Should call it the Instagramcorder.
Calling it 'Bollocks' is designed to subliminally attract the young, female demographic that use Instagram.
Should call it the Instagramcorder.
Calling it 'Bollocks' is designed to subliminally attract the young, female demographic that use Instagram.
The whole thing is insane really. At the start MS had 90% of the desktop market. Windows Mobile had about 10-20% of the mobile market. Most importantly they had a load of ISVs producing software, the old stuff run on Win32 and the new stuff on
MS introduce the Kin and Zune. These were spectacular failures - based on
Then MS decide to replace Windows Mobile with Windows Phone 7. It is based on C#/.Net and is locked to prevent Win32 code. It share a lot with Kin and Zune. It is a failure. They replace it with WP8. WP8 is locked to prevent Win32 code except for Microsoft's code - IE and Office are still Win32. Everyone else is supposed to use the WinRT API in C++. Then they move the WP8 API to Windows 8 and release an ARM version which is locked to prevent Win32 code. Windows Phone is now down to a few percent market share. Most of the ISVs defected to Android and iOS and show no sign of coming back.
So you've got a UI which they used on their phone project which is not selling on their desktop OS which is. At that point it seems like people stopped buying machines with Windows 8 - if you look at what happened Windows 7 is still outselling it.
Now if you look at Vista it sold poorly and they rushed out Windows 7. So you'd expect them to rush out a Windows 9 which had the start menu restored. But if you look at Windows Blue the biggest change is apparently "an improved charms menu".
If you could compile apps you'd see a bit of third party support. Perhaps some web browsers and some other stuff.
Now admittedly that was true of Alpha, MIPS and PowerPC but they didn't sell well enough to see much software getting cross compiled. Mind you at that point the world was x86. Now the world is x86/x64 - i.e. a lot more stuff is already running on two architectures. In fact quite a lot of mobile stuff already ran on Arm because of Windows CE/Windows Mobile - Opera Mobile for example.
So if Windows RT had allowed it you'd see some applications running on Arm. Banning all third party Win32 applications in the hope of moving everyone to Metro clearly isn't working.
A Porterhouse Blue is a stroke brought on by an idle lifestyle of excessive consumption and privilege.
This new party would be best advised to stand a full senate team for each state and look to exchange preferences with other minor parties. The difficulty here is that the Wiki Party voters would probably also be Greens voters and the Greens might be hostile to an exchange.
Yeah, I imagine calling Sweden "the Saudi Arabia of feminism" might go down poorly with them.
Then again who knows. Maybe in best Orwellian leftist fashion they'll just decide we have always been at war with Eastasia^H^H^H^Feminism. It all depends which parts of the alternative media they get their news from.
Who wants to be the guy who keeps repeating a joke that was never funny?
Are you kidding? Slashdot is the homepage of the guy who keeps repeating a joke that was never funny.
E.g. Hot Grits, Bluescreen, Throwing Chairs, etc.
I prefered the one where Microsoft said they were dropping Metro and going back to the Start Menu on Windows 9.
From your link
Getting a message after it was sent is no biggie. I mean; write yourself a letter if you want to see that in action. But getting a message before it was sent causes issues (see for example; practically every sci-fi franchise). What those issues are exactly depends on how time travel works (e.g., "Timecop" or "Back to the Future" rules?), and thatâ(TM)s wide open to debate.
Flash forward 250 years to a physics class.
"So as we've learned in 2100 scientists discovered it was possible to communicated instantaneously"
"But Miss, doesn't that mean causality violations?"
"No of course not, as I mentioned we now know the multiverse works according to the 'Sliders' rules "
Something analogous happened with processors. MIPS had a an instruction set with a couple of patented instructions. Lexra made MIPS compatible chips and didn't implement the patented instructions. Unfortunately they trapped the unimplemented instructions and MIPS successfully argued that since the invalid instruction trap handler could implement the patented instructions the Lexra chip invalidated the patent!
If a Lexra processor encountered an unaligned load or store instruction in the program that it was executing then it did the same thing that it would do for any other invalid opcode, it took a reserved instruction exception. In the second lawsuit between MIPS Technologies and Lexra, filed November 1999, MIPS Technologies claimed that because exception handler software could be written to emulate the function of unaligned load and store hardware, using many other instructions, Lexra's processors infringed the patent. Upon learning of this broad interpretation of the patent, Lexra requested that the US Patent and Trademark office (USPTO) reexamine whether the patent was novel when granted. Almost every microprocessor in the world can emulate the functionality of unaligned loads and stores in software. MIPS Technologies did not invent that. By any reasonable interpretation of the MIPS Technologies' patent, Lexra did not infringe. In mid-2001 Lexra received a preliminary ruling from the USPTO that key claims in the unaligned load and store patent were invalid because of prior art in an IBM CISC patent. However, MIPS Technologies appealed the USPTO ruling and won a favorably broad interpretation of the language of the patent from a judge. That forced Lexra into a settlement that included dropping the reexamination request before MIPS Technologies might have lost its appeal.
One interesting problem with the patent system is that one institution, the USPTO, determines whether a patent is valid but a different institution, the courts, determine whether one infringes. It is entirely possible for the two institutions to interpret a patent differently and for either a non-infringer to be wrongly convicted or an infringer to get away with the crime.
The case of MIPS Technologies v Lexra was ultimately settled out of court and the request for reexamination of the patent was dropped. To this day there is no precedent indicating that processors that execute the MIPS-I instruction set that treat unaligned loads and stores as reserved instructions, such as Lexra's, infringed the '976 patent. The patent expired on December 23, 2006 at which point it became legal for anybody to implement the complete MIPS-I instruction set, including unaligned loads and stores.
After its experience with Lexra MIPS Technologies changed all of its 32-bit cores to use its new MIPS32 instruction set which extends the MIPS-I instruction set to include other features patented by MIPS Technologies. This is similar to Intel's addition of the instruction set extensions to Pentium III in order to prevent AMD from building compatible processors.
Cores from Lexra as compared to cores from MIPS Technologies were smaller, had higher clock speed, had high performance instruction extensions, brought features (such as on-chip debug, MIPS16, write-back caches, MMU, and more) to market sooner, and were less expensive. Despite MIPS Technologies' relatively abundant resources, their product offerings in the market were inferior, their investors wanted to see MIPS Technologies defend its intellectual property, and MIPS Technologies needed to justify the license fees that other companies such as Broadcom, PMC-Sierra, and LSI Logic were paying for rights to use the instruction set for their own processors. This left MIPS Technologies little choice but to sue Lexra, despite a weak case.
Ultimately, MIPS Technologies hurt Lexra's business, Lexra hurt MIPS Technologies' business, and ARM made off with a solid dominance of the IP market. In the court case MIPS Technologies' stalled at every opportunity possible until Lexra ran out of money to fight. Because MIPS Technologies started the game with far more money than Lexra, they outlasted and Lexra was forced into a settlement one week before a trial. Though MIPS Technologies was suing Lexra, the settlement agreement involved MIPS paying Lexra money. The benefit that MIPS Technologies got in exchange was that Lexra exited the IP business. Lexra failed one year later in an attempt to establish itself as a communications chip company during the bottom of the telecom business downturn.
Some Lexra customers disabled the reserved instruction exception for unaligned loads and stores in their chip products. With such a design modification, unaligned loads and stores are treated as no-ops and can not be emulated in an exception handler. MIPS Technologies would have had no claim of infringement against such designs. Despite that, after settling with Lexra, MIPS Technologies threatened legal action against Lexra's former customers. Many companies each found it less expensive to agree to contracts that require payments to MIPS rather than to fight. This strategy by MIPS Technologies is viewed by some as extortion under threat of malicious prosecution.
So at that point the MIPS instruction set was effectively proprietary - you basically had to buy your MIPS compatible processors from MIPS. It's the same with modern x86/x64 - there is another patented stuff (e.g. SSE) in the ABI that you need a license. Right now Intel, AMD, Transmeta and Via have licenses but for example NVidia does not.
Still the odd thing is that x86/x64 is more open than MIPS. So in a way is ARM - Qualcomm could buy an architecture license and build their own ARM core from the ground up that was faster than contemporary ARM designs.
If MIPS had allowed Lexra to do this, perhaps we'd all be using Android devices running on Lexra's MIPS cores.
he'd have to have one hell of an interview.
He'd have to show you his BRAAIINSS?
If a reunified Korea asked US forces to leave they'd do so. Just like they did in Saudi Arabia.
If they do attack, the US and South Korea should seize upon the opportunity to wreck as much of their military equipment as possible, as we did with the Iraqi army in Gulf War I, so as to limit their future offensive capabilities and degrade their military effectiveness.
I think if an actual shooting war breaks out the South Koreans would be forced to invade North Korea to destroy the artillery they have in range of Seoul. I.e. it would be more Gulf War II - regime change at all costs than Gulf War I.
Actually the South Koreans reckon they are quite close to a deal with China
In highly sensitive discussions in February this year, the-then South Korean vice-foreign minister, Chun Yung-woo, told a US ambassador, Kathleen Stephens, that younger generation Chinese Communist party leaders no longer regarded North Korea as a useful or reliable ally and would not risk renewed armed conflict on the peninsula, according to a secret cable to Washington.
Chun, who has since been appointed national security adviser to South Korea's president, said North Korea had already collapsed economically.
Political collapse would ensue once Kim Jong-il died, despite the dictator's efforts to obtain Chinese help and to secure the succession for his son, Kim Jong-un.
"Citing private conversations during previous sessions of the six-party talks , Chun claimed [the two high-level officials] believed Korea should be unified under ROK [South Korea] control," Stephens reported.
"The two officials, Chun said, were ready to 'face the new reality' that the DPRK [North Korea] now had little value to China as a buffer state - a view that, since North Korea's first nuclear test in 2006, had reportedly gained traction among senior PRC [People's Republic of China] leaders. Chun argued that in the event of a North Korean collapse, China would clearly 'not welcome' any US military presence north of the DMZ [demilitarised zone]. Again citing his conversations with [the officials], Chun said the PRC would be comfortable with a reunified Korea controlled by Seoul and anchored to the US in a 'benign alliance' - as long as Korea was not hostile towards China. Tremendous trade and labour-export opportunities for Chinese companies, Chun said, would also help 'salve' PRC concerns about . a reunified Korea.
"Chun dismissed the prospect of a possible PRC military intervention in the event of a DPRK collapse, noting that China's strategic economic interests now lie with the United States, Japan and South Korea - not North Korea."
Chun told Stephens China was unable to persuade Pyongyang to change its self-defeating policies - Beijing had "much less influence than most people believe" - and lacked the will to enforce its views.
A senior Chinese official, speaking off the record, also said China's influence with the North was frequently overestimated. But Chinese public opinion was increasingly critical of the North's behaviour, the official said, and that was reflected in changed government thinking.
Previously hidden tensions between Pyongyang and its only ally were also exposed by China's then vice-foreign minister in a meeting in April 2009 with a US embassy official after North Korea blasted a three-stage rocket over Japan into the Pacific. Pyongyang said its purpose was to send a satellite into orbit but the US, South Korea and Japan saw the launch as a test of long-range missile technology.
Discussing how to tackle the issue with the charge d'affaires at the Beijing embassy, He Yafei observed that "North Korea wanted to engage directly with the United States and was therefore acting like a 'spoiled child' in order to get the attention of the 'adult'. China encouraged the United States, 'after some time', to start to re-engage the DPRK," according to the diplomatic cable sent to Washington.
You could imagine a deal where US forces stay south of the DMZ to keep the Chinese happy. So South Korean forces would need to occupy the North.
In actual reality, even in private insurance, the low-risk ratepayers subsidize the high-risk receivers.
Depends on the insurance company doesn't it? I know there are companies that offer lower premiums to lower risk insurees - e.g. older drivers.
If you have an environment where multiple companies are competing there is an incentive to limit risk pooling in order to be more able to offer lower premiums.
Private health insurance means that everyone pays a premium dependent on their risk level. An NHS type system means people pay a premium based on their income level.
So with private health insurance I don't really care if you live an unhealthy lifestyle. With an NHS type system I do - my taxes will need to go up.
In fact in the UK there have been proposals to remove NHS treatment for people who injure themselves when drunk
I work for the NHS on the frontline, and binge drinking is a huge problem, but you can't charge drinkers, unless you charge the smokers and the fatties for the illness their choices cause. You'd even have to charge sportsmen who damange their ligaments running!
A nationwide Freedom of Information request by the medical magazine Pulse revealed many types of surgery, MRI scans and IVF treatment are being withheld from obese people and smokers.
In the Anglia region, NHS Bedfordshire has barred obese patients from hip and knee surgery until they loss 10% of their weight or their Body Mass Index drops below 35.
NHS North Essex requires patients to lose at least 5% of their weight, and keep it off for 6 months.
While NHS Hertfordshire patients must have a BMI under 30, while smokers have to attend a stop smoking course to have any type of surgery.
Lawyers warn that health authorities risk being sued by patients if they can prove they've been discriminated against.
It's particularly risky in places like the UK where the rich pay most of the income taxes but the poor tend to have unhealthy lifestyles.
In 2009-10, the top 1% of Income Tax payers were responsible for 13.9% of declared income before tax. Conversely, the same group paid some 26.5% of the money taken by HMRC in Income Tax. These figures are very close to those cited by Mr Redwood, albeit slightly different.
According to Department of Health figures, the poorest children are almost twice as likely to be obese than the richest.
Government figures published last month showed that 24.3 per cent of the most deprived 11 year-olds in England were obese, compared with just 13.7 per cent of children from the wealthiest homes.
There's a strong incentive for the rich to support an authoritarian model whereby NHS treatment is withheld from the obese and smokers simply because the rich are less likely to be in that category.
Incidentally if you add in VAT and duty on tobacco and alcohol you find that the poor pay about the same percentage of their income in tax as the rich
Still despite that there is an incentive for NHS trusts to deny treatment to people with unhealthy lifestyles - it cuts down on the expensive medical care you need to provide.
It's like in the US where you pay your premiums and then get denied treatment when you get sick because your illness is described as a "pre-existing condition". Except that most people in the US know that is bullshit whereas denying treatment to people who widely perceived to have caused their own health problems is likely to be a relatively easy sell.
Maybe in future people who eat too much (cheap) processed food can be denied treatment too. Then going to an NHS hospital would be like going to Waitrose instead of Tescos. Also there'd be lots of spare capacity.
The first duty of a revolutionary is to get away with it. -- Abbie Hoffman