Actually, an i7 processor has an energy density that blow a nuclear reactor away. The nuke reactor only wins because it's huge.
For many software patents, I'd agree with you.
The problem with video compression is that many of the patents involved do represent real research, the expensive kind. They aren't one-click shopping patents. They're fundamentally pushing forward the state of the art. The people who do that work are expensive and need a lot of time, so, there has to be some way to pay for their efforts. Google's approach of subsidising all research via search ads is perhaps not as robust as one might hope for, even though it's convenient at the moment.
I don't know if DASH specifically is complex enough to deserve patent protection, but if you look at the massive efforts that go into the development of codecs like h.264, h.265 etc, the picture gets more complex. It's not pharmaceutical level research budgets but it's probably the closest the software world gets.
No, the issue is that it's open source and carriers customise the components. Android had a working online update infrastructure since day one, actually since before Apple did. But that's no use when the first thing OEMs do is repoint those mechanisms at their own servers and make huge changes to the code.
The comparisons with Linux are especially strange. Guess what? Upstreams who develop software for Linux and see it get repackaged by distributors are in exactly the same boat as Google. They see their software get packaged up, distributed, bugs possibly introduced and then upgrades may or may not make it to users. Yeah yeah, Debian say they backport security fixes. That's great when it's a popular package and a one liner. When the security fix in question is a major architectural upgrade, like adding a sandbox to an app, then users just get left behind on old versions without the upgrades because that's the "stable" version.
And of course many users are on Linux distros that stop being supported pretty quick. Then you're in the same boat as Android: old versions don't get updates.
For you Greyfox, for you!
I will run around with a sign around my neck: wasn't me!
2) Yes, it sounds like a free energy machine. If a given amount of electrical power produces a given thrust, constantly, without consuming any fuel, then you can generate unlimited energy by attaching this thing to a flywheel or rotor arm that drives a generator and it will produce more energy than it requires to drive the thruster. Some of the current theories about this thing claim that it won't do that, that its efficiency will go down the faster it's moving (relative to a given frame of reference).
This is complete nonsense. Why would that be the case in your opinion?
How does the generator know it is driven by an EM Drive versus by a horse? Why should it generate "free energy" in the first case and need lots of horse food in the second?
You make no sense.
You do know that a reactionless drive means not only that momentum is not conserved.
No, it does not mean that. Why should it?
But that the laws of physics are different in different places.
Oh, you did not know that this basically is the case in fact? Yes, we use counter constants to wear that effects out and "fix" the formulas so we get universal valid formulas.
Simple example, clocks run with different speeds when accelerated close or not so close to the speed of light.
Obviously after Einstein (and LORENZ!) we know now how to put that into a formula.
Before them, if we only had observed that effect, we had assumed different speeds (more precisely accelerations)
This drive is just the same. We have ideas how it works! After all it was not discovered by accident but is an attempt to "craft" something for which already a rudimentary idea how it could work exists!
The EM drive and other new drive variants violate nothing.
In this whole thread/article no one was able to point out a single classical physical phenomena/law or what ever that was violated.
You all are only writing sentences like "it violates newtons law of conservation of momentum". However to fail to explain: why and how it violates it.
While this new thing violates 400 years of experiments and results.
Care to show a single such experiment?
Well, your post is wrong from top to bottom, but this beats it:
the device would produce thrust without reaction mass, violating conservation of momentum.
Why? Why should thrust without use of a reaction mass violate the law of conversation of momentum?
Sorry, your claim simply makes no sense. But feel free to educate us.
Care to explain which law of physics is challenged by the EM drive?
Oh, you don't know any, yeah so do I!
Sure, just toss a net over it.
I was thinking more along the lines of sending up an anti-drone drone to grab it and drag it back down. After that you can rely on the legal precedent of "finders, keepers" to add it to your drone collection.
I'm bully on ARM, with the (almost) collapse of AMD as a "first rate" processor, it's good to see Intel get some serious competition in a significant market space.
My only beef with ARM is that comparing CPUs is harder than comparing video cards! the ARM space is so fragmented with licensed cores and seemly random numbers indicating the "version" that I have no idea how, for example, a SnapDragon 808 processor compares to a Cortex A9 or an Apple A7.
Really, I'm lost. But the $40 TV stick with the 4x core A9 works pretty well...
It is installed by default in VS