... Hardware bought from thinkpenguin.com costs even less than Macs because it's pre-vetted by their 3-man company to "Just Work". the only "support" calls that they get are down to flaky USB host chipsets, BIOS DRM/whitelisting which prevents certain WIFI cards from being recognised, and the *very* very occasional request for driver support for OSes that are getting on for 15 years old. they sell ACM dial-up modems because they get calls from people who have upgraded from windows xp only to find that their old conexant softmodem is "so old" it no longer works. they buy and sell printers that don't require firmware uploads and have "generic" drivers - postscript, PCL and so on. we don't *have* to live on the treadmill: it's a choice, to tolerate the pain, cost, stress and distress of living with hardware that's designed for obsolescence, trapped by our own desire to pay less for less.
LTE is already pretty darn fast, so losing a little performance isn't going to make that big of a deal. It's not as if you can torrent to your hearts content without killing your cell phone bill.
The issue isn't just speed. It's also range.
At any given speed, the Qualcom can support it at substantially lower signal levels. 6ish dB in a lot of cases, a bit less in some, enormously more in others.
Look at the graphs in TFA. In addition to some specific pathologies that penalize the Intel chip farther, the bulk of the graph has the drop off looking similar but with the Qualcom shfited 5 or 6 dB to the right. (Those squares are 5 dB wide.)
6 dB is four times the effective signal strength, which corresponds to twice the range. That maps into four times the area served at that speed from a single cell tower (important in sparsely-served areas), deeper penetration into buildings and the like (in more heavily-covered areas). It can also map into more data pushed before a given area and channel allocation's bandwidth is saturated. 3 dB corresponds to twice the effective signal strength, 1.4ish times the radius, twice the area served.
If the modems were equivalent and the problem just the layout of the board and antenna, you'd expect the two curves to be the same shape but just offset. The shape is substantially different, so (board issues or not) something else is going on.
... is the BATF defecating bricks.
I was going to post something about "carbonated water into wine" but vodka is more accurate.
I wonder if you'd still get only ethanol for the product if you applied this to carbonated sodas or sparkling fruit juices.
Good point! I wonder if that trump audio has been modified!
Pull down a copy and run it through an audio spectrum analysis program. Splices stand out like a sore thumb on a frequency-vs-time graph.
Not perpetrators, opponents.
Once it's illegal, they're perpetrators. No more or less than con men or burglars.
The crime is making orders with the intent to cancel before being fulfilled.
Is it also an establishment of intent if you (as a large financial firm) deploy, in actual trading on real markets with real money, an algorithm that exhibits such behavior? If, in addition, you KEEP it deployed even after its behavior is noticed and complained about in public media of the sort likely to be read by trading professionals?
And it is something that the traders at Goldman Sachs can make a fortune without doing.
But it's something that they can make a BIGGER fortune by DOING. And something that can count toward the rise of individuals and groups through the corporate ladder and pay scale.
While don't recall if G.S. was specifically one of the organizations complained about (and am not going to spend the time right now digging through archives to check), I DO recall com"plaints about high-speed traders taking advantage of the cancellation features of the online market engines in just this way.
One of the advantages of shaving milliseconds off the communication delays and algorithms that was specifically mentioned (once the pattern was observed) was the ability to send an order and a cancellation in rapid enough succession that it could not be pounced on (and thus didn't really risk money), sending price signals that tricked competing, slightly less high-speed or well-tuned, algorithms into making other bad trades from which their operators lost and the perpetrators gained.
The only poll that showed that was the LA Times poll,
Which "that" are you referring to?
- If it's who's ahead, you have some point - though the USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times "Daybreak" poll is NOT the only one showing Trump ahead by at least a small margin. (In fact it shows them neck-and-neck, crossing back-and-forth, and has Hillary up by 0.3% just now.)
- If it's how the musdslinging is changing the voters' preferences, it's not fully over that poll's one-to-two-week report delay + smoothing yet.
In particular (for both cases) I note that this morning's Rasmussen daily tracking poll has Trump slightly ahead AND is starting to have any dings to Trump from the spate of allegations within horizon. Yet they see no such dings (and comment about their absence in the accompanying analysis).
[USC/L.A. Times] is a bit notorious because it polls the same people at each iteration.
It's also notorious for being far more accurate when it comes to predicting both the winner and the margin. (The latter can turn into the former if the race is very close, as this one is.) That repeated sampling of varying subsets of the same group is a part of the methodology that they credit for avoiding certain distortions that affect other polls.
The rationalle is explained on their web site. Give it a look.
Honest question: in what use case does systemd bother you?
I'm in a startup, still on angel funding and strapped for resources, building a multi-layered platform. One of the four-or-more layers is implemented on a machine about the power of a smartphone/credit-card-computer in the raspberry/beaglebone/etc. class. That layer needs an O.S., and it's internet-facing, so it needs to be secure - and auditable.
Posix-compatible OSes, such as Linux, should be ideal. But there's that little matter of being reasonably sure that they're not full of security holes or reliability issues, and doing so on a shoestring, using a handfull of people who have a LOT of OTHER stuff to do in order to get through the market window before the wolf gets to our door.
Even if systemd were solid as a rock and the best thing in init systems since pre-slicing was applied to bread, it's an extra complication - with its fingers in a lot of pies. That makes security auditing much harder and more time consuming. And THAT makes it "more expensive than money" for us - to the point that the current move of Linux versions to systemd may drive us to abandon Linux entirely for something else. (OpenBSD would be one contender. A plethora of other, stripped-down-to-minimal-functionality, OSes also come to mind.) (The main reason we haven't done so already is that we can't afford that effort, either, until our concept's proven and we must bite the security bullet in order to ship.)
One of the great things about pre-systemd Unix and unix-like systems was the design philosophy, which explicitly drove strong modularity, with simple modules that did single jobs and were easy to check - or encapsulate. (This was one of its big advantages over things like Windows, where all the apps were in bed with each other and any security hole in one became a security hole in many.) Systemd violates that philosophy.
Doesn't matter who it is, failure to redact passwords, phone numbers, etc, is just wrong.
As my wife said:
"THEY read all of OUR communications. Why shouldn't WE read all of THEIRS?"
Perhaps if Trump hadn't publicly bragged about doing
The main thing I got out of it was: He said
- he'd made a pass at a married woman,
- she'd turned him down,
- and he took "no" for an answer.
What a pity the Clintons don't seem to do that.
It's the last four weeks of the campaign. There is no longer time for the truth of accusations to come out before election day. Now is the time when, historically, dishonest politicians and/or their supporters have a track record of making up believable lies and broadcasting them.
So now is the time that I don't believe smear stories - that don't have solid, PRE-EXISTING, evidence to support them - about candidates in a tough race.
Maybe he did something bad, maybe not. But the spate of accusations certainly seem to be nicely tuned to a narrative based on the recording. The many accusations allegedly took place years ago. If true, they could have been published months ago. Why are they only coming out now, just after the classic cut-in time for fake-story smears? The timing certainly makes them LOOK like they are lies, constructed and carefully tuned for use in the last weeks of the campaign.
his campaign wouldn't be crashing and burning.
The last polls I saw (from just after the recent debate, and substantially after the release of the recording, but before the series of accusations) had him pulling ahead by a substantial margin - like by almost the total of the "undecideds".
My impression is that the only crashing and burning going on is on the part of the Republican politicians who took this opportunity to break their agreements and oppose Trump - only to find he was the one with the bigger army of supporters.
Wishing without work is like fishing without bait. -- Frank Tyger