The absence of the A35 in Qualcomm's design proves that A36 did not get the design win
Moving the goalposts:
"My take on it: IPC differs only slightly between current 32 bit and 64 bit ARM cores, but power draw is significantly higher for 64 bit cores. Or to put it simply, the power draw penalty outweighs the IPC increase, if there actually any."
Not proven.
"If A35 really is more power efficient than A7, other things being equal (cache, frequency, process) then why did Qualcomm go with A7 and not A35 for their new power efficient smartphone SoC."
Not falsified.
"A3[5] did not get the design win, A7 did."
A7 shut off by the QCC1110 95% of the time did. Watch-mode only functionality for a week, whoopee. Also, not the point.
Power efficiency of A7 versus A35. Prove that's it better. Or continue to fail.
Cost is a theory you pulled out of your ass, with zero support. Snapdragon Wear 3100 is based on a new ultra-low power hierarchical system architecture approach. More than sufficient evidence that the primary goal of Qualcomm's new SoC is power efficiency. And they passed up the A35 for that. Blow smoke all you want, it happened.
Efficiency is a theory that you pulled out of your ass, and even your own article contradicts it.
"This new SoC uses the same 28nm process and quad-core Cortex-A7 CPU as Wear 2100 "
"The headline feature is the introduction of Qualcommâ(TM)s new ultra-low power, always-on co-processor, the QCC1110, positioned alongside the main SoC. This co-processor can switch off the main processing package, greatly increasing your smartwatchâ(TM)s battery life."
"This new co-processor operates at a 20x lower power point than the main processor. It can only perform a few basic functions and itâ(TM)s only designed to update the watch face and read a very small amount of sensor data."
The goal of the SOC may be power efficiency, but they aren't using the A7 to achieve that. It's the same old 2100 A7 that is being shut off as the main feature of the "new ultra-low power hierarchical system architecture."
Does nothing to prove that the A7 is more efficient than the A35. Does everything to prove that your reading comprehension skills need loads of work.
"At the same frequency and process, the A35 architecture (codenamed Mercury), promises to be 10% lower power than the A7 while giving an 6-40% performance uplift depending on use-case. In integer workloads (SPECint2006) the A35 gives about 6% higher throughput than the A7, while floating point (SPECfp2000) is supposed to give a more substantial 36% increase."
You're wrong. It's obvious to all. Stop embarrassing yourself, please.
If A35 really is more power efficient than A7, other things being equal (cache, frequency, process) then why did Qualcomm go with A7 and not A35 for their new power efficient smartphone SoC?
Nope. Time for you to prove the A7 is more power efficient, not for me to explain Qualcomm decisionmaking. "We slapped a limited function coprocessor onto an A7 in an attempt to cheaply extend battery life" is not a rebuttal to ARM's own documents.
You do realize that means that the processor supports both 32- and 64-bit code, not that some are 32-bit only, right? "Most efficient 64-bit Armv8-A processor with full Armv7-A compatibility" in ARM's words.
Your argument still not supported, you are trying to parse a slide.
Sore because I can correctly parse one and you cannot?
How lame. See if you can find something better, good luck.
You surely realize that every ARMv8 processor short of the A76 is 64/32-bit, not 64 bit only. I mean, if you're comfortable with utterly gutting your own premise that "the power draw penalty outweighs the IPC increase, if there actually any" go ahead. The fact that the A35 (64/32-bit) is a higher efficiency core than the A32 (32 bit only) pretty much kills the argument even if you go that route.
Frankly, everyone is doing 64 bit SOCs just to piss you off. It's a giant conspiracy. I bet that you can't name one modern chip design firm designing new 32 bit SOCs.
[P]ropaganda that prepares, incites or glorifies acts of terrorism" must be taken offline. Content would be flagged up by national authorities, who would issue removal orders to the internet companies hosting it. Those companies would be given one hour to delete it.
Fair's fair. Content flagged up by national authorities could be counternoticed by the posters, who would issue summons to the national authorities into national courts. Those national authorities would be given one hour to appear to defend the removal order.
Of course, what fun is it to issue ridiculously short time periods to act if you yourself are made subject to them.
I saw people throwing old batteries in the trash on the regular, for as long as I can remember.
Because those old batteries were zinc and manganese oxide, neither of which is particularly valuable, and the electrolyte was potassium hydroxide, which is neither particularly valuable nor particularly flammable.
You could get some modest heat out of a semi-discharged 9V battery or, given enough time, some mild, acid-base reactions, but there's no high redox potential, flammable electrolyte glory to get a real bonfire going.
Same thing with lead acid batteries, except for the nastiness of dissolved lead contaminating groundwater and strong acids that will burn flesh.
NiCad are similar to the lead acid batteries. Heavy metal contamination problem, but no substantial ability to go up in a pyre.
Studies have shown that smart phones and social media are addictive. The instant gratification of both boosts dopamine levels.. Pretty soon you get used to those elevated dopamine levels.. That's addiction.
This and obesity are the two most serious problems facing our citizenry, in my opinion.
Says the self-satisfied person posting this on social media. Yes, you. Upping your character count does not increase your level of virtue.
What happens now in the Umspannwerk instead depends on everyone who fills the house with life...
No, the short-lived PR bump will depend on everyone who occupies the house. What happens in the Umspannwerk will still be determined by the private owner.
As stated in the summary: Facebook has grown by purchasing their competitors. The summary mentions WhatsApp and Instagram specifically.
Your comment about the problem with fragmentation is an example of why Facebook needs to be broken up by an outside entity: they have a natural monopoly, since real competition from startups would lead to fragmentation.
Facebook has grown by both natural monopoly and aquisition. Growth by natural monopoly is not prohibited by, and not fixable by, antitrust law as it currently stands. Growth by acquisition can be prohibited (Hart-Scott-Rodino), but for that very reason the government cannot simply undo previous acquisitions -- those requiring antitrust review were government pre-approved.
...real competition from startups would lead to fragmentation.
Your analysis assume that those startups provide real competition. Many startups fail because their business is inferior. Again, growth by natural monopoly is not prohibited by, and not fixable by, antitrust law as it currently stands. If one company becomes monstrously large because it is better than the alternatives, that's not a problem that needs to be fixed. It's when it uses that size to lever into other lines of business or impair competition by anticompetitive means that there's a problem.
I've said this before, but if the government came along and broke up the company by splitting off Facebook's front-end from its back-end, then we could have competition on the front-end without fragmentation of the userbase.
No, you couldn't, because that doesn't address the antitrust problem that you've complained about. We've been through this before with the reversal of the Microsoft breakup order. Monopolizing behavior in the operating system market did not justify breaking up the company by category. You've complained about the acquisition of particular services. You could break off those services (if "you" are not the government attempting to reverse a specific pre-approval, but instead, for example, a private party) but you can't simply declare that the back-end is a separate company that must provide support services to all comers. That back-end-to-front-end synergy was organically grown and not an antitrust violation.
If you change something so much that it appears to be an entirely new thing, it IS an entirely new thing.
Again, you do not determine what words mean. The community determines what words mean. What has been done fits within the commonly accepted meaning of the term "reinvented," ergo you cannot properly say that "the antenna could not have been 'reinvented.'"
The invention of the LCD panel didn't reinvent the display tube
But it did reinvent the electronic display.
It replaced it with an entirely different method, which just happened to provide the same function.
Which is pretty much how the term "reinvent" is used by far, far more people than yourself, hence the common definition. Ever notice how a "brake" can be mechanical or magnetic? A computer can be human, mechanical, semiconductor, or quantum? Human beings tend to name useful things by function. Very popular non-functional names even tend to become functional. Google it yourself.
Same thing here. Using cesium atoms in a container, excited by two lasers, they were able to detect radio waves by the change in frequency of the atoms in that gas. That, by the way, was where I was getting the phased array analogy from.
What analogy? Antennas are made up of multiple atoms, but that does not transform all antennas into phased array antennas.
An antenna is (2) a rod, wire, or other device used to transmit or receive radio or television signals.
Funny thing that your definition uses "or" rather than "and."
This may qualify as an 'other device', but in reality it's an entirely new device.
It's as if you've paraphrased the definition of the term "reinvent."
You may or may not call an antenna, but it does not replace the standard, passive, antenna invented by Hertz.
Sure it does. Substitute this antenna for the "standard, passive antenna invented by Hert" in an FM radio receiver. Replaced.
I don't even think this can be used for transmitting
Not a requirement under your definition of antenna - you used "or" and not "and." Want to bet that it's not a requirement under the common meaning of the term antenna as well?,
and certainly won't be replacing the antenna any time soon
It already did. Except that now you're redefining "replacing" to mean "technologically superseding." We've been down this road. You're wrong again ("Fill the role of (someone or something) with a substitute.")
IMHO reinvent is a made up word used to either fool people you are marketing to (be it you or your product you are marketing), help inflate one's ego, or both.
All words are made up, and in commonly accepted opinion you're wrong.
To repeat what I stated above
Rando thinks repetition suffices to make himself right... respected dictionary disagrees.
One probe, one detector, no scanning,
Each atom could be considered a detector because the final signal is determined by how much light is absorbed by the gas (again, thus the loose array analogy).
No, it cannot because the signal is collected by a single, non-scanning photodetector so that the phase of the light absorbed by each atom is lost in the aggregation of photons striking the photodetector. There is no such thing as a "loose phased array" -- you must know or detect the position of each antenna in order translate the temporal signal information of each antenna into spatial signal information in order to determine (or control) the direc
You can't penalize one company and ignore all the others.
You're right, you can't. You can, per TFS, have it "apply to corporations with 500 or more employees." Just like the Family and Medical Leave Act applies to private employers with 50 or more employees.
You fell for the catchy abbreviation and didn't even read the summary, much less the first sentence of TFA ("Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) have introduced a bill that would tax companies like Amazon and Walmart for the cost of employees' food stamps and other public assistance.").
The antenna, however, has not been forgotten so could not have been "reinvented". Redesigned, perhaps, or a new type of antenna may have been invented, but the antenna on my roof is still there, and is still a variation of the first dipole antenna invented by Heinrich Hertz.
reinvent: "Change (something) so much that it appears to be entirely new."
The antenna could very well have been reinvented, so long as one's ego is small enough to realize that they are not the sole arbiter of the meaning of common words.
This seems to be a variation of the phased array, just on a molecular scale, who's development has been filtered through the marketing department.
Pray tell, how is this a variation of the phased array? Where are the multiple antennas and, more importantly, the differential processing based upon a scanning of signal phase that imparts directionality?
"Finally, they shine a second laser through the gas and measure how much light is absorbed, to see how the transparency varies with ambient radio waves. The signal from a simple light-sensitive photodiode then reveals the way the radio signals are frequency modulated or amplitude modulated."
One probe, one detector, no scanning, and no greater thought by you than you attribute to that "marketing department."
But so temporally challenged that you think that a seven-week old apology is either later than the emails or somehow not revealed as utterly fake by those very same emails.
Vast amount of electricity and specialized fossil fuels are used to cut down millions of trees, ship them thousands of miles to lumber mills all over the world, turned into paper, printed into "dollars" which are also shipped all over the world he prize for which is dollar coupons in exchange for labor. The coupons are then traded with other businesses that collect the dollar coupons in exchange for beanie-babies and other commodities. That sounds like a really stupid system too.
It might be except for the fact that dollar bills are non-woven fabrics made from cotton and linen, not wood pulp.
Oh, and the fact that they can be traded for literally anything, whereas 5,000 bitcoin used to be able to buy you a pizza, but now practically nobody will accept them.
Ground water in the soil has nothing to do with earthquake liquefaction. Liquefaction can occur without any water present at all.
https://www.britannica.com/sci...>Your own link says otherwise. "The phenomenon occurs in water-saturated unconsolidated soils affected by seismic S waves (secondary waves), which cause ground vibrations during earthquakes."
And then reading further: "When earthquake shock occurs in waterlogged soils, the water-filled pore spaces collapse, which decreases the overall volume of the soil. This process increases the water pressure between individual soil grains, and the grains can then move freely in the watery matrix. This substantially lowers the soilâ(TM)s resistance to shear stress and causes the mass of soil to take on the characteristics of a liquid. In its liquefied state, soil deforms easily, and heavy objects such as structures can be damaged from the sudden loss of support from below."
So water has everything to do with it. As the GP helpfully noted.
Slashdot Mirror
Fail. Do better.
Moving the goalposts:
"My take on it: IPC differs only slightly between current 32 bit and 64 bit ARM cores, but power draw is significantly higher for 64 bit cores. Or to put it simply, the power draw penalty outweighs the IPC increase, if there actually any."
Not proven.
"If A35 really is more power efficient than A7, other things being equal (cache, frequency, process) then why did Qualcomm go with A7 and not A35 for their new power efficient smartphone SoC."
Not falsified.
"A3[5] did not get the design win, A7 did."
A7 shut off by the QCC1110 95% of the time did. Watch-mode only functionality for a week, whoopee. Also, not the point.
Power efficiency of A7 versus A35. Prove that's it better. Or continue to fail.
Efficiency is a theory that you pulled out of your ass, and even your own article contradicts it.
"This new SoC uses the same 28nm process and quad-core Cortex-A7 CPU as Wear 2100 "
"The headline feature is the introduction of Qualcommâ(TM)s new ultra-low power, always-on co-processor, the QCC1110, positioned alongside the main SoC. This co-processor can switch off the main processing package, greatly increasing your smartwatchâ(TM)s battery life."
"This new co-processor operates at a 20x lower power point than the main processor. It can only perform a few basic functions and itâ(TM)s only designed to update the watch face and read a very small amount of sensor data."
The goal of the SOC may be power efficiency, but they aren't using the A7 to achieve that. It's the same old 2100 A7 that is being shut off as the main feature of the "new ultra-low power hierarchical system architecture."
Does nothing to prove that the A7 is more efficient than the A35. Does everything to prove that your reading comprehension skills need loads of work.
In response to your fallback argument of "I don't believe ARM?" Yes.
Your link doesn't support that. There's is no indication that the A7 was selected for power efficiency rather than, oh, cost.
Based upon one and only one very ambiguous link, you think that you can dismiss links to years of ARM materials as "bluster." Don't make me laugh.
Provide power efficiency numbers. I'll even take relative numbers like "10% less." Seems only fair.
So where's the false marketing lawsuit? After all, there's been three years for people to claim fraud versus claims like:
"At the same frequency and process, the A35 architecture (codenamed Mercury), promises to be 10% lower power than the A7 while giving an 6-40% performance uplift depending on use-case. In integer workloads (SPECint2006) the A35 gives about 6% higher throughput than the A7, while floating point (SPECfp2000) is supposed to give a more substantial 36% increase."
You're wrong. It's obvious to all. Stop embarrassing yourself, please.
Nope. Time for you to prove the A7 is more power efficient, not for me to explain Qualcomm decisionmaking. "We slapped a limited function coprocessor onto an A7 in an attempt to cheaply extend battery life" is not a rebuttal to ARM's own documents.
You do realize that means that the processor supports both 32- and 64-bit code, not that some are 32-bit only, right? "Most efficient 64-bit Armv8-A processor with full Armv7-A compatibility" in ARM's words.
Sore because I can correctly parse one and you cannot?
You surely realize that every ARMv8 processor short of the A76 is 64/32-bit, not 64 bit only. I mean, if you're comfortable with utterly gutting your own premise that "the power draw penalty outweighs the IPC increase, if there actually any" go ahead. The fact that the A35 (64/32-bit) is a higher efficiency core than the A32 (32 bit only) pretty much kills the argument even if you go that route.
"Cortex-A35
Highest Efficiency
64/32-bit"
It's there all right.
Something about "highest efficiency" in the A35 that you do not understand?
ARM disagrees (slide 7), but what do they know.
Address space virtualization and security.
Frankly, everyone is doing 64 bit SOCs just to piss you off. It's a giant conspiracy. I bet that you can't name one modern chip design firm designing new 32 bit SOCs.
Fair's fair. Content flagged up by national authorities could be counternoticed by the posters, who would issue summons to the national authorities into national courts. Those national authorities would be given one hour to appear to defend the removal order.
Of course, what fun is it to issue ridiculously short time periods to act if you yourself are made subject to them.
No, you're an adult. Posting from your computer every day, usually multiple times per day. Insubstantial differences.
Quod erat demonstrandum.
Because those old batteries were zinc and manganese oxide, neither of which is particularly valuable, and the electrolyte was potassium hydroxide, which is neither particularly valuable nor particularly flammable.
You could get some modest heat out of a semi-discharged 9V battery or, given enough time, some mild, acid-base reactions, but there's no high redox potential, flammable electrolyte glory to get a real bonfire going.
Same thing with lead acid batteries, except for the nastiness of dissolved lead contaminating groundwater and strong acids that will burn flesh.
NiCad are similar to the lead acid batteries. Heavy metal contamination problem, but no substantial ability to go up in a pyre.
Says the self-satisfied person posting this on social media. Yes, you. Upping your character count does not increase your level of virtue.
Yep. It'll come back up. Just like Cabbage Patch dolls and Beanie Babies did!
Wanna buy half a bitcoin for $4500?
CItation needed. Especially since literally everyone would sell you their coin for $9000 at this point.
"Squatters evicted by police. See it here at 11."
No, the short-lived PR bump will depend on everyone who occupies the house. What happens in the Umspannwerk will still be determined by the private owner.
Facebook has grown by both natural monopoly and aquisition. Growth by natural monopoly is not prohibited by, and not fixable by, antitrust law as it currently stands. Growth by acquisition can be prohibited (Hart-Scott-Rodino), but for that very reason the government cannot simply undo previous acquisitions -- those requiring antitrust review were government pre-approved.
Your analysis assume that those startups provide real competition. Many startups fail because their business is inferior. Again, growth by natural monopoly is not prohibited by, and not fixable by, antitrust law as it currently stands. If one company becomes monstrously large because it is better than the alternatives, that's not a problem that needs to be fixed. It's when it uses that size to lever into other lines of business or impair competition by anticompetitive means that there's a problem.
No, you couldn't, because that doesn't address the antitrust problem that you've complained about. We've been through this before with the reversal of the Microsoft breakup order. Monopolizing behavior in the operating system market did not justify breaking up the company by category. You've complained about the acquisition of particular services. You could break off those services (if "you" are not the government attempting to reverse a specific pre-approval, but instead, for example, a private party) but you can't simply declare that the back-end is a separate company that must provide support services to all comers.
That back-end-to-front-end synergy was organically grown and not an antitrust violation.
Again, you do not determine what words mean. The community determines what words mean. What has been done fits within the commonly accepted meaning of the term "reinvented," ergo you cannot properly say that "the antenna could not have been 'reinvented.'"
But it did reinvent the electronic display.
Which is pretty much how the term "reinvent" is used by far, far more people than yourself, hence the common definition. Ever notice how a "brake" can be mechanical or magnetic? A computer can be human, mechanical, semiconductor, or quantum? Human beings tend to name useful things by function. Very popular non-functional names even tend to become functional. Google it yourself.
What analogy? Antennas are made up of multiple atoms, but that does not transform all antennas into phased array antennas.
Funny thing that your definition uses "or" rather than "and."
It's as if you've paraphrased the definition of the term "reinvent."
Sure it does. Substitute this antenna for the "standard, passive antenna invented by Hert" in an FM radio receiver. Replaced.
Not a requirement under your definition of antenna - you used "or" and not "and." Want to bet that it's not a requirement under the common meaning of the term antenna as well?,
It already did. Except that now you're redefining "replacing" to mean "technologically superseding." We've been down this road. You're wrong again ("Fill the role of (someone or something) with a substitute.")
All words are made up, and in commonly accepted opinion you're wrong.
Rando thinks repetition suffices to make himself right... respected dictionary disagrees.
No, it cannot because the signal is collected by a single, non-scanning photodetector so that the phase of the light absorbed by each atom is lost in the aggregation of photons striking the photodetector. There is no such thing as a "loose phased array" -- you must know or detect the position of each antenna in order translate the temporal signal information of each antenna into spatial signal information in order to determine (or control) the direc
You're right, you can't. You can, per TFS, have it "apply to corporations with 500 or more employees." Just like the Family and Medical Leave Act applies to private employers with 50 or more employees.
You fell for the catchy abbreviation and didn't even read the summary, much less the first sentence of TFA ("Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) have introduced a bill that would tax companies like Amazon and Walmart for the cost of employees' food stamps and other public assistance.").
reinvent: "Change (something) so much that it appears to be entirely new."
The antenna could very well have been reinvented, so long as one's ego is small enough to realize that they are not the sole arbiter of the meaning of common words.
Pray tell, how is this a variation of the phased array? Where are the multiple antennas and, more importantly, the differential processing based upon a scanning of signal phase that imparts directionality?
"Finally, they shine a second laser through the gas and measure how much light is absorbed, to see how the transparency varies with ambient radio waves. The signal from a simple light-sensitive photodiode then reveals the way the radio signals are frequency modulated or amplitude modulated."
One probe, one detector, no scanning, and no greater thought by you than you attribute to that "marketing department."
So you're aware enough of the August 30, 2018 emails to discuss their content,,,
But so temporally challenged that you think that a seven-week old apology is either later than the emails or somehow not revealed as utterly fake by those very same emails.
Sad.
It might be except for the fact that dollar bills are non-woven fabrics made from cotton and linen, not wood pulp.
Oh, and the fact that they can be traded for literally anything, whereas 5,000 bitcoin used to be able to buy you a pizza, but now practically nobody will accept them.
https://www.britannica.com/sci...>Your own link says otherwise. "The phenomenon occurs in water-saturated unconsolidated soils affected by seismic S waves (secondary waves), which cause ground vibrations during earthquakes."
And then reading further:
"When earthquake shock occurs in waterlogged soils, the water-filled pore spaces collapse, which decreases the overall volume of the soil. This process increases the water pressure between individual soil grains, and the grains can then move freely in the watery matrix. This substantially lowers the soilâ(TM)s resistance to shear stress and causes the mass of soil to take on the characteristics of a liquid. In its liquefied state, soil deforms easily, and heavy objects such as structures can be damaged from the sudden loss of support from below."
So water has everything to do with it. As the GP helpfully noted.