When am I going to get something the size of an SD card with processor (ARM, >=200MHz), RAM(>=128M), sound(16 bit full-duplex), video (1024x768x24bit), a nice-sized flash HD(>=2G), and contact-headers for IDE & USB ports?
X11 is out of the question. The system I have in mind would have both persistable sessions and people logging on via their home computer/laptops. I don't know the performance viability of Thinstuff RDP v. VNC, but I do know that VNC allows jpeg compression of the session image data.
I just priced the following system: 8-core Opteron @ 2.8GHz/2MB Cache per core 128GB RAM 6TB (750GBx8 RAID-0) HD 4-Port Gig Eth (3-ports serving, 1-port internet)
Cost: ~$76k
Number of users I estimate would be well served via VNC: 512 Users would get: 256Mb RAM 1.95G swap ~750Mhz, assuming 5% average CPU time per user (From Task Manager: 1037952 secs active, 7588 secs CPU time, I work 7 hrs/day, 3 days/wk) 9.76GB storage/user 5.85 MBit to server, 1.95 MBit to internet
cost of a thin client per user: $75, total: $39k
To have an individual desktop per user for 512 people, at $600/cheap workstation, you easily break $300k. So, yeah. Savings.
Run Linux and VNC on it, and you could have the users nicely sandboxed (max. CPU use at 5% or most available, max. RAM use at 512MRAM/3GSwap or most available(whichever's less), strict access controls, no direct hardware access, automatic remote registration of USB/CD) and still let them do things like work on office documents and surf the web in safety.
Apparently not. What PP said was that there is the potential for profit there, but the hardware industry may be underestimating the buying power of the Linux desktop market.
For example, I, and many other Linux users buy my WiFi based on what works in Linux. I am not a Linux-only human; I have a Mac, a Windell at work, and a Ubuntu laptop.
But therein lay the point: The commercial OS developers already support your product; you wrote drivers for them. Now, at no extra cost, you can have the edge up on your competition for that 1.6% of the computer-using market that has Linux in one form or another. As of 2004, that's 1.6% of 61.8% of all people in the US, or about two-and-a-half million people. At median income of $30k, and assuming that 5% of their purchases are technology-oriented, that's a chunk of $3.75B you're fighting for.
Not a small number, and the slice of it you get could mean the difference between shelling out a new product in a month or shelling it out in a year. Meanwhile, if you can expand that slice at low (rather than building a monolithic driver, build drivers as modules that can be 'plugged in' to existing kernel scaffolding for Linux, Apple/Mach and NT) or no (having the Linux Devs build it) cost, there's no reason you shouldn't.
Of course, the bigger the company, the less this matters to them; large companies have the opportunity to 'rest on their laurels', as it were, when it comes to new accessibility.
What's funny is that, apart from the NDA program, this has ALWAYS been true. Linux kernel devs have been chomping at the bit to get a hold of driver specs for a number of closed products for a LONG time (ie: ATI/NVidia drivers). The public announcement is mostly about the NDA program, though it's not worded that way.
Thank you. That may be the simplest explanation of the mechanism behind supply and demand I've ever heard. (ie: as the supply is reduced, so is, statistically, the number of people that will sell at the low price).
You are correct, but the article writer said that.
Of course, he is teh failed for calling it 'Web 2.0', and then being insufficiently able to describe what it means for a website (high-asthetic stylization, community collaboration, and application-like interface).
"They care about the fact that right now, it costs less than 5 cents to make a nickel." "Very soon it will cost the Mint to introduce replacement pennies into the economy."
Um. Read TFA. These things have already come to pass. The Mint's presently losing money on the sale of pennies and nickels. Hell, that's what the article is ABOUT.
Hey, out of curiosity: What's the long-reaching economic impact of destroying a piece of currency, thus removing its value? What's the long-reaching economic impact of destroying a piece of currency to obtain its more expensive raw materials, thus resulting in a positive sum value change? Given the answer to the above, why the ban (on something I thought was already illegal)?
I don't know why there's SO much push to make phishing more visible. What's more visible than the WRONG URL? Seriously. www.paypal.realsite.com doesn't look that much like www.paypal.com, does it? Phishing is one of the most 'out in the open' attacks there is; it's pretty damned obvious to anyone who glances up at their address bar that someone's trying to pull a fast one over on 'em.
As they say, a fool and his money are soon parted. If you get scammed by a phisher, I've got not pity for you. And maybe a bridge to sell.
I'm sorry, did I say patent? Ah, no. History shows that copyrights can be obvious.
Meanwhile, the hash helps you get the data given that there are people out there with data matching the same hash. Seriously, it's like you didn't read the post.
Essentially what I was asking is, 'is there a finite number of encoding options for audio, and could a recording company copyright all hashes of those options for a given recording?'.
The answer I got from slightly more respectful posters is 'no' and 'very likely not'. The answer I got from you is 'A suffusion of yellow'.
Just in case that went over your head, you gave me a nice little insult and tirade about nothing I said. Nice.
The pirate bay exists and continues to exist because they do not distribute copyrighted material, but the 160 bit hash value of copyrighted material.
How hard would it be for a recording company to copyright all of the hash values for every common LAME/Nero/WinAMP encoding option set? Maybe a week's work?
"I mean c'mon Microsoft get a pass for operating systems 90%"
Really? Since when? Does 'Monopoly Suit' mean 'pass' in your world?
Hell, most of the developing world is/avoiding/ MS completely, and a number of European and American city governments are in the process of migrating away from them.
Meanwhile, Apple's 80% market share of iPod/iTunes zombies notwithstanding, it's the only DRM maker that doesn't license out its format. It's not the former that's got Norway up in arms, it's the latter.
18% of the respondants admit to having illegally downloaded. 32% of the respondants are paranoid enough to lie. 40% of the respondants have downloaded TV, but no movies. 10% of the respondants were being sued by the RIAA at the time of the call.
Slashdot Mirror
IBM, Intel, it doesn't matter.
When am I going to get something the size of an SD card with processor (ARM, >=200MHz), RAM(>=128M), sound(16 bit full-duplex), video (1024x768x24bit), a nice-sized flash HD(>=2G), and contact-headers for IDE & USB ports?
X11 is out of the question. The system I have in mind would have both persistable sessions and people logging on via their home computer/laptops. I don't know the performance viability of Thinstuff RDP v. VNC, but I do know that VNC allows jpeg compression of the session image data.
I just priced the following system:
8-core Opteron @ 2.8GHz/2MB Cache per core
128GB RAM
6TB (750GBx8 RAID-0) HD
4-Port Gig Eth (3-ports serving, 1-port internet)
Cost: ~$76k
Number of users I estimate would be well served via VNC:
512 Users would get:
256Mb RAM
1.95G swap
~750Mhz, assuming 5% average CPU time per user
(From Task Manager: 1037952 secs active, 7588 secs CPU time, I work 7 hrs/day, 3 days/wk)
9.76GB storage/user
5.85 MBit to server, 1.95 MBit to internet
cost of a thin client per user: $75, total: $39k
To have an individual desktop per user for 512 people, at $600/cheap workstation, you easily break $300k. So, yeah. Savings.
Run Linux and VNC on it, and you could have the users nicely sandboxed (max. CPU use at 5% or most available, max. RAM use at 512MRAM/3GSwap or most available(whichever's less), strict access controls, no direct hardware access, automatic remote registration of USB/CD) and still let them do things like work on office documents and surf the web in safety.
"Am I missing something, I don't see your point?"
Apparently not. What PP said was that there is the potential for profit there, but the hardware industry may be underestimating the buying power of the Linux desktop market.
For example, I, and many other Linux users buy my WiFi based on what works in Linux. I am not a Linux-only human; I have a Mac, a Windell at work, and a Ubuntu laptop.
But therein lay the point: The commercial OS developers already support your product; you wrote drivers for them. Now, at no extra cost, you can have the edge up on your competition for that 1.6% of the computer-using market that has Linux in one form or another. As of 2004, that's 1.6% of 61.8% of all people in the US, or about two-and-a-half million people. At median income of $30k, and assuming that 5% of their purchases are technology-oriented, that's a chunk of $3.75B you're fighting for.
Not a small number, and the slice of it you get could mean the difference between shelling out a new product in a month or shelling it out in a year. Meanwhile, if you can expand that slice at low (rather than building a monolithic driver, build drivers as modules that can be 'plugged in' to existing kernel scaffolding for Linux, Apple/Mach and NT) or no (having the Linux Devs build it) cost, there's no reason you shouldn't.
Of course, the bigger the company, the less this matters to them; large companies have the opportunity to 'rest on their laurels', as it were, when it comes to new accessibility.
What's funny is that, apart from the NDA program, this has ALWAYS been true. Linux kernel devs have been chomping at the bit to get a hold of driver specs for a number of closed products for a LONG time (ie: ATI/NVidia drivers). The public announcement is mostly about the NDA program, though it's not worded that way.
Worse yet, she could have suggested a better scam. I hear she's pretty damned good at those.
SCO: The Unix what Knows Your Future!
Thank you. That may be the simplest explanation of the mechanism behind supply and demand I've ever heard. (ie: as the supply is reduced, so is, statistically, the number of people that will sell at the low price).
So....
SCO: *attack!*
IBM: No...
SCO: *die*
IBM: Rifles through wallet
The 'whoosh' is only appropriate if I didn't get the joke.
Sorry, but the "you R'dTFA/you expected PP to RTFA? You must be new here." joke is done to death.
Of course, saying done-to-death jokes aren't funny on Slashdot will no doubt elicit the response, 'You must be new here...'
You are correct, but the article writer said that.
Of course, he is teh failed for calling it 'Web 2.0', and then being insufficiently able to describe what it means for a website (high-asthetic stylization, community collaboration, and application-like interface).
Not new, just not jaded enough to expect them NOT to RTFA.
I know what you mean. I've been investing a quarter of my income in gold for the last two years.
By 'investing' I mean 'replacing an asset of dwindling value (dollar) with one of stable value (gold)'.
Honestly, who had the bright idea of having a currency based on faith? Fucking tooth-fairy economics.
Wow. Way to describe the Main Line in Pennsylvania.
"They care about the fact that right now, it costs less than 5 cents to make a nickel."
"Very soon it will cost the Mint to introduce replacement pennies into the economy."
Um. Read TFA. These things have already come to pass. The Mint's presently losing money on the sale of pennies and nickels. Hell, that's what the article is ABOUT.
But the question is: 'What can we do as IE7 and EV's friends to help them quit their phishing habit?'
... But it soon will be.
Hey, out of curiosity:
What's the long-reaching economic impact of destroying a piece of currency, thus removing its value?
What's the long-reaching economic impact of destroying a piece of currency to obtain its more expensive raw materials, thus resulting in a positive sum value change?
Given the answer to the above, why the ban (on something I thought was already illegal)?
Sorry, when was the last time anyone gave a damn about Direct Connect?
No, seriously. DC died out proper five years ago.
I don't know why there's SO much push to make phishing more visible. What's more visible than the WRONG URL? Seriously. www.paypal.realsite.com doesn't look that much like www.paypal.com, does it? Phishing is one of the most 'out in the open' attacks there is; it's pretty damned obvious to anyone who glances up at their address bar that someone's trying to pull a fast one over on 'em.
As they say, a fool and his money are soon parted. If you get scammed by a phisher, I've got not pity for you. And maybe a bridge to sell.
Ever been to Argentina? Linux.
Um, I was talking about the one in the EU that's still going on. And they /are/ paying their fines. Nice big chunks out of their profit margins.
I'm sorry, did I say patent? Ah, no. History shows that copyrights can be obvious.
Meanwhile, the hash helps you get the data given that there are people out there with data matching the same hash. Seriously, it's like you didn't read the post.
Essentially what I was asking is, 'is there a finite number of encoding options for audio, and could a recording company copyright all hashes of those options for a given recording?'.
The answer I got from slightly more respectful posters is 'no' and 'very likely not'. The answer I got from you is 'A suffusion of yellow'.
Just in case that went over your head, you gave me a nice little insult and tirade about nothing I said. Nice.
Unrelated question:
The pirate bay exists and continues to exist because they do not distribute copyrighted material, but the 160 bit hash value of copyrighted material.
How hard would it be for a recording company to copyright all of the hash values for every common LAME/Nero/WinAMP encoding option set? Maybe a week's work?
Yet they still havent tried that. Funny.
"I mean c'mon Microsoft get a pass for operating systems 90%"
/avoiding/ MS completely, and a number of European and American city governments are in the process of migrating away from them.
Really? Since when? Does 'Monopoly Suit' mean 'pass' in your world?
Hell, most of the developing world is
Meanwhile, Apple's 80% market share of iPod/iTunes zombies notwithstanding, it's the only DRM maker that doesn't license out its format. It's not the former that's got Norway up in arms, it's the latter.
Agreed.
18% of the respondants admit to having illegally downloaded.
32% of the respondants are paranoid enough to lie.
40% of the respondants have downloaded TV, but no movies.
10% of the respondants were being sued by the RIAA at the time of the call.
Damn right.
Seriously. I'd have never gotten through the Sci-Fi drought of the fall without a little bit of Torchwood.