Putting up a wall? We're gonna need some 2x4s and 4x8s
Which, incidentally, don't seem use American Customary units of length for those dimensions, but whacky industry units where 1" (board measure other than length) is approximately equal to 7/8" (US customary).
I still don't think your an example of the problem they are claiming to address, which is of people not having practical access to the internet. Which is, while not completely unheard of, fairly rare in the US and fairly common in the developing world.
Depending on _how_ deep they go into these countries, I think the larger issue will be simply getting backhaul into these areas, and working through the bureaucracy to get it done.
Near as I can tell, some of these countries regulations are on the level of "I thought it up when you asked the question".
Well, Google is sitting on a pretty fat pile of cash, which usually is exactly the kind of thing you need to have handy to "comply" with "regulations" on the level of "I thought it up when you asked the question". So that may not exactly be a barrier.
Haswell is a laptop/desktop/server microarchitecture, but Intel doesn't care very much about the desktop anymore, so expect little press coverage of that angle.
Yeah, its not like most of the stories on this announcement have covered Intel's claim of tripling the integrated graphics performance on desktop systems (and doubling it on laptop systems.)
Maybe in time, they'll come back to the US and play against the big boys.
Google is already building out WiFi in the US (NYC, accompanying Fiber at least in Austin, some others), and playing against the telecom big boys in rolling out Fiber in the first place.
Their plans to expand to the developing world are following, rather than leading, their role in becoming an access provider in the US.
You think the very poor have no interest in buying goods and services that could make their lives better?
To be fair, I think the objection was more that the very poor lack money to buy goods and services that could make their lives better rather than that they lack interest.
A particular subset of this problem would be that the very poor may also lack the money to purchase devices to access the network Google is deploying. OTOH, an effort to provide developing-world internet access and devices in the short term could spur development that alleviates this situation in the long term, and leave Google with a pretty big incumbency advantage as the market becomes more valuable. So, while it may be high-risk, there's potentially a big payoff from a purely capitalistic standpoint. (Spurring development could also be a big payoff from a humanitarian standpoint, as well.)
My laptop consumes most of its power via the discrete GPU, display and other peripherals. I know, since if I switch from the good GPU to the crappy one, and dim the screen, my battery life goes from 2.5 to 5 hours. Thus, with everything on, at least half the power draw can't be CPU, so there is no way this could double my battery life.
Math tip: A 50% increase in battery life (what they actually claimed) isn't the same as doubling it.
Also, since a big selling point for Haswell (aside from power efficiencies) is the claimed greatly improved (~2x for laptop-oriented models, ~3x for desktop-oriented models) improvement in graphics performance, I'd be very surprised if their claims for about battery life were focussed on systems using discrete GPUs rather than relying on the integrated graphics on Haswell.
But, when idle, with a dimmed or off screen, yes, it could help a lot. Apparently Haswell has some major improvements to handling network (including wifi) packets when in low power modes, and this should be a big win. I assume this kind of situation is where they got the 2x number
Well, except that they explicitly claimed that was overall battery life, and it was a 50% increase not 2x, and they actually cited numbers for improvement in idle life and it was much higher than the +50% claimed overall (or even the 2x you pulled out of who-knows-where), since their claimed idle-mode improvement was twenty times (TFA is less clear on this, but Computerworld covers the same event with more specificity: "And in idle or standby mode the chips will do even better, extending battery life by up to 20 times, [Rani Borkar, Intel's Architecture Group VP] said." [emphasis added])
> Is this seriously 50% increase in battery life? Or just 50% reduction in power usage by CPU?
Assuming the CPU was the only element consuming power, a 50% reduction in power usage by the CPU would equate to a 100% increase in battery life. But, yes, what they are claiming is that the net effect of the various improvements is that it should enable a 50% increase in battery life, not that it will merely reduce power consumption on the CPU by the amount that would do that if the CPU was the only power draw.
The real question is whether the Judge presiding over a trial is allowed to make that kind of comment *before* the trial has started.
And the real answer is "yes". In certain circumstances, they are even required to (e.g., the standard for granting preliminary injunctions, often sought before trial, is explicitly call for a determination of the likelihood of success on the merits.)
Can't prejudice such as this get Apple's case thrown out?
Prejudice is opinion formed independently and prior to evidence being presented. This is a comment about how things stand based on the evidence that has been presented, which is not, in any way, shape, or form, prejudice. Its just "judice", which, you know, is what judges do.
Then the question is: why aren't there services like facebook's, google's and twitter's that are honest and let you be the customer, instead of commercial third parties?
Probably, because no one who thinks that enough people are willing to pay enough money to make that a profitable business model has started a business in that space. If you think it would be viable, go ahead and start a firm working on that model and prove it.
It's possible that's what they were thinking (and maybe even said) but it sure doesn't come out from the design of the site, which I've always thought has been well-geared toward the end users.
I think that the goal was to be well-geared toward full-featured developer collaboration (which involves more than just hosting repositories.) The fact that the same features can be leveraged with user-focussed content to also make it an excellent platform for end-user interaction was, I think, a peripheral benefit.
Distributing software to end users isn't a core purpose of Google Code; the download functionality (which could be, and often was, used for that purpose) wasn't, as I understand it, provided for that purpose, but provided mostly as an alternative to using source control tools to get source code bundles.
But, using it to distribute arbitrary files also enabled to it to be used to create Google Code projects that were nothing but free hosting for malware distributed via deceptive email links.
Using the file download hosting feature to host malware and sending emails with deceptive links to that malware to distribute it to unsuspecting users seems to be one of the main abuses.
Any public file sharing system is liable to be abused period. This includes version control systems.
(1) Version control systems, unlike file downloads, are central to the purpose for which Google provides Google Code, to wit, facilitate developer-to-developer collaboration on open-source projects. (2) Version control systems, unlike file downloads, are not particularly widely abused for hosting malware to be distributed through emailing deceptive links to unsophisticated users.
I am more inclined to believe that Google will do for Google, what is best for Google.
I don't think anyone doubts that, or that Schmidt really expects his comments to be interpreted in any other context. Schmidt is just saying that none of the outcomes that are plausible enough to even consider in discussion from the current tax policy debate will change the operating context in a way that would make "leaving the UK" better for Google than "staying in the UK".
You know, in discussing things, people often discount possibilities that are considered to have an extremely low probability that are also irrelevant to the context of the conversation, so when the context is questions about Google response to potential tax increases in the UK, "Google will invest in the UK no matter what you guys do" doesn't, to a reasonable listener, equate to a commitment to staying engaged in the UK if the UK suddenly, rather than raising taxes that Google would have to pay, instead adopts Chinese-style massive political censorship that Google would have to actively cooperate with the authorities to enforce in order to be allowed to continue operating in the UK.
Somehow i think the notion of 'no money' sits uncomfortable with advertisement companies, such as Google.
Companies are abstractions that don't have comfort levels. Certainly, profit-seeking investors in any company (not just companies that make money by selling advertising placement) would be uncomfortable with not receiving money for their investment, as would people working in most companies (again, regardless of what business they are in) in the present economic context. Whether those people would be uncomfortable with a context in which money was unnecessary is far less clear, and either in terms of investors, founders, or employees, I don't see any reason to think that what the company sells would have any bearing on how much discomfort the people involved in it would feel in such a context.
> What you say is true but unpersuasive. The surest way to win is to make sure everyone else loses. And that is why negativity works.
In a non-zero-sum game, the surest way to win can be to take action which increases the total reward pool, and making sure everyone else loses may be suboptimal (and can even be a way to guarantee that you lose.)
Recognizing the actual payoff matrix in the game is key to winning, and many many things (in business and elsewhere) are not zero sum.
The problem is, those two things go hand in hand. If you don't understand the details of the technology, you're highly likely to miss a bunch of nuance in understanding how (and how much) it can solve your business problems.
There's an extent to which that is true, but that's largely what the CIO is for -- not to provide other CxOs with the technical details, but to have enough understanding of the technical details to be the executive with the understanding of the nuances of how technology can solve the business problem, and to be the repository of that nuanced understanding at the executive level, with the ability to articulate it at a level appropriate to the audience, which, in an executive context, is often going to mean losing some of the nuance to focus on non-technical explanations relevant to the decision at hand. There may be times when technical details are important to share, but that's going to depend both on the substantive context and the audience comfort level with technical details, and the CIO needs to be aware of both.
Slashdot Mirror
Which, incidentally, don't seem use American Customary units of length for those dimensions, but whacky industry units where 1" (board measure other than length) is approximately equal to 7/8" (US customary).
I still don't think your an example of the problem they are claiming to address, which is of people not having practical access to the internet. Which is, while not completely unheard of, fairly rare in the US and fairly common in the developing world.
Well, Google is sitting on a pretty fat pile of cash, which usually is exactly the kind of thing you need to have handy to "comply" with "regulations" on the level of "I thought it up when you asked the question". So that may not exactly be a barrier.
Yeah, its not like most of the stories on this announcement have covered Intel's claim of tripling the integrated graphics performance on desktop systems (and doubling it on laptop systems.)
Well, except that that is exactly the case.
I've highlighted the problem with this refutation.
Google is already building out WiFi in the US (NYC, accompanying Fiber at least in Austin, some others), and playing against the telecom big boys in rolling out Fiber in the first place.
Their plans to expand to the developing world are following, rather than leading, their role in becoming an access provider in the US.
To be fair, I think the objection was more that the very poor lack money to buy goods and services that could make their lives better rather than that they lack interest.
A particular subset of this problem would be that the very poor may also lack the money to purchase devices to access the network Google is deploying. OTOH, an effort to provide developing-world internet access and devices in the short term could spur development that alleviates this situation in the long term, and leave Google with a pretty big incumbency advantage as the market becomes more valuable. So, while it may be high-risk, there's potentially a big payoff from a purely capitalistic standpoint. (Spurring development could also be a big payoff from a humanitarian standpoint, as well.)
Math tip: A 50% increase in battery life (what they actually claimed) isn't the same as doubling it.
Also, since a big selling point for Haswell (aside from power efficiencies) is the claimed greatly improved (~2x for laptop-oriented models, ~3x for desktop-oriented models) improvement in graphics performance, I'd be very surprised if their claims for about battery life were focussed on systems using discrete GPUs rather than relying on the integrated graphics on Haswell.
Well, except that they explicitly claimed that was overall battery life, and it was a 50% increase not 2x, and they actually cited numbers for improvement in idle life and it was much higher than the +50% claimed overall (or even the 2x you pulled out of who-knows-where), since their claimed idle-mode improvement was twenty times (TFA is less clear on this, but Computerworld covers the same event with more specificity: "And in idle or standby mode the chips will do even better, extending battery life by up to 20 times, [Rani Borkar, Intel's Architecture Group VP] said." [emphasis added])
> Is this seriously 50% increase in battery life? Or just 50% reduction in power usage by CPU?
Assuming the CPU was the only element consuming power, a 50% reduction in power usage by the CPU would equate to a 100% increase in battery life. But, yes, what they are claiming is that the net effect of the various improvements is that it should enable a 50% increase in battery life, not that it will merely reduce power consumption on the CPU by the amount that would do that if the CPU was the only power draw.
And the real answer is "yes". In certain circumstances, they are even required to (e.g., the standard for granting preliminary injunctions, often sought before trial, is explicitly call for a determination of the likelihood of success on the merits.)
Prejudice is opinion formed independently and prior to evidence being presented. This is a comment about how things stand based on the evidence that has been presented, which is not, in any way, shape, or form, prejudice. Its just "judice", which, you know, is what judges do.
Then it still has crappy UX, because "everyone else" are users too.
Unless they can be construed as an intended third-party beneficiary under the contract between the primary parties.
Probably, because no one who thinks that enough people are willing to pay enough money to make that a profitable business model has started a business in that space. If you think it would be viable, go ahead and start a firm working on that model and prove it.
I think that the goal was to be well-geared toward full-featured developer collaboration (which involves more than just hosting repositories.) The fact that the same features can be leveraged with user-focussed content to also make it an excellent platform for end-user interaction was, I think, a peripheral benefit.
Distributing software to end users isn't a core purpose of Google Code; the download functionality (which could be, and often was, used for that purpose) wasn't, as I understand it, provided for that purpose, but provided mostly as an alternative to using source control tools to get source code bundles.
But, using it to distribute arbitrary files also enabled to it to be used to create Google Code projects that were nothing but free hosting for malware distributed via deceptive email links.
Using the file download hosting feature to host malware and sending emails with deceptive links to that malware to distribute it to unsuspecting users seems to be one of the main abuses.
(1) Version control systems, unlike file downloads, are central to the purpose for which Google provides Google Code, to wit, facilitate developer-to-developer collaboration on open-source projects.
(2) Version control systems, unlike file downloads, are not particularly widely abused for hosting malware to be distributed through emailing deceptive links to unsophisticated users.
I don't think anyone doubts that, or that Schmidt really expects his comments to be interpreted in any other context. Schmidt is just saying that none of the outcomes that are plausible enough to even consider in discussion from the current tax policy debate will change the operating context in a way that would make "leaving the UK" better for Google than "staying in the UK".
You know, in discussing things, people often discount possibilities that are considered to have an extremely low probability that are also irrelevant to the context of the conversation, so when the context is questions about Google response to potential tax increases in the UK, "Google will invest in the UK no matter what you guys do" doesn't, to a reasonable listener, equate to a commitment to staying engaged in the UK if the UK suddenly, rather than raising taxes that Google would have to pay, instead adopts Chinese-style massive political censorship that Google would have to actively cooperate with the authorities to enforce in order to be allowed to continue operating in the UK.
Really, now?
Companies are abstractions that don't have comfort levels. Certainly, profit-seeking investors in any company (not just companies that make money by selling advertising placement) would be uncomfortable with not receiving money for their investment, as would people working in most companies (again, regardless of what business they are in) in the present economic context. Whether those people would be uncomfortable with a context in which money was unnecessary is far less clear, and either in terms of investors, founders, or employees, I don't see any reason to think that what the company sells would have any bearing on how much discomfort the people involved in it would feel in such a context.
> What you say is true but unpersuasive. The surest way to win is to make sure everyone else loses. And that is why negativity works.
In a non-zero-sum game, the surest way to win can be to take action which increases the total reward pool, and making sure everyone else loses may be suboptimal (and can even be a way to guarantee that you lose.)
Recognizing the actual payoff matrix in the game is key to winning, and many many things (in business and elsewhere) are not zero sum.
When the police falsely accuse people enough times they will make "somebody" upset enough to do something stupid.
There's an extent to which that is true, but that's largely what the CIO is for -- not to provide other CxOs with the technical details, but to have enough understanding of the technical details to be the executive with the understanding of the nuances of how technology can solve the business problem, and to be the repository of that nuanced understanding at the executive level, with the ability to articulate it at a level appropriate to the audience, which, in an executive context, is often going to mean losing some of the nuance to focus on non-technical explanations relevant to the decision at hand. There may be times when technical details are important to share, but that's going to depend both on the substantive context and the audience comfort level with technical details, and the CIO needs to be aware of both.