No, that IS democracy. Rule of absolute democracy, to oppress a minority, is tyranny. There is a huge difference. I've seen your notion before by many others but it absolutely is not valid. Not even close. Democracy exists to serve the majority; and the world says rightly so. I happen to agree. Democracy and republics are about the best form of large governance mankind has been able to implement. Its not perfect and its impossible to make everybody happy, but that's what we got.
Democracy absolutely can be used for tyrannical ends but absolute rule by the majority IS democracy at its best.
Perhaps you should bother to understand what it is you're saying before you go mouthing off. "Arguably", means its open to discussion and/or debate. The speaker is indirectly soliciting discussion or debate. Speakers who say such things are more typically open minded in nature. Someone who attempts to cast an open minded person in a negative light, strictly for being open minded, is what the world considers negative and closed minded.
The basis for your rant means that we should listen to a negative, closed minded person and absolutely most not discuss or debate else you'll then attempt to cast them in a negative light. Basically, your words make you out to be a prick. And using you're own words pretty well proves absolutely nothing you say is worth discussion; unless you want to prefix it with, "Arguably."
As another nit, people who attack accurate communication, for being accurate, such as you have done, likely have other issues. Which again raises the question as to why we should listen to you. Arguably, we shouldn't.
BTW, your citations actually validate the account given above.
Really sad that slashdot users go out of their way to troll moderate based on their own ignorance...like wise, sad that posts like yours are posted when posts such as yours actually confirm the account. But hey, if people want to knowingly remain stupid and ignorant, who am I to stand in their way.
The only pressure that Google has placed on Apple is to prematurely an updated iPad
You're focusing on the iPad. Look wider, which includes iPad, iPhones, and various other i devices. Google's pressure on the iPad is just starting because Android is just barely entering the segment, but most assuredly its there. As for the other segments, most specifically the iPhone, Apple has been in reactionary mode for two years now thanks to Google. Despite Apple offering cheaper prices than what's available for Android devices, Android is still steadily growing. And keep in mind, those cheap prices by Apple specifically exist to combat Android's continue growth. And that's completely ignoring the technological aspects where Apple absolutely has been forced to react. In fact, Apple recently even tried to claim NF communication as their near new feature despite the fact that its been Google's golden boy for many, many years and Google already beat them to market.
Of course, the inverse is also true. As Apple continues to create new features, without a doubt, Android is forced to follow.
Again, this is good for consumers and a sign of a healthy emerging market.
Congress absolutely does have the power to create and dissolve courts. So where does a judge go when he has no court? Seems your nonsense is just that.
Considering the battery is extremely unlikely to require replacement before the two year window, most people consider it a useless up charge. Statistically speaking, they are absolutely right.
While this was before the ipad came out, I do recall reading Apples makes a mint on battery replacements for their various electronics. So its safe to say, contrary to the counter arguments here, the single largest reason for Apple not to allow for replaceable batteries is because it would undercut one of their profit centers.
Apple makes money on their sale up front. Frequently, its based on premium pricing. Apple then makes money on warranties which almost never require payouts. Also known as free money. Apple then makes money on the tiny minority who require battery replacement but did not get the replacement warranty. Apple then makes lots and lots of money on all the electronics still in service which require battery replacement over the next several years, after the initial two years or so.
For Apple, there isn't a down side. People are standing in line to hand them money for absolutely nothing. Apple has absolutely no incentive to change their current scheme and millions of reasons to maintain the status quo.
And IIRC, Android tablets like the Xoom reportedly even have higher end components than the ipad. The simple fact is, Android in placing tremendous pressure on Apple to compete. To date, there isn't a satisfied Apple iphone 3gs and later, or ipad user, who doesn't owe a great big thank you to Google too.
This is the way the market is supposed to work. Multiple companies all competing to grab customers with the best widget. Therefore, forcing all competing in that widget space to compete based on the goodness of their widget. Thanks to Google, we now have that market place.
Yes, because making someone's job go away is so completely different than firing them. Dip shit. What is obvious, is why you posted anonymously. Sorry.
Valid nit. I was just trying to fill in the back story. In doing so, my verbiage was not entirely accurate. More correctly, new judges were then appointed.
Tried to quickly find a link. I honestly didn't spend much time on it. IIRC, it was during the later part of the 1800s.
The deal was, far too many judges were known to be corrupt and not following laws, like the US Constitution. Much like we see today. Congress said we'll fire you. The judges said that's not legal and we'll provide for an extremely protracted battle to ensure it never happens. Congress said fine. Congress then dissolved all the courts in which the judges in question presided. They then created new courts and then hired new judges for those courts. So technically they weren't fired - rather their courts simply went away.
You mean the stories and undeclared income. Employment for family members shortly before a decision was given. So on and so on. Perhaps you should stay up on fairly recent news events.
It very clearly indicates they were shopping for an expert witness; meaning, shopping for specific testimony regardless of facts. Seemingly, this guy had ethics and didn't lie. By this same line of logic, seeming SCO's experts who did testify, knowingly did so for paychecks rather than merit of claim.
The fact that it took as long as it did for the inevitable outcome just shows how broken the US legal system (and IP law in particular) really is.
It doesn't help that the judges in the highest court in the land can be verifiably bought and seemingly, no repercussions whatsoever.
The US legal system is horribly, horribly broken...and every indication is its by intent. This has happened before. Part of the solution for Congress was to fire massive numbers of judges. This absolutely must be done again.
Google has a near monopoly (which btw, is not illegal in of itself) because the best product is maintaining its position and crowding out inferior solutions.
On the other hand, many superior solutions have been illegally barred from entry because of anti-competitive and illegal practices by Microsoft. Google's situation actually encourages competition and an ever improving product. Microsoft's solution destroys competition and ensures product stagnation and inferior products compared to what the market would otherwise bring.
In fact failover provides support for this sort of thing and is hardly a step away from proper administration.
This is actually a very good thing. Far too often people have automatic failover but never test it and are shocked to find it doesn't automatically failover and remained undetected because failover is never tested.
And when its the third time this has happened and you still have no explanation as to why its happening or how to avoid loss and downtime in the future, you absolutely should be fired - with malice.
Says the troll whos sense of self has a vested interest in the OS they and others use. Isn't that literally, pretty close to be failing at life? Its a rhetorical question to which we both already know the answer.
I'm glad I'm on this side of this keyboard and not on that side of your keyboard. Seriously.
No, its not a question or liking or disliking what you said. Its how you said it. They way you said it came across as a loaded question with the intent to misdirect and derail the thread. That is trolling if true. But you'll also note my verbiage was soft and I wasn't (still am not) if that was truly your intent despite how it appeared.
Their data can't substantiate the initial claim.
Many times, "fastest", when used in a laymen context, means many different things. Faster at what is the real question. While JIT improvements were made, latency improvements were some of the biggest improvements. Generally speaking, lower latency means lower throughput. Which means faster could mean faster and slower, concurrently. Not to mention, JIT improvements does not mean all applications benefit. Likewise, as my original post pointed out, OS performance need not translate to application performance. It really depends on how the application leverages the OS. And that's why I was trying to stress OS/application. Performance is a complex subject. Its typically far more complex than most are willing to accept. Technically, the OS can be faster and the browser can be slower. Not to mention, the browser application isn't the same application between OS versions so its really an apples to oranges comparison.
All of the reasons above are why benchmark suites are almost universally meaningless and all too often completely misleading.
According to this thread, the new hardware specifications provides 10ms "low latency." The "45ms" number is the number bring thrown around to get people upset without actually knowing what that number means.
Basically, 45ms allows for the audio pipeline to already be filled, and remains filled, and perhaps (likely even) by other applications. That's hardly unreasonable. The 10ms number, AS PROVIDED BY LATEST HARDWARE SPECS, means the pipeline is available for immediate use. For dedicated applications, which largely covers the low latency audio demands of current developers, the 10ms number is what everyone actually wants, and seemingly is provided.
Meaning, existing hardware may or may not be able to satisfy real "low latency" demands, but, new hardware will.
It appears Gingerbread really does address low latency demands, however, it also appears existing hardware (drivers) are not capable of doing better. Looks like things are looking up for next gen hardware and low latency audio requirements.
To summarize, android hardware requirements define two audio latency numbers which pertain to your complaint. One is continuous audio. The second is warm audio. The first is for a continuously filled audio pipeline; seemingly from any source. The second is for an empty pipeline. The former requires 45ms. The later requires 10ms.
You do understand that applications can play a far, far bigger role in application performance than the underlying OS...right? Well, for most applications anyways.
Your question appears to be rather loaded with the intent to troll. Even if it did get slower, the article is about OS,not web browsers. Furthermore, regressions are hardly unheard of. But, as someone already pointed out, the browser is pretty fast despite what appears to be a trolling effort to misdirect people.
Measuring application performance is not measuring OS performance. Though admittedly, OS performance is frequently a subset of application performance. Just the same, unless they are specifically breaking down the performance metric into application and system, any guess as to the break down is meaningless.
When Mindy the undergrad accidentally deletes her term paper and would be really REALLY grateful for a super smart and kinda cute geek to go in and recover the file with Backtrack... then you'll see the downside.
I still don't get it. The only difference is the phrase, "just friends", will be told to your face versus her just silently thinking it. So what is the downside?
If the TRIM command is used, from the firmware's perspective, wouldn't the original statement be completely accurate? The device knows which cells contain data. Using the TRIM command, the device now knowns which cells contain data and which cells the filesystem is no longer using for data.
Unless you're advocating everyone stop using the TRIM command, it appears you're being overly pedantic.
Slashdot Mirror
The absolute rule of majority is not democracy.
No, that IS democracy. Rule of absolute democracy, to oppress a minority, is tyranny. There is a huge difference. I've seen your notion before by many others but it absolutely is not valid. Not even close. Democracy exists to serve the majority; and the world says rightly so. I happen to agree. Democracy and republics are about the best form of large governance mankind has been able to implement. Its not perfect and its impossible to make everybody happy, but that's what we got.
Democracy absolutely can be used for tyrannical ends but absolute rule by the majority IS democracy at its best.
Perhaps you should bother to understand what it is you're saying before you go mouthing off. "Arguably", means its open to discussion and/or debate. The speaker is indirectly soliciting discussion or debate. Speakers who say such things are more typically open minded in nature. Someone who attempts to cast an open minded person in a negative light, strictly for being open minded, is what the world considers negative and closed minded.
The basis for your rant means that we should listen to a negative, closed minded person and absolutely most not discuss or debate else you'll then attempt to cast them in a negative light. Basically, your words make you out to be a prick. And using you're own words pretty well proves absolutely nothing you say is worth discussion; unless you want to prefix it with, "Arguably."
As another nit, people who attack accurate communication, for being accurate, such as you have done, likely have other issues. Which again raises the question as to why we should listen to you. Arguably, we shouldn't.
BTW, your citations actually validate the account given above.
Really sad that slashdot users go out of their way to troll moderate based on their own ignorance...like wise, sad that posts like yours are posted when posts such as yours actually confirm the account. But hey, if people want to knowingly remain stupid and ignorant, who am I to stand in their way.
Sad.
The only pressure that Google has placed on Apple is to prematurely an updated iPad
You're focusing on the iPad. Look wider, which includes iPad, iPhones, and various other i devices. Google's pressure on the iPad is just starting because Android is just barely entering the segment, but most assuredly its there. As for the other segments, most specifically the iPhone, Apple has been in reactionary mode for two years now thanks to Google. Despite Apple offering cheaper prices than what's available for Android devices, Android is still steadily growing. And keep in mind, those cheap prices by Apple specifically exist to combat Android's continue growth. And that's completely ignoring the technological aspects where Apple absolutely has been forced to react. In fact, Apple recently even tried to claim NF communication as their near new feature despite the fact that its been Google's golden boy for many, many years and Google already beat them to market.
Of course, the inverse is also true. As Apple continues to create new features, without a doubt, Android is forced to follow.
Again, this is good for consumers and a sign of a healthy emerging market.
Congress absolutely does have the power to create and dissolve courts. So where does a judge go when he has no court? Seems your nonsense is just that.
Considering the battery is extremely unlikely to require replacement before the two year window, most people consider it a useless up charge. Statistically speaking, they are absolutely right.
While this was before the ipad came out, I do recall reading Apples makes a mint on battery replacements for their various electronics. So its safe to say, contrary to the counter arguments here, the single largest reason for Apple not to allow for replaceable batteries is because it would undercut one of their profit centers.
Apple makes money on their sale up front. Frequently, its based on premium pricing.
Apple then makes money on warranties which almost never require payouts. Also known as free money.
Apple then makes money on the tiny minority who require battery replacement but did not get the replacement warranty.
Apple then makes lots and lots of money on all the electronics still in service which require battery replacement over the next several years, after the initial two years or so.
For Apple, there isn't a down side. People are standing in line to hand them money for absolutely nothing. Apple has absolutely no incentive to change their current scheme and millions of reasons to maintain the status quo.
And IIRC, Android tablets like the Xoom reportedly even have higher end components than the ipad. The simple fact is, Android in placing tremendous pressure on Apple to compete. To date, there isn't a satisfied Apple iphone 3gs and later, or ipad user, who doesn't owe a great big thank you to Google too.
This is the way the market is supposed to work. Multiple companies all competing to grab customers with the best widget. Therefore, forcing all competing in that widget space to compete based on the goodness of their widget. Thanks to Google, we now have that market place.
Yes, because making someone's job go away is so completely different than firing them. Dip shit. What is obvious, is why you posted anonymously. Sorry.
Valid nit. I was just trying to fill in the back story. In doing so, my verbiage was not entirely accurate. More correctly, new judges were then appointed.
Tried to quickly find a link. I honestly didn't spend much time on it. IIRC, it was during the later part of the 1800s.
The deal was, far too many judges were known to be corrupt and not following laws, like the US Constitution. Much like we see today. Congress said we'll fire you. The judges said that's not legal and we'll provide for an extremely protracted battle to ensure it never happens. Congress said fine. Congress then dissolved all the courts in which the judges in question presided. They then created new courts and then hired new judges for those courts. So technically they weren't fired - rather their courts simply went away.
You mean the stories and undeclared income. Employment for family members shortly before a decision was given. So on and so on. Perhaps you should stay up on fairly recent news events.
It very clearly indicates they were shopping for an expert witness; meaning, shopping for specific testimony regardless of facts. Seemingly, this guy had ethics and didn't lie. By this same line of logic, seeming SCO's experts who did testify, knowingly did so for paychecks rather than merit of claim.
The fact that it took as long as it did for the inevitable outcome just shows how broken the US legal system (and IP law in particular) really is.
It doesn't help that the judges in the highest court in the land can be verifiably bought and seemingly, no repercussions whatsoever.
The US legal system is horribly, horribly broken...and every indication is its by intent. This has happened before. Part of the solution for Congress was to fire massive numbers of judges. This absolutely must be done again.
No, not even a little bit.
Google has a near monopoly (which btw, is not illegal in of itself) because the best product is maintaining its position and crowding out inferior solutions.
On the other hand, many superior solutions have been illegally barred from entry because of anti-competitive and illegal practices by Microsoft. Google's situation actually encourages competition and an ever improving product. Microsoft's solution destroys competition and ensures product stagnation and inferior products compared to what the market would otherwise bring.
In short; Microsoft bad, Google good.
In fact failover provides support for this sort of thing and is hardly a step away from proper administration.
This is actually a very good thing. Far too often people have automatic failover but never test it and are shocked to find it doesn't automatically failover and remained undetected because failover is never tested.
And when its the third time this has happened and you still have no explanation as to why its happening or how to avoid loss and downtime in the future, you absolutely should be fired - with malice.
Says the troll whos sense of self has a vested interest in the OS they and others use. Isn't that literally, pretty close to be failing at life? Its a rhetorical question to which we both already know the answer.
I'm glad I'm on this side of this keyboard and not on that side of your keyboard. Seriously.
No, its not a question or liking or disliking what you said. Its how you said it. They way you said it came across as a loaded question with the intent to misdirect and derail the thread. That is trolling if true. But you'll also note my verbiage was soft and I wasn't (still am not) if that was truly your intent despite how it appeared.
Their data can't substantiate the initial claim.
Many times, "fastest", when used in a laymen context, means many different things. Faster at what is the real question. While JIT improvements were made, latency improvements were some of the biggest improvements. Generally speaking, lower latency means lower throughput. Which means faster could mean faster and slower, concurrently. Not to mention, JIT improvements does not mean all applications benefit. Likewise, as my original post pointed out, OS performance need not translate to application performance. It really depends on how the application leverages the OS. And that's why I was trying to stress OS/application. Performance is a complex subject. Its typically far more complex than most are willing to accept. Technically, the OS can be faster and the browser can be slower. Not to mention, the browser application isn't the same application between OS versions so its really an apples to oranges comparison.
All of the reasons above are why benchmark suites are almost universally meaningless and all too often completely misleading.
Damn, its times like this when I need a rim shot and a "whosh" sound to be heard from my computer.
You got me. And now that its squarely smacked my forehead, its funny. :P
You should have finished reading the remaining 18.18% of the report. Its there, you just have to read it.
According to this thread, the new hardware specifications provides 10ms "low latency." The "45ms" number is the number bring thrown around to get people upset without actually knowing what that number means.
Basically, 45ms allows for the audio pipeline to already be filled, and remains filled, and perhaps (likely even) by other applications. That's hardly unreasonable. The 10ms number, AS PROVIDED BY LATEST HARDWARE SPECS, means the pipeline is available for immediate use. For dedicated applications, which largely covers the low latency audio demands of current developers, the 10ms number is what everyone actually wants, and seemingly is provided.
Meaning, existing hardware may or may not be able to satisfy real "low latency" demands, but, new hardware will.
It appears Gingerbread really does address low latency demands, however, it also appears existing hardware (drivers) are not capable of doing better. Looks like things are looking up for next gen hardware and low latency audio requirements.
To summarize, android hardware requirements define two audio latency numbers which pertain to your complaint. One is continuous audio. The second is warm audio. The first is for a continuously filled audio pipeline; seemingly from any source. The second is for an empty pipeline. The former requires 45ms. The later requires 10ms.
You do understand that applications can play a far, far bigger role in application performance than the underlying OS...right? Well, for most applications anyways.
Your question appears to be rather loaded with the intent to troll. Even if it did get slower, the article is about OS,not web browsers. Furthermore, regressions are hardly unheard of. But, as someone already pointed out, the browser is pretty fast despite what appears to be a trolling effort to misdirect people.
Measuring application performance is not measuring OS performance. Though admittedly, OS performance is frequently a subset of application performance. Just the same, unless they are specifically breaking down the performance metric into application and system, any guess as to the break down is meaningless.
The 9/11 commission
Good! You mean we'll get an extremely detailed report which accurately depicts 99.99% of the known available facts. Excellent!
When Mindy the undergrad accidentally deletes her term paper and would be really REALLY grateful for a super smart and kinda cute geek to go in and recover the file with Backtrack... then you'll see the downside.
I still don't get it. The only difference is the phrase, "just friends", will be told to your face versus her just silently thinking it. So what is the downside?
Inaccurate.
If the TRIM command is used, from the firmware's perspective, wouldn't the original statement be completely accurate? The device knows which cells contain data. Using the TRIM command, the device now knowns which cells contain data and which cells the filesystem is no longer using for data.
Unless you're advocating everyone stop using the TRIM command, it appears you're being overly pedantic.