How would that work in a situation where you have both x86 and ARM cores on the same system?
From what I've read, I definitely get the impression that AMD is doing some kind of modular system, whereby their APU cores can be coupled with either ARM or x86 variants. I'm not sure if that also includes ARM+x86 coupling, but that seems to be the point of "fabric" - it's a universal interconnect of some kind. However, how would that work in real life? What would be the advantage of it? ARM for seriously low power, x86 for when the CPU has a lot of work to do and the APU for anything that requires GPU-style parallel computing? A trifecta of computing where there's a core for every possible need?
Nobody's arguing that you have to pay for it, the argument is that the markup for it is rediculous when combined with the amount of data you have. Here's a hint: The amount of data a network can support is largely due to the backend and has little to do with the wireless technology in use. It's not like that LTE/3G spectrum has to go all the way to the central hub, rather once it gets to the radio tower it should be fibre or some such all the way. That backend is already in place for the 3G stuff.
Charge a premium if you must, but the caps that go with them are unreasonable.
You know what, in the interests of catching up with things (because you're absolutely right - I am out of touch and most of my experience comes from Ubuntu), I'm downloading Debian 6.0.6 right now. I'll throw it in a VM* and see how it plays out.
Amusingly your linux history isn't too different from my own, aside from Red Hat and Gentoo. Every now and then I give linux another shot and usually stumble upon some small, deal-breaking issue (Missing wireless driver, or missing SATA driver - dumb stuff like that). However, it has been a while so I'll give it another shot.
* I'm grossly aware of the limitations of a VM, do not worry.
I second this statement - except I'm not going to hide behind the allure of anonymous coward, I'll use my own god-damned nick and say it - Linux is not "easier to use" than Windows. Sure, it's easy if you already know how to use it but half the reason windows has become so entrenched is because people now know how to use it and frankly, even the likes of Ubuntu (which goes a long way to narrow the gap) don't go far enough to make things easy for the user.
Seriously, it's this simple - if you have to drop down to the command line for anything, you have failed "ease of use". I'm not saying you never have to open the CLI on Windows, just that you have to do it a lot less often than on *nix.
As it turns out, that's because AMD's new executive team is more keen on gaming than their predecessors
The very same predecessors who bought and merged with ATI, a graphics card business? Oh sure, I know graphics cards have many applications (moreso today than ever thanks to GPGPU computing) but let's face it - the rise of the GPU has been primarily because of gaming. It's no wonder that just a couple of years after the merger, the entire AMD/ATI company was worth less than what AMD paid for ATI alone...
3G data is still prohibitively expensive depending on who you go with, but so is/was 2G data. Still, I do agree with pretty much everything you've said there.
That's a bit like asking how people survived prior to the internet in general. The internet is becoming more and more essential to daily life every day, yet there are still those who are woefully underserved. As time goes on, the slower services provided by 3G, dial-up and long distance DSL lines won't be able to cope with everyday needs.
There is nothing artificial about a price that enough people will pay to make it worthwhile to the company providing the services/goods for sale.
Well that's utter crap for a start. I guess you're either not from the UK or simply haven't followed this whole debacle. The prices are high when compared to comparative 3G services - I pay £15 per month for an unlimited 3G service, but for £6 more (nearly a 50% markup) I can get a 4G service with a paltry 500mb of data. The only difference is 3G and 4G and guess what - there's several 3G providers and currently only one 4G provider. What a shock, their prices are over-inflated. It's not a case of "people paying what they're willing to", it's a case of people not having much choice - if you want faster data, you WILL have to pay just one provider and you will not have a choice about it. That might sound like a stupid thing to say, but there are plenty of people who don't have access to a decent fixed-line broadband service that would make good use of LTE.
The reason this all happened was because OFCOM allowed two huge mobile networks to combine and then allowed them to use "spare" spectrum for 4G - meanwhile, the rest of the mobile operators don't have spare capacity (and aren't allowed to use it for 4G anyway as it has already been allocated for 3G services) and have to wait and fight it out for a spectrum auction that has been delayed for years now (admittedly, this was somewhat self-inflicted but all the same - they shouldn't have greenlit EE to launch 4G this soon). EE will be the only 4G provider for about a year now and low and behold - inflated prices.
Why on earth would they charge less, anyway? No competition so no need. If you want 4G, you're stuck with them.
It's not really any different to using a tractor to dig a hole instead of a spade. The same "ingredients" are going in, but the tedium and repetitive tasks are reduced or eliminated entirely.
The idea is that the localized but high-bandwidth 60GHz network can be used for specific, highly demanding tasks, keeping the standard 5GHz frequency free for normal use
This opens up quite a bit in terms of devices doing things like screen sharing. Say you've got a laptop or a tablet PC and you want to share the picture to your TV - you can do that today (without cables) using your wireless, but it's fairly bandwidth heavy - you won't be able to do a lot of it without affecting your network's throughput. Contrast to this, where 60Ghz offers a lot of bandwidth that's localised, you can share UHD streams to your TV without even touching the wider range of 2.4Ghz or 5Ghz. Hell, you could probably clone a HDD to a network share wirelessly and quickly without ever affecting the other devices and even if you really are hammering the 60Ghz, someone in the next room doing the same will be largely unaffected as the range isn't that far. Of course, I'm assuming the 60Ghz will be point-to-point as opposed to the Star pattern that the average wifi network uses.
And that is different to today....how? You're making the argument that we shouldn't have machines that detect explosives because IF they detect something, everyone will panic? That doesn't make any sense - besides, we already have sniffer dogs and such to look for explosives anyway. Nothing changes with this, all that changes is more people get checked or the same people get checked faster.
Well surely that's down to how the machine alerts and how the staff have been trained to deal with it? If they've been trained correctly, then ANYTHING suspicious should be treated the same anyway. Besides, I very much doubt it's going to display a screen saying "EXPLOSIVES! EXPLOSIVES!", rather it'll probably say "Found high concentrations of particle x, which COULD indicate a dangerous substance - please check further" or whatever.
Why should the false positive rate be so low? Most airport scanners (be they metal detectors, X-rays or the body scanners) have a fairly high false-positive rate - all that happens is the security staff take people aside for a friendly grope and a more thorough check. False positives aren't an issue.
The point of systems like this isn't to be perfect, it's to make getting through security faster and more secure. The impact on a certain unlucky few will be offset by the thousands that can get through faster and easier.
Perhaps not a motherboard, but I dare say it could be done as some sort of addin card? I don't know how that changes things, what with having to set up a "host" CPU that handles the PCI bus, then setting up the ARM CPU afterwards but....it'd still be cool!
...does such a motherboard exist? (Seriously, does it? Because that would be cool)....I'm going to hazard a guess and say "no", though. Possibly different ARM chips but I doubt it'll let x86 and ARM run side-by-side...but then again, what do I know?
When you say "both at the same time", I'm not really sure what you're asking. It is my understanding (note that I'm not a Linux guru by any count) that this will primarily make porting the kernel to ARM platforms a lot easier for developers (currently most ARM kernels are forked from the mainline linux branch) and, possibly, it means having to ship just one kernel for multiple ARM architectures instead of individual ones (Which should make life a lot easier for say the likes of HTC who typically have multiple smartphones on the market - each with its own kernel, eventually this means they'll be able to have one super kernel that handles them all).
Wrll see here's the thing, "Do not track" according to the advertisers doesn't actually mean "Do not track" but instead means "Don't send me targeted ads". In other words, regardless as to your choice of opting in or not, you're still going to get tracked anyway - regardless of browser.
Slashdot Mirror
How would that work in a situation where you have both x86 and ARM cores on the same system?
From what I've read, I definitely get the impression that AMD is doing some kind of modular system, whereby their APU cores can be coupled with either ARM or x86 variants. I'm not sure if that also includes ARM+x86 coupling, but that seems to be the point of "fabric" - it's a universal interconnect of some kind. However, how would that work in real life? What would be the advantage of it? ARM for seriously low power, x86 for when the CPU has a lot of work to do and the APU for anything that requires GPU-style parallel computing? A trifecta of computing where there's a core for every possible need?
You're comparing old technology to new technology and proclaiming the new technology to be better. I am shocked.
Nobody's arguing that you have to pay for it, the argument is that the markup for it is rediculous when combined with the amount of data you have. Here's a hint: The amount of data a network can support is largely due to the backend and has little to do with the wireless technology in use. It's not like that LTE/3G spectrum has to go all the way to the central hub, rather once it gets to the radio tower it should be fibre or some such all the way. That backend is already in place for the 3G stuff.
Charge a premium if you must, but the caps that go with them are unreasonable.
You know what, in the interests of catching up with things (because you're absolutely right - I am out of touch and most of my experience comes from Ubuntu), I'm downloading Debian 6.0.6 right now. I'll throw it in a VM* and see how it plays out.
Amusingly your linux history isn't too different from my own, aside from Red Hat and Gentoo. Every now and then I give linux another shot and usually stumble upon some small, deal-breaking issue (Missing wireless driver, or missing SATA driver - dumb stuff like that). However, it has been a while so I'll give it another shot.
* I'm grossly aware of the limitations of a VM, do not worry.
Oh you're absolutely right, I could do with a massive disclaimer on my post saying something like "*Windows versions before 8".
I second this statement - except I'm not going to hide behind the allure of anonymous coward, I'll use my own god-damned nick and say it - Linux is not "easier to use" than Windows. Sure, it's easy if you already know how to use it but half the reason windows has become so entrenched is because people now know how to use it and frankly, even the likes of Ubuntu (which goes a long way to narrow the gap) don't go far enough to make things easy for the user.
Seriously, it's this simple - if you have to drop down to the command line for anything, you have failed "ease of use". I'm not saying you never have to open the CLI on Windows, just that you have to do it a lot less often than on *nix.
And Apple did both, then sued everyone for it.
This has nothing to do with the topic. At all.
The very same predecessors who bought and merged with ATI, a graphics card business? Oh sure, I know graphics cards have many applications (moreso today than ever thanks to GPGPU computing) but let's face it - the rise of the GPU has been primarily because of gaming.
It's no wonder that just a couple of years after the merger, the entire AMD/ATI company was worth less than what AMD paid for ATI alone...
3G data is still prohibitively expensive depending on who you go with, but so is/was 2G data. Still, I do agree with pretty much everything you've said there.
That's a bit like asking how people survived prior to the internet in general. The internet is becoming more and more essential to daily life every day, yet there are still those who are woefully underserved. As time goes on, the slower services provided by 3G, dial-up and long distance DSL lines won't be able to cope with everyday needs.
Well that's utter crap for a start. I guess you're either not from the UK or simply haven't followed this whole debacle. The prices are high when compared to comparative 3G services - I pay £15 per month for an unlimited 3G service, but for £6 more (nearly a 50% markup) I can get a 4G service with a paltry 500mb of data. The only difference is 3G and 4G and guess what - there's several 3G providers and currently only one 4G provider. What a shock, their prices are over-inflated. It's not a case of "people paying what they're willing to", it's a case of people not having much choice - if you want faster data, you WILL have to pay just one provider and you will not have a choice about it. That might sound like a stupid thing to say, but there are plenty of people who don't have access to a decent fixed-line broadband service that would make good use of LTE.
The reason this all happened was because OFCOM allowed two huge mobile networks to combine and then allowed them to use "spare" spectrum for 4G - meanwhile, the rest of the mobile operators don't have spare capacity (and aren't allowed to use it for 4G anyway as it has already been allocated for 3G services) and have to wait and fight it out for a spectrum auction that has been delayed for years now (admittedly, this was somewhat self-inflicted but all the same - they shouldn't have greenlit EE to launch 4G this soon). EE will be the only 4G provider for about a year now and low and behold - inflated prices.
Why on earth would they charge less, anyway? No competition so no need. If you want 4G, you're stuck with them.
Nobody on Slashdot will ever have to worry about those.
It's not really any different to using a tractor to dig a hole instead of a spade. The same "ingredients" are going in, but the tedium and repetitive tasks are reduced or eliminated entirely.
I'm guessing the main bit would be this:
This opens up quite a bit in terms of devices doing things like screen sharing. Say you've got a laptop or a tablet PC and you want to share the picture to your TV - you can do that today (without cables) using your wireless, but it's fairly bandwidth heavy - you won't be able to do a lot of it without affecting your network's throughput. Contrast to this, where 60Ghz offers a lot of bandwidth that's localised, you can share UHD streams to your TV without even touching the wider range of 2.4Ghz or 5Ghz. Hell, you could probably clone a HDD to a network share wirelessly and quickly without ever affecting the other devices and even if you really are hammering the 60Ghz, someone in the next room doing the same will be largely unaffected as the range isn't that far.
Of course, I'm assuming the 60Ghz will be point-to-point as opposed to the Star pattern that the average wifi network uses.
How often do you expect that the X-ray machine or metal detector goes off versus how often it's "legitimate"?
And that is different to today....how? You're making the argument that we shouldn't have machines that detect explosives because IF they detect something, everyone will panic? That doesn't make any sense - besides, we already have sniffer dogs and such to look for explosives anyway. Nothing changes with this, all that changes is more people get checked or the same people get checked faster.
Well surely that's down to how the machine alerts and how the staff have been trained to deal with it? If they've been trained correctly, then ANYTHING suspicious should be treated the same anyway.
Besides, I very much doubt it's going to display a screen saying "EXPLOSIVES! EXPLOSIVES!", rather it'll probably say "Found high concentrations of particle x, which COULD indicate a dangerous substance - please check further" or whatever.
Why should the false positive rate be so low? Most airport scanners (be they metal detectors, X-rays or the body scanners) have a fairly high false-positive rate - all that happens is the security staff take people aside for a friendly grope and a more thorough check. False positives aren't an issue.
The point of systems like this isn't to be perfect, it's to make getting through security faster and more secure. The impact on a certain unlucky few will be offset by the thousands that can get through faster and easier.
Perhaps not a motherboard, but I dare say it could be done as some sort of addin card? I don't know how that changes things, what with having to set up a "host" CPU that handles the PCI bus, then setting up the ARM CPU afterwards but....it'd still be cool!
...does such a motherboard exist? (Seriously, does it? Because that would be cool). ...I'm going to hazard a guess and say "no", though. Possibly different ARM chips but I doubt it'll let x86 and ARM run side-by-side...but then again, what do I know?
When you say "both at the same time", I'm not really sure what you're asking. It is my understanding (note that I'm not a Linux guru by any count) that this will primarily make porting the kernel to ARM platforms a lot easier for developers (currently most ARM kernels are forked from the mainline linux branch) and, possibly, it means having to ship just one kernel for multiple ARM architectures instead of individual ones (Which should make life a lot easier for say the likes of HTC who typically have multiple smartphones on the market - each with its own kernel, eventually this means they'll be able to have one super kernel that handles them all).
Or so I think.
Your 0.2% (or whatever it is) desktop marketshare says otherwise.
Wrll see here's the thing, "Do not track" according to the advertisers doesn't actually mean "Do not track" but instead means "Don't send me targeted ads". In other words, regardless as to your choice of opting in or not, you're still going to get tracked anyway - regardless of browser.
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/03/the-advertising-industrys-definition-of-do-not-track-doesnt-make-sense/255285/
If you ask me, that's the real bullshit move here, not Microsoft's.
Yeah, they "agreed" to it but what exactly is forcing them to actually staying agreed to it?