r00ty

Samsung did make 1tb phone models. Not sure if they still do. When I got my s24, 1tb was an option.

Are you sure it was dot pitch and not dot clock?

Dot pitch on a crt might make the image look bad (trying to draw onto the shadow mask) but I doubt it would damage it.

Setting an invalid dot clock could damage some crts. But most of the modern (read from mid 90s on) would just go to the power save mode when they got a clock they couldn’t use. The warning did still remain on the xfree86 configuration guides though.

Showing my age perhaps.

I upgrade every 4 years or so, and that’s really only because it’s also when battery life usually declines.

These days the only improvement seems to be memory, storage and camera. Somehow I feel some of those will stagnate.

But the new Samsung s28, it’s totally a bigger number than what you have now.

More than 51 years if there’s one of those updates that will randomly decide to overwrite the UEFI removing your bootloader entirely :P

Yep. I also valid concerns. But those seem to be their next steps. I just wondered if there would be degradation. You wouldn’t even be able to tell until it reached the destination.

Definitely interesting stuff.

This is for communication, not computation or even cryptography. The point in transferring it this way is so as to maintain the unseen property of the photon.

I think my question on all this would be whether this would ultimately cause problems in terms of data integrity.

Currently most amplifiers for digital information are going to capture the information in the light, probably strip off any modulation to get to the raw data. Then re-modulate that using a new emitter.

The advantages of doing this over just amplifying the original light signal are the same reason switches/routers are store and forward (or at least decode to binary and re-modulate). When you decode the data from the modulated signal and then reproduce it, you are removing any noise that was present and reproducing a clean signal again.

If you just amplify light (or electrical) signals “as-is”, then you generally add noise every time you do this reducing the SNR a small amount. After enough times the signal will become non-recoverable.

So I guess my question is, does the process also have the same issue of an ultimate limit in how often you can re-transmit the signal without degradation.

Pretty sure this was made clear in the article but… I’ll outline the little I know on the subject as a complete layman.

Currently we have been able to use quantum effects to create single runs of fibre that cannot be intercepted. That is, if the data is intercepted by any known means the receiver will be able to detect this.

The shortcoming of this method, is that of course when you need to amplify the signal, that’s generally a “store and forward” operation and thus would also break this system’s detection. You could I guess perform the same operation wherever it is amplified, but it’s then another point in which monitoring could happen. If you want 1 trusted sender, 1 trusted receiver and nothing in between, this is a problem.

What this article is saying, is they have found a way to amplify the information without ever “reading” it. Therefore keeping the data integrity showing as “unseen” (for want of a better word). As such this will allow “secure” (I guess?) fibre runs of greater distances in the future.

Now the article does go into some detail about how this works and why. But, for the basic aspect of why this is a good and useful thing. This is pretty much what you need to know.

This is the world most of us want to live in I would think.

He is not the one to deliver it. He doesn’t really want that. If he did, he wouldn’t want $1t let alone fight to get it. Let alone all the other vile shit he has done, and will do.

Of course not. As the merovingian in the matrix says. French is a fantastic language, especially to curse with.

So far I’ve mostly avoided the whole “things that don’t need to be on the Internet” situation.

Non smart TV (well that period when they started adding smart features but they’re all out of date now so not even connected to the Internet)

All kitchen stuff is just kitchen stuff. No Internet.

Car is still offline.

Only real exception is smart thermostat, and that’s just because when the boiler was installed that’s what they put in.

Then I suggest they use an XNOR pointer instead! Checkmate patent trolls!

Huh. I am sure you could search for individual books. For sure you could do it by goodreads ID I think? Yes, adding an entire author as the primary way to do things is a bit much for some. I know for sure I have managed to do individual books before now.

It’s a real shame because Readarr did work and they really just needed to fix their own metadata servers. No? Or were there other problems I’m not aware of?

Yeah, no prices. I move on. Same with job ads, no salary no application. If I get an intrusive ad, I’m not buying that product, I’ll deliberately seek out another brand in fact.

Is that a weird attitude to have? I thought it just made sense. We shouldn’t be rewarding this BS.

I’m wondering what combination of features would use 25w on a phone. On flagship models the battery would last less than an hour at that consumption (and might even melt :P).

Your point still stands by the way, sensors take next to nothing in terms of power. I guess the point of the article is perhaps the processing of the signals is more efficient with this hybrid chip? Again though in real terms it’s a nothing-burger in terms of power consumption.

I don’t think there’s ground even for an arrest in my (non professional mind you) opinion.

The act requires that a message be sent by any electronic means (including transmission) so, this meets that part. But the message must be indecent or grossly offensive. I would argue some pictures of a couple of buddies together shouldn’t be grossly offensive.

Unless it’s the police’s view that it is offensive because of what Trump may, or may not have done with said now deceased criminal friend. In which case, they should be arresting someone else too.

Yes, it’s a common police tactic to make arrests around the time of a visit like this. But, they really do need to be grounded in a realistic application of the law.

I really feel like you should read my comment more carefully. I’m not defending them. I’m describing their rationale. My very last sentence should make clear I am not one of the normal users that will be happy and fine with this. I’m typing this, on Linux, right now.

Normal people don’t care, and they would be happy with the thin veil of extra security they will gain (and be told they’re going to gain), in exactly the same way the sales of the top tier mobile phones when they’re boot locked and sideload locked will not dip in any meaningful way.

Well, it’s for a good reason in their view. Also, pretty much everyone here is not the normal computer user. The normal computer user is only dimly aware they use something called windows. The use a web browser and perhaps 3 other programs on their PC. They’re going to be happy when they’re told that having a walled garden improves their computer’s security.

We are the minority.

It’s not “arbitrary” I’d say. It’s part of a long term plan to probably push a fully trusted platform. Yes, so they can ID you by hardware etc but also lock down driver installs and maybe even software installs one day.