Does anyone have any info on the amount of bloat the is actually embedded graphics information? I have no direct data but from the apps I see the big ones always has a lot of still-frame and full-motion video component embedded in it. Almost always games and entertainment, not business or utilities.
Won't electric cars use mostly regenerative braking in cities, making this point moot?
I have been driving a hybrid mini-SUV since 2008 and have 120,000 miles on it. I replaced the disc pads once and they were only 20% worn. (I wouldn't have replaced them at all but I was getting a package service deal.)
I would expect an electric car to have about the same brake wear.
it's buying hardware and services to set up the production facility... big difference
Absolutely. This post should be modded up 1000.
What this also represents is a near perfect case study as to why most Republicans are sheer nonsense when it comes to the economic of taxation. They will try to convince you that if rich people and rich corporations accumulate enough cash they will start to "create jobs." So we need tax cuts or else nobody will create jobs.
Pure BS. There is one reason and one reason only that a (well run) corporation will spend money to create jobs. It is because they are following a business plan to get customers to buy their service or product. Because they see a market they can win at. Anything else and they will turtle up and hoard cash and lay people off if necessary to stop bleeding.
In this case Tesla has a $1B backlog. They know the customers are there and they are using a lot of its available cash to employ people. Either directly or by buying stuff from their vendors. Tesla has nowhere near the amount of cash on hand than many companies that are looking for a tax cut.
So this is why they are not "burning cash." They are generating revenue. Profitable revenue which they will likely spend, not burn, creating the next generation product to expand their market space.
Japan has many rail lines that did not exist before WWII. And they tore down lots of buildings owned by people to make them. Do you really think they had no growth since WWII? Rofl, that is bollocks.
Of course the kept many of the older lines and abandoned others. You can take a tour of them and there is such a thing as train otaku. There is also a recent anime all about their trains called Rail Wars.
Side note: there is a guy who survived the bomb on Hiroshima, then took the train to Nagasaki where later he survived the bomb there. I forget his name at the moment but he was living a few years ago still.
Another hyper loop news item thread. And still no mention anywhere about how they are going to deal with the problem of containment failures. Everything else they are doing is basically routine in comparison.
I am not a naysayer and I would love it if they actually managed to implement this. I just don't see how.
Japan has a functional train system with cities designed around them.
Not exactly. At the beginning their towns and cities were destroyed to make train lines to no small effect on the people whose land was needed. That's true everywhere but in the U.S. you seem to have more problems than elsewhere getting land from trains.
I have never been an intern but I have worked at lower-paying jobs during a period where I was in transition and didn't expect to be there long. Just to keep from depleting savings during that time.
The problem is that in a job interview where they review your employment history they will consider your past pay to determine what to offer you. (We aren't going to bump you up 200%). They will actually pay more to another candidate with less skills but higher past earnings for the exact same position. It isn't necessarily logical but I always suspected I would have been better being unemployed than low-pay employed..
So I can imagine the same thing happens to unpaid interns.
Somebody is writing as if they believe that a major corporation with unlimited amounts of cash joining a trade group reveals anything about that corporation's intent with regard to that trade group's goals or anything else.
Way back in the 90s my little company was targeted by a patent troll. We were small potatoes but the co-defendents included Intel, IBM, and Digital. It seems some law firm was convinced that Ethernet infringed on some arbitration mechanism ARCnet used and they got the patent for it (from Datapoint I recall) so it was off to the horizon. They saw dollar signs.
Nothing ever came of it of course but it was still annoying to say the least to get served papers while we ere still trying to get one of our first products established.
I wish we could come up with a way to slap down patent trolls without making it harder for legitimate patent holders to defend their IP. I can't think of any.
Intel likes to jump into a space and throw resources at a problem hoping to out-compete the industry leader(s). I can't remember a successful effort with that strategy though.
Intel has had several successes. In the non-CPU product line the Network Products group (not switches) has done pretty well.
They have also had a pretty good lasting impact on industry initiatives that they sponsored, like PCI. DPDK looks like it is getting lots of traction for something that used to be just a Intel proprietary download. Also look at any community forum like those from IEEE or IETF. You see lots of intel.com engineers contributions there.
I am all in favor of them using their considerable resources to incubate technologies and products. The moral of the story which is hard for some people to learn is do not assume that it is going to be successful or that it is even going to continue just because Intel is behind it now.
This is about the 15th iteration I have witnessed of this.
Step 1: Somebody at Intel gets a Bright Idea to develop some new market. We gots lots o cash so why not lets do it. (i.e. collect underpants)
Step 2:...
Step 3: Profit.
Step 3.1: Er, no profit. We ended up not owning the market. Pull the plug lets get back to our core competency: i386-architecture processors it is. What's AMD been doing recently?
I needed a USB drive yesterday and when I went online to get one I noticed Amazon said that since I had a Prime account it was eligible for free same day delivery. On top of that their price was about $15 less than the local retail. (This was a 5TB Seagate, now in service backing stuff up).
So I ordered, scheduled for delivery in the afternoon, and it came and I thought pretty amazing.
What I didn't notice until later is that although there was no shipping charge there was a $12 tip for the driver ordered by default. Even had I noticed I don't pull tips from working guys/gals so the end result is that the "free" shipping cost me more than had I just gone with Amazon's regular next day free shipping.
Caveat emptor and all that. I am all for regulated free market capitalism and I don't think Bezos/Amazon is evil but it is sort of ironic that real the effect (whether it was the intent or not) of AP delivery was to get me to pay the low-end worker directly for work that Amazon now doesn't have to pay for.
I always go back to Debian (albeit using Cinnamon as the desktop). It is generally the most problem-free of the distributions, especially considering that I run it on a laptop.
Just curious... what advantage do you see with Debian over Ubuntu? It sounds like you are calling them out for a negative value-add.
I'm not trying to pick a fight. I just use Ubuntu a lot and I wonder if I am missing something.
The number of spaces preceding a statement determines the scope of that statement? Wow. That seems totally nonsensical to me.
You would have had a hard time learning programming back in the day with FORTRAN IV on punched cards. A continuation line had a "-" in column 6 and columns 7-71 were for language statements.
Also, I never used it but RPG might have been actually dangerous for you.
You DO realize there is a difference between Ownership, and Paying for a Service, right?
I do. Apparently you do not. I will try one more time.
I paid for my copy of Office 95. I can use it indefinitely.
Likewise, OpenOffice / LibreOffice doesn't charge me an usage fee. It doesn't nickel and dime me every year.
How much Cloud storage comes with your copy of Office 95? I get 1TB with Office 365 per user.
How many Skype-to-landline minutes do you get with your copy of LibreOffice? I get 60 minutes per user per month. That can save me about $300 per month in international calls when I travel overseas.
Online or on-phone tech support? You can buy that separately but now you are "nickel and dime"ed, right? Have your credit card ready. Maybe your time is worth $0/hour but mine is not. Even if I never use it it is still worth having as a form of insurance. You don't buy insurance because of you are certain to use it.
So you don't like the updates. Sure not everybody does but I interact with people who DO like them and DO use them and they pay me to work on their level, not to drag them down to your level. Features like online collaboration and new formats to import/export come to mind, but the bug fixes are probably more important. Not having to spend a half hour here and there resolving why a document appears this way here and that way there over the phone is more than worth the cost of the service all by itself.
Pro tip: if you are going to be so free with "you are an idiot" talk you should probably do a bit more reading first.
Please list some of these features the average person can't live without.
As I have written above, if it weren't for business I probably wouldn't bother with MS Office at all. I make no pretense for speaking for the "average" person but as the article states, a lot of people have opted for the Office 365 over the one-time license. Maybe that majority is the elite or maybe they represent the average. I don't care.
I have no interest in a pointless series of quibbles about whether this or that feature the added/removed/changed in one version to the next is desirable or not. There are many web pages that list what the changes are and what their benefits are. But you don't like them. Fine. Other people do.
As for business my time is worth such that if the phone/online support that comes with Office 365 ends up saving me one hour per year of time that I can convert to billable hours then I am money ahead for that year. Same goes for the cloud storage and online collaboration which some customers uses. It amounts to more billable hours from my side.
If your time is worth $0 or you don't see anything in Office 365 package would not save you time then yes, I would say staying with the one-time license deal for the obsolete version of the software is the better decision for you.
If those things help you, great, but don't use those features as arguments as to why online office is better than the 20xx versions because I believe they aren't useful to the masses.
I don't speak for the masses and if it weren't for business I probably wouldn't bother with Office at all. I have no inside track into Microsoft but it seems they are aware of that so they are apparently successfully transitioning from a software product vendor to a software-and-services vendor. That changes the equations a lot more than many posters in this thread are aware.
For example, the Skype perk where I can call land lines from Skype for 60 minutes a month. If I go to Japan or Korea (it won't work in China) or somewhere else where cell phone minutes are $6/minute to back home, and I use 50 minutes of talk time, I have just saved $300 on my international bill. In that one month. That pays for Office 365 for 3 years.
Of course I can find other VoIP solutions that will avoid the international call charges but dear old Microsoft is doing their best to build an overall services package gets and keeps me as a customer because it is a better deal. Isn't that what capitalism is supposed to be based on?
Apparently I am not alone in seeing this. The article points out that MS now sells more Office 365 than one-time licenses for Office. But you wouldn't know it from the heated responses I drew in this thread.
Only an idiot keeps paying for the same thing over and over again.
So do you pay your utility companies, ISP, health care provider, insurance and other services you use over time? I guess you are an idiot. Thank you for sharing.
If you want to be a grown up you have to be able to do basic math. Paying more over time isn't smart or intelligent. It doesn't make you a grown up. It doesn't improve cash flow. It is simply throwing money away for no reason.
If you assume Office 365 === Office 2010 then you might have a point about basic math. Office 365 comes with many features and services that you do not get with an one-time license to Office 2010.
From a business point of view, what it costs is just a business expense and is either worth it or it isn't.
The bigger reason we won't rent software for anything truly essential to our business operations is that it can be changed, made more expensive, or even entirely turned off, at any time, according to nothing but the whims of the software developer.
Your theory seems to be based on the idea that Microsoft will cut off their revenue stream from you for no purpose other than buggery and to piss you off. Sorry but I just don't find this very convincing.
I agree that the Microsoft suite is by no means as essential as it once was. This is actually a good thing because to keep Microsoft will then have pressure to improve the product rather than just relying on droits.
And if you want to be a smart grown up, you don't pay more for things than you need to, especially by paying over and over again for things you can just pay for once.
Office 365 has a lot of features that Office 20xx did not have. You did not get 5TB of cloud storage with Office 20xx for one thing. Or online support. Or 60 minutes of Skype to landline calls per month. Or phone support. So to come up with a valid comparison you have to realize that the product+services of Office 365 is not the same as the product-only of an obsolete version of the software.
Slashdot Mirror
Does anyone have any info on the amount of bloat the is actually embedded graphics information? I have no direct data but from the apps I see the big ones always has a lot of still-frame and full-motion video component embedded in it. Almost always games and entertainment, not business or utilities.
Won't electric cars use mostly regenerative braking in cities, making this point moot?
I have been driving a hybrid mini-SUV since 2008 and have 120,000 miles on it. I replaced the disc pads once and they were only 20% worn. (I wouldn't have replaced them at all but I was getting a package service deal.)
I would expect an electric car to have about the same brake wear.
it's buying hardware and services to set up the production facility... big difference
Absolutely. This post should be modded up 1000.
What this also represents is a near perfect case study as to why most Republicans are sheer nonsense when it comes to the economic of taxation. They will try to convince you that if rich people and rich corporations accumulate enough cash they will start to "create jobs." So we need tax cuts or else nobody will create jobs.
Pure BS. There is one reason and one reason only that a (well run) corporation will spend money to create jobs. It is because they are following a business plan to get customers to buy their service or product. Because they see a market they can win at. Anything else and they will turtle up and hoard cash and lay people off if necessary to stop bleeding.
In this case Tesla has a $1B backlog. They know the customers are there and they are using a lot of its available cash to employ people. Either directly or by buying stuff from their vendors. Tesla has nowhere near the amount of cash on hand than many companies that are looking for a tax cut.
So this is why they are not "burning cash." They are generating revenue. Profitable revenue which they will likely spend, not burn, creating the next generation product to expand their market space.
Japan has many rail lines that did not exist before WWII. And they tore down lots of buildings owned by people to make them. Do you really think they had no growth since WWII? Rofl, that is bollocks.
Of course the kept many of the older lines and abandoned others. You can take a tour of them and there is such a thing as train otaku. There is also a recent anime all about their trains called Rail Wars.
Side note: there is a guy who survived the bomb on Hiroshima, then took the train to Nagasaki where later he survived the bomb there. I forget his name at the moment but he was living a few years ago still.
Another hyper loop news item thread. And still no mention anywhere about how they are going to deal with the problem of containment failures. Everything else they are doing is basically routine in comparison.
I am not a naysayer and I would love it if they actually managed to implement this. I just don't see how.
Japan has a functional train system with cities designed around them.
Not exactly. At the beginning their towns and cities were destroyed to make train lines to no small effect on the people whose land was needed. That's true everywhere but in the U.S. you seem to have more problems than elsewhere getting land from trains.
I have never been an intern but I have worked at lower-paying jobs during a period where I was in transition and didn't expect to be there long. Just to keep from depleting savings during that time.
The problem is that in a job interview where they review your employment history they will consider your past pay to determine what to offer you. (We aren't going to bump you up 200%). They will actually pay more to another candidate with less skills but higher past earnings for the exact same position. It isn't necessarily logical but I always suspected I would have been better being unemployed than low-pay employed..
So I can imagine the same thing happens to unpaid interns.
Somebody is writing as if they believe that a major corporation with unlimited amounts of cash joining a trade group reveals anything about that corporation's intent with regard to that trade group's goals or anything else.
Way back in the 90s my little company was targeted by a patent troll. We were small potatoes but the co-defendents included Intel, IBM, and Digital. It seems some law firm was convinced that Ethernet infringed on some arbitration mechanism ARCnet used and they got the patent for it (from Datapoint I recall) so it was off to the horizon. They saw dollar signs.
Nothing ever came of it of course but it was still annoying to say the least to get served papers while we ere still trying to get one of our first products established.
I wish we could come up with a way to slap down patent trolls without making it harder for legitimate patent holders to defend their IP. I can't think of any.
Did I miss anything?
Reaction-less engines
Space Elevator
Hyperloop
Vat grown meat
Having infinite amounts of money is pretty cool actually.
Intel likes to jump into a space and throw resources at a problem hoping to out-compete the industry leader(s). I can't remember a successful effort with that strategy though.
Intel has had several successes. In the non-CPU product line the Network Products group (not switches) has done pretty well.
They have also had a pretty good lasting impact on industry initiatives that they sponsored, like PCI. DPDK looks like it is getting lots of traction for something that used to be just a Intel proprietary download. Also look at any community forum like those from IEEE or IETF. You see lots of intel.com engineers contributions there.
I am all in favor of them using their considerable resources to incubate technologies and products. The moral of the story which is hard for some people to learn is do not assume that it is going to be successful or that it is even going to continue just because Intel is behind it now.
This is about the 15th iteration I have witnessed of this.
Step 1: Somebody at Intel gets a Bright Idea to develop some new market. We gots lots o cash so why not lets do it. (i.e. collect underpants)
Step 2: ...
Step 3: Profit.
Step 3.1: Er, no profit. We ended up not owning the market. Pull the plug lets get back to our core competency: i386-architecture processors it is. What's AMD been doing recently?
I needed a USB drive yesterday and when I went online to get one I noticed Amazon said that since I had a Prime account it was eligible for free same day delivery. On top of that their price was about $15 less than the local retail. (This was a 5TB Seagate, now in service backing stuff up).
So I ordered, scheduled for delivery in the afternoon, and it came and I thought pretty amazing.
What I didn't notice until later is that although there was no shipping charge there was a $12 tip for the driver ordered by default. Even had I noticed I don't pull tips from working guys/gals so the end result is that the "free" shipping cost me more than had I just gone with Amazon's regular next day free shipping.
Caveat emptor and all that. I am all for regulated free market capitalism and I don't think Bezos/Amazon is evil but it is sort of ironic that real the effect (whether it was the intent or not) of AP delivery was to get me to pay the low-end worker directly for work that Amazon now doesn't have to pay for.
And that's all I have to say about that.
Trump hates wind farms.
Here is one of the defining events of my acceptance of the GUI world after having used CLIs and punched card desk before.
I always go back to Debian (albeit using Cinnamon as the desktop). It is generally the most problem-free of the distributions, especially considering that I run it on a laptop.
Just curious ... what advantage do you see with Debian over Ubuntu? It sounds like you are calling them out for a negative value-add.
I'm not trying to pick a fight. I just use Ubuntu a lot and I wonder if I am missing something.
The number of spaces preceding a statement determines the scope of that statement? Wow. That seems totally nonsensical to me.
You would have had a hard time learning programming back in the day with FORTRAN IV on punched cards. A continuation line had a "-" in column 6 and columns 7-71 were for language statements.
Also, I never used it but RPG might have been actually dangerous for you.
You DO realize there is a difference between Ownership, and Paying for a Service, right?
I do. Apparently you do not. I will try one more time.
I paid for my copy of Office 95. I can use it indefinitely.
Likewise, OpenOffice / LibreOffice doesn't charge me an usage fee. It doesn't nickel and dime me every year.
How much Cloud storage comes with your copy of Office 95? I get 1TB with Office 365 per user.
How many Skype-to-landline minutes do you get with your copy of LibreOffice? I get 60 minutes per user per month. That can save me about $300 per month in international calls when I travel overseas.
Online or on-phone tech support? You can buy that separately but now you are "nickel and dime"ed, right? Have your credit card ready. Maybe your time is worth $0/hour but mine is not. Even if I never use it it is still worth having as a form of insurance. You don't buy insurance because of you are certain to use it.
So you don't like the updates. Sure not everybody does but I interact with people who DO like them and DO use them and they pay me to work on their level, not to drag them down to your level. Features like online collaboration and new formats to import/export come to mind, but the bug fixes are probably more important. Not having to spend a half hour here and there resolving why a document appears this way here and that way there over the phone is more than worth the cost of the service all by itself.
Pro tip: if you are going to be so free with "you are an idiot" talk you should probably do a bit more reading first.
What's the mechanism for voting the President out of office, exactly?
There is no mechanism for that in the Constitution.
Please list some of these features the average person can't live without.
As I have written above, if it weren't for business I probably wouldn't bother with MS Office at all. I make no pretense for speaking for the "average" person but as the article states, a lot of people have opted for the Office 365 over the one-time license. Maybe that majority is the elite or maybe they represent the average. I don't care.
I have no interest in a pointless series of quibbles about whether this or that feature the added/removed/changed in one version to the next is desirable or not. There are many web pages that list what the changes are and what their benefits are. But you don't like them. Fine. Other people do.
As for business my time is worth such that if the phone/online support that comes with Office 365 ends up saving me one hour per year of time that I can convert to billable hours then I am money ahead for that year. Same goes for the cloud storage and online collaboration which some customers uses. It amounts to more billable hours from my side.
If your time is worth $0 or you don't see anything in Office 365 package would not save you time then yes, I would say staying with the one-time license deal for the obsolete version of the software is the better decision for you.
If those things help you, great, but don't use those features as arguments as to why online office is better than the 20xx versions because I believe they aren't useful to the masses.
I don't speak for the masses and if it weren't for business I probably wouldn't bother with Office at all. I have no inside track into Microsoft but it seems they are aware of that so they are apparently successfully transitioning from a software product vendor to a software-and-services vendor. That changes the equations a lot more than many posters in this thread are aware.
For example, the Skype perk where I can call land lines from Skype for 60 minutes a month. If I go to Japan or Korea (it won't work in China) or somewhere else where cell phone minutes are $6/minute to back home, and I use 50 minutes of talk time, I have just saved $300 on my international bill. In that one month. That pays for Office 365 for 3 years.
Of course I can find other VoIP solutions that will avoid the international call charges but dear old Microsoft is doing their best to build an overall services package gets and keeps me as a customer because it is a better deal. Isn't that what capitalism is supposed to be based on?
Apparently I am not alone in seeing this. The article points out that MS now sells more Office 365 than one-time licenses for Office. But you wouldn't know it from the heated responses I drew in this thread.
Only an idiot keeps paying for the same thing over and over again.
So do you pay your utility companies, ISP, health care provider, insurance and other services you use over time? I guess you are an idiot. Thank you for sharing.
If you want to be a grown up you have to be able to do basic math. Paying more over time isn't smart or intelligent. It doesn't make you a grown up. It doesn't improve cash flow. It is simply throwing money away for no reason.
If you assume Office 365 === Office 2010 then you might have a point about basic math. Office 365 comes with many features and services that you do not get with an one-time license to Office 2010.
From a business point of view, what it costs is just a business expense and is either worth it or it isn't.
The bigger reason we won't rent software for anything truly essential to our business operations is that it can be changed, made more expensive, or even entirely turned off, at any time, according to nothing but the whims of the software developer.
Your theory seems to be based on the idea that Microsoft will cut off their revenue stream from you for no purpose other than buggery and to piss you off. Sorry but I just don't find this very convincing.
I agree that the Microsoft suite is by no means as essential as it once was. This is actually a good thing because to keep Microsoft will then have pressure to improve the product rather than just relying on droits.
And if you want to be a smart grown up, you don't pay more for things than you need to, especially by paying over and over again for things you can just pay for once.
Office 365 has a lot of features that Office 20xx did not have. You did not get 5TB of cloud storage with Office 20xx for one thing. Or online support. Or 60 minutes of Skype to landline calls per month. Or phone support. So to come up with a valid comparison you have to realize that the product+services of Office 365 is not the same as the product-only of an obsolete version of the software.