Most people within core mass market demographics don't realize or care how much data they send, so defaults are important economically. If the financial motivations are in the wrong place, the wrong decision will be made for invested parties.
I don't know of any business that is successful and doesn't exploit this general sort of opportunity. It paints Ubuntu as a villain, but its more business as usual and isn't unique to Ubuntu.
I recall the same experience... Prior to seeing Wolfenstein3D, I had graduated from Intellivision to the Nintendo NES, and that constituted my main gaming exposure, other than some early versions of Flight Simulator. Wolfenstein3D blew me away with the graphics possible on a computer, and I probably jumped out of my seat a number of times as the immersion was like nothing I'd seen before. A lot of games with impressive graphics since then, but nothing like that first impression... Kind of a cool experience, yields a different sort of appreciation I think compared to that of younger gamers who have a more modern sense of graphics expectations.
For people familiar with Intel's Tick-Tock cadence - this should not come as much surprise. Some people may have gotten caught up in marketing and expected more, but this is a "Tick" which brings a process shrink, power savings, and a modest performance increase. It is just about delivering that, though perhaps on the softer side of things.
Sandy Bridge was a Tock - a BIG performance improvement. Haswell should be a Tock - a BIG performance improvement.
On the tick, they set more modest performance goals, and focus on getting the process shrink right and tuning things up. On the tock, they should knock our socks off. So maybe Ivy Bridge is disappointing, but perhaps familiarity with their product development strategy helps to manage expectations
1.9V lifespan would be measured in minutes or hours, not days or weeks. At room temperature, 1.9V would damage the processor almost immediately, if not kill it.
In fancy demonstrations and testing like this, the main magic comes not from voltage, but from super conductivity within the processor at the cold temperatures. The cold also increases the lifespan of the chip when using exorbitant amounts of voltage. This doesn't matter to most people or maybe even the poster I'm replying to, but I'm mentioning it here for the general knowledge of anyone who may be interested in speaking accurately about this.
Ultimately though, its the cold that raises the frequency ceiling - sure the voltage helps, but with super-cooled temperatures alone the frequency ceiling is raised even at default voltage./p.
In regards to frequency scaling for Moore's Law, that came to an end in 2004 essentially. It's one topic wikipedia has right if you want to read the details. These days, moore's law only holds true for transistor density, which is why everything is multicore, power efficiency, and integrating more features on chip - there are extra transistors they can fit on the chip and they are finding more things to use that die area for.
You spew data the entire time you are online. What do you care if its attached to a one in a million account, or some anonymous cookie? What is anonymity if it isn't being just an insignificant number in a much larger grand total? Your ideal of "protecting" your data as if its something important or interesting is very 1990's. Technophobic thinking like this is only in vogue with a select subset of Slashdot members and other minorities with ill-conceived notions about their online data.
Mod parent and grandparent down. They have no understanding of life behind Websense or similar filters that receive automatic updates. They block anything easily found on Google and you'd be wasting your time. That is the core of the Websense business model - find and block content quickly and efficiently - and this is the exact circumvention focus of users on Tor, Haselton-proxies-r-us, etc.
I don't have to RTFA to be able to judge from the summary that the study's questions were leading. If the questions were asked the right way, I'm sure people would respond that they'd prefer to see ads that are relevant as opposed to punch the monkey and black market viagra ads. From the summary, it sounds like all the study really says is that people don't want more advertising.
What you said actually makes sense upon further thought. I wouldn't call myself certain in either line of thought currently.
My original thought was that after going through an area of increased gravitational pull, then hitting an area of lower gravitational pull, the satellite's trajectory would be altered in such a way over time that it could break free from the gravitational effect of the moon if it hits a lower gravitational field at a necessary point within its altered orbital path.
Now what I'm curious about is if we'd know if the satellite impacted the moon. With the minimal moon atmosphere, I'd expect the satellite to create a pretty good impact/crater when it crashes down. With other satellites orbiting and creating imagery of the moon's surface, would we know if it crashed down, or even where it would have impacted?
If not actively corrected for, these mass concentrations will make a satellite's orbit go through increasingly violent gyrations until it eventually intersects with the surface.
While that sounds pretty good, I'm fairly certain from a logical standpoint the odds of impacting the moon are as good or worse than the odds of leaving orbit and flying out into space. (Especially with the low gravity levels of the moon.)
Even worse news for Microsoft is that only 3.8% said they would buy another Xbox (due to failures) and the survey found they had rather shoddy customer service."
EldavoJohn - the summary Slashdot posted here states 4% wouldn't buy a new Xbox due to failure rates.
Your summary states that only 4% would buy a new Xbox due to the failure rates
I think the posted summary is correct. What gives?
There are a variety of kernel issues (think wireless drivers and other hardware support) that have a major impact on the userland experience. I'm not about to say where Canonical should invest their time -- there are more than enough issues to go around, and it isn't shameful for them to concentrate elsewhere as the GP implied -- but what happens with kernel development certainly impacts the Ubuntu userland.
While your premise is true, the implication that Canonical should contribute in a greater way towards direct kernel development is misplaced.
In classic Slashdot fashion, I present a car analogy:
Goodyear has built a company out of making tires. While the quality of the roads those tires run on effect the performance of their tires, contributing directly to the development of improved road surfaces is outside of Goodyear's core competencies. A tire company should focus on making better tires.
In a similar vein, Canonical is doing the right thing by focusing on their core competency - improving the userland experience. They should continue with that focus where they've already established competency.
I'd also suggest that Canonical is contributing greatly to kernel development thru secondary channels - broadening the desktop-centric Linux userbase. With a more broad userbase, everything get tested and improved at a faster pace. Canonical is doing this for the desktop where Linux has normally struggled in comparison to server deployments.
A culture that shuns subject matter experts and at the same time pretends to inform me about said subjects may be entertaining, but never trustworthy.
This implies wikipedia shuns subject matter experts. This is a popularly circulated stance which has no grounding in fact. They happily accept material from subject matter experts, they just require that the subject matter experts reference their published material which shows them as subject matter experts.
If someone speaks as an authority on a topic in wikipedia, I should be able to refer to the sources they cite in order to determine how much weight I place in the statements I read. I do not want to go to Wikipedia and read un-cited "expert testimony" from the internet. It is both reasonable and wise to expect that any subject matter expert should be able to provide reference of published work.
This assumes a sufficiently advanced civilization could survive itself for a sufficient span. Taking the only advanced civilizations we know into account - the human race - I don't see how its realistic to expect survival into the "millions of years" range.
I'd put forth that any civilization advanced enough to develop such technological advances, would kill itself long before such technology develops. Our current modus operandi is not sustainable millions of years out, and using the human race as a basis, I think it laughable to consider the possibility of survival for millions of years. The oldest human remains are what, about 160,000 years old? Might we be getting ahead of ourselves speaking about intelligent life colonizing the galaxy?
Crocodiles on the other hand - those bastards are believed to be around 200 million years old. They've exhibited a much better understanding for what it takes to survive long term (of course we're doing a pretty good job of killing them too - you can say people are bad at somethings, but everyone has to admit we're really good at killing other stuff). If crocs could somehow work space travel into their lifestyle, this could lead to something...
Slashdot Mirror
Most people within core mass market demographics don't realize or care how much data they send, so defaults are important economically. If the financial motivations are in the wrong place, the wrong decision will be made for invested parties. I don't know of any business that is successful and doesn't exploit this general sort of opportunity. It paints Ubuntu as a villain, but its more business as usual and isn't unique to Ubuntu.
Would you rather fight 100 duck sized horses, or one horse-sized duck? And Why?
I recall the same experience... Prior to seeing Wolfenstein3D, I had graduated from Intellivision to the Nintendo NES, and that constituted my main gaming exposure, other than some early versions of Flight Simulator. Wolfenstein3D blew me away with the graphics possible on a computer, and I probably jumped out of my seat a number of times as the immersion was like nothing I'd seen before. A lot of games with impressive graphics since then, but nothing like that first impression... Kind of a cool experience, yields a different sort of appreciation I think compared to that of younger gamers who have a more modern sense of graphics expectations.
I actually missed TechReport and a couple others I typically read. Thanks for the links.
ZankerH, I appreciate the comment, but you've actually got it backwards. The tick is a new shrink, the tock is a new architecture: http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/silicon-innovations/intel-tick-tock-model-general.html
For people familiar with Intel's Tick-Tock cadence - this should not come as much surprise. Some people may have gotten caught up in marketing and expected more, but this is a "Tick" which brings a process shrink, power savings, and a modest performance increase. It is just about delivering that, though perhaps on the softer side of things.
Sandy Bridge was a Tock - a BIG performance improvement. Haswell should be a Tock - a BIG performance improvement.
On the tick, they set more modest performance goals, and focus on getting the process shrink right and tuning things up. On the tock, they should knock our socks off. So maybe Ivy Bridge is disappointing, but perhaps familiarity with their product development strategy helps to manage expectations
A roundup of reviews from the usual major sites as well as others not mentioned in the summary above: Overclockers Review, Anandtech Review, Anandtech Undervolting/Overclocking, HardwareSecrets, Bit-tech, PCPer, Tweaktown, Hard OCP, The Inquirer, Techspot, Computer Shopper, Tom's Hardware, ExtremeTech, PC Mag, Overclockers Club, and Guru 3d
Where are the other review links?
http://www.overclockers.com/amd-radeon-hd-7970-graphics-card-review/
http://www.madshrimps.be/articles/article/1000250/#axzz1hFPj6oTt
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/HD_7970/
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/49646-amd-radeon-hd-7970-3gb-review-25.html
1.9V lifespan would be measured in minutes or hours, not days or weeks. At room temperature, 1.9V would damage the processor almost immediately, if not kill it.
In fancy demonstrations and testing like this, the main magic comes not from voltage, but from super conductivity within the processor at the cold temperatures. The cold also increases the lifespan of the chip when using exorbitant amounts of voltage. This doesn't matter to most people or maybe even the poster I'm replying to, but I'm mentioning it here for the general knowledge of anyone who may be interested in speaking accurately about this.
Ultimately though, its the cold that raises the frequency ceiling - sure the voltage helps, but with super-cooled temperatures alone the frequency ceiling is raised even at default voltage./p.
In regards to frequency scaling for Moore's Law, that came to an end in 2004 essentially. It's one topic wikipedia has right if you want to read the details. These days, moore's law only holds true for transistor density, which is why everything is multicore, power efficiency, and integrating more features on chip - there are extra transistors they can fit on the chip and they are finding more things to use that die area for.
I also attended the event, and wrote up a more detailed account of the demonstration and word record result for the overclocking audience: http://www.overclockers.com/amd-fx-bulldozer-breaks-cpu-frequency-world-record/
Summary is a bit light on sources... pcper.com is good, but you should be looking at multiple reviews to get a well rounded perspective.
Here's a few:
http://www.overclockers.com/intel-i7-2600k-sandy-bridge-review
http://legitreviews.com/article/1501/1/
http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/3754/intel_core_i7_2600k_and_core_i5_2500k_sandy_bridge_cpus/index.html
http://www.hitechlegion.com/reviews/processors/7689-intel-core-i5-2500k-processor-review
They're also inside your cereal box. Check your pantry!
You spew data the entire time you are online. What do you care if its attached to a one in a million account, or some anonymous cookie? What is anonymity if it isn't being just an insignificant number in a much larger grand total? Your ideal of "protecting" your data as if its something important or interesting is very 1990's. Technophobic thinking like this is only in vogue with a select subset of Slashdot members and other minorities with ill-conceived notions about their online data.
You ignored google's options for this. If you have a google account, you can configure your preferences so that ads are better targetted.
I present to you, exhibit A: Google Ad Preferences
Mod parent and grandparent down. They have no understanding of life behind Websense or similar filters that receive automatic updates. They block anything easily found on Google and you'd be wasting your time. That is the core of the Websense business model - find and block content quickly and efficiently - and this is the exact circumvention focus of users on Tor, Haselton-proxies-r-us, etc.
robots.txt - well behaved robot spiders like Google's adhere to it. If configured properly, this would keep Google from indexing the site.
I don't have to RTFA to be able to judge from the summary that the study's questions were leading. If the questions were asked the right way, I'm sure people would respond that they'd prefer to see ads that are relevant as opposed to punch the monkey and black market viagra ads. From the summary, it sounds like all the study really says is that people don't want more advertising.
What you said actually makes sense upon further thought. I wouldn't call myself certain in either line of thought currently.
My original thought was that after going through an area of increased gravitational pull, then hitting an area of lower gravitational pull, the satellite's trajectory would be altered in such a way over time that it could break free from the gravitational effect of the moon if it hits a lower gravitational field at a necessary point within its altered orbital path.
Now what I'm curious about is if we'd know if the satellite impacted the moon. With the minimal moon atmosphere, I'd expect the satellite to create a pretty good impact/crater when it crashes down. With other satellites orbiting and creating imagery of the moon's surface, would we know if it crashed down, or even where it would have impacted?
While that sounds pretty good, I'm fairly certain from a logical standpoint the odds of impacting the moon are as good or worse than the odds of leaving orbit and flying out into space. (Especially with the low gravity levels of the moon.)
EldavoJohn - the summary Slashdot posted here states 4% wouldn't buy a new Xbox due to failure rates.
Your summary states that only 4% would buy a new Xbox due to the failure rates
I think the posted summary is correct. What gives?
While your premise is true, the implication that Canonical should contribute in a greater way towards direct kernel development is misplaced.
In classic Slashdot fashion, I present a car analogy:
Goodyear has built a company out of making tires. While the quality of the roads those tires run on effect the performance of their tires, contributing directly to the development of improved road surfaces is outside of Goodyear's core competencies. A tire company should focus on making better tires.
In a similar vein, Canonical is doing the right thing by focusing on their core competency - improving the userland experience. They should continue with that focus where they've already established competency.
I'd also suggest that Canonical is contributing greatly to kernel development thru secondary channels - broadening the desktop-centric Linux userbase. With a more broad userbase, everything get tested and improved at a faster pace. Canonical is doing this for the desktop where Linux has normally struggled in comparison to server deployments.
This implies wikipedia shuns subject matter experts. This is a popularly circulated stance which has no grounding in fact. They happily accept material from subject matter experts, they just require that the subject matter experts reference their published material which shows them as subject matter experts.
If someone speaks as an authority on a topic in wikipedia, I should be able to refer to the sources they cite in order to determine how much weight I place in the statements I read. I do not want to go to Wikipedia and read un-cited "expert testimony" from the internet. It is both reasonable and wise to expect that any subject matter expert should be able to provide reference of published work.
Lol! Well played!
This assumes a sufficiently advanced civilization could survive itself for a sufficient span. Taking the only advanced civilizations we know into account - the human race - I don't see how its realistic to expect survival into the "millions of years" range.
I'd put forth that any civilization advanced enough to develop such technological advances, would kill itself long before such technology develops. Our current modus operandi is not sustainable millions of years out, and using the human race as a basis, I think it laughable to consider the possibility of survival for millions of years. The oldest human remains are what, about 160,000 years old? Might we be getting ahead of ourselves speaking about intelligent life colonizing the galaxy?
Crocodiles on the other hand - those bastards are believed to be around 200 million years old. They've exhibited a much better understanding for what it takes to survive long term (of course we're doing a pretty good job of killing them too - you can say people are bad at somethings, but everyone has to admit we're really good at killing other stuff). If crocs could somehow work space travel into their lifestyle, this could lead to something...