Well, first, the Autism curve started pitching up in the early 80s, and blue LEDs weren't invented until the late 90s.
Second, Autism presents symptoms in infancy, before the typical child has been hypnotized by Xbox.
Third, simple social ineptitude due to inexperience is not the same thing as Autism. Social retardation can be repaired fairly easily. Autism is notoriously hard to work against.
I can't find even a vague hint of anything negative being directed at Apple in this situation.
They hired this guy and failed to detect his manipulation of their supply chain for an extended period of time, allowing him to direct business to suppliers who would supply lesser quality at higher prices than fair competition would have created.
Kind of like how Apple treats its customers with iTunes and the App store, only without the kickbacks.
I would probably set up some sort of business, accept "cash payment" for whatever services rendered and then pay some taxes to make it all look legitimate.
Since Core i7 came out, the Pentium core used in the Atom became simple.
The newer core is usually more complicated and can accomplish more in less time. This is the application of Moore's law. More transistors means more complexity including things like parallelism and pipelining and lookahead and cache and so on. Cores get progressively more complex, and get combined into progressively more complex devices. Intel is planning not just CPU/GPU hybrids, but CPU+GPU+security+communication+yadda+blinken+nod hybrids. You name it, they can drop a special-purpose core in for it, and the number of cores is essentially unlimited as long as Moore's law keeps working.
But for all of those, you can make a collection of chips with discrete cores of various types, each of which is much more complex than those in the hybrid, and it will perform better overall, even if it's a little slower on the few things that depend primarily on interconnect for speed.
But really, the best thing to do is to treat your IT staff properly in the first place.
This. I don't understand why it's so hard to grasp for some organizations.
Organizations learn slowly, and often by having their cost-saving measures (aka laziness) blow up in their face, then they overcompensate and kill efficiency.
The correct answer is "trust but verify,", aka "internal controls." You don't let one of your accountants sign your checks, so don't let your admins do anything without cognizance and review from another admin. Then it takes two people conspiring to screw you over, and if they both know it's better for them to catch the other screwing you over, you win.
it wasn't very long ago that Pentium 4's were being smoked by Athlon64's selling for half the price.
It was 2002. By 2003 AMD was charging more for its parts than Intel was, which got Intel's attention, got them out of the meadow, and and got their horse back into the race.
Since then, AMD has been stumbling and throwing off gear hoping to keep Intel in sight.
Other fallacies: "There does come a point where the increase in speed is not at all worth the extra cost." That point is just above the netbook performance range.
"Calling AMD "ghetto" as you have in other posts is wholly incorrect" They are and will forevermore be the "cheap chips" brand, not the "good chips" brand. Intel learned its lesson and will not repeat it.
"most people won't ever need that" That's been said about every performance point since the first time Ada Lovelace cranked the loom too hard.
"AMD has the midrange-low end market cornered" Not according to their revenue share numbers. They're getting killed even while giving about 3% better performance/price on average. People don't want their stuff because they know they're buying the off-brand, and because the machines they come in are wal-mart quality as well.
You make arguments about AMD being a value to you that are contradictory; you are willing to be more technical about using them to get the performance/price value out of them, but you aren't willing to be technical enough to use the raw performance that the Intel parts give you. Either you're a duffer, or you're a technical boy, but you can't argue both sides of the fence.
If you're running any Windows since XP, you're using all of your cores all the time, and it's benefitting you. You may not get all of them working on the same task, but the fact that the other cores can do background and response tasks while your foreground task pegs one of the cores is always a bonus. If it doesn't show up in outright speed of completion, it hides a vast array of niggling little delays that make things jerky.
I went to the B-school where they taught me always to be the stone, and that businesses sometimes deserve to fail, and that investors are a nuisance once you have their money.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, first, the Autism curve started pitching up in the early 80s, and blue LEDs weren't invented until the late 90s.
Second, Autism presents symptoms in infancy, before the typical child has been hypnotized by Xbox.
Third, simple social ineptitude due to inexperience is not the same thing as Autism. Social retardation can be repaired fairly easily. Autism is notoriously hard to work against.
I remember that.
He'd still be there if I hadn't gotten off the board.
That's the second place the cops look.
The first?
Unless you glue them, PVC joints are more than leaky.
I can't find even a vague hint of anything negative being directed at Apple in this situation.
They hired this guy and failed to detect his manipulation of their supply chain for an extended period of time, allowing him to direct business to suppliers who would supply lesser quality at higher prices than fair competition would have created.
Kind of like how Apple treats its customers with iTunes and the App store, only without the kickbacks.
I would probably set up some sort of business, accept "cash payment" for whatever services rendered and then pay some taxes to make it all look legitimate.
Ironically, this is how Apple started...
Sure it costs more. But less than the alternative, which is losing all your data and the confidence of your customers and prospects.
I'd like to see him try to put a radio frequency behind a paywall
He'll buy Sirius/XM and move the transmission there.
Or, if you're Linus Torvalds, Windows Me.
One byte per message.
Same thing that happened when MySpace stopped being cool.
Rupert Murdoch will buy it.
Nobody can explain Fox News either.
Nobody can explain CNN either.
Fixed
But not true any more.
The codebook is tattooed on her palm.
In Soviet Russia, transmitter tunes you in!
Since Core i7 came out, the Pentium core used in the Atom became simple.
The newer core is usually more complicated and can accomplish more in less time. This is the application of Moore's law. More transistors means more complexity including things like parallelism and pipelining and lookahead and cache and so on. Cores get progressively more complex, and get combined into progressively more complex devices. Intel is planning not just CPU/GPU hybrids, but CPU+GPU+security+communication+yadda+blinken+nod hybrids. You name it, they can drop a special-purpose core in for it, and the number of cores is essentially unlimited as long as Moore's law keeps working.
But for all of those, you can make a collection of chips with discrete cores of various types, each of which is much more complex than those in the hybrid, and it will perform better overall, even if it's a little slower on the few things that depend primarily on interconnect for speed.
What is the idea expressed in this sequence of notes?
C C C A B C C B A C
C C C A B C C B A C
C C C A B C C B D C
C C C A B C C B A C
Because the expression of it, the order of the notes, is copyrighted by me, as of now, as its creator, per the Berne Convention.
What it means to you is up to you. I just expressed it and expect to be paid if it's performed, reprinted, or copied into another tune.
But that's where we put the egotistical assholes to keep them out of the rest of the building...
But really, the best thing to do is to treat your IT staff properly in the first place.
This. I don't understand why it's so hard to grasp for some organizations.
Organizations learn slowly, and often by having their cost-saving measures (aka laziness) blow up in their face, then they overcompensate and kill efficiency.
The correct answer is "trust but verify,", aka "internal controls." You don't let one of your accountants sign your checks, so don't let your admins do anything without cognizance and review from another admin. Then it takes two people conspiring to screw you over, and if they both know it's better for them to catch the other screwing you over, you win.
it wasn't very long ago that Pentium 4's were being smoked by Athlon64's selling for half the price.
It was 2002. By 2003 AMD was charging more for its parts than Intel was, which got Intel's attention, got them out of the meadow, and and got their horse back into the race.
Since then, AMD has been stumbling and throwing off gear hoping to keep Intel in sight.
Other fallacies:
"There does come a point where the increase in speed is not at all worth the extra cost."
That point is just above the netbook performance range.
"Calling AMD "ghetto" as you have in other posts is wholly incorrect"
They are and will forevermore be the "cheap chips" brand, not the "good chips" brand. Intel learned its lesson and will not repeat it.
"most people won't ever need that"
That's been said about every performance point since the first time Ada Lovelace cranked the loom too hard.
"AMD has the midrange-low end market cornered"
Not according to their revenue share numbers. They're getting killed even while giving about 3% better performance/price on average. People don't want their stuff because they know they're buying the off-brand, and because the machines they come in are wal-mart quality as well.
You make arguments about AMD being a value to you that are contradictory; you are willing to be more technical about using them to get the performance/price value out of them, but you aren't willing to be technical enough to use the raw performance that the Intel parts give you. Either you're a duffer, or you're a technical boy, but you can't argue both sides of the fence.
If you're running any Windows since XP, you're using all of your cores all the time, and it's benefitting you. You may not get all of them working on the same task, but the fact that the other cores can do background and response tasks while your foreground task pegs one of the cores is always a bonus. If it doesn't show up in outright speed of completion, it hides a vast array of niggling little delays that make things jerky.
I went to the B-school where they taught me always to be the stone, and that businesses sometimes deserve to fail, and that investors are a nuisance once you have their money.
You seriously didn't just read what I wrote and still think that expression and idea are the same thing.
Then they won't mind the dent you leave in the hood.
I'm not panicking, and it's not uncontrolled.
Learn to cross at the light, asshole.
Nope. It's because they're dualistic:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1764804&cid=33360770