Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Abusive monopoly mad, news at 11. (Score 1) 92

I don't waste my time digging up facts for you anymore;

You didn't bring up a single fact at all. It's your speculation; it's your guess. These are not facts.

when I do, you break out the insults.

And in this thread, please point out a single insult that I levied.

Me? I simply referenced your username. You want facts? You picked the name and that's a fact.

This is what you said: "In the mean time, your username remains as apt as ever." Do you stand by your words?

Beyond that, an opinion can neither be lroven nor disproven and we will see what you call my "opinions" either proven or disproven during the trial.

Opinions can be wrong; if your opinion is that the Earth is flat; you're wrong. If your opinion is that the Earth is a sphere, you're still wrong. If your opinion is that the Earth is an oblate spheroid, you are still wrong but you are closer to being correct.

I may have my facts wrong, but they're certainly not opinions.

The problem is not that you have opinions; it's that you seem to assert that they are the truth.

Comment Re:Abusive monopoly mad, news at 11. (Score 1) 92

Call it an educated guess.

No it's your opinion.

The assertion being made by Qualcomm... you know... in the lawsuit TFS mentioned... is that they did exactly that. I guess we'll find out soon enough as the trial plays out. In the mean time, your username remains as apt as ever.

And no party to a lawsuit has ever stretched the truth to the point where people call it a lie? I take it you believed SCO when they said that IBM stole their IP and put it in Linux?

By the way you have yet to back up anything you've said with facts. All you seem to have is insults.

Comment Re:Abusive monopoly mad, news at 11. (Score 1) 92

Right. Apple didn't know about the performance difference between the two radio chips, they jsut restricted the performance of the Qualcomm part on a whim. I'll buy that for a dollar (before $1 instant rebate).

Again, your assertion is that Apple restricted the performance "on a whim". Unless you happen to work inside Apple you can't claim that. Also I already said that parts from different vendors are not always equal. The question is do they meet the specifications. The A9 is the best example. Apple designed the chip but because two different fabs made the same design, the performance was slightly different. In the real world would it make much difference? I would say no.

Comment Re:Wait wot? What about the Nexus 4? (Score 1) 92

Sure there will be an effect.

The question is was there harm. Effect is not the legal standard.

If yellow pages lies and says that Jim's 10 minute locksmith and Bob's 30 minute locksmith are the same speed, then Jim's going to lose business, even though he's faster. If Apple lied and claimed that the phones are equivalent, when they're not, then the qualcom iphone sales will be artificially depressed (yes, there are people who care).

The problem with this analogy is manifold. 1) Yellow Pages is in the business of providing listings and do not evaluate the performance of the listings. 2) Consumers really choose (or know sometimes) either modem. They choose the phone, the choose the carrier; they don't choose the chipset. 3) The only parties that might be affected are manufacturers as they are the ones that have a real choice in the matter are other manufacturers. Normally they will do their own testing. LG, Samsung, Huawei, are not simply going to take Apple's word that one chipset is better or equal to another mainly because they will use different components in their models and have to do their own testing.

Comment Re:Abusive monopoly mad, news at 11. (Score 1) 92

The real story, here, is that the iPhone could have faster connectivity. That it doesn't isn't even a financial decision, as Apple has opted to use the better part in some production runs and the inferior part in others, and hinder the performance of the superior part to negate any possible advantage it may bring. If it were a financial decision, they'd have used only the cheaper Intel chips.

All of which is an assertion that may not have evidence. Are all parts equal from all vendors? No. But that does not automatically equate to Apple knowing about the difference in performance and making a conscious choice to screw over the customer or that Apple hindered the performance of one part.

If you remember chipgate, A9 chips made by TSMC ran cooler and laster longer than A9s made by Samsung. Apple said that both versions still met performance standards but one version just ran better than the other. Now bear in mind that these were exactly the same design by Apple but were made in two different fabs and that the main difference was TSMC used a 16nm line while Samsung used a 14nm line.

Comment Re:Wait wot? What about the Nexus 4? (Score 1) 92

And the lawyers are more interested in that, since Apple may be making false claims which harm Qualcomm

The problem is that Qualcomm must prove "harm". Apple merely selecting two vendors and claiming they performed equally when one beat the other does not "harm" either vendor. What damages did Qualcomm suffer? Apple was never going to use 100% Qualcomm chips anyways. Other manufacturers are going to run their own tests and not accept Apple's word because their phones would have different performance results.

Comment Re:Why does Qualcomm care about Apple perf decisio (Score 1) 92

So in other words, Qualcomm is saying that the fact that consumers could not self-select Qualcomm iPhones materially affected its business. It further alleges that consumers were not properly informed, not just because Apple withheld information, but because Apple deliberately misrepresented the facts by stating publicly that the performance of both models was identical.

I can't see any justifiable claim that Qualcomm could reasonably make in those statements. Even if Apple did everything Qualcomm said they did, Qualcomm has no standing to sue Apple as the consumers would be hurt not Qualcomm. Now if Apple ran ad after ad saying that Qualcomm chips were terrible, they could sue Apple for those statements.

Comment Re:More US warmongering (Score 1) 755

Keep typing away, I'm not going to read any of it after having already not read what you wrote above, and told you so.

So again what you are saying is that not only are you wrong you will never admit you're wrong. Secretary Tillerson says you're wrong. Everything I know about military ordinance says you're wrong. What is it like to be so wrong all the time?

You wanted to disagree with me, but you were only starting from an elementary-school "do you know what an airbase is" level. And before that you were already saying stupid, ignorant thing

Because you seem not to know that an airbase without a functioning runway isn't much of an airbase. The runway is the most important thing about an airbase.

So no, there is no way I will care what you say, or read it. Next time, start out by saying something insightful. If you start out being an idiot, I'm not going to dredge around in your comment looking for some minor redeeming value.

Your problem is that you ignored basic information about military ordinance because in your childish demeanor you insult people because you simply don't know anything about military ordinance. You don't seem to know much about other topics but refuse to admit it. Facts have a place in this world; you simply ignore them.

Comment Re:More US warmongering (Score 1) 755

OK, instead of reading what you followed that with, I'll give you a very standard disclaimer: Everything I say was my educated opinion.

You can have an opinion; you can also be wrong. Let me give the exact examples of how you are wrong:

You said:

Whereas a more intelligent analysis would instantly realize that most of the targets at a military airstrip are in fact buildings, that only a small number of the missiles would have targeted the runway, that runways are actually a priority target type in war, and that there is nothing at all about Tomahawk missiles that makes them unsuited to that role.

Secretary of State Tillerson says you are wrong:

Q: Secretary Tillerson, you talked about the great success. The AFP is reporting that the runway is still operational and is actually being used. Is that accurate? And can you comment on whether that was your intent, and if that puts a damper on the success of the operation?

SECRETARY TILLERSON: The runways were not the target due to the nature of the construction of those runways. Our military estimate was that we could not do serious damage to the runways. They are very thick and they’re constructed in a way that the ordnance that were used, while would have damaged them -- the damage would have been easily repaired in a matter of hours.

You are just wrong. And to date you have yet to actually answer a simple question: What is the blast radius of a Tomahawk?

The point the OP and I are trying to make (which you don't understand) is if you are going to attack an airfield but not make the runway inoperative, why even attack it? Your response that a Tomahawk COULD make a runway inoperative goes against common sense understanding of what the capability of what a Tomahawk cruise missile can do. Both the OP and I are making the point that the attack was just for show.

Tillerson seemed to say that undermining the infrastructure of the airfield was more important: "So the targeting was selected very deliberately to render the airbase essentially inoperable as an operating base, and that means taking out all the infrastructure, the fueling capability, all the support infrastructure, hangars. And, indeed, there were a number of Syrian aircraft that were destroyed on the ground. Those were the targets that were selected for that very specific reason." However where I disagree with Tillerson is that those things that he mentioned can be replaced or repaired quickly. For example while taking out a fuel depot means that planes might not be able to refuel from that airbase in the short term. But Syria can simply drive a fleet of fuel trucks to the airbase in the meantime while establishing another fuel depot. I fear all these points just went over your head.

Comment Re:Address the gap in the lineup... (Score 1) 163

Do you have some market research to support that? I feel like I've been hearing for decades that consoles would kill PC gaming, but it hasn't happened. If anything, I feel like consoles are showing some weakness recently.

I'm not saying that console games are making PC gaming obsolete. I'm saying people who are building fewer and fewer gaming PCs and generally people are buying fewer desktops.

That's debatable, but also beside the point. I didn't say that they should make the Mac mini upgradable, just that they could sell a higher-end model with a decent GPU.

Yes but how soon does that GPU become obsolete? I mean you can still use decade old CPU just fine for general computing but decades old GPUs are basically unusable by gaming.

Comment Re:More US warmongering (Score 1) 755

There is no reason to keep reading after that. You're just making it up, and you're wrong.

Have you ever looked at an airbase? It's buildings + runway + taxiways. The runways go on for miles. The building do not. Seriously do you not know the vast majority of space taken up by an airbase are the runways?

You don't realize, I'm not making it up. I didn't share a single idea of my own. I only shared pretty standard knowledge from the relevant field.

No. I'm just saying you are dead wrong when it comes to both military tactics and understanding about military weaponry. Cite any relevant source on military tactics where a Tomahawk missile should be used against a runway.

You could probably find a basics book that would help. Certainly you'd be better off with some basics than with your own silly ideas.

What is the blast radius of a Tomahawk compared to the size of a runway? If you had any clue about the difference in size then you'd know why a Tomahawk is completely insufficient against a runway. This analysis mirrors my exact thoughts: Tomahawks are useless against runways; Durandals are the weapons to be used.

Is a runway the least replaceable? Compared to, for example, an airplane? Look it up!

The last time I checked you can fly in a replacement aircraft and drive in replacement equipment like a radar station, a mobile CNC. I don't believe you can fly in a replacement runway. My knowledge of engineering says replacing a runway takes much more effort that flying in a plane or driving a vehicle.

Comment Re:More US warmongering (Score 1) 755

Whereas a more intelligent analysis would instantly realize that most of the targets at a military airstrip are in fact buildings, that only a small number of the missiles would have targeted the runway, that runways are actually a priority target type in war, and that there is nothing at all about Tomahawk missiles that makes them unsuited to that role.

I don't know about you but when the vast surface area of an airbase is runway and simultaneously also being the least replaceable, you'd think hitting the runway is the most important thing. I mean it's not like mobile command centers, tents, and mobile radar stations don't exist--oh wait they totally do!

that only a small number of the missiles would have targeted the runway, that runways are actually a priority target type in war, and that there is nothing at all about Tomahawk missiles that makes them unsuited to that role

You mean besides the small blast radius of a Tomahawk compared to miles and miles of runway? I mean it's not like the Tomahawk was designed for surgical strikes--oh wait they totally were designed for surgical strikes and not area-wide destruction. I guess that would make them unsuitable for taking out a runway. You know if someone were to design a weapon specifically for runways, that would help.

The choice between a tomahawk or a laser-guided bomb is based on if you want to fly over the target and save money, or stay safe and just use a robot bomb. It has nothing to do with target type other than it probably needing to be stationary to use the cruise missile.

False dichotomy. The most effective weapon against a runway between a Durandal and a Tomahawk is certainly a Durandal. It has nothing to with the guidance system of the weapon. That is unless you don't really care about actually destroying a runway.

And given those types of choices, the Durandel would be an idiot's alternative; that is something you drop from low altitude to destroy a runway after you've established air superiority.

So your assertion that the objective of attacking an airfield is not to render the airbase ineffective. What kind of idiocy is that? Why would you attack an airbase if you didn't want to destroy it. Destroying the buildings does nothing to make sure the runways are useless.

Second, you are aware that using Durandal is not a binary choice in that you must use a Durandal exclusive of all other weapons. You use other weapons to take out the tower, the radar, the enemy aircraft AND use a Durandal to take out the runway.

We're not in open war with Syria,

And hitting a Syrian airbase with 59 Tomahawk missiles isn't considered an act of war for most countries? So if Syria hit a US airbase with 59 missiles you'd think that there would be open warfare?

we haven't closed their airspace, they're not banned from military flights, and in fact numerous countries are flying military aircraft around the place meaning that there are lots of different anti-aircraft facilities that in operation, many of them legitimate defensive positions that would not be appropriate to attack without cause. So there are lots and lots of reasons why that weapon would not be used here, or even considered.

I ask you again: what is the point to attacking an airbase if you don't render it useless. Sure you destroyed some buildings. Sure you destroyed some aircraft. Have you actually affected the target's operational capability? If that airbase is operational within a few days, all you've done is spent $90 million dollars and done nothing to affect Syria.

Slashdot Top Deals

Work continues in this area. -- DEC's SPR-Answering-Automaton