocal nerds like you advocate net neutrality, while low volume Internet users like my parents end up paying the same f*cking charges as you. That's net neutrality for you.
What the heck are you talking about? That's as idiotic as saying other people who drive more are subsidizing my daily commute. Your parents don't use their internet as much is on them. And how do you know that your parents pay the same charges as me? You can't possibly know that and you're just making something up.
They are pretending that they are doing it for the benefit of Internet users and small startups, when their actual motivation is to screw over users by having them pay for delivering unwanted ads and to screw over startups by killing a lot of business models and perpetuating an ad-based business model.
No, your argument is that we shouldn't listen to Google and Facebook because Net Neutrality is for their benefit. I am merely pointing out that's flawed reasoning as doing something in their best interest does not negate their points. It's an ad hominem fallacy. Does Net Neutrality benefit startups and Internet users? I would argue yes regardless if Google and Facebook made the argument.
As for your points specifically, you are asserting that "unwanted content" and "agreed upon content" are mutually exclusive and another false dichotomy. It is part of the agreement I made with Google that I get ads. I don't want them but that's what I agreed to.
As for killing startups, Net Neutrality favors startups by giving them a level playing field. YouTube is a perfect example of this. Despite Google have more money, a startup called YouTube was the clear choice of many users. Google Video could not compete with it despite the resources Google threw at it. So Google bought out YouTube.
Parental influence far outweighs the teacher's influence in these behaviors, no matter what degree the teacher holds. A degree also matters little when the ability to enforce discipline is severely limited.
Let's start with your first assertion. "Parental influence far outweighs a teacher's influence . .." How do you know this? If a child is attending daycare, school, there are times when they see their teachers more than their parents. Especially if the child is an only child. At what point is an only child supposed to be taught to share their toys? At home when there is no other child to share?
With net neutrality, it's end users that pay for that delivery.
I don't understand this statement. End users pay ISPs for their pipes. Google and Facebook pay their ISP for their pipes. End user ISP in the middle wants to charge Google and Facebook even though every one has already paid.
Without net neutrality, ISPs would start charging them extra for the content that makes money for them (their ads) while delivering the content customers actually want without extra charges.
Er what? Please explain this statement. When I go to Netflix, I want to see Netflix. However, if my ISP negotiated a deal with Hulu so that Netflix is much slower, how is that delivering content I wanted? Also my ISP is also my cable company. What's to stop them from making rentals from iTunes, Amazon, Vudu, etc ridiculously slow and their Pay-Per-View strangely fast? Net Neutrality at the moment.
So, don't kid yourself that Google and Facebook are doing this for your benefit; they are doing it because their primary business model, namely pushing ads on you, depends on it.
Of course Facebook and Google are doing it for their benefit. I suppose you do things against your benefit? That's not great reasoning. However, as a user of Google, Facebook, Amazon, whatever, I don't want my ISP opposing my benefits for more money because I already paid them.
From my perspective Skype was starting to make major inroads into corporate networks to replace other video conferencing systems in addition to being what younger consumers used. It was fairly unobtrusive and cross-platform. Then MS had to buy them and change their focus. Now it's all about chasing the cool which MS was never good at doing.
Other than why would NASA push an agenda about nuclear power. The DoE might but why NASA. If anything NASA would prefer not to use nuclear as getting nuclear fuel to power their space vehicles isn't exactly easy as the DoE controls the material. Also it's not like this is the first time NASA has used nuclear power cells in the past with space probes when nuclear power was the only viable option for example Pioneer 11
While they may see potential value for Mars, I see this as a way to acclimatize people to the idea that nuclear is a safe option.
So please tell me what other options does NASA have for power initially? Solar which can't provide all the amount of energy necessary? Fossil fuels because Mars is full of oil? Wind energy is minimal and you have to send/assemble extremely large wind mills. Geo-theormal is good for long term; however, it requires construction. Right now solar and nuclear are not the "safe" options. They are the best options for initial colonization.
Where NASA is in the industry and previous accidents aside, the American public, as a whole, still regards NASA as being the same, awesome NASA that it was in the 50s.
Doesn't change the fact that nuclear and solar are the best option for the initial settlement for Mars.
Microsoft receives back from MPEG-LA less than half the amount for the patent rights that it contributes because there are many other companies that provide the licensed functionality in content and products that sell in high volume.
So MS pays money for each installation of Windows; however, MS receives less money for content. That seems to be a problem for them as other companies sell vastly more content. For example iTunes probably sells way, way more content than Windows store. Amazon does too.
What does it matter if a child is disciplined if their teacher doesn't know anything to teach them that's true. They're well behaved but they don't know anything about math, history, science, etc.
So Oklahoma passed a law "in the name of religious freedom" that allowed them to put up a Ten Commandments monument using private funds. So Satanists out of New York also petitioned to put in a larger monument (using private funds of course) to Baphomet. They were rejected and the Ten Commandments monument had to come down.
The difference is you are confused about discipline and knowledge. A parents knows has Master's degrees in English, History, Science, etc. Oh your child is well behaved but knows nothing. Worse they are taught the wrong things about certain subjects.
[sarcasm] But schools teach things like the Earth wasn't made in 6 days. That science is real. Obviously everything we need to know is in the Bible. Excuse me while I get my leech treatments.[/sarcasm]
There's public input but there's also public idiocy. I for life of everything know nothing about some subjects like art, history, music, etc. I do know about science and math. But hey science and math are all subjective, right?
Yes, it does -- it does for any particular invention that becomes known to all other players.
You seem to be confusing invention != innovation. So what did the Prada invent again? By your standards nothing.
Whether Google was better than its predecessors is a qualitative argument that is largely subjective.
So you still use Excite or Altavista then?
Improving upon a design in a unique, non-obvious way would make that designer the first one with the design improvement -- which constitutes invention and first innovation.
Then you agree that the Prada did nothing innovative then.
No. The Prada won an international design award in September, 2006 (it won four other notable design awards, as well). So, it was "out" long before the Iphone, it just didn't go into production until May of 2007.
So the Prada had a full working model in Sept 2006? Was it a demo phone? Or was it merely screenshots of what it was supposed to be? Also the Prada "didn't go into production" in May 2007. It was available in May 2007 which means it went into production months before.
So what was the Apple timeline? It was being developed for about 3 years before it was released. Unlike LG, Apple chooses not to release any details of most upcoming products. Again it was available only a month after the Prada.
No doubt, LG had already committed to most of the internals just before they entered all the design competitions (months before they won their awards),
And Apple didn't commit to internals months prior to launch? The week before the launch, Apple decided to add wifi. You don't think that it takes months for Apple (or any manufacturer) to finalize hardware internals?
and since the Prada was significantly smaller than the Iphone,
Please describe "significantly smaller"
The Prada: 98.8 X 54 X 12 mm
The iPhone 138.3 x 67 x 7.1 mm
The Prada was thicker than the iPhone and shorter and slightly thinner. But it also had a much smaller screen.
there probably wasn't much room to add newly developed technology.
Oh there was plenty of room being much thicker than the iPhone. LG choose not to do so.
Also, LG didn't have the huge resources that Apple had to throw at things like wifi, plus, Apple has a history of rushing things to market before they are ready without proper engineering nor field testing, hence, we now have the common "first adopters" syndrome, largely created by Apple.
No your argument was iPhone didn't have anything the Prada didn't. Wifi alone destroys your argument. Now you want to wrangle out of that fact by saying LG didn't "have the resources" to put in Wifi. Unless you worked at LG and Apple at the time to know what resources they both put in, you're just lying. Because if you know anything about Apple (which you don't). The iPhone design team was small. It was small on purpose to keep it a secret for as long as possible. Will you lie about anything to justify your hate of Apple?
Huh? I never argued that the Prada phone was "great" nor would I argue that the Iphone was "great." My arguments only regard innovation -- who came up with it first.
Wasn't your arugment this: The LG Prada smart phone was winning design awards almost a year . ..The LG Prada beat the later Iphone, but neither LG nor Prada had the legion of blind followers that Apple had. ..Apple has actually originated very little."
So in essence you're lying about what you said.
In the first place, a touchscreen and multi-touch are part of the GUI. Most designers are keenly aware of this -- not so much naive laypeople/fan boys.
And most designers can make the distinction that a GUI is one type of UI. If you are a designer you shoul
Slashdot Mirror
The headline says: "Benchmarking Utility Shows AMD Ryzen Rapidly Stealing Market Share From Intel". AMD is gaining more marketshare if AMD is in more new PCs It doesn't mean that X% of the total market is going to AMD. It implies that X% of new PCs are AMD compared to Y% in the last several years.
People may still be buying lots of already released Intel hardware and don't feel the need to rebenchmark it.
This is a possibility; however, it can also be true that people are buying existing AMD hardware and not benchmarking it either.
Realistically if there was ever a true Space Corps it would have to be it's own agency as traveling in space is much different than either aeronautical or naval missions. Naval operations will be closer to Space Corps and the dynamics of it is closer to submarine warfare than flying or surface ships. Historically it was part of the Air Force as it required getting through the atmosphere first which is under Air Force expertise.
Well the article isn't saying that people are "replacing" Intels with AMDs. What it is saying is looking at benchmarking numbers, more people are benchmarking AMDs than in previous years. If we go with your assertion then more brand-new hardware is using AMDs in past years. Thus AMD is gaining more marketshare.
That depends if they are "limiting" the data or merely reporting on it. My sense is they are reporting on what they see. From the article itself: " "While not a definitive measure of market share, there is more than a decade's worth of data to comb through, which Passmark neatly assembled into a graph show how things have shaken out over the years. . . Granted, we're working with a limited data set here—the numbers represent data gathered from a single benchmark."
We should do this right after we re-organize the Navy to be in charge of space cruisers and space carriers. After all how will we get our fighting men to board and annihilate the space vessels of our enemies if they don't have an adequate mode of transportation. The Air Force should focus on more important things like developing anti-teleportation technology which we know those Commie Russians and Chinese are working on right now. Because all these things are way more pressing than any other military problems we have right now.
What a marvelous way to stop innovation in it's tracks.
[sarcasm]How dare people who draw up a contract expect you to abide by the contract when you agree to it. How dare they, sir![/sarcasm]
Forcing the same license requirements on actual changes to the kernel versus imposing the same license restriction on any downstream externally linked code is not going to attract many competent developers or those who specifically employee developers who can extend and enhance the functionality running against the kernel.
Er what? The patches that grsecurity are to the kernel which they are bundling with their code and then enforce new conditions on the kernel.
It seems the only ones who are allowed to reap any monetary rewards from the Linux ecosystem are the GPL cheerleaders collecting their consultant fees for their efforts in spreading the Open Source gospel. And who really cares what Linus thinks? The man seems to have graduated with honors from the Donald Trump public speaking University.
Ad hominem attack. Who cares what the maintainer/developer of Linux says about Linux? Are you daft?
The man basically ported the Unix kernel to the x86 architecture.
Um, you don't know the history of Linux or Unix do you? By port, you mean "write from scratch?" If you knew anything about the history of either you'd know why that statement is woefully ignorant.
He wasn't even the first person to try before Windows swept them to the curb in the early years of the PC.
No one claims he was the first any more than anyone claims that Windows was the first GUI. At least anyone who knows the history of computing.
So while his achievement is impressive he did change water into wine. And he also belongs to the club of people who make a substantial amount of coin while simultaneously telling those lower in the food chain that they need to donate their work for the public good and if they want to make an actual living they should remain in the Republic of the Anonymous Cubicle and take solace in their monkey coding endeavors.
I'm sorry but did I miss the edict from Lord Linus about donating my time and programming skills to the public good, Comrade? I seem to think that any donation I made to Linux was of my own free will and that I wasn't chained to a computer slaving away at code for years while being shocked periodically.
I didn't make an argument, I pointed out a fact. You turned that into your favorite, a false dichotomy.
You said: "So, you confirm it then: Google, Facebook, and wealthy nerds are special interests with lots of money and the power to corrupt the political process in order to push through reuglations that benefit them. Great we got that out of the way."
So now you're lying about what you wrote? You are claiming that Google and Facebook are special interests who are corrupt. So are ISPs according to your own argument.
I can't tell whether you are a really clever troll or just an incredibly stupid moron, but I guess is it's the latter.
You said: "Who loses with net neutrality? Low income people, low volume users, many startups." I said you had to prove that. Then you said: "Actually, legally and politically, the burden of proof is on people who want to create regulations to restrict free markets: " You have to prove what you claim. You don't get to shift the burden of proof when confronted with a lack of evidence.
So, you confirm it then: Google, Facebook, and wealthy nerds are special interests with lots of money and the power to corrupt the political process in order to push through reuglations that benefit them. Great we got that out of the way.
Do you admit that ISPs are special interest? Here's your argument: You can't trust Google and Facebook because they are special interests. My retort: You can't trust ISPs because they are special interests too. You've destroyed your own argument.
Actually, legally and politically, the burden of proof is on people who want to create regulations to restrict free markets: you need to provide clear evidence that the benefits of the proposed regulation outweigh the costs. Feel free to provide such evidence.
Burden of proof fallacy. The burden of proof lies on the person who made the claim. You made the claim, you have to prove it. It's not up to me to prove your point.
Pointing out that Google and Facebook are special interests doesn't mean that there aren't many others; it's not a "dichotomy".
ISPs are not "special interests"? ISPs are a special interest too. If you keep saying that is a negative for Google and Facebook while completing ignoring that ISPs have the same negative, it undermines your arguments.
No, my argument is that "net neutrality" is special interests lobbying and attracts crony capitalists like a rotting carcass attracts flies. Who benefits from net neutrality? Google. Netflix. Facebook. Wealthy nerds.
Ad hominem and false dichotomy fallacy. You are attacking Google and Netflix's point because they are "special interests" (again while ignoring ISPs are the same). Net neutrality benefits them. No one said they didn't. So what? Net neutrality benefits me. I could be a serial murderer or the lowest of human being, a Philadelphia Eagles fan. It doesn't provide any reasoning to the strength of argument of Net Neutrality.
Who loses with net neutrality? Low income people, low volume users, many startups.
Assertion without evidence fallacy. Please provide proof of this since you made the claim, you must provide the evidence.
People and companies don't pay for "pipes" they pay for traffic volume. Traffic consists of wanted and unwanted content.
Your assertion is a false dichotomy in that only Google and Facebook gives me unwanted content and my ISP does not. My ISP gives me unwanted content all the time. They try to redirect my searches at times. They are also my cable company so every time I use their cable box, I receive ads that I didn't want when scrolling. I rented my cable box. I paid for my internet connection. My ISP delivers ads to me regardless.
To use your simplified model, Google and Facebook pay for wanted and unwanted content going to their ISP. You then pay for wanted and unwanted content going from your ISP to your home. Net neutrality makes that model law.
Um no. My agreement with Facebook and Google is that in exchange for free services, I get ads. Your assertion is simply false.
There is no net neutrality right now, so that's delusional.
You mean besides the FCC last year deciding that ISPs where Tier 2?
What is stopping your ISP from delivering poor service is that you wouldn't be interested in buying poor service from them.
Other than the fact I don't really have much of a choice in my location? My city has 3 cable companies; however, I get a choice of exactly 1 in my neighborhood. Satellite broadband is poor. There are no fiber optic options for my neighborhood.
That is another problem with net neutrality: you want your streaming habits to be subsidized by other users. That's why vocal nerds like you advocate net neutrality, while low volume Internet users like my parents end up paying the same f*cking charges as you. That's net neutrality for you.
What the heck are you talking about? That's as idiotic as saying other people who drive more are subsidizing my daily commute. Your parents don't use their internet as much is on them. And how do you know that your parents pay the same charges as me? You can't possibly know that and you're just making something up.
They are pretending that they are doing it for the benefit of Internet users and small startups, when their actual motivation is to screw over users by having them pay for delivering unwanted ads and to screw over startups by killing a lot of business models and perpetuating an ad-based business model.
No, your argument is that we shouldn't listen to Google and Facebook because Net Neutrality is for their benefit. I am merely pointing out that's flawed reasoning as doing something in their best interest does not negate their points. It's an ad hominem fallacy. Does Net Neutrality benefit startups and Internet users? I would argue yes regardless if Google and Facebook made the argument.
As for your points specifically, you are asserting that "unwanted content" and "agreed upon content" are mutually exclusive and another false dichotomy. It is part of the agreement I made with Google that I get ads. I don't want them but that's what I agreed to.
As for killing startups, Net Neutrality favors startups by giving them a level playing field. YouTube is a perfect example of this. Despite Google have more money, a startup called YouTube was the clear choice of many users. Google Video could not compete with it despite the resources Google threw at it. So Google bought out YouTube.
You said:
Parental influence far outweighs the teacher's influence in these behaviors, no matter what degree the teacher holds. A degree also matters little when the ability to enforce discipline is severely limited.
Let's start with your first assertion. "Parental influence far outweighs a teacher's influence . . ." How do you know this? If a child is attending daycare, school, there are times when they see their teachers more than their parents. Especially if the child is an only child. At what point is an only child supposed to be taught to share their toys? At home when there is no other child to share?
With net neutrality, it's end users that pay for that delivery.
I don't understand this statement. End users pay ISPs for their pipes. Google and Facebook pay their ISP for their pipes. End user ISP in the middle wants to charge Google and Facebook even though every one has already paid.
Without net neutrality, ISPs would start charging them extra for the content that makes money for them (their ads) while delivering the content customers actually want without extra charges.
Er what? Please explain this statement. When I go to Netflix, I want to see Netflix. However, if my ISP negotiated a deal with Hulu so that Netflix is much slower, how is that delivering content I wanted? Also my ISP is also my cable company. What's to stop them from making rentals from iTunes, Amazon, Vudu, etc ridiculously slow and their Pay-Per-View strangely fast? Net Neutrality at the moment.
So, don't kid yourself that Google and Facebook are doing this for your benefit; they are doing it because their primary business model, namely pushing ads on you, depends on it.
Of course Facebook and Google are doing it for their benefit. I suppose you do things against your benefit? That's not great reasoning. However, as a user of Google, Facebook, Amazon, whatever, I don't want my ISP opposing my benefits for more money because I already paid them.
From my perspective Skype was starting to make major inroads into corporate networks to replace other video conferencing systems in addition to being what younger consumers used. It was fairly unobtrusive and cross-platform. Then MS had to buy them and change their focus. Now it's all about chasing the cool which MS was never good at doing.
yeah, that's another problem with using fossil fuels.
Other than why would NASA push an agenda about nuclear power. The DoE might but why NASA. If anything NASA would prefer not to use nuclear as getting nuclear fuel to power their space vehicles isn't exactly easy as the DoE controls the material. Also it's not like this is the first time NASA has used nuclear power cells in the past with space probes when nuclear power was the only viable option for example Pioneer 11
While they may see potential value for Mars, I see this as a way to acclimatize people to the idea that nuclear is a safe option.
So please tell me what other options does NASA have for power initially? Solar which can't provide all the amount of energy necessary? Fossil fuels because Mars is full of oil? Wind energy is minimal and you have to send/assemble extremely large wind mills. Geo-theormal is good for long term; however, it requires construction. Right now solar and nuclear are not the "safe" options. They are the best options for initial colonization.
Where NASA is in the industry and previous accidents aside, the American public, as a whole, still regards NASA as being the same, awesome NASA that it was in the 50s.
Doesn't change the fact that nuclear and solar are the best option for the initial settlement for Mars.
Microsoft receives back from MPEG-LA less than half the amount for the patent rights that it contributes because there are many other companies that provide the licensed functionality in content and products that sell in high volume.
So MS pays money for each installation of Windows; however, MS receives less money for content. That seems to be a problem for them as other companies sell vastly more content. For example iTunes probably sells way, way more content than Windows store. Amazon does too.
Er? Are you joking? MS is part of the MPEG-LA. Now I don't know if they have patents in H.265 but they had them in H.264
What does it matter if a child is disciplined if their teacher doesn't know anything to teach them that's true. They're well behaved but they don't know anything about math, history, science, etc.
So Oklahoma passed a law "in the name of religious freedom" that allowed them to put up a Ten Commandments monument using private funds. So Satanists out of New York also petitioned to put in a larger monument (using private funds of course) to Baphomet. They were rejected and the Ten Commandments monument had to come down.
The difference is you are confused about discipline and knowledge. A parents knows has Master's degrees in English, History, Science, etc. Oh your child is well behaved but knows nothing. Worse they are taught the wrong things about certain subjects.
[sarcasm] But schools teach things like the Earth wasn't made in 6 days. That science is real. Obviously everything we need to know is in the Bible. Excuse me while I get my leech treatments.[/sarcasm]
There's public input but there's also public idiocy. I for life of everything know nothing about some subjects like art, history, music, etc. I do know about science and math. But hey science and math are all subjective, right?
Yes, it does -- it does for any particular invention that becomes known to all other players.
You seem to be confusing invention != innovation. So what did the Prada invent again? By your standards nothing.
Whether Google was better than its predecessors is a qualitative argument that is largely subjective.
So you still use Excite or Altavista then?
Improving upon a design in a unique, non-obvious way would make that designer the first one with the design improvement -- which constitutes invention and first innovation.
Then you agree that the Prada did nothing innovative then.
No. The Prada won an international design award in September, 2006 (it won four other notable design awards, as well). So, it was "out" long before the Iphone, it just didn't go into production until May of 2007.
So the Prada had a full working model in Sept 2006? Was it a demo phone? Or was it merely screenshots of what it was supposed to be? Also the Prada "didn't go into production" in May 2007. It was available in May 2007 which means it went into production months before.
So what was the Apple timeline? It was being developed for about 3 years before it was released. Unlike LG, Apple chooses not to release any details of most upcoming products. Again it was available only a month after the Prada.
No doubt, LG had already committed to most of the internals just before they entered all the design competitions (months before they won their awards),
And Apple didn't commit to internals months prior to launch? The week before the launch, Apple decided to add wifi. You don't think that it takes months for Apple (or any manufacturer) to finalize hardware internals?
and since the Prada was significantly smaller than the Iphone,
Please describe "significantly smaller"
The Prada: 98.8 X 54 X 12 mm
The iPhone 138.3 x 67 x 7.1 mm
The Prada was thicker than the iPhone and shorter and slightly thinner. But it also had a much smaller screen.
there probably wasn't much room to add newly developed technology.
Oh there was plenty of room being much thicker than the iPhone. LG choose not to do so.
Also, LG didn't have the huge resources that Apple had to throw at things like wifi, plus, Apple has a history of rushing things to market before they are ready without proper engineering nor field testing, hence, we now have the common "first adopters" syndrome, largely created by Apple.
No your argument was iPhone didn't have anything the Prada didn't. Wifi alone destroys your argument. Now you want to wrangle out of that fact by saying LG didn't "have the resources" to put in Wifi. Unless you worked at LG and Apple at the time to know what resources they both put in, you're just lying. Because if you know anything about Apple (which you don't). The iPhone design team was small. It was small on purpose to keep it a secret for as long as possible. Will you lie about anything to justify your hate of Apple?
Huh? I never argued that the Prada phone was "great" nor would I argue that the Iphone was "great." My arguments only regard innovation -- who came up with it first.
Wasn't your arugment this: The LG Prada smart phone was winning design awards almost a year . . .The LG Prada beat the later Iphone, but neither LG nor Prada had the legion of blind followers that Apple had. . .Apple has actually originated very little."
So in essence you're lying about what you said.
In the first place, a touchscreen and multi-touch are part of the GUI. Most designers are keenly aware of this -- not so much naive laypeople/fan boys.
And most designers can make the distinction that a GUI is one type of UI. If you are a designer you shoul
So you'll use a smartphone without Wifi today?