It may not have to do with cell lifetime, but it does relate to overall endurance. If their "tricks" are legitimate algorithmic approaches to improving endurance, then the native cell lifetime becomes less of a solid metric to endurance. It would be the analogy to when clock speeds of CPUs became less relevant when manufacturers began focusing on increasing pipeline throughput instead of clock speed.

If a decrease from 20nm to 16nm feature size increases density by 25% and only decreases cell lifetime by 10%, then they will have more than enough new capacity to overprovision for the difference, and if their algorithmic improvements are legitimate, then that mitigates the need for additional over provisioning.

There's alot of "if"s in there of course, because you can't always take such PR at face value.

So if anything 4mbps is 100 * dialup, while car is 10 * foot, so if anything 4mbps is better than a car. It's more like a mach 1 fighter jet.

Avg. sustained running speed for a person is around 8-10 mph unless your an Olympic athlete. Car ~80 mph highway. So my anology holds as Running * 10 == Car. Just thought I'd add that for the mathematically challenged.

"but it's still fairly frustrating"

The fact that you want to do more simultaneous "broadband activities" at a time and 4mbps doesn't provide enough bandwidth for this doesn't mean 4mbps != broadband.

You named some things it's good enough for(wikipedia requires about 5% of that bandwidth, so to imply it is just good enough is a kind of rediculous), but you've not given one concrete example of a situation where 4mbps is not enough for typical usage. Unless you're trying to download torrents while streaming 1080p from something like Netflix at the same time, then 4mbps is fine for vast majority of things. If your ISP is giving you the full 4mbps and they haven't over provisioned in your neighborhood(if your on shared bandwidth like cable) then you can have two people watching Netflix at the same time on that connection.

Those are the kinds of activities you can only do on broadband, and the fact that you can do them on 4mbps is what makes it broadband. Unless there is a problem with your connection or your trying to do more than one broadband activity, then something like Netflix should be working just fine.

4mbps is 100 times faster than 56 kbps. This makes 4mbps the car, and 56kbps being on foot, the bicyle would be ISDN which is about as terrible as dialup.

Math mthrfckr, learn it.

Your anology is bad. You obviously have never used dialup.
Dialup is like being on foot.
ISDN, which is slightly better than dialup is the bicycle.
4 mbps is the car.
4mbps is 100 times faster than dialup, if not more because where I can usually get the full speed of my broadband connection, I almost never got the full speed of dialup, usually around 33kbps. What took a week to download on dialup takes 1 hour on 4 mbps.

Give anyone 4 mbps connection who is living in an area that still has dialup as their only option, and ask them if its broadband. If someone works to bring 4/1 mbps connections to more areas, they should be able to advertise it as broadband.

And that's where the anti-GMO nuts fall on their faces. We've eaten hybrid, selectively bred, and grafted plants for decades, and the anti-GMO's eat plenty of this stuff, and there are potential side affects to all of these processes. Just look at pure bred dogs and cats, and all the medical problems many of them have that are an attribute of their breed.

No it doesn't. Obviously he is literate. What part of his statement makes you think he is illiterate?

Mostly valid points. None of them invalidate the parent's point. If there is a significant infection of malware, then it is newsworthy. What factors led to the infection don't make it unnewsworthy.

"These[server systems] are easier to lock down, since there are no users downloading cool stuff and bringing in malware." Your comparing desktop usage to server usage. Regardless of Linux or Windows the same issues are there for each usage scenario.

-Desktop: If there is a vulnerability in a Linux or Windows desktop, the usage pattern of users is going to be a pathway onto the machine for malware. These days you could probably take any average user since most are unfamiliar with desktops, stick them with a desktop of any OS flavor, and they will in both cases go to a browser and do things that put the system at risk. These days they implement similar levels of security. Many flavors of both prompt you to escalate an process to root/admin privilage, so each are vulnerable to users unwisely escalating software of questionable sources.

-Server: If there is a vulnerability in a server, regardless of OS, "a remote exploit is required to bring down a server system". This doesn't invalidate the parent's point.

Parent's point is that it is newsworthy because many naive individuals in the Linux community likes to purport that Linux is somehow invulnerable to such exploits. When I say "many naive" I don't mean to say all Linux users are naive, just that there are a fair share who don't understand that Linux and software running on Linux has the same potential to harbor undiscovered vulnerabilities as any other competing OS/software.

This means they make blanket statements about how this or that security problem effecting Windows isn't a concern for Linux. They don't know about clarifying criteria that Linux is more secure under the circumstances that you maintain updates and properly administer WAN facing interfaces.

The result is you have individuals running unmaintained Linux servers because they think they are more secure, but which require significantly more attention than similar Windows counterparts. So you have two factors working against the security of Linux, misinformation, and ease of maintenance.

Even in situation where you have a capable staff who understand the importance of maintaining updates. If you have updates that are fragile and require lots of testing, require alot of babysitting to apply, or are in other ways difficult to automate in a reliable way, then you are going to occasionally create situations for admins where their manpower isn't enough to get to those updates immediately. That's not to imply that Windows updates don't sometimes break things and require testing, but I would say they are easier to automate overall and more reliable. Probably due to the fact there are far fewer flavors of Windows, so updates which do have issues are quickly hotfixed. When I've had updates on Linux fail, sometimes there is a good bit of manual work to back them out, fix whatever went wrong, and re apply them.

I am not trying to say Windows is better than Linux, as I am not trying to do a compelte comparison of the two, but simply pointing out that this article highlights some of the factors that contribute to the formation of such an infection. Certainly Windows has some of these same issues as well and we've seen infections that targeted machines that weren't up to date. However, I think Windows has done a better job at least with the automatic updates to address this kind of problem. It certainly isn't always perfect, but its pretty good.

1. AC said SSL is magic, implying that they believe it is a hoax. I am simply pointing out they are an idiot who understands nothing about cryptography.
2. Saying that someone has identified a potential weakness in a cryptography algorithm doesn't change the fact that it is deterministic and well understood among cryptography experts. There is still nothing magic about it.
3. Your rebuttal implies that I was trying to claim that the NSA was innocent in some way or defend them. Obviously you have the worst reading comprehension in the history of mankind because no where in the two sentences do I make any such claim.
4. There are documents that indicate NSA was looking for potential weaknesses in various security protocols and possibly tampering with devices, but there is no evidence that they influenced the SSL standard itself to introduce weaknesses. Tampering with a device to break its implementation of SSL is seperate concept from the SSL standard itself. Could they have influenced the standard? They could be powering their headquarters with goat fetuses for all we know. It's all wild speculation in the absence of evidence. All evidence points to them pouring large amounts of manpower and computing power into breaking SSL. If they did indeed influence the standard, then whatever influence that had had no negligible effect based on what we know of the kind of efforts they've had to throw at SSL. Evidence of their efforts doesn't show any significant success. Their only successes in any relation to SSL have been more traditional techniques that involve circumventing SSL, such as compromising a server so they can capture data before it is encrypted, since SSL is such a tough nut to crack. More evidence that they haven't cracked SSL. Besides, influencing the standard in that way would have required more foresight than most governments are capable of.

Only one point is needed to show you're an idiot. The evidence is overwhelming.

Your response doesn't invalidate how cryptography works. It's solid math and there's no magic about it.

This appears to be for the posting, not for the submission of applicant/resume. But essentially the same concept. I build my resume using a GUI, it generates XML submission as needed, employer parses what information they are interested in or throws feedback indicating missing required info.

A good car has down force and sticks to the road. A good plane does the opposite. I was at a flight museum that had a flying car on display and it was described as something like a "Mediocre car, and mediocre plane" Not that it's impossible, but the most basic attributes of a plane and car are contradictory.

The reentering of resume information is ridiculous.

What if there was a common XML format that represented your resume? You created this using a desktop GUI and just upload the resume.xml to potential employees.