Last Active
  • Apple debuts new $5999 Mac Pro with up to 28-core Xeon processors

    melgross said:
    davgreg said:
    netrox said:
    Love how amatuers complain about the costs of Mac Pro... it's for Professionals making lots of money... not for amatuers living on a few hundreds. 
    Not true.
    There are people who need workstations that are not rolling in money. People like scientists and engineers.
    The Pro market extends way beyond the media business.

    This is another nice engineering exercise but leaves a gaping hole between the Mac mini and this. A version with something less than an 8 core Xeon CPU could be offered for substantially less.
    If a scientist or engineer needs this amount of power, then they are doing work where this can be bought. Scientists spend tens of thousands to millions on equipment. Either a grant pays for that, or the company or university does. An engineer rarely works alone, so they’re in a similar situation. Do you have any idea how much a modern scope can cost? Tens of thousands. Power supplies, voltmeters, etc.? If that engineer is doing the kind of work that requires this type of computer, then (s)he’s already using perhaps over $100,000 of test and measurement equipment. The work involves RF, then we’re talking possibly four times as much.

    this computer is just another piece of equipment,
    Minimum for a capital purchase is often $5K.  $6K starting price is reasonable.
  • Huawei may be open to selling its 5G modem, but only to Apple

    nht said:
    nht said:
    tmay said:
    Here's a well considered take on the Huawei 5G problem;


    "The US is engaged in a global campaign to keep Chinese tech companies out of advanced 5G networks promising faster connections, enabling uses such as autonomous vehicles and remote surgery. American officials fear that the Chinese government may force companies such as Huawei to incorporate software code or hardware that would allow Beijing to spy on the US or allies and disrupt sectors ranging from power to transport and manufacturing in a crisis."

    “The most fundamental security standard, really, is that you cannot have this extrajudicial, non-rule of law compliant process where a government can tell its companies to do something,” Strayer said on Monday.


    "Australia, New Zealand and Japan have acceded to US requests to bar Huawei’s 5G equipment. Those allies have also banded together to provide aid to the Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea so that they would reject a Huawei submarine cable carrying broadband connections, saying the line represents a national security threat at its connection point in Australia."

    This is absolutely about national security, and not about "protectionism"; the U.S. doesn't have any existing 5G telecom manufacturers, relying instead on the marketplace. Unfortunately for Huawei, those CCP and Chinese Government Connections as well as the legal system that is beholden to the CCP, all are high risks for Western Liberal Governments. 
    So let me get this straight:
    A foreign country who has never attacked us might, maybe, sometime in the future ask one of their companies to reveal U.S. secretes and that company might, maybe do so in that hypothetical future and might maybe not reveal anything to any of their valued customers in the U.S. -- and that constitutes irrefutable proof that they are spies...   

    Meanwhile asking a country who was in the process of attacking us to expand their attack into cyber warfare in order to over turn our election is not collusion.

    Got it.
    They have attacked us.  Read history genius.  PLA units directly attacked US units in the Korean War.
    And, England attacked us...   So we should stop buying anything from England?

    If England was constantly attacking us in cyberspace today then yes.

    In any case you stated that they have never attacked us which is false.  I don’t think that even the Russians have attacked us directly with regular army units.  “Contractors” and “individual volunteers” yes.  Soviet divisions?  No.
    LOL....  You stated China helped a country we were at war with 70 years ago and used that as justification that we should never do business with them again.   I merely pointed out that another country quite literally invaded us, burned our capital, and yet you think that is of no importance or relevance.   It seems you are cherry picking the justification for who you have chosen as an enemy.

    It's a problem with many ideologues:   They come up with the conclusion first and then look for something to justify that conclusion.
    Nope.  You stated "A foreign country who has never attacked us" which is categorically a false statement genius.

    Everything else you're writing is just deflection that you don't know history and stated something completely wrong.  The US and UK are linked in a fundamental way and the War of 1812 was declared by the US, not the UK which was busy in the Napoleonic Wars.  Something else you are completely unaware of because you don't know history.  Genius.  They didn't "invade us", they bitch slapped us with a raid of only 2500 soldiers for being stupid in declaring war on one of the major powers of the world while being completely unprepared and unorganized.  

    On the plus side we managed to recover and not do too terribly badly in such an ill considered war and ended being more trouble than it was worth to actually invade.


  • Boeing 737 Max pilots didn't have flight simulators, and trained on iPads instead

    kingofsomewherehot said:
    Software is not required to ensure it remains in the air. (That statement would be valid for an Airbus.... you should avoid flying on them.) 
    Would you care to provide citation? Stating that all Airbus aircraft will crash without computer control is quite a sweeping statement. If you’re referring to fly by wire, my understanding is that the 320 has mechanical backup, all others have electrical (not electronic) backups in the case of multiple computer failures. If you’re suggesting that no Airbus aircraft would have the potential to survive a “Gimli glider”-like incident, I’d be interested to see your source.

    [edit] Guess what I just found: an Air Transat A330 landed safely after travelling 75 miles without any power  https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travel-truths/can-a-plane-fly-with-no-one-engines/

    And of course the “Miracle on the Hudson” was an A320, so I’m really not sure what you’re on about. 
    That’s without engine power, not without computers.  You can maybe land an airbus but the mechanical backups only gives you rudder and stabilizer.  At least on the older ones.  The newer airbuses have a BCM (Backup Control Module) which counts as a computer but really isn’t likely to fail at the same time the normal control systems will...or at least no more likely than total hydraulic failure...which leaves most airliners screwed regardless.

    An airbus is safe to fly. 
  • Google up to $9.4 billion in total fines to EU, with latest $1.7 billion AdSense penalty

    I don't care for Trump but we should be fining EU companies $94B in response since the EU has elected to target US tech companies since EU tech companies have been singularly uncompetitive vs US and China...and the EU is too chicken to target China.
  • 5G iPhone unlikely until 2020, given Intel modem announcement

    Anyway, regarding the subject material, the wait until 2020 for 5G isn't a bad thing. There isn't going to be a network to speak of, in much the same way that Apple waited until LTE was built out better.
    You are not recognizing that this puts Apple in a real bind. On the one hand, yes, they will incur the additional cost of making the next iPhone compatible with what will surely be a partially implemented network. But on the other hand, many people (like me) will wait until 2020 to upgrade, since there is zero reason to buy something that will be technologically obsolete a year later.

    How should Apple navigate this trade-off right after experiencing one of the toughest years they've had financially thanks to decelerating iPhone sales?
    Lol...2017 Revenues: $229B.  2018 Revenues $265B.  

    You're a terrible concern troll.  Toughest year=Highest revenues ever.

    Horrors of horrors...Apple slipped to $84B in Q1 2019...5% off 2018 and higher than 2015, 2016 or 2017.