Acting as if I really wanted to know the answer, I tried the Google query, chose the first hit, which was the product page for the Frigidaire FPHC2398LF (at this point if I were really doing this I would have had the clue to enter my own model number), which below the flash stuff has a navigation bar that has a button for Guides/Manuals. Click on that, click on download the English User Guide which is a PDF, and "Bing!" there in the table of contents is has "Changing the Filter" on page 15
The Bing hits for the question has as the first hit the home page of the Frigidaire web site. If I went there maybe I would think to click on the filters & accessories tab, which is a blind alley for this. Maybe I would click on the Refrigerators link and get clue that I want to look for my own model number and eventually get to that same page that was Google's first hit. The other hits on Bing had a number of reviews and links for Frigidaire appliances other than refrigerators.
I guess I would rank Google and Bing as being equally useless if I ask a question that is not specific enough to give the exact answer I want and if I am too clueless to use the results I get to track down the answer or figure out how to refine the question. In this case, Google got me about two clicks from the exact answer, Bing got me pretty much nowhere.
If as a result of this experience I realize that what I really want to search for the user manual, and next time I try that, and also indicate that I want a professional series refrigerator rather than, say, an oven, (search term frigidaire professional series refrigerator user manual) Google gets me results on the Frigidaire web site in the first two hits, Bing gets all third party sites and reviews on their first page of hits.
My 10 year old started with LOGO, a commercial version called MicroWorlds EX. That would be a good one to try if you have the budget to buy a classroom license. He tried Alice, but didn't care for it much because of limitations on what he could do with it.
He now spends most of his time on Scratch, I think mostly because he gets to upload projects to the Scratch website and share with friends he has made there. Since Scratch is free, teaches all the fundamental principles of programming languages without warping the brain as Basic would, and allows one to immediately create cool graphics stuff and collaborate with other kids, I would recommend it. http://scratch.mit.edu/
Lately he has also started hacking a Javascript tutorial because he wants to learn how to make web pages that do interesting things. I don't think it would be a good first programming language, but you might keep it in mind as an adjunct to a first course. Motivation is as important as the language, and being able to create cool stuff provides that.
The names can still be mentioned in internet radio streams.
No, on today's Radio NZ reporting of the story, the announcer said the names and then said (my paraphrasing of what I remember) "the two names in the previous sentence will removed from audio archive of this programme that is placed on the Radio NZ web site"
There is of course a lot more information in the actual research paper.
That link is to a browser view of the PDF at pdfmenot.com which caches the actual PDF, so the poor researcher's personal web site doesn't get hit too hard. You could download the original PDF from there if you really want to.
MIT announced in a press release a couple of weeks ago that they are increasing financial aid so that the school will be tuition-free for the nearly 30% of undergraduate students whose families earn less than $75,000 per year, with no expectation of student loans to cover non-tuition expenses. There are other changes that affect students whose families are in higher income brackets, with details in the press release.
Here is one significant quote from it:
For those receiving an MIT scholarship, which is six out of every 10 MIT undergraduates, net tuition is $8,100--an amount that approximates the in-state cost of many public universities
Lastly, not all public key crypto is shafted, only things that rely on factorisation as a problem. ECC will be quite safe until (if?) somebody develops a quantum algorithm for discrete logs
Shor also describes a quantum algorithm for solving the discrete log problem in polynomial time, although I don't see any references for anyone having implemented it in a physical experiment like this one with quantum factorization.
Here's a more understandable summary that in TFA: They got Google search results on four e-commerce topics, stripped identifying HTML, and created 16 fake results pages with branded header and footers for four search engines The query results for a topic had identical content and presentation. They presented each of 32 test subjects four results pages, one for each topic. Which of the four brands each was shown and in what order the topics were presented were randomized. Subjects looked at each result one at a time. They were asked to evaluate the results, following links as they chose to and commenting out loud. Note that all results sections were identical is both content and format, with only the branded page header and footers being different.
The authors claim that Yahoo got the highest ratings (averaged over all four topic queries), 15.3% more than the overall average, compared to Google's 0.7% over average. But their table and graphs show results all over the map. Google scored 52.2% over average on the home improvement query. MSN had the highest score on the camping mexico query, Yahoo was highest on techno music, and the made up unknown search engine got the highest score on the laser removal query. That says to me that when you have four search engines and four queries to mix together in random order you need a lot more than 32 subjects to get statistically meaningful results. The paper contains no analysis of statistical significance of the results.
Basically he specifies that the frequency one switches the resistors has to be kept below a certain limit and low pass filters used at each end to prevent attacks using injection of high frequency signals. He shows that below threshold frequencies, the eavesdropper gets statistically worse information from the sniffing devices than do Alice and Bob to a significant enough degree that the information leakage is less than you get from a practical quantum cryptographic system.
A small amount of information leakage is tolerable... Quantum crypto systems in practice have some. Privacy enhancing algorithms are used to achieve practical security from a slightly leaky system at the expense of bandwidth, and those would work the same way for this system as for quantum crypto.
The original article was published (and talked about in/., see Related Article link) back in 2005. The paper you cited claiming a break was replied to by the original author, and there have been a number of other papers back and forth since. The technique has credibility. As Bruce Schneier pointed out this technique if it works is no worse than quantum cryptography and is a lot simpler and cheaper, but it has all the other deficiencies of quantum cryptography. The author claims no more than that. He rebuts the arguments in the paper you linked to by showing that the amount of information leakage is less than that from a practical (as opposed to theoretically ideal) quantum cryptography system, and so can be dealt with using the same privacy-enhancing post-processing that has to be used with quantum crypto.
I agree with Schneier's assessment of quantum crypto as a solution in search of a problem, and this appears the same, although much cheaper to implement.
The most recent paper on the topic was a plenary talk given by the author last week at a conference in Italy. The references in that paper will give you the complete list of papers arguing with his results and his responses to those arguments.
You can order by receive date. Click on the icon on the right side of the column header of the preview pane to see all the column headings that are available, and select "Order Received". That adds a column to the display which is a message number that is incremented as each message is received.
You can sort messages by the contents of any column by clicking on the column header. Click again to sort in the opposite order. So once you have an Order Received column, click on its heading to have messages sorted by the received date instead of the Send Date. The sort order you select is remembered when you exit and restart Thunderbird.
PUBPAT has a different spin on this story, touting how Forgent has dropped all claims on the patent as a result of a successful challenge brought a year ago by PUBPAT resulting in the patent office rejecting the broadest claims last May.
However, the details of the patent show that it was issued in 1987, which would mean that it expires sometime in 2007. So Forgent just settled for a final $8 million to cap off the total $110 million in revenue they have grabbed during the 10 years since they bought the company that owned the patent.
Since the site was created, five students have purchased lectures.
If you are in his class I'm sure you already have put in your share of the $12.50 that was used to get one master copy of each of the first five lectures.
TFA says that it is a linear relationship with a slope of 0.8. They scaled the data so that a direct linear relationship would plot as a straight line with a slope of 1, which is a line going up at a 45 degree angle, hits increasing one unit for every one unit increase in incoming links.
Instead they saw a straight line with a slope of 0.8, meaning the hits increase 0.8 units for every 1 unit increase in incoming links. More links still correlate with more traffic, but, for example, doubling the number of incoming links increases the traffic by a factor of 1.6, not by a factor of 2.
Why not use Blue Security's hashed "do not intrude" list?
Your own journal entry demonstrates how Blue Security's Blue Frog software can't work on much of the spam. And there are other reasons why it can't work on most spam. After reading Blue Security's FAQ, I see the following six fallacies, just off the top of my head... Actually they can be summarized as, "How can you possibly expect automated complaints to a form on a spamvertised website (if there even is a feedback or complaint form) will shame a spammer into not spamming as long as they continue to turn a profit from it?"
1) much spam does not include URLs to websites; 2) if the spam is advertising a web site, there is no reason for the owner to even have a form for opting out of their spam mailings or for complaints or feedback; 3) if Blue Frog is at all successful there is no way they can manually identify spamvertised web sites and the complaint link for each and prepare a script to automate filing a complaint to the particular form used by each; 4) if a spamvertised web site does have a customer feedback or request form they have no reason to not simply delete complaints about spam; 5) even if they cared a tiny bit, they have no control over who the spam mailing service they hired (who could even be connected to the Russian Mafia) actually sends spam to; 6) the spam mailing services get paid to send X million emails, not to send X million emails to valid addresses of people who have not indicated that they don't want spam. Their customers pay for the results they get and don't care how much wasted email is used to get the results. The spam mailing service has no reason to conserve bandwidth when they are using botnets of infected machines to do the actual work.
OSU says the near-invisible integrated circuit (IC) implements a five-stage ring oscillator, a function often used for testing and demonstrating new technologies. This is analogous to when software developers write programs that simply say "hello world," as an early step in testing and debugging new computer languages.
Finally, I can say this for real: Imagine a Beowulf cluster (link is to Biowulf) of these!
The modeling software they used is called NAMD, free open source "parallel molecular dynamics code designed for high-performance simulation of large biomolecular systems" that will run on commodity clusters of tens of Linux PCs on gigabit ethernet. In other words, you too can run the virus simulation on your own Beowulf cluster, if you don't mind it taking some years to run. According to NCSA's own press release about the virus simulation, it "only" took 35 processor-years, so if you have a 100 fast Linux PCs on a gigabit network lying around you can do it yourself in not much more than 4 months.
The bug allows someone to take a signed GPG message, stick in their own unsigned message in a certain way, and GPG will show you the combined message or even just the new message, but tell you that it is signed by the person who signed the original message.
If you read the message using the new GPG 1.4.2.2 it will correctly not accept the hacked message. So if you have any question about signed mail you received, you can check it again after upgrading GPG.
The bug only affects embedded signatures, such as in email messages using inline signatures or signed encrypted email. I think that excludes PGP/MIME signed unencrypted email, which is a common format for signed mail and would be a form of detached signature.
The bug does not affect "detached signatures", which are the kind that are used to verify software downloads, which means it could not have been used to hack yum, apt-get, etc.
All in all, not a big security flaw unless someone takes a signed email that you sent them, forges a GPG signed request to your domain registrar to transfer your million dollar domain name to them, and your registrar hasn't yet updated to GPG 1.4.2.2. Whoops -- if you upgrade GPG right now, it wouldn't help in that scenario.
File -> Export, then select HTML as the export type and within that select JPEG as the format for the slides.
You not only get all the slides as jpg images, but you also get an HTML slideshow to present them. And unlike with PowerPoint you get a dialog giving you options for the quality settings, etc. for the jpegs if you don't want to use the defaults. Delete the HTML files if you don't need them.
That may not be as obvious without reading documentation as PowerPoint's File -> Save As, select jpeg image and say "yes" to save all slides, but on the other hand the generated HTML slideshow and the control over the jpeg settings come in handy.
"Franklin S. Felber" has quite a few more hits, but his publications seem more often to be cited as "F S Felber" which had 242 hits when I tried it just now.
Old programmers don't die, they just lose their memory. And then use Google instead...
Results 1 - 10 of about 15,200 for "old programmers never die". (0.19 seconds)
Old programmers never die, they just terminate and stay resident. Old programmers don't die, they just branch to a new address Old programmers don't die, they're just cast into the void REM Old programmers don't die, they just GOSUB without RETURN. Old programmers don't die, they just stop getting upgrades. Old programmers don't die, they just lose pointers and drop bits. Old programmers don't die, they just turn into long haul truck drivers. Old developers don't retire... they just reboot (thread on slashdot) Old programmers don't die, they are just set to high-values. Old programmers never die, they just byte it. Old programmers never die, they just lose their byte. Old programmers never die, they just decompile. Old programmers never die, they just get bugged with life. Old programmers never die, they just go to bits. Old programmers never die, they just recurse. Old programmers never die, they just stop getting upgrades. Old programmers never die, they just get garbage collected. Old programmers never die, they just don't C so good. Old programmers never die, they just reassemble into another life form. Old programmers never die, they just give up their resources. Old programmers never die, they just move over to legacy systems.
"The coding's never finished until the last user is dead"
We already have 65 nanometer process chips in production. Even this article, after parroting the NEC press release mentions that Intel is building a 45 nm process plant, which is a step further along than "NEC has developed a technology" to make 55 nm chips.
Here is an article from two years ago with an expected timetable for chip process width that exactly matches what we have seen since then: 90 nm in 2004, 65 nm in 2005-2006 and 45 nm in 2007-2008. There really isn't anything exciting about this press release from NEC.
Posted by CmdrTaco on 06:55 AM June 2nd, 2004 from the and-i-still-can't-get-cable dept.
haunebu writes "'Your brand-spankin'-new 3G phone is nearing obsolesence: NTT DoCoMo reveals the results from a new 4G test system.' says TheFeature. While in a car moving at 30kph, DoCoMo engineers managed a peak throughput of 300Mbps and a sustained transfer rate of 135Mbps with their new variable spreading factor orthogonal frequency code division multiplexing (WSF-OFCDM) downstream technology. Who comes up with these names, and how does Japan manage to stay lightyears ahead of everyone else in wireless?"
Yahoo! has the patent on using punctuation in trademarks as a business method to create simulated excitement in otherwise independent reviews wherever they mention the name of the product being reviewd.
Slashdot Mirror
Acting as if I really wanted to know the answer, I tried the Google query, chose the first hit, which was the product page for the Frigidaire FPHC2398LF (at this point if I were really doing this I would have had the clue to enter my own model number), which below the flash stuff has a navigation bar that has a button for Guides/Manuals. Click on that, click on download the English User Guide which is a PDF, and "Bing!" there in the table of contents is has "Changing the Filter" on page 15
The Bing hits for the question has as the first hit the home page of the Frigidaire web site. If I went there maybe I would think to click on the filters & accessories tab, which is a blind alley for this. Maybe I would click on the Refrigerators link and get clue that I want to look for my own model number and eventually get to that same page that was Google's first hit. The other hits on Bing had a number of reviews and links for Frigidaire appliances other than refrigerators.
I guess I would rank Google and Bing as being equally useless if I ask a question that is not specific enough to give the exact answer I want and if I am too clueless to use the results I get to track down the answer or figure out how to refine the question. In this case, Google got me about two clicks from the exact answer, Bing got me pretty much nowhere.
If as a result of this experience I realize that what I really want to search for the user manual, and next time I try that, and also indicate that I want a professional series refrigerator rather than, say, an oven, (search term frigidaire professional series refrigerator user manual) Google gets me results on the Frigidaire web site in the first two hits, Bing gets all third party sites and reviews on their first page of hits.
From TFA: "The Quo Web site is being worked on now and is set to launch next week."
From a whois lookup directly on the domaincontender.com site:
Domain Name: QUOCOMPUTER.COM
Registrar: DOMAIN CONTENDER, LLC
Whois Server: whois.domaincontender.com
Referral URL: http://www.domaincontender.com/
Name Server: NS1.IZDIGITAL.NET
Name Server: NS2.IZDIGITAL.NET
Status: ok
Updated Date: 16-mar-2009
Creation Date: 29-jan-2009
Expiration Date: 29-jan-2010
>>> Last update of whois database: Sun, 31 May 2009 06:16:55 UTC
My 10 year old started with LOGO, a commercial version called MicroWorlds EX. That would be a good one to try if you have the budget to buy a classroom license. He tried Alice, but didn't care for it much because of limitations on what he could do with it.
He now spends most of his time on Scratch, I think mostly because he gets to upload projects to the Scratch website and share with friends he has made there. Since Scratch is free, teaches all the fundamental principles of programming languages without warping the brain as Basic would, and allows one to immediately create cool graphics stuff and collaborate with other kids, I would recommend it. http://scratch.mit.edu/
Lately he has also started hacking a Javascript tutorial because he wants to learn how to make web pages that do interesting things. I don't think it would be a good first programming language, but you might keep it in mind as an adjunct to a first course. Motivation is as important as the language, and being able to create cool stuff provides that.
No, on today's Radio NZ reporting of the story, the announcer said the names and then said (my paraphrasing of what I remember) "the two names in the previous sentence will removed from audio archive of this programme that is placed on the Radio NZ web site"
That link is to a browser view of the PDF at pdfmenot.com which caches the actual PDF, so the poor researcher's personal web site doesn't get hit too hard. You could download the original PDF from there if you really want to.
Here is one significant quote from it:
See Shor's paper Polynomial-Time Algorithms for Prime Factorization and Discrete Logarithms on a Quantum Computer
Quote from the home page:
- An open-source XML based simulation package
- From Ordinary Differential Equations (ODEs) up to stochastic Partial Differential Equations (PDEs)
[...]Here's a link to the original article at the author's site that unlike the ACM digital library version is not locked up behind a subscription requirement: The Effect of Brand Awareness on the Evaluation of Search Engine Results [PDF]
Here's a more understandable summary that in TFA: They got Google search results on four e-commerce topics, stripped identifying HTML, and created 16 fake results pages with branded header and footers for four search engines The query results for a topic had identical content and presentation. They presented each of 32 test subjects four results pages, one for each topic. Which of the four brands each was shown and in what order the topics were presented were randomized. Subjects looked at each result one at a time. They were asked to evaluate the results, following links as they chose to and commenting out loud. Note that all results sections were identical is both content and format, with only the branded page header and footers being different.
The authors claim that Yahoo got the highest ratings (averaged over all four topic queries), 15.3% more than the overall average, compared to Google's 0.7% over average. But their table and graphs show results all over the map. Google scored 52.2% over average on the home improvement query. MSN had the highest score on the camping mexico query, Yahoo was highest on techno music, and the made up unknown search engine got the highest score on the laser removal query. That says to me that when you have four search engines and four queries to mix together in random order you need a lot more than 32 subjects to get statistically meaningful results. The paper contains no analysis of statistical significance of the results.
That proposed attack is rebutted by Kish in Response to Scheuer-Yariv: "A Classical Key-Distribution System based on Johnson (like) noise -How Secure?" and Response to Feng Hao's paper "Kish's key exchange scheme is insecure".
Basically he specifies that the frequency one switches the resistors has to be kept below a certain limit and low pass filters used at each end to prevent attacks using injection of high frequency signals. He shows that below threshold frequencies, the eavesdropper gets statistically worse information from the sniffing devices than do Alice and Bob to a significant enough degree that the information leakage is less than you get from a practical quantum cryptographic system.
A small amount of information leakage is tolerable... Quantum crypto systems in practice have some. Privacy enhancing algorithms are used to achieve practical security from a slightly leaky system at the expense of bandwidth, and those would work the same way for this system as for quantum crypto.
The original article was published (and talked about in /., see Related Article link) back in 2005. The paper you cited claiming a break was replied to by the original author, and there have been a number of other papers back and forth since. The technique has credibility. As Bruce Schneier pointed out this technique if it works is no worse than quantum cryptography and is a lot simpler and cheaper, but it has all the other deficiencies of quantum cryptography. The author claims no more than that. He rebuts the arguments in the paper you linked to by showing that the amount of information leakage is less than that from a practical (as opposed to theoretically ideal) quantum cryptography system, and so can be dealt with using the same privacy-enhancing post-processing that has to be used with quantum crypto.
I agree with Schneier's assessment of quantum crypto as a solution in search of a problem, and this appears the same, although much cheaper to implement.
The most recent paper on the topic was a plenary talk given by the author last week at a conference in Italy. The references in that paper will give you the complete list of papers arguing with his results and his responses to those arguments.
You can order by receive date. Click on the icon on the right side of the column header of the preview pane to see all the column headings that are available, and select "Order Received". That adds a column to the display which is a message number that is incremented as each message is received.
You can sort messages by the contents of any column by clicking on the column header. Click again to sort in the opposite order. So once you have an Order Received column, click on its heading to have messages sorted by the received date instead of the Send Date. The sort order you select is remembered when you exit and restart Thunderbird.
PUBPAT has a different spin on this story, touting how Forgent has dropped all claims on the patent as a result of a successful challenge brought a year ago by PUBPAT resulting in the patent office rejecting the broadest claims last May. However, the details of the patent show that it was issued in 1987, which would mean that it expires sometime in 2007. So Forgent just settled for a final $8 million to cap off the total $110 million in revenue they have grabbed during the 10 years since they bought the company that owned the patent.
From TFA:
If you are in his class I'm sure you already have put in your share of the $12.50 that was used to get one master copy of each of the first five lectures.
TFA says that it is a linear relationship with a slope of 0.8. They scaled the data so that a direct linear relationship would plot as a straight line with a slope of 1, which is a line going up at a 45 degree angle, hits increasing one unit for every one unit increase in incoming links.
Instead they saw a straight line with a slope of 0.8, meaning the hits increase 0.8 units for every 1 unit increase in incoming links. More links still correlate with more traffic, but, for example, doubling the number of incoming links increases the traffic by a factor of 1.6, not by a factor of 2.
Your own journal entry demonstrates how Blue Security's Blue Frog software can't work on much of the spam. And there are other reasons why it can't work on most spam. After reading Blue Security's FAQ, I see the following six fallacies, just off the top of my head... Actually they can be summarized as, "How can you possibly expect automated complaints to a form on a spamvertised website (if there even is a feedback or complaint form) will shame a spammer into not spamming as long as they continue to turn a profit from it?"
1) much spam does not include URLs to websites; 2) if the spam is advertising a web site, there is no reason for the owner to even have a form for opting out of their spam mailings or for complaints or feedback; 3) if Blue Frog is at all successful there is no way they can manually identify spamvertised web sites and the complaint link for each and prepare a script to automate filing a complaint to the particular form used by each; 4) if a spamvertised web site does have a customer feedback or request form they have no reason to not simply delete complaints about spam; 5) even if they cared a tiny bit, they have no control over who the spam mailing service they hired (who could even be connected to the Russian Mafia) actually sends spam to; 6) the spam mailing services get paid to send X million emails, not to send X million emails to valid addresses of people who have not indicated that they don't want spam. Their customers pay for the results they get and don't care how much wasted email is used to get the results. The spam mailing service has no reason to conserve bandwidth when they are using botnets of infected machines to do the actual work.
That's the same circuit mentioned in the recent transparent IC story where TFA said
Finally, I can say this for real: Imagine a Beowulf cluster (link is to Biowulf) of these!
The modeling software they used is called NAMD, free open source "parallel molecular dynamics code designed for high-performance simulation of large biomolecular systems" that will run on commodity clusters of tens of Linux PCs on gigabit ethernet. In other words, you too can run the virus simulation on your own Beowulf cluster, if you don't mind it taking some years to run. According to NCSA's own press release about the virus simulation, it "only" took 35 processor-years, so if you have a 100 fast Linux PCs on a gigabit network lying around you can do it yourself in not much more than 4 months.
The bug allows someone to take a signed GPG message, stick in their own unsigned message in a certain way, and GPG will show you the combined message or even just the new message, but tell you that it is signed by the person who signed the original message.
If you read the message using the new GPG 1.4.2.2 it will correctly not accept the hacked message. So if you have any question about signed mail you received, you can check it again after upgrading GPG.
The bug only affects embedded signatures, such as in email messages using inline signatures or signed encrypted email. I think that excludes PGP/MIME signed unencrypted email, which is a common format for signed mail and would be a form of detached signature.
The bug does not affect "detached signatures", which are the kind that are used to verify software downloads, which means it could not have been used to hack yum, apt-get, etc.
All in all, not a big security flaw unless someone takes a signed email that you sent them, forges a GPG signed request to your domain registrar to transfer your million dollar domain name to them, and your registrar hasn't yet updated to GPG 1.4.2.2. Whoops -- if you upgrade GPG right now, it wouldn't help in that scenario.
File -> Export, then select HTML as the export type and within that select JPEG as the format for the slides.
You not only get all the slides as jpg images, but you also get an HTML slideshow to present them. And unlike with PowerPoint you get a dialog giving you options for the quality settings, etc. for the jpegs if you don't want to use the defaults. Delete the HTML files if you don't need them.
That may not be as obvious without reading documentation as PowerPoint's File -> Save As, select jpeg image and say "yes" to save all slides, but on the other hand the generated HTML slideshow and the control over the jpeg settings come in handy.
"Franklin S. Felber" has quite a few more hits, but his publications seem more often to be cited as "F S Felber" which had 242 hits when I tried it just now.
Old programmers don't die, they just lose their memory. And then use Google instead...
Results 1 - 10 of about 15,200 for "old programmers never die". (0.19 seconds)
Old programmers never die, they just terminate and stay resident.
Old programmers don't die, they just branch to a new address
Old programmers don't die, they're just cast into the void
REM Old programmers don't die, they just GOSUB without RETURN.
Old programmers don't die, they just stop getting upgrades.
Old programmers don't die, they just lose pointers and drop bits.
Old programmers don't die, they just turn into long haul truck drivers.
Old developers don't retire... they just reboot (thread on slashdot)
Old programmers don't die, they are just set to high-values.
Old programmers never die, they just byte it.
Old programmers never die, they just lose their byte.
Old programmers never die, they just decompile.
Old programmers never die, they just get bugged with life.
Old programmers never die, they just go to bits.
Old programmers never die, they just recurse.
Old programmers never die, they just stop getting upgrades.
Old programmers never die, they just get garbage collected.
Old programmers never die, they just don't C so good.
Old programmers never die, they just reassemble into another life form.
Old programmers never die, they just give up their resources.
Old programmers never die, they just move over to legacy systems.
"The coding's never finished until the last user is dead"
We already have 65 nanometer process chips in production. Even this article, after parroting the NEC press release mentions that Intel is building a 45 nm process plant, which is a step further along than "NEC has developed a technology" to make 55 nm chips.
Here is an article from two years ago with an expected timetable for chip process width that exactly matches what we have seen since then: 90 nm in 2004, 65 nm in 2005-2006 and 45 nm in 2007-2008. There really isn't anything exciting about this press release from NEC.
NTT DoCoMo's 4G Tests Hit 300Mbps
Posted by CmdrTaco on 06:55 AM June 2nd, 2004
from the and-i-still-can't-get-cable dept.
haunebu writes "'Your brand-spankin'-new 3G phone is nearing obsolesence: NTT DoCoMo reveals the results from a new 4G test system.' says TheFeature. While in a car moving at 30kph, DoCoMo engineers managed a peak throughput of 300Mbps and a sustained transfer rate of 135Mbps with their new variable spreading factor orthogonal frequency code division multiplexing (WSF-OFCDM) downstream technology. Who comes up with these names, and how does Japan manage to stay lightyears ahead of everyone else in wireless?"
Yahoo! has the patent on using punctuation in trademarks as a business method to create simulated excitement in otherwise independent reviews wherever they mention the name of the product being reviewd.