Welcome, Guest
You have to register before you can post on our site.



Search Forums

(Advanced Search)

Forum Statistics
» Members: 41
» Latest member: calvinreynoldz
» Forum threads: 1,215
» Forum posts: 13,577

Full Statistics

Latest Threads
Chrome 69 Will Merge Its ...
Forum: Software & Programming
Last Post: SteelCrysis
12 minutes ago
» Replies: 0
» Views: 2
Turing Discussion Thread
Forum: Video
Last Post: SteelCrysis
20 minutes ago
» Replies: 39
» Views: 606
Coffee Lake Thread
Forum: General Hardware
Last Post: SteelCrysis
6 hours ago
» Replies: 87
» Views: 5,049
Console gaming thread
Forum: Gaming
Last Post: SteelCrysis
09-21-2018, 05:57 AM
» Replies: 1,967
» Views: 569,744
Tech Report Deals Thread
Forum: Hot Deals & Bargains
Last Post: SteelCrysis
09-21-2018, 01:25 AM
» Replies: 26
» Views: 1,894
Valve And Ubisoft Refund ...
Forum: Gaming
Last Post: SteelCrysis
09-20-2018, 01:16 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 18
Ryzen Release Thread
Forum: General Hardware
Last Post: SteelCrysis
09-19-2018, 08:08 AM
» Replies: 151
» Views: 18,117
Apple Removing Purchased ...
Forum: Technology News
Last Post: SteelCrysis
09-18-2018, 09:05 PM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 49
Ryzen APU Thread
Forum: General Hardware
Last Post: SteelCrysis
09-18-2018, 01:02 AM
» Replies: 30
» Views: 2,106
The FBI evacuates a space...
Forum: Off Topic
Last Post: dmcowen674
09-14-2018, 11:02 AM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 581

  Chrome 69 Will Merge Its Sign In With Signing Into Any Google Account
Posted by: SteelCrysis - 12 minutes ago - Forum: Software & Programming - No Replies


Quote:Let’s start at the beginning. Prior to Chrome 69, Chrome offered an optional sign-in feature. This feature had nothing to do with your various accounts on services like Gmail or YouTube — instead, it allowed Google to synchronize things like cookies and bookmarks across all of the devices on which you used Chrome services. Many people embraced the feature, but Google kept it opt-in. The old login icon looked like a blank outline of a person. When clicked, it displayed the following message:

But now, Google has changed this message. Download and install Chrome 69, and the browser now treats this sign-in option as exercised if you log into any Google account. In other words, Google now treats the Chrome sign-in and the Google account sign-in as equivalent.
But this kind of pattern deployment is fundamentally toxic to trust. It’s particularly toxic for a company that’s proven so willing to end-run around user expectations, including promising two years ago not to track users who turned off location tracking, only to later admit that hey, it’s still tracking users who turn off location tracking. Google has also acknowledged allowing third parties to sweep Gmail for data as well.

On a personal note, it’s deeply unsurprising to see Google do this. Green points out that Google is promising to respect a user’s sync settings after deliberately breaking the conventions that end users were using to tell Google they didn’t wish to sync their software across devices. But this is unsurprising. It’s exactly what Google did years ago with its own opt-out system for automatic updates. The company establishes a mechanism by which users can opt out of something, then breaks that mechanism if too many people opt out of it. We’re supposed to trust that Google will respect the decision of people who don’t want to sync their data with its servers when it just broke the mechanism by which people previously notified it that they did not wish to synchronize with its servers? Muddying the waters with a login that isn’t a login and a “Sync” panel that can seamlessly activate a feature users don’t want aren’t improvements — they’re just as scummy as the games Microsoft played with its Windows 10 update tool near the official end of the free Windows 10 rollout period.

This kind of behavior is profoundly damaging to any conception of trust. Combined with the endless privacy scandals coming out of Google and the company’s willingness to help the Chinese government spy on its own people and it’s worth asking why we respect this company at all.

Print this item

  Valve And Ubisoft Refund Policies Violated French Law
Posted by: SteelCrysis - 09-20-2018, 01:16 AM - Forum: Gaming - No Replies


Quote:Valve and Ubisoft have been found to be in breach of French law, with the two companies being penalized with a monetary fine of €147,000 and €180,000 respectively.

The fines, imposed by the Direction générale de la concurrence, de la consommation et de la répression des fraudes (DGCCRF), also require the two companies to display a notice on their storefronts informing French consumers of the penalty.

DGCCRF’s decision appears to be the result of both companies violating three Articles of the French Consumer Code: L221-5, L221-28 13°, and L221-18. In simple terms, the two companies failed to offer refunds as required per the French Consumer Code and failed to inform consumers of the lack of said consumer protection.
French consumers should now notice a message on the two storefronts informing them of the fines. Valve and Ubisoft are also likely to update their Terms of Service and perhaps add a warning during checkout, informing buyers of the lack of proper consumer protection.

Print this item

  Apple Removing Purchased Movies, Denying Refunds
Posted by: SteelCrysis - 09-14-2018, 07:38 PM - Forum: Technology News - Replies (1)


Quote:A recent move by Apple, however, illustrates just how illusory that access is, and how little the company cares when consumers get screwed. Anders G da Silva recently contacted Apple when he discovered multiple movies he had purchased on iTunes were no longer available for him to watch. The company’s response to him is below:
Here’s a crazy idea. Maybe Da Silva deserves a refund because Apple falsely represented that it had the right to sell a product it actually offered for a very long rental period. I realize that legally, the company undoubtedly crafted its contracts to cover its ass, but this is not solely a legal issue. This is a question of how ownership is perceived culturally, not just legally, and the only bottom line Apple cares about is its own. That’s how one of the most powerful companies on the planet suddenly becomes a meek, shrinking violet at the mercy of titanic forces it can scarcely comprehend. The App Store is a “store front.” No, the App Store is a distribution portal through which billions of dollars flows every single year. The question of whether or not the App Store wields sufficient power to be considered a monopoly is headed to the Supreme Court, and Apple has the unmitigated gall to declare itself a “store front” so it can avoid making a customer whole after revoking access to content he’d paid for.

If you care about actually retaining access to a piece of content, buy it physically. Apple could’ve demanded that its customers retain the right to play works they purchased in perpetuity. It didn’t. And if Apple doesn’t care enough about its customers to ensure they retain access to content they paid full purchase price for, or even enough to refund their money in an event like this, there’s no reason it should see another dime of yours.

Print this item

  The FBI evacuates a space observatory but refuses to say why
Posted by: SickBeast - 09-14-2018, 07:23 AM - Forum: Off Topic - Replies (1)


Kind of interesting. I wonder what the big secret is.

Print this item

  Windows 7 Will Get Paid Extended Support For Enterprise Customers
Posted by: SteelCrysis - 09-08-2018, 03:39 AM - Forum: Software & Programming - No Replies


Quote:Windows 7 might be on its way to being Microsoft’s new Windows XP. As the Redmond company urges consumers and businesses to upgrade to Windows 10, many customers are happily staying on Windows 7 despite the rapidly approaching end of support. Microsoft’s VP for Office and Windows marketing Jared Spataro has offered a helping hand to some Windows 7 holdouts. He confirms that enterprise customers will be able to pay for extended support on Windows 7.

Print this item

  Samsung Releases RAM Modules Up To 256 GB
Posted by: SteelCrysis - 09-07-2018, 01:08 AM - Forum: General Hardware - No Replies


Quote:On the consumer side, Samsung now offers 32GB unbuffered DDR4 memory modules. The module (M378A4G43MB1-CTD) clocks in at 2,666MHz with a CAS latency of 19 and an operating voltage of 1.2V, as specified by JEDEC. Technically, AMD's Ryzen Threadripper processors can support up to 2TB of memory. Therefore, it should be possible to run 256GB on the Threadripper platform. Unfortunately, X399 motherboards are only certified to support up to 128GB. However, the 32GB module should open the door for future motherboards with four DDR4 memory slots to house up to 128GB of memory.
Things get extremely interesting for Samsung's enterprise clients. The 16Gb memory chips have allowed the NAND maker to raise the capacity bar up to 256GB. No, you didn't read that wrong; we're talking about 256GB of memory on a single stick. The module is available in LRDIMM (M386ABG40M50-CYF) and RDIMM (M393ABG40M52-CYF) formats. It operates at 2,933MHz and has a CAS latency of 21 or 24 depending on the model. Despite the huge capacity and frequency, the module's operating voltage adheres to the official JEDEC specification of 1.2V.

Although Samsung's 256GB module is clearly aimed at servers, it's likely just a matter of time before this capacity makes its way to the consumer end.

Quote:The new M378A4G43MB1-CTD DDR4 UDIMM from Samsung is, unsurprisingly, a dual-rank module (x8 / x16 Organization or up to 2 ranks per DIMM and 2DPC configuration). It ticks at DDR4-2666 at a module voltage of 1.2 V. The module itself won't be much to look at, with a green PCB and bare-naked DRAM chips. It is is currently sampling to PC OEMs. It could also be possible for more popular memory manufacturers to get in touch with Samsung for the DRAM chips that make up this module. A single-rank variant of this module could finally make it possible for AMD Ryzen AM4 machines to have 32 GB of dual-channel memory at acceptably high memory clocks.

Print this item

  Google Wants To Replace URLs
Posted by: SteelCrysis - 09-06-2018, 09:54 PM - Forum: Technology News - No Replies


Quote:Google hasn’t commented exactly on what feedback it received from this 2014 experiment, but whatever it got led it to move away from origin chips. That particular feature never made it out of Chrome’s beta releases. And while I recognize that Google’s concerns about URL security and legitimacy are accurate, it seems disingenuous for the very company that helped turn URLs from simple links to sprawling aggregate lists stuffed with other data to pretend it played no part in fostering the very disaster it now wants to fix. There was a time when I didn’t need to install browser extensions just to copy a URL out of Google Chrome without it being stuffed with a ton of crap that I, as the end-user, don’t need and extract no value from.

That fact alone should raise eyebrows when Google declares it wants to improve the internet for the good of everyone, banishing those pesky URLs in the process. If you know how to read them, URLs tell you a great deal about how data is being fed to publishers regarding your activities online. It’s by no means everything — in fact, there’s an ocean of other data also being passed along under the hood — but there’s still value in being able to see and analyze that information when needed.

It’s telling that Google’s preferred options for URLs back in 2014 fundamentally obfuscates so much of this information. It’s the ultimate method of hiding data — people can’t notice the degree of information being extracted from their lives and relayed about them based on how much they click if they literally can’t see that the URL contains such data in the first place. And while 10 years ago such concerns might have seemed banal, we now know that each of these data points represents a mosaic that’s been woven around all of us. There is literally no such thing as unimportant data. Ironically, we can thank Google itself for teaching us that lesson. If, after all, such information was unimportant or non-valuable, why would anyone be bothering to collect it in the first place?

URLs suck. They’re unwieldy. They’re confusing. They’re inconvenient to communicate to people if you don’t have a pen and paper handy, and good URLs that stick in your head the first time you hear them are difficult to come by. The proliferation of domain extensions allows for tremendous flexibility but also opens the door to copycat sites, squatters, phishers, and all manner of other neer-do-wells. Google isn’t wrong about these points. I don’t think anyone particularly enjoys having to share the sorts of links that transform into four pages of seemingly random code when pasted into an IM box.

But it’ll be a cold day in hell before I’d trust Google, of all companies, to come up with a replacement scheme. I don’t doubt that Google would attempt to solve many of the genuine security issues that plague the URL concept. It’s everything they’d likely bake in beside it that I’m unwilling to countenance. The companies that helped break the existing system shouldn’t be the ones in charge of fixing it.

Print this item

  Comparison of GPU Share Of Nvidia, AMD, & Intel
Posted by: SteelCrysis - 09-06-2018, 09:39 AM - Forum: Video - No Replies


Quote:What’s striking about each firm is the degree to which they’ve carved out their own sustainable and profitable niches in graphics. Intel has its own plans for discrete GPUs arriving in 2020 and has seized significant amounts of market share compared with 2009. And its integrated graphics are also much better than they were, even if its onboard solution doesn’t compete particularly well against equivalent integrated solutions from AMD.

AMD’s console business isn’t captured in these graphs, but its earned billions for the firm since 2013 and its graphics business was central to those designs. Nvidia’s GPU market share hasn’t really changed much in recent years, but the company has taken its consumer graphics business and transformed it into everything from an HPC play to an automotive solution. Each firm has taken a different route to success and the degree of success they’ve enjoyed has been different, but all three companies have a thriving graphics business.

Print this item

  General Hardware Inventory Surplus
Posted by: SteelCrysis - 09-05-2018, 08:00 AM - Forum: General Hardware - No Replies


Quote:This is what is happening with a myriad of tech companies, such as Apple, Samsung, Xiaomi, Intel, Hon Hai (Foxconn), among others. We could even take a page from our own PC industry and look at NVIDIA's Pascal inventory that is in need of clearing up - and which has resulted in bottoming prices of previous-gen cards as we look towards the new RTX 20-series. Which, coincidentally, have been launched with increased pricing over the previous generation. Perhaps another way of moving old inventory?
All of these companies are achieving inventory levels that are 20 to 30 percent increased YoY (year over year), with the exception of Apple, which doubled its inventory. At the same time, that the turnover period for stocks (that is, the time it takes for old stock to be sold and rotated for new inventory) is slowing is an interesting pointer for not only decreased demand, but also overproduction. And as we've seen with some companies which have had to write-downs millions of dollars in unsold hardware, though, these downturns have very real implications for companies' bottom lines - and hence, their share value. Of course, this could have a cascading effect throughout the industry.

Print this item

  Intel EUV Delayed
Posted by: SteelCrysis - 09-05-2018, 07:59 AM - Forum: General Hardware - No Replies


Quote:Intel’s already-rough process technology ramp took another hit last week. According to Mark Li, an electronics engineer and analyst with Bernstein, the company will delay its introduction of Extreme Ultraviolet Lithography (EUV) until 2021. That’s several years after rivals TSMC and Samsung are expected to have the technology in play — maybe.
The optics of this kind of delay aren’t great, but I’d still counsel caution before concluding that this EUV news is additional proof of Intel’s loss of overall process technology leadership. Every foundry committed to building leading-edge products is working on EUV, but nobody — nobody — has yet demonstrated that they can build and ship SoCs in volume while using EUV for critical layers. This step may not happen until the introduction of 5nm; Scotten Jones, president of IC Knowledge LLC, notes that he expects solutions to be in place for contacts and vias at 7nm, but that the timeline for hitting foundry targets for 5nm is very tight and requires new pellicles.

Intel’s EUV delay isn’t a new wrinkle. It’s an unsurprising result of the company’s decision to delay 10nm. The degree to which this could impact the company’s future product development will depend a great deal on how successful the other foundries are in shipping EUV from their own factories. Despite the hype around the technology, don’t expect to see it making an immediate or dramatic difference in anyone’s product performance in the near future. That’s not what EUV delivers is expected to deliver, and the gains are going to roll out gradually over multiple nodes as manufacturers insert the technology.

Print this item