My guess is that Intel is targeting the home market so the clever neighbor kid can't install a $100 Celery in some guy's PC and overclock it to beat the latest $500 CPU in benchmarks.
Do people even really overclock anymore? At this point taking my proc from 2.1 to 2.3 doesn't seem like a very big deal. The percentage increases are getting smaller and smaller. It is cool in that geek way to oc, but I don't see legions of overclockers cutting into Intels profits. Because of this, I don't see Intel spending a huge amount of R&D to stop the few people that actually overclock. Instead of looking at the bad reasons for Intel to do this lets look at the positives.
With all the places you can buy PC parts now many people are getting duped when they thought they bought one speed yet the seller sold them a slower version overclocked. To me this seems to be what Intel is aiming to stop and not the small overclocking market out there. In my mind this would seem to be aimed more at stopping unscrupulous vendors than the "clever neighbor kid."
I didn't realize I was responding to the state of the job market, but I am aware that it is not too great right now. Actually it is not too good for anyone currently. The economy as a whole isn't doing that well.
They want outsourcing companies in India, and H1-Bs for the jobs that are still here.
I've dealt with these. If you know exactly what you need, have requirements defining the entire process and don't want/need any innovation then yes this way can work. Most companies need innovation so while you can farm out the mundane part of churning out the code you still need someone to design and architect the solution.
What jobs *are* available are generally for slave wages, with completely unreasonable and illogical minimum skill requirements.
So what constitutes slave wages? 25k/year, 50k/year, 150k/year? The economy just passed through a period where there were a lot of jobs overpaying what they were worth. Dot-coms paid many people much higher wages than what they were really worth and now these people expect to find that same money again elsewhere. I'm sorry, but that isn't going to happen.
Half the developers in NYC are probably close to their last unemployment check by now.
Have you thought of moving? The cost of living is extremely high in NYC as is. Plus you are competing with many more people for any given job. I spoke to a recruiter the other day about finding a candidate and he said that he is actually seeing the job market starting to improve in his area(southeast) for skilled IT people.
I'm guessing from your post that you're tucked away somewhere safe, and in deep denial about the state of our field.
No on is ever safe. You or I or anyone else can pretty much be replaced at any time. The company I work for is not having the best of times right now, but that's how it is in a down turn economy. I am also not in denial about our field. In fact I think our field is going through a pruning process right now. There are many who don't have the drive or competence to call themseleves IT professionals and this downturn will weed them out.
I also see our field changing during these times. Businesses want IT professionals who don't just understand the tech side of how things work but also the business side. Coding this new Whizbang app in the new language C+++ is cool and all, but is it good for the client/company? Most companies want solutions that will help them add to their profitability. Very few pay IT people just for fun.
It's nice that you and your company see nothing wrong with writing enterprise applications in a non-portable language, but it doesn't make it a good engineering decision.
Good engineering decisions do not always equal good business decisons. For the parent posters original application portability may not even be an issue. As long as everyone understands that writing something in VB will mean non-portable where is the problem? Always assuming C/C++ is the best language for a job is just as bad as always assuming VB can do it. When you sit down with the requirements in front of the person paying for the project decisions, prioritys, and expectations must be made and set. Portablity was probably just something that right now is not needed and just added cost and time to the project.
The biggest weakness is that you are using a proprietary language and environment, so the system is likely going to need to be rewritten in a more portable technology within 5-10 years, if not sooner.
When the time comes you revisit your original decisions and act on them then. If the app is still functioning and in use 5-10 years from now the first question is why change it? If it needs more features that the current framwork cannot support(this can happen no matter what language you originally wrote it with), then you look at the business case for those features. Perhaps portability is now crucial and the business case supports it. With the things(usage patterns, design issues, etc...) you learned from doing it in VB, it will be that much easier to move it to a more portable language.
The market for *real* programmers has been destroyed by corporate America.
I think that the *real* programmers that you have talked about all write libraries now. These guys all have jobs at the tool makers like MS, Apple, etc...
Businesses in general don't want (and generally don't need) *real* programmers, they want software engineers. They want someone who can sit down, work out some requirements and provide a timely, cost effective solution. It has taken me some time to fully realize this, but the right technical solution is not always the right business solution. The PHB could really care less if the app is written in VB, C, Java, as long as the application works to within their parameters. It is those parameters that are specified by the people paying for the software that will direct the language/technology you ultimately use.
The fellow would be better off spending the $2.4 million on developing methods of teaching students how MS and *nix are related to each other, how BOTH are used in the real world, and familiarizing students with both.
So true. When I was in college our small CS dept ran all its servers on linux and had a even split of NT and linux workstations. In addition we also had some old alpha boxes, macs, sgis, etc... that and CS students could log into and use. This allowed the students to experience a multitude of OSs and hardware, which IMO is one of the important reasons to go to college. To learn and think about things you wouldn't normally learn and think about in the real world.
Now, if I were to argue against using MS in a school I would avoid arguing the cost issue. MS generally gives all of its software(except games) for free(or close to it) to schools and students. Also keep in mind that supporting some lit edu major who can't seem to transfer their powerpoint presentation between their laptop and computers in the lab is also not cheap.
3.) obviously there would be no focus on Iraq what-so-ever if it and an abundance of countries like it, didn't have the blood this country needs to operate, that is oil.
The looming war really has nothing to do with oil. If all the US wanted was cheap oil we would just lift sanctions and let the oil flow. A war in the region is just going to raise oil prices, again showing that cheap oil is not a cause for the conflict.
If you want to look at motives of those involved, look at everyones motives. In fact, the only reason France and Russia want to avoid war, but keep the region in turmoil purely econmic self interest. They each have long term contracts with Iraq to get oil at below market price which they can then resell on the world market.
The point is usually that there is something broken about the existing game.
I don't know much about AC, but if there is truly something broken then why not fix it with a patch?
In more general terms, I think MMORPG game companies need to think of themselves less as game companies and more as service providers. Their primary product should be their original game, then they should do optional add on upgrades and some 'free' upgrades.
This method would keep original content from really never going to waste and keep you out of the competition with yourself scenario.
I agree. It makes me wonder then why even do a AC2 or EQ2. Just make another expansion to update the graphics and add more content to keep your recurring revenue coming in. That is where the money is anyway.
I think Mythic did a decent job in that respect. They released an expansion which updated the graphics nicely and added a bunch of new content/classes, but it didn't caniblize their original DAoC game.
I believe in order to make a AC2 or EQ2 to work you need to move your player base from the original to the update and then shut down the original. I know it would be a logistical nightmare, but it is the only real way I see in doing a version two of a popular MMORPG.
1GB databases are tiny now. I work daily on multiple SQL servers with anywhere from 2gb-10gb databases. For large dataset(1+TB) I work on NCR Teradata.
To me at least large databases are the norm, and I don't see that changing. Companies now want sales data, contact data, collection data, payment data, etc... AND want it stored semi-permantly for reporting and analyzing. Databases are only going to get bigger, except for particular projects.
All the things you just said about sports can also be said about computers. Too much of anything will end up being detrimental to you as a person. People who think that sports are the end all be all of their lives are no worse than someone who sits in front of their computer 24/7.
When your a dictator security is easy. You torture/kill anyone that does anything to get in your way and others learn quickly. Those that don't learn, you kill their families too. This ends the family vendetta before it even gets started. Security in a free country is extremely hard because the ones doing the securing must constantly balance individual rights against threats.
In a free society terroist are always going to be hard to find and stop. Anyone who is smart and determined will eventually succeed at a terror attack, but that is the price we must pay for freedom. It is a price that I think is worth it.
In addition it sounds as if the computers were doing everything they could:
But the rate of left roll was beginning to overpower the elevons, so the control system fired two 870-lb. thrust right yaw thrusters to help maintain the proper flight path angle.
Computer realizes elevons were not doing the job and fired thrusters to compensate. In the end it didn't change the outcome, but probably kept the shuttle together for just a bit longer.
I have a TV but rarely watch anything but movies and the discovery channel. My question is where do you get your news to form opinions about issues you have no direct contact with? Any news site you see are going to biased to some extent.
I bring this last point up because with this whole Iraq war looming, for example, I realized I was forming my own opinions instead of abrogating this responsibility to the television.
Were they really your own opinions or just those of a different source of information?
The only portion of the budget that poor people benefit more from is social services spending which is like 5 percent of the Federal Budget.
Not quite. In the 2002 Federal Budget ~20% goes to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. This covers all health care for people who can't afford it. I'm not even sure that general social services(food stamps, wellfare, etc...) fall under this category so more may even be spent there.
Now, saying that things like defense and infrastructure only help the rich is extremely short sighted. Do you think rich people get rich in a vacuum?
Lets look at infrastructure first. A "rich" company may have 50 trucks. Who is driving all these trucks? Is the "rich" guy driving them all at once? Um, no. People without jobs are hired and now we are one step closer to taking another person out of being poor.
Better infrastructure == more businesses == more jobs == less poor people.
Now as far as defending Americas economic interests around the world, why is that a bad thing? A good economy helps everyone(rich, poor, and everything in between), except maybe those who are already not working and sponging off the government.
Most of the tax money goes to the rich. Thats why they pay more.
Since I still seem to be paying a ton of taxes I guess that makes me rich:) . When do I get that tax money back though?
What cracks me up is how they want to spend the cigarette tax money on programs to stop/prevent people from smoking. It doesn't take a genius to realize that in order for those programs to keep going people must keep smoking.
No, everyone should be taxed on an equal percentage basis. The rich (not exactly sure who this really classifies anymore) will end up paying more in real dollars than a "poor" person. A poor person in this situation will still recognize that yes they must also pay taxes.
What you want to avoid is getting to the point where the majority of the population pays no taxes or even gets a handout. Then there is no incentive to elect officials who will lower taxes, and believe it or not that hurts everyone. Private citizens investing (stocks, own business, etc...) their own money is 10x more efficient than the government could ever hope to be. The problem is that the trend has/had been to take the most money from the people(upper middle class+) with the means to actually create something with it, and distribute it to the so called poor.
I don't know about you, but I'm tired of having my hard earned money support some crack head who won't use birth control and continues to bring kids into this world.
If we are talking about the same thing, I believe they have stated they are DE-EMPHASIZING the Clawhammer... in other words, its still on track for release in the first half of 2003 (still way off compared to their roadmap, of course) with Opteron in the 2H03.
Of course they are DE-EMPHASIZING the Clawhammer because it is running behind schedule. It has/was billed as their next savior - similar to the Athlon proc(which basically saved the company at that time). The problem is that each time the hammer is delayed things look worse and worse for AMD(and their stock price). They are trying to calm investors fears by saying the hammer is not that big of deal, but anyone with any sense knows that they need this chip out and soon.
Right now AMD is working towards profitability, meaning going after markets which are stronger (which are, right now, the value microprocessor market) thus the de-emphasizing of the latest and greatest.
There are no margins in the value market. Heck, I think AMD may sell more "value" procs than Intel does, but that doesn't make them profitable. The money is in high end business servers where people pay 1k+/proc. This is where Intel makes a ton of its money and it is where AMD wants/needs to be. AMD needs companies like Dell building poweredge servers around their proc in order to survive.
Along the same lines, I know a guy who was selling small toys on ebay that you could get for 1-2 quarters out of gum ball machines. He did it as a joke and ended up selling a bunch of them for $5-$10.
Another friend of mine sold a nice $$$ camera lens on ebay b/c he had bought a nicer one. The funny thing is that once the auction closed a buyer had paid more for it than if they had just gone the B&H and bought it new.
Is something about the competition of an auction that drives people to do stupid things?
Since when can a guy who comes up with the lyric, "It's getting hot in here, so take off all your clothes!" be considered an artist?
How about some guy who paints someone sitting in some grass on paper like here or perhaps someone who paints some fruit in a bowl like here. How the hell can fruit a bowl be art? Now the line you stated may not be art in of itself, but when tied with all of the songs lyrics and background music it does becomes Nelly's expression of something(not sure what it is though;). Also, I may dislike it and you may dislike it, but that doesn't mean it is not some form of art.
This is obvious microsoft bullshit, as open-source platforms are more reliable, and more scalable than anything from microsoft.
The problem is that the two lines you quotes are basically true. MySQL IS a niche database. It is good where there is little updating/inserting and mostly reading going on. Web sites are a excellent candidate for these operations. Having worked with many different RDBMS, Oracle and MS SQL server are probably the best all round databases. By all round, I mean features/price/performace/ease of use/etc... They, for the most part have good performance, are reliable, and decently scalable (Oracle more so). Now if you are getting into very large datasets you start to look toward other niche players such as NCR Teradata.
Just because something is OSS doesn't mean it is the best thing out there. MySQL is good at what it does - a fast filesystem that is able to be queried by a small subset of SQL. It has come a long way since it first came out, but I'm tired of people trying to compare MySQL to real RDBMs. If OSS is really looking to push a RDBMS then they should push postgres instead.
Could as in properly sealed with dividers between each speaker space (speaker boxes with no dividers is a big no-no), and that each 12 had the proper amount of air space. IIRC we went with 4 JL 12w5s because they would work well with 1.5 cubic feet of sealed enclosure air space. To help make sure the air space was sealed screws were placed every 2 inches to hold the box together with a bead of silicon between the joints and then another bead along the inside of the box at the seams. We managed to fit all of this monster into the back of the 240sx without losing the back seat.
Overall an enclosure of this type is not hard to build, but building it inside the hatchback of a car is a PITA. Lets not even get started on what it took to get amplified sound to each speaker...;-)
On a side note, it surprises me that more geeks aren't into screwing around with car stereo. There is math, electronics, wiring, music, etc... all in one place. Sounds like something that would be right up many geeks alleys.
Not exactly. Free air subs just don't have to be boxed, but they still need an enclosure. Most of the time these are used in cars and the trunk actually becomes the enclosure.
I agree about the how is this news part. Building enclosures is nothing new and by itself isn't terribly interesting. Now an article on how someone fit some obscene amount of subs into a tiny foreign car would have been much more interesting. I still remember running the numbers to see if we could fit 4 12inch subs in my friends nissan 240sx back when I was into that kind of stuff:)
Slashdot Mirror
My guess is that Intel is targeting the home market so the clever neighbor kid can't install a $100 Celery in some guy's PC and overclock it to beat the latest $500 CPU in benchmarks.
Do people even really overclock anymore? At this point taking my proc from 2.1 to 2.3 doesn't seem like a very big deal. The percentage increases are getting smaller and smaller. It is cool in that geek way to oc, but I don't see legions of overclockers cutting into Intels profits. Because of this, I don't see Intel spending a huge amount of R&D to stop the few people that actually overclock. Instead of looking at the bad reasons for Intel to do this lets look at the positives.
With all the places you can buy PC parts now many people are getting duped when they thought they bought one speed yet the seller sold them a slower version overclocked. To me this seems to be what Intel is aiming to stop and not the small overclocking market out there. In my mind this would seem to be aimed more at stopping unscrupulous vendors than the "clever neighbor kid."
I didn't realize I was responding to the state of the job market, but I am aware that it is not too great right now. Actually it is not too good for anyone currently. The economy as a whole isn't doing that well.
They want outsourcing companies in India, and H1-Bs for the jobs that are still here.
I've dealt with these. If you know exactly what you need, have requirements defining the entire process and don't want/need any innovation then yes this way can work. Most companies need innovation so while you can farm out the mundane part of churning out the code you still need someone to design and architect the solution.
What jobs *are* available are generally for slave wages, with completely unreasonable and illogical minimum skill requirements.
So what constitutes slave wages? 25k/year, 50k/year, 150k/year? The economy just passed through a period where there were a lot of jobs overpaying what they were worth. Dot-coms paid many people much higher wages than what they were really worth and now these people expect to find that same money again elsewhere. I'm sorry, but that isn't going to happen.
Half the developers in NYC are probably close to their last unemployment check by now.
Have you thought of moving? The cost of living is extremely high in NYC as is. Plus you are competing with many more people for any given job. I spoke to a recruiter the other day about finding a candidate and he said that he is actually seeing the job market starting to improve in his area(southeast) for skilled IT people.
I'm guessing from your post that you're tucked away somewhere safe, and in deep denial about the state of our field.
No on is ever safe. You or I or anyone else can pretty much be replaced at any time. The company I work for is not having the best of times right now, but that's how it is in a down turn economy. I am also not in denial about our field. In fact I think our field is going through a pruning process right now. There are many who don't have the drive or competence to call themseleves IT professionals and this downturn will weed them out.
I also see our field changing during these times. Businesses want IT professionals who don't just understand the tech side of how things work but also the business side. Coding this new Whizbang app in the new language C+++ is cool and all, but is it good for the client/company? Most companies want solutions that will help them add to their profitability. Very few pay IT people just for fun.
It's nice that you and your company see nothing wrong with writing enterprise applications in a non-portable language, but it doesn't make it a good engineering decision.
Good engineering decisions do not always equal good business decisons. For the parent posters original application portability may not even be an issue. As long as everyone understands that writing something in VB will mean non-portable where is the problem? Always assuming C/C++ is the best language for a job is just as bad as always assuming VB can do it. When you sit down with the requirements in front of the person paying for the project decisions, prioritys, and expectations must be made and set. Portablity was probably just something that right now is not needed and just added cost and time to the project.
The biggest weakness is that you are using a proprietary language and environment, so the system is likely going to need to be rewritten in a more portable technology within 5-10 years, if not sooner.
When the time comes you revisit your original decisions and act on them then. If the app is still functioning and in use 5-10 years from now the first question is why change it? If it needs more features that the current framwork cannot support(this can happen no matter what language you originally wrote it with), then you look at the business case for those features. Perhaps portability is now crucial and the business case supports it. With the things(usage patterns, design issues, etc...) you learned from doing it in VB, it will be that much easier to move it to a more portable language.
The market for *real* programmers has been destroyed by corporate America.
I think that the *real* programmers that you have talked about all write libraries now. These guys all have jobs at the tool makers like MS, Apple, etc...
Businesses in general don't want (and generally don't need) *real* programmers, they want software engineers. They want someone who can sit down, work out some requirements and provide a timely, cost effective solution. It has taken me some time to fully realize this, but the right technical solution is not always the right business solution. The PHB could really care less if the app is written in VB, C, Java, as long as the application works to within their parameters. It is those parameters that are specified by the people paying for the software that will direct the language/technology you ultimately use.
The fellow would be better off spending the $2.4 million on developing methods of teaching students how MS and *nix are related to each other, how BOTH are used in the real world, and familiarizing students with both.
So true. When I was in college our small CS dept ran all its servers on linux and had a even split of NT and linux workstations. In addition we also had some old alpha boxes, macs, sgis, etc... that and CS students could log into and use. This allowed the students to experience a multitude of OSs and hardware, which IMO is one of the important reasons to go to college. To learn and think about things you wouldn't normally learn and think about in the real world.
Now, if I were to argue against using MS in a school I would avoid arguing the cost issue. MS generally gives all of its software(except games) for free(or close to it) to schools and students. Also keep in mind that supporting some lit edu major who can't seem to transfer their powerpoint presentation between their laptop and computers in the lab is also not cheap.
3.) obviously there would be no focus on Iraq what-so-ever if it and an abundance of countries like it, didn't have the blood this country needs to operate, that is oil.
The looming war really has nothing to do with oil. If all the US wanted was cheap oil we would just lift sanctions and let the oil flow. A war in the region is just going to raise oil prices, again showing that cheap oil is not a cause for the conflict.
If you want to look at motives of those involved, look at everyones motives. In fact, the only reason France and Russia want to avoid war, but keep the region in turmoil purely econmic self interest. They each have long term contracts with Iraq to get oil at below market price which they can then resell on the world market.
The point is usually that there is something broken about the existing game.
I don't know much about AC, but if there is truly something broken then why not fix it with a patch?
In more general terms, I think MMORPG game companies need to think of themselves less as game companies and more as service providers. Their primary product should be their original game, then they should do optional add on upgrades and some 'free' upgrades.
This method would keep original content from really never going to waste and keep you out of the competition with yourself scenario.
I agree. It makes me wonder then why even do a AC2 or EQ2. Just make another expansion to update the graphics and add more content to keep your recurring revenue coming in. That is where the money is anyway.
I think Mythic did a decent job in that respect. They released an expansion which updated the graphics nicely and added a bunch of new content/classes, but it didn't caniblize their original DAoC game.
I believe in order to make a AC2 or EQ2 to work you need to move your player base from the original to the update and then shut down the original. I know it would be a logistical nightmare, but it is the only real way I see in doing a version two of a popular MMORPG.
1GB databases are tiny now. I work daily on multiple SQL servers with anywhere from 2gb-10gb databases. For large dataset(1+TB) I work on NCR Teradata.
To me at least large databases are the norm, and I don't see that changing. Companies now want sales data, contact data, collection data, payment data, etc... AND want it stored semi-permantly for reporting and analyzing. Databases are only going to get bigger, except for particular projects.
All the things you just said about sports can also be said about computers. Too much of anything will end up being detrimental to you as a person. People who think that sports are the end all be all of their lives are no worse than someone who sits in front of their computer 24/7.
When your a dictator security is easy. You torture/kill anyone that does anything to get in your way and others learn quickly. Those that don't learn, you kill their families too. This ends the family vendetta before it even gets started. Security in a free country is extremely hard because the ones doing the securing must constantly balance individual rights against threats.
In a free society terroist are always going to be hard to find and stop. Anyone who is smart and determined will eventually succeed at a terror attack, but that is the price we must pay for freedom. It is a price that I think is worth it.
In addition it sounds as if the computers were doing everything they could:
But the rate of left roll was beginning to overpower the elevons, so the control system fired two 870-lb. thrust right yaw thrusters to help maintain the proper flight path angle.
Computer realizes elevons were not doing the job and fired thrusters to compensate. In the end it didn't change the outcome, but probably kept the shuttle together for just a bit longer.
I have a TV but rarely watch anything but movies and the discovery channel. My question is where do you get your news to form opinions about issues you have no direct contact with? Any news site you see are going to biased to some extent.
I bring this last point up because with this whole Iraq war looming, for example, I realized I was forming my own opinions instead of abrogating this responsibility to the television.
Were they really your own opinions or just those of a different source of information?
Ah, replying to an AC.
:)
:) . When do I get that tax money back though?
First lets get some facts
The only portion of the budget that poor people benefit more from is social services spending which is like 5 percent of the Federal Budget.
Not quite. In the 2002 Federal Budget ~20% goes to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. This covers all health care for people who can't afford it. I'm not even sure that general social services(food stamps, wellfare, etc...) fall under this category so more may even be spent there.
Now, saying that things like defense and infrastructure only help the rich is extremely short sighted. Do you think rich people get rich in a vacuum?
Lets look at infrastructure first. A "rich" company may have 50 trucks. Who is driving all these trucks? Is the "rich" guy driving them all at once? Um, no. People without jobs are hired and now we are one step closer to taking another person out of being poor.
Better infrastructure == more businesses == more jobs == less poor people.
Now as far as defending Americas economic interests around the world, why is that a bad thing? A good economy helps everyone(rich, poor, and everything in between), except maybe those who are already not working and sponging off the government.
Most of the tax money goes to the rich. Thats why they pay more.
Since I still seem to be paying a ton of taxes I guess that makes me rich
What cracks me up is how they want to spend the cigarette tax money on programs to stop/prevent people from smoking. It doesn't take a genius to realize that in order for those programs to keep going people must keep smoking.
No, everyone should be taxed on an equal percentage basis. The rich (not exactly sure who this really classifies anymore) will end up paying more in real dollars than a "poor" person. A poor person in this situation will still recognize that yes they must also pay taxes.
What you want to avoid is getting to the point where the majority of the population pays no taxes or even gets a handout. Then there is no incentive to elect officials who will lower taxes, and believe it or not that hurts everyone. Private citizens investing (stocks, own business, etc...) their own money is 10x more efficient than the government could ever hope to be. The problem is that the trend has/had been to take the most money from the people(upper middle class+) with the means to actually create something with it, and distribute it to the so called poor.
I don't know about you, but I'm tired of having my hard earned money support some crack head who won't use birth control and continues to bring kids into this world.
If we are talking about the same thing, I believe they have stated they are DE-EMPHASIZING the Clawhammer ... in other words, its still on track for release in the first half of 2003 (still way off compared to their roadmap, of course) with Opteron in the 2H03.
Of course they are DE-EMPHASIZING the Clawhammer because it is running behind schedule. It has/was billed as their next savior - similar to the Athlon proc(which basically saved the company at that time). The problem is that each time the hammer is delayed things look worse and worse for AMD(and their stock price). They are trying to calm investors fears by saying the hammer is not that big of deal, but anyone with any sense knows that they need this chip out and soon.
Right now AMD is working towards profitability, meaning going after markets which are stronger (which are, right now, the value microprocessor market) thus the de-emphasizing of the latest and greatest.
There are no margins in the value market. Heck, I think AMD may sell more "value" procs than Intel does, but that doesn't make them profitable. The money is in high end business servers where people pay 1k+/proc. This is where Intel makes a ton of its money and it is where AMD wants/needs to be. AMD needs companies like Dell building poweredge servers around their proc in order to survive.
Along the same lines, I know a guy who was selling small toys on ebay that you could get for 1-2 quarters out of gum ball machines. He did it as a joke and ended up selling a bunch of them for $5-$10.
Another friend of mine sold a nice $$$ camera lens on ebay b/c he had bought a nicer one. The funny thing is that once the auction closed a buyer had paid more for it than if they had just gone the B&H and bought it new.
Is something about the competition of an auction that drives people to do stupid things?
It's a tool, and you use it so you can get the real art done.
So tell me. What exactly is real art?
Since when can a guy who comes up with the lyric, "It's getting hot in here, so take off all your clothes!" be considered an artist?
;). Also, I may dislike it and you may dislike it, but that doesn't mean it is not some form of art.
How about some guy who paints someone sitting in some grass on paper like here or perhaps someone who paints some fruit in a bowl like here. How the hell can fruit a bowl be art? Now the line you stated may not be art in of itself, but when tied with all of the songs lyrics and background music it does becomes Nelly's expression of something(not sure what it is though
This is obvious microsoft bullshit, as open-source platforms are more reliable, and more scalable than anything from microsoft.
The problem is that the two lines you quotes are basically true. MySQL IS a niche database. It is good where there is little updating/inserting and mostly reading going on. Web sites are a excellent candidate for these operations. Having worked with many different RDBMS, Oracle and MS SQL server are probably the best all round databases. By all round, I mean features/price/performace/ease of use/etc... They, for the most part have good performance, are reliable, and decently scalable (Oracle more so). Now if you are getting into very large datasets you start to look toward other niche players such as NCR Teradata.
Just because something is OSS doesn't mean it is the best thing out there. MySQL is good at what it does - a fast filesystem that is able to be queried by a small subset of SQL. It has come a long way since it first came out, but I'm tired of people trying to compare MySQL to real RDBMs. If OSS is really looking to push a RDBMS then they should push postgres instead.
Could, or should?
;-)
Could as in properly sealed with dividers between each speaker space (speaker boxes with no dividers is a big no-no), and that each 12 had the proper amount of air space. IIRC we went with 4 JL 12w5s because they would work well with 1.5 cubic feet of sealed enclosure air space. To help make sure the air space was sealed screws were placed every 2 inches to hold the box together with a bead of silicon between the joints and then another bead along the inside of the box at the seams. We managed to fit all of this monster into the back of the 240sx without losing the back seat.
Overall an enclosure of this type is not hard to build, but building it inside the hatchback of a car is a PITA. Lets not even get started on what it took to get amplified sound to each speaker...
On a side note, it surprises me that more geeks aren't into screwing around with car stereo. There is math, electronics, wiring, music, etc... all in one place. Sounds like something that would be right up many geeks alleys.
They have no enclosure!
Not exactly. Free air subs just don't have to be boxed, but they still need an enclosure. Most of the time these are used in cars and the trunk actually becomes the enclosure.
I was thinking the same thing. Maybe the original poster meant no crossover internal in the enclosure?
I agree about the how is this news part. Building enclosures is nothing new and by itself isn't terribly interesting. Now an article on how someone fit some obscene amount of subs into a tiny foreign car would have been much more interesting. I still remember running the numbers to see if we could fit 4 12inch subs in my friends nissan 240sx back when I was into that kind of stuff :)