You get into RISC vs CISC arguments here. There are only sample quantities of 64-bit ARM at this juncture. There's really no good reference model when you start going that direction with ARM.
Intel isn't paranoid enough to survive, methinks, and will be left behind.
And the scale you'll see is already here; SeaMicro is doing it, and HP will do it if they can get Project Moonshot off the ground.
Transistors are one measure, an important one, but design ease and getting work done is another. Ultimately, power consumption will become an even larger quotient than it is now. Intel fixes stuff differently than ARM designers do, but if the market does walk away from x86, they're a one-trick-pony.
The range problem is an illusion. The output to the antenna(s) is the same. The radial or omni-polar radiation doesn't change. What changes is that newer hardware is faster.
Should you take a field-strength meter and walk around the area, noting the polar strength, you'll see that it doesn't change in two, three, four, etc years.
Can you reduce the coverage area? In certainty! Block the antenna. Add paint, drywall, furniture, or anything else but air (even relative humidity has a bearing on the distance). If you use 802.11a or n-high then its penetration radius is much smaller as the transmission characteristics of 5Ghz isn't nearly as nice as 2.4Ghz. There power limitations and antenna limitations (technically self-imposed by the vendors) in the 5Ghz transmission devices that limit effective radiated power. If you get a signal, it's sometimes by reflective rather than direct means as 5Ghz has a short-range bouncing effect.
The same AP on the same freq/channel using the same transmission modulation technique (there are more than 25 different types) will yield the same effective radius given the same antenna and receiver. Other items change, as noted, that give the *appearance* that things slow down. The APs don't "age", and the device inside your notebook or USB-WiFi adapter don't change. At best, on a bad day, you might get oxidation on the TNC or other coaxial (if present) connector for the antenna on a 2.4Ghz device. Otherwise, it's not going to change electrically, and so the slow downs are perceived, but the source of the perception isn't a geriatric or entropic device combination.
Google makes its revenue from Adsense, which relies on knowing about you. No Adsense, no Google. They have claimed to be the good guys, but in litigation after settlement, they proven that they constantly overreach, pushing boundaries farther and farther..
I cannot cite empirical data that says that the browser will behave. However, you'll need to have a non-google browser to test this. More: your presence online will give up much information on your behavior, your location, and the cookies will give tracking data to both organizations you visit, but also to scripts that attempt to read the cookies and extract private information.
802.11a was first (there is another but obscure predecessor), and used 5Ghz. Advanced modulation techniques blew the doors off 802.11b @2.4ghz, which at 11mbit/s (on a good day), had a very low yield.
802.11g also uses 2.4ghz, but early products had trouble going back and forth between b and g, thus slowing throughput down, despite faster yields in g via advanced modulation techniques.
Enter N, was an advanced modulation scheme with higher throughput, first largely found on 2.4ghz. At first N was really fast, and had only a bit of trouble SLOWING DOWN for b and g. You have one collision domain unless you break out the b/g radio with the n radio. So, you have to dawdle while b goes through, then the channel is free again for something faster.
Then come the dual-band radios, and the dual band, dual radio routers which can walk and chew gum-- and handle paralellizing a 2.4ghz and a 5ghz conversation simultaneously-- major thruput.
The transceivers in the older routers appear to slow down, but in fact, they stay the same compared to newer ones for three reasons: 1) better firmware design that can switch back and forth quickly between protocols (where present) 2) have dual radios for bgn and (maybe a)Highband N and 3) the more recent the device, the more likely it has faster processing power inside the router. The final reason is that your backhaul might be getting faster without you knowing it; DSL gets faster but so also do cable broadband connections. And it's likely the driver in your machine is faster; they change all the time with small improvements, sometimes in real throughput.
Summary: the router didn't change, but newer stuff is faster given the same conditions for the reasons stated.
They make the revenue by giving up your location and what you do. After all: this is Google we're talking about. Between Adsense and Google apps you use, there are no secrets. At.All.
People pay for your secrets, so buyers get a nebbishy netbook wannabe, and think they're getting a deal. Yeeeesh.
Like smartphones, they can sell it at or under cost and make money on the back-end.
If you look at history, you'll find how wrong your statement is. Fighting about God is as silly as peeing in the wind.
If there is a God, then wrath isn't part of the equation. That's the greatest mistake made, believing that God isn't about love, but hate and vengeance.
First, you need to use a modulation scheme that allows intense amounts of data exchange. If you don't do that, you're not trying and what did you do this for in the first place?
You have to have pairs that are either lambda or phase delineated for rational discrimination. Then you need plenty of pairs, as this is a crossbar arrangement; otherwise it's useless and you might as well use RS-232.
Finally, if you don't provide optimal switching, you're blocking, and if you're blocking, you're not state coherent, and why did you do this in the first place?
What you say is, true, despite the humor. Let's say there's nice low power low noise wireless. Multiple concurrent channels would have to wired in a method that's like a cross-bar L2/L3 switch to make this work, and the matrix (sorry for the word choice) would have to service each point with non-blocking architecture as the bottleneck built in cache could be enormous and fast. The engineering costs of this outweight the perceived savings. Add-in any random EMI (admittedly at really high freqs), and this somebody's pipe dream.
Unless you can remodulate or make incredibly dense modulation possible, LED transmitters can manage about the same data rate as you see in WDM, and so the data rate among hosts isn't quite so chill. Power would be low, and it would be tough to find background noise to foul things up. But eventually, you'd need to have alternate spectra to modulate (lambdas) and tight tranceiver pairs to make it work. Your engineering cost just shot your low-cost.
I wish I had mod points: you're absolutely correct.
In the US, there are any number of dissident groups, some more violent than others. Yet most Americans try to practice tolerance, if in the scope of the Golden Rule where you give the same treatment you expect. this poor child was a victim, and my Pakistani friends are just sick with sadness over the criminality and mindset involved.
The problem is: you can incite these people and there is no rational response. What kind of civil order can be maintained when the irrational can't be contained?
Cause and effect didn't work in either your analogy, or the facts of what happened.
It's also not on the order of spam, which is far blinder on a good day, and a "blindfolded shotgun" on a bad day.
For these individuals, something quite ghastly happened. See what happens if/when you get added to a group that you don't want to be identified with for whatever reasons. A false accusation is tough enough to deny and stand-down from, let alone one that you didn't want revealed because it puts you into an awkward position that's untenable. Got Cancer? Here, let's tell your insurance company.
Today you add in things like ABS, airbags, carefully routed fuel injection controlled by sophisticated onboard computers, and the weight goes up. But it's really the engine technology and overall composite that allows for huge reductions in consumed fuels. The CRX was a fantastic car, and is highly desired in the used market. Unfortunately, it's perceived as flimsy (it's not) and plastic (it is).
Added alcohols aren't as bad for mileage as you might think. Yes, they do rot things. But they have a decent amount of energy if you don't need to go 0-60mph in under 5sec.
Sadly, fuel reformulations have become expensive, and you can use California as the posterboy for costs associated with fuel remixes.
Interesting reasons, but let me take your considerations one at a time, using your numbering in rebuttal:
1) California, yes. Their own formulation, too. That doesn't explain the rest, as the EPA is the jurisdiction for most environmental laws. Take Illinois for instance. Nothing special there, and it's near huge refineries in Lake County, Indiana (for Chicagoland, the largest consumer of fuel in Illinois)
2) Yes, there is some correlation here, but it's not perfect by any means. Look at the gas temperature map and rectify the huge differences.
3) see #2.
4) California? No, it's special. Oregon? Huge port. Washington State? Again, the same. Illinois? On the Mississippi and also gets fed from Lake Michigan and the refineries in NW Indiana.
I don't know if it's neocons, but it's certainly the oil industry causing pressure. How convenient the timing. Taxes just went up!!! Oh, no, they didn't. The oil industry faces enormous tax pressure directly on THEM.
On a bad day, I'm sitting inside one of those airplanes when a pilot gets blinded during takeoff or landing. No one's died yet, we believe, but when you take out a 777 going thru a flock of birds at takeoff/landing, or with a nice tailwind blowing it sideways, you're not in for fun.
We agree: lasers don't need to be banned. I own numerous ones, not counting the ones in my CD/DVD drives. For me, they're low-power, used for leveling, pointing, and testing angles of incidence. Should I find an idiot at the end of a runway with one, I'll be happy to turn the individual in. Those bruises on the throat didn't come from me, officer.
Note the following states which have plentiful electoral votes: CA, WA, NY, MA, IL, MI, IN, all states that if flopping over to the Red side of this map: http://www.270towin.com/ helps demonstrate the effect.
Red states that aren't in question (mostly the US South and central Midwest from TX to ND), are enjoying inexpensive fuel today. It will continue to be the case for the next four weeks. Inflicted pain will hopefully make voters in the expensive states "throw the bums out".
Go ahead and track the gas prices for the past three months, and note the same expense distribution, generally (there is some flux, but there has to be some). Monopolies want friendlies in office. Drill, baby, drill, is their motto (among others).
Texas isn't in trouble: red state. What color by comparison. Look at the electoral map, then look at the electoral votes, then compare again. It maps almost perfectly save NM (3votes), and so forth.
Where are the prices higher? Where the opposition could gain electoral votes-- not quite perfectly in a visual sense, but the correlation is too close to ignore. I watched it in 2008; go look in the history in 2010, too. You'll see the pattern. Change votes by applying economic pressure, which motivates people to dump the incumbents.
But go ahead. Fight the oil companies. They rule. Civilians drool. Any small amount of trust you have in them is entirely misplaced, IMHO.
Do yourself a favor, and look at the current electoral map, then compare it, state by state, region by region (the red and blue) with a gas price temperature map. Draw your own conclusions. Except for a few states with very small contributions to the electoral college, prices are UP in "blue states".
This is about pissing off the electorate ahead of the elections, so that an oil industry-friendly administration is put into power.
I can't believe you actually said that, either. Go look up the 10Ks if you're still not sure-- and look at both the oil companies, and their distributors (oh,Koch? Who knew?)
I apologize, as I don't mean to suggest that Fukushima was totally caused by microquakes and I can see where my snark might have erred by implying that.
I nonetheless believe that microquakes aren't benign.
I learned that the energy industry, deeply in fear of the media, produced a film that tries to use selected experiences in a propaganda campaign to convince the public that reports of fracking hazards are incorrect, and that it's indeed benign.
Slashdot Mirror
You get into RISC vs CISC arguments here. There are only sample quantities of 64-bit ARM at this juncture. There's really no good reference model when you start going that direction with ARM.
Intel isn't paranoid enough to survive, methinks, and will be left behind.
And the scale you'll see is already here; SeaMicro is doing it, and HP will do it if they can get Project Moonshot off the ground.
Transistors are one measure, an important one, but design ease and getting work done is another. Ultimately, power consumption will become an even larger quotient than it is now. Intel fixes stuff differently than ARM designers do, but if the market does walk away from x86, they're a one-trick-pony.
The range problem is an illusion. The output to the antenna(s) is the same. The radial or omni-polar radiation doesn't change. What changes is that newer hardware is faster.
Should you take a field-strength meter and walk around the area, noting the polar strength, you'll see that it doesn't change in two, three, four, etc years.
Can you reduce the coverage area? In certainty! Block the antenna. Add paint, drywall, furniture, or anything else but air (even relative humidity has a bearing on the distance). If you use 802.11a or n-high then its penetration radius is much smaller as the transmission characteristics of 5Ghz isn't nearly as nice as 2.4Ghz. There power limitations and antenna limitations (technically self-imposed by the vendors) in the 5Ghz transmission devices that limit effective radiated power. If you get a signal, it's sometimes by reflective rather than direct means as 5Ghz has a short-range bouncing effect.
The same AP on the same freq/channel using the same transmission modulation technique (there are more than 25 different types) will yield the same effective radius given the same antenna and receiver. Other items change, as noted, that give the *appearance* that things slow down. The APs don't "age", and the device inside your notebook or USB-WiFi adapter don't change. At best, on a bad day, you might get oxidation on the TNC or other coaxial (if present) connector for the antenna on a 2.4Ghz device. Otherwise, it's not going to change electrically, and so the slow downs are perceived, but the source of the perception isn't a geriatric or entropic device combination.
Google makes its revenue from Adsense, which relies on knowing about you. No Adsense, no Google. They have claimed to be the good guys, but in litigation after settlement, they proven that they constantly overreach, pushing boundaries farther and farther..
I cannot cite empirical data that says that the browser will behave. However, you'll need to have a non-google browser to test this. More: your presence online will give up much information on your behavior, your location, and the cookies will give tracking data to both organizations you visit, but also to scripts that attempt to read the cookies and extract private information.
We strongly disagree. Not the part of various ecosystems, rather, the mind-boggling amount of privacy robbed of smartphone owners.
It's not so simple. Let's review the history:
802.11a was first (there is another but obscure predecessor), and used 5Ghz. Advanced modulation techniques blew the doors off 802.11b @2.4ghz, which at 11mbit/s (on a good day), had a very low yield.
802.11g also uses 2.4ghz, but early products had trouble going back and forth between b and g, thus slowing throughput down, despite faster yields in g via advanced modulation techniques.
Enter N, was an advanced modulation scheme with higher throughput, first largely found on 2.4ghz. At first N was really fast, and had only a bit of trouble SLOWING DOWN for b and g. You have one collision domain unless you break out the b/g radio with the n radio. So, you have to dawdle while b goes through, then the channel is free again for something faster.
Then come the dual-band radios, and the dual band, dual radio routers which can walk and chew gum-- and handle paralellizing a 2.4ghz and a 5ghz conversation simultaneously-- major thruput.
The transceivers in the older routers appear to slow down, but in fact, they stay the same compared to newer ones for three reasons: 1) better firmware design that can switch back and forth quickly between protocols (where present) 2) have dual radios for bgn and (maybe a)Highband N and 3) the more recent the device, the more likely it has faster processing power inside the router. The final reason is that your backhaul might be getting faster without you knowing it; DSL gets faster but so also do cable broadband connections. And it's likely the driver in your machine is faster; they change all the time with small improvements, sometimes in real throughput.
Summary: the router didn't change, but newer stuff is faster given the same conditions for the reasons stated.
It's a race to the bottom.
They make the revenue by giving up your location and what you do. After all: this is Google we're talking about. Between Adsense and Google apps you use, there are no secrets. At.All.
People pay for your secrets, so buyers get a nebbishy netbook wannabe, and think they're getting a deal. Yeeeesh.
Like smartphones, they can sell it at or under cost and make money on the back-end.
RIP, Bonjour, and Hall Effect. Stir. Patent.
If you look at history, you'll find how wrong your statement is. Fighting about God is as silly as peeing in the wind.
If there is a God, then wrath isn't part of the equation. That's the greatest mistake made, believing that God isn't about love, but hate and vengeance.
First, you need to use a modulation scheme that allows intense amounts of data exchange. If you don't do that, you're not trying and what did you do this for in the first place?
You have to have pairs that are either lambda or phase delineated for rational discrimination. Then you need plenty of pairs, as this is a crossbar arrangement; otherwise it's useless and you might as well use RS-232.
Finally, if you don't provide optimal switching, you're blocking, and if you're blocking, you're not state coherent, and why did you do this in the first place?
What you say is, true, despite the humor. Let's say there's nice low power low noise wireless. Multiple concurrent channels would have to wired in a method that's like a cross-bar L2/L3 switch to make this work, and the matrix (sorry for the word choice) would have to service each point with non-blocking architecture as the bottleneck built in cache could be enormous and fast. The engineering costs of this outweight the perceived savings. Add-in any random EMI (admittedly at really high freqs), and this somebody's pipe dream.
Unless you can remodulate or make incredibly dense modulation possible, LED transmitters can manage about the same data rate as you see in WDM, and so the data rate among hosts isn't quite so chill. Power would be low, and it would be tough to find background noise to foul things up. But eventually, you'd need to have alternate spectra to modulate (lambdas) and tight tranceiver pairs to make it work. Your engineering cost just shot your low-cost.
I wish I had mod points: you're absolutely correct.
In the US, there are any number of dissident groups, some more violent than others. Yet most Americans try to practice tolerance, if in the scope of the Golden Rule where you give the same treatment you expect. this poor child was a victim, and my Pakistani friends are just sick with sadness over the criminality and mindset involved.
The problem is: you can incite these people and there is no rational response. What kind of civil order can be maintained when the irrational can't be contained?
Cause and effect didn't work in either your analogy, or the facts of what happened.
It's also not on the order of spam, which is far blinder on a good day, and a "blindfolded shotgun" on a bad day.
For these individuals, something quite ghastly happened. See what happens if/when you get added to a group that you don't want to be identified with for whatever reasons. A false accusation is tough enough to deny and stand-down from, let alone one that you didn't want revealed because it puts you into an awkward position that's untenable. Got Cancer? Here, let's tell your insurance company.
Absolutely true. But it has a reasonable amount per volume.
It did really well in its day, when crash tested.
Today you add in things like ABS, airbags, carefully routed fuel injection controlled by sophisticated onboard computers, and the weight goes up. But it's really the engine technology and overall composite that allows for huge reductions in consumed fuels. The CRX was a fantastic car, and is highly desired in the used market. Unfortunately, it's perceived as flimsy (it's not) and plastic (it is).
Added alcohols aren't as bad for mileage as you might think. Yes, they do rot things. But they have a decent amount of energy if you don't need to go 0-60mph in under 5sec.
Sadly, fuel reformulations have become expensive, and you can use California as the posterboy for costs associated with fuel remixes.
Interesting reasons, but let me take your considerations one at a time, using your numbering in rebuttal:
1) California, yes. Their own formulation, too. That doesn't explain the rest, as the EPA is the jurisdiction for most environmental laws. Take Illinois for instance. Nothing special there, and it's near huge refineries in Lake County, Indiana (for Chicagoland, the largest consumer of fuel in Illinois)
2) Yes, there is some correlation here, but it's not perfect by any means. Look at the gas temperature map and rectify the huge differences.
3) see #2.
4) California? No, it's special. Oregon? Huge port. Washington State? Again, the same. Illinois? On the Mississippi and also gets fed from Lake Michigan and the refineries in NW Indiana.
I don't know if it's neocons, but it's certainly the oil industry causing pressure. How convenient the timing. Taxes just went up!!! Oh, no, they didn't. The oil industry faces enormous tax pressure directly on THEM.
10+ a day, every day.
On a bad day, I'm sitting inside one of those airplanes when a pilot gets blinded during takeoff or landing. No one's died yet, we believe, but when you take out a 777 going thru a flock of birds at takeoff/landing, or with a nice tailwind blowing it sideways, you're not in for fun.
We agree: lasers don't need to be banned. I own numerous ones, not counting the ones in my CD/DVD drives. For me, they're low-power, used for leveling, pointing, and testing angles of incidence. Should I find an idiot at the end of a runway with one, I'll be happy to turn the individual in. Those bruises on the throat didn't come from me, officer.
Ok. Let's try it a different way.
First go here: http://www.gasbuddy.com/gb_gastemperaturemap.aspx
Note the following states which have plentiful electoral votes: CA, WA, NY, MA, IL, MI, IN, all states that if flopping over to the Red side of this map: http://www.270towin.com/ helps demonstrate the effect.
Red states that aren't in question (mostly the US South and central Midwest from TX to ND), are enjoying inexpensive fuel today. It will continue to be the case for the next four weeks. Inflicted pain will hopefully make voters in the expensive states "throw the bums out".
Go ahead and track the gas prices for the past three months, and note the same expense distribution, generally (there is some flux, but there has to be some). Monopolies want friendlies in office. Drill, baby, drill, is their motto (among others).
You didn't look at NY, CA.
Texas isn't in trouble: red state. What color by comparison. Look at the electoral map, then look at the electoral votes, then compare again. It maps almost perfectly save NM (3votes), and so forth.
Where are the prices higher? Where the opposition could gain electoral votes-- not quite perfectly in a visual sense, but the correlation is too close to ignore. I watched it in 2008; go look in the history in 2010, too. You'll see the pattern. Change votes by applying economic pressure, which motivates people to dump the incumbents.
But go ahead. Fight the oil companies. They rule. Civilians drool. Any small amount of trust you have in them is entirely misplaced, IMHO.
Yes, quite.
You're the victim of an enormous charade.
Do yourself a favor, and look at the current electoral map, then compare it, state by state, region by region (the red and blue) with a gas price temperature map. Draw your own conclusions. Except for a few states with very small contributions to the electoral college, prices are UP in "blue states".
Enjoy.
No, not really.
This is about pissing off the electorate ahead of the elections, so that an oil industry-friendly administration is put into power.
I can't believe you actually said that, either. Go look up the 10Ks if you're still not sure-- and look at both the oil companies, and their distributors (oh,Koch? Who knew?)
That was the punch card generation. I'm the paper punch tape and cload generation.... PR#6 and all that. No more Y2Ks left, sadly.
The best is yet to come, my friend.
At the risk of flamebait, let me advise that old age and treachery will always beat youth and skill.
I look forward to the treachery.
Largely because 8086 assembler is a forgotten, black art for me.
I apologize, as I don't mean to suggest that Fukushima was totally caused by microquakes and I can see where my snark might have erred by implying that.
I nonetheless believe that microquakes aren't benign.
I learned that the energy industry, deeply in fear of the media, produced a film that tries to use selected experiences in a propaganda campaign to convince the public that reports of fracking hazards are incorrect, and that it's indeed benign.