They can say they pay more in (which, by the way is not true as fees are minimal but cross-use of pool patents is priceless), but that does not reflect the fact that H.264 is not yet collecting licensing fees. They want to wait until the hook is throughly swallowed before they jerk the rod and set it.
Intel maintains that Sandy Bridge CPUs are not affected, and current users are highly unlikely to encounter the issue even under heavy loads. So far Intel has only been able to document the issue after running extended testing at high temperatures (in a thermal chamber) and voltages.
So, no, it wasn't evident from the beginning. They had to devise torture tests to even see it. See Anandtech (above) for the desired tidbits you were hoping for.
Yup. Fix the early returns as replacements for the later ones. Warranty repairs do not need to be new parts, just warranted parts.
But De-soldering is a messy task unless they set up a custom jig for each board type.
After you take out all the pluggable memory, CPUs, and video controllers, what is left is not that expensive. It might be less expensive to trash the board, file a claim with Intel and make new board.
I wonder if the wisest thing would be to just sit on one of those board till April, especially if your board is not yet experiencing the slow down. The article linked above suggests this problem gets worse with age.
But with replacement boards due in April I would opt for waiting. Of course some people can't/won't change out their own boards and warranty issues might not allow them to do so, but sending it back now gets you a refund, but you are still stuck without your computer.
Actually no, you don't look like an idiot, because the only people who will see it are the people you share the link with, which presumably will be interested enough to actually click it to see the pictures of your vacation and the cast on your broken leg.
What makes you look like an idiot is pretending to have a conversation with 100 million friends, friends of friends, and people who are just there to mine your information for profit.
Maybe all most people need is Picasa or Photobucket, or any of two dozen quick web site tools for these purposes. Take a look at all the tools Google offers for this kind of stuff. http://www.google.com/intl/en/options/
Being on facebook because everyone is on it is not what people need or even want. Most have been duped or browbeaten into joining for fear they will be the odd-man-out. Its like the ultimate clique. But even when you're in, you're still out because someone else has more "friends". Its a social sewer. And its that way precisely because, as you say, "everyone else is on" it. Striving to be unique by being just like everybody else is pretty pointless and pathetic.
So, would anyone recommend a small but dedicated social network alternative that I could try and recommend to my friends. It must have a strong privacy emphasis, anti-spam features and simplicity.
Why don't you explain why you feel you need such a social network in the first place.
Is email broken? Are text messages and google talk on your phone non-functional? Is it in fact necessary for you to be in contact with that cousin that beat the crap out of you as a kid? Is this a substitute for a real relationship?
Which wouldn't be too hard to get since your friends would also be in that photo, or mentioned in that post. And how hard would it be to find your friends since you plastered them all over facebook?
The rules of evidence are much less restrictive in civil court than in criminal court. Chances are if you were caught in a lie like this you would not be demanding eyewitness testimony, because you would have to purger yourself to deny the photo was real, or to even claim it was photoshopped.
Adding lie upon lie in court is seldom a winning strategy.
You can zoom into detail you wouldn't even be allowed to get close enough to see in the museum. Some artists put that level of detail into their works for a purpose, so be careful when throwing around that "as intended to be viewed" stuff.
Oh, and they will look stunning on that 50 inch on the wall too.
I believe that was only for previously copyrighted photographs (mostly from news organizations) and stock images.
It wouldn't cover photographs of museum holdings, as those images, and the right to reproduce them are in the public domain unless the artist still has copyright works. You may not be allowed to photograph works in all museums, (huge piles of money usually gets around this), but any photograph you do take of a long dead artist's work is not copyrighted.
But I'm seeing the same thing, especially following a link in an email to a specific reply. Drag the slider any direction, and it seems to magically fix it. But you have to do this each time you follow a link to a specific post. Very annoying. And don't even try to move that slider on an Android device.
There is a control for re-parenting in the settings or account page that got checked even without me doing so.
It seems the bugs are taking an awfully long time to get fixed. You would thing they would work on the big ticket items first.
Adding support for H.264 is actually useful, unlike Theora support. Also, it's largely a game of upsmanship, basically saying, "here Google, we fixed your browser for you".
Actually, I can't even see Google getting all fussed about this, because they will not have to pay a license fee in 2016 because its not part of Chrome proper. Microsoft may not need to pay either, since as members they may get a free pass (just speculation on my part there).
The whole point Google Still, there is no reason to run head long into H.264 believing there will be no end to the free use of this rat's nest of patents. Did we learn nothing during the GIF saga? With the time available, the orderly move away from H.264 is clearly the way to go.
So view this Microsoft offering for what it is, not so much as a shot across Google's bow as it is a way of protecting their own pocketbook, even at the expense of their own browser offering. Its all about the future revenue.
I have friends that work there, and they are far more open about stuff than Apple or even Google. They weigh in on support forums and follow up when people post problems.
If they can't talk about something they just say so instead of ceasing to communicate at all. Some even openly disagree with the company decisions.
The evil at microsoft was from the top. By the time you got to the coders and designers they were just overworked Joe Programmer types. They burned thru a lot of these guys.
If you click Account, then Discussions tab it has an offering of Classic Discussion System (D1). Don't know if that is what you are looking for, as I haven't tried it yet.
Since their current ability is essentially zero, this goal should not be too tough to achieve. Although given past failures, they could still manage to screw it up.
Wait... I'm pretty sure they have my shoe prints in the National Shoe Print Database since I visited a US Forest recently. Why do they need to build such a thing, can't they just Call Horatio Caine and get this info?
And the laptop doing all the work (instead of sleeping) would draw more power.
This thing is great for a firewall/router and even a web server if you wanted to hang that stuff on it. I wounder how well maintained the software is. It says Linux 2.6.3x Kernel, but from who, and how well is it kept up to date. Is one expected to cross compile this?
Slashdot Mirror
They can say they pay more in (which, by the way is not true as fees are minimal but cross-use of pool patents is priceless), but that does not reflect the fact that H.264 is not yet collecting licensing fees. They want to wait until the hook is throughly swallowed before they jerk the rod and set it.
Quote from AnandTech Story
Intel maintains that Sandy Bridge CPUs are not affected, and current users are highly unlikely to encounter the issue even under heavy loads. So far Intel has only been able to document the issue after running extended testing at high temperatures (in a thermal chamber) and voltages.
So, no, it wasn't evident from the beginning. They had to devise torture tests to even see it.
See Anandtech (above) for the desired tidbits you were hoping for.
Yup.
Fix the early returns as replacements for the later ones. Warranty repairs do not need to be new parts, just warranted parts.
But De-soldering is a messy task unless they set up a custom jig for each board type.
After you take out all the pluggable memory, CPUs, and video controllers, what is left is not that expensive. It might be less expensive to trash the board, file a claim with Intel and make new board.
Very good article.
I wonder if the wisest thing would be to just sit on one of those board till April, especially if your board is not yet experiencing the slow down. The article linked above suggests this problem gets worse with age.
But with replacement boards due in April I would opt for waiting. Of course some people can't/won't change out their own boards and warranty issues might not allow them to do so, but sending it back now gets you a refund, but you are still stuck without your computer.
Actually no, you don't look like an idiot, because the only people who will see it are the people you share the link with, which presumably will be interested enough to actually click it to see the pictures of your vacation and the cast on your broken leg.
What makes you look like an idiot is pretending to have a conversation with 100 million friends, friends of friends, and people who are just there to mine your information for profit.
Maybe all most people need is Picasa or Photobucket, or any of two dozen quick web site tools for these purposes.
Take a look at all the tools Google offers for this kind of stuff. http://www.google.com/intl/en/options/
Being on facebook because everyone is on it is not what people need or even want. Most have been duped or browbeaten into joining for fear they will be the odd-man-out. Its like the ultimate clique. But even when you're in, you're still out because someone else has more "friends". Its a social sewer. And its that way precisely because, as you say, "everyone else is on" it. Striving to be unique by being just like everybody else is pretty pointless and pathetic.
So, would anyone recommend a small but dedicated social network alternative that I could try and recommend to my friends. It must have a strong privacy emphasis, anti-spam features and simplicity.
Why don't you explain why you feel you need such a social network in the first place.
Is email broken?
Are text messages and google talk on your phone non-functional?
Is it in fact necessary for you to be in contact with that cousin that beat the crap out of you as a kid?
Is this a substitute for a real relationship?
Apparently they CAN use that against you in court, as the story is precisely about that.
It takes one question from the opposing lawyer to un-taint the posted material.
Defendant's lawyer:
Mr Plaintiff did you post this photo/text on Facebook?
BAM. Plaintiff has to either fess up, or commit Perjury.
I would still demand eyewitness testimony.
Which wouldn't be too hard to get since your friends would also be in that photo, or mentioned in that post. And how hard would it be to find your friends since you plastered them all over facebook?
The rules of evidence are much less restrictive in civil court than in criminal court.
Chances are if you were caught in a lie like this you would not be demanding eyewitness testimony, because you would have to purger yourself to deny the photo was real, or to even claim it was photoshopped.
Adding lie upon lie in court is seldom a winning strategy.
In a word: Zoom.
You can zoom into detail you wouldn't even be allowed to get close enough to see in the museum.
Some artists put that level of detail into their works for a purpose, so be careful when throwing around that "as intended to be viewed" stuff.
Oh, and they will look stunning on that 50 inch on the wall too.
I'm pretty sure Google rewarded the Museums with more money than their gift shops take in in 5 years.
I believe that was only for previously copyrighted photographs (mostly from news organizations) and stock images.
It wouldn't cover photographs of museum holdings, as those images, and the right to reproduce them are in the public domain unless the artist still has copyright works. You may not be allowed to photograph works in all museums, (huge piles of money usually gets around this), but any photograph you do take of a long dead artist's work is not copyrighted.
Off topic.
But I'm seeing the same thing, especially following a link in an email to a specific reply.
Drag the slider any direction, and it seems to magically fix it. But you have to do this each time
you follow a link to a specific post. Very annoying. And don't even try to move that slider on
an Android device.
There is a control for re-parenting in the settings or account page that got checked even
without me doing so.
It seems the bugs are taking an awfully long time to get fixed. You would thing they would
work on the big ticket items first.
random question - Why does VLC refuse to play Audible files? I thought it was supposed to support that codec.
Because Audible is a patented format encumbered with DRM.
Adding support for H.264 is actually useful, unlike Theora support. Also, it's largely a game of upsmanship, basically saying, "here Google, we fixed your browser for you".
Upsmanship?
More like feathering ones own nest.
After all, Microsoft is a member of the H.264 Licensors. They stand to profit by the continued adoption of H.264.
Actually, I can't even see Google getting all fussed about this, because they will not have to pay a license fee in 2016 because its not part of Chrome proper. Microsoft may not need to pay either, since as members they may get a free pass (just speculation on my part there).
It isn't about Theora, and there are potential third party patent claims against Theora too.
The whole point Google Still, there is no reason to run head long into H.264 believing there will be no end to the free use of this rat's nest of patents. Did we learn nothing during the GIF saga? With the time available, the orderly move away from H.264 is clearly the way to go.
So view this Microsoft offering for what it is, not so much as a shot across Google's bow as it is a way of protecting their own pocketbook, even at the expense of their own browser offering. Its all about the future revenue.
In related news, Ford demands 30% cut on Latte sales at drive up coffee shops citing in-vehicle purchase rules.
Replying to myself, ...
I take it back. It does work, but it is such a mess its not worth it.
It pretty much disables most of slashdot posting, even when slashdot is whitelisted.
I turned it off.
You are pretty spot on in your analysis.
I have friends that work there, and they are far more open about stuff than Apple or even Google. They weigh in on support forums and follow up when people post problems.
If they can't talk about something they just say so instead of ceasing to communicate at all. Some even openly disagree with the company decisions.
The evil at microsoft was from the top. By the time you got to the coders and designers they were just overworked Joe Programmer types. They burned thru a lot of these guys.
That's pretty cool, and it seems to make SlashDot posting page behave better as well.
Bit of a hack to set up but the step by step works fine.
If you click Account, then Discussions tab it has an offering of Classic Discussion System (D1). Don't know if that is what you are looking for, as I haven't tried it yet.
They gave me a SMC8014 for a business drop, and nothing in the manual suggests ipv6 capabilities. That was only 2 years ago.
Glitch in the new design? How would you tell?
I suspect Wikileaks is the least of your problems.
I would be more worried about the *cough* legal uses of the data.
Since their current ability is essentially zero, this goal should not be too tough to achieve. Although given past failures, they could still manage to screw it up.
Wait... I'm pretty sure they have my shoe prints in the National Shoe Print Database since I visited a US Forest recently.
Why do they need to build such a thing, can't they just Call Horatio Caine and get this info?
Exactly.
And the laptop doing all the work (instead of sleeping) would draw more power.
This thing is great for a firewall/router and even a web server if you wanted to hang that stuff on it.
I wounder how well maintained the software is. It says Linux 2.6.3x Kernel, but from who, and
how well is it kept up to date. Is one expected to cross compile this?