Solution: disable something, underclock it, sell it for cheap, so you can still get that 10X price for the uncrippled product.
Sure, they'll still do that - but when you can combine better yields with effective market segmentation (to some degree), they get the best of both worlds.
I didn't mean to imply that this will completely end the practice of 'crippling', just that there's now no reason to toss a chip...unless basically every core (or the part that distributes jobs to the individual cores) is damaged.
It makes sense for Linux to fork into two branches: one, a conservative one, aimed at upkeeping what already works, and the second, a wild-ass anarchist, aimed at forging new and innovative technologies.
That's what they used to have with odd-number versioning. Problem is that cross-merging kept happening and the whole thing turned into a mess. Seems like what they do now (I'm not a kernel developer) is to do mini-forks to work on the new technologies and merge it back in when it works well enough. Sounds like a good idea to me - I don't think it wise to have *all* the buggy stuff in one 'test' distro, because the last thing I want when trying to debug *my* buggy code is sharing a codebase with *everyone elses* buggy code. And it's not like all the 'test' stuff finishes at the same time, so either distribution gets delayed, certain features get rushed, or you just end up merging some stuff back into stable anyway.
I suspect this is a sneaky marketing ploy; they'll have a steady stream of quad-cores coming off the production line where one core doesn't pass all the required tests; now all they need to do is disable the faulty core and box it as a triple-core.:-)
I'd always thought this was the major point of going with multiple smaller cores as opposed to a single, larger, more powerful processor - as the size of the chip increases, so does the defect rate, meaning that larger, more advanced processors (given current fab technology) would lower your yield. But if you can just disable the losers, you still have something you can sell. This dovetails well with their market segmentation strategy, which in the past involved intentionally disabling parts of the chip (like the cache, if I recall) to make the thing less powerful. Now, they can just let the defect rate take care of it for them.
IANAL, but couldn't it be argued this reverse-engineering is being used for interoperability? I mean, you shouldn't HAVE to run Apple's OS on their iPods -- you bought it.
Beat me to it. That's definitely the spirit of the law - DMCA isn't supposed to be used to prevent you from using a device you bought. It's supposed to prevent reverse-engineering to allow illegal copying or redistribution. Clearly that's not the case here, so I'm not a lawyer either, but this shouldn't trip the DMCA.
And my old copies of Quake 3, Descent 3, Starcraft, and C&C Tiberian sun still work fine, even on my outdated computer.
That's a whole other issue - I've never had a speedy gaming rig, because of a few factors: 1) I prefer single-player games; 2) Good games come out faster than I can play them; and 3) I'm cheap. So my computer is always outdated, and I play older games that have been reviewed a lot already, and can be found in bargain bins (or at least on sale).
So you could definitely go Mac Mini + outdated Windows machine + Wii and still be cheaper than a state-of-the-art gaming rig.
That is why you use the MANUAL function of adding songs to iTunes. Uncheck your settings that automatically put music in folders inside of iTunes folder. Keep your music wherever you like then type command + O to add the songs you want in there (or drag and drop them into the window).
When I first started using iTunes, I was unaware of such functionality - or that there was any other way of doing things! Also, that still leaves a disconnect between the file and the music, which I think some techies find disconcerting. It would be like Word deciding to make an abstraction between your *.doc files and some alternate organization method - even if it doesn't move everything around, not having that clear 1:1 relationship puts some people off.
Don't get me wrong, I now use iTunes as originally intended. But like lots of other Apple designs, it sometimes takes getting used to their schema - though it's usually worth it.
...have enough trouble negotiating the 2 dimensions they deal with now. I can just see 'cell phone douchebag' flying all over the place without even painted lines to tell him where to go.
There - fixed it for ya. Remember, this wasn't reasonable 6 years ago. Technology has a funny way of making things cheaper, better, faster.
Technology also has a way of making people want more. 10 years ago, who wanted 10 GB of storage for their entire computer? If storage expands to that extent, bitrates will too, and video will be more of a big deal, and you'll have people pissing and moaning that their new iPod doesn't hold their whold Blueray (or HD-DVD) collection at full-res.
Now try to uninstall iTunes. EVERY SINGLE ID3 tag you edited with it will be completely wiped out. I was lucky that I had backups of all my music, otherwise I would have had to input tags for about 90Gb worth of music.
I just hate iTunes. I know other people like it, but it seems to me that non-tech people find iTunes easy, and tech folks don't. As a tech guy, iTunes drives me insane. It doesn't do what I want, doesn't do things my way, does things I don't expect, etc.
I think much of it is a control issue. Techies tend to be control freaks. We also grew up with Winamp (or similar), and are used to devising our own directory structure for our music collection, expecting to have iTunes use our file management schemas. When I first started using it, I got confused. Where the hell are my music files? Why is it recopying what I just put over there? Why won't it let me play these files?
After a day of this, I just said 'screw it' and let iTunes put shit where it wants to, and I decided it does a good job. That's the difference in perception - iTunes is a good system to get music from various sources and never have to worry about the notion that music is contained in 'files.' If you try to buck the system, you and iTunes will hate each other.
I'm curious what the hell that was even supposed to imply. Was he saying that hardware is relegated to BS and below, or PhD? And does he think that anyone's impressed by a masters' these days? They're usually no harder to get than a BS (or indicate that someone bailed on their PhD program).
The "I MUST have every single song in my collection at all times!!" demand is such a red herring.
Well, these days it's somewhat reasonable to expect a device to exist that will hold the music collections of everyone who isn't a professional DJ. That said, such a device exists: the full-size regular iPod. What's not reasonable is to expect every music player on the market to hold all the music you could possibly own.
There's currently a project (which was reported on Slashdot months ago) to make a new reference kilogram of a specific element and geometry. From that, they can define the kilogram as a certain number of atoms of a certain element.
I think one explination I heard was that the bus drivers all fled. Well, OK...how about if you can drive, take a bus and fill it up! WTF? Isn't that better than leaving them to be flooded out? How much you think those cost to replace?
One in about a billion 'WTF!' moments that happened with Katrina. I wonder if the keys were left with them? Of course, finding someone to hot-wire them shouldn't have been that tough...
Not all the busses were full. Quite a lot of school busses simply sat there unused and ended up being flooded.
If I recall correctly, the problem there was a problem of coordination, not of lack of demand, but I'm not sure. However, there were many, many fools who assumed they'd be able to ride out any storm and be fine. Well, they were sort of right - they survived, but the town was a disaster.
Fantastic idea, except for the fact that anyone in the path of Katrina who could have afforded a $385 water bottle could have afforded a $90 plane ticket, $35 bus ride, or $27 tank of gas.
Easier to hand out one bottle per person than one gallon of water per person per day. You also fail to note that there were mile-long lines at the pumps, and flights and buses were full. This is in part due to infrastructure, part due to the realities of evacuating a large city, and partly because the evacuation order was given ridiculously late.
Is someone feeling a bit marginalized, and bit irked that Linux has overshadowed HURD?
Not quite - that would require Linux to actually cast a shadow on HURD, which as we know is impossible because shadows don't fall on vapor(ware).;)
"If the GNU kernel had been ready last spring, I'd not have bothered to even start my project: the fact is that it wasn't and still isn't." Torvalds, 1993
Frankly, so what? Piracy is a large cause of falling revenues in the music industry. Does it hurt your sensibilities to hear that?
I don't have any sensibilities. That piracy is a 'large cause' of falling revenues has never been proven by anyone who wasn't funded by the RIAA. Other causes include the existence of a consistent format for 15 years (meaning they don't have people replacing their music collection now), as well as consistently crappy music. Does downloading contribute? Probably so. Is it the crushing effect they claim? Probably not.
Lest I be accused of having a horse in this race, I don't download music, for a couple of non-moral reasons: 1) the rip quality is usually shit, and 2) homogenized RIAA music sucks these days. But I've seen this FUD train coming before, we'll see it again here. This wouldn't be the first time the RIAA has blamed piracy for their own shitty business plan.
Slashdot Mirror
Solution: disable something, underclock it, sell it for cheap, so you can still get that 10X price for the uncrippled product.
Sure, they'll still do that - but when you can combine better yields with effective market segmentation (to some degree), they get the best of both worlds.
I didn't mean to imply that this will completely end the practice of 'crippling', just that there's now no reason to toss a chip...unless basically every core (or the part that distributes jobs to the individual cores) is damaged.
It makes sense for Linux to fork into two branches: one, a conservative one, aimed at upkeeping what already works, and the second, a wild-ass anarchist, aimed at forging new and innovative technologies.
That's what they used to have with odd-number versioning. Problem is that cross-merging kept happening and the whole thing turned into a mess. Seems like what they do now (I'm not a kernel developer) is to do mini-forks to work on the new technologies and merge it back in when it works well enough. Sounds like a good idea to me - I don't think it wise to have *all* the buggy stuff in one 'test' distro, because the last thing I want when trying to debug *my* buggy code is sharing a codebase with *everyone elses* buggy code. And it's not like all the 'test' stuff finishes at the same time, so either distribution gets delayed, certain features get rushed, or you just end up merging some stuff back into stable anyway.
I suspect this is a sneaky marketing ploy; they'll have a steady stream of quad-cores coming off the production line where one core doesn't pass all the required tests; now all they need to do is disable the faulty core and box it as a triple-core. :-)
I'd always thought this was the major point of going with multiple smaller cores as opposed to a single, larger, more powerful processor - as the size of the chip increases, so does the defect rate, meaning that larger, more advanced processors (given current fab technology) would lower your yield. But if you can just disable the losers, you still have something you can sell. This dovetails well with their market segmentation strategy, which in the past involved intentionally disabling parts of the chip (like the cache, if I recall) to make the thing less powerful. Now, they can just let the defect rate take care of it for them.
That'll teach you to molest Doberman puppies. Stick to Chihuahuas.
IANAL, but couldn't it be argued this reverse-engineering is being used for interoperability? I mean, you shouldn't HAVE to run Apple's OS on their iPods -- you bought it.
Beat me to it. That's definitely the spirit of the law - DMCA isn't supposed to be used to prevent you from using a device you bought. It's supposed to prevent reverse-engineering to allow illegal copying or redistribution. Clearly that's not the case here, so I'm not a lawyer either, but this shouldn't trip the DMCA.
And my old copies of Quake 3, Descent 3, Starcraft, and C&C Tiberian sun still work fine, even on my outdated computer.
That's a whole other issue - I've never had a speedy gaming rig, because of a few factors: 1) I prefer single-player games; 2) Good games come out faster than I can play them; and 3) I'm cheap. So my computer is always outdated, and I play older games that have been reviewed a lot already, and can be found in bargain bins (or at least on sale).
So you could definitely go Mac Mini + outdated Windows machine + Wii and still be cheaper than a state-of-the-art gaming rig.
How about buying a mac mini for work and multimedia and the game system of your choice for gaming?
Because consoles have never been good replacements for the types of games that PC gamers usually like to play, I'd imagine.
That is why you use the MANUAL function of adding songs to iTunes. Uncheck your settings that automatically put music in folders inside of iTunes folder. Keep your music wherever you like then type command + O to add the songs you want in there (or drag and drop them into the window).
When I first started using iTunes, I was unaware of such functionality - or that there was any other way of doing things! Also, that still leaves a disconnect between the file and the music, which I think some techies find disconcerting. It would be like Word deciding to make an abstraction between your *.doc files and some alternate organization method - even if it doesn't move everything around, not having that clear 1:1 relationship puts some people off.
Don't get me wrong, I now use iTunes as originally intended. But like lots of other Apple designs, it sometimes takes getting used to their schema - though it's usually worth it.
...have enough trouble negotiating the 2 dimensions they deal with now. I can just see 'cell phone douchebag' flying all over the place without even painted lines to tell him where to go.
There - fixed it for ya. Remember, this wasn't reasonable 6 years ago. Technology has a funny way of making things cheaper, better, faster.
Technology also has a way of making people want more. 10 years ago, who wanted 10 GB of storage for their entire computer? If storage expands to that extent, bitrates will too, and video will be more of a big deal, and you'll have people pissing and moaning that their new iPod doesn't hold their whold Blueray (or HD-DVD) collection at full-res.
Now try to uninstall iTunes. EVERY SINGLE ID3 tag you edited with it will be completely wiped out. I was lucky that I had backups of all my music, otherwise I would have had to input tags for about 90Gb worth of music.
I'm good with what CDDB grabs, so no big deal.
I just hate iTunes. I know other people like it, but it seems to me that non-tech people find iTunes easy, and tech folks don't. As a tech guy, iTunes drives me insane. It doesn't do what I want, doesn't do things my way, does things I don't expect, etc.
I think much of it is a control issue. Techies tend to be control freaks. We also grew up with Winamp (or similar), and are used to devising our own directory structure for our music collection, expecting to have iTunes use our file management schemas. When I first started using it, I got confused. Where the hell are my music files? Why is it recopying what I just put over there? Why won't it let me play these files?
After a day of this, I just said 'screw it' and let iTunes put shit where it wants to, and I decided it does a good job. That's the difference in perception - iTunes is a good system to get music from various sources and never have to worry about the notion that music is contained in 'files.' If you try to buck the system, you and iTunes will hate each other.
Can you say Schadenfreude in English?
Yes. It's pronounced "ha HA!", preferably in a high-pitched, somewhat nasal voice reminiscent of a certain cartoon character.
"I have a masters and I do not do hardware"
I'm curious what the hell that was even supposed to imply. Was he saying that hardware is relegated to BS and below, or PhD? And does he think that anyone's impressed by a masters' these days? They're usually no harder to get than a BS (or indicate that someone bailed on their PhD program).
The "I MUST have every single song in my collection at all times!!" demand is such a red herring.
Well, these days it's somewhat reasonable to expect a device to exist that will hold the music collections of everyone who isn't a professional DJ. That said, such a device exists: the full-size regular iPod. What's not reasonable is to expect every music player on the market to hold all the music you could possibly own.
There's currently a project (which was reported on Slashdot months ago) to make a new reference kilogram of a specific element and geometry. From that, they can define the kilogram as a certain number of atoms of a certain element.
Relativistic effects? Me no likey.
I think one explination I heard was that the bus drivers all fled. Well, OK...how about if you can drive, take a bus and fill it up! WTF? Isn't that better than leaving them to be flooded out? How much you think those cost to replace?
One in about a billion 'WTF!' moments that happened with Katrina. I wonder if the keys were left with them? Of course, finding someone to hot-wire them shouldn't have been that tough...
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
Those who employ overused quotations from intelligent men to support their own nebulous point have neither intelligence nor a point.
--Mr. Underbridge
Not all the busses were full. Quite a lot of school busses simply sat there unused and ended up being flooded.
If I recall correctly, the problem there was a problem of coordination, not of lack of demand, but I'm not sure. However, there were many, many fools who assumed they'd be able to ride out any storm and be fine. Well, they were sort of right - they survived, but the town was a disaster.
Fantastic idea, except for the fact that anyone in the path of Katrina who could have afforded a $385 water bottle could have afforded a $90 plane ticket, $35 bus ride, or $27 tank of gas.
Easier to hand out one bottle per person than one gallon of water per person per day. You also fail to note that there were mile-long lines at the pumps, and flights and buses were full. This is in part due to infrastructure, part due to the realities of evacuating a large city, and partly because the evacuation order was given ridiculously late.
Beautifully trolled sir, I commend you.
Because current RIAA-affiliated labels' music is the only thing that's available for downloading. Riiight.
It's the only thing that would contribute to their piracy numbers. Follow the argument, I'll leave bread crumbs.
Rip quality is variable; if you get a bad one, delete and find another source.
More effort than I'm willing to go to in order to save $0.99. My time is worth more than that.
In short, I'll be replaying SS2 before replaying Bioshock.
And Deus Ex?
Is someone feeling a bit marginalized, and bit irked that Linux has overshadowed HURD?
Not quite - that would require Linux to actually cast a shadow on HURD, which as we know is impossible because shadows don't fall on vapor(ware). ;)
Frankly, so what? Piracy is a large cause of falling revenues in the music industry. Does it hurt your sensibilities to hear that?
I don't have any sensibilities. That piracy is a 'large cause' of falling revenues has never been proven by anyone who wasn't funded by the RIAA. Other causes include the existence of a consistent format for 15 years (meaning they don't have people replacing their music collection now), as well as consistently crappy music. Does downloading contribute? Probably so. Is it the crushing effect they claim? Probably not.
Lest I be accused of having a horse in this race, I don't download music, for a couple of non-moral reasons: 1) the rip quality is usually shit, and 2) homogenized RIAA music sucks these days. But I've seen this FUD train coming before, we'll see it again here. This wouldn't be the first time the RIAA has blamed piracy for their own shitty business plan.