Aditionally i would add to the first list (in alphabetical order):
BTW Real World Tech is a wonderful resource. A pity that it is not updated more often.
Having a unified memory is a nice thing, but i expect it will only make a difference in something like the PS4, where you can target a specific architecture, which has GDDR5 as main memory, and doesn't have a discrete GPU. These two points are relevant: if you have "normal" DDR3 you loose a lot more than you gain by having UMA, and this will not change a thing in discrete GPUs because the PCIe bus is going to always be in the way of the GPU accessing main memory.
I think it is more a "nice to have" than a big step forward. The difficulty in programing GPUs lies in the different algorithms one must employ, and while having to copy memory back and forth between the CPU and GPU is a nuisance and something to be avoided, that usually isn't a dealbreaker, though i admit it is useful in some situations.
For £300 I got an Atom-based netbook with an 80GB SSD, 4GB RAM, slightly smaller screen and 9 hour battery life. It can run Chrome, and a lot of other things. What's the ARM bringing to the Chromebook, if it can't give far better battery life?
£300 GBP are $482.
That's what ARM is bringing.
BTW where do you get a netbook with an 80 GB SSD?
They could go Android, sure, but Android phones are almost commodity phones, where the handset manufacturer isn't adding enough value to make them differentiators. That means as a customer, I could pick up an LG or HTC or Motorola or Samsung and get a pretty similar phone. And that means they all compete on price. That puts the Nokia phones up against the manufacturing might of China, which means that margins would start out razor thin and fade quickly to non-existent.
Well, that strategy worked for Samsung, so why shouldn't it work for Nokia, given that, at the time, Nokia had a better position than Samsung?
My wife had a SE (don't know the model) from 2004, which she used for about 3 years. It is being used since then by my mother in law. That's 7 years of daily use!
I believe SE had better quality than Nokia in the early 2000's.
As an example, this sentence in Portuguese: "Vamos evitar o uso de papel, gastar papel implica em gastar Ãrvores"
This sentence isn't correct Portuguese. It simply doesn't make sense in Portuguese. Maybe it makes sense in Brazilian Portuguese, but not in Portuguese.
So, i wouldn't expect Google Translate to get it right. But actually, translating it into:
"We avoid the use of paper, wasting paper implies spending trees"
is a better translation (of incorrect) Portuguese than:
"We avoid the use of paper, spending paper implies spending trees"
"Gastar" in the given context is better translated to "wasting" than "spending". At least in Portuguese.
I don't see how adding another dimension can magically allow two objects to become linked when they were unable to be linked in a lower dimension. Two circles on a piece of paper cannot physically merge with each other if you assume their boundaries are solid and cannot pass through each other.
You're right, they can't. But the video shows 2 rings in 3d. And those rings don't close on one of the dimensions.
In 2d, a circle is closed, spanning the 2 dimensions. In 3d, a ring is closed in 2 dimensions, but isn't "closed" in the other, so you can use the 4th dimension to link 2 rings.
So, to get an example similar to the video in 2d you might think of 2 (infinite) lines that you have to move past each other. Adding a 3rd dimension makes this trivial.
On the other hand, a circle in 2d is a sphere in 3d, so trying to link 2 circles in 2d is equivalent to trying to link 2 spheres in 3d, which isn't what the video shows.
PS. My manifold knowledge is very rusty, so what i'm saying might be totally wrong. It makes sense to me though.
"It's my cookie file and if I come up with something that's lame and I like it, it goes in." -- karl (Karl Lehenbauer)