The law of comparative advantages: Its a win-win stuation. The real money to be done by the US is not in the production of the Gadgets themselves, but on the service surrounding those items. The reason so many people can afford those elecronic gadgetsis because they're so cheap in the first place. China needs the US as much as the US needs China, and same applies for the EU, as there are trade agreements, there is no reason why China should no be an american and European ally. And the communist idealism in China is quickly fading away, i doubt anyone will still consider China as a communist country in 10 years time.
Maybe your paranoia is misplaced?
actually hes right, this is a perfect example of competition. Because of a possible substitute to their products the overall demand curve for their product diminuishes (ie movement of the curve).
Now you are right that microsoft still has a huge advantage and so the market resembles a situation of monopoly, but the fact that because of another product MS is forced to diminuish their prices just shows how even slight competition directly benefits the well-being of the customer.
You could find this as being bad news, because in the end MS gets his way, I see it as the beginning of the end of MS's quasi-monopoly!
Who knows, me might even start to see some evolution in Office software resulting from this.
I am saying that given $1 of money, open source will turn it into capital (defined by economists as dynamic money used to create value), not wealth (defined by economists as static money not used to create value).
Well if it was more capitalist the $1 a free open source project would transform in more then 1$ in revenue... hmmm...
It might be efficient since you equate your marginal production to your marginal costs, but that simply is because FOSS is based on free labor and is not based on profit, which are concepts far, far away from a capitalistic view.
In open source projects the tendency is for nearly 100% of the capital available (often a very small amoutn) is dedicated to creating value.
Well, glad you disagree with most people that study economy... Its an economic fact that patents are good for economy, as they push companies to invent. Abolishing patents and closed source would inevitably diminuish the well-being of the economy. In very much the same way that Microsofts quasi-monopoly is hurting it now.
In a regular corporation, much of the capital becomes wealth distributed to executives who put it into their yacht fund,...
Euh, thats fraud, profit in a company either goes into the Cash balance, to the share holders as dividends or in reinvestement.
Im sorry but maybe you should check your facts before posting such nonsense.
The inbred fuckwits who criticize Microsofts Monopoly
Well anyone who did economy would critisize Microsofts Monopoly... Monopoly is bad for the customer, declines the economy's well-being and puts a hold on innovation. Its funn that while most So Called Socialist European countries are getting rid of their governemental monopolies to give the consumer best prices and best service, Big American companies are either cultivating monopoly by Oligopoly or are a monopoly of its own.
I do agree however taht on a purely economic perspective, patents are undeniably necessary, because commercial companies would have no interest in researching new technology if its new discovery could directly profit its concurrent.
However if you think that microsoft is innovating, your putting your finger into your eye, let me explain:
Microsoft through its immense market share has made the business of Operating System a market with a very high economy of scales (economie d'echelles in french, not sure thats how you say it in english), and the only reason it perfects its operating system is to maintian this type of market. Indeed, by investing in technology and making sure of dependency Microsoft establishes Strategic Barriers at the entry of the market, thi means that even if a company was ready to put the effort to introduce a new commercial Operating System onto the market, the revenues it would generate would not cover its costs in either the short or long term, this means that the OS market is almost bullet proof to new commercial OSs.
Now to linux and other Free Operating Systems, its different strategy in terms of costs and benefits (almost no cost in development since most the work is voluntary,no real plan for profit at least from the developping of the kernel point of view and allowing companies to freely use the kernel to in turn allow them to make profit hence inducing very few costs of development of the kernel and other applications) allows for competitors to enter the market, and hence try and detrone Microsoft.
Now the whole concept of the Free Software and the only way it can work is based on the motivation of its community, without it theres no way enough "free" resources can be accumulated to be able to enter the market.
If you really believe that this motivation is bad, then not only are you a fool (because in term this same motivation will increase your well-being) but you also have no insight in economy whatsoever.
It says that he was given: "4 mois de prison avec sursis". This means that he actually won't go to jail unless he gets jailed for something else during his probation period.
I think what will really be hurtfull is the 900,000 euros (~$1,200,000) that the french society wants to extort him of.
This is a blatent form of Injustice, but you do start to understand how this could be when you see that one of the clients of the Tegam company is no other then... The French Ministry of Justice!
Children should not be allowed to handle guns (even virtual) untill they get enrolled in the army... I mean terrorists may be out of the geneva conventions protection, but virtual aliens? They have rights you know!
-WaZ-
Re:I think you are getting a few things mixed up h
on
Where's My 10 Ghz PC?
·
· Score: 1
i was merelay talking about bandwidth...
and btw i guess you know better then:
Physicist Anthony F.J. Levi of University of Southern California
Michael Morse, Photonic Researcher at Intel
Mark T. Bohr Director of process Architecture at Intel
and W. Watt Gibbs, author of the very interesting article i got my information from in the November Issue of Scientific American.
And btw those are just a couple of names taken in the two first paragraphs or so from the article.
1) 75% idle time is nonsense. Where did you get that number? With SPECfp on an Athlon or P4 it's more like 20-30% idle. Just look at how spec scores scale with frequency to figure out the memory-idle time.
In an Article of November 2004s Issue of Scientific American about about optics-based computers.
2) Increasing switching speed with optical technology increases bandwidth but does nothing for latency since nothing travels faster than the speed of light and electrons flowing along a wire can acheive close to 80% of the speed of light already. To reduce latency, what we need are smarter architectures and programmers that can prefetch the data into lower latency caches ahead of time.
Huh, where did i even mention the speed of of electrons along wires? Im simply stating that wires will never be able to deliver enough data for the processor to be able to function at a correct regime.
The CPU spends as much as 75% of its time idle because its waiting patiently for the memory to give it something to do. With Systems only delivering information at a max of 1 Ghz and processors going up to almost 4 times as fast... Studies also show that they could in term be able to squeeze 20 Ghz out of wires as long as 20 inches (and only by 2010 will we be able to achieve that), but that would only be sufficient for the 32 nanometer generation of microships (and we're quite ahead of that)... So i think the future resides in optical connections within the motherboard, allowing processors to finally... well... process;-)
These genetics mutations are quite rare (1%) and the delta32 Mutation only protects strains of HIV that use CCR5 proteins to help them break into the cells, so yes a very few people are immune to most strains of HIV. And this is why doctors will prbably never allow people get tested for delta32 mutation.
You must be kidding right? Didn't you get the whole point of this article was between the celery and the _aspargus_? If you had done reasearch you would have known that the asparguses aerodynamic design will clearly give him the edge in the race, making it the certain winner.
Actually if you had taken time ro read the End User Agreement you would have noticed that:
1. USE RIGHTS. If you comply with this agreement, you have the right to install and use the software on your computer until July 31, 2005, or until the date we release a commercial version of the software, whichever date is first.
2. TIME-SENSITIVE SOFTWARE. The software will stop running on July 31, 2005. You may not receive any other notice. You will not receive any further updates when the software stops running.
3. PRE-RELEASE SOFTWARE. This software is a pre-release version. It will not work the way a final version of the software will. We may change it for the final, commercial version. We also may not release a commercial version of the software.
So basically theres a big chance they will make it a subscription service...
well Nashs theory would say that without consultation between companies the first company that could leverage the product onto the market would do so if they didn't consult each other, but since i suspect that companies will try to protect their investements (basically the monitor market is an oligopoly with common interests) by selling TFT as long as they can, basically untill the market need for TFT reaches its saturation...
The tendency in technology these days is that the price of new tech decreases much faster then before, now there are many manufacturers that are developping OLED and other display techs, so you can basically assume that the profit margin/device will drop pretty fast, also the profit is not only how much money you win for each product you sell, you also have to include investement, now they all have invested in LCD-TFT so they might aswell win as much money as possible from that...
Well at the moment companies basically have a unspoken deal not to bring OLED on the market too soon to be able to gain as much as possible from the current TFT technology, however there is only but one Nash's equilibrium which is where all companies offer cheaper solutions (this time its OLED). So basically what im saying is that someday some company will bring out a cheaper solution wether it be OLED (certainly appears so now) or something else and all companies will have to bring their cheaper solutions/products. But lets face it, noone has any reason to speed up the process at the moment, so theres little chance this new tech boom will happen before some time.
-WaZ-
i doubt anyone will be able to buy OLED tv's before quite some time... Just seeing how much money LCD and TFT are generating, how much investements they have in those technologies, and since OLED should be much cheaper generating less profit large manufacturers will wait as much as possible before introducing these. Fortunately Nashs theory will eventually kick in and as soon as one of them comercialises one, they all will. So basically expect a lot of nothing then a boom with everything.
Slashdot Mirror
The law of comparative advantages: Its a win-win stuation. The real money to be done by the US is not in the production of the Gadgets themselves, but on the service surrounding those items. The reason so many people can afford those elecronic gadgetsis because they're so cheap in the first place. China needs the US as much as the US needs China, and same applies for the EU, as there are trade agreements, there is no reason why China should no be an american and European ally. And the communist idealism in China is quickly fading away, i doubt anyone will still consider China as a communist country in 10 years time.
Maybe your paranoia is misplaced?
Your so right, after all the American governement is allready privatized, so including the FBI is just natural!
actually hes right, this is a perfect example of competition. Because of a possible substitute to their products the overall demand curve for their product diminuishes (ie movement of the curve).
Now you are right that microsoft still has a huge advantage and so the market resembles a situation of monopoly, but the fact that because of another product MS is forced to diminuish their prices just shows how even slight competition directly benefits the well-being of the customer.
You could find this as being bad news, because in the end MS gets his way, I see it as the beginning of the end of MS's quasi-monopoly!
Who knows, me might even start to see some evolution in Office software resulting from this.
I am saying that given $1 of money, open source will turn it into capital (defined by economists as dynamic money used to create value), not wealth (defined by economists as static money not used to create value).
Well if it was more capitalist the $1 a free open source project would transform in more then 1$ in revenue... hmmm...
It might be efficient since you equate your marginal production to your marginal costs, but that simply is because FOSS is based on free labor and is not based on profit, which are concepts far, far away from a capitalistic view.
Where did I mention patents?
Well same applies for copywright really.
????? So on your planet executives don't get paid?
So now your saying that paying executives more is against the idea of capitalism? lol
Anyways, you said the money owned by the company wasn't put in reinvestements or the share holders, but in a Yacht fund, which would be fraud.
In open source projects the tendency is for nearly 100% of the capital available (often a very small amoutn) is dedicated to creating value.
Well, glad you disagree with most people that study economy... Its an economic fact that patents are good for economy, as they push companies to invent. Abolishing patents and closed source would inevitably diminuish the well-being of the economy. In very much the same way that Microsofts quasi-monopoly is hurting it now.
In a regular corporation, much of the capital becomes wealth distributed to executives who put it into their yacht fund,...
Euh, thats fraud, profit in a company either goes into the Cash balance, to the share holders as dividends or in reinvestement.
Im sorry but maybe you should check your facts before posting such nonsense.
The inbred fuckwits who criticize Microsofts Monopoly
Well anyone who did economy would critisize Microsofts Monopoly... Monopoly is bad for the customer, declines the economy's well-being and puts a hold on innovation. Its funn that while most So Called Socialist European countries are getting rid of their governemental monopolies to give the consumer best prices and best service, Big American companies are either cultivating monopoly by Oligopoly or are a monopoly of its own.
I do agree however taht on a purely economic perspective, patents are undeniably necessary, because commercial companies would have no interest in researching new technology if its new discovery could directly profit its concurrent.
However if you think that microsoft is innovating, your putting your finger into your eye, let me explain:
Microsoft through its immense market share has made the business of Operating System a market with a very high economy of scales (economie d'echelles in french, not sure thats how you say it in english), and the only reason it perfects its operating system is to maintian this type of market. Indeed, by investing in technology and making sure of dependency Microsoft establishes Strategic Barriers at the entry of the market, thi means that even if a company was ready to put the effort to introduce a new commercial Operating System onto the market, the revenues it would generate would not cover its costs in either the short or long term, this means that the OS market is almost bullet proof to new commercial OSs.
Now to linux and other Free Operating Systems, its different strategy in terms of costs and benefits (almost no cost in development since most the work is voluntary,no real plan for profit at least from the developping of the kernel point of view and allowing companies to freely use the kernel to in turn allow them to make profit hence inducing very few costs of development of the kernel and other applications) allows for competitors to enter the market, and hence try and detrone Microsoft.
Now the whole concept of the Free Software and the only way it can work is based on the motivation of its community, without it theres no way enough "free" resources can be accumulated to be able to enter the market.
If you really believe that this motivation is bad, then not only are you a fool (because in term this same motivation will increase your well-being) but you also have no insight in economy whatsoever.
To Conclude: Just Shut up will you?
The bug being that it can be rendered useless with a couple k.
and i thought HL2 modded cases were useless... I really didn't see this one coming. Some people just have to much time on their hands....
It says that he was given: "4 mois de prison avec sursis". This means that he actually won't go to jail unless he gets jailed for something else during his probation period.
I think what will really be hurtfull is the 900,000 euros (~$1,200,000) that the french society wants to extort him of.
This is a blatent form of Injustice, but you do start to understand how this could be when you see that one of the clients of the Tegam company is no other then... The French Ministry of Justice!
Children should not be allowed to handle guns (even virtual) untill they get enrolled in the army... I mean terrorists may be out of the geneva conventions protection, but virtual aliens? They have rights you know! -WaZ-
i was merelay talking about bandwidth...
and btw i guess you know better then:
Physicist Anthony F.J. Levi of University of Southern California
Michael Morse, Photonic Researcher at Intel
Mark T. Bohr Director of process Architecture at Intel
and W. Watt Gibbs, author of the very interesting article i got my information from in the November Issue of Scientific American.
And btw those are just a couple of names taken in the two first paragraphs or so from the article.
1) 75% idle time is nonsense. Where did you get that number? With SPECfp on an Athlon or P4 it's more like 20-30% idle. Just look at how spec scores scale with frequency to figure out the memory-idle time.
In an Article of November 2004s Issue of Scientific American about about optics-based computers.
2) Increasing switching speed with optical technology increases bandwidth but does nothing for latency since nothing travels faster than the speed of light and electrons flowing along a wire can acheive close to 80% of the speed of light already. To reduce latency, what we need are smarter architectures and programmers that can prefetch the data into lower latency caches ahead of time.
Huh, where did i even mention the speed of of electrons along wires? Im simply stating that wires will never be able to deliver enough data for the processor to be able to function at a correct regime.
The CPU spends as much as 75% of its time idle because its waiting patiently for the memory to give it something to do. With Systems only delivering information at a max of 1 Ghz and processors going up to almost 4 times as fast... Studies also show that they could in term be able to squeeze 20 Ghz out of wires as long as 20 inches (and only by 2010 will we be able to achieve that), but that would only be sufficient for the 32 nanometer generation of microships (and we're quite ahead of that)... So i think the future resides in optical connections within the motherboard, allowing processors to finally... well... process ;-)
These genetics mutations are quite rare (1%) and the delta32 Mutation only protects strains of HIV that use CCR5 proteins to help them break into the cells, so yes a very few people are immune to most strains of HIV. And this is why doctors will prbably never allow people get tested for delta32 mutation.
You must be kidding right? Didn't you get the whole point of this article was between the celery and the _aspargus_? If you had done reasearch you would have known that the asparguses aerodynamic design will clearly give him the edge in the race, making it the certain winner.
They'd never name a chip after you
;-P
Actually if you had taken time ro read the End User Agreement you would have noticed that:
1. USE RIGHTS. If you comply with this agreement, you have the right to install and use the software on your computer until July 31, 2005, or until the date we release a commercial version of the software, whichever date is first.
2. TIME-SENSITIVE SOFTWARE. The software will stop running on July 31, 2005. You may not receive any other notice. You will not receive any further updates when the software stops running.
3. PRE-RELEASE SOFTWARE. This software is a pre-release version. It will not work the way a final version of the software will. We may change it for the final, commercial version. We also may not release a commercial version of the software.
So basically theres a big chance they will make it a subscription service...
well Nashs theory would say that without consultation between companies the first company that could leverage the product onto the market would do so if they didn't consult each other, but since i suspect that companies will try to protect their investements (basically the monitor market is an oligopoly with common interests) by selling TFT as long as they can, basically untill the market need for TFT reaches its saturation...
The tendency in technology these days is that the price of new tech decreases much faster then before, now there are many manufacturers that are developping OLED and other display techs, so you can basically assume that the profit margin/device will drop pretty fast, also the profit is not only how much money you win for each product you sell, you also have to include investement, now they all have invested in LCD-TFT so they might aswell win as much money as possible from that...
Well at the moment companies basically have a unspoken deal not to bring OLED on the market too soon to be able to gain as much as possible from the current TFT technology, however there is only but one Nash's equilibrium which is where all companies offer cheaper solutions (this time its OLED). So basically what im saying is that someday some company will bring out a cheaper solution wether it be OLED (certainly appears so now) or something else and all companies will have to bring their cheaper solutions/products. But lets face it, noone has any reason to speed up the process at the moment, so theres little chance this new tech boom will happen before some time. -WaZ-
i doubt anyone will be able to buy OLED tv's before quite some time... Just seeing how much money LCD and TFT are generating, how much investements they have in those technologies, and since OLED should be much cheaper generating less profit large manufacturers will wait as much as possible before introducing these. Fortunately Nashs theory will eventually kick in and as soon as one of them comercialises one, they all will. So basically expect a lot of nothing then a boom with everything.
on http://www.tlm-project.org http://www.tlm-project.org/torrents/knoppix/3.4/KN OPPIX_V3.4-2004-05-04-EN.iso.torrent
-WaZ-