Considering that Microsoft charges money for Android (anybody using Android has to pay Microsoft for patents), can they really get away with giving away Windows Phone for free?
The problem with Jaguar is that it suffers from extremely poor performance per watt when compared to Haswell. That may not be an issue for all use cases though.
I am having difficulty finding any AMD-based mini PCs in the NUC-style form factor with RAM/wifi/storage included for $179, though. Could you point some out?
The problem there is that while the entry-level Asus chromebox is $179, including the RAM, SSD, CPU, wifi, etc... the cheapest NUCs are $190-200 before you add the RAM, the SSD, and the wifi card.
So the only reason for dealers to exist is to replicate the functions of an auto parts store and UPS? And that's why Tesla can't sell cars to people? That's absurd.
My buddy had to get his '95 Honda Accord repaired recently. The process for that (admittedly in Canada) was, take car to mechanic, mechanic orders parts online, parts are shipped to mechanic, mechanic installs parts. What exactly is the huge problem with that process that justifies making selling cars illegal?
The NASA letter states clearly that fuel sold at government-owned civil airports is not taxable. There are no back taxes owed.
Firefox OS doesn't run on phones with 128MB either, and Android launched on less RAM than Firefox OS requires. Nothing says a low-end device has to use the full stock Google experience; you can target the OS for lower memory devices.
The entire premise of this article seems to revolve around the unsubstantiated claim that Android is poorly optimized for low-end devices. I disagree with that claim, so the entire premise of the article seems suspect to me.
I feel bad for the guy. Even though I'm Canadian, this seems like the kind of thing you should sue over (publishing all your private info on the cover story of newsweek when the entire premise of the article is false). Does he have any grounds to sue Newsweek or the reporter who stalked and exposed him?
2.4ghz is still usable with 16 networks in the same area, but it's not a great experience. There are only three non-overlapping bands in the 2.4 GHz band, so you can see how there can be a rather lot of congestion.
The 5.8 GHz band, on the other hand, wouldn't have nearly as much of an issue. 802.11n in the 5.8GHz band devices can use 8 non-overlapping channels, significantly reducing the amount of interference.
802.11ac is kind of in a wierd spot. It's really 40MHz per channel minimum (twice the minimum for 802.11g or 802.11n), but many devices also support a whole whack of new frequencies that require the use of DFS to avoid interfering with radar (basically if the router detects radar on the channel, it blacklists the channel for a set amount of time and switches to another channel). That brings the total up to a possible 12 channels, even though they're twice as wide...
802.11ac also supports beam forming, which enables multiple simultaneous transmissions to happen on the same frequency at the same time without interfering. I believe that's more targeted at handling more users on a single network rather than letting multiple networks co-exist, though.
There are plenty of services like Opera Turbo that will recompress all images as smaller lossy images. Why should all users get a degraded experience when those on slow connections have options to automatically recompress images to be better suited for their connections?
There are services (Opera's work quite well, Google has one too) that will re-compress any images to lower quality lossy formats and into a single response to avoid round-trips. I don't think big image files are really the main problem for people still on dialup.
Since I started looking at web pages with JPEG images, the speed of my internet connection has increased by roughly 345,000%, the size of my hard disk by 200,000%. Why is a 300% increase in image size a concern?
The study you've linked to does not support your claims.
Only two out of the 15 SSD in their test suffered from serious issues. One unit suffered from an SSD metadata issue that effectively prevented access to about 30% of the data on it, and another failed entirely, after having been subjected to 136 power failures in rapid succession.
Only two HDDs were included in the test, and were subject to a much smaller of power failures. HDD #1 was subjected to only a single power failure (after which it corrupted a write), and HDD #2 was subject to only 24 power failures. How anyone could claim that this is evidence that HDDs are more reliable than SSDs is beyond me. Even the authors of the study don't claim that their results show HDDs to be more reliable than SSDs, they only claim that enterprise HDDs are more reliable than budget HDDs.
Furthermore, none of the drives were recent, with most being from 2011, and one being as old as from 2009. It's difficult to draw any conclusions on the current SSDs on the market based on testing results on drives from three to five years ago. There has been enormous technological progress in the SSD market over that timespan.
It's also worth pointing out that newer filesystems are more resilient to many of the faults noted in that paper, especially when redundancy is included. Linux has ZFS, and Windows has ReFS. Both support copy-on-write and block checksums, which go a long way to surviving the sort of issues that both SSDs and HDDs suffer from on power failure.
Using a system with a UPS or built-in battery does not completely protect you from unexpected power loss, but I don't think that it's happened to me more than once in the past few years. It certainly has never happened to me 136 times in a row at 8-second intervals.