I'm getting ready to install Fedora Core 4 on my laptop, and I can't find a driver for my wireless card yet. I was thinking about plugging straight into the cable modem, since I don't have an extra ethernet cable at the moment. Will I be okay, or should I just buy an extra cable and keep using the hardware firewall?
with most businesses in the world, it works the other way around. you make an investment, and then recoup those costs with the product you are selling. what business wouldn't like to turn that around and bundle past and future costs into current price? i'm too lazy to look it up, but i'll be willing to bet that AMD operates like most companies - you try to think ahead, but you most likely build facilities through massive infusions of cash or debt that is paid back (or might come with a share of the company (like stockholders).
the problem is that a free market doesn't usually let you set your own prices, which intel essentially did. when there's true competition, you can't just arbitrarily set the price - instead price is a mixture of what the market will bear (demand) and pricing from other companies (supply).
that is, unless you're not operating in a free market. like, say, you have a virtual monopoly that allows you to squelch the competition ahead of time, so you can set whatever price you like. sure, it's great for the corporation. not so great for the consumer. and while there are scenarios you can imagine where companies can roll past and future costs together, those are likely to be niche or high-end products, where there's less competition.
I'm not talking about production costs. Of course that's a factor in price. However, a company that rolls *future* production costs for *future* products into the *current* price of a *current* product is probably because they're a monopoly.
Of course there are other reasons why that might happen, but *I* happen to think that in Intel's case, if they weren't a monopoly (or very close to one) they would be unable to roll these *future* production costs into the price.
I'm actually a bit skeptical that they *do* include future production costs in their pricing. That sounds like a nice excuse for artificially setting the price higher to me.
To whom are you responding? If it's my comment, I have absolutely no idea what statement I made you're riffing. I think maybe you think I was justifying AMD filing the case. Actually, I was explaining why it was news that AMD is pressing for damages from Intel.
But maybe you were responding to someone else, and replied to me by accident. That must be it.
All that said, I sincerely doubt that Apple switching to AMD is even a remote possibility for a while. And by a while, I figure at least four years, maybe longer. The only thing I see possibly impacting that would be shaky Intel tech and continued AMD improvements.
1. Intel may well be building fab costs into their chips (I don't know one way or another), but isn't it curious that AMD has been able to steadily chip away at Intel all these years, slowly building up production capacity, all while having less expensive chips? The only reason Intel can build the fab costs into the chip (if they even do that) is because they're a monopoly, and not operating under normal rules of supply and demand - Intel sets the price, not the market.
2. At least part of the reason AMD has a tough time building up capacity is they don't have any large orders (like, say Apple) to make the investment tenable. Of course, they can't get large orders because Intel drops in with cash and pressure to keep AMD from getting large orders. Which helps keep Intel chip pricing artificially high.
So I don't see what the problem is with AMD claiming that Intel's chip prices are artificially high. In a normal free market, the consumer would be paying for the costs of the product in front of them, not the product in front of them *and* the production costs of future products as well.
Whether or not this story is "news", there's a pretty clear difference between the two blurbs you cited.
1. The Fair Trade Commission of Japan (JFTC) ruled against Intel, saying that Intel deliberately engaged in illegal business practices.
2. AMD decided to claim damages against Intel in Japan, a logical decision seeing that Intel has already been found in violation of the law.
Call me crazy, but Intel being found guilty by the JFTC and AMD claiming damages as a result of that ruling are not the same thing. Perhaps you think that #2 logically follows from #1. But at least as of Tuesday, it hadn't *actually* happened yet.
So for people like me, who are interested in what happens in this case, this is not only news but new news. Which is why I read/. - the tidbits of new news.
The only explanation for our behavior - or lack thereof - is that they do have nukes and that's why we won't be invading Iran.
That's just not true. Bush probably *wants* to attack Iran, but Iraq is a cakewalk compared to Iran. We need a *huge* army to attack them, and we need to neutralize the WMDs first, whatever they have (which we don't know).
If we were sure they didn't have nukes, we would probably start bombing them. But we aren't at all sure that they do.
From globalsecurity.org:
It is evident that Iran's efforts are focused both on uranium enrichment and a parallel plutonium effort. Iran claims it is trying to establish a complete nuclear fuel cycle to support a civilian energy program, but this same fuel cycle would be applicable to a nuclear weapons development program. Iran appears to have spread their nuclear activities around a number of sites to reduce the risk of detection or attack.
Iran does not currently have nuclear weapons, and would appear to be about two years away from acquiring nuclear weapons. By some time in 2006, however, Iran could be producting fissile material for atomic bombs using both uranium enriched at Natanz and plutonium produced at Arak. The Natanz facility might produce enough uranium for about five bombs every year, and the Arak facility might produced enough plutonium for as many as three bombs every year.
The best explanation for our behaviour is that we don't want Iran having nuclear weapons and destablizing the region, but we know that even with a draft the U.S. doesn't have the manpower to attack Iran. For crying out loud, we don't even really have "inferred intel" (whatever the hell that is) - we simply have no intelligence operations in Iran to speak of...
We think they already have nukes. We know they have nuclear production capabilities because they have nuclear power plants. We're pretty sure they have nukes, which makes attacking even harder because ideally if we attacked them we'd want to take out their nukes.
But we don't know enough about their nukes to try anything. Besides, would you trust American intelligence these days?
you're right. what we need to do is go from two major parties competing for elections to one huge party and lots of little parties playing in the sand. that will make things so much better.
Nothing is set in stone. 40 million is the number of cards that were possibly impacted. 68,000 is the number of Mastercards that were part of a specific group of data that was being used by someone (triggering a fraud investigation).
Basically, there was a program systematically getting this data from inside the system, and it theoretically had access to all of the data being illegally stored.
You're guessing? Without having any clue what "plain doesn't work" means (thanks for the technical language), and not working for Google, I have to wonder if you've turned Javascript off in your options. Or one of your extensions has.
Well, that all depends, doesn't it? If you have a physical store presence in California, they can come after you if you don't collect sales taxes. Just like they went after Borders.
If you only have a physical presence in Mexico, then you have nothing to worry about.
I don't know, it doesn't seem that far-fetched to me, for two reasons (that Cringely doesn't go into):
1) This would involve Intel buying Apple, not the other way around. This may be a stupid idea (I'm not sure yet), but at the very least it would be Intel's stupid idea, not Apple's stupid idea. Which kind of makes sense when you review the other stupid ideas that Intel's been having lately.
2. Intel *is* probably thinking about Longhorn. I'm working on an AMD 3000 machine that does a few things faster than the Pentium 1.5 laptop that I have. But only a few things, like graphics and Excel and things like that. Actually, I'm having a hard time coming up with any reason to upgrade my processor, except for adding PCI-X and faster RAM and the like. I imagine Intel isn't looking forward to the next three-to-five years when no one bothers buying faster computers because it's only about 20% of the computing population that would even notice the extra speed.
I would guess this isn't just about upgrade cycles, but it's also about Intel and Apple figuring out what to do with all those extra clock cycles.
it only uses the IE rendering engine on pages that require the IE engine. otherwise it uses the firefox rendering engine. those settings are configurable as well.
I noticed that they always seemed to pick the slim and reasonably attractive types for the body scan. So either that was coincidence or there was a few pervs there.
pervs?
I am proud to add myself to the worldwide organization of Pervs Digging Slim And Reasonably Attractive Types (PDSARAT). We are many, we are strong. We dig hot chicks.
pervs my ass.
3rd to improve security make the seats a little bigger and make sure the people who are traveling are comfortable so you get less of the crazy non-terrorest people who are so fed up about the trip they get violent.
translation: stop serving alcohol on planes and in airports
Since you didn't grok my comment about web standards, I assume you're not a developer. Here's the deal: IE is not very good at supporting web standards like CSS, PNG, etc. It also encourages sloppy markup. By incorporating IE, Netscape will lessen the pressure on developers to write standards-compliant code. At the same time, the reliance on IE destroys the cross-platform nature of the browser, and by proxy, the web itself.
I've done my fair share of development, and I'm quite aware of IE's weaknesses. From an enterprise level, there are many companies that have IE-only intranets that aren't about to switch away from that. Yes, we all know IE sucks.
I'm a Firefox user, but to my mind Netscape is better than just plain IE. It's still essentially Firefox but it also has the IE rendering engine, so it's standards-compliant and can run those IE-only sites. But in tabs!
I'm afraid it's worse than simply "a waste of time". Apparently, Netscape 8 incorporates the IE rendering engine, and uses it by default for "trusted" sites. This is a seditious act by AOL to tie the Netscape brand to the Windows platform, and shits on the web standards the Mozilla team has worked so hard to support.
I don't know why you think it's a bad thing for the IE rendering engine to be in Netscape. I think it's a great idea, or at least it will be when they have it working right.
It can't happen in Mozilla or Firefox because they're open source, and won't use the IE rendering engine. But Netscape can, and all it means is that I can open those crummy IE-only sites in a browser other than IE.
As for your other complaints? It's called open source, and Netscape is in no way "shitting on web standards" or some such nonsense. They're just trying to address one of the major complaints that people have had about non-IE browsers.
Their first concern and only concern is the bottom line.
While we can argue the short-sightedness of this perspective all we want (and it is tremendously short-sighted to allow companies to pass on environmental costs to society), the truth is that we will win if we start impacting the bottom line of companies. It's possible, and getting more possible every day.
Sure Firefox is great, but it's not perfect and IE still has some advantages.
The only possible "advantage" IE has is the ability to run proprietary Microsoft pages. And that advantage is rapidly disappearing. More and more companies are coming out with standards-compliant intranet and internet applications.
Well, that and playing windows medial in the browser. Now that's a perk.
Slashdot Mirror
a poor one...
I'm getting ready to install Fedora Core 4 on my laptop, and I can't find a driver for my wireless card yet. I was thinking about plugging straight into the cable modem, since I don't have an extra ethernet cable at the moment. Will I be okay, or should I just buy an extra cable and keep using the hardware firewall?
with most businesses in the world, it works the other way around. you make an investment, and then recoup those costs with the product you are selling. what business wouldn't like to turn that around and bundle past and future costs into current price? i'm too lazy to look it up, but i'll be willing to bet that AMD operates like most companies - you try to think ahead, but you most likely build facilities through massive infusions of cash or debt that is paid back (or might come with a share of the company (like stockholders).
the problem is that a free market doesn't usually let you set your own prices, which intel essentially did. when there's true competition, you can't just arbitrarily set the price - instead price is a mixture of what the market will bear (demand) and pricing from other companies (supply).
that is, unless you're not operating in a free market. like, say, you have a virtual monopoly that allows you to squelch the competition ahead of time, so you can set whatever price you like. sure, it's great for the corporation. not so great for the consumer. and while there are scenarios you can imagine where companies can roll past and future costs together, those are likely to be niche or high-end products, where there's less competition.
I'm not talking about production costs. Of course that's a factor in price. However, a company that rolls *future* production costs for *future* products into the *current* price of a *current* product is probably because they're a monopoly.
Of course there are other reasons why that might happen, but *I* happen to think that in Intel's case, if they weren't a monopoly (or very close to one) they would be unable to roll these *future* production costs into the price.
I'm actually a bit skeptical that they *do* include future production costs in their pricing. That sounds like a nice excuse for artificially setting the price higher to me.
To whom are you responding? If it's my comment, I have absolutely no idea what statement I made you're riffing. I think maybe you think I was justifying AMD filing the case. Actually, I was explaining why it was news that AMD is pressing for damages from Intel.
But maybe you were responding to someone else, and replied to me by accident. That must be it.
All that said, I sincerely doubt that Apple switching to AMD is even a remote possibility for a while. And by a while, I figure at least four years, maybe longer. The only thing I see possibly impacting that would be shaky Intel tech and continued AMD improvements.
I have a two gripes with this:
1. Intel may well be building fab costs into their chips (I don't know one way or another), but isn't it curious that AMD has been able to steadily chip away at Intel all these years, slowly building up production capacity, all while having less expensive chips? The only reason Intel can build the fab costs into the chip (if they even do that) is because they're a monopoly, and not operating under normal rules of supply and demand - Intel sets the price, not the market.
2. At least part of the reason AMD has a tough time building up capacity is they don't have any large orders (like, say Apple) to make the investment tenable. Of course, they can't get large orders because Intel drops in with cash and pressure to keep AMD from getting large orders. Which helps keep Intel chip pricing artificially high.
So I don't see what the problem is with AMD claiming that Intel's chip prices are artificially high. In a normal free market, the consumer would be paying for the costs of the product in front of them, not the product in front of them *and* the production costs of future products as well.
On the bright side, at least AMD has some products to potentially advertise. That's one giant leap forward from SCO. ;-)
Whether or not this story is "news", there's a pretty clear difference between the two blurbs you cited.
/. - the tidbits of new news.
1. The Fair Trade Commission of Japan (JFTC) ruled against Intel, saying that Intel deliberately engaged in illegal business practices.
2. AMD decided to claim damages against Intel in Japan, a logical decision seeing that Intel has already been found in violation of the law.
Call me crazy, but Intel being found guilty by the JFTC and AMD claiming damages as a result of that ruling are not the same thing. Perhaps you think that #2 logically follows from #1. But at least as of Tuesday, it hadn't *actually* happened yet.
So for people like me, who are interested in what happens in this case, this is not only news but new news. Which is why I read
The only explanation for our behavior - or lack thereof - is that they do have nukes and that's why we won't be invading Iran.
That's just not true. Bush probably *wants* to attack Iran, but Iraq is a cakewalk compared to Iran. We need a *huge* army to attack them, and we need to neutralize the WMDs first, whatever they have (which we don't know).
If we were sure they didn't have nukes, we would probably start bombing them. But we aren't at all sure that they do. From globalsecurity.org:
It is evident that Iran's efforts are focused both on uranium enrichment and a parallel plutonium effort. Iran claims it is trying to establish a complete nuclear fuel cycle to support a civilian energy program, but this same fuel cycle would be applicable to a nuclear weapons development program. Iran appears to have spread their nuclear activities around a number of sites to reduce the risk of detection or attack. Iran does not currently have nuclear weapons, and would appear to be about two years away from acquiring nuclear weapons. By some time in 2006, however, Iran could be producting fissile material for atomic bombs using both uranium enriched at Natanz and plutonium produced at Arak. The Natanz facility might produce enough uranium for about five bombs every year, and the Arak facility might produced enough plutonium for as many as three bombs every year.
The best explanation for our behaviour is that we don't want Iran having nuclear weapons and destablizing the region, but we know that even with a draft the U.S. doesn't have the manpower to attack Iran. For crying out loud, we don't even really have "inferred intel" (whatever the hell that is) - we simply have no intelligence operations in Iran to speak of...
They already have nukes, so it won't happen.
We think they already have nukes. We know they have nuclear production capabilities because they have nuclear power plants. We're pretty sure they have nukes, which makes attacking even harder because ideally if we attacked them we'd want to take out their nukes.
But we don't know enough about their nukes to try anything. Besides, would you trust American intelligence these days?
from TFA: The AOL.com homepage, which is fully compatible with alternate browsers including Firefox and Safari
translation: AOL.com is designed according to web standards.
What are we supposed to do, applaud? This should be a minimal standard for a website, not a feature!
you're right. what we need to do is go from two major parties competing for elections to one huge party and lots of little parties playing in the sand. that will make things so much better.
Nothing is set in stone. 40 million is the number of cards that were possibly impacted. 68,000 is the number of Mastercards that were part of a specific group of data that was being used by someone (triggering a fraud investigation).
Basically, there was a program systematically getting this data from inside the system, and it theoretically had access to all of the data being illegally stored.
You're guessing? Without having any clue what "plain doesn't work" means (thanks for the technical language), and not working for Google, I have to wonder if you've turned Javascript off in your options. Or one of your extensions has.
Well, that all depends, doesn't it? If you have a physical store presence in California, they can come after you if you don't collect sales taxes. Just like they went after Borders.
If you only have a physical presence in Mexico, then you have nothing to worry about.
I don't know, it doesn't seem that far-fetched to me, for two reasons (that Cringely doesn't go into):
1) This would involve Intel buying Apple, not the other way around. This may be a stupid idea (I'm not sure yet), but at the very least it would be Intel's stupid idea, not Apple's stupid idea. Which kind of makes sense when you review the other stupid ideas that Intel's been having lately.
2. Intel *is* probably thinking about Longhorn. I'm working on an AMD 3000 machine that does a few things faster than the Pentium 1.5 laptop that I have. But only a few things, like graphics and Excel and things like that. Actually, I'm having a hard time coming up with any reason to upgrade my processor, except for adding PCI-X and faster RAM and the like. I imagine Intel isn't looking forward to the next three-to-five years when no one bothers buying faster computers because it's only about 20% of the computing population that would even notice the extra speed.
I would guess this isn't just about upgrade cycles, but it's also about Intel and Apple figuring out what to do with all those extra clock cycles.
Well, duh.
Lewis: "Jocks only think about sports. Nerds only think about sex."
That's after the Darth Vader mask came off.
Battery manufacturers are expected to pressure PDAs and mobile phones fanboys to stop producing inefficient and power-hungry products.
Right before they stop being battery manufacturers, that is...
it only uses the IE rendering engine on pages that require the IE engine. otherwise it uses the firefox rendering engine. those settings are configurable as well.
I noticed that they always seemed to pick the slim and reasonably attractive types for the body scan. So either that was coincidence or there was a few pervs there.
pervs? I am proud to add myself to the worldwide organization of Pervs Digging Slim And Reasonably Attractive Types (PDSARAT). We are many, we are strong. We dig hot chicks. pervs my ass.
3rd to improve security make the seats a little bigger and make sure the people who are traveling are comfortable so you get less of the crazy non-terrorest people who are so fed up about the trip they get violent.
translation: stop serving alcohol on planes and in airports
Since you didn't grok my comment about web standards, I assume you're not a developer. Here's the deal: IE is not very good at supporting web standards like CSS, PNG, etc. It also encourages sloppy markup. By incorporating IE, Netscape will lessen the pressure on developers to write standards-compliant code. At the same time, the reliance on IE destroys the cross-platform nature of the browser, and by proxy, the web itself.
I've done my fair share of development, and I'm quite aware of IE's weaknesses. From an enterprise level, there are many companies that have IE-only intranets that aren't about to switch away from that. Yes, we all know IE sucks.
I'm a Firefox user, but to my mind Netscape is better than just plain IE. It's still essentially Firefox but it also has the IE rendering engine, so it's standards-compliant and can run those IE-only sites. But in tabs!
Come on, that's not that bad.
I'm afraid it's worse than simply "a waste of time". Apparently, Netscape 8 incorporates the IE rendering engine, and uses it by default for "trusted" sites. This is a seditious act by AOL to tie the Netscape brand to the Windows platform, and shits on the web standards the Mozilla team has worked so hard to support.
I don't know why you think it's a bad thing for the IE rendering engine to be in Netscape. I think it's a great idea, or at least it will be when they have it working right.
It can't happen in Mozilla or Firefox because they're open source, and won't use the IE rendering engine. But Netscape can, and all it means is that I can open those crummy IE-only sites in a browser other than IE.
As for your other complaints? It's called open source, and Netscape is in no way "shitting on web standards" or some such nonsense. They're just trying to address one of the major complaints that people have had about non-IE browsers.
Their first concern and only concern is the bottom line. While we can argue the short-sightedness of this perspective all we want (and it is tremendously short-sighted to allow companies to pass on environmental costs to society), the truth is that we will win if we start impacting the bottom line of companies. It's possible, and getting more possible every day.
Sure Firefox is great, but it's not perfect and IE still has some advantages.
The only possible "advantage" IE has is the ability to run proprietary Microsoft pages. And that advantage is rapidly disappearing. More and more companies are coming out with standards-compliant intranet and internet applications.
Well, that and playing windows medial in the browser. Now that's a perk.