part time job at the local isp, drop down an ipod sized device that is Powered over ethernet, and runs at layer two of the osi model between the isp's main connection and the internet in general, with scripts set to analize packet data, store enough of a buffer so when it detects a mp3 etc it can retrieve the whole file, and generatetes a forged frame to a system with an IDS alerat set for an unusual packet to alert you that you've scowered enough files and need to retrieve said device.
In this case, it's simply piracy... and the number of jobs available is still pretty limited, but nowhere near as small as 1%, much less.001%...;) (i think there are more than 650 people working in IT on the planet, hrm.. by at least 1000 fold.)
In case you're wondering, yes, This is why you want NetBSD to be running on your ipod color, and hack some sort of ethernet firewire/usb bridge.
Re:How can you vouche for the security of this?
on
Flash, Meet Sparkle
·
· Score: 1
Apparently IIS 6.0 got the brunt of the focus on 'security' since there has been one serious hole in part of IIS that is 'off' by default, and a minor issue where ie could be used to aquire information about scripts running on the host system.
That's hardly "lip service" to security. Sure, IE hasn't gotten much better, and probably never will, but Microsoft's 'efforts' in security were aimed at making windows a 'real' option for a 'server' OS.
You are right though, windows is attractive because of the features, like sparkle, that are by nature insecure. It doesn't make any sense for MS to make the desktop any more 'secure' by default, as long as 'profesionals' can 'secure it' or teach users how not to get exploit xyz.. Imagine, how easy it would be for say, yahoo messenger or the likes to 'write' the IM client interface in sparkle, so that everytime they tweaked the UI people wouldn't have to be brought to some 'download now' page, but rather just be served a simple file off there webserver that could completely reskin the whole IM client interface. Yes, I realise, Yahoo already uses flash for this, they call them IMvironments, and they only take over the UI for a single chat window. With Sparkle there would be no need for them to force users to constantly upgrade flash if they didn't use IE for websurfing etc. ,
programmed correctly you can even assign the robot a login/pass to default to when asked:) and make sure the robot can search even those pages for info that shouldn't be available on the web that easily.
large radial structures in the rings, where seen by the Voyager spacecraft and have remained difficult to fully explain.
Difficult to explain? clearly the RIAA heard that if you played the rings of saturn backwards on a record player you would hear some copyrighted music, so the dissapearing sections of the ring were clearly removed by cease and desit orders sent by RIAA lawyers to saturn.
Re:You down with P2P
on
P2P Now and Then
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Continued abuse of those protocols will simply give the industry the hammer they need to outlaw their use.
So you're saying they're gonna outlaw the internet huh?
No matter how many times you encrypt a packet and sneak it around the net, at some point in time you, the recipient, have to actually receive it at your IP address
you don't understand much about how the internet works. Let't say I am the evil hacker downloading the 'constitution' because you know it's been modified and i'm distributing the unmodified text. But I'm sneaking the packet around and don't want to look like i am recieving it. as long as i set it up so that MY computer is a route between two compromized systems the end destination of that packet isn't me, but i can have manipulate and swipe a copy of all that data without anyone on the entire internet being aware of anything other than the fact 'that packet passed through' my system. so now instead of blaming me, you're balming the compromised system of someone's 80 year old grandmother, and when you sieze her computer there is no trace of who exploited her, nor of any of the 'files' that supposedly were downloaded to her computer.
see:) in this scenario computer A and C supposedly transefered an illegal document that would get my shot by 'his greatness our supremme commander for Life' meanwhile innoculous old computer B which just passed the data along, was really the computer that wanted a copy of the data. done right computer B doesn't even HAVE an ip address. it just operates on layer two of the OSI model, and looks no different from any other piece of hardware that allows data to be sent over a greater distance without needing an ip address.
so there you go:) so when do we get a p2p app that operates by default on layer 2 of the OSI model, pretending to be a switch between some random ip address that isn't in use and the real IP of the person downloading the file;) the data might have gone Through my computer network Sir, But as you can See my System is Clean of any suspicious files or activities!;)
i use the feature every time i post on gamefaqs. you can guess my user name;) haven't been active lately Oh if only i had a SP and and the new Wars game for SP i might even bother writing some FAQs again ^^;
nah i don't have time for that... i don't even have time to post here... oh well. argh my internal code is broken, i only have a 'avoid work' and 'sleep' mode... meh
Actually, the mozilla project was floating around with no real support, as AOL decided they didn't need a browser coding group. or an open source browser, so Mozilla was given a bunch of cash, and let loose, open source deveopers kept working on mozilla, but they choose to 'promote firefox', over the whole 'suite' of mozilla 1.x mozilla is still being developed, firefox continues to get the 'attention' and has gotten a more and more IE style feature set, while Mozilla 1.x retains it's netscape style interface and capabilities.
Clearly the mozilla foundation must be getting something for having google integrated, but without some kind of support they'd just be YAN 'all volunteer' open source project that 'gets worked on when the volunteers have time to' google has the motto of 'don't be evil' but 'tracking people, to better serve them ads' is apparently not evil, when said ads as 'unobtrusive text that can't be blocked by not loading images..';) well, the people clicking on those ads, and paying to support empire google would probably be paying to support someone elses ad empire, either via tv, or other internet companies etc.. at least google has the philosophy of being unobtrusive, about it. to the point that the code is running on there systems not ours, and the data is data that anyone seeing the packets could have collected... so i suppose one could call it 'not evil' if one accepts that advertising is an unavoidable consequence of increased capability for sharing data.
Unless you have some evidence that google has pressured the mozilla foundation to 'drop' the netscape style suite then don't jump to conclusions. It's more likely that once AOL dropped support they could only do so much to stay afloat, and part of that included a massive push for browser share. Firefox is closer to IE in capabilities, so it was the target they choose to push.
80 million was a low estimate 160 million was the high estimate. the point is it does NOT cost $600 for intel to produce and sell a CPU. Was that 5 bn for this year alone? or was it for the 4 years they've been selling P 4 CPUS? if it was for this year alone your number of $62-31 per chip remains valid, if it was the 'total development cost of the current p4 chips' then that development cost is being spread across multiple years sales, and the product has a life cycle of 18-24 months.. then the cost falls to somewhere in the $40-10 per chip range.
i appreciate being corrected but, no-one really did a very good job of pointing out that the total cost per chip is averaging out well below the average selling point of pentium 4 chips. intel is minting money, because people are willing to pay $600 for a 'good' perfomance chip.
here, read the profit and growth expectations from the horses own mouth http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20 050908corp.htm Double digit growth, and they gross 60% profit. 60% that means for every dollar they take in only 40 cents is going to operating costs, including marketing etc. nothing wrong with that, just pointing it out. some people on the internet are making profit selling prescot 2.4 ghz chips at $112 a chip, that means intel is selling them at or below that price. Even if you consider that a large volume of the chips intel sells are the 'slow' chips they are not taking a 'loss' on any chip they sell, not with the profit margin they're showing.
So are people paying $1,000 for a Pentium 4 d Extreme being ripped off? of course;) there is no way in hell it cost intel more than $100 to make that chip, including R&D costs. and yes I know they have to 'hand pick' chips that will run that fast because they were on the best silicon and were etched flawlessly. They price them at $1,000 a chip in part so that they can realistically supply as many 'Extreme' chips as people who are willing to pay $1,000 for them.
Also they could be trying to avoid undercutting AMD because they probably could easily, if they decided to stop minting money and just ruthlessly price everyone else out of the business. Simultaniously AMD is bitching about Intel having the power to Set prices artificially high etc. when if intel decided to say got for a 10% profit margin they would say drop the average price of a chip to $120, while still maintaining some sort of tier structure to make sure they could supply enough high speed chips.. and AMD would be borrowing money to sell chips at the price intel could, because unlike intel they only have 8-16 million chips a year going out the door...while the R&D costs remain largely the same.
intel mints money with every chip they sell, no matter if those chips cost $40, $76, or $96 a chip to produce...
the cost of materials is $1.50 the cost of labor is $1.50 the cost of plants and R&D is $37 per chip.
Yeah i might be a little off on those numbers but it's pretty close, how do i know? Apple sells ~4 million apple computers per year, they have abotu 2-4% of the PC market, Intel CPUs account for something like 80% of the market that means if apple is selling a million, intel is selling 20-40 million. intel is selling at least 80 million pentium 4 cpus a year. if the the fab equipment costs 2 bn, (the fab itself obviously costs more) and has to be replaced every year, and you sell 80 million units that's either $25 or $12.50 per chip.
$40 a chip to make a chip, when you're selling anywhere between 80 million and 160 million a year ? I'd believe it.
and if slashcode was written efficently it would have a built in spell-checker like for example gamefaqs has. n then when u r talking like this it would tell u to correct them.
excuse me i can't count. 7200 coins ~= 90 lbs = $1,800 sorry my brain has a serious flaw in the math co processor, i would have gotten it fixed but they didn't sell any replacement parts for it.
i shall help thee a buck in quarters is 22.68 grams or 0.800013457 ounces there are 16 ounces in a pound. so $20 is almost exactly one pound. (.0002691 oz over) so if you weigh 90 lbs you weight closest to $359.75 in quarters. (also know as 1439 quarters)
Your average PC is absolutely awash in power it doesn't need. 20 years of "your computer is obsolete as soon as you buy it" has crashed out into "your five-year-old computer technically isn't obsolete yet".
First of all, computers have always been on a fairly constant cycle of getting faster, but it's never been 'overnight' except for people who go out and buy the bargain PCs the day before they release the new 'latest greatest' models. so, 'your computer is obsolete as soon as you buy it' only applies to clueless people who are buying 2-3 year old hardware 'brand new' because it was selling 'cheaply.' it's true, that most 'retail vendors' have a really hard time getting products to market 'when they're new' but that's changed a lot with the likes of dell who sells the computer they made last week.. so even people buying at retail level are generally getting newer hardware than they were when companies took months and months to years to develop and market products.
As far as the latter goes 'your 5 year old PC' is pretty useless. word processing goes slow, agonizingly slow compared to a 'modern' system. web browsing same deal, although technically that computer can Barely Manage those tasks, it requires Full operating power to do basic everyday tasks! now a modern PC doesn't even break a sweat for any of that...
I have a nice system i built almost 4 years ago, and i built it with the best parts I could, even so it still came to under 1 grand. That system is still 'fast enough' for word processing and web browsing, and it can even handle many modern games , as long as you set them to fugly mode. It's in dire need or replacement though, maybe i can stretch it to 5 years, if i gave up PC gaming, and it will be able to handle web browsing for years to come.. but it is obsolete.. has been for at least 2 years, it just hasn't been 'so awful' I would stop using it.
But it is true, software makers are having a hard time making 'consumers' feel like they need to buy faster hardware. is that some tragic end of the world doomsday scenario? Wow i don't think so, how long have car makers had so very little they could do to make 'faster' more powerful cars? yet do people not go out and buy new cars still? There are Already people who want to believe that once they buy a PC they should never have to buy a new one, ever.
Personally, i'll always love the faster newer computers, but the next system i built will probablly have to make due for a long time kinda like this one did.
sure the desert is cold at night but you're not going to make some thing colder than the air around it
Actually air is a pretty good insulator. It has relatively low thermal conductivity, that's why we need blankets, to reflect the heat back at our bodies at night. generally speaking, water by it's own will radiate it's own heat into space, and cool off below the temperature of the air. My aunt and uncle had a pool, one summer night the temp got down to 60 and someone forgot to put the pool cover on, and by morning the pool temp was down to about 40F that was just from the radiant/evaporate effect of standing water.
so yeah, having a container and array designed to allow even more heat to radiate away, would allow ice to form anywhere where the temp gets to 60F on a clear summer night the bags they used for that probably would have been unnecesary, although they would help prevent convection warming from the 'cold air' becomming heavier and dropping from around the jar and creating a current.
you apparently have never been in a true desert on a cloudless night in the middle of summer. even in july in cairo the desert night has been capable of dropping to 66F and that's considering the radiant heat from the desert sand heating up the night.. so, lets say you reflect the heat of the sand away, and radiate the heat of the sun into space. you then only gain back heat from the air temp. if the reflector is pure silver, rather than aluminium, and the jar was made of volcanic glass, rather than 'spray painted' glass jars.. there is no reason why you couldn't radiate away more than enough heat to cause water to freeze. Remember obsidian and silver were more accessable to the egyptians than extracting aluminum from boxite (a processes invented in the 20th century) or blowing jars from glass made by melting sand..
linux etc. have been working on being 'ready' for 64-bit systems for a while now, and many programs are written so that the compiler can adjust the code to work better when compliled as optomized for a certain cpu etc, as another poster mentioned here Linux apps tend to get a good boost when recomplied for 64-bit, just from the compiler options being given at compile time. admitedly 10-15% isn't that 'huge' a gap but the code executable was only tweaked as much as the gcc could do so without the code being written specifically for 64-bit cpus.
So yeah, I'd have to agree, these synthetic benchmarks are pretty useless other than to say 'amd-64 cpus have a really good 32-bit mode.' which is not really that big of news;) Also, it's pretty hard to write an app for 64-bit that Won't slow down terribly on 32-bit machines.
I think the point you're trying to make is that GP can't unstand that standard flash memory _cards_ allow for up to 16 individual _chips_. each individual chip is 16 Gbit, or 2 GB. and 16Gx16 is how a memory modual capacity is written and calculated, but c'mon this is slashdot do you really expect somone whos modded to +5 insightful to Understand Computers Enough To Know how to do basic multiplication, or that the RAM/solid state indusry has used the same convention since you no longer had to soldier the chips directly to the board?
Shimon Gendlin is an interesting guy.. he's got a bunch of patents and has always 'supposedly' had technology 5 years ahead of the industry, no matter Where the industry was. The atomchip site itself looks almost like a joke, but he was supposedly walking around with working chips of 128MB per chip in the late 90's
to me, he looks like a shyster, he's supposedly had all this awesome 'light years ahead' technology, and no here 8 years later after 'supposedly' having technology that would revolutionize non-volitile memory this guy still is pawning off surealistic claims for hardware that if he has pictures are 'easily mocked up' style pictures.
IMO everyone who's given him money has been paying his lifestyle of selling vaporware to make a 'free' living of not working... I'm sure he must have gotten money, because he's still at it trying to get more after 8 years of not producing any real products. with 'vaugely worded patents' that sound as bad as his websites.. it's sickening that he GOT the patents he got, but hey anyone who pays the fee gets the rubber stamp as long as it hasn't been patented before...
There are projects dealing with security, networking, VoIP, Java, mono There is nothing like the highest worth technology company paying students to work their ass off in the summer to make and improve products and open source software in the name of Google.
Not to mention health education teaching our young programmers about mono;) i for one am one of those 5%ers who have never gotten mono (and likely never will)
I hate to correct your brilliantly informitive post, however the correct termonology would be 'love child.' Sex child? not even urban dictionary has heard of that...
No, you just shift the burden of taxation on wi-fi to the 'head' point it's true, then the person providing the 'free wifi' ends up paying the tax for you, instead of the person downloading the music, etc.. it is kinda a pie in the sky kinda pipe dream, le'ts say for the argument they made some sort fo law like that, then 'everyone' with a PC can become both a 'musician' and an 'author' even if you some how 'monitor' the popularity of various downloads, to pro-rate compensation, then someone clever can take advantage of free shells or exploits or open proxies to 'download' there 'own' music tens of thousands of times just to get a paycheck.
meanwhile you make broadband internet too expensive, etc etc.. you may as well legislate an 'interstate network' tax, to fund the federal government building a public infrastructure to provide high speed networking capapbilities to the masses... or simply paying exsiting network owners a subsidy to lower prices etc.
the problem is quite simply that computer software doesn't need patents at all. And these people who are arguing leftist philosphies aren't bringing home the point that Software Patents make it impossible for anyone to make software unless they pay tithe to the Patent Owner rulers. who dictate what 'fair market price' for software is going to be. Is that fair? does joh Q. constonction company pay tithe to some dude sitting on the patent for 90 degree offset wall studs? Because that's what software patents amount to. remember the whole controversy over DDR RAM and the fact that one company owned a Patent on the quantum efect of sending data at both the rise and the fall of a clock cycle? A patent on a quantum effect! wowo i'm gonna go patent a method for viewing yellow frequency light through an organic nerve receptor. and everyone who can see the collor yellow is gonna have to Pay me for the the right to see the collor yellow. fuck patents, copyright is ALL the protection software companies need to 'protect' there products from competition patents are all about giving control to the big boys, so everyone has to play by there rules.
Would you look at what patent payments have done to to the comemrcial software industry? prices keep going up, because you need to keep checking the patents to see if you can code a certain way, oh no you can't need to find a 'new' way to do it, that is less efficient, perhaps... lets patent the second best way fast boys so we can still produce software... that's exactly what today's comemrcial software industry is about. if you're going to be a major player it's about patenting the most efficient way to do things first. Otherwise you need to pay rents to the 'landlord' of the most efficient method. if they're so kind as to lease that method out to you...
Patents are bad, for EVERYONE except the king who holds the patents. Copyright itself is fine, copyright is more than enough protection, it protects you from having your trade secrets stolen etc. but patents take things way out of proportion and make the holder of the patents the 'king' of the hill. anyone who doesn't have enough money to make patents that are allow them to do the same things without having to pay patent fees is screwed by software patents.
copyright is more than enough protection for software, the reason the big boys like microsoft ar paying $$$ to political parties around the world to get software patents on the books is because as long as they hold the patents, they set the price of software, for everyone, everywhere.. because just as you can't make a hosue without wall studs, you can't make commercial software without permission of the patent holders. even free software will someday become illegal, because they have to change how they do things everytime they violate a patent, so to simply keep free software off the market all you have to do is calculate as many possible ways of doing things as you can and patent them all. eventually open source software has no viable options to create a working system that doesn't vio
and the funniest thing is that in most cases they're just hooking the existing wires back up. $240 per line? well when it takes a union worker an hour to screw back in one set of wires... the labor cost is pretty high.. especially when said union worker is guarenteed 5x minimum wage.. and can't be fired for piss poor performance...
Slashdot Mirror
part time job at the local isp, drop down an ipod sized device that is Powered over ethernet, and runs at layer two of the osi model between the isp's main connection and the internet in general, with scripts set to analize packet data, store enough of a buffer so when it detects a mp3 etc it can retrieve the whole file, and generatetes a forged frame to a system with an IDS alerat set for an unusual packet to alert you that you've scowered enough files and need to retrieve said device.
.001%... ;) (i think there are more than 650 people working in IT on the planet, hrm.. by at least 1000 fold.)
In this case, it's simply piracy... and the number of jobs available is still pretty limited, but nowhere near as small as 1%, much less
In case you're wondering, yes, This is why you want NetBSD to be running on your ipod color, and hack some sort of ethernet firewire/usb bridge.
Apparently IIS 6.0 got the brunt of the focus on 'security' since there has been one serious hole in part of IIS that is 'off' by default, and a minor issue where ie could be used to aquire information about scripts running on the host system.
http://secunia.com/product/1438/#advisories_2004
That's hardly "lip service" to security. Sure, IE hasn't gotten much better, and probably never will, but Microsoft's 'efforts' in security were aimed at making windows a 'real' option for a 'server' OS.
You are right though, windows is attractive because of the features, like sparkle, that are by nature insecure. It doesn't make any sense for MS to make the desktop any more 'secure' by default, as long as 'profesionals' can 'secure it' or teach users how not to get exploit xyz.. Imagine, how easy it would be for say, yahoo messenger or the likes to 'write' the IM client interface in sparkle, so that everytime they tweaked the UI people wouldn't have to be brought to some 'download now' page, but rather just be served a simple file off there webserver that could completely reskin the whole IM client interface.
Yes, I realise, Yahoo already uses flash for this, they call them IMvironments, and they only take over the UI for a single chat window. With Sparkle there would be no need for them to force users to constantly upgrade flash if they didn't use IE for websurfing etc. ,
Anything that's a "Flash killer" can't be all that bad...
A quick search untility
:) and make sure the robot can search even those pages for info that shouldn't be available on the web that easily.
I think you meant a 'Web' Robot.
http://www.robotstxt.org/wc/faq.html
programmed correctly you can even assign the robot a login/pass to default to when asked
large radial structures in the rings, where seen by the Voyager spacecraft and have remained difficult to fully explain.
Difficult to explain? clearly the RIAA heard that if you played the rings of saturn backwards on a record player you would hear some copyrighted music, so the dissapearing sections of the ring were clearly removed by cease and desit orders sent by RIAA lawyers to saturn.
Continued abuse of those protocols will simply give the industry the hammer they need to outlaw their use.
:) in this scenario computer A and C supposedly transefered an illegal document that would get my shot by 'his greatness our supremme commander for Life' meanwhile innoculous old computer B which just passed the data along, was really the computer that wanted a copy of the data. done right computer B doesn't even HAVE an ip address. it just operates on layer two of the OSI model, and looks no different from any other piece of hardware that allows data to be sent over a greater distance without needing an ip address.
:) so when do we get a p2p app that operates by default on layer 2 of the OSI model, pretending to be a switch between some random ip address that isn't in use and the real IP of the person downloading the file ;) ;)
So you're saying they're gonna outlaw the internet huh?
No matter how many times you encrypt a packet and sneak it around the net, at some point in time you, the recipient, have to actually receive it at your IP address
you don't understand much about how the internet works. Let't say I am the evil hacker downloading the 'constitution' because you know it's been modified and i'm distributing the unmodified text. But I'm sneaking the packet around and don't want to look like i am recieving it. as long as i set it up so that MY computer is a route between two compromized systems the end destination of that packet isn't me, but i can have manipulate and swipe a copy of all that data without anyone on the entire internet being aware of anything other than the fact 'that packet passed through' my system. so now instead of blaming me, you're balming the compromised system of someone's 80 year old grandmother, and when you sieze her computer there is no trace of who exploited her, nor of any of the 'files' that supposedly were downloaded to her computer.
see
so there you go
the data might have gone Through my computer network Sir, But as you can See my System is Clean of any suspicious files or activities!
i use the feature every time i post on gamefaqs. you can guess my user name ;) haven't been active lately Oh if only i had a SP and and the new Wars game for SP i might even bother writing some FAQs again ^^;
nah i don't have time for that... i don't even have time to post here... oh well. argh my internal code is broken, i only have a 'avoid work' and 'sleep' mode... meh
Actually, the mozilla project was floating around with no real support, as AOL decided they didn't need a browser coding group. or an open source browser, so Mozilla was given a bunch of cash, and let loose, open source deveopers kept working on mozilla, but they choose to 'promote firefox', over the whole 'suite' of mozilla 1.x mozilla is still being developed, firefox continues to get the 'attention' and has gotten a more and more IE style feature set, while Mozilla 1.x retains it's netscape style interface and capabilities.
;) well, the people clicking on those ads, and paying to support empire google would probably be paying to support someone elses ad empire, either via tv, or other internet companies etc.. at least google has the philosophy of being unobtrusive, about it. to the point that the code is running on there systems not ours, and the data is data that anyone seeing the packets could have collected... so i suppose one could call it 'not evil' if one accepts that advertising is an unavoidable consequence of increased capability for sharing data.
Clearly the mozilla foundation must be getting something for having google integrated, but without some kind of support they'd just be YAN 'all volunteer' open source project that 'gets worked on when the volunteers have time to' google has the motto of 'don't be evil' but 'tracking people, to better serve them ads' is apparently not evil, when said ads as 'unobtrusive text that can't be blocked by not loading images..'
Unless you have some evidence that google has pressured the mozilla foundation to 'drop' the netscape style suite then don't jump to conclusions. It's more likely that once AOL dropped support they could only do so much to stay afloat, and part of that included a massive push for browser share. Firefox is closer to IE in capabilities, so it was the target they choose to push.
Soylent Gasoline is made FROM PEOPLE...
80 million was a low estimate 160 million was the high estimate. the point is it does NOT cost $600 for intel to produce and sell a CPU. Was that 5 bn for this year alone? or was it for the 4 years they've been selling P 4 CPUS? if it was for this year alone your number of $62-31 per chip remains valid, if it was the 'total development cost of the current p4 chips' then that development cost is being spread across multiple years sales, and the product has a life cycle of 18-24 months.. then the cost falls to somewhere in the $40-10 per chip range.
0 050908corp.htm
;) there is no way in hell it cost intel more than $100 to make that chip, including R&D costs. and yes I know they have to 'hand pick' chips that will run that fast because they were on the best silicon and were etched flawlessly. They price them at $1,000 a chip in part so that they can realistically supply as many 'Extreme' chips as people who are willing to pay $1,000 for them.
i appreciate being corrected but, no-one really did a very good job of pointing out that the total cost per chip is averaging out well below the average selling point of pentium 4 chips. intel is minting money, because people are willing to pay $600 for a 'good' perfomance chip.
here, read the profit and growth expectations from the horses own mouth http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/2
Double digit growth, and they gross 60% profit. 60% that means for every dollar they take in only 40 cents is going to operating costs, including marketing etc. nothing wrong with that, just pointing it out. some people on the internet are making profit selling prescot 2.4 ghz chips at $112 a chip, that means intel is selling them at or below that price. Even if you consider that a large volume of the chips intel sells are the 'slow' chips they are not taking a 'loss' on any chip they sell, not with the profit margin they're showing.
So are people paying $1,000 for a Pentium 4 d Extreme being ripped off? of course
Also they could be trying to avoid undercutting AMD because they probably could easily, if they decided to stop minting money and just ruthlessly price everyone else out of the business. Simultaniously AMD is bitching about Intel having the power to Set prices artificially high etc. when if intel decided to say got for a 10% profit margin they would say drop the average price of a chip to $120, while still maintaining some sort of tier structure to make sure they could supply enough high speed chips.. and AMD would be borrowing money to sell chips at the price intel could, because unlike intel they only have 8-16 million chips a year going out the door...while the R&D costs remain largely the same.
intel mints money with every chip they sell, no matter if those chips cost $40, $76, or $96 a chip to produce...
the cost of materials is $1.50 the cost of labor is $1.50 the cost of plants and R&D is $37 per chip.
Yeah i might be a little off on those numbers but it's pretty close, how do i know? Apple sells ~4 million apple computers per year, they have abotu 2-4% of the PC market, Intel CPUs account for something like 80% of the market that means if apple is selling a million, intel is selling 20-40 million. intel is selling at least 80 million pentium 4 cpus a year. if the the fab equipment costs 2 bn, (the fab itself obviously costs more) and has to be replaced every year, and you sell 80 million units that's either $25 or $12.50 per chip.
$40 a chip to make a chip, when you're selling anywhere between 80 million and 160 million a year ? I'd believe it.
and if slashcode was written efficently it would have a built in spell-checker like for example gamefaqs has. n then when u r talking like this it would tell u to correct them.
excuse me i can't count. 7200 coins ~= 90 lbs = $1,800 sorry my brain has a serious flaw in the math co processor, i would have gotten it fixed but they didn't sell any replacement parts for it.
i shall help thee a buck in quarters is 22.68 grams or 0.800013457 ounces there are 16 ounces in a pound. so $20 is almost exactly one pound. (.0002691 oz over) so if you weigh 90 lbs you weight closest to $359.75 in quarters. (also know as 1439 quarters)
Your average PC is absolutely awash in power it doesn't need. 20 years of "your computer is obsolete as soon as you buy it" has crashed out into "your five-year-old computer technically isn't obsolete yet".
First of all, computers have always been on a fairly constant cycle of getting faster, but it's never been 'overnight' except for people who go out and buy the bargain PCs the day before they release the new 'latest greatest' models. so, 'your computer is obsolete as soon as you buy it' only applies to clueless people who are buying 2-3 year old hardware 'brand new' because it was selling 'cheaply.' it's true, that most 'retail vendors' have a really hard time getting products to market 'when they're new' but that's changed a lot with the likes of dell who sells the computer they made last week.. so even people buying at retail level are generally getting newer hardware than they were when companies took months and months to years to develop and market products.
As far as the latter goes 'your 5 year old PC' is pretty useless. word processing goes slow, agonizingly slow compared to a 'modern' system. web browsing same deal, although technically that computer can Barely Manage those tasks, it requires Full operating power to do basic everyday tasks! now a modern PC doesn't even break a sweat for any of that...
I have a nice system i built almost 4 years ago, and i built it with the best parts I could, even so it still came to under 1 grand. That system is still 'fast enough' for word processing and web browsing, and it can even handle many modern games , as long as you set them to fugly mode. It's in dire need or replacement though, maybe i can stretch it to 5 years, if i gave up PC gaming, and it will be able to handle web browsing for years to come.. but it is obsolete.. has been for at least 2 years, it just hasn't been 'so awful' I would stop using it.
But it is true, software makers are having a hard time making 'consumers' feel like they need to buy faster hardware. is that some tragic end of the world doomsday scenario? Wow i don't think so, how long have car makers had so very little they could do to make 'faster' more powerful cars? yet do people not go out and buy new cars still? There are Already people who want to believe that once they buy a PC they should never have to buy a new one, ever.
Personally, i'll always love the faster newer computers, but the next system i built will probablly have to make due for a long time kinda like this one did.
sure the desert is cold at night but you're not going to make some thing colder than the air around it
8 5221.Ph.r.html
Actually air is a pretty good insulator. It has relatively low thermal conductivity, that's why we need blankets, to reflect the heat back at our bodies at night. generally speaking, water by it's own will radiate it's own heat into space, and cool off below the temperature of the air. My aunt and uncle had a pool, one summer night the temp got down to 60 and someone forgot to put the pool cover on, and by morning the pool temp was down to about 40F that was just from the radiant/evaporate effect of standing water.
so yeah, having a container and array designed to allow even more heat to radiate away, would allow ice to form anywhere where the temp gets to 60F on a clear summer night the bags they used for that probably would have been unnecesary, although they would help prevent convection warming from the 'cold air' becomming heavier and dropping from around the jar and creating a current.
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/jan2000/9489
you apparently have never been in a true desert on a cloudless night in the middle of summer. even in july in cairo the desert night has been capable of dropping to 66F and that's considering the radiant heat from the desert sand heating up the night.. so, lets say you reflect the heat of the sand away, and radiate the heat of the sun into space. you then only gain back heat from the air temp. if the reflector is pure silver, rather than aluminium, and the jar was made of volcanic glass, rather than 'spray painted' glass jars.. there is no reason why you couldn't radiate away more than enough heat to cause water to freeze. Remember obsidian and silver were more accessable to the egyptians than extracting aluminum from boxite (a processes invented in the 20th century) or blowing jars from glass made by melting sand..
linux etc. have been working on being 'ready' for 64-bit systems for a while now, and many programs are written so that the compiler can adjust the code to work better when compliled as optomized for a certain cpu etc, as another poster mentioned here Linux apps tend to get a good boost when recomplied for 64-bit, just from the compiler options being given at compile time. admitedly 10-15% isn't that 'huge' a gap but the code executable was only tweaked as much as the gcc could do so without the code being written specifically for 64-bit cpus.
;) Also, it's pretty hard to write an app for 64-bit that Won't slow down terribly on 32-bit machines.
So yeah, I'd have to agree, these synthetic benchmarks are pretty useless other than to say 'amd-64 cpus have a really good 32-bit mode.' which is not really that big of news
I think the point you're trying to make is that GP can't unstand that standard flash memory _cards_ allow for up to 16 individual _chips_. each individual chip is 16 Gbit, or 2 GB. and 16Gx16 is how a memory modual capacity is written and calculated, but c'mon this is slashdot do you really expect somone whos modded to +5 insightful to Understand Computers Enough To Know how to do basic multiplication, or that the RAM/solid state indusry has used the same convention since you no longer had to soldier the chips directly to the board?
Shimon Gendlin is an interesting guy.. he's got a bunch of patents and has always 'supposedly' had technology 5 years ahead of the industry, no matter Where the industry was. The atomchip site itself looks almost like a joke, but he was supposedly walking around with working chips of 128MB per chip in the late 90's
to me, he looks like a shyster, he's supposedly had all this awesome 'light years ahead' technology, and no here 8 years later after 'supposedly' having technology that would revolutionize non-volitile memory this guy still is pawning off surealistic claims for hardware that if he has pictures are 'easily mocked up' style pictures.
IMO everyone who's given him money has been paying his lifestyle of selling vaporware to make a 'free' living of not working... I'm sure he must have gotten money, because he's still at it trying to get more after 8 years of not producing any real products. with 'vaugely worded patents' that sound as bad as his websites.. it's sickening that he GOT the patents he got, but hey anyone who pays the fee gets the rubber stamp as long as it hasn't been patented before...
There are projects dealing with security, networking, VoIP, Java, mono
;) i for one am one of those 5%ers who have never gotten mono (and likely never will)
There is nothing like the highest worth technology company paying students to work their ass off in the summer to make and improve products and open source software in the name of Google.
Not to mention health education teaching our young programmers about mono
I hate to correct your brilliantly informitive post, however the correct termonology would be 'love child.' Sex child? not even urban dictionary has heard of that...
No, you just shift the burden of taxation on wi-fi to the 'head' point it's true, then the person providing the 'free wifi' ends up paying the tax for you, instead of the person downloading the music, etc.. it is kinda a pie in the sky kinda pipe dream, le'ts say for the argument they made some sort fo law like that, then 'everyone' with a PC can become both a 'musician' and an 'author' even if you some how 'monitor' the popularity of various downloads, to pro-rate compensation, then someone clever can take advantage of free shells or exploits or open proxies to 'download' there 'own' music tens of thousands of times just to get a paycheck.
meanwhile you make broadband internet too expensive, etc etc.. you may as well legislate an 'interstate network' tax, to fund the federal government building a public infrastructure to provide high speed networking capapbilities to the masses... or simply paying exsiting network owners a subsidy to lower prices etc.
the problem is quite simply that computer software doesn't need patents at all. And these people who are arguing leftist philosphies aren't bringing home the point that Software Patents make it impossible for anyone to make software unless they pay tithe to the Patent Owner rulers. who dictate what 'fair market price' for software is going to be. Is that fair? does joh Q. constonction company pay tithe to some dude sitting on the patent for 90 degree offset wall studs? Because that's what software patents amount to. remember the whole controversy over DDR RAM and the fact that one company owned a Patent on the quantum efect of sending data at both the rise and the fall of a clock cycle? A patent on a quantum effect! wowo i'm gonna go patent a method for viewing yellow frequency light through an organic nerve receptor. and everyone who can see the collor yellow is gonna have to Pay me for the the right to see the collor yellow. fuck patents, copyright is ALL the protection software companies need to 'protect' there products from competition patents are all about giving control to the big boys, so everyone has to play by there rules.
Would you look at what patent payments have done to to the comemrcial software industry? prices keep going up, because you need to keep checking the patents to see if you can code a certain way, oh no you can't need to find a 'new' way to do it, that is less efficient, perhaps... lets patent the second best way fast boys so we can still produce software... that's exactly what today's comemrcial software industry is about. if you're going to be a major player it's about patenting the most efficient way to do things first. Otherwise you need to pay rents to the 'landlord' of the most efficient method. if they're so kind as to lease that method out to you...
Patents are bad, for EVERYONE except the king who holds the patents. Copyright itself is fine, copyright is more than enough protection, it protects you from having your trade secrets stolen etc. but patents take things way out of proportion and make the holder of the patents the 'king' of the hill. anyone who doesn't have enough money to make patents that are allow them to do the same things without having to pay patent fees is screwed by software patents.
copyright is more than enough protection for software, the reason the big boys like microsoft ar paying $$$ to political parties around the world to get software patents on the books is because as long as they hold the patents, they set the price of software, for everyone, everywhere.. because just as you can't make a hosue without wall studs, you can't make commercial software without permission of the patent holders. even free software will someday become illegal, because they have to change how they do things everytime they violate a patent, so to simply keep free software off the market all you have to do is calculate as many possible ways of doing things as you can and patent them all. eventually open source software has no viable options to create a working system that doesn't vio
and the funniest thing is that in most cases they're just hooking the existing wires back up. $240 per line? well when it takes a union worker an hour to screw back in one set of wires... the labor cost is pretty high.. especially when said union worker is guarenteed 5x minimum wage.. and can't be fired for piss poor performance...
so your sexbot has voice responses? cool.