I was just using published benchmarks. What I've heard is that 20nm helped a bit, the GPU helped a lot. I hadn't heard anything about a decoder problem. So I meant what I wrote but I'm willing to be educated.
I haven't been following it. The D-1540 seems like a nice offering. Smartphones are now 1/2 of the entire consumer electronics industry. I wouldn't underestimate the money going into ARM.
As far as ARM in server where I think ARM is likely to expand to first would be laptop. HP Chromebook 11 for example already uses this processor. Then it moves up market taking over some mainstream laptops. I could easily see for by end of decade for Apple's laptop lineup:
ARM for Macbook (OSX or a variant of iOS)
Intel for Macbook Pro (OSX)
Apple's the bulk of all profits.
First off I want to point to one paragraph: Nineteen states have laws on the books that limit such networks. They range from strict prohibitions on any or most municipal broadband service (Texas and Nevada), to requirements that a municipality hold public hearings or a referendum before offering service, as in Alabama, Colorado, Minnesota and Virginia. At least 89 communities around the country have publicly owned fiber-optic networks.
As for this case of preemption in Tennessee this is kind of nuts but overturn or preempt is too simple. The FCC here (https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-preempts-laws-restricting-community-broadband-nctn) argued that Tennessee outright violated Federal law and told a municipality to go ahead and violate state law. What's important is the FCC argued that the restrictions limited competition and regulating competition is FCC not the states. The FCC however specifically stated the states can simply ban municipalities from offering broadband services. What they weren't allowing was the state to regulate the market in a way that differs from the FCC because that does fall under FCC jurisdiction.
So the FCC is allowing the states an out here if they really hate municipal broadband. North Carolina is more interesting because the FCC specifically listed some of the provisions of their law which were barriers to investment and others that were not. Because of the out, allowing the states to ban, you avoid many of the problems if the FCC had simply preempted. The way you were phrasing it Tennessee to resist might very well have the municipal officials arrested, though of course that would move the federal case from lazily working its way through the system to urgent. Tennessee also might simply refuse to regulate the new company at all, denying it any state protections. They could deny them any ability to borrow.
I suspect the Sixth Circuit (USA federal court) where this case is heading is going to create a framework for how to handle this. Probably what they are going to say is the FCC is entitled to challenge state laws in federal court but not entitled to just tell municipalities to ignore laws the FCC disagrees with.
This is subtle and not the norm.
-- 100 towns * 5000 residential homes each * 2 gb/s *
Sorry that should be 200 tbs not pbs .
A 5 year ROI is basically unheard of in an infrastructure build - 20-25 is about where it's at, because it's expected to last 50 (or more)
No it isn't. 25 years ago the home internet infrastructure didn't even exist. A few years later it would have been extra capacity at LECs since people were using the cooper phone lines more hours per day. A few years after that it would have been DSL and coax connections capable of 5mbs or less. All of which are totally worthless now. Payoff in 60 months was on the high end, the company needs to make some profit on their infrastructure spend. If people start demanding faster relative speeds that means faster upgrades the spend goes from 60 months down to 36 or so. I'm not picturing 300 months for decades if not a century.
we don't need to care about the 500 miles in between towns - the middle mile is already done (for the most part)
100 towns * 5000 residential homes each * 2 gb/s *
Or since we are talking nationwide. America has 130m residences.
130m* 2gb/sec *
We don't even have the technology to support a middle mile that large even if we were willing to spend a fortune. Now of course your point about delivering fiber capable of doing say 10gbs and only delivering 100mbs now is true. Any new infrastructure being put in in 2015 should be able to go faster than 1gbs. We agree there.
I'm having trouble with your pronouns who is us? You seem to be shifting from a NZ perspective to a USA perspective. Anyway... that's the economics. If American towns think they can get 50 years out of a fiber buy then they can certainly pay for it. But they don't so they won't. And that's the point of my posts. People think internet is cheap to provide while the reality is it is very expensive to provide and they are paying a fair estimate for what it costs given a reasonable payoff matrix. If you think the matrix is grossly mispriced then invest in telcos because they are sitting on a goldmine or own your own fiber / become an ISP. Which it appears you have.
What I've read from i.e. the amicus briefs to the FCC the law prohibited the electric company from servicing someone that didn't get their electricity from same company (or wasn't "in the area serviced"), not that they did any of the things you mention.
I think what you are talking about is one case the Electric Power Board (EPB) of Chattanooga offering Internet and video service to residents. Absolutely terrific internet service. Comcast claimed they were using ratepayer funds. Ratepayer funds are from the state governments. Using them for a purpose not allowed by law is approaching embezzlement. When you talk about southern states there is also federal involvement since their utilities often came out of New Deal legislation.
And in either case the FCC didn't like that law and struck it down
The FCC can't strike down a state law. They can argue in court against it or work towards its repeal. They aren't that powerful.
. What would be a fair characterisation then?
The problem with American broadband there really isn't one. America given its population densities is a broadband success. We have a huge percentage of the population getting ever increasing speeds at a good price point. Its not perfect but I don't think of this as a failure.
The problem with American municipalities offering broadband is that they want to play fast and loose with funding. If there was a up or down vote on whether internet should be taxpayer supported the vote would be no. But cheap internet is very popular so if the municipality makes the funding mechanism opaque the taxpayer subsidy is much more popular. Basically the problem we always have with government: 70% of Americans think the government spends too much and needs to cut spending however the moment you name any specific government program we fund 70% of Americans think that's a good use of taxpayer money and support the spending. Internet is just one more example of the inconsistent beliefs about government spending of the middle 40% of American voters. Republicans are mostly opposed to those sorts of financing games to expand government while Democrats are mostly in favor.
The law allows municipalities to pay for internet. It allows for everything you suggest easily. What it mostly doesn't allow for in those states is making it opaque and without making it opaque it lacks enough public support to become policy. The FCC under a Democratic administration of course is going to support making it opaque since they strongly support better broadband as a public good.
Have you tried: Oracle VM Server for SPARC and Oracle Solaris Zones for virtualization? Anyway Oracle and Cloud Sigma both offer Solaris in the cloud. And of course there is nothing stopping you from upgrading him to a modern Solaris box.
This was exclusively for workstations but in terms of multi processor there definitely were multi-processor 486s sold. I had a buddy with 4x486. SCO was the typical OS for these boxes. OS/2 and Linux were both working on it and would achieve it.
Also also with SCO the x86/i860 combo was popular (for an exotic workstation). The 486 while having good floating point math sucked at vector math. The i860 while good at vector math was bad at multi-tasking. There were both motherboards and compilers to take advantage of this combo which was a winner. It allowed you to build a workstation for under $10k that was a bad version of MIPS style workstations.
No you couldn't. 16mb RAM was out the but was very expensive and many motherboards wouldn't support more than 4MB SIMMs (1 and 2MB SIMMS were still the norm for PCs). Good motherboards (in full tower cases) had at most 8 slots. So I'm going with 128MB as an upper limit.
Sun wasn't that. The 128 RAM wasn't cheap but the 2G HD meant they were skimping. I bet those systems were around $5-7k or so well under double what an x86 workstation would cost.
As for getting professors to give up old equipment, start metering the electricity and billing the department.
I'd take that bet. Don't forget how much faster the ARM chips are. For example the A7 is twice the speed of the A6 which is almost 3x the speed of the A5. Admittedly the A8 is only a 20% speed burst but that's not bad relative to x86 especially for an off year. We'll find out over the next decade plus: can you make ARM faster more easily than you can x86 more efficient? But I'd bet on ARM.
So does this mean that I wouldn't be able to say remotely display a desktop environment which uses QT and within that click a shortcut to a GTK app and expect it to open and be managed by that QT desktop environment.
Remember KDE and Gnome cooperate and there is dbus. What would likely happen is something like this:
a) KDE desktop is running and you click on a Gnome application.
b) KDE passes a message to the local Gnome to handle remoting
c) local Gnome establishes a session with remote Gnome.
d) Those two communicate making the application effectively local
e) The Gnome applications displays on the KDE desktop using the tools they use today to do this sort of thing (dbus...)
So from an end user standpoint nothing changes
Once you have your desktop environment displaying remotely everything you do looks and feels local. How can you have that when each app may have a different remote implementation?
You could get a local feel, its up to the toolkit. You could get something much better. Each application and each toolkit makes intelligent choices about how to handle latency issues. So for example one application might very aggressively cache if latencies are high, while another might be more worried about processing delays and thus might keep intermediate buffers shallow to reduce the effective latency as much as possible even though this means the buffer runs dry. Apple incidentally is currently doing some brilliant work on buffers taking ideas that Linux invented and making them practical. With Wayland Linux applications and thus users will be able to take advantage of these advances.
Yes it is. In my previous statement I chose QT and GTK as examples because they are so common. A user could have any number of applications using any number of GUI toolkits. Assuming they will all bother to implement their own remote access would way over-optimistic.
If an application is written using a toolkit that doesn't support remoting then the application doesn't support remoting by design. The major Linux toolkits are already working with the Wayland team they fully intend to support it. I'd assume that highly specialized toolkits which don't remote, don't remote because they can't tolerate latency. For example good touch toolkits might fail at 1ms latency, 1ms is too fast even for almost all LANs to keep up.
So let's use this example. Human brains aren't designed for touch latency... you are using a touch toolkit that would be unusable remotely. What's the problem if it doesn't remote?
If I can watch a high definition video feed in real time over the internet then I should be able to remotely display a desktop or a user should be able to remotely display a game. The two should not be mutually exclusive. Surely it is possible to fix this in a way that pleases the gamer without screwing it up for the remote desktop user.
It isn't possible to do both. I'll just repeat what I wrote in the post directly above, " There are advantages to splitting application and video buffers for network transparency. There are advantages to unifying application and video buffers for performance." You have to pick. Either the person who wants performance has to lose or the person who wants network transparency has to lose. There are lots of either / or choices in life, there are lots of either / or choices in designing a windowing system. You cannot build a system where everyone gets everything. And even if I were wrong, X11 most certainly is not such a system. In the world of 2015 X11 mostly sucks at everything but via. hacks is painfully being kept alive. The low level choices you keep dismissing fundamentally alter what the system is capable of doing. For you to get feature F Mr G has to not get feature H.
Wayland people are not taking away stuff to be mean or because they are lazy. They are taking away things because they are balancing out the greatest good for the greatest number. Given the 2015 computing environment* the feature set Wayland choose was arguably the best choice. There is no question that X11's feature set is a dreadful choice.
* or more accurately given the 2008 computing environment, Wayland itself is falling behind.
I should be able to see my favorite desktop manager and click shortcuts within it without worrying about which toolkit each uses. It should just work.. just like it does now.
And you will be able to do that. And most likely it will be far better than now.
The recent OED has 171.5k words in it. Native speakers have a vocabulary of about 20k-35k words. Finally at least now you want to use 4 words not 3 and possibly one substitution trick.
lowest figure: 20k^3 = 8 trillion ~ 2^43 ~ 7 character random password
highest figure: 171.5k^4 = 8.65^10^20 > 2^69 ~ 11 character random password
Humans generally don't remember random passwords very well. This ain't bad.
What purpose does the municipality serve other than to serve its inhabitants?
Well government's primary purpose is law enforcement and public essentials (like fire). In general America, particularly our red states like services to be provided by private organizations. But again the laws here don't prohibit a municipality from offering those services. You cited Tennessee. Tennessee prohibited public electric companies from offering those services without running it like a public utility. Which meant no cherry picking. They were however free to use another structure, like setting up a public corporation or a separate agency. Your description of USA laws are simply not true.
hese markets weren't served by anybody else, and still isn't)
.. Legislating against the electric company pulling the fibre
And that's not true either. In Tennessee it is perfectly legal for an electric company to operate an internet service in an area where private cable companies do not want to provide broadband. What they weren't allowed to do was cherry pick off areas that the cable companies did want. And in fact Tennessee just recently passed a law allowing electric companies to provide dark fiber without having to meet public standards, which is exactly what you are talking about with having multiple players. Municipalities even in Tennessee can operate dark fiber network they just can't provide a consumer level service.
But as that would lead to real competition, at a lower total cost, not crony capitalism, I don't have high hopes for you...
You are simply mischaracterizing American law and talking about how things that are perfectly legal and quite easy to do are impossible under American law. I'm not saying the situation is Europe may not be better, utilities work better with a more powerful and more coercive government. But I am saying that you are mischaracterizing the problems in the USA.
LA and Seattle don't have densities close to HK or Tokyo. HK is $200 / home to wire. But you are absolutely right those cities have densities that make replacement plausible.
New York has even better densities, it does has geological problems and incredibly old infrastructure. New York still has some of the public water using wooden pipes, I have no idea when they stopped using wood but.... However we are lucky because New York is right now doing a major build out in the poorer areas starting. The preliminary wiring for FIOS (that's not all the way to the door but having an access point for buildings) was $3.5b. So you are at several thousand / home. Over say 60 months $2k even without interest is going to have to be an extra $33/mo. Which is generally too much for to pool for poorer people which lengthens the payoff time, which slows down the rate of improvement which... The people living in poorer areas of New York could have FIOS in under a year (with some much sooner) if the city would mandate that building owners had to cooperate.
There is no question we have the technical ability to put in gigabit or heck potentially 10gigabit internet to every home if we were starting a network from scratch. If we were starting from scratch in 2015 we would likely do that. What I was arguing is the system we have in the USA is not the result or stupidity or corruption.
"Who alone has reason to *lie himself out* of actuality? He who *suffers* from it." -- Friedrich Nietzsche
