Huh, the guy said it was impossible to make things in the US, I gave counterexamples where I have seen those very things made in the US, how is that possibly a fallacy?
We exported $1.3T worth of manufactured goods last year, only imports of oil and trade imbalance with China based mostly on the artificially fixed Yuan left us as net importers. The US is still responsible for 21% of world manufacturing despite decades of shortsighted policies by Wallstreet and the MBA cast. Right now is a good time for us to reevaluate where we want to be, if we want to give up on remaining the worlds number one economy we can continue down the outsourcing path, or we could put the ~21% of the population in the midwest that are un/underemployed back to work making things. Unfortunately since that would mean slightly smaller Berger boats for the top 1% it's unlikely to happen.
The highly polished injection-molded case is made in China because the US supplier base eroded as the manufacture of toys, consumer electronics and computers migrated to China.
Considering I've worked on advanced injection molding machines IN the US this is such pure bullhockey.
The controller board is made in China because US companies long ago transferred manufacture of printed circuit boards to Asia.
Another BS line, again I've worked with an assembly line making PCB's and finished boards, right here in the midwest.
The Lithium polymer battery is made in China because battery development and manufacturing migrated to China along with the development and manufacture of consumer electronics and notebook computers.
The worlds largest lithium-ion battery facility is just being finished outside Dearborn, Michigan right now.
This whole article reads like some rant by a coastie who has no idea that we still make things here in the midwest, and if the MBA's would stop deciding to chase short term profits at the cost of long term brand erosion and control we would be happy to keep doing it. Over the next decade increased fuel costs paired with a decoupling of the Chineese Yuan from the dollar will lead many companies to pull manufacturing back to the US.
You know what's hilarious about this, if I were to pirate the game I would probably have an easier and more reliable experience than someone who bought the game because the annoying DRM would be removed.
Bingo, when we upgraded from Nehalem's to Westmere CPU's we were able to do it without interrupting any running VM, we simply set the EVC mode for the cluster to Xeon Corei7 and we could move VM's back and forth between hosts with either generation of processor. We also move running VM's between storage arrays and even between local and SAN storage. We don't have to mess with storage drivers, network drivers, multipathing software, or any of that junk at the VM level so they are set it and forget it which all but eliminates QA time for moving to new hardware (just have to verify the host is good).
Well if you're a small shop and still need KMS for some reason just install it on one of your existing servers. It uses hardly any resources even with ~1,000 clients checking in and the ports it binds to aren't exactly widely used.
Most of the customers using KMS are big enough to be using datacenter licenses and virtualization so the marginal cost is insignificant (my reading the docs and doing the install probably cost my employer more than the 1GB VM did).
We already have that, it's called KMS and it's fairly painless once you set it up. For those machines that will never talk back to the mothership you have MAK keys, which are indeed a liability but since they have to be activated and have a limited number of uses I think most IT departments are much better about protecting them than they were VLK's. To be honest I don't see MS changing things too drastically from the KMS system as any further tightening would be unlikely to raise revenue appreciably and might drive enterprise users to Linux.
No, AES-256 would take the energy of every atom in the earth to brute force using known methods (it was in the same order of magnitude anyway, saw the calculations once).
Interesting, I know one of the big scramjet problems is skin heating, the plans I have seen call for using the fuel as a heatsink. Perhaps for this experiment they used something with similar heat carrying capabilities to stand in for the fuel.
HP 9000 is the system that will not die, HP's been trying to kill it for more than a decade but enough people are throwing money at them that they keep extending the deadline.
HP has already stolen market share from DELL because they have become so good at making PC's, the fact that they make little/no profit just means they are in a very competitive market. If HP stops making PC's then there will be fewer players in the market and so prices will rise and profits along with it, but that doesn't mean that anyone suddenly got better at making PC's only that the market is distorted by being closer to a monopoly. Remember that for classic economics to work you have to have a commodity product with many suppliers and zero barriers to entry.
Did you miss where I said for those who are not the assignees? If you are the inventor and you haven't sold your patent you pay the small fee applicable today, if you're a corporation holding a patent or a patent troll hoarding a bunch of patents in the hopes that you can submarine one then you pay the higher fee. Motorola Mobile has 17,000 patents, that would be $85M/year which would be a non-trivial expense and I would be willing to bet they'd give up a lot of them that weren't worth the $5k/year to have around.
Was this business class or consumer class systems? HP's business class systems aren't quite as nice as the Lenovo (nee IBM) stuff but we haven't seen any huge rash of failures either and we're paying quite a bit less for equivalent systems.
Whatever, the real battle is in making parallelism easy enough to use that we can actually take advantage of all of the cores that will be available in the next decade. Even cellphones are headed for many cores in that timeframe.
So they are going to have a magnet that is powerful enough to keep a headphone cord in place without physical restraints, yet will be less than 1.75mm thick? That will be a neat trick and probably worthy of a patent.
Isn't this trying to fix a broken process by fixing the symptom rather than the cause of the problem? I mean wasn't it just this week that we noticed that the last million patents were granted in 5 years versus the 80 it took for the first million? There's not that much more innovation going on today, we just have more patent abuse going on. Perhaps we need to have a higher fee for patents held by someone other than that original assignees, say $5k per year, this way small inventors don't get hosed, corporations are more willing to give up unneeded patents and will file fewer applications, and the patent office will have more funds to properly vet applications instead of throwing up their hands and rubber stamping everything and letting the courts sort it out.
Yep, Congress always decide that spending the last 10-20% of the total budget to actually get the hardware is too expensive for some reason. This phenomenon is particularly perplexing to me since the actual manufacturing jobs are the ones that tend to best spread the money among the different states, the R&D jobs tend to be more concentrated. I was very pissed when they cancelled the F-22 program so early, spending another 10% would have meant we had a nice reserve of airframes instead of having another B1 program where any crash is so catastrophic that it risks the entire program, then again with what retrofits end up costing perhaps it's for the best.
It's only $300M because there was an entire multidecade R&D program behind it and there have only been a few units produced, the marginal cost of a unit is probably no more than $60-70M (base unit is $44M, add 50% for materials and advanced electronics). Heck they might also be assigning the cost of the Comanche program to those few units since to my eye it looks like the took the Comanche tech and applied it to a Black Hawk.
What if just one branch for a new update doesn't get pushed out on the day of release, technically that's a violation which under a strict reading of the license could terminate your rights. I'm not sure where the line lies as far as compliance and regaining rights goes, but I think that actors who deal in good faith should not be punished disproportionaly to their transgression. In my mind Google's stance on Honeycomb was wrong, their partners don't have the right to withhold the source that they are distributing to the end user until it is "perfected" in the next major version some year down the line, but neither do I want to see anyone's rights effectively permanently terminated because they fell afoul of the license.
Even if he's right, do we really want the GPL to be a revokable license where an tiny mistake that might throw you out of compliance requires a Herculean effort to re-establish rights? That would make all GPL code nuclear hot for any and all commercial interests which would probably see 80-90% of all code development on GPL projects dry up.
Slashdot Mirror
Huh, the guy said it was impossible to make things in the US, I gave counterexamples where I have seen those very things made in the US, how is that possibly a fallacy?
We exported $1.3T worth of manufactured goods last year, only imports of oil and trade imbalance with China based mostly on the artificially fixed Yuan left us as net importers. The US is still responsible for 21% of world manufacturing despite decades of shortsighted policies by Wallstreet and the MBA cast. Right now is a good time for us to reevaluate where we want to be, if we want to give up on remaining the worlds number one economy we can continue down the outsourcing path, or we could put the ~21% of the population in the midwest that are un/underemployed back to work making things. Unfortunately since that would mean slightly smaller Berger boats for the top 1% it's unlikely to happen.
The highly polished injection-molded case is made in China because the US supplier base eroded as the manufacture of toys, consumer electronics and computers migrated to China.
Considering I've worked on advanced injection molding machines IN the US this is such pure bullhockey.
The controller board is made in China because US companies long ago transferred manufacture of printed circuit boards to Asia.
Another BS line, again I've worked with an assembly line making PCB's and finished boards, right here in the midwest.
The Lithium polymer battery is made in China because battery development and manufacturing migrated to China along with the development and manufacture of consumer electronics and notebook computers.
The worlds largest lithium-ion battery facility is just being finished outside Dearborn, Michigan right now.
This whole article reads like some rant by a coastie who has no idea that we still make things here in the midwest, and if the MBA's would stop deciding to chase short term profits at the cost of long term brand erosion and control we would be happy to keep doing it. Over the next decade increased fuel costs paired with a decoupling of the Chineese Yuan from the dollar will lead many companies to pull manufacturing back to the US.
You know what's hilarious about this, if I were to pirate the game I would probably have an easier and more reliable experience than someone who bought the game because the annoying DRM would be removed.
Nope, Apple does not disable your hardware because you had the audacity to try to unlock the boot loader.
They just bought Motorolla Mobile, by FAR the worst offender when it comes to locking devices.
Bingo, when we upgraded from Nehalem's to Westmere CPU's we were able to do it without interrupting any running VM, we simply set the EVC mode for the cluster to Xeon Corei7 and we could move VM's back and forth between hosts with either generation of processor. We also move running VM's between storage arrays and even between local and SAN storage. We don't have to mess with storage drivers, network drivers, multipathing software, or any of that junk at the VM level so they are set it and forget it which all but eliminates QA time for moving to new hardware (just have to verify the host is good).
Well if you're a small shop and still need KMS for some reason just install it on one of your existing servers. It uses hardly any resources even with ~1,000 clients checking in and the ports it binds to aren't exactly widely used.
Why are you using MAK for testing? Just use KMS as clients that fail to check in are released from your KMS pool after 90 days.
Most of the customers using KMS are big enough to be using datacenter licenses and virtualization so the marginal cost is insignificant (my reading the docs and doing the install probably cost my employer more than the 1GB VM did).
We already have that, it's called KMS and it's fairly painless once you set it up. For those machines that will never talk back to the mothership you have MAK keys, which are indeed a liability but since they have to be activated and have a limited number of uses I think most IT departments are much better about protecting them than they were VLK's. To be honest I don't see MS changing things too drastically from the KMS system as any further tightening would be unlikely to raise revenue appreciably and might drive enterprise users to Linux.
Ahem
No, AES-256 would take the energy of every atom in the earth to brute force using known methods (it was in the same order of magnitude anyway, saw the calculations once).
Interesting, I know one of the big scramjet problems is skin heating, the plans I have seen call for using the fuel as a heatsink. Perhaps for this experiment they used something with similar heat carrying capabilities to stand in for the fuel.
HP 9000 is the system that will not die, HP's been trying to kill it for more than a decade but enough people are throwing money at them that they keep extending the deadline.
HP has already stolen market share from DELL because they have become so good at making PC's, the fact that they make little/no profit just means they are in a very competitive market. If HP stops making PC's then there will be fewer players in the market and so prices will rise and profits along with it, but that doesn't mean that anyone suddenly got better at making PC's only that the market is distorted by being closer to a monopoly. Remember that for classic economics to work you have to have a commodity product with many suppliers and zero barriers to entry.
Did you miss where I said for those who are not the assignees? If you are the inventor and you haven't sold your patent you pay the small fee applicable today, if you're a corporation holding a patent or a patent troll hoarding a bunch of patents in the hopes that you can submarine one then you pay the higher fee. Motorola Mobile has 17,000 patents, that would be $85M/year which would be a non-trivial expense and I would be willing to bet they'd give up a lot of them that weren't worth the $5k/year to have around.
Was this business class or consumer class systems? HP's business class systems aren't quite as nice as the Lenovo (nee IBM) stuff but we haven't seen any huge rash of failures either and we're paying quite a bit less for equivalent systems.
Whatever, the real battle is in making parallelism easy enough to use that we can actually take advantage of all of the cores that will be available in the next decade. Even cellphones are headed for many cores in that timeframe.
So they are going to have a magnet that is powerful enough to keep a headphone cord in place without physical restraints, yet will be less than 1.75mm thick? That will be a neat trick and probably worthy of a patent.
Isn't this trying to fix a broken process by fixing the symptom rather than the cause of the problem? I mean wasn't it just this week that we noticed that the last million patents were granted in 5 years versus the 80 it took for the first million? There's not that much more innovation going on today, we just have more patent abuse going on. Perhaps we need to have a higher fee for patents held by someone other than that original assignees, say $5k per year, this way small inventors don't get hosed, corporations are more willing to give up unneeded patents and will file fewer applications, and the patent office will have more funds to properly vet applications instead of throwing up their hands and rubber stamping everything and letting the courts sort it out.
Yep, Congress always decide that spending the last 10-20% of the total budget to actually get the hardware is too expensive for some reason. This phenomenon is particularly perplexing to me since the actual manufacturing jobs are the ones that tend to best spread the money among the different states, the R&D jobs tend to be more concentrated. I was very pissed when they cancelled the F-22 program so early, spending another 10% would have meant we had a nice reserve of airframes instead of having another B1 program where any crash is so catastrophic that it risks the entire program, then again with what retrofits end up costing perhaps it's for the best.
It's only $300M because there was an entire multidecade R&D program behind it and there have only been a few units produced, the marginal cost of a unit is probably no more than $60-70M (base unit is $44M, add 50% for materials and advanced electronics). Heck they might also be assigning the cost of the Comanche program to those few units since to my eye it looks like the took the Comanche tech and applied it to a Black Hawk.
What if just one branch for a new update doesn't get pushed out on the day of release, technically that's a violation which under a strict reading of the license could terminate your rights. I'm not sure where the line lies as far as compliance and regaining rights goes, but I think that actors who deal in good faith should not be punished disproportionaly to their transgression. In my mind Google's stance on Honeycomb was wrong, their partners don't have the right to withhold the source that they are distributing to the end user until it is "perfected" in the next major version some year down the line, but neither do I want to see anyone's rights effectively permanently terminated because they fell afoul of the license.
Even if he's right, do we really want the GPL to be a revokable license where an tiny mistake that might throw you out of compliance requires a Herculean effort to re-establish rights? That would make all GPL code nuclear hot for any and all commercial interests which would probably see 80-90% of all code development on GPL projects dry up.