Having to slide 4 very heavy folded containers onto those bars seems like it might be difficult. It seems like it would get a lot worse after the container has made several trips across the ocean in the salt air.
Also, the folding process seems like a drag, although high volume sites would probably have a specialized rig just to fold them and unfold them if these becomes accepted.
It's too bad shipping containers are higher than they are wide, because it would seem like flattening 5 and turning them on their side and stacking them up would be more straightforward than this rod stuff.
What happens if you only have 3 or 4, can you still fold them, or only in 5s?
If you license a core from ARM you can put it down on a chip, then put down your other logic (north/south bridge, interface logic like USB) on the same chip. Then you can end up with your entire system on a chip.
With Intel you have to buy a CPU, buy a north/southbridge. If you want custom interfaces beyond that, that's more chips too.
So the net effect is that the Intel-based system uses more chips and that means it costs more, uses more power and is larger. Using more power means you need to put in a larger power supply, that costs more. If it's battery-powered, that means it needs a larger battery, that costs more. Larger in and of itself makes something more expensive to make as it requires more materials. And then it being larger means it costs more to ship from where it is made to the customer. And then finally every increase in costs also means more increase in on-the-shelf price because you not only have to cover the higher costs, but the OEM and retail margins on the costs.
The next effect is that ARM devices will be cheaper to buy and to run. And in the case of portable devices, more sleek too.
This may not matter to some customers but to other customers lower costs means a lot.
Performance is an issue. We have ARMs already in the pipe (dual-core ARM A15) which have sufficient power for most uses and ARM will certainly have even faster cores later.
I see a strong future for ARM in laptops and in home computers. No, not in tower computers but those make up a shrinking part of the market already.
Finally, as others have said, be careful about agreeing with Steve Jobs. He's a consummate liar. Just because he says he doesn't like touch for the desktop doesn't necessarily mean much. It means Apple doesn't deliver touch on the desktop today, but it doesn't necessarily mean anything more. Apple could flip on this at any time like on the video iPod.
California has high electrical costs because it uses low-carbon sources (natural gas) that cost more than coal. Additionally, the prices for electricity were locked in at a time when Enron and other companies were artificially manipulating the price of it. Far from there being no protection, these manipulations were neither legal nor moral.
The electric company that maintains the infrastructure (PG&E for most of California) doesn't generate or sell electricity, so they don't get to decide the cost of it.
They were replaced by the companies who own the rights making remakes and such as downloadable games on consoles and PC.
Simply put, these companies see how Nintendo (and Namco) can sell you the same game 3 times, just by repackaging it over and over and with the reduced overhead of online distribution compared to replication and boxes in stores these companies now want to get in the act.
Yeah, some stuff is just abandoned, like Hangly-Man, but the games you've heard of and want just won't be available for sale in the form you want.
First, iTunes cards have the number hidden on the cards in the store, you have to scratch off a coating.
Second, with an iTunes card, you transfer the card balance into your account all at once, after that the card is completely useless. So if you can complete the transfer, the card was valid and not compromised and after you transfer the card, it doesn't matter if it was compromised, because the value is gone from the card and is in your account now. You cannot use the card to spend the value on apps, you have to have access to the account you transferred the credit into.
What people are complaining about here is that they have a credit on their account (perhaps from one of these cards) and it is being spent out of their account. This can't be done with any kind of compromise of the gift cards themselves.
These people's accounts have been compromised. It's unclear how that happened.
First step thus is to ensure you know you want to trust them.
A great way to do that would be to verify the fingerprint of the cert with someone you trust. You can do this over the phone if you'd like (and trust the phone).
And then once you mark to trust that one, your browser will only trust that one, not derived certs, not bogus certs that match the same site name but are from other CAs.
Then you talk to a bank agent over they phone and they read you the fingerprint of the self-signed cert. You verify it and if you believe this person works for the bank, you're done.
The problems with the system have been not within PKI, but the verification of trustworthiness. As a part of fixing this, each of us may have to work a little bit harder in order to establish that we trust a certificate. In fact many would say it is the unwillingness to make this effort that led us to this mess.
This is capitalism. Digitnotar screws up so they won't be able to charge money anymore.
What you've described is exactly what we have right now except for the pubkeys in DNS part.
A domain owner does establish their own keys, you generate a key pair and send it to the registrar to be signed.
The problem right now isn't lack of capitalism. It isn't that you can't establish your own key.
The problem is that there 150 registrars you might trust to certify a site. One of them is valid and the other 149 are just opportunities to get fooled by bogus certs. And the system doesn't even try to make it easier to figure out which is which.
Apple's unyielding patent attack has to come to trouble for them eventually. It's bad enough MS wants $15 from every Android phone, but Apple just plain is trying to bar companies from competing.
The industry will eventually respond with the only tool they have, more patent garbage.
Perhaps this is the start of that.
It's going to take a long time before Apple realizes they can't win this legal battle and they should have just kept competing in the marketplace instead. They're pretty good at that, I'm not sure why they want to try to turn the business into a web of red tape for everyone instead of just pushing forward.
SpaceX gets $1.6B of government money (aka cash from the pockets of the masses) and you hold them forward as a model of how to do things without taking money from our pockets?
This doesn't make any sense.
The 787 was finished (approved for sale) today. 3 years late, but better late than never I guess. "Literally to save their lives" is some kind of crazy hyperbole I can't understand.
It's kinda funny you hold SpaceX forth as amazing when what they've done is deliver a private rocket program 10 years after your whipping boy Boeing (with Sea Launch) and Tesla has delivered an electric car 10 years after another of your whipping boys, GM did. Oh yeah, and Tesla also took $465M in government money "from the pockets of the masses" to make the Model S. And that doesn't even count the handouts California gave them in their sweetheart deal for NUMMI.
Then yes, Toyota would have a case. The relative size doesn't matter really. If it's similar, it's similar.
If the pics were shown to make a point of the interior space, then it would be misleading. If it were to show similarity of design, it wouldn't be misleading.
In this case, the pics were to show similarity of design, not size.
They were two separate pictures (the other site photoshopped them together and indicates they did so).
If I go to a site showing automobiles, is the picture of the Fiat 500 barely visible because a picture of a Toyota Sequoia is on the same page and they have to be to scale?
Come on, stop reaching here.
The pictures were to show the devices are substantially similar, not to show scale.
FPGAs are very transistor-inefficient and thus are very expensive and power hungry. To give you an example, programming an ARM Cortex A8 into an FPGA requires a multi-thousand dollar FPGA and takes double or triple digits of Watts of power. While a regular ASIC one costs less than $20 and takes a Watt or so. Also the FPGA one runs at perhaps 50MHz and the ASIC one runs at 1GHz.
Intel's reason for the FPGA is because they don't license their IP, the only way to integrate your logic with theirs without multiple chips is to use this. But that's a weak solution. With ARM you can license their IP and integrate it yourself in an ASIC, you'd be a fool to use an FPGA in a large-scale deployment, you're just throwing money away. In short-run deployments FPGAs make a ton of sense.
Use of FPGAs with DSPs is more common, programmable analog/digital logic can be very useful, like Cypress' PSOC (8051 based though, not ARM). I believe most cable/DSL modems use DSPs.
Even though when asked, the owner of the bar said he had received two calls a day from the guy who lost it and none from the gizmodo people.
There's a simple explanation for both of these seeming inconsistencies.
The gizmodo editors are liars. They bought stolen property with no intention of returning it and then when the realized they could actually be convicted of a crime they just tried to lie their way out of it.
Common criminals. Not worth your attention and not worth the "but we're journalists" crap.
Even though this failure doesn't appear to have anything to do with the previous concerns about cost-cutting on track construction, it does show a huge screw-up that may be attributable to improper safety standards or not following them.
Slashdot Mirror
Having to slide 4 very heavy folded containers onto those bars seems like it might be difficult. It seems like it would get a lot worse after the container has made several trips across the ocean in the salt air.
Also, the folding process seems like a drag, although high volume sites would probably have a specialized rig just to fold them and unfold them if these becomes accepted.
It's too bad shipping containers are higher than they are wide, because it would seem like flattening 5 and turning them on their side and stacking them up would be more straightforward than this rod stuff.
What happens if you only have 3 or 4, can you still fold them, or only in 5s?
ARM licenses IP. Intel sells chips.
If you license a core from ARM you can put it down on a chip, then put down your other logic (north/south bridge, interface logic like USB) on the same chip. Then you can end up with your entire system on a chip.
With Intel you have to buy a CPU, buy a north/southbridge. If you want custom interfaces beyond that, that's more chips too.
So the net effect is that the Intel-based system uses more chips and that means it costs more, uses more power and is larger. Using more power means you need to put in a larger power supply, that costs more. If it's battery-powered, that means it needs a larger battery, that costs more. Larger in and of itself makes something more expensive to make as it requires more materials. And then it being larger means it costs more to ship from where it is made to the customer. And then finally every increase in costs also means more increase in on-the-shelf price because you not only have to cover the higher costs, but the OEM and retail margins on the costs.
The next effect is that ARM devices will be cheaper to buy and to run. And in the case of portable devices, more sleek too.
This may not matter to some customers but to other customers lower costs means a lot.
Performance is an issue. We have ARMs already in the pipe (dual-core ARM A15) which have sufficient power for most uses and ARM will certainly have even faster cores later.
I see a strong future for ARM in laptops and in home computers. No, not in tower computers but those make up a shrinking part of the market already.
Finally, as others have said, be careful about agreeing with Steve Jobs. He's a consummate liar. Just because he says he doesn't like touch for the desktop doesn't necessarily mean much. It means Apple doesn't deliver touch on the desktop today, but it doesn't necessarily mean anything more. Apple could flip on this at any time like on the video iPod.
Decoding h.264 streams is free as long as the content in the stream is free. So you can stream and decide content without paying.
There still is a significant license fee for encoding.
In the Western world? Get serious.
California has high electrical costs because it uses low-carbon sources (natural gas) that cost more than coal. Additionally, the prices for electricity were locked in at a time when Enron and other companies were artificially manipulating the price of it. Far from there being no protection, these manipulations were neither legal nor moral.
The electric company that maintains the infrastructure (PG&E for most of California) doesn't generate or sell electricity, so they don't get to decide the cost of it.
They were replaced by the companies who own the rights making remakes and such as downloadable games on consoles and PC.
Simply put, these companies see how Nintendo (and Namco) can sell you the same game 3 times, just by repackaging it over and over and with the reduced overhead of online distribution compared to replication and boxes in stores these companies now want to get in the act.
Yeah, some stuff is just abandoned, like Hangly-Man, but the games you've heard of and want just won't be available for sale in the form you want.
I agree it does suck.
EOM
First, iTunes cards have the number hidden on the cards in the store, you have to scratch off a coating.
Second, with an iTunes card, you transfer the card balance into your account all at once, after that the card is completely useless. So if you can complete the transfer, the card was valid and not compromised and after you transfer the card, it doesn't matter if it was compromised, because the value is gone from the card and is in your account now. You cannot use the card to spend the value on apps, you have to have access to the account you transferred the credit into.
What people are complaining about here is that they have a credit on their account (perhaps from one of these cards) and it is being spent out of their account. This can't be done with any kind of compromise of the gift cards themselves.
These people's accounts have been compromised. It's unclear how that happened.
They captured 20GB of email.
They didn't really steal it, people addressed the email to them, they just did it errantly.
First step thus is to ensure you know you want to trust them.
A great way to do that would be to verify the fingerprint of the cert with someone you trust. You can do this over the phone if you'd like (and trust the phone).
And then once you mark to trust that one, your browser will only trust that one, not derived certs, not bogus certs that match the same site name but are from other CAs.
Then you talk to a bank agent over they phone and they read you the fingerprint of the self-signed cert. You verify it and if you believe this person works for the bank, you're done.
The problems with the system have been not within PKI, but the verification of trustworthiness. As a part of fixing this, each of us may have to work a little bit harder in order to establish that we trust a certificate. In fact many would say it is the unwillingness to make this effort that led us to this mess.
This is capitalism. Digitnotar screws up so they won't be able to charge money anymore.
What you've described is exactly what we have right now except for the pubkeys in DNS part.
A domain owner does establish their own keys, you generate a key pair and send it to the registrar to be signed.
The problem right now isn't lack of capitalism. It isn't that you can't establish your own key.
The problem is that there 150 registrars you might trust to certify a site. One of them is valid and the other 149 are just opportunities to get fooled by bogus certs. And the system doesn't even try to make it easier to figure out which is which.
At least you know how many and which certs were issued from an authority that you run yourself.
The chain of trust is only as strong as the weakest link in the chain.
Not everyone in these documents was involved in covert operations.
I personally know a person who was mentioned in these documents. He can't be the only one who was innocently roped into this.
Apple's unyielding patent attack has to come to trouble for them eventually. It's bad enough MS wants $15 from every Android phone, but Apple just plain is trying to bar companies from competing.
The industry will eventually respond with the only tool they have, more patent garbage.
Perhaps this is the start of that.
It's going to take a long time before Apple realizes they can't win this legal battle and they should have just kept competing in the marketplace instead. They're pretty good at that, I'm not sure why they want to try to turn the business into a web of red tape for everyone instead of just pushing forward.
SpaceX gets $1.6B of government money (aka cash from the pockets of the masses) and you hold them forward as a model of how to do things without taking money from our pockets?
This doesn't make any sense.
The 787 was finished (approved for sale) today. 3 years late, but better late than never I guess. "Literally to save their lives" is some kind of crazy hyperbole I can't understand.
It's kinda funny you hold SpaceX forth as amazing when what they've done is deliver a private rocket program 10 years after your whipping boy Boeing (with Sea Launch) and Tesla has delivered an electric car 10 years after another of your whipping boys, GM did. Oh yeah, and Tesla also took $465M in government money "from the pockets of the masses" to make the Model S. And that doesn't even count the handouts California gave them in their sweetheart deal for NUMMI.
If it looks similar in ornamentation and provides the same functionality, it is in conflict.
It'd be difficult to argue the devices don't provide the same functionality based upon a 10% size difference.
Then yes, Toyota would have a case. The relative size doesn't matter really. If it's similar, it's similar.
If the pics were shown to make a point of the interior space, then it would be misleading. If it were to show similarity of design, it wouldn't be misleading.
In this case, the pics were to show similarity of design, not size.
This article is about the resized (keeping aspect ratio correct) Galaxy S versus iPhone.
And yes, the icons in the Galaxy Tab pic were squashed. Look at the clock icon in the Galaxy Tab picture. It's supposed to be circular, it is not.
They were two separate pictures (the other site photoshopped them together and indicates they did so).
If I go to a site showing automobiles, is the picture of the Fiat 500 barely visible because a picture of a Toyota Sequoia is on the same page and they have to be to scale?
Come on, stop reaching here.
The pictures were to show the devices are substantially similar, not to show scale.
FPGAs are too expensive and take too much power.
FPGAs are very transistor-inefficient and thus are very expensive and power hungry. To give you an example, programming an ARM Cortex A8 into an FPGA requires a multi-thousand dollar FPGA and takes double or triple digits of Watts of power. While a regular ASIC one costs less than $20 and takes a Watt or so. Also the FPGA one runs at perhaps 50MHz and the ASIC one runs at 1GHz.
Intel's reason for the FPGA is because they don't license their IP, the only way to integrate your logic with theirs without multiple chips is to use this. But that's a weak solution. With ARM you can license their IP and integrate it yourself in an ASIC, you'd be a fool to use an FPGA in a large-scale deployment, you're just throwing money away. In short-run deployments FPGAs make a ton of sense.
Use of FPGAs with DSPs is more common, programmable analog/digital logic can be very useful, like Cypress' PSOC (8051 based though, not ARM). I believe most cable/DSL modems use DSPs.
Even though when asked, the owner of the bar said he had received two calls a day from the guy who lost it and none from the gizmodo people.
There's a simple explanation for both of these seeming inconsistencies.
The gizmodo editors are liars. They bought stolen property with no intention of returning it and then when the realized they could actually be convicted of a crime they just tried to lie their way out of it.
Common criminals. Not worth your attention and not worth the "but we're journalists" crap.
Why do I need the webcam again?
Yes, I'm aware of the link to the first 5 digits. That's how they make up their SSN that matched 5 digits.
It's the last 4 that is the trick and they didn't move the needle on this.
You're far more likely to have your SSN taken in a hacking right now than by this webcam anyway.
Which makes sense, since you couldn't more than guess at the last 4 no matter how much info you have.
Is it really an issue that people can use a webcam to make up a number which shares 5 digits with my SSN?
It's called a crystal radio.
A diode does it too.
Even if a train stops on the tracks.
At least they are supposed to.
Even though this failure doesn't appear to have anything to do with the previous concerns about cost-cutting on track construction, it does show a huge screw-up that may be attributable to improper safety standards or not following them.