Why do I always get the impression stuff like this is said by those with an allegiance to AMD? It's not my concern as a "sane customer" whether or not AMD survives.
Why do I always get the impression stuff like this is said by those with an allegiance to AMD? It's not my concern as a "short-sighted customer" whether or not AMD survives.
You don't know that's true. Intel would raise prices as far as it wouldn't decrease sales. If they rose prices too high, a competitor could undercut them.
The cost of entry for developing processors is huge. Undercutting them is not so simple. A logical approach would be for Intel to raise prices, but be prepared to drop them if it looked like a competitor were about to enter the market (the lead time, investment and people required are such that any competitor in x86 could not keep a market entry secret for very long). Rational behavior from Intel would be to raise prices and spend less on R&D. Exactly how much that would impact processor prices is hard to gauge (but see my last comment). Price rises would be inevitable, the only question is how much.
If they did anything illegal, the government would go after them.
Based on what we have seen from the current administration, a slap on the wrist would be applied -- but probably insufficient to wipe out excessive monopoly profits, thus a rational company would attempt to create and leverage a monopoly. In any case, given reasonable increase in prices (say 50%), it would be difficult to prove an illegal monopoly at work.
It's not my job to worry what someone might do in some hypothetical situation just because AMD is floundering around right now.
Your job: no. Might you suffer (by paying more) if AMD stops making processors: probably.
If Intel is making good processors at an affordable price, why would I not want that? Monopolies aren't inherently bad.
Because if Intel does establish a monopoly, prices will increase and innovation will decrease. There is no monopoly today, so Intel's behavior today is not relevant to how Intel might behave if AMD went out of business.
but it is certainly possible to have secure network running mostly MS software...... Regardless of what tools they use, people need to be knowledgeable in them. Stupid people will make stupid decisions that will compromise security - whether they're using Windows, Linux, OS X, or OpenVMS.
I'll agree that a secure Windows centric network is certainly possible, but I believe that Windows makes it much easier to make an insecure network. Take for example the autorun capability, first on CDs, now also on flash drives. The problem with Windows is that a non-default configuration and add-on software is required just to provide basic security.
Don't forget that these are only the OEM copies which are going to be phased out by the end of the year. You can't just go out and buy 4 or 5 OEM copies of windows,
Can't you? The link is for a 3-pack, but the same store also sells single packs and 30-packs.
Zheludev also points out notes that Henry Round, an assitant to radio pioneer Marconi, was the first to discover that semiconductors could produce light, some hundred years ago. He published only a very short note on the matter and made no further investigations. The piece was never seen by Losev, who must be retrospectively declared the inventor of the LED.
Why should not Henry Round be declared the inventor? Also, how on earth can we know that Losev did not see Round's note?
And it would be difficult and expensive enough that the manufacturers would still subject their products to thorough testing. And probably expensive enough that it'll only be used in high-confidence operations, such as NASA hardware.
You are confusing design faults with manufacturing faults. The proposed idea affects only design faults and, if I read it correctly, has some kind of signature recognition logic that recognises the situation in which the chip will produce a faulty result and then must somehow force the chip to bypass it (interrupt the processing). I would expect that this would have to be accompanied with software that is able to work with the result of the "bypass" result.
SRPMs are not updated with security patches or otherwise, however, and that's a good part of what Redhat charges for.
Do I really have to dig out the exact URL to the SRPM updates? You are 100% wrong. Red Hat charges for access to the binary rpms, while making the source rpms available.
OK, just for you -- try looking here. Did you see the "updates" part of the URL?
Presumably someone from the CentOS project pays for a Red Hat support plan (or two, or three), and in return is able to download the product (and get the sources as required by the GPL).
I manage the rights to my *nix box digitally, through the use of a password. It's DRM.
Let's apply your criteria to downloading Red Hat ISOs and binary updates, shall we:
Access to Red Hat's ISO and binary downloads is controlled through a password. Thus Red Hat Linux must be a DRM-laden OS.
No, the point of DRM is that it allows control of access to the work after the end user already has it in his/her possession -- after (s)he has already downloaded it.
I am sorry to say, but I think you are completely incorrect. You are confusing free trade with free information. Many of us who regularly visit Slashdot have become anti-copyright because media companies have formed a monopoly, and can dictate their terms to individuals who enter the market, such as, sign over your copyright to us, or we won't distribute your work.
That whooshing noise was my point flying over your head.....
My point was not anti-copyright. My point was that copyright is inherently a monopoly and thus there cannot be free trade, furthermore, interoperability requirements and DMCA mean that this government sanctioned monopoly can be extended to hardware. Imagine that you want to put a song onto a mobile player and that song is only available through iTunes (it is not even available in a CD form from which it can be legally ripped). You no longer have a free choice on your purchase of player. If one player cannot be substituted for another, is there a free market?
Huh? I must have been hallucinating when I walked into Best Buy over the weekend and saw non-iPod MP3 players. I must have also had the same fever when browsing the web learning about services such as Zune and Yahoo! Music
Ah, but each service carries some subset of all the music available -- in other words, what has happened is that the monopoly copyright provides is effectively transfered down the chain to music players.
To explain: if iTunes is the only service that provides the song, then the only way to buy it is through iTunes and thus, the only way to put it on a player is if the player is an iPod. Sure, today, you could buy a CD instead and rip it (except that copy protection and the DMCA can make that illegal), but there is no guarantee that unprotected CDs will be available in the future.
It is difficult to filter results with price searches by anything except low price - you see the same item listed for two prices both from web sites that you know nothing about. Maybe you can go to the trouble of figuring out that one of them is charging 3x or 4x real shipping costs to make up for it, but by then you have to go back through the whole process again to find the next lowest price.
Apparently you never used Pricegrabber or one of its clones. Put in your zip code and it tells you the total price, including shipping and any sales taxes. There is also a reputation rating system.
Sorry but that is dead wrong. In a FREE market, manufacturers are FREE to make pricing agreements with their dealers.
Your definition is not in agreement with the definition on Wikipedia:
A free market is a market where the price of an item is arranged by the mutual consent of sellers and buyers, with the supply and demand of that item not being regulated by a government
Now, if the manufacturer is setting a minimum price, then clearly, the price is not being set by mutual consent of sellers and buyers, since in your definition, the only remedy for the retailer if he feels that the price is too high is to not stock the item.
In addition, your definition would suit a monopoly just as well:
In a monopoly, manufacturers are FREE to make pricing agreements with their dealers. Dealers in turn, a FREE to refuse to carry products if they don't like the terms, and consumers are FREE to not buy the products if they feel they are overpriced.
A retailer has the right to refuse price floor contracts. Likewise, under a pure free market, a producer has the right to refuse to sell its product to retailers that refuse price floor contracts.
We are increasing moving away from a free market, the DMCA and other laws have created new government sanctioned monopolies -- for example, you can't buy anything except an iPod and expect it to work with iTunes. Increasingly, products are intangible and as such are protected from competition by copyright law, or they are tangible products that are protected by patent law. Free markets really only work when there are viable alternatives.
Actually they revisited it. You CAN get it to with tracer rounds and a good enough distance for the phosphorus to ignite
I can't find anything to support this using Google. There are a lot of links to a test the Mythbusters did with a gas tank and tracer rounds, but nothing relating to a compressed air tank.
I know your not being seriouse but I was wondering if air conisters would be as prone to explosions as a tank of oxygen. I could see a peirced tank shooting around from the force of the air leaving the tank, but I doubt it would explode.
Mythbusters did an episode on this and no, they could not get the tank to explode.
Slashdot Mirror
There, corrected that for you!
It just had to be a British company! (If you don't understand, search this page for the word "British".)
SCO Source licenses?
Whoever modded up your post is truly clueless.
OK, just for you -- try looking here. Did you see the "updates" part of the URL?
Access to Red Hat's ISO and binary downloads is controlled through a password. Thus Red Hat Linux must be a DRM-laden OS.
No, the point of DRM is that it allows control of access to the work after the end user already has it in his/her possession -- after (s)he has already downloaded it.
My point was not anti-copyright. My point was that copyright is inherently a monopoly and thus there cannot be free trade, furthermore, interoperability requirements and DMCA mean that this government sanctioned monopoly can be extended to hardware. Imagine that you want to put a song onto a mobile player and that song is only available through iTunes (it is not even available in a CD form from which it can be legally ripped). You no longer have a free choice on your purchase of player. If one player cannot be substituted for another, is there a free market?
To explain: if iTunes is the only service that provides the song, then the only way to buy it is through iTunes and thus, the only way to put it on a player is if the player is an iPod. Sure, today, you could buy a CD instead and rip it (except that copy protection and the DMCA can make that illegal), but there is no guarantee that unprotected CDs will be available in the future.
In addition, your definition would suit a monopoly just as well:
I guess MS can control /. and already knows that I won't be swayed, since I got a "nothing to see here message"