My preferred server vendor (HP) always includes cables and rails in the base server package for most anything you would install.
Interesting, things must have changed. The last time when I purchased servers, which was 2 or 3 years ago, HP didn't included jack in the basic server package. Rails, cables, etc... all had to be ordered separately. I didn't purchase directly from HP, and the sales rep from my vendor had a difficult time figuring out what we needed to order. I have little love for Dell, but I can't imagine their setup for ordering accessories is any worse than HPs.
Five of my servers recently turned over their uptime clocks. That means they have been up over 500 days. I no longer measure my Linux uptime in 'Annual' increments - have to go by decades now.
They may have a hard time competing at cut throat prices. Hopefully, they will weather it and stay in all these markets to continue providing real competition.
The good thing about AMD is they, unlike Intel, are used to being the underdog. A high level of competition will probably be a good thing for them (and us).
Apparently you haven't been watching too closely lately. Intel is currently winning the price/performance comparison in several segments, including most of the laptop market.
I haven't checked lately, but if you are correct it's probably due to competition. As TFA said, Intel is using it's current product line to wage a price war with AMD. They are, for the first time in a very long time, the underdog and actually have to compete on price again.
They're not a part of any university classes I've seen either.
When my sister was in school a few years ago as a marketing major nearly all of her marketing classes were focused around group projects. If the group didn't work together you didn't get a good grade. The program was completely about "Interpersonal and group work skills".
But they do both cover the same CONCEPT - as in as long as you properly cite your work the amount of content doesn't matter, which was my original point.
you could make it clear something is a quotation, eg using quote marks, blockquote tags or other formatting, w/o giving the original author due credit. this includes bothering to find out who the actual author is, not just referencing the source you cribbed it from.
True enough. This does bring up an interesting point. Most of the references I've found discuss plagarism in an academic setting, which is NOT what TFA refers too. The Internet is not a strictly instructional environment. Universities have pecific rules for citations in student's work, but how does this translate to the rest of the world. Are there laws about such things? Do the laws define how the citiations must be issued? Would these laws apply to someone wrting a blog?
Exactly, both sources you reference the same concept.
without acknowledging its source.
and
presented as being your own work
None of these definitions make any reference to the AMOUNT of content that is used, if additional content was added or if profit was made from the quotation. In short, it is NOT plagarism as long as there is not an attempt to pass it off as original work.
In this case, while the citation may be there, enough of the text is taken that there's no point in consulting the original article (so it's not like aggregators such as slashdot, which point to the article). The blogger adds no additional content, and effectively profits (whether in "community kudos" or adsense) from unauthorized reproduction of someone else's content.
That's plagiarism, whether cited it or not.
Do you have a reference for this definition of plagarism? The definition I found is more like this:
...rather that Al-Qaeda or some other well organizied terrorist group du-jour will somehow get their hands on it
That whole scenario is a catch-22. All well organized terrorist groups must have significant funds to operate. This has always been true, just look at the IRA, PLO, Hamas, Al-Qaeda, Taliban, whoever, there is always a supply of money. Nuclear power would remove much of the funding from the terrorist groups that are currently a threat. It's possible Al-Qaeda could steal nuclear material, but it would be very expensive to plan such an operation and bribe all of the necessary people. Increasing the amount of weaponizable nuclear material in the world may increase the risk of theft, but maintaining the use of oil as fuel and keeping the price high enables the terrorists to pull of said theft.
Probably never, or at least not until the revolution comes unless people start actually VOTING on things. Worst part is 99% of the eligible voters don't care about issues like this. As long as their daily lives are happy they'll just stay home on election day or vote the party lines - and they think those of us that care are cranks.
And on a side note, why doesn't apple just buy creative? or at least their mp3 player department...
Two reasons. First, why? Creative doesn't have a significant market share. Probably cheaper to take them to court. Second, there would probably be a bunch of legal hoops to jump through from those pesky anti-trust people.
The real money makers are those drugs that seemingly 99% of the population is taking at least one of...
Which is exactly why we should revamp the patent system. If the government didn't allow the prices on these fashionable drugs to be overinflated there would be lower margins. Eliminating excessive patent terms, renewals and new patents granted on minimal changes would force pharmaceutical companies to search for new profitable products rather than capitalizing and advertising the latest Viagra type drug.
There are nanoparticles being placed into things like cleaners and other household products right now... Some aspects of regulation (making sure these nanoparticle-containing products are safe to inhale in quantities that people are likely to be exposed to if they use them, for example) absolutely should fall under the FDA.
Hmm... I didn't think 'cleaners and other household products' were regulated by the Food and Drug Administration. I'm pretty sure huffing your lysol is not an approved use.
The manufacturers have got to realize that if people can go buy one and turn right around and sell it for 2-3x markup, they're underpricing them.
The only reason this is true is because of the hype and artificial restrictions on supply. Why was Xbox 360 selling for $1000 plus at release? Microsoft restricted the release to a small number of units. The problem vendors have with setting the release price extremely high is twofold. First, it sours a large part of the market to the product based on price. All people remember is the initial high price and have a mental block against buying the product. Second, you can't lower your price too soon. If you do you will piss off all of the people that purchased at the release price.
To summarize, if Microsoft had release the Xbox 360 at $1000 price point as you suggest they would have had tremendous release sales by all the gamers and fanboys, but their sales would have tapered off immediately due to the product being overpriced for most of the market. If Microsoft had then quickly lowered their pricing, say in 1st quarter 06, to $399 everyone that bought the product before Christmas would have been furious. Anybody that gets burned that bad is going to remember, and next sales cycle everyone is going to wait for that big price drop before they buy.
While anyone drools over a nice car, or nice clothes, or an expensive home, a game console sits somewhat hidden inside an entertainment center. Instead of "wow, you have a PS3?!!", the general reaction of the knowing gamer would be "why in the hell did you waste your money on that thing?!!"
It comes down to parents buying for their kids. If little Johnny can brag to his friends or if Susie Homemaker can tell her neighbor how they bought one for little Johnny it becomes a status symbol. I remember this from when I was a kid. I was jealous of the kids that had a computer or cable tv or a newer car than we did. Fortunately my parents weren't ones to make bad decisions just to impress my friend's parents.
Since when is a 3000 sq foot house a status symbol?
Since always. Not sure where you live, but a 3000 sq foot house is a very nice sized home in my city. Not huge, but there are a large number of houses that approximate size for sale locally due to foreclosure.
a 'Status Symbol' is always relative to one's peers and environments. In many parts of the country a 3000 sq foot house would not seem large. In Southern California, just OWNING a house of any size can be a status symbol.
The GP hits very close to home with his post. Couldn't have said it better myself. Sony may have built a enough branding that a PS3 will be a 'Status Symbol' for many middle to lower class families. If so, sales will probably go well. Problem with marketing a product based on it's prestige rather than it's actual quality is that the market can swing wildly on subjective concepts like that. If the gamer community decides the PS3 is a poor quality product that opinion could filter down to the school kids that are the driving market force. If the kids think PS3 is stupid then those consoles will sit on the shelves and gather dust.
Slashdot Mirror
My preferred server vendor (HP) always includes cables and rails in the base server package for most anything you would install.
Interesting, things must have changed. The last time when I purchased servers, which was 2 or 3 years ago, HP didn't included jack in the basic server package. Rails, cables, etc... all had to be ordered separately. I didn't purchase directly from HP, and the sales rep from my vendor had a difficult time figuring out what we needed to order. I have little love for Dell, but I can't imagine their setup for ordering accessories is any worse than HPs.
(unsurprisingly, since 15x24 is close to hundred)
Huh? Did you mean 4x24?
Five of my servers recently turned over their uptime clocks. That means they have been up over 500 days. I no longer measure my Linux uptime in 'Annual' increments - have to go by decades now.
They may have a hard time competing at cut throat prices. Hopefully, they will weather it and stay in all these markets to continue providing real competition.
The good thing about AMD is they, unlike Intel, are used to being the underdog. A high level of competition will probably be a good thing for them (and us).
This is Slashdot. He probably can't even comprehend having a wife.
He's not a typical Slashdotter - we aren't that organized. No wives around to bitch when we leave stuff laying around.
Maybe they should just get one of those whistle thingys like they (used to?) make for your car keys.
Apparently you haven't been watching too closely lately. Intel is currently winning the price/performance comparison in several segments, including most of the laptop market.
I haven't checked lately, but if you are correct it's probably due to competition. As TFA said, Intel is using it's current product line to wage a price war with AMD. They are, for the first time in a very long time, the underdog and actually have to compete on price again.
They're not a part of any university classes I've seen either.
When my sister was in school a few years ago as a marketing major nearly all of her marketing classes were focused around group projects. If the group didn't work together you didn't get a good grade. The program was completely about "Interpersonal and group work skills".
But they do both cover the same CONCEPT - as in as long as you properly cite your work the amount of content doesn't matter, which was my original point.
you could make it clear something is a quotation, eg using quote marks, blockquote tags or other formatting, w/o giving the original author due credit. this includes bothering to find out who the actual author is, not just referencing the source you cribbed it from.
True enough. This does bring up an interesting point. Most of the references I've found discuss plagarism in an academic setting, which is NOT what TFA refers too. The Internet is not a strictly instructional environment. Universities have pecific rules for citations in student's work, but how does this translate to the rest of the world. Are there laws about such things? Do the laws define how the citiations must be issued? Would these laws apply to someone wrting a blog?
No worries.
Exactly, both sources you reference the same concept.
without acknowledging its source.
and
presented as being your own work
None of these definitions make any reference to the AMOUNT of content that is used, if additional content was added or if profit was made from the quotation. In short, it is NOT plagarism as long as there is not an attempt to pass it off as original work.
In this case, while the citation may be there, enough of the text is taken that there's no point in consulting the original article (so it's not like aggregators such as slashdot, which point to the article). The blogger adds no additional content, and effectively profits (whether in "community kudos" or adsense) from unauthorized reproduction of someone else's content.
That's plagiarism, whether cited it or not.
Do you have a reference for this definition of plagarism? The definition I found is more like this:
plagiarism, which is the uncredited use (both intentional and unintentional) of somebody else's words or ideas.
A cited reference, regardless of size, is not an 'uncredited use'. What you describe may be a copyright violation, but doesn't appear to be plagarism.
...rather that Al-Qaeda or some other well organizied terrorist group du-jour will somehow get their hands on it
That whole scenario is a catch-22. All well organized terrorist groups must have significant funds to operate. This has always been true, just look at the IRA, PLO, Hamas, Al-Qaeda, Taliban, whoever, there is always a supply of money. Nuclear power would remove much of the funding from the terrorist groups that are currently a threat. It's possible Al-Qaeda could steal nuclear material, but it would be very expensive to plan such an operation and bribe all of the necessary people. Increasing the amount of weaponizable nuclear material in the world may increase the risk of theft, but maintaining the use of oil as fuel and keeping the price high enables the terrorists to pull of said theft.
George Lucas copyrighted the terms Rebels and Rebel Forces. Sorry, no one else is allowed to use them.
When will this folly end ?
Probably never, or at least not until the revolution comes unless people start actually VOTING on things. Worst part is 99% of the eligible voters don't care about issues like this. As long as their daily lives are happy they'll just stay home on election day or vote the party lines - and they think those of us that care are cranks.
And on a side note, why doesn't apple just buy creative? or at least their mp3 player department...
Two reasons. First, why? Creative doesn't have a significant market share. Probably cheaper to take them to court. Second, there would probably be a bunch of legal hoops to jump through from those pesky anti-trust people.
The real money makers are those drugs that seemingly 99% of the population is taking at least one of...
Which is exactly why we should revamp the patent system. If the government didn't allow the prices on these fashionable drugs to be overinflated there would be lower margins. Eliminating excessive patent terms, renewals and new patents granted on minimal changes would force pharmaceutical companies to search for new profitable products rather than capitalizing and advertising the latest Viagra type drug.
There are nanoparticles being placed into things like cleaners and other household products right now... Some aspects of regulation (making sure these nanoparticle-containing products are safe to inhale in quantities that people are likely to be exposed to if they use them, for example) absolutely should fall under the FDA.
Hmm... I didn't think 'cleaners and other household products' were regulated by the Food and Drug Administration. I'm pretty sure huffing your lysol is not an approved use.
Yes, but if you send a postcard I'll guarantee EVERYONE along the route reads it.
The manufacturers have got to realize that if people can go buy one and turn right around and sell it for 2-3x markup, they're underpricing them.
The only reason this is true is because of the hype and artificial restrictions on supply. Why was Xbox 360 selling for $1000 plus at release? Microsoft restricted the release to a small number of units. The problem vendors have with setting the release price extremely high is twofold. First, it sours a large part of the market to the product based on price. All people remember is the initial high price and have a mental block against buying the product. Second, you can't lower your price too soon. If you do you will piss off all of the people that purchased at the release price.
To summarize, if Microsoft had release the Xbox 360 at $1000 price point as you suggest they would have had tremendous release sales by all the gamers and fanboys, but their sales would have tapered off immediately due to the product being overpriced for most of the market. If Microsoft had then quickly lowered their pricing, say in 1st quarter 06, to $399 everyone that bought the product before Christmas would have been furious. Anybody that gets burned that bad is going to remember, and next sales cycle everyone is going to wait for that big price drop before they buy.
While anyone drools over a nice car, or nice clothes, or an expensive home, a game console sits somewhat hidden inside an entertainment center. Instead of "wow, you have a PS3?!!", the general reaction of the knowing gamer would be "why in the hell did you waste your money on that thing?!!"
It comes down to parents buying for their kids. If little Johnny can brag to his friends or if Susie Homemaker can tell her neighbor how they bought one for little Johnny it becomes a status symbol. I remember this from when I was a kid. I was jealous of the kids that had a computer or cable tv or a newer car than we did. Fortunately my parents weren't ones to make bad decisions just to impress my friend's parents.
Since when is a 3000 sq foot house a status symbol?
Since always. Not sure where you live, but a 3000 sq foot house is a very nice sized home in my city. Not huge, but there are a large number of houses that approximate size for sale locally due to foreclosure.
a 'Status Symbol' is always relative to one's peers and environments. In many parts of the country a 3000 sq foot house would not seem large. In Southern California, just OWNING a house of any size can be a status symbol.
The GP hits very close to home with his post. Couldn't have said it better myself. Sony may have built a enough branding that a PS3 will be a 'Status Symbol' for many middle to lower class families. If so, sales will probably go well. Problem with marketing a product based on it's prestige rather than it's actual quality is that the market can swing wildly on subjective concepts like that. If the gamer community decides the PS3 is a poor quality product that opinion could filter down to the school kids that are the driving market force. If the kids think PS3 is stupid then those consoles will sit on the shelves and gather dust.
code goes from spaghetti to whatever the opposite is:
Pizza
Hell yeah, I didn't even think of Marie.
Fortunately, nobody ever misunderstands spoken conversations.