Slashdot Mirror
Transmeta Closing Up Shop
Ashutosh Lotlikar wrote to mention an article on the Business 2.0 site stating that chip producer Transmeta is going out of business. From the article: "The company's Crusoe family of microprocessors promised lower power consumption and heat generation, enabling the creation of laptops with longer battery life. Critics bashed the chips for being underpowered compared with Intel's latest and greatest. Transmeta struggled to find a market, and recently it sold off most of its chipmaking business for $15 million to Culturecom Holdings, a Hong Kong company better known for publishing comic books."
not here
Are you talking to me?
So you are required to destroy documents unless you knowingly do so when there's about to be a federal investigation that will require those documents, in which case you can be sent to prison for destroying them? Sounds like a good reason not to use paper at all...
Same problem as always with market forces instead of regulation; it relies on an informed and interested public allowing the problem to affect their purchasing decision.
In this case, if your credit details get stolen from a dumpster, leading to identity 'theft'; how do you know which company in the last 6 months allowed your information to leak? Assuming you do find out, how do other people find out that information, since it's not exactly going to be large news?
(our lead national story today; joe bloggs lost $200 when company X put his credit details in the garbage, leading to identity theft and an extra charge on his credit card. Can company X survive this devastating blow to it's consumer confidence?)
So instead of putting a small burden on all businesses to buy and use a shredder for financial documents, we add a significant information gathering burden to all buyers to add to the rest of the information they have to find out about their business (do they harm dolphins? do they pollute more? do they hire third world children for virtually nothing? etc etc)
We're also assuming the business with bad business practises has effective and equal competition in it's area, which people can go to.
Market forces are useful for many things, but protecting customers from unethical business practises isn't one of them. Regulation is a far more effective method, as opposed to businesses dumping the costs that regulation would cause into an external cost on the rest of the economy. (time for customers, insurance costs for banks and credit institutions to cover fraud losses)
-Ted/p
" $2500 doesn't seem to be a very harsh punishment for my personal data being compromised when the FCC can fine companies $11000 per do not call violation."
The government isn't concerned with fortune 500's disposal of information, but the mom and pop shops more than anything else. I was able to see the meeting on TV and thats what they said.
They actually brought the donotcall bill up, and they said thats because fortune 500's make calls to homes more than mom and pops. -Shrugs-
The United States Government takes it seriously. While they may be exempt from this law, there are regulations and policies in place to safeguard personal information. These policies are stricter than anything you're likely to find in the private sector.
The entirety of H.R.2622 Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 and the specific section SEC. 216. DISPOSAL OF CONSUMER REPORT INFORMATION AND RECORDS.
The actual imortant part of this is the regulations (which may be yet to be created) for what needs to be done to appropriately destroy associated data. Hopeflly most people should be able to get away with just doing a single write of zeroes or pseudo-random data, while places like equifax should be required to do a bit more work. (because their collections would be especially valuable).
Of course, knowing the way that the political system works, it's probably going to end up being the other way 'round./p
The United States Government takes it seriously. While they may be exempt from this law, there are regulations and policies in place to safeguard personal information. These policies are stricter than anything you're likely to find in the private sector.
Specifically, the Privacy Act of 1972. In a sentence, it mandates that all federal government employees will treat personal information with respect./p
In fact, the conclusion of the editorial is the following two points:
1)More people use Macs than most people realize.
2) People who use Macs don't get many viruses.
Shock! Horror! What next - "The Sky is Blue"? I'm a mac user, and am all for increading market share, but this editorial seems rather vapid...where's the news?
OK, I won't worry too much about bias now, though if someone has a reason to think the SPA is off-base, please let us all know. This is truly something to celebrate. Now, let's get the Linux installed base to 16%.../p
One of them is AT&T Natural Voices coming soon for Apple Mac OS X According to US News and World Report, Macintosh owners buy 30% more software than their Windows counterparts. Further, Macintosh software comprises over 18% of all software sold, according to the Software and Information Industry Association. In addition, the Software Publishers Association (SPA) estimates that 16 percent of computer users are on Macs.
So cheer up, they only count people buying software, thus most Linux users don't show up hereI work for an ISP. I get maybe 2 or 3 calls from Mac people in a 5 day week. I handle more than 40 calls in a day. And in my professional opinion, you have to be completely retarded to think that PC/Mac usage is anywhere even in the same ballpark to 50/50.
While I agree it's nowhere near 50/50, your anecdotal evidence makes a few assumptions. The biggest assumptions it makes would be that macs break down at the same rate PCs do and that mac users require the same amount of technical support PC users do.
Speaking as a mac user I've got to say 16% sounds high, but your 1.5% sounds quite low.
Regardless, privacy is more important to me than the landfill.
I can't personally find a link to the SPA web site, but if it includes shareware developers, and I think it does, this could very easily be explained.
There's a creeping suspicion that the average Mac users spend more on software than the average PC (and by PC in this context I mean Windows on x86, because it's shorter to write) user. Why is this?
Most PCs sit around in offices and do stuff you'd normally do with Office - word processing, spread sheets, emails. Far from all PCs, of course, but definitely *most*.
A sizable part of the Mac installed base are those who do publishing, or video editing, or DVD production, or something with media in general. These people go out and buy font managers, editing software and plug-ins, each probably running up an average of 80 bucks per product, with the actual editing software running from 200 bucks and up, not uncommonly into 500+ territory. People do this on PCs too, but I would bet on the percentage of the installed base being a lot smaller.
Another sizable part of the Mac installed base are those who sit at home and buy lots of shareware. This has a direct counterpart in the PC world, and they're probably about the same size percentage-wise. Note that games fall in the same price spectrum, that the hard-core gamer is likely to spend more on extra hardware (mice, gpu, keyboard, display) than on software, and that piracy probably helps inflate this segment.
And then there's also the fact that, *for whatever reason*, people seem to use Macs longer. Getting three years out of a Mac isn't extraordinary, it's average. Macs also have a higher value on the used market, so there's no rush to sell it.
I think all of this adds up to a skewing of these statistics.
(If for example 2 people are using computers and one replaces his 2x in a 3 year period and the other only does once, market-share dynamics dictate that one demographic has 75% market share while the other has only 25% -- even though install base is still 50/50.)
Let's go over this: Person A buys a peecee but feels compelled to upgrade later (by buying a new computer) resulting in an 2 peecees purchased while Person B buys a Mac only once. The install base is 50/50 but the market share shows that 2/3 of computers bought are peecees and only 1/3 are Macs. Where did the 75%/25% come from?
Now that we've established that your summary sucked (no offense), should I bother reading the article? It is /.
On another note, in the Astrophysics Department here at Caltech, I'd say something like a fifth of the install base is Windows, the rest being Macs and Linux (with more Mac laptops and linux desktops) and several other non-engineering science departments have many more Macs than Windows boxen but if you want me to believe that a macs make up 16% you've better have some really good data out there that no one else does.
And we all know that anecdotal evidence translates into perfect, unassailable statistical numbers. You would have to consider your line of work and the sort of activities that draws the group of people around you and if there are any overall reasons why they might prefer one platform to another.
I work in publishing and am in contact with creative types in both graphic design, photography and writing, and if we were to extrapolate my personal experiences to reality, then over 50% of computer users in the world are Mac users and most people don't even know what Linux is.
Sounds real accurate, huh?
Just about as accurate as your speculation.
p" ever 50% of computer users in the world are Mac users and most people don't even know what Linux is"
I know people who see the first part like that, for many things, everyone has a mac, a tivo etc. But yes, doesn't make it true.
For the later part, I would say that is true, most people don't know what linux is, even though those who are into linux seam to think 50% of computer users in the world will be running linux at any moment.
I'm not quite sure why. I'll have to check democratic underground to find out.
Don't give it up so quickly. There are some huge problems with the "climate-only" theory. Namely
A) In most of the world (even if not for some animals in Australia) extinctions were timed, as well as we can measure, with the arrival of humans into each region, even though the global climate was changing as a whole
B) Species survived far more dramatic climate changes in the past, with nowhere even approaching the degree of megafauna losses. The scale of megafauna losses last ice age was staggering - for the largest animals, often over 90% of species.
C) We've seen this occurring in more modern times. For example, the Moa of New Zealand; there is essentially no doubt that they were butchered by the Maori, because their fossilized cooking pits are filled with Moa remains in nice neat layers - huge numbers of them that the species clearly couldn't have sustained. When the Maori were discovered, they talked about hunting and killing them. There's a sudden cutoff point in Maori sites in which suddenly Moas disappear from the diet.
Also, climate change isn't the only alternative theory. There's also the concept of humans being a carrier for diseases/pests, human-induced environmental changes, human killing of "keystone" species, and my favorite, "many of the above combined".
"...humans will be irrelevant as Transhumans move off-planet..."
This off-planet stuff is confusing. If the population continues exploding, then even within my lifetime there will be a hundred billionish people on Earth. How the heck are we going to get even a million people off the planet, let alone billions of them?
Well, there are three possible ways to look at this:
1. We're the product of evolution. We're the greatest and most interesting species evolution ever produced. We owe nothing to anyone but ourselves for our success and if we want to wipe out a few other forms of life so be it. We rock! And of course in the grand scheme of things if we did wind up wiping ourselves out, nobody will be around to care.
2. We're the product of intelligent design. If the Christians are right, the whole world is here for us to fill, subdue and use for our benefit. If we need to knock out a few species, its no different than me knocking out a wall in my house to make room for a pool table. We're the pinnacle of creation, We ROCK! And after ragnarok, there will be a whole new creation anyway.
3. We're either created or evolved, but we're adaptable enough that if the need arises we'll find a way to create new species to replace the ones we eliminated. Heck maybe we'll make whole new worlds. In this case, I guess the Mormons would be right. In any case, we're the smartest and most adaptable. We ROCK! In any case, we can always clean up the mess later.
Who am I to suggest I have the right to wipe out whole species? I AM MAN!
I thought that they really hadn't even figured out how the universe worked. They have stuff like stars that are older than some estimates of the universe's age, and missing matter in the form of dark matter that they can't account for. How are they supposed to simulate the universe, if the model they have is so badly flawed.
"I'll have my lunch now. A single pillow of shreaded wheat, some steamed toast, and a dodo egg"
Jeez.
Yeah, I can point out more that that too in our facilities.
After all, UW-Madison is one of the largest research universities in the world.
The point is that:
- They were talking about 25TB of disk, not RAM
- 200TB in a single installation for a single project is hardly "peanuts"; it's actually quite a bit by enterprise storage standards, but that's neither here nor there
- Oracle is doing press releases on things like using *50 TB* of disk for a project
- 200TB of Xserve RAIDs in one place is, I believe, the largest Xserve RAID installation at a single site (save perhaps Apple), and that was really the thrust of the article anyway
So, even if you do see 200TB of disk as "peanuts", then 25TB of disk is a peanut shell fragment. The comparison is still apt because the submission and the press release and articles are talking about 25TB of disk like it's a shitload, and I'm just pointing out that it's not in this environment (particle physics).
Yes, it really is unlimited. I have used it for about 8 months, and while the latency is bad (400 - 800ms or so), i can download from say, a fast ftp server at about 9kbps. Web browsing isn't too bad, just turn off the graphics and it's very quick. I can even play Command & Conquer: Generals on it with 600ms ping times. :)
Really though, it truly is $19.99 for unlimited.
I've heard that actual broadband speeds should be possible with latest-generation phones
And just like satellite, you have high latency. Sprint Vision will give you ping times that skip from 400ms to over 1000ms. Currently, there are no providers offering low latency broadband over cellular that I know of. I remember reading about a trial for a very small area that was supposed to begin soon somwhere in North Carolina I think, but as I recall, it would involve a forklift upgrade to get nationwide coverage.
For years to come, broadband over cellular will not be low latency for rural areas. Those are usually the last to get upgraded towers. Naturally, infrastructure upgrades happen where the customers are first.
"The claim is 'wireless online surfing as fast as DSL'."
Actually, I set up an AT&T account for "high-speed cell phone wireless" for my boss a few months back because he wanted broadband while travelling in rural areas. He was so excited by the "broadband" speeds that were advertised... but as it turned out, what he got was about 150% the speed of a 56k dial-up connection. I spent probably four hours digging for actual numbers before finally finding them.
Get actual numbers before committing to anything. I've heard that actual broadband speeds should be possible with latest-generation phones, but A)that doesn't mean you can actually get the technology here in the U.S. and B)if you're in a rural area, it may be ten years before you get the upgrades on your towers.
One final note--if you're that hard up for decent connections in your town, why not start your own service? Many small towns are actually ahead of big cities on the internet curve because you can set up co-ops or municipal broadband services without calling down the wrath of big telco companies (who over the last few decades have largely abandoned the rural U.S.) and their lawyers./p
This is strange in the USA? Sorry, but it just looks damn bizarre to a Canuck. Here in Canada, trash and recycling pick up are always a municipal service, and the garbage men will often simply not collect your trash if it's improperly sorted. You can drive it to the dump, but that's municipal too. No worrying about "incentives" or separate fees, it's part of the municipal taxes (and thus the price is geared to income).
Yes, it seems socialist, but when handled efficiently it is far better than clumsy private systems where you have collectors competing and stepping on each other's toes and not wanting to offend customers by requiring that they sort garbage. Some times the customer is wrong, and the government can afford to tell them that. The city doesn't have to pay incentive fees for recycling.
Beer bottles still work by recycling deposit though, as they're recycled through the beer store. The deposit's small so I often just eat the cost and recycle them anyways if I'm feeling lazy - but I don't drink a lot of beer.
This happens every once in a while...tons of misplaced comments, and all that stuff is always Anonymous Coward.
As was said somewhere else in a sibling of your post, it's crapflooding - in this case, automated reposting of older replies.
Yet somehow making life miserable for normal people hasn't affected crap flooders upset with the slashdot abuses.
The solution isn't ip banning or reading blurry letters from images. The solution is a more active involvement by the "editors". Check the stories (less crap). Read the slashdot frontpages (less dupes). Have a story devoted just for bitching and complaining once a month (and read the comments).
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Ahh you mean Cingular has all of ATT's GSM towers in its aresenal now. Cingular also has the edge network in 90 percent of the locations. I can do 115k to my laptop. And actually I live in Florida and in a rural area. And Cing GSM works fine. All depends where you are. Florida has a lot backwoods. 75% of Cings customer base is also GSM. The GSM migration begain with the Gaine phones three years ago. And since the average life of a cell phone is 2 years, most people have GSM. I might also have a little more insight due to having worked for most cell carriers.
The Revolution Will Not Be Televised
Maybe they set the mammoth hair on fire.
But seriously, unlike elephants which will stomp out small fires in the veldt, maybe fire scared mammoths (because their hair could light) and thus fire could be used to herd them into a trap where they could be killed easily.
I'll have my mammoth stake medium rare.
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
(Offtopic, but am I the only one seeing cross-talk from other discussions popping up here?!)