Well, okay. I'm only vaguely familiar with the amount that a company like TSMC would charge. But it's a competitive industry. The margins are going to be fairly small.
I guess what it it is that there's a certain amount of time during which the fab will remain profitable, before the technology is obsolete. In that time they can produce a specific fixed number of wafers. So the cost of each wafer is the cost of the fab divided by the number of wafers that can be produced. That's not cheap. A fab costs a lot more than a printing press.
Producing a chip still costs a fair amount. R&D is a substantial part of the cost as well, but fabbing a chip costs a lot more than stamping a CD. We could be talking hundreds of dollars per unit for a new process and a large enough chip.
Trouble is anyone who cares has already boycotted them over the rootkit fiasco. (And personally this is causing me a nuisance - all the phones I like seem to be from Sony)
It seems to me, and I'd have thought to most reasonable people that you bought a copy of the software as part of the console.
There was certainly no indication at the time of purchase that the software was only being leased. And as the software is an inherent part of the machine, buying the machine means your buying a copy of the software, in much the same way as you're buying the case.
It's not like they can pull the same "Oh you need a licence to install it because that's a 'copy'" argument. You haven't installed the software. You are making no copies. You own that copy.
Do you see publishing criteria as censorship? Slashdot rejects stories for all sorts of reasons. Is that censorship as well? It seems to be applying a very large brush to the concept.
It's refusing to publish based on arbitrary criteria. But the same goes for all publishers. He's unlikely to be published in a cat magazine either because his work isn't about cats. That's not censorship either.
I did have a go at people declaring it a success too soon but it's too soon to call it useless as well. The original Apple computer didn't have a use until Visicalc came along. The Newton wasn't successful but that was mainly because it cost about 3 times what people were willing to pay for it. Either of these things might happen with the iPad. Or not. It's too son to call.
Insert joke about Amiga being Spanish for 'girlfriend'.
Insert humourless comment about Amiga actually being Spanish for a female friend. Feminine version of Amigo. Spanish dictionary tells me that novia is the word for girlfriend.
And yes, we were pretty rabid. Still, a preemptive multitasking OS that runs in 512k (and is genuinely useful rather than just about being able to squeeze in to that) has something going for it.
Yes, the poster was either misinformed or meant to type pre-emptive multitasking. And Wondows didn't have that until Windows NT, or Windows 95 for mainstream consumers.
Android has a devkit in C++, and Google are quite happy for you to develop in INTERCAL if it pleases you to do so. MS want managed languages but that's a fairly general technical requirement. They're not mandating a specific whitelist of languages, just mandating that it must have specific features.
What was then? I mean I agree - mp3 is one of the poorer codecs, but people don't care. It's a standard. It's fairly good in terms of quality and CPU power needed. It's perfectly adequate.
h.264 hadn't established itself as a defacto standard when it became popular. It is clearly better quality for the same bitrate, at least when you get towards broadcast quality.
Most of the more moderate religious types actually like the idea of The Big Bang. The idea of a single moment of creation works quite well with the concept of an all powerful creator.
And let's face it, MUDs have been around donkeys years. It was only a matter of time before someone created a graphical version. The idea was obvious enough, and the technological hurdles weren't that great. It just needed enough people with adequate internet connections to make the game viable.
I have a lot more sympathy for the rights of someone to control the original version of their work than for absolute control over derived works. I'm sure Psycho is still making money, and even though it's made several dozen times its initial cost, I can live with that. However, if I wanted to write a story from the point of view of Norman Bates' split personality, why should Paramount have a right to stop me? It's not going to displace sales of the DVD. It's become as much a part of our culture as King Arthur or greek legends, but we're not allowed to do anything with it.
Why, my short story took me almost an hour to write. And I only get to keep copyright on it until 70 years after my death. I certainly wouldn't have bothered were I only going to keep making an income from it for 50 years after I die. What would be the point?
Looks like it cuts down on scarring as well, and it seems that grafting requires adding an additional injury from the donor section. Seems sensible not to do this.
It will be interesting though. This firmware update restores advertised functionality of the product. It will be hard for Sony to demonstrate that this infringes their rights.
Slashdot Mirror
I think it is pretty much a linear relationship. You get 50% more 4 cores per wafer than 6 cores.
Well, okay. I'm only vaguely familiar with the amount that a company like TSMC would charge. But it's a competitive industry. The margins are going to be fairly small.
I guess what it it is that there's a certain amount of time during which the fab will remain profitable, before the technology is obsolete. In that time they can produce a specific fixed number of wafers. So the cost of each wafer is the cost of the fab divided by the number of wafers that can be produced. That's not cheap. A fab costs a lot more than a printing press.
Producing a chip still costs a fair amount. R&D is a substantial part of the cost as well, but fabbing a chip costs a lot more than stamping a CD. We could be talking hundreds of dollars per unit for a new process and a large enough chip.
I always assumed that there were fusible tracks but that would totally isolate the core electrically. Or is the workaround inexplicably clever?
Trouble is anyone who cares has already boycotted them over the rootkit fiasco. (And personally this is causing me a nuisance - all the phones I like seem to be from Sony)
It seems to me, and I'd have thought to most reasonable people that you bought a copy of the software as part of the console.
There was certainly no indication at the time of purchase that the software was only being leased. And as the software is an inherent part of the machine, buying the machine means your buying a copy of the software, in much the same way as you're buying the case.
It's not like they can pull the same "Oh you need a licence to install it because that's a 'copy'" argument. You haven't installed the software. You are making no copies. You own that copy.
Their platform, but not their machine. People had bought those machines and Sony decides to break them.
Do you see publishing criteria as censorship? Slashdot rejects stories for all sorts of reasons. Is that censorship as well? It seems to be applying a very large brush to the concept.
Windows market share is about 90%. They're using this dominance to increase the browser's market share. The market share of the browser is irrelevant.
Because they don't have a monopoly.
It's refusing to publish based on arbitrary criteria. But the same goes for all publishers. He's unlikely to be published in a cat magazine either because his work isn't about cats. That's not censorship either.
The App store doesn't do satire. That's all.
So - you're agreeing that this technology is a solution in search of a problem?;-)
Absolutely! But the problem may well be discovered.
I did have a go at people declaring it a success too soon but it's too soon to call it useless as well. The original Apple computer didn't have a use until Visicalc came along. The Newton wasn't successful but that was mainly because it cost about 3 times what people were willing to pay for it. Either of these things might happen with the iPad. Or not. It's too son to call.
Insert joke about Amiga being Spanish for 'girlfriend'.
Insert humourless comment about Amiga actually being Spanish for a female friend. Feminine version of Amigo. Spanish dictionary tells me that novia is the word for girlfriend.
And yes, we were pretty rabid. Still, a preemptive multitasking OS that runs in 512k (and is genuinely useful rather than just about being able to squeeze in to that) has something going for it.
Yes, the poster was either misinformed or meant to type pre-emptive multitasking. And Wondows didn't have that until Windows NT, or Windows 95 for mainstream consumers.
So it's almost as successful as the Sega Dreamcast. Meanwhile the Commodore Amiga was a complete flop.
You can't make absolute determinations on the success yet. Give it a few months at least.
Android has a devkit in C++, and Google are quite happy for you to develop in INTERCAL if it pleases you to do so. MS want managed languages but that's a fairly general technical requirement. They're not mandating a specific whitelist of languages, just mandating that it must have specific features.
What was then? I mean I agree - mp3 is one of the poorer codecs, but people don't care. It's a standard. It's fairly good in terms of quality and CPU power needed. It's perfectly adequate.
h.264 hadn't established itself as a defacto standard when it became popular. It is clearly better quality for the same bitrate, at least when you get towards broadcast quality.
Most of the more moderate religious types actually like the idea of The Big Bang. The idea of a single moment of creation works quite well with the concept of an all powerful creator.
And let's face it, MUDs have been around donkeys years. It was only a matter of time before someone created a graphical version. The idea was obvious enough, and the technological hurdles weren't that great. It just needed enough people with adequate internet connections to make the game viable.
I have a lot more sympathy for the rights of someone to control the original version of their work than for absolute control over derived works. I'm sure Psycho is still making money, and even though it's made several dozen times its initial cost, I can live with that. However, if I wanted to write a story from the point of view of Norman Bates' split personality, why should Paramount have a right to stop me? It's not going to displace sales of the DVD. It's become as much a part of our culture as King Arthur or greek legends, but we're not allowed to do anything with it.
Why, my short story took me almost an hour to write. And I only get to keep copyright on it until 70 years after my death. I certainly wouldn't have bothered were I only going to keep making an income from it for 50 years after I die. What would be the point?
Looks like it cuts down on scarring as well, and it seems that grafting requires adding an additional injury from the donor section. Seems sensible not to do this.
Yes. That's a very interesting EULA.
Where does it say "You may not modify the software in such a way as to provide the advertised functionality"?
And you are aware that contracts of adhesion don't give a company carte blanche to interpret it in whatever manner they see fit aren't you?
It will be interesting though. This firmware update restores advertised functionality of the product. It will be hard for Sony to demonstrate that this infringes their rights.