That's kinda the thing though isn't it. The current economic situation is that a greater number of people can't make "a bit of money". Many have argued the point of "what's wrong with large wealth inequality?" and this is the answer: it turns public opinion against capitalism. And without popular opinion on your side...you get the guillotine.
Half the people buying tablets are turning around and buying keyboards for them, so they can emulate traditional laptops!
Say what now? This feels like a truthism (tm) rather than actually true. That would imply there is very little enthusiasm for the touch UI and rather, people prefer trackpad + keyboard. That....sounds fishy at best.
I could be wrong. But you'd need some pretty convincing data. Half (hell, even a large portion) of people buying tablets really want laptops? Erm....
Arguably, Google Now is trying to achieve something similar with cards that tie-in to existing apps. It's not a bad idea but I think -- as with most things out of China -- there's a lot of ambition without appreciation for just how much effort and expertise it takes to get it working right.
That's an interesting point. One can talk fairness but the goal is to have money to pay for services. Let's say we were to tax all of the multi-billion dollar corporations on their earnings both overseas and domestically.
According to http://www.tradingeconomics.co... that $1.3T in Q1 of 2016. In 2015, we're looking at roughly $6T in profits (not revenue). And that's publicly traded companies (which have to report profit and revenue).
Now I, personally, find 50% to be a bit ridiculous as a corporate income tax so let's say, oh, 25%, but on all profits made.
That's $1.5T/year in tax revenue. In 2015, the Federal government collected ~$3.25T in taxes (http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/3248723000000-federal-taxes-set-record-fy-2015-21833-worker-feds-0)
So by levying a 25% flat tax on corporate profits, we've increased overall tax revenue by ~46%.
Your point about it being hard to levy taxes on corporations and wealthy individuals is valid. But that doesn't necessarily mean we should just throw up our hands and give up on the idea.
The problem is Intel's chip. They have some hardware-accelerated h.264 (and HVEC/VP9) decoding support but they prefer you use the (lower quality) Quicksync they put in silicon to do video decoding. Browsers and apps have to specifically use that when decoding and the quality difference is noticeable.
Their newest Apollo Lake atom-based chip *finally* fully hardware-accelerates HVEC and VP9, so I think devices with those will be competitive with the iPad when it comes to video streaming. But I don't think Sky Lake does the same...
They're introducing a law that everyone gets to vote on about the relative taxes everyone pays. This particular law says everyone making millions will pay more.
Those other millionaires will have their say at the vote. Or they can introduce their own legislation. Then, after everyone votes, the thing becomes law if the majority agree.
That's how democracy works. They're imploring other millionaires to vote the same and using themselves as examples as well as trying to appeal to their sense of duty.
It's funny how the "you don't speak for us" sentiment doesn't surface when, say, a tax break is offered into law.
Only if the app was in a state of being shut down. If it's suspended, there are potentially a lot of cleanup necessary to do a "closing" of the program. Not to mention if you go back to the app, you have to launch it again -- using CPU cycles.
It also isn't guaranteed that it remains in DRAM instead of being paged to flash.
I'd consider myself a "gamer" in a previous life. Nowadays, I have exactly one machine (my media PC) that has a decent-ish GPU that I rarely use to play games. My typical gaming? Plants vs Zombies on an iPad.
There are hordes more like me than there are multi-GPU people. And Microsoft is doing the smart thing here. The "PC gaming gods" that complain about this shit and want to "boycott" it are holding Windows as a whole back a decade. I want a Windows tablet (like the Surface) but I'm forced to admit, the iPad has *way way way* more apps. And part of that reason is because neckbeards who are very vocal but by far in the minority are guiding the platform for the majority of users.
The FBI is asking for a universal backdoor so that they can hack the iPhone's pin password using brute force. There isn't a way to specifically hack just one phone the way the encryption and decryption method is built.
The second scenario is what's happening here. Whether or not an OS update to a locked device can be done is up for grabs. What's in the letter Tim Cook posted is that they're refusing to even *develop* such a tool if it were possible. It could very well be that it's not possible, but no system is really perfect.
With Secure Enclave in the newer models (the iPhone in question is a 5C), the time limit and retry limit is hardware enforced. So such a hack wouldn't work on newer phones, only iPhone 5C and 5 (and older).
That's actually exactly what Apple is saying and it's true: they can't access the encrypted data because they don't have the key.
What the FBI wants is for Apple to develop a hacked version of iOS that can be loaded onto the phone and allow external inputs to try different user unlock PINs as well as get rid of both the 10-attempts limit as well as the time-between-tries limit.
Obviously the existence of such a hack -- as well as the ability to load a locked phone with it -- is a dangerous tool that can be used on any iPhone. Apple isn't just refusing to hand such a thing over, they're refusing to even develop (or at the very least, acknowledge the existence of) such a hack. Thus discouraging any hackers from going "shit, it can be done, let's find out how!".
Technically correct (admittedly the best kind) but the spirit of net neutrality isn't violated in the way T-Mobile does this. T-Mobile lets any streaming service opt for this and gauges which services to add based on demand of its consumer base. So it would seem that whether or not Binge On violates net neutrality would depend on how well they honor this principle. I could see the argument that this *allows* T-Mobile to pick winners and losers but so long as they're transparent about how they pick services, and that transparency shows it's strictly guided by consumer demand, I see no issue here.
Don't we need to give it at least a decade or two for that to actually be concluded? After all, Chinese/Japanese immigrants during the gold rush didn't exactly integrate either. Mexican immigrants during the 90's didn't either. Their children and grandchildren, however, did.
Integration isn't something that happens instantaneously; it takes a generation or two.
You do have a point about the issue of overwhelming influx. The Syrians would have to be divided up amongst a lot of countries -- probably all of Europe and North America would have to go in on it together. Countries with larger populations and better economies could obviously absorb more.
But that's an ideal world. The real world has plenty of xenophobic idiots voting for Trump's wall around Mexico.....
If you've ever read Mao's Little Red Book, that's one of the key devices used in it. The thing basically repeats the same philosophy over and over. It's funny because when you read the sentiments on page 1, it sounds fairly ridiculous. By the time you reach page 30, however, it starts to sound more plausible.
But not certified to run at those clock speeds at a certain power consumption level. They have an SDP, but that's a maximum, not average, power consumption. Nobody's actually bothered to look into variations between bins of the same device because it's always been the same model number. But there can be very drastic differences even within the same chip model of how much the SoC consumes at a given performance level.
Privately funded transit systems always have the problem that their most needed resource -- land tracks to build rail/road/etc. -- is a public resource and require a functional government to grant them right-of-access. Something local multi-millionaires, NIMBY suburbanites and just about everyone has a vested interest in stopping.
It's the most classic example of "I got mine, so screw you" attitude there is; despite all the BS about altruism and "making the world a better place" that Silicon Valley seems to purport.
While true, it doesn't mean foreign workers don't affect US employment at all. Just not on a 1-to-1 basis like simplistic politicians claim.
Of course, there may be more long-term benefits that far outweigh the short-term drops in domestic employment. As others mentioned, these are hard-working, semi-skilled to very skilled individuals who want to come to this country to work, pay taxes, buy property, etc. Hardly the type of people you wanna be turning away considering your own population is dominated by people of retirement age....
With the caveat that the calculation used is basically "anyone without a full-time, salaried+benefits job". The economy in the 1940's was very different than it is today. Not having the aforementioned status meant being completely out of work and broke. It doesn't today.
I think the idea of a "post scarcity" world is incompatible with some pretty basic human psychology. Even in the modern world, there are some resources (information) that have, for all practical purposes, become infinitely available. Yes, getting access to it isn't universal yet, but even amongst those who have a broadband connection, information is still locked away behind paywalls, media stores, etc.
This leads me to think we'll always have some kind of scarcity, even if it's artificial scarcity. Because there will always be some things that aren't infinitely available. As technology increases, those finite things won't be material, resources or even dare I say it energy but it could very well be abstract things like ideas (copyright) and inventions (patent). Part of it is probably that people need distinction in order to differentiate themselves from their peers. Another is just pure greed; some people like being perceived as better than others.
One could point out that there are fewer instances of white males being miscategorized. I suspect this has less to do with any actual racism and more to do with the fact that the people who developed the algorithm are likely predominantly white males and they tend to first test the algorithm on their own collection of photos or those in their circle.
This is an argument for a more diverse workforce...
The argument isn't about being paid or not but rather, how much. Apple isn't refusing to pay at all. But simply treating royalty as "if we get money, you get money". I see nothing wrong with this model.
That depends. I own an SP3 but also have a Nexus 7 from 2013. I still use the Nexus not just because of the lighter form factor (and far superior battery life) but because there are actual apps on it that aren't available on Windows. We're getting to the point where Android and iOS *are* the de facto platforms for new software to come out on and Windows ends up waiting months to forever for the web interface to even remotely offer the same level of functionality as the app version.
In these form factors, it's no longer a question of peak CPU performance. These processors all thermal-throttle to the point where none of them are going to be performing at peak while in these form factors. The same i5 in the Surface will provide significantly more performance when in another form factor (like a NUC).
Which is interesting in that it means today, the design of the device itself -- in terms of heat dissipation coupled with total system power -- is what determines performance, not which processor model you have.
Slashdot Mirror
That's kinda the thing though isn't it. The current economic situation is that a greater number of people can't make "a bit of money". Many have argued the point of "what's wrong with large wealth inequality?" and this is the answer: it turns public opinion against capitalism. And without popular opinion on your side...you get the guillotine.
Half the people buying tablets are turning around and buying keyboards for them, so they can emulate traditional laptops!
Say what now? This feels like a truthism (tm) rather than actually true. That would imply there is very little enthusiasm for the touch UI and rather, people prefer trackpad + keyboard. That....sounds fishy at best.
I could be wrong. But you'd need some pretty convincing data. Half (hell, even a large portion) of people buying tablets really want laptops? Erm....
Arguably, Google Now is trying to achieve something similar with cards that tie-in to existing apps. It's not a bad idea but I think -- as with most things out of China -- there's a lot of ambition without appreciation for just how much effort and expertise it takes to get it working right.
That's an interesting point. One can talk fairness but the goal is to have money to pay for services. Let's say we were to tax all of the multi-billion dollar corporations on their earnings both overseas and domestically.
According to http://www.tradingeconomics.co... that $1.3T in Q1 of 2016. In 2015, we're looking at roughly $6T in profits (not revenue). And that's publicly traded companies (which have to report profit and revenue).
Now I, personally, find 50% to be a bit ridiculous as a corporate income tax so let's say, oh, 25%, but on all profits made.
That's $1.5T/year in tax revenue. In 2015, the Federal government collected ~$3.25T in taxes (http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/3248723000000-federal-taxes-set-record-fy-2015-21833-worker-feds-0)
So by levying a 25% flat tax on corporate profits, we've increased overall tax revenue by ~46%.
Your point about it being hard to levy taxes on corporations and wealthy individuals is valid. But that doesn't necessarily mean we should just throw up our hands and give up on the idea.
The problem is Intel's chip. They have some hardware-accelerated h.264 (and HVEC/VP9) decoding support but they prefer you use the (lower quality) Quicksync they put in silicon to do video decoding. Browsers and apps have to specifically use that when decoding and the quality difference is noticeable.
Their newest Apollo Lake atom-based chip *finally* fully hardware-accelerates HVEC and VP9, so I think devices with those will be competitive with the iPad when it comes to video streaming. But I don't think Sky Lake does the same...
They're introducing a law that everyone gets to vote on about the relative taxes everyone pays. This particular law says everyone making millions will pay more.
Those other millionaires will have their say at the vote. Or they can introduce their own legislation. Then, after everyone votes, the thing becomes law if the majority agree.
That's how democracy works. They're imploring other millionaires to vote the same and using themselves as examples as well as trying to appeal to their sense of duty.
It's funny how the "you don't speak for us" sentiment doesn't surface when, say, a tax break is offered into law.
Only if the app was in a state of being shut down. If it's suspended, there are potentially a lot of cleanup necessary to do a "closing" of the program. Not to mention if you go back to the app, you have to launch it again -- using CPU cycles.
It also isn't guaranteed that it remains in DRAM instead of being paged to flash.
I'd consider myself a "gamer" in a previous life. Nowadays, I have exactly one machine (my media PC) that has a decent-ish GPU that I rarely use to play games. My typical gaming? Plants vs Zombies on an iPad.
There are hordes more like me than there are multi-GPU people. And Microsoft is doing the smart thing here. The "PC gaming gods" that complain about this shit and want to "boycott" it are holding Windows as a whole back a decade. I want a Windows tablet (like the Surface) but I'm forced to admit, the iPad has *way way way* more apps. And part of that reason is because neckbeards who are very vocal but by far in the minority are guiding the platform for the majority of users.
Far as I can tell so far, Hillary Clinton stands for nothing (that isn't popular by the polls). That's pretty blank slate if you ask me.
The FBI is asking for a universal backdoor so that they can hack the iPhone's pin password using brute force. There isn't a way to specifically hack just one phone the way the encryption and decryption method is built.
The second scenario is what's happening here. Whether or not an OS update to a locked device can be done is up for grabs. What's in the letter Tim Cook posted is that they're refusing to even *develop* such a tool if it were possible. It could very well be that it's not possible, but no system is really perfect.
With Secure Enclave in the newer models (the iPhone in question is a 5C), the time limit and retry limit is hardware enforced. So such a hack wouldn't work on newer phones, only iPhone 5C and 5 (and older).
That's actually exactly what Apple is saying and it's true: they can't access the encrypted data because they don't have the key.
What the FBI wants is for Apple to develop a hacked version of iOS that can be loaded onto the phone and allow external inputs to try different user unlock PINs as well as get rid of both the 10-attempts limit as well as the time-between-tries limit.
Obviously the existence of such a hack -- as well as the ability to load a locked phone with it -- is a dangerous tool that can be used on any iPhone. Apple isn't just refusing to hand such a thing over, they're refusing to even develop (or at the very least, acknowledge the existence of) such a hack. Thus discouraging any hackers from going "shit, it can be done, let's find out how!".
Technically correct (admittedly the best kind) but the spirit of net neutrality isn't violated in the way T-Mobile does this. T-Mobile lets any streaming service opt for this and gauges which services to add based on demand of its consumer base. So it would seem that whether or not Binge On violates net neutrality would depend on how well they honor this principle. I could see the argument that this *allows* T-Mobile to pick winners and losers but so long as they're transparent about how they pick services, and that transparency shows it's strictly guided by consumer demand, I see no issue here.
Don't we need to give it at least a decade or two for that to actually be concluded? After all, Chinese/Japanese immigrants during the gold rush didn't exactly integrate either. Mexican immigrants during the 90's didn't either. Their children and grandchildren, however, did.
Integration isn't something that happens instantaneously; it takes a generation or two.
You do have a point about the issue of overwhelming influx. The Syrians would have to be divided up amongst a lot of countries -- probably all of Europe and North America would have to go in on it together. Countries with larger populations and better economies could obviously absorb more.
But that's an ideal world. The real world has plenty of xenophobic idiots voting for Trump's wall around Mexico.....
If you've ever read Mao's Little Red Book, that's one of the key devices used in it. The thing basically repeats the same philosophy over and over. It's funny because when you read the sentiments on page 1, it sounds fairly ridiculous. By the time you reach page 30, however, it starts to sound more plausible.
Human psychology is interesting that way.
But not certified to run at those clock speeds at a certain power consumption level. They have an SDP, but that's a maximum, not average, power consumption. Nobody's actually bothered to look into variations between bins of the same device because it's always been the same model number. But there can be very drastic differences even within the same chip model of how much the SoC consumes at a given performance level.
That's the nature of the semiconductor beast.
Privately funded transit systems always have the problem that their most needed resource -- land tracks to build rail/road/etc. -- is a public resource and require a functional government to grant them right-of-access. Something local multi-millionaires, NIMBY suburbanites and just about everyone has a vested interest in stopping.
It's the most classic example of "I got mine, so screw you" attitude there is; despite all the BS about altruism and "making the world a better place" that Silicon Valley seems to purport.
Wouldn't there be a problem of accidentally touching the LCD screen?
While true, it doesn't mean foreign workers don't affect US employment at all. Just not on a 1-to-1 basis like simplistic politicians claim.
Of course, there may be more long-term benefits that far outweigh the short-term drops in domestic employment. As others mentioned, these are hard-working, semi-skilled to very skilled individuals who want to come to this country to work, pay taxes, buy property, etc. Hardly the type of people you wanna be turning away considering your own population is dominated by people of retirement age....
With the caveat that the calculation used is basically "anyone without a full-time, salaried+benefits job". The economy in the 1940's was very different than it is today. Not having the aforementioned status meant being completely out of work and broke. It doesn't today.
I think the idea of a "post scarcity" world is incompatible with some pretty basic human psychology. Even in the modern world, there are some resources (information) that have, for all practical purposes, become infinitely available. Yes, getting access to it isn't universal yet, but even amongst those who have a broadband connection, information is still locked away behind paywalls, media stores, etc.
This leads me to think we'll always have some kind of scarcity, even if it's artificial scarcity. Because there will always be some things that aren't infinitely available. As technology increases, those finite things won't be material, resources or even dare I say it energy but it could very well be abstract things like ideas (copyright) and inventions (patent). Part of it is probably that people need distinction in order to differentiate themselves from their peers. Another is just pure greed; some people like being perceived as better than others.
One could point out that there are fewer instances of white males being miscategorized. I suspect this has less to do with any actual racism and more to do with the fact that the people who developed the algorithm are likely predominantly white males and they tend to first test the algorithm on their own collection of photos or those in their circle.
This is an argument for a more diverse workforce...
The argument isn't about being paid or not but rather, how much. Apple isn't refusing to pay at all. But simply treating royalty as "if we get money, you get money". I see nothing wrong with this model.
That depends. I own an SP3 but also have a Nexus 7 from 2013. I still use the Nexus not just because of the lighter form factor (and far superior battery life) but because there are actual apps on it that aren't available on Windows. We're getting to the point where Android and iOS *are* the de facto platforms for new software to come out on and Windows ends up waiting months to forever for the web interface to even remotely offer the same level of functionality as the app version.
In these form factors, it's no longer a question of peak CPU performance. These processors all thermal-throttle to the point where none of them are going to be performing at peak while in these form factors. The same i5 in the Surface will provide significantly more performance when in another form factor (like a NUC).
Which is interesting in that it means today, the design of the device itself -- in terms of heat dissipation coupled with total system power -- is what determines performance, not which processor model you have.