Building new chip fab takes at least 2 years, if AMD started today, they'd barely be ready by 2007 and these boxes are going to start shipping in 2006.
Apple has already been burned by the "supply BS" twice in the last 5 years (once by Moto, once by IBM), they aren't going to get burned again.
Intel has the chips, they have 64 bit extensions, and further, I don't see why Apple wouldn't put Xeons in their PowerMacs, Xeons make great workstation procs, and that is exactly what the powermac is. They are only marginally more expensive than P4s (I build systems for a living, I can get a 3.2Ghz Xeon for $165, a 3.2 P4 is like $140). Anyway, I wouldn't be suprised at all to see the first Intel based Mac be a dual 3.6+Ghz Dual Core Dual Xeon with 64bit extensions. That would make all the sense in the world to me. Then get some Pentium M powerbooks, and off we go...
In short, the supply BS is exactly why they chose Intel over AMD, even at the expense of better technology. We'll see how the Intel powermacs perform, I'm afraid they'll suck compared to the G5 just because the G5's have such amazing bus bandwidth (not unlike the AMD Bus advantage over Intel)
I'm glad that you're a lawyer, have you read the patent? I haven't as there aren't links anywhere or a patent number, I don't feel like doing a patent search. However, I know enough about patents to know that if you patent "transferring data from Excel to Access" and you have even a half decent patent attorney, the patent will cover nearly all methods of transfering data from Excel to Access. That is what patent attorneys do, the best ones are paid to make excessively broad patents so that they are as defendable as possible. I narrow patent is easily engineered around, only broad patents are enforcable.
Ok, so transfering data from an excel spreadsheet to an Access table is patented... Hmmm I've been using copy/paste to do that since forever. What "technology" is this? You've been able to export a spreadsheet to comma delimited and import to Access since forever as well... How do you get a patent on importing a comma delimited file?
Has Microsoft shared interoperability info in the past? Sure if this is accepted it won't make the Samba team's job any easier, but its not going to make it harder than it already is. These guys are amazingly good at reverse engineering MS's stuff. Sure it would be nice if the EU made MS give away the keys to the castle, but really do we need it? All this doom and gloom is completely unfounded.
Samba hasn't had this data in the past, and they've managed to write a darn good SMB/CIFS server. This won't end the Samba project by any means.
I'm not saying MS shouldn't have to share the data, I'm just saying if they don't it won't be the end of the world
He just switched to Mac stating "the only architectures that matter are G5 and x86_64..." Well so, x86_64 is the only one that matters I guess since apparently the G5 is out.
I'm sure they are saving alot more than that... lets see: #1 $2000/mo/emp is only $24000, I'm sure the average IBMer makes closer to $50000/yr. lets say $40000 to be safe.
These jobs are in Europe, so either Pounds, or Euros, and with the current monetary state that will probably be more like $55000-$60000
Benefits: Add on at least $12000/emp Taxes: Add on another $15,000 at least Europe taxes more than America and that is what it would cost in America
so, you're looking at $82000/yr/emp
That is 820,000,000/yr Almost a billion a year... That is probably closer to what they will save.
So, 48% is most now? that's amazing! Anyway, this is a dup from a few weeks ago. The original post actually had a link to the study instead of a press release, MS, and the study company homepage...
If you actually look at the numbers in the study, it shows that 52% of SMBs are interested at some level in Linux, 10% are evaluating, and something like 25-35% already have some linux deployed. Only 48% aren't interested... which really is quite amazing. Already the MAJORITY of SMBs are interested in Linux.
Ok, I didn't know that. I worked for a while at a CLEC actually setting up our 911 interconnection with the ILEC here and the 911 call centers had routable numbers.
Wow, so you support shutting down the only technology that is generating any jobs at all right now?
if you require VoIP providers to follow the same regulations as traditional phone companies and/or "make them responsible" then you've made it impossible for anyone but ILEC's and CLECs to provide VoIP. Vonage cannot be responsible for my DSL connection (my ILEC provides that). If it goes down and Vonage is responsible for my death when I can't dial 911 because my ILEC sucks, how does that compute?
Think before you post please. Requiring this of VoIP providers will kill the entire industry. Cell phone providers had 6 years to make their systems 911 compliant, and they actually had a physical location to use to map calls through (cell towers). VoIP getting 4 months is bizarre and impossible.
All of the VoIP providers are very explicit on their web sites saying that 911 doesn't work right. If consumers are too stupid to figure that out, well Darwin was right, and I'm ok with fewer stupid people around.
Probably not. The geographic resolution on IPs can get down to city level (almost) but not any better. Your ISP could assign you your IP today, and someone on the other side of town the same IP tomorrow. the 911 system gives the authorities basically GPS coordinates of your location.
Technically there are "phone numbers" associated with those lines, they are just heavily guarded secrets of the ILECs, the only people who know them. 911 call centers have regular numbers associated with them (the association is held in the PSAP database), and when you dial 911, the ILECs switch does a lookup in the PSAP database, finds which call center is responsible for your call, and routes it there. Then when the call hits the call center, their system dips the MSAG database with your phone number and pulls up your street info...
That is the problem with this ruling. It mandates that the VoIP providers provide full 911 service, but doesn't require any cooperation from their main competitors the ILECs. So, if the ILECs choose not to give out the dedicated 911 numbers so that VoIP providers can route directly to them, or if they decide to charge exhorbitant fees (more likely), the FCC has given them a free get out of jail card here. The ILECs by simply not doing anything can put all the VoIP providers out of business now.
Companies already exist that do this. Actually most of the CLECs in the country use them. However, they are very expensive. This would raise the cost of vonage probably $10/mo all by itself.
You are dieing or being mugged, or robbed, or kidnapped and you just break away for a couple seconds. You can't talk. the 911 service works in such a way that just by dialing those 3 magic numbers the authorities get your location and will arrive shortly thereafter. with your call center idea, you are dead and by the time someone finds you there are no leads... with the 911 service at least some of the time the authorities can get there to save you.
So I use a VoIP PBX, I make calls all the time through my office over a VPN, can the FCC regulate PBX's this way too? and make them "figure out" where you are to route the 911 call appropriately?
What about the hosted PBX providers? Does this ruling apply to them as well? This will put such a huge anchor around the growing VoIP market as to kill it dead.
They don't want to be the phone company. The want to be Internet Telephony providers. Their networks aren't designed to be carriers of last resort (if you don't know what that means look it up). They aren't and can't be required to provide SLA's the way CLECs, ILECs, and RBOCs are. VoIP is not telephone service, it is a data service.
This ruling is hairy because now it gives the CLECs and ILECs the precedent to say "Hey, you said these guys weren't subject to regulation, but you regulated them wrt 911, we want them regulated wrt taxes, sla's etc, just like we are." Which will immediately put VoIP out of business.
that and the overall score takes into account alot of things other than HD performance, so you are averaging out a gain in HD with the same system bus, memory architecture and cpu.. a 100% increase in any one subsystem will not translate into a 100% overall increase. I doubt the "latency" has anything to do with this result.
I use the open office beta every day. I don't have java installed.
All of the functionality that worked in 1.0+ works better in 2.0, and I don't use any of the additional features. Obviously, some people will want to use those features, but wow, aren't we always the ones yelling at MS for their stupid "wizards" and now we're mad cause we can't use the OOo ones? And isn't MS Access the bane of all db developers everywhere? And now we're upset cause we can't use our own half assed, not nearly as nice version of Access?
Seriously people I don't understand. OOo 2.0 is not "crippled" without java, it works just fine for 100% of the existing (ie 1.0) functionality, and all you're missing is some gay wizards, and a half baked db frontend that crashes all the time. I installed java for about 10 minutes to check out the java features, and then uninstalled it, cause well they sucked. I know this is only a beta release and I'm sure 2.0 will be better.. but it won't be anywhere close to usable, not for anything remotely real.
What you are saying is exactly what the article said, that *most* ISPs in UK resell BT wholesale, but from the article there are 2 ISPs at least that the article mentions that do not resell BT wholesale but own their own DSLAM, and provide 4 and 8 mbps DSL service. He chose UK Online which provides 8mbps and has their own DSLAM.
All of the BT wholesale resellers can only *AT MOST* provide 2mbps, because BT controls the dslam and that is what you get. With UK Online, he can get at best 8mbps. That is the point I was making, that the maximum speed (not the minimum) is controlled by the DSLAM, not the ISPs backbone. Sure if oversubscription on the BT atm network is high, he won't get 8mbps very often, but he will routinely get better than 2mbps I bet, and that is because he isn't using a BT wholesaler, which is exactly the point he was trying to make.
You just completely contradicted yourself, in one post you said the article was wrong to state that most ISPs resell BT service and then in this post you said most ISPs do resell BT service... so which is it?
right right right. BT owns the EQ from your house to their CO, and the CO is what houses the dslam, and the dslam is what determines your connection speed (regardless of the ISPs backbone, you are plugged into a port on a DSLAM that only supports 2mb/sec). Out of the CO accross the atm network to the ISP is faster than 2mb/sec, and any decent ISP will have an OC3 at least going out the the internet, probably multiple redundant OC3s.. But the thing that determines *your* connection speed, the speed at which your DSL modem communicates is the DSLAM.
I have 3 DSL providers at my house, they each own equipment in the qwest co, Qwest can give me 1.5mbps, the other two providers who are local clecs can provide 5mbps and 7mbps dsl. This is because they own their DSLAMs and set the rates higher than Qwest will. There are alot of ISPs that resell Qwests DSL, and they are all capped at 1.5mbps, because that is what Qwests DSLAM is set to.
Please learn how a DSL network operates before spouting off.
They did a convertible debt offering, after it they had nearly 700 million in cash, so your 300 million number might be overstated or after the debt (the debt was more than a year ago). I assume they did it to grow, or to shore up their cash reserves, they were getting pretty low at least on their balance sheet (down around 75mil if I remember correctly, and it was right around the time they turned cash flow positive)
The debt was convertible (meaning they can change the debt to stock). Dell has already converted it, if you look at Redhat's balance sheets they showed 600 mil in debt, and over the last 3 quarters that has almost all disappeared as the owners of the debt have converted the debt to stock. It mentions in the article that Dell's stock after the conversion is only worth about 45 mil as Redhat's stock has tanked over the last year.
You are wrong! You only have to have "a" site in your whitelist of which by default there are 2! There are 2 vulns here, one which allows any site to masquerade as any other site, and then the code execution vuln. Therefore, if you have the default whitelist, you are vulnerable because the code says "Here's some stuff from update.mozilla.org (using the first vuln), ok now execute it (using the second)" even though it is coming from completely unreleated site.
Slashdot Mirror
Building new chip fab takes at least 2 years, if AMD started today, they'd barely be ready by 2007 and these boxes are going to start shipping in 2006.
Apple has already been burned by the "supply BS" twice in the last 5 years (once by Moto, once by IBM), they aren't going to get burned again.
Intel has the chips, they have 64 bit extensions, and further, I don't see why Apple wouldn't put Xeons in their PowerMacs, Xeons make great workstation procs, and that is exactly what the powermac is. They are only marginally more expensive than P4s (I build systems for a living, I can get a 3.2Ghz Xeon for $165, a 3.2 P4 is like $140). Anyway, I wouldn't be suprised at all to see the first Intel based Mac be a dual 3.6+Ghz Dual Core Dual Xeon with 64bit extensions. That would make all the sense in the world to me. Then get some Pentium M powerbooks, and off we go...
In short, the supply BS is exactly why they chose Intel over AMD, even at the expense of better technology. We'll see how the Intel powermacs perform, I'm afraid they'll suck compared to the G5 just because the G5's have such amazing bus bandwidth (not unlike the AMD Bus advantage over Intel)
I'm glad that you're a lawyer, have you read the patent? I haven't as there aren't links anywhere or a patent number, I don't feel like doing a patent search. However, I know enough about patents to know that if you patent "transferring data from Excel to Access" and you have even a half decent patent attorney, the patent will cover nearly all methods of transfering data from Excel to Access. That is what patent attorneys do, the best ones are paid to make excessively broad patents so that they are as defendable as possible. I narrow patent is easily engineered around, only broad patents are enforcable.
they do have APIs to do this, I don't know when they were developed, but I used them in Office 95.
Ok,
so transfering data from an excel spreadsheet to an Access table is patented... Hmmm I've been using copy/paste to do that since forever. What "technology" is this? You've been able to export a spreadsheet to comma delimited and import to Access since forever as well... How do you get a patent on importing a comma delimited file?
Has Microsoft shared interoperability info in the past? Sure if this is accepted it won't make the Samba team's job any easier, but its not going to make it harder than it already is. These guys are amazingly good at reverse engineering MS's stuff. Sure it would be nice if the EU made MS give away the keys to the castle, but really do we need it? All this doom and gloom is completely unfounded.
Samba hasn't had this data in the past, and they've managed to write a darn good SMB/CIFS server. This won't end the Samba project by any means.
I'm not saying MS shouldn't have to share the data, I'm just saying if they don't it won't be the end of the world
He just switched to Mac stating "the only architectures that matter are G5 and x86_64..." Well so, x86_64 is the only one that matters I guess since apparently the G5 is out.
I'm sure they are saving alot more than that... lets see:
#1 $2000/mo/emp is only $24000, I'm sure the average IBMer makes closer to $50000/yr.
lets say $40000 to be safe.
These jobs are in Europe, so either Pounds, or Euros, and with the current monetary state that will probably be more like $55000-$60000
Benefits: Add on at least $12000/emp
Taxes: Add on another $15,000 at least Europe taxes more than America and that is what it would cost in America
so, you're looking at $82000/yr/emp
That is 820,000,000/yr
Almost a billion a year... That is probably closer to what they will save.
So, 48% is most now?
that's amazing!
Anyway, this is a dup from a few weeks ago. The original post actually had a link to the study instead of a press release, MS, and the study company homepage...
If you actually look at the numbers in the study, it shows that 52% of SMBs are interested at some level in Linux, 10% are evaluating, and something like 25-35% already have some linux deployed. Only 48% aren't interested... which really is quite amazing. Already the MAJORITY of SMBs are interested in Linux.
Ok, I didn't know that.
I worked for a while at a CLEC actually setting up our 911 interconnection with the ILEC here and the 911 call centers had routable numbers.
Wow, so you support shutting down the only technology that is generating any jobs at all right now?
if you require VoIP providers to follow the same regulations as traditional phone companies and/or "make them responsible" then you've made it impossible for anyone but ILEC's and CLECs to provide VoIP. Vonage cannot be responsible for my DSL connection (my ILEC provides that). If it goes down and Vonage is responsible for my death when I can't dial 911 because my ILEC sucks, how does that compute?
Think before you post please. Requiring this of VoIP providers will kill the entire industry. Cell phone providers had 6 years to make their systems 911 compliant, and they actually had a physical location to use to map calls through (cell towers). VoIP getting 4 months is bizarre and impossible.
All of the VoIP providers are very explicit on their web sites saying that 911 doesn't work right. If consumers are too stupid to figure that out, well Darwin was right, and I'm ok with fewer stupid people around.
Probably not. The geographic resolution on IPs can get down to city level (almost) but not any better.
Your ISP could assign you your IP today, and someone on the other side of town the same IP tomorrow. the 911 system gives the authorities basically GPS coordinates of your location.
Technically there are "phone numbers" associated with those lines, they are just heavily guarded secrets of the ILECs, the only people who know them. 911 call centers have regular numbers associated with them (the association is held in the PSAP database), and when you dial 911, the ILECs switch does a lookup in the PSAP database, finds which call center is responsible for your call, and routes it there. Then when the call hits the call center, their system dips the MSAG database with your phone number and pulls up your street info...
That is the problem with this ruling. It mandates that the VoIP providers provide full 911 service, but doesn't require any cooperation from their main competitors the ILECs. So, if the ILECs choose not to give out the dedicated 911 numbers so that VoIP providers can route directly to them, or if they decide to charge exhorbitant fees (more likely), the FCC has given them a free get out of jail card here. The ILECs by simply not doing anything can put all the VoIP providers out of business now.
Companies already exist that do this.
Actually most of the CLECs in the country use them.
However, they are very expensive. This would raise the cost of vonage probably $10/mo all by itself.
You are dieing or being mugged, or robbed, or kidnapped and you just break away for a couple seconds.
You can't talk.
the 911 service works in such a way that just by dialing those 3 magic numbers the authorities get your location and will arrive shortly thereafter.
with your call center idea, you are dead and by the time someone finds you there are no leads...
with the 911 service at least some of the time the authorities can get there to save you.
So I use a VoIP PBX, I make calls all the time through my office over a VPN, can the FCC regulate PBX's this way too? and make them "figure out" where you are to route the 911 call appropriately?
What about the hosted PBX providers? Does this ruling apply to them as well? This will put such a huge anchor around the growing VoIP market as to kill it dead.
They don't want to be the phone company.
The want to be Internet Telephony providers. Their networks aren't designed to be carriers of last resort (if you don't know what that means look it up). They aren't and can't be required to provide SLA's the way CLECs, ILECs, and RBOCs are. VoIP is not telephone service, it is a data service.
This ruling is hairy because now it gives the CLECs and ILECs the precedent to say "Hey, you said these guys weren't subject to regulation, but you regulated them wrt 911, we want them regulated wrt taxes, sla's etc, just like we are." Which will immediately put VoIP out of business.
Which comes first in the alphabet? IE
Um... I didn't know Internet came before Fire...
a, b, c, d, e, F, g, h, I...
oh right it doesn't
that and the overall score takes into account alot of things other than HD performance, so you are averaging out a gain in HD with the same system bus, memory architecture and cpu.. a 100% increase in any one subsystem will not translate into a 100% overall increase. I doubt the "latency" has anything to do with this result.
not for 50 bucks
I use the open office beta every day.
I don't have java installed.
All of the functionality that worked in 1.0+ works better in 2.0, and I don't use any of the additional features. Obviously, some people will want to use those features, but wow, aren't we always the ones yelling at MS for their stupid "wizards" and now we're mad cause we can't use the OOo ones? And isn't MS Access the bane of all db developers everywhere? And now we're upset cause we can't use our own half assed, not nearly as nice version of Access?
Seriously people I don't understand. OOo 2.0 is not "crippled" without java, it works just fine for 100% of the existing (ie 1.0) functionality, and all you're missing is some gay wizards, and a half baked db frontend that crashes all the time. I installed java for about 10 minutes to check out the java features, and then uninstalled it, cause well they sucked. I know this is only a beta release and I'm sure 2.0 will be better.. but it won't be anywhere close to usable, not for anything remotely real.
What you are saying is exactly what the article said, that *most* ISPs in UK resell BT wholesale, but from the article there are 2 ISPs at least that the article mentions that do not resell BT wholesale but own their own DSLAM, and provide 4 and 8 mbps DSL service. He chose UK Online which provides 8mbps and has their own DSLAM.
All of the BT wholesale resellers can only *AT MOST* provide 2mbps, because BT controls the dslam and that is what you get. With UK Online, he can get at best 8mbps. That is the point I was making, that the maximum speed (not the minimum) is controlled by the DSLAM, not the ISPs backbone. Sure if oversubscription on the BT atm network is high, he won't get 8mbps very often, but he will routinely get better than 2mbps I bet, and that is because he isn't using a BT wholesaler, which is exactly the point he was trying to make.
You just completely contradicted yourself, in one post you said the article was wrong to state that most ISPs resell BT service and then in this post you said most ISPs do resell BT service... so which is it?
right right right.
BT owns the EQ from your house to their CO, and the CO is what houses the dslam, and the dslam is what determines your connection speed (regardless of the ISPs backbone, you are plugged into a port on a DSLAM that only supports 2mb/sec). Out of the CO accross the atm network to the ISP is faster than 2mb/sec, and any decent ISP will have an OC3 at least going out the the internet, probably multiple redundant OC3s.. But the thing that determines *your* connection speed, the speed at which your DSL modem communicates is the DSLAM.
I have 3 DSL providers at my house, they each own equipment in the qwest co, Qwest can give me 1.5mbps, the other two providers who are local clecs can provide 5mbps and 7mbps dsl. This is because they own their DSLAMs and set the rates higher than Qwest will. There are alot of ISPs that resell Qwests DSL, and they are all capped at 1.5mbps, because that is what Qwests DSLAM is set to.
Please learn how a DSL network operates before spouting off.
They did a convertible debt offering, after it they had nearly 700 million in cash, so your 300 million number might be overstated or after the debt (the debt was more than a year ago). I assume they did it to grow, or to shore up their cash reserves, they were getting pretty low at least on their balance sheet (down around 75mil if I remember correctly, and it was right around the time they turned cash flow positive)
The debt was convertible (meaning they can change the debt to stock). Dell has already converted it, if you look at Redhat's balance sheets they showed 600 mil in debt, and over the last 3 quarters that has almost all disappeared as the owners of the debt have converted the debt to stock.
It mentions in the article that Dell's stock after the conversion is only worth about 45 mil as Redhat's stock has tanked over the last year.
You are wrong!
You only have to have "a" site in your whitelist of which by default there are 2! There are 2 vulns here, one which allows any site to masquerade as any other site, and then the code execution vuln. Therefore, if you have the default whitelist, you are vulnerable because the code says "Here's some stuff from update.mozilla.org (using the first vuln), ok now execute it (using the second)" even though it is coming from completely unreleated site.