History is not the strong suit of this site's readers. Yes, Intel was selling ARM CPUs into the mobile market (Compaq IPAQ, Sharp Zaurus, etc) when Apple was still making pink iMacs.
It's not an Intel Atom, but a low spec low power Celeron. The J3060 has no hyperthreading and without the boost it's as slow as the Atom 330 (which has HT). So after 8 years, there is no Atom brand anymore, and the next best option is as slow as back then and costs about the same.
People also seem to forget that Kodak owned the entire digital still photography market for its first decade. They had a 1 megapixel sensor during the Reagan administration, for crying out loud.
Deleted, then. Perhaps I have conflated the memory of being at javaone and being told all about the wonders of javafx, and the contemporaneous wonders of "filthy rich clients".
I agree. Qualcomm and the rest can own the frontend and get half a nickel in profits per handset shipped, while Intel owns the backend and sells server CPUs by the millions with gross margins of hundreds of dollars per unit and next to nothing in the way of competition.
Having worked for 1.5 of the companies you mentioned I think there is something to be said for and against each side of that. Intel's margins may be higher, but the volume becomes lower and in semiconductor scale is everything. The cost of plants does not scale well and the cost of developing technology nodes is VAST. That is why you see the majority (all?...and I include Samsung in this) of the ARM design shops going the customer fab route.
The issue for Intel is that they seem to have found an unintentional local optimization point where margins and volume are effectively in sync in a way that prevents them from effectively growing into new sectors. I used to joke that every ARM chip you buy includes the purchase of an Intel Xeon in a data center somewhere, but that is now something less than 10:1 and probably more like 100:1.
Now that IBM has divested from their fabrication capacity almost entirely, and they sold it to a company owned by Abu Dhabi, it will be interesting to see what happens with Intel's government revenue share. I could see them working together very intentionally with Amazon and the NSA on projects. I think the purchase and quasi-customer fabbing of Xilinix may be an attempt to go that direction.
That's not where the money goes. The money goes to responding to every drug addict with a stubbed toe with a giant firetruck and its crew, and then taking the aforementioned drug addict to SF General for the world's most expensive emergency room bath. A little bit of prevention here would be far cheaper.
The thing to keep in mind is that copying a shared_ptr isn't cheap at all. It's a class with a pointer and atomic reference count inside and the atomic inc/dec takes many cycles.
How does this compare to the cost of a closure in other languages? Yeah atomic reference counts are not cheap, but basically that's the point of a shared_ptr.
"One of the goals of such systems is that copy of the file system on disk is always consistent."
Goal yes, implementation no. WAFL does in fact have consistency problems and filers do ship with a consistency checker called "wack" which if you ever need this tool you'll probably have better luck throwing the filer in the trash and restoring from backups rather than waiting a month for it to complete.
No you can't, because you're increasing the surface are of the collector so the 1.366kWh / square meter still stands.
From Wikipedia:
Average annual solar radiation arriving at the top of the Earth's atmosphere is roughly 1366 W/m2. The Sun's rays are attenuated as they pass through the Atmosphere, leaving maximum normal surface irradiance at approximately 1000 W /m2 at sea level on a clear day.[1]
Therefore it is impossible to get more than about 1kW / m2 from any solar panel. Until such times as something fairly fundamental changes, like a loss of atmosphere or an increase in energy output from the sun.
Well, you're mostly correct; but not technically correct.
From /just/ a solar panel it isn't possible to achieve higher density, however you can use reflectors in the spectrum that your solar panel operates in to increase the energy available for capture at a focal point.
But there's also TheSpiceIsLife's opening comment which says:
> ...you're increasing the surface are of the collector so the 1.366kWh / square meter still stands.
It feels like your second sentence
> ...[H]owever you can use reflectors in the spectrum that your solar panel operates in to increase the energy available for capture at a focal point.
plays rhetorical games by ignoring the existence of large parts of your solar collector (namely the reflectors) in order to arrive at an inflated energy density figure.
