Your assumption may be that the java code to handle asynchronous IO is optimal. However, there may be a big performance hit not from the underlying system, but from the particular JVM’s implementation of asynchronous I/O.
I know in particular that the NIO system on windows used to use evented sockets rather than IOCP, which among other things meant that IO events were shoved into the windows message pump, and only 32/64 sockets could be handled at one time.
It’s not just that the bars are not a standard unit of measurement, but they are not necessarily even measuring the right thing.
Just measuring the strength of the signal does not take into account the amount of noise in the signal, which is arguably more important. The signal strength also only measures one side of the equation, being the cell tower to the phone. Finally, a raw measure of signal strength ignores that different antenna designs and phones may have different lower bounds where they can still make and maintain a call.
I just accept bars for what they are - an indicator of how likely it is that you will be able to make and maintain a call. Trying to compare ‘bar’ measurements between phones may not even work between models by the same vendor.
Apple’s big problems with the iPhone 4 is that they had their scale really messed up, and that became really obvious because the new antenna design shows a greater degree of worst-case attenuation than their previous models. As a result, it was possible to go from five bars to one bar when you attenuate the antenna in an area with only moderate signal strength - because it was reporting moderate signals with five bars
Ironically, the new scale for the bars is way more useful for people because it has grown considerably wider - but Apple will probably have a drop in customer satisfaction because people will assume fewer displayed bars indicates the phone is lousy at picking up the signal.
It blows my mind that they didn't come up with a simple non-conductive coating for the exposed antenna to reduce this problem in the first place.
The very thing that makes the steel ‘stainless’ makes it hard to coat. But the natural oxide is a insulator, so in a sense it is self-coating the longer you expose it to the air.
Why did they feel the need to inflate the bar readings in the first place? So the iPhone 4 could gain a reputation for having better signal in more places? That sounds a little squirrely to me.
From the QA, Jobs said that they wrote the software (including the signal strength display algorithm) themselves, and it has been there since the first iPhone. Some people claimed that the 3G had a patch to increase signal strength that actually was this particular bar algorithm, something Jobs refuted
How are Mac users with Mercury Extreme SSD's or the Mushkin ect units doing?
Based on my research, the sandforce-based disks have a minimum reserve space of 7% (so say, 16GB of a 256GB disk). When you perform a write, it merges the old data and your changes to create a new block on the SSD, and then maps that into the computer’s view of the disk - the computer only sees new data, but the address now points to a different part of the physical disk. The ‘old’ block is cleaned by the drive whenever the drive becomes idle again, and added to the reserve pool, most probably to the end to promote more even wear.
If you did a large burst of writes (say, ~16GB of data on the 240GB-rated drives) you should see performance plummet, as the drive is kept busy and hasn’t been able to blank out the dirty pages in the reserve space. I imagine this is the purpose of higher performance, 200GB-rated drives; they just reserve a larger amount of space to deal with these sorts of usage bursts.
If you have TRIM support, it should be possible for the deletion of files to cause the reserve space to grow, as the TRIM command is issued by the filesystem layer to indicate to the drive that there is no longer relevant information on that section of disk.
TRIM is really important for drives without reserved space, as once you fill up the disk every write will first require a section of the flash to be wiped clean.
I find I spend _much_ longer with my work uncommitted in a system like svn, where typically I'm not allowed to submit partial changes which would break the unit tests or even compilation.
Making and publishing a developer/project-specific branch is what distributed version control systems were designed for. If the constraint was that individual branches weren't being captured, the system was being used wrong
Palm made me smile by waving their middle finger shaped update at Apple. Therefore I will buy a Palm. If only so I can laugh at the over zealous apple fanbois and say "Hey! I can use iTunes cause Apple can't lock me out!" And them watch them splutter in rage and spit out (admittedly likely true) excuses.
You want to buy a device that doesn't work as advertised because you think people who buy Apple products are overzealous?
This "fanboi" is just going to laugh at you for spending money on a product that requires old software versions and tweaks to even work...
Also remember, the definition of an Apple Zealot is "everyone who bought an Apple product before I did"
In that case, I'm guessing the USB IF can do little more than revoke Palm's vendor ID, which would basically mean nothing unless they have some legal ability to keep Palm from producing USB devices with whatever vendor ID they want. Can the USB IF actually force people to play by their rules, or has it been more of a "we'll play fair all around" deal up until now?
I imagine the USB IF can both revoke Palm's ability to use the vendor ID (retroactively and under legal penalty) and revoke their usage of USB logos and names via the trademark agreement.
But at least they can continue to use Apple's Vendor ID...
Apple deliberatly broke compatability with the Pre (I hope everyone here is on board).
I'm thinking apple considered the mechanism the Pre was using to sync to iTunes to be a defect. So, more likely they fixed unauthorized syncing by third party ipod clones.
Apple apparently using the USB Vendor ID to prevent this "we have notified the USB Implementers Forum of what we believe is improper use of the Vendor ID number by another member. " which is a violation. I assume that is what this is talking about.
To clarify, there is no policy against enforcing vendor ID. There is policy that using another vendor's ID is prohibited. So Palm is in the wrong, but trying to convince the USB IF that at least Palm and Apple are both wrong.
I imagine the USB IF has the trademarks on USB, and can require that Palm remove any USB logos or the term USB from any of their documentation.
It just makes palm look like they are selling a low quality product (which in this regard, they are.) What sort of company wants to rely on private, undocumented interfaces in a direct competitor's product line in order to work?
Apple is probably taking pursuing three tacts right now - trying to figure out how to legally stop Palm from doing this, promoting the perception that palm's software is a poor quality due to their broken reliance on a competitor's mobile syncing software, and creating a list of ways to break this compatibility (including new firmwares, and possibly cryptographic challenges against the ipod firmware binary).
Because in 4 years time you might not like what the new iPod has become and your old one has died.. How you gona play that music you paid for on that fancy new now?
It's in AAC, and has no DRM. In four years I'll be able to play it on a toaster.
Sounds like a few people are confused...
on
XHTML 2 Cancelled
·
· Score: 5, Informative
XHTML 1 was the XML-ization of the existing HTML 4 stuff.
XHTML 2 was a new HTML version that sought to remove lots of HTML cruft (including non-XML syntax) and add new capabilities. Basically, it was working toward a new HTML version. This effort has died, because browser makers are not behind it - they are all behind HTML 5.
HTML 5 has always had an XML profile called XHTML 5, and that won't go away.
the problem is that the odds of a nonrecoverable read error are changing while the size goes up. So say my new raid5 4x1.5 TB has a drive fail. Odds are about 15% based on a 1:1x10^14 chance of unrecoverable read error that there will be data corruption while trying to build the new disk. the issue is that all data must be valid and readable for raid5 to fully recover from failure. A mirror would only need (one of the) mirrored disk to be readable to recover.
Also, recovery reads are no different from regular reads - making an offsite backup for your data also has that chance of encountering a read failure, although the controller should be able to recover based on the redundant disk.
Of course, if capacities continue to improve without better error recovery, it'll take four years for a mirrored setup to catch up to the same poor odds.
Apple is in the business, especially for consumer devices, of promoting solutions. This is a big differentiator from the competitors who usually focus on feature checklists and component integration.
However, someone like Woz is a hacker in the purest sense of the word - he wants to get tools and pieces that he can use to make his own solutions. An iPod he cannot change things on is not something he's interested in.
But for most people, the fascination with Apple comes simply from Apple 'getting it' - most consumers want to pay for problems to be solved for them, not to be given tools to learn to solve the problems themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
Except those do not have access to the google marketplace.
People seem to think that this was done for piracy, or done by extraordinarily clever hackers through a lot of time and pain.
Thats all bunk. The whole reason people hack these master keys is to sell a butt-load of t-shirts.
I know in particular that the NIO system on windows used to use evented sockets rather than IOCP, which among other things meant that IO events were shoved into the windows message pump, and only 32/64 sockets could be handled at one time.
It’s not just that the bars are not a standard unit of measurement, but they are not necessarily even measuring the right thing.
Just measuring the strength of the signal does not take into account the amount of noise in the signal, which is arguably more important. The signal strength also only measures one side of the equation, being the cell tower to the phone. Finally, a raw measure of signal strength ignores that different antenna designs and phones may have different lower bounds where they can still make and maintain a call.
I just accept bars for what they are - an indicator of how likely it is that you will be able to make and maintain a call. Trying to compare ‘bar’ measurements between phones may not even work between models by the same vendor.
Apple’s big problems with the iPhone 4 is that they had their scale really messed up, and that became really obvious because the new antenna design shows a greater degree of worst-case attenuation than their previous models. As a result, it was possible to go from five bars to one bar when you attenuate the antenna in an area with only moderate signal strength - because it was reporting moderate signals with five bars
Ironically, the new scale for the bars is way more useful for people because it has grown considerably wider - but Apple will probably have a drop in customer satisfaction because people will assume fewer displayed bars indicates the phone is lousy at picking up the signal.
Unfortunately, the majority of the users like the jail, and the majority of their competitors have copied the model.
It blows my mind that they didn't come up with a simple non-conductive coating for the exposed antenna to reduce this problem in the first place.
The very thing that makes the steel ‘stainless’ makes it hard to coat. But the natural oxide is a insulator, so in a sense it is self-coating the longer you expose it to the air.
Why did they feel the need to inflate the bar readings in the first place? So the iPhone 4 could gain a reputation for having better signal in more places? That sounds a little squirrely to me.
From the QA, Jobs said that they wrote the software (including the signal strength display algorithm) themselves, and it has been there since the first iPhone. Some people claimed that the 3G had a patch to increase signal strength that actually was this particular bar algorithm, something Jobs refuted
How are Mac users with Mercury Extreme SSD's or the Mushkin ect units doing?
Based on my research, the sandforce-based disks have a minimum reserve space of 7% (so say, 16GB of a 256GB disk). When you perform a write, it merges the old data and your changes to create a new block on the SSD, and then maps that into the computer’s view of the disk - the computer only sees new data, but the address now points to a different part of the physical disk. The ‘old’ block is cleaned by the drive whenever the drive becomes idle again, and added to the reserve pool, most probably to the end to promote more even wear.
If you did a large burst of writes (say, ~16GB of data on the 240GB-rated drives) you should see performance plummet, as the drive is kept busy and hasn’t been able to blank out the dirty pages in the reserve space. I imagine this is the purpose of higher performance, 200GB-rated drives; they just reserve a larger amount of space to deal with these sorts of usage bursts.
If you have TRIM support, it should be possible for the deletion of files to cause the reserve space to grow, as the TRIM command is issued by the filesystem layer to indicate to the drive that there is no longer relevant information on that section of disk.
TRIM is really important for drives without reserved space, as once you fill up the disk every write will first require a section of the flash to be wiped clean.
Making and publishing a developer/project-specific branch is what distributed version control systems were designed for. If the constraint was that individual branches weren't being captured, the system was being used wrong
Wait, I could earn $20 ??
It's not your (or Apple's) phone. Once I've bought it, it's my phone, and if I want to change how it works, I can do that.
What is your point? What is stopping you from changing how it works today? Do you need a link to a jailbreaking site?
Because both AT&T and Google are carriers, and it is suspected that AT&T is the one requiring Google Voice access be blocked.
Sounds like a cross between 'A-Team' and 'Whose Line is it Anyway?'
Palm made me smile by waving their middle finger shaped update at Apple. Therefore I will buy a Palm. If only so I can laugh at the over zealous apple fanbois and say "Hey! I can use iTunes cause Apple can't lock me out!" And them watch them splutter in rage and spit out (admittedly likely true) excuses.
You want to buy a device that doesn't work as advertised because you think people who buy Apple products are overzealous?
This "fanboi" is just going to laugh at you for spending money on a product that requires old software versions and tweaks to even work...
Also remember, the definition of an Apple Zealot is "everyone who bought an Apple product before I did"
In that case, I'm guessing the USB IF can do little more than revoke Palm's vendor ID, which would basically mean nothing unless they have some legal ability to keep Palm from producing USB devices with whatever vendor ID they want. Can the USB IF actually force people to play by their rules, or has it been more of a "we'll play fair all around" deal up until now?
I imagine the USB IF can both revoke Palm's ability to use the vendor ID (retroactively and under legal penalty) and revoke their usage of USB logos and names via the trademark agreement.
But at least they can continue to use Apple's Vendor ID...
Apple deliberatly broke compatability with the Pre (I hope everyone here is on board).
I'm thinking apple considered the mechanism the Pre was using to sync to iTunes to be a defect. So, more likely they fixed unauthorized syncing by third party ipod clones.
Apple apparently using the USB Vendor ID to prevent this "we have notified the USB Implementers Forum of what we believe is improper use of the Vendor ID number by another member. " which is a violation. I assume that is what this is talking about.
To clarify, there is no policy against enforcing vendor ID. There is policy that using another vendor's ID is prohibited. So Palm is in the wrong, but trying to convince the USB IF that at least Palm and Apple are both wrong.
I imagine the USB IF has the trademarks on USB, and can require that Palm remove any USB logos or the term USB from any of their documentation.
It just makes palm look like they are selling a low quality product (which in this regard, they are.) What sort of company wants to rely on private, undocumented interfaces in a direct competitor's product line in order to work?
Apple is probably taking pursuing three tacts right now - trying to figure out how to legally stop Palm from doing this, promoting the perception that palm's software is a poor quality due to their broken reliance on a competitor's mobile syncing software, and creating a list of ways to break this compatibility (including new firmwares, and possibly cryptographic challenges against the ipod firmware binary).
Because in 4 years time you might not like what the new iPod has become and your old one has died.. How you gona play that music you paid for on that fancy new now?
It's in AAC, and has no DRM. In four years I'll be able to play it on a toaster.
XHTML 1 was the XML-ization of the existing HTML 4 stuff.
XHTML 2 was a new HTML version that sought to remove lots of HTML cruft (including non-XML syntax) and add new capabilities. Basically, it was working toward a new HTML version. This effort has died, because browser makers are not behind it - they are all behind HTML 5.
HTML 5 has always had an XML profile called XHTML 5, and that won't go away.
I really don't understand how did the Adobe SW engineers manage to make such a bloated and unstable POS.
Practice?
How would an accel. save you a dime on certificates?
the problem is that the odds of a nonrecoverable read error are changing while the size goes up. So say my new raid5 4x1.5 TB has a drive fail. Odds are about 15% based on a 1:1x10^14 chance of unrecoverable read error that there will be data corruption while trying to build the new disk. the issue is that all data must be valid and readable for raid5 to fully recover from failure. A mirror would only need (one of the) mirrored disk to be readable to recover.
Also, recovery reads are no different from regular reads - making an offsite backup for your data also has that chance of encountering a read failure, although the controller should be able to recover based on the redundant disk.
Of course, if capacities continue to improve without better error recovery, it'll take four years for a mirrored setup to catch up to the same poor odds.
a reference to http://www.ninjaburger.com/ ?
Apple is in the business, especially for consumer devices, of promoting solutions. This is a big differentiator from the competitors who usually focus on feature checklists and component integration.
However, someone like Woz is a hacker in the purest sense of the word - he wants to get tools and pieces that he can use to make his own solutions. An iPod he cannot change things on is not something he's interested in.
But for most people, the fascination with Apple comes simply from Apple 'getting it' - most consumers want to pay for problems to be solved for them, not to be given tools to learn to solve the problems themselves.
See the proposal for the next gen of c++:
s /2007/n2329.pdf
http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/paper