To be fair, there's a pretty big difference here. 1) qualcomm's quick charge actually violated the USB spec. Their quick charge still used USB cables to provide power. micro-usb wasn't designed to handshake or negotiate the cable's capabilities to the charger and the phone. The usb cable standard did NOT allow for quickcharge power draw. That actually IS dangerous. 2) Google's 10w proprietary standard is negotiated, and there's no intermediate medium (unless you count the air molecules between the charger and the device, and I'm pretty sure there's no specification defining their behavior)
By no standard definition is usb-pd proprietary. It's no more proprietary than USB is (so if you consider USB proprietary, well fine, here's some more tin foil).
My mention about nvidia is only as a reference to the middle finger and has nothing to do with nvidia running on openbsd.
It's not like that middle finger from Linus influenced nvidia that much. They still use completely proprietary binary blobs in their drivers, they still have driver based firmware blobs that are a pain in the ass for alot of users and distributions, Their optimus hybrid support on linux is still pretty shitty (iirc that's the question that prompted the middle finger) and they still aren't contributing significantly to nouveau.
Android does not usually allow updates. So, to get the latest version, it is necessary to buy a new cell phone. In my opinion, that's extremely abusive.
Technically, that's not an android problem. It's a problem with crappy manufacturers. Android itself absolutely allows updates. I get them at least once a month on my Pixel devices.
So gamers aren't consumers? The difference between these cards are targetted toward end users. Sure it's targetted toward a specific sub-set of end users, but it's still meant to be sold in individual quantities to end users.
The Vega Frontier edition was meant to be targetted towards science and research, and maybe crypto-miners(?). Those are generally not consumer. I don't disagree that this is a gaming enthusiast line right now, but it's still meant for consumers and not institutions/professionals.
Keep in mind this is a $399 "low end" graphics card. We're not talking a maintsream card here, but still a card targetted toward enthusiasts and gamers. Big big difference compared to a truly "low end" mainstream card.
I go by the notion that locks are for honest people and things like smartlocks and connected locks are primarily for the convenience of the owner. Realistically, for most consumer applications of locks, if someone wanted to get in, the lock isn't keeping them out. So while I'm disappointed at the overall non-concern for real security by the manufacturers, I'm not incredibly surprised and I'd be really surprised, outside of a handful of specific targetted cases, that any real thief would even bother with hacking a lock.
"only provides support to their devices for 18-24 months"
The problem is, in that 18-24 month period manufacturers aren't even updating their devices. Let's solve that problem first before we start talking about paying for longer term updates. And no, paying for an update while a device is still well within it's support window is not something I would do.
I have comcast business, and I see no where on my terms of service, or anywhere on comcast businesses site that claims "a dedicated chnanel on teh coax without sharing it with my neighbors".
As far as I'm aware, comcast business cable (not business ethernet) simply uses the same residential network to deliver services.
You know what amuses me about all this systemd hate. Fedora was the first distro to go systemd by default back in F15. There were a few growing pains, but there wasn't the coordinated systemd hatred until pretty much recently when RHEL7 went out the door and debian said we're going systemd.
I know Fedora isn't as popular a distro as some others but it still seems amusing to me.
There is a HUGE difference between Java browser plug-ins and non-browser Java development. HUGE HUGE HUGE difference. One that anyone even remotely familiar with Java development would be able to understand.
AT&Ts issue is that the ratio of inbound to outbound traffic between them and Netflix's ISP is significantly out of balance for AT&T to justify the costs of upgrading their network purely to accommodate Netflix (yes to be perfectly clear, it's to accommodate their own users' demand for netflix bandwidth) but once again, AT&T has not built out and priced their network to allow large unfettered access to a specific pipe all simultaneously and nor should a consumer ISP be required to do so. If you really wanted "dedicated" bandwidth, then consumers will need to be prepared to pay out their ass for it. So the question here is a) is AT&T/[insert your ISP] doing enough to evenly distribute their bandwidth use across their peers. b) if they are, who's responsibility it is to "pay" to fix the problem?
If AT&T is not doing their part to make sure their peering is properly balanced across all their points of peering and purposefully say starving Level 3 because of netflix, well yeah, that's a problem.
Peering agreements don't really handle this type of issue as they were traditionally built on cases where the ratio was much much closer to even. With large swaths of consumer ISPs that don't also host content, things have changed considerably.
I'm somewhat sympathetic to the ISPs issues. 1) Internet connectivity at the end user level is oversold. AT&T (comcast, timewarner, google fiber, [insert your ISP here]) does not charge in such a way that every single user can have 100% unfettered access to your bandwidth all simultaneously. It's just the way it works 2) Netflix may pay their ISP for their bandwidth usage.
Here's the disconnect. Netflix's ISP and [insert your consumer ISP here] do not share the same network. Thus at some point, the two ISPs have to cross some barrier. Now if all of [insert your consumer ISP here]'s customers are simultaneously connecting to Netflix at the exact same time for primetime hours, who's responsibility is it to ensure that the peering arrangement is fair? Does the consumer ISP need to pay to make sure that the peering relationship is such that all their users have the ability to stream from Netflix unfettered? Considering 1) above, is this fair to the ISP? They could do so, but to maintain their existing cost structure it'd likely mean that they may have a smaller pipe to another peer. Is it fair to users using those other peers or do they also have simply make sure ALL of their peers are able to fully pass 100% of traffic unfettered at peak times?
The simple answer is, if you expect the consumer ISP to allow full bandwidth to all of these sites, it's going to significantly raise the cost of bandwidth per end user. So we're complaining that consumer ISPs are demanding money from Netflix, but the alternative is to demand more money from the end user or eat the costs. We know eat the costs is never an option in the US market system:). So where's the money coming from? If the consumer ISP started charging people more for this, people bitch about being charged more rather than bitch about crappy Netflix.
Perhaps Netflix's tier 1 should pay for a larger peering pipe to the consumer ISP. But where's that money coming from? They're going to increase Netflix's rates, but even then, the consumer ISP would have to have the proper equipment to handle the larger peering pipe.
I don't really agree with the entirety of either Netflix or the consumer ISP (AT&Ts) arguments, but peering bandwidth has always been a balancing act, especially with multiple networks you have to peer with. This is why we have CDNs to begin with, and CDNs are paid for by the content producer, and they in turn either pay the consumer ISP to host their gear, or work with the consumer ISP to come up with a mutually beneficial decision. In some cases, the reduced bandwidth flowing through the peering reduces the ISPs costs that they can justify hosting the CDN equipment without asking for any money.
I do agree that it's wrong for a consumer ISP to purposefully lopside their peering arrangements to hurt a competitor, just like I agree that there's nothing wrong with the notion of paying an ISP to host a CDN appliance. Given our lobbying system, do you really think that net neutrality legislation will even begin to address the many nuanced aspects of this issue?
Dunno what the original poster has but I have a 1600 sq foot house. basement first floor and second floor. 795 sqft rectangular foot print. My wifi access point on the first floor gets a horrid signal in the basement (especially near the corners). My wifi router in the basement doesn't reach the top floor corners.
This is specific to the 5ghz bandwidth which I use exclusively.
Yes, custom antennas might help, but wifi routers are cheap (just for reference I have an Asus rt-n56u and a buffalo wzr-hp-ag300h).
House is built in 1946. There are many situations where a single wifi access point doesn't work, even when you'd think it might.
I've forgotten the WPA passphrases on two of my relatives wifi networks and of course since I set it up for them they never had a clue. Fortunately, the unencrypted networkmanager files were there and made it super easy for me to tell them what their passphrases were:)
The article wasn't clear on how people "found" sweetie. But I have to say that without further info, the "possibly believing" part is stretching it.
This is the internet. That girl is very obviously CG. How many people have randomly had fun with computer AIs? I recall the old MUD'ing days and Zork games asking to do stupid sexual things just to get a laugh out of you and your friends sometimes.
Modern day version = Siri. How many silly youtube videos have you seen of people asking Siri to do stupid sexual things.
Just because the CG is of what appears to be a 10 year old girl doesn't mean people aren't going to revert to the same silly behavior just to see what happens, especially if they KNOW it's CG and figure hey, it can't hurt.
In AC's defense: Phone vs. laptop vs. big wall-mounted monitor seems an important distinction; the 10-foot view really is different. That was in the slashdot article itself (not the linked article).
I chose to make my post because I thought it needed to be explicitly answered:)
The average smartphone has a 720p screen with a pixel density well above 200 now. In the context of this discussion, why can't an average panel that is generally within 12-24"s of your face (desktop or laptop) not have the same requirements?
Sure, there exists laptops today that do. But those laptops don't provide you with alot of choice (both are walled gardens, yeah yeah yeah, I know you can install other things on them etc etc etc, but that's not the point here).
That said, I know this is coming. We're seeing more and more high resolution ultrabooks/laptops. So when I say come back and talk to me again, it's very likely by the end of the year:).
Being able to fire at any time doesn't mean that employees do it. I live and work in Minnesota and companies here do RIFs (reduction in force) all the time with severance payouts. If they can get people to leave on their own, that's one less severance package to pay. There are plenty of good reasons why companies pay out severance even if they don't have to. But if they can get away with paying out less than they have to, great.
Slashdot Mirror
That is a good question but if you look at this:
https://www.wirelesspowerconso...
There are surprisingly few phones that are certified for > 5w Qi charging. I'm guessing there's gotta be a reason for that.
To be fair, there's a pretty big difference here.
1) qualcomm's quick charge actually violated the USB spec. Their quick charge still used USB cables to provide power. micro-usb wasn't designed to handshake or negotiate the cable's capabilities to the charger and the phone. The usb cable standard did NOT allow for quickcharge power draw. That actually IS dangerous.
2) Google's 10w proprietary standard is negotiated, and there's no intermediate medium (unless you count the air molecules between the charger and the device, and I'm pretty sure there's no specification defining their behavior)
By no standard definition is usb-pd proprietary. It's no more proprietary than USB is (so if you consider USB proprietary, well fine, here's some more tin foil).
Where are you getting your numbers?
i5 with 8/128 is 999
keyboard is 199
pen is 99
for a grand total of 1297
I'm geting my $US from here:
https://store.google.com/produ...
My mention about nvidia is only as a reference to the middle finger and has nothing to do with nvidia running on openbsd.
It's not like that middle finger from Linus influenced nvidia that much. They still use completely proprietary binary blobs in their drivers, they still have driver based firmware blobs that are a pain in the ass for alot of users and distributions, Their optimus hybrid support on linux is still pretty shitty (iirc that's the question that prompted the middle finger) and they still aren't contributing significantly to nouveau.
I wonder what artist pay looks like in this same timeframe. Both mode and median values.
Android does not usually allow updates. So, to get the latest version, it is necessary to buy a new cell phone. In my opinion, that's extremely abusive.
Technically, that's not an android problem. It's a problem with crappy manufacturers. Android itself absolutely allows updates. I get them at least once a month on my Pixel devices.
So gamers aren't consumers?
The difference between these cards are targetted toward end users. Sure it's targetted toward a specific sub-set of end users, but it's still meant to be sold in individual quantities to end users.
The Vega Frontier edition was meant to be targetted towards science and research, and maybe crypto-miners(?). Those are generally not consumer. I don't disagree that this is a gaming enthusiast line right now, but it's still meant for consumers and not institutions/professionals.
Keep in mind this is a $399 "low end" graphics card. We're not talking a maintsream card here, but still a card targetted toward enthusiasts and gamers. Big big difference compared to a truly "low end" mainstream card.
Exactly. The nihilistic view of honest people is that they are simply an opportunity away from being a dishonest person :).
That's not really an accurate analogy. One wouldn't need to hack the lock of a jeep to get access to the contents of the jeep.
I go by the notion that locks are for honest people and things like smartlocks and connected locks are primarily for the convenience of the owner. Realistically, for most consumer applications of locks, if someone wanted to get in, the lock isn't keeping them out. So while I'm disappointed at the overall non-concern for real security by the manufacturers, I'm not incredibly surprised and I'd be really surprised, outside of a handful of specific targetted cases, that any real thief would even bother with hacking a lock.
"only provides support to their devices for 18-24 months"
The problem is, in that 18-24 month period manufacturers aren't even updating their devices. Let's solve that problem first before we start talking about paying for longer term updates. And no, paying for an update while a device is still well within it's support window is not something I would do.
I have comcast business, and I see no where on my terms of service, or anywhere on comcast businesses site that claims "a dedicated chnanel on teh coax without sharing it with my neighbors".
As far as I'm aware, comcast business cable (not business ethernet) simply uses the same residential network to deliver services.
You know what amuses me about all this systemd hate.
Fedora was the first distro to go systemd by default back in F15. There were a few growing pains, but there wasn't the coordinated systemd hatred until pretty much recently when RHEL7 went out the door and debian said we're going systemd.
I know Fedora isn't as popular a distro as some others but it still seems amusing to me.
There is a HUGE difference between Java browser plug-ins and non-browser Java development. HUGE HUGE HUGE difference. One that anyone even remotely familiar with Java development would be able to understand.
AT&Ts issue is that the ratio of inbound to outbound traffic between them and Netflix's ISP is significantly out of balance for AT&T to justify the costs of upgrading their network purely to accommodate Netflix (yes to be perfectly clear, it's to accommodate their own users' demand for netflix bandwidth) but once again, AT&T has not built out and priced their network to allow large unfettered access to a specific pipe all simultaneously and nor should a consumer ISP be required to do so. If you really wanted "dedicated" bandwidth, then consumers will need to be prepared to pay out their ass for it. So the question here is
a) is AT&T/[insert your ISP] doing enough to evenly distribute their bandwidth use across their peers.
b) if they are, who's responsibility it is to "pay" to fix the problem?
If AT&T is not doing their part to make sure their peering is properly balanced across all their points of peering and purposefully say starving Level 3 because of netflix, well yeah, that's a problem.
Peering agreements don't really handle this type of issue as they were traditionally built on cases where the ratio was much much closer to even. With large swaths of consumer ISPs that don't also host content, things have changed considerably.
I'm somewhat sympathetic to the ISPs issues.
1) Internet connectivity at the end user level is oversold. AT&T (comcast, timewarner, google fiber, [insert your ISP here]) does not charge in such a way that every single user can have 100% unfettered access to your bandwidth all simultaneously. It's just the way it works
2) Netflix may pay their ISP for their bandwidth usage.
Here's the disconnect. Netflix's ISP and [insert your consumer ISP here] do not share the same network. Thus at some point, the two ISPs have to cross some barrier. Now if all of [insert your consumer ISP here]'s customers are simultaneously connecting to Netflix at the exact same time for primetime hours, who's responsibility is it to ensure that the peering arrangement is fair? Does the consumer ISP need to pay to make sure that the peering relationship is such that all their users have the ability to stream from Netflix unfettered? Considering 1) above, is this fair to the ISP? They could do so, but to maintain their existing cost structure it'd likely mean that they may have a smaller pipe to another peer. Is it fair to users using those other peers or do they also have simply make sure ALL of their peers are able to fully pass 100% of traffic unfettered at peak times?
The simple answer is, if you expect the consumer ISP to allow full bandwidth to all of these sites, it's going to significantly raise the cost of bandwidth per end user. So we're complaining that consumer ISPs are demanding money from Netflix, but the alternative is to demand more money from the end user or eat the costs. We know eat the costs is never an option in the US market system :). So where's the money coming from? If the consumer ISP started charging people more for this, people bitch about being charged more rather than bitch about crappy Netflix.
Perhaps Netflix's tier 1 should pay for a larger peering pipe to the consumer ISP. But where's that money coming from? They're going to increase Netflix's rates, but even then, the consumer ISP would have to have the proper equipment to handle the larger peering pipe.
I don't really agree with the entirety of either Netflix or the consumer ISP (AT&Ts) arguments, but peering bandwidth has always been a balancing act, especially with multiple networks you have to peer with. This is why we have CDNs to begin with, and CDNs are paid for by the content producer, and they in turn either pay the consumer ISP to host their gear, or work with the consumer ISP to come up with a mutually beneficial decision. In some cases, the reduced bandwidth flowing through the peering reduces the ISPs costs that they can justify hosting the CDN equipment without asking for any money.
I do agree that it's wrong for a consumer ISP to purposefully lopside their peering arrangements to hurt a competitor, just like I agree that there's nothing wrong with the notion of paying an ISP to host a CDN appliance. Given our lobbying system, do you really think that net neutrality legislation will even begin to address the many nuanced aspects of this issue?
Dunno what the original poster has but I have a 1600 sq foot house. basement first floor and second floor. 795 sqft rectangular foot print. My wifi access point on the first floor gets a horrid signal in the basement (especially near the corners). My wifi router in the basement doesn't reach the top floor corners.
This is specific to the 5ghz bandwidth which I use exclusively.
Yes, custom antennas might help, but wifi routers are cheap (just for reference I have an Asus rt-n56u and a buffalo wzr-hp-ag300h).
House is built in 1946. There are many situations where a single wifi access point doesn't work, even when you'd think it might.
I've forgotten the WPA passphrases on two of my relatives wifi networks and of course since I set it up for them they never had a clue. Fortunately, the unencrypted networkmanager files were there and made it super easy for me to tell them what their passphrases were :)
OR more appropriately, wifi isn't 1st choice for security.
The article wasn't clear on how people "found" sweetie. But I have to say that without further info, the "possibly believing" part is stretching it.
This is the internet. That girl is very obviously CG. How many people have randomly had fun with computer AIs?
I recall the old MUD'ing days and Zork games asking to do stupid sexual things just to get a laugh out of you and your friends sometimes.
Modern day version = Siri. How many silly youtube videos have you seen of people asking Siri to do stupid sexual things.
Just because the CG is of what appears to be a 10 year old girl doesn't mean people aren't going to revert to the same silly behavior just to see what happens, especially if they KNOW it's CG and figure hey, it can't hurt.
In AC's defense:
Phone vs. laptop vs. big wall-mounted monitor seems an important distinction; the 10-foot view really is different.
That was in the slashdot article itself (not the linked article).
I chose to make my post because I thought it needed to be explicitly answered :)
The average smartphone has a 720p screen with a pixel density well above 200 now. In the context of this discussion, why can't an average panel that is generally within 12-24"s of your face (desktop or laptop) not have the same requirements?
Sure, there exists laptops today that do. But those laptops don't provide you with alot of choice (both are walled gardens, yeah yeah yeah, I know you can install other things on them etc etc etc, but that's not the point here).
That said, I know this is coming. We're seeing more and more high resolution ultrabooks/laptops. So when I say come back and talk to me again, it's very likely by the end of the year :).
Come back and talk to me again when the average laptop and desktop screen hits high density PPI :)
Being able to fire at any time doesn't mean that employees do it.
I live and work in Minnesota and companies here do RIFs (reduction in force) all the time with severance payouts. If they can get people to leave on their own, that's one less severance package to pay. There are plenty of good reasons why companies pay out severance even if they don't have to. But if they can get away with paying out less than they have to, great.