He's not saying that new things are bad, he's saying that new things that have no benefit over the old things are pointless. In fact, he's not even saying that, he's asking what would make this new OS better than existing offerings, enough to make dealing with a new app ecosystem worth bothering with. He's asking a question, not making a statement.
I'm inclined to agree - what's so special about Tizen? Educate on why it'd be worth getting a Tizen phone over Android, Bada, Windows Phone or iOS.
Remember that 5Ghz has a much shorter range than 2.4Ghz so the problems with traffic congestion won't be as bad. If all of your neighbours switched to 5Ghz, you'd still see a noticeable real-world improvement over 2.4Ghz.
To be fair, the error code in question was a completely stupid error code to use in that situation, which is probably why PulseAudio didn't anticipate it.
It's made of components that are assembled at the nanotech level, so why isn't it? (asking the question genuinely as I suspect there's some definition for nanotechnology that we obviously don't know).
What's "best" depends on what your needs are and where you are. For many people, their ISP's DNS should be faster than a 3rd party, but that depends on their ISP being somewhat competent and not dicks who will redirect you whenever they can.
Google's DNS is a solid one, it's generally got a fairly low ping and, surprisingly, they don't filter anyhting or inject ads (they may be tracking your every site request though, so it depends on how you feel about them. Easiest to remember, though: 8.8.8.8
My personal favourite is OpenDNS - fast, they refuse to filter sites if governments request it (such as thepiratebay) and I've yet to have them ever go down. Easy enough to remember - 208.67.222.222 (or 208.67.220.220). They also have a dashboard you can use to filter out sites and such, or adjust their anti-malware protection.
I actually use a combination of the above, primary being OpenDNS, Google as a secondary and my own ISP's as a tertiary backup. Haven't had DNS issues in years.
In my 15 years of building and using computers, unquestionably the component I've seen die the most is the PSU. I've had dodgy RAM (thankfully diagnosed on delivery thanks to memtest), hard drive failures, DVD/CD drives crap out - basically anything with moving parts, but the number 1 thing to die has been the PSU, even despite using surge protectors. This is the real reason to go for a "premium" brand PSU and not just the cheapest you can get, because it'll last longer and these days they tend to come with decent warranties (3 and 5 years are common).
Actually no, I did not realise that. My own user ID is a good reflection upon when I joined Slashdot. Was there some sort of botting incident or something that happened before then?
You've got a (fairly-low) 6-digit user ID, yet you're trolling like a common AC. You seem to have some sort of vendetta against Google. Maybe you should just...drop whatever silly little issue it is that you have with them and just get on with life?
Sadly this is more true than I'd like to admit. Still, I stand by that this is an experiment for Google in every sense of the word. Now that Cox has lost, they're pretty much down to two choices: Compete with better products by investing, or lose customers left, right and centre. Even the biggest of Apple Fanboys would happily have Google as their ISP if it means getting 50x faster speeds and no throttling. Lesser of two evils and whatnot.
I initially thought this as well, that would sort of explain the $140bn remark but it doesn't explain why the 25% of Google's $4.5Bn expendature would only hit 0.83million households - you'd think Google would prioritise high-density areas first, just like Verizon did.
I think Google are treating this as an experiment, but not just in terms of laying Fibre and running a service, but in seeing how the other ISPs react. I think all Google really wants is for Verizon/comcast/AT&T/etc. to pull the finger out and start upgrading their own infrastructure. A bit of competition never hurt.
Failing that, I'm pretty sure Google will continue rolling out until they either become the de-facto ISP of the USA, or competition means everyone else tries to take them on.
Google has $45 billion, not $4.5 billion, in cash and short-term investments.
I'm not sure if you didn't read my comment or didn't read the summary, but let me help you with that:
if Google devoted 25% of its $4.5bn annual capex to this project, it could equip 830K homes per year
I wasn't debating Google's total net worth, I was pointing out that they're claiming Verizon can spend less money to equip the same number of homes. I wasn't debating if Google did or didn't have the capacity to pull it off, rather I was saying that it wouldn't cost $140bn as GS claims.
This is the part that I'm pretty sure Goldman Sachs hasn't accounted for. That whole "could cost up to $140Bn" thing sounds very inflated.
Look at it this way. According to them, if Google spends 1/4 of its $4.5Bn it could equip 0.83million homes. That's $1.125Bn for 0.83million homes. On the other hand, Verizon has spent $15bn and equipped 17million homes. For google to pass 17million homes, using the above calculations, it would cost them $25bn. Those numbers don't make a lot of sense to me.
Now factor in the above - that cities are clamouring for Google to come there and are willing to give them as much help, tax breaks and discounts as possible to encourage it and that $140Bn could potentially halve, or at the very least drop by 1/3. Still expensive for Google to network the entire country, but they only have to hit a small portion of it before the other cable companies feel the pressure and start rolling out their own fibre.
...I had to read that about 3 times to figure out where my quote ended and your reply began.
Still, I maintain my point that it's a bit unreasonable to think that Samsung should have looked into Seagate's past dealings at all, let alone those from 20 years ago. I do however agree that Apple have even less reason to look into them but I do think it's a valid point that it's rich for Apple to say that Samsung should have known when Apple themselves didn't. Apple's making out like it was some sort of obvious thing but really it's ancient history.
I think you're misunderstanding my words (I would say twisting them but in the interests of being amicable on the internet I'll assume you don't have any ill intention). I'm not saying that the business relationship between Seagate and Samsung is tenuous at all, I never said any such thing. What I did say was that the records" you're speaking of could just as equally apply to the law firm that represented Seagate at the time and not necessarily Seagate's own records. What I'm then saying is that the records date back 20 years. Just how far back should someone look within a company for this sort of thing? What's more, just how far back should one look into other companies that weren't even part of Samsung at the time? Samsung has some big investments into Seagate but aside from Hogan Seagate has nothing to do with this court case, so why would people look into litigation into Seagate from 20 years ago? I think saying that Samsung should have checked this stuff is asking a bit much.
I don't think laptops are a fair comparison to an SoC. While the components may be generally soldered to the motherboard, they're still based off of discrete components supplied by other parties. The same motherboard can accompany several different CPUs and even different GPUs. They still use the same boot code as their desktop counterparts and things like that.
Still what you're saying is true, RT has to be flexible enough to allow for other components and drivers. I believe Microsoft mandates that this all has to be done via Windows update, though, for whatever that's worth.
Seagate's records from 20 years ago? Never mind that there's a difference between Seagate's records and the records of the law firm that represented them, you're assuming that they still even have those records and that the records are filed in some easily searchable way. 1993? Were they even electronic, then? There's a lot of unknowns and it's incredibly unrealistic to expect anyone to look through 20 years of records, legal ones at that. However the key thing to remember is that Hogan deliberately misled. He was asked, repeatedly, if he had any prior legal involvement with any of the participating companies and he didn't raise his hand. Had he done that and explained his position, he would have been tossed out of the Jury. This is why it's a filing of juror misconduct.
Apparently I need to qualify my statement further: Windows RT is generally built on some sort of a SoC rather than assembling together components in the traditional sense (CPU, Motherboard, RAM, etc.). Different ARM SoC's tend to use customised code left, right and centre which includes the boot code so it's expected that it'll be as locked down as the likes of smartphones, routers, set top boxes, etc. At least with traditional x86 PC's, they'll (hopefully) still be made up of off-the-shelf components from people like Gigabyte, Asus, et all.
Slashdot Mirror
He's not saying that new things are bad, he's saying that new things that have no benefit over the old things are pointless. In fact, he's not even saying that, he's asking what would make this new OS better than existing offerings, enough to make dealing with a new app ecosystem worth bothering with. He's asking a question, not making a statement.
I'm inclined to agree - what's so special about Tizen? Educate on why it'd be worth getting a Tizen phone over Android, Bada, Windows Phone or iOS.
Remember that 5Ghz has a much shorter range than 2.4Ghz so the problems with traffic congestion won't be as bad. If all of your neighbours switched to 5Ghz, you'd still see a noticeable real-world improvement over 2.4Ghz.
I completely agree with you here, there is absolutely no justification for Linus'attitude.
To be fair, the error code in question was a completely stupid error code to use in that situation, which is probably why PulseAudio didn't anticipate it.
Disclosure: IANAKD (I Am Not A Kernel Developer).
It's made of components that are assembled at the nanotech level, so why isn't it? (asking the question genuinely as I suspect there's some definition for nanotechnology that we obviously don't know).
I had not heard of this happening before, do you have a link with more information or anything? That does sound particularly dodgy.
Having worked for an ISP not that long ago, I can confirm that a LOT of people still use this.
What's "best" depends on what your needs are and where you are. For many people, their ISP's DNS should be faster than a 3rd party, but that depends on their ISP being somewhat competent and not dicks who will redirect you whenever they can.
Google's DNS is a solid one, it's generally got a fairly low ping and, surprisingly, they don't filter anyhting or inject ads (they may be tracking your every site request though, so it depends on how you feel about them. Easiest to remember, though: 8.8.8.8
My personal favourite is OpenDNS - fast, they refuse to filter sites if governments request it (such as thepiratebay) and I've yet to have them ever go down. Easy enough to remember - 208.67.222.222 (or 208.67.220.220). They also have a dashboard you can use to filter out sites and such, or adjust their anti-malware protection.
I actually use a combination of the above, primary being OpenDNS, Google as a secondary and my own ISP's as a tertiary backup. Haven't had DNS issues in years.
In my 15 years of building and using computers, unquestionably the component I've seen die the most is the PSU. I've had dodgy RAM (thankfully diagnosed on delivery thanks to memtest), hard drive failures, DVD/CD drives crap out - basically anything with moving parts, but the number 1 thing to die has been the PSU, even despite using surge protectors. This is the real reason to go for a "premium" brand PSU and not just the cheapest you can get, because it'll last longer and these days they tend to come with decent warranties (3 and 5 years are common).
I can tell that you've been an nVidia fan for years based purely on the fact that you still spell it as "nVidia" and not "NVIDIA" or whatever.
I'm going to take a wild stab in the dark and assume you're a sysadmin.
You don't always need an api key to use the rss feed of a site. Sick beard will work just fine with most rss feeds that point to an nzb.
Actually no, I did not realise that. My own user ID is a good reflection upon when I joined Slashdot. Was there some sort of botting incident or something that happened before then?
You've got a (fairly-low) 6-digit user ID, yet you're trolling like a common AC. You seem to have some sort of vendetta against Google. Maybe you should just...drop whatever silly little issue it is that you have with them and just get on with life?
Sadly this is more true than I'd like to admit. Still, I stand by that this is an experiment for Google in every sense of the word. Now that Cox has lost, they're pretty much down to two choices: Compete with better products by investing, or lose customers left, right and centre. Even the biggest of Apple Fanboys would happily have Google as their ISP if it means getting 50x faster speeds and no throttling. Lesser of two evils and whatnot.
I initially thought this as well, that would sort of explain the $140bn remark but it doesn't explain why the 25% of Google's $4.5Bn expendature would only hit 0.83million households - you'd think Google would prioritise high-density areas first, just like Verizon did.
I think Google are treating this as an experiment, but not just in terms of laying Fibre and running a service, but in seeing how the other ISPs react. I think all Google really wants is for Verizon/comcast/AT&T/etc. to pull the finger out and start upgrading their own infrastructure. A bit of competition never hurt.
Failing that, I'm pretty sure Google will continue rolling out until they either become the de-facto ISP of the USA, or competition means everyone else tries to take them on.
I'm not sure if you didn't read my comment or didn't read the summary, but let me help you with that:
I wasn't debating Google's total net worth, I was pointing out that they're claiming Verizon can spend less money to equip the same number of homes. I wasn't debating if Google did or didn't have the capacity to pull it off, rather I was saying that it wouldn't cost $140bn as GS claims.
This is the part that I'm pretty sure Goldman Sachs hasn't accounted for. That whole "could cost up to $140Bn" thing sounds very inflated.
Look at it this way. According to them, if Google spends 1/4 of its $4.5Bn it could equip 0.83million homes. That's $1.125Bn for 0.83million homes.
On the other hand, Verizon has spent $15bn and equipped 17million homes. For google to pass 17million homes, using the above calculations, it would cost them $25bn. Those numbers don't make a lot of sense to me.
Now factor in the above - that cities are clamouring for Google to come there and are willing to give them as much help, tax breaks and discounts as possible to encourage it and that $140Bn could potentially halve, or at the very least drop by 1/3. Still expensive for Google to network the entire country, but they only have to hit a small portion of it before the other cable companies feel the pressure and start rolling out their own fibre.
This doesn't create its own currency, either?
...I had to read that about 3 times to figure out where my quote ended and your reply began.
Still, I maintain my point that it's a bit unreasonable to think that Samsung should have looked into Seagate's past dealings at all, let alone those from 20 years ago. I do however agree that Apple have even less reason to look into them but I do think it's a valid point that it's rich for Apple to say that Samsung should have known when Apple themselves didn't. Apple's making out like it was some sort of obvious thing but really it's ancient history.
I think you're misunderstanding my words (I would say twisting them but in the interests of being amicable on the internet I'll assume you don't have any ill intention). I'm not saying that the business relationship between Seagate and Samsung is tenuous at all, I never said any such thing. What I did say was that the records" you're speaking of could just as equally apply to the law firm that represented Seagate at the time and not necessarily Seagate's own records.
What I'm then saying is that the records date back 20 years. Just how far back should someone look within a company for this sort of thing? What's more, just how far back should one look into other companies that weren't even part of Samsung at the time? Samsung has some big investments into Seagate but aside from Hogan Seagate has nothing to do with this court case, so why would people look into litigation into Seagate from 20 years ago? I think saying that Samsung should have checked this stuff is asking a bit much.
I don't think laptops are a fair comparison to an SoC. While the components may be generally soldered to the motherboard, they're still based off of discrete components supplied by other parties. The same motherboard can accompany several different CPUs and even different GPUs. They still use the same boot code as their desktop counterparts and things like that.
Still what you're saying is true, RT has to be flexible enough to allow for other components and drivers. I believe Microsoft mandates that this all has to be done via Windows update, though, for whatever that's worth.
Seagate's records from 20 years ago? Never mind that there's a difference between Seagate's records and the records of the law firm that represented them, you're assuming that they still even have those records and that the records are filed in some easily searchable way. 1993? Were they even electronic, then? There's a lot of unknowns and it's incredibly unrealistic to expect anyone to look through 20 years of records, legal ones at that.
However the key thing to remember is that Hogan deliberately misled. He was asked, repeatedly, if he had any prior legal involvement with any of the participating companies and he didn't raise his hand. Had he done that and explained his position, he would have been tossed out of the Jury. This is why it's a filing of juror misconduct.
Apparently I need to qualify my statement further: Windows RT is generally built on some sort of a SoC rather than assembling together components in the traditional sense (CPU, Motherboard, RAM, etc.). Different ARM SoC's tend to use customised code left, right and centre which includes the boot code so it's expected that it'll be as locked down as the likes of smartphones, routers, set top boxes, etc.
At least with traditional x86 PC's, they'll (hopefully) still be made up of off-the-shelf components from people like Gigabyte, Asus, et all.