As others noted, you can't always tell by feel alone, and they were flying in a storm at night, visibility sucked. Instruments and feedback on the controls are the best indicators in those conditions, and that plane doesn't give the same level of control feedback as others, so it all comes down to instrumentation.
RTFA, it doesn't take more voltage (absolute), it requires a higher boost above "stock" voltage.
There are several reasons for this: 1. lower thermal conductivity of the packaging. Higher temperatures can increase resistance, and therefore, voltage requirements. 2. 22nm process is brand new. Neither the process nor the CPU die have been optimized yet. Both will mature over the next 12 months. 3. SB is a second generation 32nm design on a fully mature process, it's nearly as good as it will get. 4. At 22nm, there is likely more resistive and capacitive loss in the interconnects. Those losses both increase with voltage & frequency.
Read the Anandtech review, that's total system power consumption. If you compare just the CPU power consumption it's ~33% more power efficient (66W increase from idle to load for Ivy Bridge vs 98W increase for SB). And if you look at the GPU intensive comparisons, IB is ~20% more power efficient, but that's including a ~33% increase in GPU cores and an increase in GPU clock, for an ~40% increase in performance while using 20% less power. For the first generation chips on a brand new production process, those are very good results. I expect to see them improve as their 22nm tri-gate process matures.
I watched the video of that Alpine unit. That any manufacturer would release a device with an interface that slow in 2010 is insane. That it's cumbersome as well is typical, but that doesn't make it any more excusable. And I'm not bashing Alpine, all of my aftermarket car stereos have been Alpine. That's simply a product that needs to go back for a major rework of it's entire UI.
You're conflating customer retention (repeat business) with customer base growth. 50% new customers is from expanding their customer base, which directly contradicts the OP claim about it being attributable to "blind loyalty".
The other 50% are by definition repeat customers. Apple has had the highest customer satisfaction and highest customer retention rates in the business every year for ~20 years. When you combine that with a growing customer base over a long time, it can't be attributed to "blind loyalty and marketing".
Effective marketing is clearly part of it. But what keeps people coming back is that the like the products and service better than the competition's products and services. That's not "blind loyalty" and it's not "marketing".
Ah, yes. Blind loyalty and marketing. This explains why approaching 50% of their customers have never owned an Apple product before. Why they have the largest digital music download store, the best selling digital music player, the best selling cell phone, the highest customer satisfaction rating, and the best profit margins in the industry.
It's not about the radiation. It's about unnecessary radiation. The TSA x-ray scanners are completely ineffective. They're trivially easy to defeat, and that's if the operator is actually paying attention. If the operator isn't paying attention, then they're simply dangerous. They're operated by people who aren't trained in radiation safety, are prohibited from wearing a dosimeter, and they're tested and calibrated by TSA, who has been found to have miscalibrated a number of machines. And, your 60x/360x figures are way off, by about a factor of 10, try 2x-5x for a 2-3 hr flight IF the machines are properly calibrated.
TSA and GAO estimates 3-10 additional cancer deaths per year in the US due to the use of the scanners.
And fewer people flying will not reduce your airfare, planes are not at capacity, so it will increase fares and/or decrease frequency of service.
Also, "DON'T FLY" is a cop opt. 49 USC 40103(a)(2) states:
(2) A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace. To further that right, the Secretary of Transportation shall consult with the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board established under section 502 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 792) before prescribing a regulation or issuing an order or procedure that will have a significant impact on the accessibility of commercial airports or commercial air transportation for handicapped individuals.
So, people have a right to travel by air, and they have the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution states:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
In the US, we have rights, and some of use demand that those rights not be infringed. You're welcome to give up your rights, but you can not give away mine. So, you can take you attitude to another country and be groped all you want.
While the way it's written does leave it room for misinterpretation, your edit of it excludes the obvious predicate for "isn't necessary... anymore", thus, your rant is actually based upon you reading the statement incorrectly. Had "...that allowed an attacker to drastically reduce the number of attempts needed to guess the WPS PIN of a wireless router..." been separated with commas, clearly identifying it as a prepositional clause, then your interpretation and rant would be valid. However, it wasn't, and it's clear from context that "isn't necessary... anymore" refers to the clause about exploiting the flaw.
I understand you complaint about lack of editing. But your rant is about your misinterpretation.
In theory, yes, it should have gone through more extensive testing. But business timelines don't always allow that.
I cultivated a great relationship with our QA dept. While I had the ability and authority to bypass QA and put something in production, I only did that in one or two emergencies over 16 years. The rest of the time, I made sure my code went through QA, even if it was an abbreviated test, and I (almost) always gave them a list of things I thought they should test, to which they would add their own tests. And I never gave them a hard time or had a bad attitude about them finding bugs or suggesting improvements to the work flow, UI, wording, etc. I gave them code with few bugs, they gave me valuable feedback and kept most of my bugs from reaching production.
JMHO, but that's how development & QA should work.
Not exactly. The bug was on their end, I just added a feature that avoided their bug, and it was a feature that lots of others found reduced confusion so everyone wanted it.
Traditionally, small bodies orbiting the Sun were classified as asteroids, comets or meteoroids, with anything smaller than ten metres across being called a meteoroid. The term "asteroid" is ill-defined.
A meteor is the visible path of a meteoroid that has entered the Earth's atmosphere.
1. Bugs are getting harder to find, especially ones that can be exploited 2. Criminals are paying good money for quality exploits. 3. It's cheaper than hiring more people to do it.
I'm quite sure I could make it fit. I've written firmware for numerous machines, hand coded lots of such routine, patched in code where I could find or make space. And, for compatibility reasons, couldn't just change entry point addresses, so I had to use whatever space I could find, or make (by writing other routines to be more compact).
No, it establishes that my knowledge comes from experience, and that I cite wikipedia as backing, just like I stated. I made no claims about my expertise or authority, only that my knowledge comes from experience, not from Wikipedia as you asserted. If I wanted to set myself up as the authority, I would have referred you to my credentials.
It offers a significant power reduction (~22%), plus a slight boost in IPC, same clock rates, and a notable boost in IGP performance (~30%). For instance, i7 3770K (77W TDP, and HD 4000) vs i7 2700K (95W TDP and HD 3000). Both are quad core, 8 thread, 3.5GHz with max turbo of 3.9GHz, and 8MB L3 cache. On the mobile CPU side, a new i7 3612QM, 35W quad core, 8 thread, 6MB L3 cache, and HD 4000 graphics, compared to at least 45W TDP on all prior quad core mobile i7 CPUs (with slower IGP).
Slashdot Mirror
As others noted, you can't always tell by feel alone, and they were flying in a storm at night, visibility sucked. Instruments and feedback on the controls are the best indicators in those conditions, and that plane doesn't give the same level of control feedback as others, so it all comes down to instrumentation.
RTFA, it doesn't take more voltage (absolute), it requires a higher boost above "stock" voltage.
There are several reasons for this:
1. lower thermal conductivity of the packaging. Higher temperatures can increase resistance, and therefore, voltage requirements.
2. 22nm process is brand new. Neither the process nor the CPU die have been optimized yet. Both will mature over the next 12 months.
3. SB is a second generation 32nm design on a fully mature process, it's nearly as good as it will get.
4. At 22nm, there is likely more resistive and capacitive loss in the interconnects. Those losses both increase with voltage & frequency.
Clearly, you failed to read. The measurements are in mm^2, meaning they're area measurements, not linear. The GP is correct.
Read the Anandtech review, that's total system power consumption. If you compare just the CPU power consumption it's ~33% more power efficient (66W increase from idle to load for Ivy Bridge vs 98W increase for SB). And if you look at the GPU intensive comparisons, IB is ~20% more power efficient, but that's including a ~33% increase in GPU cores and an increase in GPU clock, for an ~40% increase in performance while using 20% less power. For the first generation chips on a brand new production process, those are very good results. I expect to see them improve as their 22nm tri-gate process matures.
I watched the video of that Alpine unit. That any manufacturer would release a device with an interface that slow in 2010 is insane. That it's cumbersome as well is typical, but that doesn't make it any more excusable. And I'm not bashing Alpine, all of my aftermarket car stereos have been Alpine. That's simply a product that needs to go back for a major rework of it's entire UI.
You're conflating customer retention (repeat business) with customer base growth. 50% new customers is from expanding their customer base, which directly contradicts the OP claim about it being attributable to "blind loyalty".
The other 50% are by definition repeat customers. Apple has had the highest customer satisfaction and highest customer retention rates in the business every year for ~20 years. When you combine that with a growing customer base over a long time, it can't be attributed to "blind loyalty and marketing".
Effective marketing is clearly part of it. But what keeps people coming back is that the like the products and service better than the competition's products and services. That's not "blind loyalty" and it's not "marketing".
Ah, yes. Blind loyalty and marketing. This explains why approaching 50% of their customers have never owned an Apple product before. Why they have the largest digital music download store, the best selling digital music player, the best selling cell phone, the highest customer satisfaction rating, and the best profit margins in the industry.
Whatever kool-aid you're drinking is working.
It's not about the radiation. It's about unnecessary radiation. The TSA x-ray scanners are completely ineffective. They're trivially easy to defeat, and that's if the operator is actually paying attention. If the operator isn't paying attention, then they're simply dangerous. They're operated by people who aren't trained in radiation safety, are prohibited from wearing a dosimeter, and they're tested and calibrated by TSA, who has been found to have miscalibrated a number of machines. And, your 60x/360x figures are way off, by about a factor of 10, try 2x-5x for a 2-3 hr flight IF the machines are properly calibrated.
TSA and GAO estimates 3-10 additional cancer deaths per year in the US due to the use of the scanners.
And fewer people flying will not reduce your airfare, planes are not at capacity, so it will increase fares and/or decrease frequency of service.
Also, "DON'T FLY" is a cop opt. 49 USC 40103(a)(2) states:
(2) A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace. To further that right, the Secretary of Transportation shall consult with the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board established under section 502 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 792) before prescribing a regulation or issuing an order or procedure that will have a significant impact on the accessibility of commercial airports or commercial air transportation for handicapped individuals.
So, people have a right to travel by air, and they have the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution states:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
In the US, we have rights, and some of use demand that those rights not be infringed. You're welcome to give up your rights, but you can not give away mine. So, you can take you attitude to another country and be groped all you want.
While the way it's written does leave it room for misinterpretation, your edit of it excludes the obvious predicate for "isn't necessary ... anymore", thus, your rant is actually based upon you reading the statement incorrectly. Had "...that allowed an attacker to drastically reduce the number of attempts needed to guess the WPS PIN of a wireless router..." been separated with commas, clearly identifying it as a prepositional clause, then your interpretation and rant would be valid. However, it wasn't, and it's clear from context that "isn't necessary... anymore" refers to the clause about exploiting the flaw.
I understand you complaint about lack of editing. But your rant is about your misinterpretation.
Solution: don't connect your TV to the Internet.
From TFA:
To exploit Auriemma’s vulnerabilities requires only that the devices are connected to a wi-fi network.
Solution, hard wire and use a firewall. Update the firmware when Samsung fixes it.
In theory, yes, it should have gone through more extensive testing. But business timelines don't always allow that.
I cultivated a great relationship with our QA dept. While I had the ability and authority to bypass QA and put something in production, I only did that in one or two emergencies over 16 years. The rest of the time, I made sure my code went through QA, even if it was an abbreviated test, and I (almost) always gave them a list of things I thought they should test, to which they would add their own tests. And I never gave them a hard time or had a bad attitude about them finding bugs or suggesting improvements to the work flow, UI, wording, etc. I gave them code with few bugs, they gave me valuable feedback and kept most of my bugs from reaching production.
JMHO, but that's how development & QA should work.
Not exactly. The bug was on their end, I just added a feature that avoided their bug, and it was a feature that lots of others found reduced confusion so everyone wanted it.
Dave? Is that you?
What about last minute code tweaks that save a ~$1M account, and work so well that within 3mos are rolled out to 90% of customers?
I agree with you, but never is a strong word.
"Space Terrorists"
Small asteroid, specifically a meteoroid. Big meteor.
Traditionally, small bodies orbiting the Sun were classified as asteroids, comets or meteoroids, with anything smaller than ten metres across being called a meteoroid. The term "asteroid" is ill-defined.
A meteor is the visible path of a meteoroid that has entered the Earth's atmosphere.
Hey, ICANN, squat on this!
1. Bugs are getting harder to find, especially ones that can be exploited
2. Criminals are paying good money for quality exploits.
3. It's cheaper than hiring more people to do it.
People don't need an excuse to gripe, just an opportunity.
I've found it's generally closer to 80% below mean productivity.
But it's only the 10% that are way below the mode that you really need to get rid of.
Base13: "What do you get if you multiply six by nine?" "Six by nine. Forty two." "That's it. That's all there is."
No. 42base13 = 54base10. which also happens to be 6*9. 54base13 = 69base10.
Clearly you're missing out if you think 42 is all there is.
I'm quite sure I could make it fit. I've written firmware for numerous machines, hand coded lots of such routine, patched in code where I could find or make space. And, for compatibility reasons, couldn't just change entry point addresses, so I had to use whatever space I could find, or make (by writing other routines to be more compact).
I hope you understand now.
No, it establishes that my knowledge comes from experience, and that I cite wikipedia as backing, just like I stated. I made no claims about my expertise or authority, only that my knowledge comes from experience, not from Wikipedia as you asserted. If I wanted to set myself up as the authority, I would have referred you to my credentials.
It offers a significant power reduction (~22%), plus a slight boost in IPC, same clock rates, and a notable boost in IGP performance (~30%). For instance, i7 3770K (77W TDP, and HD 4000) vs i7 2700K (95W TDP and HD 3000). Both are quad core, 8 thread, 3.5GHz with max turbo of 3.9GHz, and 8MB L3 cache. On the mobile CPU side, a new i7 3612QM, 35W quad core, 8 thread, 6MB L3 cache, and HD 4000 graphics, compared to at least 45W TDP on all prior quad core mobile i7 CPUs (with slower IGP).