Agree completely! I hate DRM and I don't touch it. Having a standard will just make it easier for my browser to refuse to display it, and to provide me with a useful error message.
You aren't going to earn a bunch of interest on cash, especially when you have to spend a lot of it on the equipment needed for the production. But even if it was a prepaid service, short term cash savings doesn't pay useful amounts of interest. Certainly not anything even approaching half the rate of inflation.
Holographic augmented reality means that when they see how much you spent on it, you'll have a bunch of fake boobs chasing you around the mall. If you need a demonstration, you can't afford it. If a thousand dollars is a lot of money, please don't try to demo it because the finger oils can mar the hand.
any of various mechanical devices, as for gripping or holding something.
a projection on a moving part for moving steadily or for tripping another part with which it engages.
13. Also called gripper, nipper. Metalworking. a device on a drawbench for drawing the work through the die. 14. a cramp binding together two timbers. 15. an iron bar driven into a stone or timber to provide a means of lifting it. 16. an andiron; firedog.
A phonedog appears to be a type of zombie that is always gripping a phone as it wanders about.
You obviously haven't seen the type of pants they wear in high crime neighborhoods! Some of these guys could be walking around with a Gatling Crossbow.
It does have to be hotter. Physics. Modern micros are designed to need less power by the choice of instructions and features. That old IP block can't be made cool, you would need a new design. Perhaps you're one of those people who think "mobile" (laptop) CPUs are just a scam and that they're really the same?
Here is the thing: There are already System-on-Chip products that are full-featured. There is no demand for EISA or any of that, and new devices don't have drivers so you don't even get code reuse out of it.
And for the same reasons that it has to run hotter, it would also be more expensive. Because newer designs are done differently for real reasons. It isn't just new designs are bigger. The small chip designs have been progressing too. The existence of design improvements guarantees that the old designs won't compete with them. The places where old designs, like the 8052, can compete is right where the 8052 lives; at the smallest size of microcontroller that is useful. And the 8052 is a very simple design, it doesn't have a bus with a bunch of strict timing and feature requirements that is going to keep the complexity and heat up. They can get the full benefit of both modern processes and modern design, because compatibility is much easier.
You would have to create a whole new architecture and simple make it support the x86 instruction set for convenience. Which is probably over twice as much work as creating a new architecture by itself. And now realize that ARM has already been doing that for 30 years, does it really well, and already licenses it to everybody. That's the thing; the harder work that you'd be saving has already been done, and is cheaper to produce.
The reason IRQs were a PITA was because of software, but adding more is going to increase cost. Hardware interrupts start to get expensive if you want a lot of them. And you're redesigning the chip for that, see above.
If you want to play games with RAM to avoid bit boundaries, your code complexity goes through the roof and you give up portability and you have to choose between hurting performance really bad, or else losing backwards compatibility. These are solved problems, with known tradeoffs.
Point is you could have a complete ASIC in a TQFP package that would consume minimal real estate on a PCB, while providing everything the system needs.
Newer designs already do all that, and "everything the system needs" is simply different for an SoC than for an x86 system. For about $6 single quantity ($3 at quantity) I can get an ARM system with 4MB flash, wifi, modern buses like I2C and a few hardware interrupts. If I want more features, I can get something similar from TI for $5 more that has more features and a huge number of hardware interrupts. And they're ARM, so you can already reuse most of your old x86 code! Having a compiler that supports the old code is way better than having a CPU that supports and ancient bus.
OK then, take a 486, plonk the chipset etc onto the same die, release as a PC compatible SoC.
And you have something slower than an ARM Cortex-M that uses more transistors, runs hotter, and is more difficult to program.
And you better also hire a swarm of extra engineers to write code to include in on-chip ROM to run those peripherals.
What you'll have is worse than what Intel already flounders offering. It sounds like a good idea, I understand that. I used to say the same thing before I started doing firmware programming and actually working with these things and reading the datasheets. Once you're familiar with the options, it just doesn't look good anymore.
386 is a bear for IoT. Why would you want a bloated CISC system like that if you're not using an ISA bus or something similar?
That would not compete with ARM using any process at all, and it would not be cheaper than a modern x86 to make other than having a lower transistor count.
IoT you want a microcontroller or SoC, you don't really want a CPU that is going to need a bunch of other chips to provide required peripherals. And if you add that stuff in, now you don't have legacy code that can use it, and the newer code uses newer things like ARM, so you're building out a whole toolchain.
That said, there are a few 486 clones floating around that use a modern process and are really tiny. But it isn't popular or useful or easy to use. For embedded systems there is more interest in the 6502, the processor used in the Apple ][, than there is in x86 based stuff. If you ever look at CPU instruction sets, you'll see how unlikely it is that a person would ever use an x86 without a full-featured OS. And when you want that, you can get a full SoC with ARM that runs any of the OSes that an embedded x86 would run, so it would be a silly row to hoe.
They can't even keep up with Texas Instruments on features, and then they want an even higher price, when TI is already getting a premium over AVR and Espressif.
There is basically no use case where they offer an advantage of any sort, unless you only like Intel hardware. If there is at least one other company you're willing to use, they probably have something better for less, and something else for even less than that.
It doesn't matter if other people nearby hear it, they're going to hear the victim screaming anyways, and their loved ones wailing. Gunshot detectors won't detect a bow, or wailing loved ones.
If you tried to make a listening device that was sensitive enough to hear crossbows, you'd have a few thousand false positives for every true positive, even if all murderers switched to crossbows.
You should either include words that mean what you mean, or else just not comment trying to explain yourself afterwards. Just stick with what you actually said, which didn't draw any of that into the conversation, or reference it in any way.
Germany doesn't have a space program, that was just another movie about space nazis.
I doubt you're German, you sound exactly like an American "tax protester." Almost certainly an idiot American visiting Germany. Do us a favor: stay there. (my apologies to Germany if you do)
When I saw the headline, I was gonna go with the bunnies. I mean, the monkeys are going to bite somebody, and fap everywhere.
Then I read the summary and made a solemn vow never to click any slashdot link again. This was a bridge too far into horseshitland. I haven't rage-quit or anything, but my loyalty is probably negative at this point.
And without even considering the effect on the children of using Elizebeth Holmes as a role model. Hitler can be a role model too, it just depends what role you want to model. These people want to model killing patients by doing fake tests instead of the real tests the doctor ordered. Or maybe they're talking about the other side of their business, investment fraud.
No, he didn't make any claim he just pointed out that your words were irrelevant. The claim that I did make was that she can't be convicted because she lacked intent, because she believed him that it was safe. His consent is irrelevant, but since it was his own safety at question then he being the one who convinced her has increased weight. She knew that he wasn't suicidal, and that he believed they could pull it off. He also had more experience with the weapon than her.
That's how bad your comprehension is, man. And I doubt any of us have "sock puppets," but it does tell us a bit about the other sort of places you hang out.
The reason you don't think lack of intent is a defense is twofold; you're not a lawyer, and you're an idiot who is as credulous of your first idea as she was of his idea.
I don't think the semantic argument about the headline really works, because the root cause in the general sense is a matter of opinion, so can't be corrected. The comma doesn't imply a causal relationship anyways, even if you do want to subject it to that much analysis. And "kills" is very broad, it can be a person with intent, a person without intent, a weapon used, or even a context that "kills" somebody. We could say that he was killed by the credulousness of another.
In the legal sense, obviously it was an "accident" because they both thought it would work, and that stupid belief is all that really matters here.
That he used a stack of books is exactly the sort of idiocy I was expecting, but I haven't seen it reported yet. If true, these people weren't capable even of a karate-chop brick-breaking stunt!
Yeah, I mean, bullet-proof glass is often made from plastic, and if you added sheets of paper it would make it stronger.
I think there is a more basic type of test than any of what you're proposing though:
"Am I a circus performer? Is my name Evel Knievel? Do I, or my partner, have any training or experience in dangerous stunts?" These are the "tests" that needed to be done. Does a circus acrobat need to study engineering and materials science? No, not at all. Can a person off the street just grab some ropes and do circus acrobatics safely? No, not at all. Same here.
Public information isn't there yet about what sort of "test" he did shooting the other book, only that he had done some sort of test and then showed her to book to "prove" it worked. But it doesn't matter, because whatever words he said, she should have known they weren't circus performers and didn't know what the practical considerations for the stunt actually are.
Slashdot Mirror
Agree completely! I hate DRM and I don't touch it. Having a standard will just make it easier for my browser to refuse to display it, and to provide me with a useful error message.
That is all explained by the "pre-" in pre-order.
Yes.
That said, why OR, why not AND?
You aren't going to earn a bunch of interest on cash, especially when you have to spend a lot of it on the equipment needed for the production. But even if it was a prepaid service, short term cash savings doesn't pay useful amounts of interest. Certainly not anything even approaching half the rate of inflation.
Holographic augmented reality means that when they see how much you spent on it, you'll have a bunch of fake boobs chasing you around the mall. If you need a demonstration, you can't afford it. If a thousand dollars is a lot of money, please don't try to demo it because the finger oils can mar the hand.
As always, you get what pay for
That's exactly what the guy in the white van said!
If you buy a bag of dirt for $1, you got what you paid for.
If you buy a bag of dirt for $1000, you got what you paid for.
The saying is literally true, but what it implies (that spending more money means getting a better product) is complete horseshit.
Not sure what a "phonedog" is
dog ...
[dawg, dog]
noun
12.
Machinery.
any of various mechanical devices, as for gripping or holding something.
a projection on a moving part for moving steadily or for tripping another part with which it engages.
13.
Also called gripper, nipper. Metalworking. a device on a drawbench for drawing the work through the die.
14.
a cramp binding together two timbers.
15.
an iron bar driven into a stone or timber to provide a means of lifting it.
16.
an andiron; firedog.
A phonedog appears to be a type of zombie that is always gripping a phone as it wanders about.
You obviously haven't seen the type of pants they wear in high crime neighborhoods! Some of these guys could be walking around with a Gatling Crossbow.
Anyways they make folding ones.
It does have to be hotter. Physics. Modern micros are designed to need less power by the choice of instructions and features. That old IP block can't be made cool, you would need a new design. Perhaps you're one of those people who think "mobile" (laptop) CPUs are just a scam and that they're really the same?
Here is the thing: There are already System-on-Chip products that are full-featured. There is no demand for EISA or any of that, and new devices don't have drivers so you don't even get code reuse out of it.
And for the same reasons that it has to run hotter, it would also be more expensive. Because newer designs are done differently for real reasons. It isn't just new designs are bigger. The small chip designs have been progressing too. The existence of design improvements guarantees that the old designs won't compete with them. The places where old designs, like the 8052, can compete is right where the 8052 lives; at the smallest size of microcontroller that is useful. And the 8052 is a very simple design, it doesn't have a bus with a bunch of strict timing and feature requirements that is going to keep the complexity and heat up. They can get the full benefit of both modern processes and modern design, because compatibility is much easier.
You would have to create a whole new architecture and simple make it support the x86 instruction set for convenience. Which is probably over twice as much work as creating a new architecture by itself. And now realize that ARM has already been doing that for 30 years, does it really well, and already licenses it to everybody. That's the thing; the harder work that you'd be saving has already been done, and is cheaper to produce.
The reason IRQs were a PITA was because of software, but adding more is going to increase cost. Hardware interrupts start to get expensive if you want a lot of them. And you're redesigning the chip for that, see above.
If you want to play games with RAM to avoid bit boundaries, your code complexity goes through the roof and you give up portability and you have to choose between hurting performance really bad, or else losing backwards compatibility. These are solved problems, with known tradeoffs.
Point is you could have a complete ASIC in a TQFP package that would consume minimal real estate on a PCB, while providing everything the system needs.
Newer designs already do all that, and "everything the system needs" is simply different for an SoC than for an x86 system. For about $6 single quantity ($3 at quantity) I can get an ARM system with 4MB flash, wifi, modern buses like I2C and a few hardware interrupts. If I want more features, I can get something similar from TI for $5 more that has more features and a huge number of hardware interrupts. And they're ARM, so you can already reuse most of your old x86 code! Having a compiler that supports the old code is way better than having a CPU that supports and ancient bus.
OK then, take a 486, plonk the chipset etc onto the same die, release as a PC compatible SoC.
And you have something slower than an ARM Cortex-M that uses more transistors, runs hotter, and is more difficult to program.
And you better also hire a swarm of extra engineers to write code to include in on-chip ROM to run those peripherals.
What you'll have is worse than what Intel already flounders offering. It sounds like a good idea, I understand that. I used to say the same thing before I started doing firmware programming and actually working with these things and reading the datasheets. Once you're familiar with the options, it just doesn't look good anymore.
US troops would never be placed in Kazakhstan.
Beckybeckystanistan is the deepest into Central Asia they would ever be sent.
Total pipe dream.
386 is a bear for IoT. Why would you want a bloated CISC system like that if you're not using an ISA bus or something similar?
That would not compete with ARM using any process at all, and it would not be cheaper than a modern x86 to make other than having a lower transistor count.
IoT you want a microcontroller or SoC, you don't really want a CPU that is going to need a bunch of other chips to provide required peripherals. And if you add that stuff in, now you don't have legacy code that can use it, and the newer code uses newer things like ARM, so you're building out a whole toolchain.
That said, there are a few 486 clones floating around that use a modern process and are really tiny. But it isn't popular or useful or easy to use. For embedded systems there is more interest in the 6502, the processor used in the Apple ][, than there is in x86 based stuff. If you ever look at CPU instruction sets, you'll see how unlikely it is that a person would ever use an x86 without a full-featured OS. And when you want that, you can get a full SoC with ARM that runs any of the OSes that an embedded x86 would run, so it would be a silly row to hoe.
They can't even keep up with Texas Instruments on features, and then they want an even higher price, when TI is already getting a premium over AVR and Espressif.
There is basically no use case where they offer an advantage of any sort, unless you only like Intel hardware. If there is at least one other company you're willing to use, they probably have something better for less, and something else for even less than that.
It doesn't matter if other people nearby hear it, they're going to hear the victim screaming anyways, and their loved ones wailing. Gunshot detectors won't detect a bow, or wailing loved ones.
If you tried to make a listening device that was sensitive enough to hear crossbows, you'd have a few thousand false positives for every true positive, even if all murderers switched to crossbows.
You should either include words that mean what you mean, or else just not comment trying to explain yourself afterwards. Just stick with what you actually said, which didn't draw any of that into the conversation, or reference it in any way.
I object to the science material, it should all be in Metric!
Well now you know where Florida Potatoes come from.
Give them a break, you can't expect educators making childrens cartoons to have seen Bugs Bunny or Who Framed Roger Rabbit.
How would they possibly know you could do such a thing?!
Germany doesn't have a space program, that was just another movie about space nazis.
I doubt you're German, you sound exactly like an American "tax protester." Almost certainly an idiot American visiting Germany. Do us a favor: stay there. (my apologies to Germany if you do)
When I saw the headline, I was gonna go with the bunnies. I mean, the monkeys are going to bite somebody, and fap everywhere.
Then I read the summary and made a solemn vow never to click any slashdot link again. This was a bridge too far into horseshitland. I haven't rage-quit or anything, but my loyalty is probably negative at this point.
And without even considering the effect on the children of using Elizebeth Holmes as a role model. Hitler can be a role model too, it just depends what role you want to model. These people want to model killing patients by doing fake tests instead of the real tests the doctor ordered. Or maybe they're talking about the other side of their business, investment fraud.
No, he didn't make any claim he just pointed out that your words were irrelevant. The claim that I did make was that she can't be convicted because she lacked intent, because she believed him that it was safe. His consent is irrelevant, but since it was his own safety at question then he being the one who convinced her has increased weight. She knew that he wasn't suicidal, and that he believed they could pull it off. He also had more experience with the weapon than her.
That's how bad your comprehension is, man. And I doubt any of us have "sock puppets," but it does tell us a bit about the other sort of places you hang out.
The reason you don't think lack of intent is a defense is twofold; you're not a lawyer, and you're an idiot who is as credulous of your first idea as she was of his idea.
I don't think the semantic argument about the headline really works, because the root cause in the general sense is a matter of opinion, so can't be corrected. The comma doesn't imply a causal relationship anyways, even if you do want to subject it to that much analysis. And "kills" is very broad, it can be a person with intent, a person without intent, a weapon used, or even a context that "kills" somebody. We could say that he was killed by the credulousness of another.
In the legal sense, obviously it was an "accident" because they both thought it would work, and that stupid belief is all that really matters here.
That he used a stack of books is exactly the sort of idiocy I was expecting, but I haven't seen it reported yet. If true, these people weren't capable even of a karate-chop brick-breaking stunt!
Yeah, I mean, bullet-proof glass is often made from plastic, and if you added sheets of paper it would make it stronger.
I think there is a more basic type of test than any of what you're proposing though:
"Am I a circus performer? Is my name Evel Knievel? Do I, or my partner, have any training or experience in dangerous stunts?" These are the "tests" that needed to be done. Does a circus acrobat need to study engineering and materials science? No, not at all. Can a person off the street just grab some ropes and do circus acrobatics safely? No, not at all. Same here.
Public information isn't there yet about what sort of "test" he did shooting the other book, only that he had done some sort of test and then showed her to book to "prove" it worked. But it doesn't matter, because whatever words he said, she should have known they weren't circus performers and didn't know what the practical considerations for the stunt actually are.
Which is why I said something different than that, and your comment has no point?