There isn't any "data-only" USB cable! There are 3 connectors theoretically needed for communication: Ground (signal reference), D+, D- (signal) and in practice the power connector (+5V) is needed too. Just having the signal connectors (D+ and D-) wouldn't be of any use as it would be impossible to even detect that a unit is connected!
Now his charger may have been too weak and the BB simply required more current to charge than it could deliver.
People with narcissistic personality + paranoia explains most conspiracy theories.
This should work in any BASIC dialect:
10 PRINT "HELLO WORLD"
The benefit of laser cutting is that it is predictable and repeatable.
That doesn't mean doing it is trivial at large production scales.
Here I'll stop. Because it's true and because I had an explicit mention of that case in my OP!
If you want to mass produce things in the order of Apple products are mass produced - well then it will be tricky. But the startup expecting to do that _will_ fail due to disconnect from reality.
If you want to produce lesser amounts with a very high finish it is possible and have been done before. Lesser here can still be a huge amount of products.
HTC, Samsung, Asus and Sony to mention a few. Have you never used anything except Apple?!?
Simply as that. CNC machines aren't made by only one company, laser drilling isn't really rocket science, packaging have been done better etc.
Surely one can expect that a certain level of finish requires more money than a lower level one - but that is only natural.
Now if the article was about startups that expect to sell _as_many_devices_ as Apple with the same level of finish it could be true. And ludicrous!
Fermenting isn't spoiling...
You sir is an asshole and and idiot.
That is largely a myth. The difference isn't measurable in most practical cases.
WTF... You aren't an engineer that's for sure.
That doesn't change the fact that L4 _never_ had a 1ms context switch time. Not even on a 486 was it never that slow, the kernel entry cost was 200 clock cycles.
The L4 kernel have always been in the front of pure IPC performance, it is as simple as that.
Also for other people reading this there are a number of features that enable even faster microkernel performance today, the syscall/sysenter instructions makes entry to kernel mode less expensive than the traditional interrupt handler (which due to x86 semantics are often slower than necessary) and address space identifiers makes flushing of L1 cache unnecessary.
Should be 0.14us as per the title
Magic bullet? There never are any magic bullet for complex systems.
A microkernel is the realization of best practices for security systems and - dare I say it - follows the original Unix philosophy.
Do one thing (IPC) and do it well (ensure security guarantees are kept). Keeping the critical code small makes it easier to verify code in both the practical and mathematical sense.
10 times faster IPC than L4 on x86?!? That requires user level IPC like done in Barrelfish and ZIMP ("ZIMP: efficient inter-core communication on multi-core machines" ).
Got any proof that the Minix IPC performance is so much better than what is commonly known as one of the most efficient IPC implementations in existance?
Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (5) All right, who's the wiseguy who stuck this trigraph stuff in here?
