Yes, they are, but, what matters is do they get coverage where you need it? I get coverage where I spend 99.99% of my time. Obviously, anyone thinking of switching needs to evaluate if they get coverage where they live and travel to. I think, however, that a lot of people irrationally avoid T-Mo because they look at the map, and because there's a lack of coverage somewhere they never go anyhow, but are afraid they *might* go someday, they decide they must go with Verizon or AT&T.
I'm positive that if T-Mo gets enough customers, they will expand their network. In the meantime, the coverage works for me. It might not work for any given other person, but I still encourage people to at least look at T-Mo, and make an informed decision, instead of just dismissing them out of hand.
I would point out that the cost of data plans is gradually decreasing. I've avoided any 'smart' phones up until recently, because I refused to pay $80+ per month. But, I just got a plan with T-Mobile that is about $60/mo (it's actually a little less than that, but what the discount giveth, the taxes taketh away, so it comes to almost $60 exactly), gives me 500 voice minutes, unlimited text, unlimited data.
My previous voice plan with Verizon, which I had from about 2003 - 2009 was about $45/mo (40 before taxes), gave me 300 minutes, and no text or data. So, I figured, $15/mo, with an extra 200 minutes, plus text and data, isn't too bad.
Some will say that T-Mo has the worst network of the major carriers. That might be true, I'm not sure. In Ohio, where I live and work, the coverage seems excellent. I don't travel much, but in the little bit of travel I've done in the last 6 months with T-Mo phone service, I had coverage in most places, except for extremely rural areas. In some places, T-Mo gave me free roaming on AT&T's network (West Virginia seems to have absolutely no T-mobile coverage, but the phone used AT&T there).
I think the part that gets me is. . . who CARES (from an environmental standpoint) if ice resurfacers put out a little CO2 (there might be concerns about CO/CO2 accumulation in an indoor environment, which might be relevant). Why should Zamboni's be green?
I don't know how many ice resurfacing machines there are on Earth, but I can't imagine it could possibly be more than 100,000, and would expect it's probably closer to 15,000 or 20,000. There's not all that many Ice Rinks in the world.
Making Ice Resurfacers 'green' will have a mathematically insignificant impact on our CO2 emissions. You know, I'm all for 'greening' our automobiles, ships, industrial equipment, factories, Semi-Trucks, etc - things for which there are millions upon millions of them deployed on Earth. Things which can be changed on a massive scale.
Worrying about Ice Resurfacers is an expensive waste of time.
I don't know exactly when the alpha was released, but seems like I tried it about 6 months ago, then went back to the 32-bit version because the 64-bit version is not well optimized and doesn't seem to use hardware acceleration for video playback. It works, but it's painfully slow. Still, it's an alpha, and as far as alpha's go, I suppose that's a pretty good alpha.
The problem is, I don't think Adobe is actually working on it anymore. Seems like they released and alpha, then forgot about it. If the headline were that the plugin had finally reached a BETA release, then that would be 'news'.
" The final blow will be the day that YouTube switches off Flash and starts streaming only to HTML5 browsers. On that day all browsers will be HTML5 compatible or they will perish in the flames of user outrage."
Except, YouTube won't turn off Flash until a super-majority of users have HTML-5 compliant browsers. (Actually, since a super-majority is usually considered to be 60% or 66%, that probably still wouldn't be enough - I wouldn't shut off any potential customers until I was north of 90% deployment, though Google may surprise me and throw the switch a bit before that). No business that hopes to succeed just shuts off the ability for any significant portion of their customer base to consume their product.
Just what the world needs. *Another* IM service. I suppose I can see Facebook's reasoning for doing this. . . they want to be a complete 'social' solution, and don't want to be reliant on MSN, AOL, Google, or anyone else for their IM service. I suppose, all things considered, that at least opening it up with XMPP is fairly 'enlightened' of them, but it really seems like the whole 'genre' of Instant Messaging platforms has been one big cluster-f**k since day one. If email worked like IM, we'd all have to have 10 email accounts.
I would have thought that, instead of switching between a 'low power' video chip, and a 'high power' GPU, they would have concentrated on just making the Nvidia graphics cards use lower power when not doing things like rendering 3D graphics, or decoding video? I mean, mobile CPU's have some smarts built into them to allow them to vary how much power they consume, can't they do that with GPUs?
Man, his wife just isn't thinking straight. He should have run after a Bugatti Veyron, then he could have saved like $50,000 (I'm not sure what the rental fee on one of those would be, but since the purchase price is $8.7M, gotta figure that renting one of those for a day must cost something like $50k).
First, I have to agree with other posters that it's a bit twisted to say the phone costs $49 (though it is true you save money by buying the phone outright then taking the $20/mo discount).
But, let's apply the original article author's 'math' to my used G1 which I bought from craigslist for $100 outright, and then got T-Mo's $20/mo discount (and let's assume I keep the phone and discounted plan for 4 years instead of 2 [which might be a bit, err, optimistic since there's no guarantee I can keep the same pricing discount from T-Mo that long - in a year or two they might scrap the whole plan structure]):
100 - (20 * 12 * 4) = -$860. Wow, my phone costs me NEGATIVE $860 dollars!!!11!1
Seriously, though, it's true that I would *save* $860 over the course of 4 years (again, assuming I get to keep the same pricing plan for 4 years, which is doubtful), which I'm perfectly happy with (the $20/mo discount without contract is really what sold me on T-Mo), but it's ridiculous to then state that the phone costs me negative hundreds of dollars - I'm paying less to T-Mo, not getting payed by T-Mo.
I'm no negotiations expert, but my understanding is negotiations work because bothsides have a stake and in fact want the negotiations to succeed. Sure, UCLA and the UC System wouldn't want to lose access to the video works. But, neither would the copyright holders want to risk losing the revenue they get from the UC system. But, if the California powers that be (I'm not sure what it's called in California; in Ohio we have the Ohio Board of Regents, and ultimately, the governor and legislature) threatened or even passed such a resolution, it would be an interesting game of chicken. *grin*
In any case, my ultimate point is that this isn't an issue of 'fair use' or an issue, really, of inadequate copyright law - it's an issue which can and should just be negotiated. The UC System and the State of California are big enough that if they just manned up, they could get whatever they need from the copyright holders.
This seems like just a 'simple' negotiating situation to me. UCLA should just refuse to buy or use any instructional videos which don't grant them a license to make the videos available to enrolled students and faculty online. If the copyright holders want to play hardball, play hardball. Heck, extend this beyond UCLA, and make it a State of California mandate for all state Universities in the California system. What instructional video publisher wants to be locked out of all California public Universities?
Seems like there would be an interesting followup experiment. Arrange it so that one participant *actually* draws first, but *thinks* the other guy drew first, and see who 'wins' in those situations? Because, the experiment seems to suggest this a brain/nervous system reaction to perception, not anything based on actual objective physics or anything. If that is indeed the case, then the actual facts of the situation shouldn't matter, only that which is perceived/believed.
I've always thought the X-Prize awards were kind of silly in that the offered prize seemed too small given the R&D expenses, and potential market value of the accomplishment.
Then I realized this is just clever Venture Capitalism. You want to throw $10M into a startup, to help it with a portion of startup costs for bringing the project to market. You don't want to throw a lot of money at R&D in the initial phases when you have no idea if the person/team/company in question will be able to deliver something legitimate or not. You want to bring press coverage and prestige to the winner so they can attract even more money from other private investors (or possibly public money from places like DoE, DARPA, Army/Navy/Air Force/Marines), and a little Golden statue, in this case, would probably not be sufficient to bring much press attention, but say it is a $10M contents and *maybe* the press will pay attention.
Sure, throwing $10M into a startup doing commercial space flight or Brain Computer Interfaces, etc, is peanuts compared to the eventual payoff from the market, $10M is still $10M and should at least provide a little help to anyone struggling to bring a great, proven idea to market.
So, there you have it. I think you're right that the prize isn't really sufficient as a prize, but if you think of it as an investment and an effective PR stunt, then it's still useful, I suppose.
I'm really sick of all the idiots on the Internet who really see no difference between someone protecting the legal rights granted to them by Congress (who received a mandate [or if mandate is too strong a word, at least explicit permission] to do so directly from the Constitution), and some idiot who has no right to ask you for money.
Now, I know someone is going to bring up an argument that RIAA are a bunch of rent-seeking squatters who screw the artists, and it should be the artists who hold the copyrights, not RIAA which is a third party, so how is the RIAA any different from the guy in this article? Here's the simple truth: the difference is that the artists agreed to the terms offered to them by the RIAA member labels, and received compensation. Now, I'm no fan of the RIAA. I think the best thing that could happen to music would be for a few other labels to arise that truly compete with the RIAA (both competing to sign artists with more favorable terms, and competing to sell the products to customers with more favorable terms), but the fact remains that the artists signed away their copyrights and accepted the money. Even though they may have been in a position where they didn't think they could get better terms from any other labels, ultimately they are adults who voluntarily accepted those terms, and made a business deal, and the RIAA has done nothing illegal. The copyright statutes allow for the transfer of copyright.
So long as the RIAA-members have legally obtained their copyrights, they are well within their legal rights. If you don't like the way the copyright laws currently exist, then you need to work hard to get them changed. But, it's easier to just violate copyright law than to actually effect change (either by getting a popular movement started to change copyright and convince people that the changes are just and necessary, OR by starting up some competition and letting the Free Market solve the problem - both of which are hard work), so people take the lazy way out. They just make illegal copies, and blame everybody else.
"Although netbooks are small today - maybe 10% of the PC market at most - we believe over the next several years that could completely change around and that could be 90% of the PC market," said East. "We see those products as an area for a lot of innovation and we want that innovation to be happening around the ARM architecture."
I think it's only a matter of time for ARM to gain market share with or without Microsoft.
While you are technically correct that these are two seperate statements, they definitely form a unified logical thesis for the article: the ARM guy is claiming that he thinks netbooks will be 90% of the PC market AND a very large portion of that market will be running ARM CPUs *even without Windows* (although he does concede that having Windows, he thinks, would make that easier/faster).
Don't get me wrong - I'd love to have an ARM-based cheap, small, long-battery life, netbook or laptop, running some flavor of Linux or maybe even one of the BSD spinoffs. But I think claiming 90%, even with Windows on Atom or AMD, seems like complete nonsense. Making the jump to say 90% of PC market as netbooks, large percentage as ARM running Linux, just doesn't sound remotely plausible. But hey, I hope the guy proves me wrong.
Does anyone seriously think that 90% of the PC market will ditch MS Windows, and all the applications it has, in 3 years? I don't have any reason to doubt the Arm-Linux netbook space will grow (although, even that isn't necessarily a given, but it seems reasonable, anyhow), but 90% sounds like a bunch of marketing BS from a guy who can't possibly deliver the goods.
"When I told my 10-year-old daughter that Obama had killed the program that was her best chance to travel to the Moon or Mars, she literally started crying. How am I supposed to keep her interested in math and science in school when the only thing she's ever wanted to do has been taken away from her?"
Wait, so it's Obama's fault that you're a bad parent? First, there is still a NASA and a space program. Second, help the kid find some other interests. We live in a world of almost an infinite number of things to study, to learn, and to do. Help your kid broaden her horizons a little bit.
I never got why they used a tank at all in most of the missions. . . we're talking about a deep future, advanced technological civilization. So. . . why don't I have a flying vehicle instead of some kind of tank? It's a lot faster to fly over stupid mountains than to crawl over them.
Mass Effect, as a franchise, missed a truly awesome opportunity - they could have combined the first-person shooter elements of the game with a sort of flying shoot-em-up for exploring the planets. Why have an entire planet with one dinky little building and a dozen guards? Why not have lots of buildings, encampments, etc on a planet, air defenses, ground-based anti-air defenses.
I suppose what it comes down to is that it would take a lot more time and money to put a lot of stuff on every planet, but it's pretty cheap to just make a 3km X 3km patch of land on a planet, and put one building, one mineral deposit, and one crashed space probe, then give you a tank which moves slowly, so that you spend a lot of time on each planet, even though you are just exploring an area the size of *one small town* in the rural midwest.
. ..Naquadah Generator, and all associated patents, and a sufficient supply of Naquadah to power it for a couple centuries. However much it costs, it will pay for itself. *grin*
It's a little unclear from the site if *everything* from SG1 and SGA are being sold off, or just select props that the writers don't envision ever using again? I wonder what this means for Stargate: Universe? I mean, in theory, they are still in contact with Star Gate Command, and at some point, they may get the Destiny Gate working again to travel back to Earth, so seems like you'd still need the SGC sets available. In any case, there's the Comm Stones, which give us glimpses of Earth again.
SGU hasn't been cancelled (yet) - I saw somewhere that SyFy renewed for a second season. So, I guess that must mean that they aren't selling *everything*?
Yes, I know the IPv6 address space is galactically huge, but what exactly good purpose is served by giving each customer 1.8*10^19 addresses? Seems a bit excessive, doesn't it? Wouldn't most customers be fine with 16 bits of host/subnet (obviously, there might be som), and the rest of them shouldn't conceivably need more than 32 bits of their own address space? (And if someone needs/wants more than 32-bits of addressing assigned to them, then, sure, by all means, give them 48 bits). But why, 'by default', give people so many addresses I don't even know the name of numbers that large? (18 quintillion, I guess?)
Don't get me wrong, it might be very cool to see another design enter the market place (*if* it was superior to the existing alternatives), but I suspect Apple wanted to get a product shipped, and starting from scratch to create a whole new CPU design would have added years and many millions of dollars to the cost of designing the unit, wouldn't it? For what benefit? I suppose with years of R&D, Apple could develop a new architecture that had better performance/power consumption than an ARM, but ARM is really pretty good for performance/power (better than anything x86 based).
It's like, you use x86 if you want to run Windows and/or want the top performance, but don't really care about power consumption/battery life. For any applications where you want a useable level of performance but very lower power consumption, you use ARM. Well, I *suppose* they could have gone back to PowerPC, or maybe MIPS; is MIPS still alive? Seems like MIPS had been trailing ARM in the performance/power consumption curve, but at the *very* low end where you want cheap and lower power, but don't need much performance, MIPS was king?
Might have been interesting to see a PowerPC iPad - use Intel for the high-end Mac workstations and Macbook Pro laptops, and use PowerPC for the iPad, but I think part of the reason to go with ARM for the iPad was to maintain maximum compatibility with the iPhone/iPod Touch.
One interesting possibility, particularly if you think you'll have more than one iPad, iPhone, etc in your household might be to just get a Mifi(Myfi?) type device - you know, one of those Wifi-to-3G gateway devices some of the cell companies are trying to sell. It might not be cheaper for a single iPad (the number I saw listed for the 3G versions of the iPad was +$130 more than the 'base' iPad price). But if you have 2 or 3 of the iPads, Mifi seems like a better way to go?
Yeah, this idea is great. . . until it starts blocking out legitimate emails which really are confirming orders shipped by Amazon or other retailers, newsletters that people really were wanting to get, and other info that 'looks' like spam, but isn't.
This is why, while I use spam filters, I would never rely on them to delete email. All I want filters to do is punt suspect spam off to the Junk folder, where I can review it later, or find the email I was expecting which got mis-classified.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, they are, but, what matters is do they get coverage where you need it? I get coverage where I spend 99.99% of my time. Obviously, anyone thinking of switching needs to evaluate if they get coverage where they live and travel to. I think, however, that a lot of people irrationally avoid T-Mo because they look at the map, and because there's a lack of coverage somewhere they never go anyhow, but are afraid they *might* go someday, they decide they must go with Verizon or AT&T.
I'm positive that if T-Mo gets enough customers, they will expand their network. In the meantime, the coverage works for me. It might not work for any given other person, but I still encourage people to at least look at T-Mo, and make an informed decision, instead of just dismissing them out of hand.
I would point out that the cost of data plans is gradually decreasing. I've avoided any 'smart' phones up until recently, because I refused to pay $80+ per month. But, I just got a plan with T-Mobile that is about $60/mo (it's actually a little less than that, but what the discount giveth, the taxes taketh away, so it comes to almost $60 exactly), gives me 500 voice minutes, unlimited text, unlimited data.
My previous voice plan with Verizon, which I had from about 2003 - 2009 was about $45/mo (40 before taxes), gave me 300 minutes, and no text or data. So, I figured, $15/mo, with an extra 200 minutes, plus text and data, isn't too bad.
Some will say that T-Mo has the worst network of the major carriers. That might be true, I'm not sure. In Ohio, where I live and work, the coverage seems excellent. I don't travel much, but in the little bit of travel I've done in the last 6 months with T-Mo phone service, I had coverage in most places, except for extremely rural areas. In some places, T-Mo gave me free roaming on AT&T's network (West Virginia seems to have absolutely no T-mobile coverage, but the phone used AT&T there).
It's good enough for me, anyhow. YMMV.
I think the part that gets me is. . . who CARES (from an environmental standpoint) if ice resurfacers put out a little CO2 (there might be concerns about CO/CO2 accumulation in an indoor environment, which might be relevant). Why should Zamboni's be green?
I don't know how many ice resurfacing machines there are on Earth, but I can't imagine it could possibly be more than 100,000, and would expect it's probably closer to 15,000 or 20,000. There's not all that many Ice Rinks in the world.
Making Ice Resurfacers 'green' will have a mathematically insignificant impact on our CO2 emissions. You know, I'm all for 'greening' our automobiles, ships, industrial equipment, factories, Semi-Trucks, etc - things for which there are millions upon millions of them deployed on Earth. Things which can be changed on a massive scale.
Worrying about Ice Resurfacers is an expensive waste of time.
I don't know exactly when the alpha was released, but seems like I tried it about 6 months ago, then went back to the 32-bit version because the 64-bit version is not well optimized and doesn't seem to use hardware acceleration for video playback. It works, but it's painfully slow. Still, it's an alpha, and as far as alpha's go, I suppose that's a pretty good alpha.
The problem is, I don't think Adobe is actually working on it anymore. Seems like they released and alpha, then forgot about it. If the headline were that the plugin had finally reached a BETA release, then that would be 'news'.
" The final blow will be the day that YouTube switches off Flash and starts streaming only to HTML5 browsers. On that day all browsers will be HTML5 compatible or they will perish in the flames of user outrage."
Except, YouTube won't turn off Flash until a super-majority of users have HTML-5 compliant browsers. (Actually, since a super-majority is usually considered to be 60% or 66%, that probably still wouldn't be enough - I wouldn't shut off any potential customers until I was north of 90% deployment, though Google may surprise me and throw the switch a bit before that). No business that hopes to succeed just shuts off the ability for any significant portion of their customer base to consume their product.
I just need to inject some Eve now, and I'll be all set for my trip to Rapture!
Just what the world needs. *Another* IM service. I suppose I can see Facebook's reasoning for doing this. . . they want to be a complete 'social' solution, and don't want to be reliant on MSN, AOL, Google, or anyone else for their IM service. I suppose, all things considered, that at least opening it up with XMPP is fairly 'enlightened' of them, but it really seems like the whole 'genre' of Instant Messaging platforms has been one big cluster-f**k since day one. If email worked like IM, we'd all have to have 10 email accounts.
I would have thought that, instead of switching between a 'low power' video chip, and a 'high power' GPU, they would have concentrated on just making the Nvidia graphics cards use lower power when not doing things like rendering 3D graphics, or decoding video? I mean, mobile CPU's have some smarts built into them to allow them to vary how much power they consume, can't they do that with GPUs?
Man, his wife just isn't thinking straight. He should have run after a Bugatti Veyron, then he could have saved like $50,000 (I'm not sure what the rental fee on one of those would be, but since the purchase price is $8.7M, gotta figure that renting one of those for a day must cost something like $50k).
First, I have to agree with other posters that it's a bit twisted to say the phone costs $49 (though it is true you save money by buying the phone outright then taking the $20/mo discount).
But, let's apply the original article author's 'math' to my used G1 which I bought from craigslist for $100 outright, and then got T-Mo's $20/mo discount (and let's assume I keep the phone and discounted plan for 4 years instead of 2 [which might be a bit, err, optimistic since there's no guarantee I can keep the same pricing discount from T-Mo that long - in a year or two they might scrap the whole plan structure]):
100 - (20 * 12 * 4) = -$860. Wow, my phone costs me NEGATIVE $860 dollars!!!11!1
Seriously, though, it's true that I would *save* $860 over the course of 4 years (again, assuming I get to keep the same pricing plan for 4 years, which is doubtful), which I'm perfectly happy with (the $20/mo discount without contract is really what sold me on T-Mo), but it's ridiculous to then state that the phone costs me negative hundreds of dollars - I'm paying less to T-Mo, not getting payed by T-Mo.
I'm no negotiations expert, but my understanding is negotiations work because bothsides have a stake and in fact want the negotiations to succeed. Sure, UCLA and the UC System wouldn't want to lose access to the video works. But, neither would the copyright holders want to risk losing the revenue they get from the UC system. But, if the California powers that be (I'm not sure what it's called in California; in Ohio we have the Ohio Board of Regents, and ultimately, the governor and legislature) threatened or even passed such a resolution, it would be an interesting game of chicken. *grin*
In any case, my ultimate point is that this isn't an issue of 'fair use' or an issue, really, of inadequate copyright law - it's an issue which can and should just be negotiated. The UC System and the State of California are big enough that if they just manned up, they could get whatever they need from the copyright holders.
This seems like just a 'simple' negotiating situation to me. UCLA should just refuse to buy or use any instructional videos which don't grant them a license to make the videos available to enrolled students and faculty online. If the copyright holders want to play hardball, play hardball. Heck, extend this beyond UCLA, and make it a State of California mandate for all state Universities in the California system. What instructional video publisher wants to be locked out of all California public Universities?
Seems like there would be an interesting followup experiment. Arrange it so that one participant *actually* draws first, but *thinks* the other guy drew first, and see who 'wins' in those situations? Because, the experiment seems to suggest this a brain/nervous system reaction to perception, not anything based on actual objective physics or anything. If that is indeed the case, then the actual facts of the situation shouldn't matter, only that which is perceived/believed.
"Compare this to the original X-Prize."
I've always thought the X-Prize awards were kind of silly in that the offered prize seemed too small given the R&D expenses, and potential market value of the accomplishment.
Then I realized this is just clever Venture Capitalism. You want to throw $10M into a startup, to help it with a portion of startup costs for bringing the project to market. You don't want to throw a lot of money at R&D in the initial phases when you have no idea if the person/team/company in question will be able to deliver something legitimate or not. You want to bring press coverage and prestige to the winner so they can attract even more money from other private investors (or possibly public money from places like DoE, DARPA, Army/Navy/Air Force/Marines), and a little Golden statue, in this case, would probably not be sufficient to bring much press attention, but say it is a $10M contents and *maybe* the press will pay attention.
Sure, throwing $10M into a startup doing commercial space flight or Brain Computer Interfaces, etc, is peanuts compared to the eventual payoff from the market, $10M is still $10M and should at least provide a little help to anyone struggling to bring a great, proven idea to market.
So, there you have it. I think you're right that the prize isn't really sufficient as a prize, but if you think of it as an investment and an effective PR stunt, then it's still useful, I suppose.
I'm really sick of all the idiots on the Internet who really see no difference between someone protecting the legal rights granted to them by Congress (who received a mandate [or if mandate is too strong a word, at least explicit permission] to do so directly from the Constitution), and some idiot who has no right to ask you for money.
Now, I know someone is going to bring up an argument that RIAA are a bunch of rent-seeking squatters who screw the artists, and it should be the artists who hold the copyrights, not RIAA which is a third party, so how is the RIAA any different from the guy in this article? Here's the simple truth: the difference is that the artists agreed to the terms offered to them by the RIAA member labels, and received compensation. Now, I'm no fan of the RIAA. I think the best thing that could happen to music would be for a few other labels to arise that truly compete with the RIAA (both competing to sign artists with more favorable terms, and competing to sell the products to customers with more favorable terms), but the fact remains that the artists signed away their copyrights and accepted the money. Even though they may have been in a position where they didn't think they could get better terms from any other labels, ultimately they are adults who voluntarily accepted those terms, and made a business deal, and the RIAA has done nothing illegal. The copyright statutes allow for the transfer of copyright.
So long as the RIAA-members have legally obtained their copyrights, they are well within their legal rights. If you don't like the way the copyright laws currently exist, then you need to work hard to get them changed. But, it's easier to just violate copyright law than to actually effect change (either by getting a popular movement started to change copyright and convince people that the changes are just and necessary, OR by starting up some competition and letting the Free Market solve the problem - both of which are hard work), so people take the lazy way out. They just make illegal copies, and blame everybody else.
A couple quotes from TFA:
"Although netbooks are small today - maybe 10% of the PC market at most - we believe over the next several years that could completely change around and that could be 90% of the PC market," said East. "We see those products as an area for a lot of innovation and we want that innovation to be happening around the ARM architecture."
I think it's only a matter of time for ARM to gain market share with or without Microsoft.
While you are technically correct that these are two seperate statements, they definitely form a unified logical thesis for the article: the ARM guy is claiming that he thinks netbooks will be 90% of the PC market AND a very large portion of that market will be running ARM CPUs *even without Windows* (although he does concede that having Windows, he thinks, would make that easier/faster).
Don't get me wrong - I'd love to have an ARM-based cheap, small, long-battery life, netbook or laptop, running some flavor of Linux or maybe even one of the BSD spinoffs. But I think claiming 90%, even with Windows on Atom or AMD, seems like complete nonsense. Making the jump to say 90% of PC market as netbooks, large percentage as ARM running Linux, just doesn't sound remotely plausible. But hey, I hope the guy proves me wrong.
Does anyone seriously think that 90% of the PC market will ditch MS Windows, and all the applications it has, in 3 years? I don't have any reason to doubt the Arm-Linux netbook space will grow (although, even that isn't necessarily a given, but it seems reasonable, anyhow), but 90% sounds like a bunch of marketing BS from a guy who can't possibly deliver the goods.
"When I told my 10-year-old daughter that Obama had killed the program that was her best chance to travel to the Moon or Mars, she literally started crying. How am I supposed to keep her interested in math and science in school when the only thing she's ever wanted to do has been taken away from her?"
Wait, so it's Obama's fault that you're a bad parent? First, there is still a NASA and a space program. Second, help the kid find some other interests. We live in a world of almost an infinite number of things to study, to learn, and to do. Help your kid broaden her horizons a little bit.
I never got why they used a tank at all in most of the missions. . . we're talking about a deep future, advanced technological civilization. So. . . why don't I have a flying vehicle instead of some kind of tank? It's a lot faster to fly over stupid mountains than to crawl over them.
Mass Effect, as a franchise, missed a truly awesome opportunity - they could have combined the first-person shooter elements of the game with a sort of flying shoot-em-up for exploring the planets. Why have an entire planet with one dinky little building and a dozen guards? Why not have lots of buildings, encampments, etc on a planet, air defenses, ground-based anti-air defenses.
I suppose what it comes down to is that it would take a lot more time and money to put a lot of stuff on every planet, but it's pretty cheap to just make a 3km X 3km patch of land on a planet, and put one building, one mineral deposit, and one crashed space probe, then give you a tank which moves slowly, so that you spend a lot of time on each planet, even though you are just exploring an area the size of *one small town* in the rural midwest.
. . .Naquadah Generator, and all associated patents, and a sufficient supply of Naquadah to power it for a couple centuries. However much it costs, it will pay for itself. *grin*
It's a little unclear from the site if *everything* from SG1 and SGA are being sold off, or just select props that the writers don't envision ever using again? I wonder what this means for Stargate: Universe? I mean, in theory, they are still in contact with Star Gate Command, and at some point, they may get the Destiny Gate working again to travel back to Earth, so seems like you'd still need the SGC sets available. In any case, there's the Comm Stones, which give us glimpses of Earth again.
SGU hasn't been cancelled (yet) - I saw somewhere that SyFy renewed for a second season. So, I guess that must mean that they aren't selling *everything*?
Yes, I know the IPv6 address space is galactically huge, but what exactly good purpose is served by giving each customer 1.8*10^19 addresses? Seems a bit excessive, doesn't it? Wouldn't most customers be fine with 16 bits of host/subnet (obviously, there might be som), and the rest of them shouldn't conceivably need more than 32 bits of their own address space? (And if someone needs/wants more than 32-bits of addressing assigned to them, then, sure, by all means, give them 48 bits). But why, 'by default', give people so many addresses I don't even know the name of numbers that large? (18 quintillion, I guess?)
Don't get me wrong, it might be very cool to see another design enter the market place (*if* it was superior to the existing alternatives), but I suspect Apple wanted to get a product shipped, and starting from scratch to create a whole new CPU design would have added years and many millions of dollars to the cost of designing the unit, wouldn't it? For what benefit? I suppose with years of R&D, Apple could develop a new architecture that had better performance/power consumption than an ARM, but ARM is really pretty good for performance/power (better than anything x86 based).
It's like, you use x86 if you want to run Windows and/or want the top performance, but don't really care about power consumption/battery life. For any applications where you want a useable level of performance but very lower power consumption, you use ARM. Well, I *suppose* they could have gone back to PowerPC, or maybe MIPS; is MIPS still alive? Seems like MIPS had been trailing ARM in the performance/power consumption curve, but at the *very* low end where you want cheap and lower power, but don't need much performance, MIPS was king?
Might have been interesting to see a PowerPC iPad - use Intel for the high-end Mac workstations and Macbook Pro laptops, and use PowerPC for the iPad, but I think part of the reason to go with ARM for the iPad was to maintain maximum compatibility with the iPhone/iPod Touch.
One interesting possibility, particularly if you think you'll have more than one iPad, iPhone, etc in your household might be to just get a Mifi(Myfi?) type device - you know, one of those Wifi-to-3G gateway devices some of the cell companies are trying to sell. It might not be cheaper for a single iPad (the number I saw listed for the 3G versions of the iPad was +$130 more than the 'base' iPad price). But if you have 2 or 3 of the iPads, Mifi seems like a better way to go?
Yeah, this idea is great. . . until it starts blocking out legitimate emails which really are confirming orders shipped by Amazon or other retailers, newsletters that people really were wanting to get, and other info that 'looks' like spam, but isn't.
This is why, while I use spam filters, I would never rely on them to delete email. All I want filters to do is punt suspect spam off to the Junk folder, where I can review it later, or find the email I was expecting which got mis-classified.