That was my point - I was just giving a different aspect to your point on differences being minor relative to other aspects of the team (that decisions to try to optimize something as minor as the revision control system can have huge unintended consequences). I'm astounded at how many people advocate "the newest thing", just because.
...and one of the biggest benefits you have in a long-lived project is the history. This is a huge burden to switching revision control systems.
In switching you either:
(1) Move the entire history from one system to another. This may not be possible, and if it is possible, will mangle references in all the docs, e-mails, unit tests, bug reports, etc. etc. etc. which refer to the revision number of a check-in
or
(2) End up supporting two revision systems, because you can't ditch the old one without destroying your software's history.
Switching systems is expensive (and this isn't necessarily a dollar statement since both svn and git are open source)
Is there something unique about our infrastructure? Did we make some horrible mistake that seemed like a good idea at the time but is now haunting us?
1) Network design. 78% of Western Europe and Korea/Japan/PAC are within 3 km of a telecommunications central office (CO). Only 62% of the US population is within 6 km of a CO. This has a heavy impact on cost (since the last leg from CO to home requires high-fiber-strand cable for fiber optics or degrades DSL performance, making DSL impractical in much of the US)
2) Age. We developed first, and this is the price we pay, because our telecoms have to maintain the older infrastructure before they can replace it with new. This isn't just DSL, but Frame Relay, X.25, and all the other connections that the telecommunications companies provide. As a specific example, we have older cables running around in cities that prevent good high speed connections in places like NYC where it would seem logical that you could get good high speed access... but DSL doesn't work as well over 50 year old copper lines. Also, our rights of way were also established much earlier, often making them less telecommunications-friendly, ensuring higher wiring costs when things like fiber are deployed. Add in hundreds of years of poorly documented pipes, etc. under roads and it's hugely expensive to dig in (east coast) US cities as well.
3) We have different TV and telephone providers. In much of Europe, they are the same, ensuring only one network build-out, vs. a duolopy doubling network deployment cost. It also drags huge volumes of money into marketing, I've seen marketing/acquisition/provisioning costs estimated as high as $10/mo per connection for DSL.
I could also try it from the angle of regulation/free market/competition.
This is part of the difference, especially with differences to Europe, where unbundling of local loops is required.
Also, the Korean government has loaned or spent billions to get high speed DSL or fiber to homes.
You should also read the informative response to my post (since I was only directly answering a specific point and not attempting to cover the entire issue).
In other words, it HAS been tested in court, but courts are disagreeing on how to interpret the issue.
No doubt - I'm aware of that as well. The interesting point is that a lot of these are Ninth Circuit cases, so a lawyer could have some fun on which is "right" or "controlling". As the first sale Wikipedia article points out, it's an unclear area of the law, and frankly, anyone involved in the details should consult a lawyer.
I was simply responding to the assertion that it's been upheld by "every" court, which isn't the case.
Ironically, you should read the "Computer Software" section of the first sale article. The last paragraph in that section refers to a case where it was not upheld.
Then read page 13, lines 12-21 of MDY Industries, LLC v. Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. et al for a reference to three cases, that show examples of the issue of licensed vs. sold software and what rights you may not have under copyright law with licensed software.
"with smaller things (refrigerator or smaller) distance transport from foreign lands is pretty low."
Are you kidding? You think that the product size actually matters? There is very little difference in shipping a container of refrigerators vs. a container of pens. It's a tiny fraction of fuel economy (a few percent) due to weight differences. The cost & distribution challenges come in breaking up the product at distribution centers, but that happens regardless of where the product is manufactured.
What will matter is raw ores (iron ore) and other relatively dense materials (steel, lumber), which greatly increase transportation costs and are easily replaceable commodities. This will be the first place the effects are seen, but it will spread to other products.
"The cost of shipping a refrigerator across the sea is way smaller than the cost of trucking it across a state."
Perhaps if you ship them one at a time. But that's not how trucks or ships work.
The statement in the article notes an increased container shipping cost of $3,000 to $8,000 shipping from China to NY. That $5,000 difference is about 1,000 gallons of diesel, which is enough to drive more than 4,000 miles carrying the 29+- tons of a fully loaded standard shipping container.
While I would generally agree with you, in this particular case, that path has been paved already. The state legislature already took action to make such networks legal. The doubt disappeared when Burlington was tied up in court. The telcos & cable companies lost.
Standards are definitely better for consumers. But many of you seem to forget that you aren't just consumers -- you're employees too.
...employees of companies that are dependent on technology getting cheaper....and employees of companies whose consumers are dependent on technology getting cheaper. You seem to think that the technology world controls the economy. In fact, it's not the largest part of the economy. Technology doesn't have that control, and it never will, for numerous reasons.
Making technology more complicated and more expensive is not beneficial for consumers of what you sell. Businesses measure the ROI of projects. If you drive up the cost, you drive down the ROI. Eventually you will encounter a situation where no projects will be implemented. Yes, that may take a few years, but it will happen. Then, you will have killed your entire company, which I think is much worse than fighting to maintain your standard of living.
Today, third-world cheap labour for metal and plastic and paper trumps any local labour. Do you want tech jobs to go the same way?
And you believe that by fighting against standards you can stop it?
It also seems that you want to effectively form a cartel. I have news for you: The people in India don't want you to form a cartel. They want standards, because it allows the job transfer. It will raise their standard of living. Thus, they will create and follow standards even if you do not. If you believe that the large companies that are consumers and not developers of technology will stay with a more expensive solution because you hope beyond hope that they will pay you extra... then you're dreaming. The bad news for you in that picture is that the companies that purchase web development services will transfer and outsource that work. Again, by trying to stop progress, you doom your own company.
There are many other reasons your logic fails to be reasonable: Economic production location is based on relative efficiency rather than absolute efficiency, not all of the resources/services you provide need to be scarce to be valuable, complexity and frustration does not translate into value, supporting your clients doesn't mean giving them inferior products at higher cost, etc.
The answer to good wages is not to hope progress stops. The key is keeping a high skill set, being flexible, and ensuring that you are paying attention to what technologies and products are becoming commodities. As an employee (and not self-employed), means, of course, a touch of luck is involved as well. The answer is not to fight standards.
Does anyone have the inside scoop on why -- over a year after introducing this product -- Nintendo has not been able to ramp production up to meet demand?
The way I read your statement, you're making an assumption that I'm not entirely sure is true. It appears that you are assuming Nintendo wants to meet demand.
To be fair, I don't think they are intentionally holding back on production solely to produce scarcity. I think the statements they have made (of wishing they had more product) are honest. However, I also believe that this is not a marketing and sales issue, but a financial one.
Nintendo might be able to ramp up to meet demand, but the problem is one of understanding demand. What no one is sure of is what the real demand is. If they are producing 1.5M units/month, is real demand 1.501M units/month? 3.0M units/month?
The risk that Nintendo faces is the same risk that many telecom and networking companies experienced in 2000-2001. In that case, a capacity shortage of certain components led to over-ordering of the product, and thus when production was ramped to meet the (artificially) inflated demand, the equipment companies sat on billions in inventory that they were forced to write down (because no one wanted to buy it).
This is a slightly different situation (no artificial demand, just hard to forecast the real demand), yet the same lesson applies. I believe Nintendo is taking a cautious approach to its product ramp. Since the supply chain is something on the order of 4-6 months from initial orders to final assembly, they face huge inventory risk if they significantly overshoot demand. Their conservative forecasts and production have lost them some sales, but it may be less risk to lose sales than to risk sitting on a ton of inventory.
"I personally get ruffled the wrong way when I see people generate insane overhead by latching binaries to mails instead of using sensible ways of transfer (like uploading to some server and sending the FTP link via mail), but that's how mail is being used."
This is all a matter of perspective and context. There are places where what you describe is probably an appropriate response, but not where I work... When the development or operations groups point me to their file server or other on-line system, it causes our organization to fail. The problem is that a good portion of the time, I'm trying to look at something on a plane, or in a car (someone else driving!), or somewhere I *don't* have a connection to the 'net. Therefore, the lack of an attachment actually delays my response. Those folks quickly learn to send attachments if they want a timely response.
"It's being used as a tool to transfer data of various kinds"
Absolutely! Being able to transfer data as attachments to e-mail is exactly what keeps us going in an era when ones working group is sporadically connected and is spread across 11 countries and 14 time zones.
I believe that most solar cell manufacturing processes would scale well
Not particularly. Because they rely on semiconductors, they only scale as well as the fabs to build them. The problem has been that the solar industry uses plants that are at the end of their semiconductor chip fabricating life; thus they do not wield great efficiency due to small wafer sizes. They also suffer from the base challenges of dealing with silicon wafers (raw cost of wafers, dicing costs, etc.) The same cost problem exists with LEDs. It's interesting to note how GE is focused on cost of production in OLEDs rather than their efficiency on GE's Global Research Blog post. Following that analogy, it's not the 40% efficiency that will launch solar cells, it's 10% efficiency at 10% of today's cost (It's about cost/kWh).
Now, if we could only figure out some way for the oil companies to reap massive profits from such a scheme, I'm sure it would happen in no time.
I'd note that most oil companies do have lots of research into alternative (non-oil) energy. It's just hard to see in their financials because oil is so lucrative. The major one that realy gets criticized for its lack of investment in areas like solar is ExxonMobil - and the reason they don't is probably the same reason that Cisco doesn't tend to develop most of its revolutionary technology inside the company. XOM and CSCO both have tons of cash, tons of cash flow and a well-priced stock giving them the ability to simply buy a producer of new equipment if it becomes a valuable market. Why bother to spend tons of money on basic research when you can let the newcomers fight it out in the market and just buy the leader when the time is appropriate? As strange as it is, that's R&D economics at many large industry-leading corporations. It's "efficient outsourced innovation".
What's wrong with converting one's boredom or downtime into a product that benefits people?
I am an open source developer. I don't think it reflects *at all* on the challenge in my job (which is interesting and I'm very busy), but it *is* a reflection that software development is *different* than my day job, and by using a different part of my brain, I can find the development challenges in an open source project to be relaxing.
Maybe one could argue that is a form of "boredom", but if so, does volunteering to build a Habitat for Humanity house also qualify as boredom? Under the definition of "spare cycles" in the article where is the line between choice and boredom? I can't find it.
I'm not sure what harm the students can claim, but if they have any decent lawyers at all, they'll find some way of doing it.
The 'harm' is violation of 17 USC 106(1) - their exclusive right to copy their works. You don't have to hurt the owner financially to violate copyright law - financial impact is part of damages, not part of guilt.
As far as damages, copyright violation doesn't have to involve actual monetary damages, there are also statutory damages for where the actual damages are not significant (see 17 USC 504(c)).
Gallium Arsenide *is* exotic, because it has to be done in specialized fabs, not those that run silicon wafers. That significantly drives up the cost vs. SiGe and RFCMOS.
The price of ringtones is reasonable only to spoiled teenagers and people with more money than brains.
Their target markets.
Nobody wants to pay 1.99 for something you'll have to replace if you get a new phone. People who I wouldn't consider exactly technologically proficient have enough brains to realize these things and might get one midi ringtone and stick with it for the rest of the phone's life.
Would your behavior change if it was 0.99? What about 0.49? Most likely, people like you and I wouldn't change the ringtones that often anyway (or would do so from MP3s, as you talk about), so the market volume we are driving is relatively small, and therefore, does not weigh on their decisions.
Maybe there's some trendy hip-hop loving teenagers that have to have "I want to love (f**k) you" as their ringtone this week and then something else next week, but I believe this makes up the vast minority of consumers.
But are they the majority of purchases? Because while the market for music lovers is large, that market is also driven by the purchases of music by people in their teens (due to volume of purchases, not volume of consumers)
Don't they see it's costing THEM more money in the long run to include this garbage?
I doubt it is. Like the parent to my other post, I suspect you are not in their target market (DRM protected, high priced ringtones are not targeted at/. readers). The underlying issue is about the target market of certain items and who will use them. The multi-dollar ringtone is addressed to people who value convenience and/or instant gratification.
Consider the social aspect of a ringtone to a teenager, and the potential need for instant replacement if a certain ringtone is frowned upon by friends. With that in perspective, it's likely that the ringtones are priced at a point the market will bear, as sad and painful as that may be to the technically inclined.
This is not as simple as you make it sound. Like most issues, the devil is in the details...
...there is no difference between EMI, Sony, Microsoft, General Motors or anyone else.
Wrong.
EMI, Warner, Sony, the RIAA, and the other components of the music and recording industry are shielded from certain anti-trust provisions by 17 USC 114(e)(1). That makes them different, and they should be held to a different standard on their pricing and behavior. Otherwise, the exemption should be removed.
If you purchase a song, a book, a bit of art, or a software product, you understand you are purchasing it for your use under certain conditions of the sale.
Again, this requires full disclosure, which is not always in existence. Sony did not disclose that it was putting auto-installing software on CDs to prevent copying, so that decision could not be made. They got caught, and paid a financial price for it, but that behavior is not acceptable. It is the same reason that some shiny discs that operate in CD players are not technially CDs, because they do not meet the standards of the format. (That is disclosed because they cannot place the "Compact Disc" logo on the package). Software licenses and not being able to read them before opening a package are also an issue that has made it to the courts because it produces an imbalance of information and ability to make good decisions.
You have the right to NOT enter into an agreement with the owner of the work, simply don't purchase.
That is true, and it is why I only purchase music on CD.
However, let's look at this from a slightly wider perspective. The contract society originally entered into with copyrights was to provide a monopoly to the owner (either the creator or an assignee), for a limited time. There are items that balance out that monopoly power:
- In 17 USC 109, which codified the doctrine of first sale. This allows me to resell a book without the permission of the copyright holder
- In 17 USC 107, fair use
- In the expiration of copyrights
What licensing attempts to do - and what DRM enforces - is leveraging technology to impose a contract which curtails my rights which are part of the social contract enshrined in Title 17 (Copyrights). My issues with the limitations imposed by today's DRM systems are that:
- DRM strips me of my rights under 17 USC 109 (they should not be able to claim copying digital bits is a violation of their copyright while avoiding the ability of me to transfer that copy legally under 17 USC 109(a))
- DRM strips me of any fair use rights under 17 USC 107
- DRM strips me of any ability to have the work beyond the copyright period (since there are no provisions for removing DRM)
DRM today eliminates my rights by leveraging the monopoly granted to them by the copyright act. As far as I'm concerned, that's a violation of the social contract in the copyright act, and if they wish to use DRM, then they should be able to do so, but their work should no longer be protected by the US Copyright Act or the Berne Convention. If any party is capable of subverting the limitations imposed on them when society came to agreement on the terms, then they should also lose the benefits.
I think that the model of digital distribution, that consists in having the consummer pay about as much for a data file as they would for a packaged physical support with the same content, is flawed at the core.
Actually, while this may be unpopular on./, it's indicative of value pricing of the digital product. You may not feel that is 'fair', but pricing isn't about fairness. It's about extracting the maximum amount of value from the consumer of the product while leaving the consumer with enough value that they return as a customer. In this case, the fact that the content is copyrighted generally trumps pricing fairness under anti-trust law (because the effect of copyright is to grant a temporary monopoly).
Digital downloads and CDs are well differentiated products, and they both have an effective place in the market. I suspect the value for the digital content is appropriate. Marketing = Product, Promotion, Price, and Position (or some other form of 4 Ps equating to the same message), so if you are purchasing a season-at-a-time and are price sensitive, you are not their target market. That doesn't mean the market does not exist (e.g. I think ringtones are the biggest rip-off known to man-kind, but I can't ignore that it's a billion dollar market).
Digital distribution is targeted at those who are either cherry-picking or are time sensitive. Conversion from a CD to digital form takes time and effort (worse for DVDs). To some people, this time is worth more than the price difference between the products (and to others, they are so price-insensitive, that they will probably buy the digital version to watch the show during their commute and then purchase the season DVDs once they are available). One could also digital distribution is carrying a premium price at the moment, because it's 'hip'.
One pays MORE on a relative basis for an individual ditigal product of lower quality than they can receive on a CD or DVD. It's 100% consistent with hundreds of thousands of physical products you can buy in a store. Effectively, CDs/DVDs are bundles, where you also receive the benefits of the doctrine of first sale (because you bought a product, not a license). Therefore, by buying the bundle, you get a discount (or you can view it as getting the higher quality for free). Buying the individual songs, you pay the market rate. In the case of TV shows, you may also get a time advantage (this is part of 'Position': it will be out in digital form before the season DVD is available).
Another useful analogy is to look at cost per bit of digital transmission. Try it someday on an SMS (cellular text) message (128 characters) vs. what the cable company pipes to you every month. The cost differential is something like 100,000X on a per-bit basis. That doesn't mean either cable or SMS is fundamentally flawed. SMS is certainly value-priced, but the number of users indicates it still possesses value even at that price.
Note that this judgement is on a relative basis to the cost of a CD, I am making NO judgement here about whether the CD costs are over-inflated due to industry behavior. That is an entirely different discussion which is not required to properly evaluate the relative value of individual digital tracks to a physical CD.
Given the current price of a CD, the prices are pretty close to what the market will bear (they are value priced). CDs can be effectively purchased for about $7-$8 at your favorite music club or other method of bulk purchases. So effectively, if you're buying more than 3 tracks on a CD, it's much more cost effective to buy the CD. For a one-hit wonder or a band where you appreciate a single song, but generally cringe at the music, use a $1/track digital source.
Obvious at first glance, perhaps. It all depends on the company. Would I telecommunicate if I worked at Google? Heck, no. I'd be at Google HQ. But there are other companies that are so geographically diverse that it's hard to know where it's valuable to be physically located.
Besides, it's not only telecommuters but those of us with remote managers that face these types of challenges.
I haven't had a local manager since 2000.
Has it hurt me relative to others overall? Perhaps....but it hasn't hurt me relative to my department-mates....and while I'm behind where I want to be, that's more a function of the 2001-2004 environment in my industry and company than lack of recognition. Besides, distance is an unescapable characteristic of modern multinational companies. Being able to demonstrate progress and communicate clearly with a diverse team (and management) over long distances is an asset that will get you recognized.
Your prior post is interesting, detailed, and well-informed reading, but you fail to address an existing, published study stating that cellphone use on aircraft may be dangerous.
So I did realize after I posted the grandparent comment that there are actually two different technologies at work here. I just recognize '3D' as 3D fabrication: using a single wafer and printing multiple layers of transistors. That is what I was referring to in the grandparent post. However, there is also 3D packaging technology, which has specific names in the industry and therefore I missed an alternate reading of both your original post and the article. The technology from the original article may be more easily integrated into a 3D package (more below).
Specifically related to the issues I mentioned: If you are interested in some of the challenges around flatness, you can learn more about dummy fill that must be added to metal layers, by looking at the layman's version or a technical description.
More specific articles on 3D fabrication can probably be found in recent journals (most likely not available online), or if you're not concerned about reading patents, by reading patents from the USPTO (for reasons of US law which you're probably familiar with, I'm not going to search that and provide you any links). There may also be more by searching for Matrix Semiconductor (which I didn't realize at the time of my first posting has been acquired by SanDisk).
Having said that, there is also 3D packaging, which takes various forms. Semiconductor Cubing (as it's apparently called) can stack lots of semiconductor devices, but note that these are originally fabricated as single layer chips and then they are bonded together to form a larger block.
More recently (and in real production), 3D packaging is being performed through a System in Package (SiP) methodology (you may also see this referred to as a 'chip stack' technology). This is distinct from a multi-chip module (MCM), where the chips are aligned horizontally on the packaging substrate. Today, a SiP is generally a memory module bonded upside down onto a non-memory device (though it can also be used to bond an RF device onto a non-RF device). This form of packaging is receiving attention from SEMATECH as well. Further information from SEMI is also available if you Google for "SEMI Forum: Mapping progress in 3D IC integration".
Beyond that, it's again hard, due to the password protected nature of conference materials and journals... but hopefully that's a good set of links to explore.
Yes, 3D is a neat application, but cooling is not the only challenge in 3D semiconductor electronics. Another perspective on 3D is available in Business Week's More life for Moore's Law article.
For example, one of the assumptions that exists on a semiconductor wafer before it is printed is that it is effectively flat (a typical peak to valley range on a modern wafer within the expected field of a chip is on the order of 175 to 200 nm)
Polishing to that accuracy once structures have been placed on a semiconductor wafer is difficult. Getting a consistent layer of material when you are polishing an uneven surface (uneven due to vias [connections] to the other layers of silicon present) is downright challenging. Another problem with printing transistors on anything but a pure wafer is the issue of reflection. Thin layers of materials on a semiconductor are semi-transparent and not perfectly vertical. Those angled and curved structures produce reflections. Those reflections can cause problems in printing later layers (because of constructive and destructive interference of the light used to expose the photoresist). Those reflections mean that modeling the exposore process of a 3D semiconductor is a VERY challenging task.
Such items are not of concern today, because the later structures placed on the wafer are generally metal lines or capacitors for DRAMs or lenses for image sensors, etc. These are all large and some level of imprecision is acceptable. While variation can cause differnet RC characteristics in metal lines, the timing models in the library or other models can account for this variation. In fact, Matrix Semiconductor has been producing 3D DRAM since about 2004, which shows that heat isn't necessarily the problem, and DRAMs (and memory in general) are a reasonable application for 3D technologies (likely because the capacitors are generally large in relative terms).
Transistors, however, are much more sensitive to variation, and the variation in later polishing used today is too rough for the effective printing of transistors. While I don't doubt that there are situations where the density will be valuable, I think 3D processors and custom chips (in consumer electronics, et al.) are as much an economic issue as a cooling/technical one. (in other words, with my understanding of current roadmaps, you will decrease semiconductor yield to such a degree that 3D may not be economically viable, even if the cooling problem is solved.)
As you point out, different classes of memory are definitely available for purchase. For the consumer, they are generally NOT well labeled, though if you are in electronics procurement, you'll know to fetch a data sheet on the product to find the desired information.:)
Given that lack of information, I may still be able to explain a bit... Though I no longer work for a memory manufacturer, I do work for a semiconductor manufacturer, and the failure mechanisms of chips are still the same (DRAM or not)...
It almost goes without saying that ECC memory is more expensive due to the extra chips involved, but I'll mention it for completeness.
It also (almost) goes without saying that part of what you are paying for is the brand... which is as much perception as reality... note there is value for you as well: A valuable brand often means the company will make replacements or reparations at low effort to you in order to protect the brand.
Outside of that, there are still a significant number of things that could differ between two seemingly identical DRAM modules.
Part of the difference may be testing. My last post on Slashdot actually talked about testing relative to consumer semiconductor chips. Memory works the same way, in that memory sold under longer warranty periods or designed for higher level systems (mainframe, server-class products, etc.) will have longer and more stringent testing cycles.
This testing actually takes multiple forms, both static (DC) and dynamic (AC) testing. At speed testing is also possible, but adds additional cost. There are even more testing options pre-packaging, as you can actually do process tests (testing resistance in specialized devices on the chip, etc.) in order to detect how centered the process was on a particular device. Often, there are additional I/O that are never pinned out in a package (but are therefore exposed on an unpackaged die) that can serve some of these specialized testing purposes. There are also tests that can detect how much the device varies across the chip - you'll see this latter item occasionally referred to as ACLV [across chip linewidth variation] - the lower the better, of course. Chips are now sensitive enough that significant ACLV can actually make a processor completely fail to operate.
Note also some of the higher priced memory may also be memory that was perfect yield off of the manufacturing line (didn't require blowing a fuse in order to get the memory to operate). [If you didn't know it, a 64Mb DRAM chip might actually have 72Mb of cells, the redundancy is to increase net chip yield] Using a fuse on a DRAM isn't a big deal if the defect was a spot defect, but other defect mechanisms might be more problematic.
Cluster defects are one example. These can be caused by a piece of dirt skidding across the wafer as it is spun, leaving a trail of destruction which can be seen as a large arc across the wafer. Cluster defects often include both large defects that will cause measurable failures that require fusing as well as small (often undetectable) defects that degrade performance. These smaller defects often show up as soft error rates that appear above the intended design point of the memory. Since this requires significant at-speed testing to detect, they can slip through testing. However, many manufacturing lines do significant (if not complete) wafer inspection at each process stop, so the company may know which chips were subject to cluster defects and avoid packaging those as high-end memory. (I don't know that any companies do this, I'm just saying that the existing technology makes such a process possible - it might be too expensive to make it practical, however)
Additionally, a timing problem due to an overly thin layer somewhere in the process could demonstrate systemic defects due to electromigration (or other lifetime effects) during the latter part of the life of the s
Slashdot Mirror
That was my point - I was just giving a different aspect to your point on differences being minor relative to other aspects of the team (that decisions to try to optimize something as minor as the revision control system can have huge unintended consequences). I'm astounded at how many people advocate "the newest thing", just because.
In switching you either:
(1) Move the entire history from one system to another. This may not be possible, and if it is possible, will mangle references in all the docs, e-mails, unit tests, bug reports, etc. etc. etc. which refer to the revision number of a check-in
or
(2) End up supporting two revision systems, because you can't ditch the old one without destroying your software's history.
Switching systems is expensive (and this isn't necessarily a dollar statement since both svn and git are open source)
Is there something unique about our infrastructure? Did we make some horrible mistake that seemed like a good idea at the time but is now haunting us?
1) Network design. 78% of Western Europe and Korea/Japan/PAC are within 3 km of a telecommunications central office (CO). Only 62% of the US population is within 6 km of a CO. This has a heavy impact on cost (since the last leg from CO to home requires high-fiber-strand cable for fiber optics or degrades DSL performance, making DSL impractical in much of the US)
2) Age. We developed first, and this is the price we pay, because our telecoms have to maintain the older infrastructure before they can replace it with new. This isn't just DSL, but Frame Relay, X.25, and all the other connections that the telecommunications companies provide. As a specific example, we have older cables running around in cities that prevent good high speed connections in places like NYC where it would seem logical that you could get good high speed access... but DSL doesn't work as well over 50 year old copper lines. Also, our rights of way were also established much earlier, often making them less telecommunications-friendly, ensuring higher wiring costs when things like fiber are deployed. Add in hundreds of years of poorly documented pipes, etc. under roads and it's hugely expensive to dig in (east coast) US cities as well.
3) We have different TV and telephone providers. In much of Europe, they are the same, ensuring only one network build-out, vs. a duolopy doubling network deployment cost. It also drags huge volumes of money into marketing, I've seen marketing/acquisition/provisioning costs estimated as high as $10/mo per connection for DSL.
I could also try it from the angle of regulation/free market/competition.
This is part of the difference, especially with differences to Europe, where unbundling of local loops is required.
Also, the Korean government has loaned or spent billions to get high speed DSL or fiber to homes.
That aspect of EULA's has never been tested in court. It's quite possible that it would be deemed null and void.
Really? Because I seem to recall having this discussion with someone else on Thursday, and pointing to a number of court cases where it has been decided.
You should also read the informative response to my post (since I was only directly answering a specific point and not attempting to cover the entire issue).
In other words, it HAS been tested in court, but courts are disagreeing on how to interpret the issue.
I was simply responding to the assertion that it's been upheld by "every" court, which isn't the case.
Ironically, you should read the "Computer Software" section of the first sale article. The last paragraph in that section refers to a case where it was not upheld. Then read page 13, lines 12-21 of MDY Industries, LLC v. Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. et al for a reference to three cases, that show examples of the issue of licensed vs. sold software and what rights you may not have under copyright law with licensed software.
Are you kidding? You think that the product size actually matters? There is very little difference in shipping a container of refrigerators vs. a container of pens. It's a tiny fraction of fuel economy (a few percent) due to weight differences. The cost & distribution challenges come in breaking up the product at distribution centers, but that happens regardless of where the product is manufactured.
What will matter is raw ores (iron ore) and other relatively dense materials (steel, lumber), which greatly increase transportation costs and are easily replaceable commodities. This will be the first place the effects are seen, but it will spread to other products.
"The cost of shipping a refrigerator across the sea is way smaller than the cost of trucking it across a state."
Perhaps if you ship them one at a time. But that's not how trucks or ships work.
The statement in the article notes an increased container shipping cost of $3,000 to $8,000 shipping from China to NY. That $5,000 difference is about 1,000 gallons of diesel, which is enough to drive more than 4,000 miles carrying the 29+- tons of a fully loaded standard shipping container.
You can read the case study, or just go find out more.
Standards are definitely better for consumers. But many of you seem to forget that you aren't just consumers -- you're employees too.
Making technology more complicated and more expensive is not beneficial for consumers of what you sell. Businesses measure the ROI of projects. If you drive up the cost, you drive down the ROI. Eventually you will encounter a situation where no projects will be implemented. Yes, that may take a few years, but it will happen. Then, you will have killed your entire company, which I think is much worse than fighting to maintain your standard of living.
Today, third-world cheap labour for metal and plastic and paper trumps any local labour. Do you want tech jobs to go the same way?
And you believe that by fighting against standards you can stop it?
It also seems that you want to effectively form a cartel. I have news for you: The people in India don't want you to form a cartel. They want standards, because it allows the job transfer. It will raise their standard of living. Thus, they will create and follow standards even if you do not. If you believe that the large companies that are consumers and not developers of technology will stay with a more expensive solution because you hope beyond hope that they will pay you extra... then you're dreaming. The bad news for you in that picture is that the companies that purchase web development services will transfer and outsource that work. Again, by trying to stop progress, you doom your own company.
There are many other reasons your logic fails to be reasonable: Economic production location is based on relative efficiency rather than absolute efficiency, not all of the resources/services you provide need to be scarce to be valuable, complexity and frustration does not translate into value, supporting your clients doesn't mean giving them inferior products at higher cost, etc.
The answer to good wages is not to hope progress stops. The key is keeping a high skill set, being flexible, and ensuring that you are paying attention to what technologies and products are becoming commodities. As an employee (and not self-employed), means, of course, a touch of luck is involved as well. The answer is not to fight standards.
The way I read your statement, you're making an assumption that I'm not entirely sure is true. It appears that you are assuming Nintendo wants to meet demand.
To be fair, I don't think they are intentionally holding back on production solely to produce scarcity. I think the statements they have made (of wishing they had more product) are honest. However, I also believe that this is not a marketing and sales issue, but a financial one.
Nintendo might be able to ramp up to meet demand, but the problem is one of understanding demand. What no one is sure of is what the real demand is. If they are producing 1.5M units/month, is real demand 1.501M units/month? 3.0M units/month?
The risk that Nintendo faces is the same risk that many telecom and networking companies experienced in 2000-2001. In that case, a capacity shortage of certain components led to over-ordering of the product, and thus when production was ramped to meet the (artificially) inflated demand, the equipment companies sat on billions in inventory that they were forced to write down (because no one wanted to buy it).
This is a slightly different situation (no artificial demand, just hard to forecast the real demand), yet the same lesson applies. I believe Nintendo is taking a cautious approach to its product ramp. Since the supply chain is something on the order of 4-6 months from initial orders to final assembly, they face huge inventory risk if they significantly overshoot demand. Their conservative forecasts and production have lost them some sales, but it may be less risk to lose sales than to risk sitting on a ton of inventory.
This is all a matter of perspective and context. There are places where what you describe is probably an appropriate response, but not where I work ... When the development or operations groups point me to their file server or other on-line system, it causes our organization to fail. The problem is that a good portion of the time, I'm trying to look at something on a plane, or in a car (someone else driving!), or somewhere I *don't* have a connection to the 'net. Therefore, the lack of an attachment actually delays my response. Those folks quickly learn to send attachments if they want a timely response.
"It's being used as a tool to transfer data of various kinds"
Absolutely! Being able to transfer data as attachments to e-mail is exactly what keeps us going in an era when ones working group is sporadically connected and is spread across 11 countries and 14 time zones.
For those that are interested, you can read IBM's Business Conduct Guidelines, specifically the section On Your Own Time, as well as IBM's Blogging Policy and Guidelines and the Virtual World Guidelines.
Not particularly. Because they rely on semiconductors, they only scale as well as the fabs to build them. The problem has been that the solar industry uses plants that are at the end of their semiconductor chip fabricating life; thus they do not wield great efficiency due to small wafer sizes. They also suffer from the base challenges of dealing with silicon wafers (raw cost of wafers, dicing costs, etc.) The same cost problem exists with LEDs. It's interesting to note how GE is focused on cost of production in OLEDs rather than their efficiency on GE's Global Research Blog post. Following that analogy, it's not the 40% efficiency that will launch solar cells, it's 10% efficiency at 10% of today's cost (It's about cost/kWh).
Now, if we could only figure out some way for the oil companies to reap massive profits from such a scheme, I'm sure it would happen in no time.
You mean oil companies like BP and Royal Dutch Shell? ... two of the top 6 producers of solar cells?
I'd note that most oil companies do have lots of research into alternative (non-oil) energy. It's just hard to see in their financials because oil is so lucrative. The major one that realy gets criticized for its lack of investment in areas like solar is ExxonMobil - and the reason they don't is probably the same reason that Cisco doesn't tend to develop most of its revolutionary technology inside the company. XOM and CSCO both have tons of cash, tons of cash flow and a well-priced stock giving them the ability to simply buy a producer of new equipment if it becomes a valuable market. Why bother to spend tons of money on basic research when you can let the newcomers fight it out in the market and just buy the leader when the time is appropriate? As strange as it is, that's R&D economics at many large industry-leading corporations. It's "efficient outsourced innovation".
I am an open source developer. I don't think it reflects *at all* on the challenge in my job (which is interesting and I'm very busy), but it *is* a reflection that software development is *different* than my day job, and by using a different part of my brain, I can find the development challenges in an open source project to be relaxing.
Maybe one could argue that is a form of "boredom", but if so, does volunteering to build a Habitat for Humanity house also qualify as boredom? Under the definition of "spare cycles" in the article where is the line between choice and boredom? I can't find it.
The 'harm' is violation of 17 USC 106(1) - their exclusive right to copy their works. You don't have to hurt the owner financially to violate copyright law - financial impact is part of damages, not part of guilt.
As far as damages, copyright violation doesn't have to involve actual monetary damages, there are also statutory damages for where the actual damages are not significant (see 17 USC 504(c)).
Five years ago, you were right. Not anymore.
SiGe is killing GaAs.
Many of the devices communicating in the higher frequences of the microwave range are based on Silicon Germanium. This includes cell phones.
Almost ALL WiFi radios are SiGe [PDF warning]. Some have even moved to RFCMOS.
Most GPS devices are SiGe.
Oh, and TV Tuners, too.
Gallium Arsenide *is* exotic, because it has to be done in specialized fabs, not those that run silicon wafers. That significantly drives up the cost vs. SiGe and RFCMOS.
Their target markets.
Nobody wants to pay 1.99 for something you'll have to replace if you get a new phone. People who I wouldn't consider exactly technologically proficient have enough brains to realize these things and might get one midi ringtone and stick with it for the rest of the phone's life.
Would your behavior change if it was 0.99? What about 0.49? Most likely, people like you and I wouldn't change the ringtones that often anyway (or would do so from MP3s, as you talk about), so the market volume we are driving is relatively small, and therefore, does not weigh on their decisions.
Maybe there's some trendy hip-hop loving teenagers that have to have "I want to love (f**k) you" as their ringtone this week and then something else next week, but I believe this makes up the vast minority of consumers.
But are they the majority of purchases? Because while the market for music lovers is large, that market is also driven by the purchases of music by people in their teens (due to volume of purchases, not volume of consumers)
The pricing is NOT related to the fact that is has DRM. I have already discussed pricing of single (DRM protected) track vs. full CDs.
Don't they see it's costing THEM more money in the long run to include this garbage?
I doubt it is. Like the parent to my other post, I suspect you are not in their target market (DRM protected, high priced ringtones are not targeted at /. readers). The underlying issue is about the target market of certain items and who will use them. The multi-dollar ringtone is addressed to people who value convenience and/or instant gratification.
Consider the social aspect of a ringtone to a teenager, and the potential need for instant replacement if a certain ringtone is frowned upon by friends. With that in perspective, it's likely that the ringtones are priced at a point the market will bear, as sad and painful as that may be to the technically inclined.
Wrong.
EMI, Warner, Sony, the RIAA, and the other components of the music and recording industry are shielded from certain anti-trust provisions by 17 USC 114(e)(1). That makes them different, and they should be held to a different standard on their pricing and behavior. Otherwise, the exemption should be removed.
If you purchase a song, a book, a bit of art, or a software product, you understand you are purchasing it for your use under certain conditions of the sale.
Again, this requires full disclosure, which is not always in existence. Sony did not disclose that it was putting auto-installing software on CDs to prevent copying, so that decision could not be made. They got caught, and paid a financial price for it, but that behavior is not acceptable. It is the same reason that some shiny discs that operate in CD players are not technially CDs, because they do not meet the standards of the format. (That is disclosed because they cannot place the "Compact Disc" logo on the package). Software licenses and not being able to read them before opening a package are also an issue that has made it to the courts because it produces an imbalance of information and ability to make good decisions.
You have the right to NOT enter into an agreement with the owner of the work, simply don't purchase.
That is true, and it is why I only purchase music on CD.
However, let's look at this from a slightly wider perspective. The contract society originally entered into with copyrights was to provide a monopoly to the owner (either the creator or an assignee), for a limited time. There are items that balance out that monopoly power:
- In 17 USC 109, which codified the doctrine of first sale. This allows me to resell a book without the permission of the copyright holder
- In 17 USC 107, fair use
- In the expiration of copyrights
What licensing attempts to do - and what DRM enforces - is leveraging technology to impose a contract which curtails my rights which are part of the social contract enshrined in Title 17 (Copyrights). My issues with the limitations imposed by today's DRM systems are that:
- DRM strips me of my rights under 17 USC 109 (they should not be able to claim copying digital bits is a violation of their copyright while avoiding the ability of me to transfer that copy legally under 17 USC 109(a))
- DRM strips me of any fair use rights under 17 USC 107
- DRM strips me of any ability to have the work beyond the copyright period (since there are no provisions for removing DRM)
DRM today eliminates my rights by leveraging the monopoly granted to them by the copyright act. As far as I'm concerned, that's a violation of the social contract in the copyright act, and if they wish to use DRM, then they should be able to do so, but their work should no longer be protected by the US Copyright Act or the Berne Convention. If any party is capable of subverting the limitations imposed on them when society came to agreement on the terms, then they should also lose the benefits.
Actually, while this may be unpopular on ./, it's indicative of value pricing of the digital product. You may not feel that is 'fair', but pricing isn't about fairness. It's about extracting the maximum amount of value from the consumer of the product while leaving the consumer with enough value that they return as a customer. In this case, the fact that the content is copyrighted generally trumps pricing fairness under anti-trust law (because the effect of copyright is to grant a temporary monopoly).
Digital downloads and CDs are well differentiated products, and they both have an effective place in the market. I suspect the value for the digital content is appropriate. Marketing = Product, Promotion, Price, and Position (or some other form of 4 Ps equating to the same message), so if you are purchasing a season-at-a-time and are price sensitive, you are not their target market. That doesn't mean the market does not exist (e.g. I think ringtones are the biggest rip-off known to man-kind, but I can't ignore that it's a billion dollar market).
Digital distribution is targeted at those who are either cherry-picking or are time sensitive. Conversion from a CD to digital form takes time and effort (worse for DVDs). To some people, this time is worth more than the price difference between the products (and to others, they are so price-insensitive, that they will probably buy the digital version to watch the show during their commute and then purchase the season DVDs once they are available). One could also digital distribution is carrying a premium price at the moment, because it's 'hip'.
One pays MORE on a relative basis for an individual ditigal product of lower quality than they can receive on a CD or DVD. It's 100% consistent with hundreds of thousands of physical products you can buy in a store. Effectively, CDs/DVDs are bundles, where you also receive the benefits of the doctrine of first sale (because you bought a product, not a license). Therefore, by buying the bundle, you get a discount (or you can view it as getting the higher quality for free). Buying the individual songs, you pay the market rate. In the case of TV shows, you may also get a time advantage (this is part of 'Position': it will be out in digital form before the season DVD is available).
Another useful analogy is to look at cost per bit of digital transmission. Try it someday on an SMS (cellular text) message (128 characters) vs. what the cable company pipes to you every month. The cost differential is something like 100,000X on a per-bit basis. That doesn't mean either cable or SMS is fundamentally flawed. SMS is certainly value-priced, but the number of users indicates it still possesses value even at that price.
Note that this judgement is on a relative basis to the cost of a CD, I am making NO judgement here about whether the CD costs are over-inflated due to industry behavior. That is an entirely different discussion which is not required to properly evaluate the relative value of individual digital tracks to a physical CD.
Given the current price of a CD, the prices are pretty close to what the market will bear (they are value priced). CDs can be effectively purchased for about $7-$8 at your favorite music club or other method of bulk purchases. So effectively, if you're buying more than 3 tracks on a CD, it's much more cost effective to buy the CD. For a one-hit wonder or a band where you appreciate a single song, but generally cringe at the music, use a $1/track digital source.
Besides, it's not only telecommuters but those of us with remote managers that face these types of challenges.
I haven't had a local manager since 2000.
Has it hurt me relative to others overall? Perhaps. ...but it hasn't hurt me relative to my department-mates. ...and while I'm behind where I want to be, that's more a function of the 2001-2004 environment in my industry and company than lack of recognition. Besides, distance is an unescapable characteristic of modern multinational companies. Being able to demonstrate progress and communicate clearly with a diverse team (and management) over long distances is an asset that will get you recognized.
Your prior post is interesting, detailed, and well-informed reading, but you fail to address an existing, published study stating that cellphone use on aircraft may be dangerous.
Specifically related to the issues I mentioned: If you are interested in some of the challenges around flatness, you can learn more about dummy fill that must be added to metal layers, by looking at the layman's version or a technical description.
With regard to reflection, you can check out a rather old background article or how anti-reflection layers must be used in modern semiconductor manufacturing to reduce problems.
More specific articles on 3D fabrication can probably be found in recent journals (most likely not available online), or if you're not concerned about reading patents, by reading patents from the USPTO (for reasons of US law which you're probably familiar with, I'm not going to search that and provide you any links). There may also be more by searching for Matrix Semiconductor (which I didn't realize at the time of my first posting has been acquired by SanDisk).
Having said that, there is also 3D packaging, which takes various forms. Semiconductor Cubing (as it's apparently called) can stack lots of semiconductor devices, but note that these are originally fabricated as single layer chips and then they are bonded together to form a larger block.
More recently (and in real production), 3D packaging is being performed through a System in Package (SiP) methodology (you may also see this referred to as a 'chip stack' technology). This is distinct from a multi-chip module (MCM), where the chips are aligned horizontally on the packaging substrate. Today, a SiP is generally a memory module bonded upside down onto a non-memory device (though it can also be used to bond an RF device onto a non-RF device). This form of packaging is receiving attention from SEMATECH as well. Further information from SEMI is also available if you Google for "SEMI Forum: Mapping progress in 3D IC integration".
Beyond that, it's again hard, due to the password protected nature of conference materials and journals... but hopefully that's a good set of links to explore.
For example, one of the assumptions that exists on a semiconductor wafer before it is printed is that it is effectively flat (a typical peak to valley range on a modern wafer within the expected field of a chip is on the order of 175 to 200 nm)
Polishing to that accuracy once structures have been placed on a semiconductor wafer is difficult. Getting a consistent layer of material when you are polishing an uneven surface (uneven due to vias [connections] to the other layers of silicon present) is downright challenging. Another problem with printing transistors on anything but a pure wafer is the issue of reflection. Thin layers of materials on a semiconductor are semi-transparent and not perfectly vertical. Those angled and curved structures produce reflections. Those reflections can cause problems in printing later layers (because of constructive and destructive interference of the light used to expose the photoresist). Those reflections mean that modeling the exposore process of a 3D semiconductor is a VERY challenging task.
Such items are not of concern today, because the later structures placed on the wafer are generally metal lines or capacitors for DRAMs or lenses for image sensors, etc. These are all large and some level of imprecision is acceptable. While variation can cause differnet RC characteristics in metal lines, the timing models in the library or other models can account for this variation. In fact, Matrix Semiconductor has been producing 3D DRAM since about 2004, which shows that heat isn't necessarily the problem, and DRAMs (and memory in general) are a reasonable application for 3D technologies (likely because the capacitors are generally large in relative terms).
Transistors, however, are much more sensitive to variation, and the variation in later polishing used today is too rough for the effective printing of transistors. While I don't doubt that there are situations where the density will be valuable, I think 3D processors and custom chips (in consumer electronics, et al.) are as much an economic issue as a cooling/technical one. (in other words, with my understanding of current roadmaps, you will decrease semiconductor yield to such a degree that 3D may not be economically viable, even if the cooling problem is solved.)
Given that lack of information, I may still be able to explain a bit... Though I no longer work for a memory manufacturer, I do work for a semiconductor manufacturer, and the failure mechanisms of chips are still the same (DRAM or not)...
It almost goes without saying that ECC memory is more expensive due to the extra chips involved, but I'll mention it for completeness.
It also (almost) goes without saying that part of what you are paying for is the brand... which is as much perception as reality... note there is value for you as well: A valuable brand often means the company will make replacements or reparations at low effort to you in order to protect the brand.
Outside of that, there are still a significant number of things that could differ between two seemingly identical DRAM modules.
Part of the difference may be testing. My last post on Slashdot actually talked about testing relative to consumer semiconductor chips. Memory works the same way, in that memory sold under longer warranty periods or designed for higher level systems (mainframe, server-class products, etc.) will have longer and more stringent testing cycles.
This testing actually takes multiple forms, both static (DC) and dynamic (AC) testing. At speed testing is also possible, but adds additional cost. There are even more testing options pre-packaging, as you can actually do process tests (testing resistance in specialized devices on the chip, etc.) in order to detect how centered the process was on a particular device. Often, there are additional I/O that are never pinned out in a package (but are therefore exposed on an unpackaged die) that can serve some of these specialized testing purposes. There are also tests that can detect how much the device varies across the chip - you'll see this latter item occasionally referred to as ACLV [across chip linewidth variation] - the lower the better, of course. Chips are now sensitive enough that significant ACLV can actually make a processor completely fail to operate.
Note also some of the higher priced memory may also be memory that was perfect yield off of the manufacturing line (didn't require blowing a fuse in order to get the memory to operate). [If you didn't know it, a 64Mb DRAM chip might actually have 72Mb of cells, the redundancy is to increase net chip yield] Using a fuse on a DRAM isn't a big deal if the defect was a spot defect, but other defect mechanisms might be more problematic.
Cluster defects are one example. These can be caused by a piece of dirt skidding across the wafer as it is spun, leaving a trail of destruction which can be seen as a large arc across the wafer. Cluster defects often include both large defects that will cause measurable failures that require fusing as well as small (often undetectable) defects that degrade performance. These smaller defects often show up as soft error rates that appear above the intended design point of the memory. Since this requires significant at-speed testing to detect, they can slip through testing. However, many manufacturing lines do significant (if not complete) wafer inspection at each process stop, so the company may know which chips were subject to cluster defects and avoid packaging those as high-end memory. (I don't know that any companies do this, I'm just saying that the existing technology makes such a process possible - it might be too expensive to make it practical, however)
Additionally, a timing problem due to an overly thin layer somewhere in the process could demonstrate systemic defects due to electromigration (or other lifetime effects) during the latter part of the life of the s