Gas taxes pay for infrastructure, it's done that way because it can be. If electric makes that unrealistic then it will be done another way (and that would be a great problem to have). The government will find their taxes regardless.
When it's in society's best interest, it is an appropriate function of the government to do this. Where's your outrage over the government building roads?
"Who's to say electric charging stations are better than hydrogen refill stations; or, hell, gas stations."
Intelligent people, that's who. It's not a mystery. Who's to say it's an either/or situation?
"The government needs to butt out and let the market decide. Putting your thumb on the scale only results in a Hillary vs Trump campaign..."
Smaller battery banks will NOT result in smaller motors nor would it matter even if it did. The barrier to adoption is not the battery or the motor but the myriad problems with charging, only one of which would be addressed with "more chargers".
"It's targetting smartphone/tablet/embed not desktops."
FTFA: "Arm claims laptop-class performance with the A76." "Designed to run flat-out in multi-core implementations".
Doesn't sound like "smartphone/tablet/embed" at all. "flat-out multi-core" and "laptop-class" is not how "smartphone/tablet/embed" works...ever.
"i.e.: a market that almost exclusively runs Android (save for Apple, a couple of things trying to add full blown GNU/Linux support (SBCs, after market OSes like Sailfish), and the big joke coming from Microsoft). not a market that is stuck to Windows 10."
This is a claim fabricated entirely to suit your point of view. ARM has no interest in tying it's designs to Android nor would they have any reason to do so.
"i.e.: a market where (parts of) the OS is available for free..."
Another fabrication of yours that doesn't address any of ARM's interests at all.
"...and most of the applications are delivered as bytecode that get JIT/AOT during installation and will run on whatever architecture your CPU runs (except for a few apps packing native libraries, but those are usually available for both x86 and ARM arches) not a market that is stuck with proprietary closed source blobs."
Apparently you don't know how modern Windows apps work. You certainly don't appreciate how little difference there is in this respect nor, again, understand that this has nothing to do with ARM's business model.
"Until then all you have is engineers' speculations..."
Well at least you have some appreciation for other people's speculations, just sadly not your own.
ARM is quite clearly, and explicitly, targeting applications for which Skylake is used. Smartphones and tablets do not run processors continuously since they lack the battery capacity and thermal dissipation to do so. This design targets much higher function devices where x86 dominates. Whether future devices in the category run Windows 10 or something else is irrelevant.
On the first slide of the article, the "overarching design goal" is to "outperform the competition at half the area and power". They then go on to say that the design offers 35% more performance and 40% better power efficiency compared to a Cortex-A75 core, yet less performance than Skylake with the same "thermal constraints" and half the footprint.
The conclusion should be that either "the competition" is Cortex-A75 or they failed to meet their "overarching design goal". Perhaps they reach their "thermal constraints" at half the power, but they really shouldn't brag about their poor power dissipation capabilities nor should they point out their performance deficiencies with respect to their competition in "laptop-class" performance.
Wait, haven't you already declared that it does both these things?
"Likely to hit the streets in Chromebook form and be a hit with school kids. With a decent amount of flash and confirmed Debian friendliness, I'll take a flyer."
Critical thinking isn't your specialty, is it? Good thing that "confirmed Debian friendliness", how will Intel compete? No wonder it will be a hit with school kids, Debian all the rage there.
It's sad what ignorant tribalists people have become.
Considering that the article never said it "mainly operates at the low end of its thermal profile" (nor that it was differentiated from Skylake in that respect), nor that it "costs a lot less" presumably than Skylake, nor that it gets "90% of Intel single-core throughput", it appears "freaking awesome" to you based on facts that you've 100% made up.
"I can't think of any commercially successful attempt to put Windows on something that isn't an x86 PC. And I don't see why that thing would be any different."
While this is true, it's not a good business plan for MS going forward.
"You get Windows for the huge software library accumulated over decades and because you get the best support for just about anything you can plug into your computer, graphic cards in particular."
This has not been true for a long time.
Furthermore, when NT came out it ran on non-x86 platforms yet executed a "huge software library accumulated over decades" using emulation on those processors. Did not matter. ARM can also emulate, but the idea that this is a critical aspect of the platform is misguided.
Frankly, an image that can be rushed because of digital is an image not worth taking. Film contributes nothing to "getting it right in camera" that shouldn't already exist. Anyone who claims to be a photographer yet says this isn't one, he's just an arrogant wannabe.
My expertise is underwater photography, and the suggestion that film contributes anything but heartbreak to that process would get you laughed out of the room. Land photography, being considerably less demanding, still has its share of ignorant film shooters, just not for much longer.
"The reason the hipsters can now buy new turntables and tube amps and such is because people like me never quite gave up on that.
You fail to see the flaw in your logic. Your unwillingness to give up "old stuff" does not sustain a market for new stuff, therefore the hipster's ability to buy new stuff isn't predicated on people like you.
Hipsters are a sad combination of NIH, general ignorance with ego, and an audience even more ignorant than they are. They don't care about anyone old enough to have never given up an obsolete technology, they only care that their contemporaries don't know that it's junk.
I can't imagine why anyone would show up for that, considering that host is clearly not someone to learn from.
If you want to get an image right "in camera" digital is the way to go since you can confirm it on the spot. Furthermore, an image is only have done when the shutter is pressed and a digital "darkroom" is much more capable than a film one.
No, you are not. Again, you do not understand the term, much like you don't understand anything else.
Furthermore, you never spent $50 on speakers, not ones that "sound great" or anything else. It's quite clear in all of your posts. You don't know what great sound is nor do you have any idea what a HomePod sounds like nor do you know what AirPlay2 is for. You're an idiot.
the "point" of stereo is not to create a "sweet spot" in the room, it's a necessary consequence of it. Eliminating that "sweet spot" would be a good thing.
"Some people think $700 is worth it for a speaker that is simply 'prettier'"
HomePods are not $700 nor will anyone respect your opinion that they are "simply prettier" considering you've never heard one.
"I don't understand why this is offensive at all."
It's not as though you know anything about what you're talking about. You have utterly no experience with these products nor do you demonstrate any knowledge of their competition. It's not even clear you know what that competition is, considering you think it's "home theatres" that cost less than half as much and you never mention Sonos (which is what AirPlay targets).
Nothing when you live in your parent's basement. Nothing if you think $350 is expensive for a speaker. Nothing if your main concern is not buying anything new.
Why should anyone care about your opinion in the slightest? If you can't see why someone would want multi-room audio then you haven't met the minimum requirements to participate in the discussion. Multi-room audio is what AirPlay2 is all about.
I don't believe you since you demonstrate over and over that you don't know what a "high end" costs.
The fact is that the HomePod has surprisingly good bass for a speaker it's size. You wouldn't know that since you haven't heard one, but it doesn't stop you from posting repeatedly with derogatory comments toward the product. I'd suggest you take your own advice and "be free from your ego".
"You're talking about a speaker that costs more than twice as much as most theatre systems, yet physically it can't have the same sound range."
You appear to know nothing about "most theatre systems", how much they cost, and what "sound range" is.
The criticism of the HomePod as expensive at it's price is one of the more absurd things anyone says about Apple. Anyone who thinks $350 for a speaker is a lot doesn't know anything about the category.
"THAT my friend, has never been done before. And yes, it makes all the difference."
How do you know, and why does that matter?
The HomePod is a speaker, it is judged by how it performs as a speaker, not how it achieves it.
Not sure what "all the difference" is in this context, but the HomePod doesn't sound especially good as a speaker, not even as a speaker of its size and price. It's main claim to fame is it's initial impression of bass performance and "individual control" over an array of tweeters doesn't do squat for that.
What "individual control" of tweeters can do the HomePod sucks at. High frequency performance is the HomePod's greatest liability. They are truly a "low fidelity" product, embarrassing in fact considering their price.
"..and did not re-weigh it at the station. That scale weighed exclusively in metric measurements, so the police officer would have needed to be able to convert between measurements quickly in order to make that claim. The defense attorney then asks the police officer to do what he claimed he did at the scene of the crime."
There was no claim that the cop didn't re-weigh at the station.
There was no claim that the cop did a conversion at the scene of the crime.
There is obviously a problem with the cop's testimony and that got exposed in court. What the discrepancies are we don't know and you're not entitled to make up facts based upon an incomplete, second hand account. Read it again.
Your account is no more reliable here than the cop's was.
Slashdot Mirror
It did work well. The problem would be worse without it, and the problem gets better with time.
Your sarcasm does nothing to hide your ignorance.
Why does this matter?
Gas taxes pay for infrastructure, it's done that way because it can be. If electric makes that unrealistic then it will be done another way (and that would be a great problem to have). The government will find their taxes regardless.
"They're choosing one tech over another."
When it's in society's best interest, it is an appropriate function of the government to do this. Where's your outrage over the government building roads?
"Who's to say electric charging stations are better than hydrogen refill stations; or, hell, gas stations."
Intelligent people, that's who. It's not a mystery. Who's to say it's an either/or situation?
"The government needs to butt out and let the market decide. Putting your thumb on the scale only results in a Hillary vs Trump campaign..."
What an ignoramus.
Smaller battery banks will NOT result in smaller motors nor would it matter even if it did. The barrier to adoption is not the battery or the motor but the myriad problems with charging, only one of which would be addressed with "more chargers".
"It's targetting smartphone/tablet/embed not desktops."
FTFA: "Arm claims laptop-class performance with the A76." "Designed to run flat-out in multi-core implementations".
Doesn't sound like "smartphone/tablet/embed" at all. "flat-out multi-core" and "laptop-class" is not how "smartphone/tablet/embed" works...ever.
"i.e.: a market that almost exclusively runs Android (save for Apple, a couple of things trying to add full blown GNU/Linux support (SBCs, after market OSes like Sailfish), and the big joke coming from Microsoft).
not a market that is stuck to Windows 10."
This is a claim fabricated entirely to suit your point of view. ARM has no interest in tying it's designs to Android nor would they have any reason to do so.
"i.e.: a market where (parts of) the OS is available for free..."
Another fabrication of yours that doesn't address any of ARM's interests at all.
"...and most of the applications are delivered as bytecode that get JIT/AOT during installation and will run on whatever architecture your CPU runs (except for a few apps packing native libraries, but those are usually available for both x86 and ARM arches)
not a market that is stuck with proprietary closed source blobs."
Apparently you don't know how modern Windows apps work. You certainly don't appreciate how little difference there is in this respect nor, again, understand that this has nothing to do with ARM's business model.
"Until then all you have is engineers' speculations..."
Well at least you have some appreciation for other people's speculations, just sadly not your own.
ARM is quite clearly, and explicitly, targeting applications for which Skylake is used. Smartphones and tablets do not run processors continuously since they lack the battery capacity and thermal dissipation to do so. This design targets much higher function devices where x86 dominates. Whether future devices in the category run Windows 10 or something else is irrelevant.
On the first slide of the article, the "overarching design goal" is to "outperform the competition at half the area and power". They then go on to say that the design offers 35% more performance and 40% better power efficiency compared to a Cortex-A75 core, yet less performance than Skylake with the same "thermal constraints" and half the footprint.
The conclusion should be that either "the competition" is Cortex-A75 or they failed to meet their "overarching design goal". Perhaps they reach their "thermal constraints" at half the power, but they really shouldn't brag about their poor power dissipation capabilities nor should they point out their performance deficiencies with respect to their competition in "laptop-class" performance.
"f the ARM chip costs less and runs cooler, ..."
Wait, haven't you already declared that it does both these things?
"Likely to hit the streets in Chromebook form and be a hit with school kids. With a decent amount of flash and confirmed Debian friendliness, I'll take a flyer."
Critical thinking isn't your specialty, is it? Good thing that "confirmed Debian friendliness", how will Intel compete? No wonder it will be a hit with school kids, Debian all the rage there.
It's sad what ignorant tribalists people have become.
Considering that the article never said it "mainly operates at the low end of its thermal profile" (nor that it was differentiated from Skylake in that respect), nor that it "costs a lot less" presumably than Skylake, nor that it gets "90% of Intel single-core throughput", it appears "freaking awesome" to you based on facts that you've 100% made up.
"I can't think of any commercially successful attempt to put Windows on something that isn't an x86 PC. And I don't see why that thing would be any different."
While this is true, it's not a good business plan for MS going forward.
"You get Windows for the huge software library accumulated over decades and because you get the best support for just about anything you can plug into your computer, graphic cards in particular."
This has not been true for a long time.
Furthermore, when NT came out it ran on non-x86 platforms yet executed a "huge software library accumulated over decades" using emulation on those processors. Did not matter. ARM can also emulate, but the idea that this is a critical aspect of the platform is misguided.
It's a shame so few people will appreciate the insight in this post.
Exactly.
Frankly, an image that can be rushed because of digital is an image not worth taking. Film contributes nothing to "getting it right in camera" that shouldn't already exist. Anyone who claims to be a photographer yet says this isn't one, he's just an arrogant wannabe.
My expertise is underwater photography, and the suggestion that film contributes anything but heartbreak to that process would get you laughed out of the room. Land photography, being considerably less demanding, still has its share of ignorant film shooters, just not for much longer.
"The reason the hipsters can now buy new turntables and tube amps and such is because people like me never quite gave up on that.
You fail to see the flaw in your logic. Your unwillingness to give up "old stuff" does not sustain a market for new stuff, therefore the hipster's ability to buy new stuff isn't predicated on people like you.
Hipsters are a sad combination of NIH, general ignorance with ego, and an audience even more ignorant than they are. They don't care about anyone old enough to have never given up an obsolete technology, they only care that their contemporaries don't know that it's junk.
Maybe your cassettes were. A good cassette recording (not copied from vinyl) could easily match vinyl. Too bad you never experienced that.
Both suck by modern standards, of course.
I can't imagine why anyone would show up for that, considering that host is clearly not someone to learn from.
If you want to get an image right "in camera" digital is the way to go since you can confirm it on the spot. Furthermore, an image is only have done when the shutter is pressed and a digital "darkroom" is much more capable than a film one.
No, you are not. Again, you do not understand the term, much like you don't understand anything else.
Furthermore, you never spent $50 on speakers, not ones that "sound great" or anything else. It's quite clear in all of your posts. You don't know what great sound is nor do you have any idea what a HomePod sounds like nor do you know what AirPlay2 is for. You're an idiot.
the "point" of stereo is not to create a "sweet spot" in the room, it's a necessary consequence of it. Eliminating that "sweet spot" would be a good thing.
"Some people think $700 is worth it for a speaker that is simply 'prettier'"
HomePods are not $700 nor will anyone respect your opinion that they are "simply prettier" considering you've never heard one.
"I don't understand why this is offensive at all."
It's not as though you know anything about what you're talking about. You have utterly no experience with these products nor do you demonstrate any knowledge of their competition. It's not even clear you know what that competition is, considering you think it's "home theatres" that cost less than half as much and you never mention Sonos (which is what AirPlay targets).
Nothing when you live in your parent's basement. Nothing if you think $350 is expensive for a speaker. Nothing if your main concern is not buying anything new.
Why should anyone care about your opinion in the slightest? If you can't see why someone would want multi-room audio then you haven't met the minimum requirements to participate in the discussion. Multi-room audio is what AirPlay2 is all about.
I don't believe you since you demonstrate over and over that you don't know what a "high end" costs.
The fact is that the HomePod has surprisingly good bass for a speaker it's size. You wouldn't know that since you haven't heard one, but it doesn't stop you from posting repeatedly with derogatory comments toward the product. I'd suggest you take your own advice and "be free from your ego".
"You're talking about a speaker that costs more than twice as much as most theatre systems, yet physically it can't have the same sound range."
You appear to know nothing about "most theatre systems", how much they cost, and what "sound range" is.
The criticism of the HomePod as expensive at it's price is one of the more absurd things anyone says about Apple. Anyone who thinks $350 for a speaker is a lot doesn't know anything about the category.
home theaters at those prices aren't worth talking about...or listening to.
"THAT my friend, has never been done before. And yes, it makes all the difference."
How do you know, and why does that matter?
The HomePod is a speaker, it is judged by how it performs as a speaker, not how it achieves it.
Not sure what "all the difference" is in this context, but the HomePod doesn't sound especially good as a speaker, not even as a speaker of its size and price. It's main claim to fame is it's initial impression of bass performance and "individual control" over an array of tweeters doesn't do squat for that.
What "individual control" of tweeters can do the HomePod sucks at. High frequency performance is the HomePod's greatest liability. They are truly a "low fidelity" product, embarrassing in fact considering their price.
You should look up "inefficient". It doesn't mean what you think it means.
Apple doesn't require HomePods to be used in pairs. You are free to use one if it's more suitable.
As easy as it is to criticize a HomePod, you've failed to do so.
"..and did not re-weigh it at the station. That scale weighed exclusively in metric measurements, so the police officer would have needed to be able to convert between measurements quickly in order to make that claim. The defense attorney then asks the police officer to do what he claimed he did at the scene of the crime."
There was no claim that the cop didn't re-weigh at the station.
There was no claim that the cop did a conversion at the scene of the crime.
There is obviously a problem with the cop's testimony and that got exposed in court. What the discrepancies are we don't know and you're not entitled to make up facts based upon an incomplete, second hand account. Read it again.
Your account is no more reliable here than the cop's was.
You do realize that a camera and a sensor are not the same?