Re: Facebook Is Down
on
Facebook Is Down
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
My phone works better and I don't have to wait for a response most of the time.
A phone is great for calling/texting other people who you are in active contact with.
For finding out what happened to all those kids in your eighth grade class photo? Not so much.
I simply posted a class photo on Facebook. Within a few days, everyone save one person was "tagged" on the photo and accounted for. Whether you personally value that kind of information has no bearing on just how cool that is from a geek perspective. That kind of information would have taken me weeks 10 years ago, and everyone would think that I was crazy.
I dont think they are shoting themselves in the foot..
You're damn right - they are protecting their business model. They have a reasonable chance of controlling a few multimillion dollar radio stations. They can offer promos and gifts and payments and artist access, etc to get their crap played on the air.
The internet in general is a nightmare - too many sites out there to control, playing (eek!) independent music as well as big-label stuff. But at least these sites on aggregate are still playing "hot" music. Then along come sites like Pandora, using an algorithm which recommends songs that you might like rather than trying to push specific things your way... not even playing NEW stuff, mind you! And not based on sales like Amazon or iTunes - music sold on merit... the horror!
As an example: A 100 watt power draw from a CPU that takes 1 second to finish a task is more energy efficient than a 10 watt power drawn that takes 12 seconds to finish the same task.
This is only true if the "task" has a finite duration. If the task is continuous, then the lower-power chip wins, provided it is powerful enough. For example, if the "task" is "sit there and wait for the phone to ring", then whichever chip can consume the least power while doing almost nothing wins.
I don't write much flamebait, but why are you even here? You have completely missed the point of the article - in fact the summary - in a way that makes it clear that you have absolutely no business being on a site "for nerds".
If you are a fledgling nerd, then I apologize for being a dick - but please, just lurk. As Abraham Lincoln and Lisa Simpson once said, "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."
The triple-core is not what is interesting here - as you say, it has been done for years. The other aspects of the design are what merit a slashdot mention - specifically this weird bastardized ARM stuck on there in addition to the more-standard ARM chips and the graphics engines.
Microprocessors aren't pricey because of materials, they're pricey because of the research and development required to make them.
I'm in the industry. I don't mean to downplay R&D, but the front-end (jargon for the actual chip manufacturing process) yield has a huge influence on cost. This is the main reason that die-shrinks are so important - less surface area means less chance of errors. Big chips are fantastically expensive. Another huge driver of cost is the capital involved in setting up a process. The masks that are used to "print" the microchip on the wafer are horrendously expensive.
And then you have labor. Despite a stunning array of robotic equipment, the industry is still reliant enough on manual labor that it actually pays to set up in China despite the learning curve and initial quality hit.
That's true - I did forget iAd. Mobile ads have a terrible track record. Apple might do better than the others, but I'm not sure that they can revolutionize the ad business, too.
On the other hand, if they can pull in even another $25/device, you are now talking like $50/device that they have in extra cash to undercut the competition's hardware cost.
Even so, eliminating that revenue still wouldn't help this Samsung:)
They were able to make a pen/pencil copy and still turn a profit by selling them for a penny... that's pretty cheap even by 1701 standards. That's like 25 cents inflation-adjusted:)
(plus if it's true, then maybe it's not an indication that the law is wrong but that under-30s have lost sight of morals and ethics?)
Morals and ethics are defined by society, not laws. Remember that there were societies that ate their dead, and others that controlled their small island populations with infanticide. These actions were perfectly moral within that frame of reference. There isn't even a "thou shalt not copy thy neighbor's ideas" commandment, nor is the concept of intellectual property even possible without a strong government.
TBH though, because of the app-store lock-in, Apple ought to be able to virtually give-away iPads and still make lots of money
I think they make some gravy with the app store, but the average iPhone user buys $80 worth of apps. Maybe the iPad will be a bit higher, and maybe these numbers are a bit off, but right now Apple is only skimming an additional 30% * $80 = $24. Not exactly a slam dunk:)
Given that the ability to make an unlimited number of perfect and virtually zero-cost copies was inconceivable until the last couple decades
That's not true. I could always make a perfect or near-perfect copy of sheet music or a poem by writing it down. Hell, they even sell tracing paper for this purpose, and it's been around in its modern form for at least 200 years. If I sold the sheet for a penny, I was a pirate in 1701. If I copied the sheet from a friend's copy, I doubt that label would have been applied to me.
So I think my question is relevant. When did non-commercial copyright violations become "piracy"?
Especially in the US, where we celebrate stealing designs for industrial equipment from the British as part of our history.
Yeah, and there are five people who legitimately want to back up their blu-rays. So what? You know and I know, this is primarily a tool for piracy.
Who cares? Just because people abuse something doesn't make the legitimate use any less legitimate. If you have young kids and you give them your original DVDs to play, more power to you.
Should we ban ethanol because "most people" just want to get a buzz?
Not that I find anything wrong with copyright infringement or getting a buzz...
Of course, this usage of piracy is still used to describe those looking to profit. I'd be interested to see when the term was first used to describe people making personal copies.
you, as a parent, should be responsible for their upbringing and making bans won't do a single thing to keep the ones that're going to get it from getting access to violent games.
Agreed. Unfortunately, there are horrible parents, and their little dysfunctional kids infect our society. Bans might at least reduce the number of kids with apathetic parents who get a hold of violent games.
They still play games like releasing the same movie at different times in different places. Thus I can get a DVD or near-DVD quality release from the P2P networks as soon as they start selling region 5 (Russia) DVDs. A paying customer is at a disadvantage to a pirate.
While Netflix is nice, not very many recent decent movies are available. Also, you need to buy an add-on box to your TV. It is also subject to the conditions of your twitchy network. With the P2P networks, you can play the file on any device you want.
I've used Hulu. It's great in concept, but the user experience is not as nice as the pirate networks. I can subscribe to a RSS feed and the shows are magically there waiting on my hard drive, ready to watch at my leisure.
I'm not a big fan of infinite copyright laws and the general ownership of the government by the big media companies, so I sleep pretty well at night. If all of this piracy puts them out of business... oh, well. Do we really need $150 million dollar Transformer movies?
Right, and if I steal an actual DVD, I've stolen a tangible good. Whomever I steal it from will have to cope with a tangible loss. I think what we are talking about is making an unauthorized copy, which may or may not affect the income of the person who holds the government rights to the work.
Slashdot Mirror
My phone works better and I don't have to wait for a response most of the time.
A phone is great for calling/texting other people who you are in active contact with.
For finding out what happened to all those kids in your eighth grade class photo? Not so much.
I simply posted a class photo on Facebook. Within a few days, everyone save one person was "tagged" on the photo and accounted for. Whether you personally value that kind of information has no bearing on just how cool that is from a geek perspective. That kind of information would have taken me weeks 10 years ago, and everyone would think that I was crazy.
I dont think they are shoting themselves in the foot..
You're damn right - they are protecting their business model. They have a reasonable chance of controlling a few multimillion dollar radio stations. They can offer promos and gifts and payments and artist access, etc to get their crap played on the air.
The internet in general is a nightmare - too many sites out there to control, playing (eek!) independent music as well as big-label stuff. But at least these sites on aggregate are still playing "hot" music. Then along come sites like Pandora, using an algorithm which recommends songs that you might like rather than trying to push specific things your way... not even playing NEW stuff, mind you! And not based on sales like Amazon or iTunes - music sold on merit... the horror!
New business plan:
Them's fightin' words...
As an example: A 100 watt power draw from a CPU that takes 1 second to finish a task is more energy efficient than a 10 watt power drawn that takes 12 seconds to finish the same task.
This is only true if the "task" has a finite duration. If the task is continuous, then the lower-power chip wins, provided it is powerful enough. For example, if the "task" is "sit there and wait for the phone to ring", then whichever chip can consume the least power while doing almost nothing wins.
I don't write much flamebait, but why are you even here? You have completely missed the point of the article - in fact the summary - in a way that makes it clear that you have absolutely no business being on a site "for nerds".
If you are a fledgling nerd, then I apologize for being a dick - but please, just lurk. As Abraham Lincoln and Lisa Simpson once said, "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."
The triple-core is not what is interesting here - as you say, it has been done for years. The other aspects of the design are what merit a slashdot mention - specifically this weird bastardized ARM stuck on there in addition to the more-standard ARM chips and the graphics engines.
it creates money out of NOTHING.
Yeah, that's pretty much the basis of modern central banking.
Money is for barter and exchange - not hoarding.
Who else can you award it to?
Education. Just evenly distribute it to school districts per-capita.
Yeah that was my first thought: "Well THAT isn't adhering to KISS..."
Microprocessors aren't pricey because of materials, they're pricey because of the research and development required to make them.
I'm in the industry. I don't mean to downplay R&D, but the front-end (jargon for the actual chip manufacturing process) yield has a huge influence on cost. This is the main reason that die-shrinks are so important - less surface area means less chance of errors. Big chips are fantastically expensive. Another huge driver of cost is the capital involved in setting up a process. The masks that are used to "print" the microchip on the wafer are horrendously expensive.
And then you have labor. Despite a stunning array of robotic equipment, the industry is still reliant enough on manual labor that it actually pays to set up in China despite the learning curve and initial quality hit.
That's true - I did forget iAd. Mobile ads have a terrible track record. Apple might do better than the others, but I'm not sure that they can revolutionize the ad business, too.
On the other hand, if they can pull in even another $25/device, you are now talking like $50/device that they have in extra cash to undercut the competition's hardware cost.
Even so, eliminating that revenue still wouldn't help this Samsung :)
animated, rather than static, graphs.
You are missing out... it's a reasonable way to display 3-or-4-D data sets.
They were able to make a pen/pencil copy and still turn a profit by selling them for a penny... that's pretty cheap even by 1701 standards. That's like 25 cents inflation-adjusted :)
(plus if it's true, then maybe it's not an indication that the law is wrong but that under-30s have lost sight of morals and ethics?)
Morals and ethics are defined by society, not laws. Remember that there were societies that ate their dead, and others that controlled their small island populations with infanticide. These actions were perfectly moral within that frame of reference. There isn't even a "thou shalt not copy thy neighbor's ideas" commandment, nor is the concept of intellectual property even possible without a strong government.
TBH though, because of the app-store lock-in, Apple ought to be able to virtually give-away iPads and still make lots of money
I think they make some gravy with the app store, but the average iPhone user buys $80 worth of apps. Maybe the iPad will be a bit higher, and maybe these numbers are a bit off, but right now Apple is only skimming an additional 30% * $80 = $24. Not exactly a slam dunk :)
Also, I'm not a big fan of sluts.
So YOU'RE the one raising all of those hard-to-get daughters.
Given that the ability to make an unlimited number of perfect and virtually zero-cost copies was inconceivable until the last couple decades
That's not true. I could always make a perfect or near-perfect copy of sheet music or a poem by writing it down. Hell, they even sell tracing paper for this purpose, and it's been around in its modern form for at least 200 years. If I sold the sheet for a penny, I was a pirate in 1701. If I copied the sheet from a friend's copy, I doubt that label would have been applied to me.
So I think my question is relevant. When did non-commercial copyright violations become "piracy"?
Especially in the US, where we celebrate stealing designs for industrial equipment from the British as part of our history.
What do you mean? They already call you a pirate if you download a file from the internet, even if you have no intention of selling it.
You can't even pretend most people you know under 30 that have a computer have not pirated something.
Isn't that a pretty good indication that the law is wrong? Laws should reflect the values of society, not be imposed on society.
Yeah, and there are five people who legitimately want to back up their blu-rays. So what? You know and I know, this is primarily a tool for piracy.
Who cares? Just because people abuse something doesn't make the legitimate use any less legitimate. If you have young kids and you give them your original DVDs to play, more power to you.
Should we ban ethanol because "most people" just want to get a buzz?
Not that I find anything wrong with copyright infringement or getting a buzz...
Of course, this usage of piracy is still used to describe those looking to profit. I'd be interested to see when the term was first used to describe people making personal copies.
you, as a parent, should be responsible for their upbringing and making bans won't do a single thing to keep the ones that're going to get it from getting access to violent games.
Agreed. Unfortunately, there are horrible parents, and their little dysfunctional kids infect our society. Bans might at least reduce the number of kids with apathetic parents who get a hold of violent games.
They just take existing technology and throw it together in a shiny case.
Wow, that's just awful. I mean, condemn them to hell for using existing technology.
Here are my "excuses" for "stealing":
I've used Hulu. It's great in concept, but the user experience is not as nice as the pirate networks. I can subscribe to a RSS feed and the shows are magically there waiting on my hard drive, ready to watch at my leisure.
I'm not a big fan of infinite copyright laws and the general ownership of the government by the big media companies, so I sleep pretty well at night. If all of this piracy puts them out of business... oh, well. Do we really need $150 million dollar Transformer movies?
Right, and if I steal an actual DVD, I've stolen a tangible good. Whomever I steal it from will have to cope with a tangible loss. I think what we are talking about is making an unauthorized copy, which may or may not affect the income of the person who holds the government rights to the work.