A/C needs far less than a Watt to move a Watt from inside the house to outside. A decent unit will move something like 15 Watts outside with a single Watt of power used.
I agree with the parent though, I encourage people to measure stuff like this, even if they can't do it completely scientifically. It's good for people to get used to measuring and moderating their power usage, especially wasted power like standby power.
the highest scoring player on every football team.
on
10th Annual RoboCup
·
· Score: 1
Is the kicker.
They only score half as much on each play (3 pts versus 6), but they score a lot more often. And that's before you even count extra points.
And the total distance gained in punts is virtually always larger than the total distance from runs and passes.
The foot is an enormous factor in American football. No team could win without applying it to the ball (let alone running on it).
They almost certainly used a device made for measuring this stuff. Like a Kill-A-Watt. It's cheap and effective. And it knows about the power factor. I'll even display Watts, Volt-Amps and of since it knows both of those, the power factor.
A Kill-A-Watt only reads out tenths of a Watt. Although since it can average over time, you can measure lower values by looking at the cumulative Watt-Hours later and dividing by time.
The heat may not always be waste, but it's still useless. If the system did the same with less power, and I needed the extra heat, I could turn on a heater (which, if it were gas powered would be more efficient too).
The power usage of the TV doesn't necessarily dwarf the console's power. My TV is a 55" rear projection LCD. It takes 160W (with the bulb on low, I measured it with a Kill-A-Watt). As you can see, the playing Xbox 360 doubles my electric bill. That's a long way from being dwarfed. And if I used a reasonably-sized TV instead of this one, the Xbox 360 power usage might actually dwarf my TV's usage.
Safeway does it here. And Peapod also offers a service.
I see the employee shoppers in Safeway a lot. They have these carts that know what they are to buy, and route the person on the shortest path through the store to pick up each item, and tells them which items to buy and which bin to put them in (since they shop for a couple people at once).
Government agencies are paranoid, and in many cases for good reason. When an enemy has your data for years at a time, there's a good chance they can break it. They can dupe it and try to brute force it in parallel.
There's a lot of peace of mind knowing that you don't have to worry about any of this.
The Diesel-electric hybrid shown was developed with US government money actually. But after the car was finished, the government changed the laws so that no Diesel car can qualify as a PZEV (SULEV), the classification hybrids are in.
So the car had no future, so GM didn't put their own money in to continue developing it. You also remove the mention that California cancelled the ZEV laws before the EV1 debuted, putting the EV1 into a difficult position in the marketplace.
And I think rightly so, since Diesels then (and only slightly less so now) pollute so much that driving one to help the environment is kidding yourself.
Note that in no way does Toyota excel at low-volume custom manufacturing. Toyota is fantastic at manufacturing, but it's of the high volume kind.
And 1080p TVs (full 1920x1080x60 output and input) can be had for very little now. Dell is selling one for $800 (24" 2407FPW), and a friend bought a Westinghouse 42" 1080P with 3 1080p inputs for $1500 last week. Two other friends have had 42" Sharp HDTVs with 1080p input for 6 months, and each paid only $3400 for them.
So please stop spreading the rumors that 1080p HDTVs cost $10,000.
It's not as complex as you make it out.
If you want to buy an HDTV, you have a choice. One that will display at about 1280x720 resolution. Most plasmas, smaller direct-view LCDs and rear projection LCDs and DLPs are this way. You can get one that displays at 1920x1080 resolution, but doesn't accept 1080p input. Many higher-end rear projection units and some direct-view LCDs are this way. Or, you can get one that does 1920x1080 resolution and accepts 1080p input. New high-end rear projectors and direct-view LCDs are this way.
It basically comes down to "how much do you want to spend?".
And next year, the middle tier won't even exist. The choice will be full 1080p or a cheaper unit.
Any of these have HDCP and will display digital and analog content with no problems.
It's not as compex as you make it out to be. Like choosing a DVD player was easy?
In the early days it was "do you need CD playback?" (early Panasonics didn't do it). Then it was "some have good anamorphic unsqueeze and some have really bad unsqueeze" Then it was "Do you want DTS capability?" then it was " do you want deinterlacing/480p output?" Now it's "do you want one that upscales?"
That was certainly a huge factor and I totally forgot about it.
The California regulations required that some percent (5%? 10%?) of the cars sold in California be zero emissions by a certain date. So companies start to make electric cars.
And what does California do? Back away from the regulations. First, they declared that some gas-powered could be qualified as partial zero emissions vehicles (PZEV) and thus qualify for the regulations. I don't have a problem with SULEVs (the less Orwellian name for PZEVs), but anyone who thinks they deserve credit for being zero emissions should have to sleep in a bedroom ventilated by the exhaust of PZEVs for a couple nights and report back how the "zero" emissions are treating them.
So after GM spends a lot on real ZEVs, California allows other companies to spend less than 10% as much and make the grade. then they flat out ditch the program making GM (and Honda's) efforts an almost total waste of money.
No wonder the car companies fight new regulations that seem likely to force them to make vehicles there probably isn't a market for. Once bitten, twice shy.
I agree with the other posters. What killed the car was economic unviability. So that's why it was discontinued.
But why were the cars all taken back and destroyed? The same reason Beechcraft took back the Starship. If anyone owns one out there, the company has an obligation to provide certain services. For example, in the US you must make repair parts for a car for some amount of time after you discontinue it. And there's plenty more costs too.
But by taking them back, they could forgo this stuff and probably write off the program for a nice loss too.
So, the car became unviable for all but a tiny number of people. And then some beancounter did the math and found it was far cheaper to recall them all than let people buy them and keep running them.
No conspiracy. It's just the way corporations work. Money talks.
Anyone who says GM was just setting up electric cars for a fall is drawing an inexplicable link between GM and oil. GM wants to sell cars. If people want electric cars, they want to sell you electric cars. They had a huge advantage in the electric market, there's no reason to think they would kill that market rather than cash in on it.
Well more than 5-10. I have friends who have had 1080p-capable (display and input) for more than 6 months now. They have Sharp 45" direct-view TVs (45GXsomethingerother). These not only have native 1920x1080 resolution but accept 1080p (60fps) input. Each paid about $3400.
A coworker bought a Westinghouse 42" LVM-42w2 last weekend for $1500. It has 1920x1080 resolution and has 3 1080p (x60) digital inputs (plus a VGA input that will take 1920x1080x60fps too).
Sony also has announced (but not yet shipped) replacements for the Sony SXRDs you speak of. These accept 1080p and display it at full resolution. They are in the Bravia line now. http://www.sony.com/2006TV
I am writing this on a Dell 24" monitor for my computer that has 1920x1200 resolution and accepts full 60fps 1080p input. (I only paid $600 for it!) Mine (2405) doesn't do HDCP (unlike all the above), but the most revent one (2407) does.
There are many, many HDTVs now that can display 1080p at full resolution. People who keep repeating that there aren't 1080p displays available are just stuck in the past. It is true most people don't have a 1080p display, but there are plenty available now. Unless you are economizing, you'd do well to get one that does 1080p.
They covered it pretty well. The labels are not only charging them breakage and other costs that don't exist on digital downloads, but they are also paying a different rate, claming it is licensing, not distribution.
Cheap Trick and The Allman Brothers are standing up, why doesn't Weird Al?
Nothing new here, labels screwing artists. I do agree with the others, the labels aren't doing too much for Weird Al anymore (in terms of advertising, etc.), he should break away from them and sell his own albums direct. It won't fix his royalties for "Like a Surgeon", but at least he can make more off of new stuff he records.
Yeah, the intro would come up, and you had to push right a couple times to jump across the bridges before he even went in the castle.
Most machines had this turned off. Perhaps your experience is why they turned it off. I figured it was to decrease game time and thus increase throughput.
No, the Mac Mini as-is could not be done on an AMD solution.
It would simply cost too much because you would need to purchase an additional graphics solution chip. Apple could do that before because they were using an outdated processor (G4). Buying an up to date, dual core CPU plus GPU plus NB plus SB just costs too much (even if you can fit it in there) to make the margins Apple demands.
The complexity of chips does affect their cost. But even a simple chip with a lot of pins (an AMD NB) costs almost as much as a complex chip with a lot of pins (an Intel NB). the difference is here that the Intel NB also is a GPU in mainstream solutions.
So, I say again, just count the chips. AMD is looking at a 4-chip solution, Intel has it down to 3, and the extra chip isn't even a chip one, it's a graphics chip, which even in basic form costs $20. You also have to add the cost of graphics RAM (unless you get a chip with embedded GRAM, which costs more but saves money overall compared to external GRAM). Intel's solution leverages the onboard RAM, which it can do easily since it has the RAM directly attached to the NB.
Putting the GPU in an HTX slot or HT socket doesn't save money in the same way that not having a separate GPU does. And you can't remove the NB as long as the machine has any slots or PCI or PCIe peripherals (like Firewire interfaces). The NB in an AMD system acts as an HT to PCIe/PCI bridge.
And that is why I doubt Apple is seriously looking at AMD right now. I'm sure they got Mac OS X running on an AMD, but I doubt they even built any AMD hardware prototypes. AMD can't meet Intel on cost structures on the Mac Mini or Mac Book (non-Pro), and these make up a lot of Apple's sales. They also can't meet it on XServes. All of these are because all of these machines can usefully use Intel's on-chip (950) GPU. Apple could probably not use AMD for their other laptops either given how hot they already run with Core Duos, which provide Athlon X2 4200+ performance at just over half the power/heat, they wouldn't make it with an Athlon X2.
So Apple could use AMD in the iMac and in the towers, but nowhere else.
And that is almost certainly why Apple went with Intel. And it's why the AMD+ATI rumor made a lot of sense to me. If AMD wants to sell to Apple and other cost-conscious manufacturers (presumably Dell amongst them) they need to have a solution that matches Intel on cost on the low end. And licensing a graphics engine from ATI (probably one of the ones they got with the BitBoys acquision) would do it. From a competition standpoint, I don't really want AMD and ATI to merge, but companies see these things in a different light. They want to maximize their profits, not my choice.
Mentioning 4x4: there's another thing AMD's onboard NB locked them out of. Since the CPU interfaces directly to the RAM, that means you have to have a RAM subsystem for each CPU chip. That means you have to install at least 4 DIMMs in a machine. In a world where a 1GB (DDR400) DIMM costs only 30% more than a 512MB DIMM, making the user install 4 512MB DIMMs instead of two 1GB DIMMs is a killer. That means they couldn't do affordable MP unless they got both cores on one chip (which they did very well).
Additionally, if you have seen what Intel showed at their conference (IDC) this year, they showed a Core Duo plus North bridge plus South bridge plus CPU power controller on a single chip (obviously multiple chips on one package). That included a GPU of course, since there is on in Intel's NB. Apple could buy that from Intel and make a smaller and cheaper (although multiple chips on one package don't save nearly as much money as putting more on one die) system than they can with AMD. Why? Because AMD doesn't make a GPU or a NB (they do make an SB, Geode). That means anyone who wants them together has to work with manufacturers to get them all put together themself. That's difficult to do if you don't have very high volumes.
All of this just underscores AMDs difficult position in the laptop and mainstream markets in the next couple years. They're not stupid, I'm sure they see it. But they'll need to not just understand it, but also fix it before they can compete with Intel in these markets.
No, a more interesting question to answer would not be "is the job making the factory worker's life better"?
If you aren't getting what you want out of your job, get another job. It isn't your employer's job to fulfill your life. Even in China (odd, since it's allegedly a Communist country).
And these people are not skilled welders. Skilled workers are making more than the minimum which was presented here for maximum shock value.
Hehe. Linus Torvalis was just involved in a discussion like this over at RWT. It makes PERFECT sense for AMD to have done this. It allows their fabs to produce a single basic design for multiple markets instead of dividing their effort into multiple designs. The mass production of one design lowered the cost enough to make up for any extra expense in the consumer market. This same effect has allowed x86 to overtake higher end markets from the bottom over time. Presumably Sony and IBM (or at least Sony) are looking to do the same thing to x86 with Cell starting with the console market but I think Cell is too specialized to pull it off not to mention Sony's past successes in introducing new standards and products. They have become expert in snatching defeat from he jaws of victory.
Long term, that doesn't work. I do see what it did for them now, I don't see it continuing to work. Because all the "single solution" stuff won't reduce the number of chips on the board. An Athlon solution has CPU, NB, SB and graphics accelerator (possible NB and SB together). An Intel solution now has just CPU, NB and SB (SB is almost vestigal). AMD simply cannot match on price when they have to make more chips, no matter how broadly they apply the chips to the market. I don't see the GPU going onto the CPU, so they can't ditch a chip that way. AMD seems like they think they can put the GPU next to the CPU (opening up HT on the board), but that doesn't save chips either.
Let me ask you this, could a Mac Mini have been made with an AMD solution?
I've heard rumors Intel wants to go to FB-DIMMs with Conroe. We'll see what happens if they do that. That could really hurt them in the same way you mention with Athlon non-registered ECC.
Someone else already did it in the responses. These people are making above average money for ALL JOBS in China (something like 55th percentile). And they don't have to risk their lives mining coal.
Doesn't seem all that bad. Do factory workers make average or better money for the economy as a whole in the US?
And anyway, like I said in another post, these people have to pay bribes to even get jobs at these factories already. If you raise the wages, the bribes will just become bigger, because the jobs will be that much more valueable.
I see. You say that 875P draws from A and B at the same time: AB AB AB AB. That makes sense to me, since if you do the math with DDR400, it was the only way to maximize the "800 MHz" FSB on the P4-3GHz.
But that DDR2 chipsets might draw from A and B alternately, sharing the bus. A B A B A B A B.
The 2nd appears slower, since it takes 8 clocks, but the clocks are so fast that both fill the FSB bandwidth equally.
And you're saying that even though the 2nd is "fast enough", if they went to the first system again, they'd be able to double throughput on an Athlon, although an Intel would be FSB-limited.
Right?
So I have to ask, doesn't system 1 require twice as many data lines on the mobo as system 2, since system 2 timeshares them? If so, can't you just look at the socket or mobo to see which is being used where?
I do agree that what AMD did was move the NB on-chip. I just don't see the sense in that, given that the NB is not going to go away, in fact, it is going to become more important as the graphics accelerators move there. I just don't see AMD's solution making financial sense in the bulk of the market in the long term. It does make sense where latency is paramount (servers? render farms?) and where you're gonna have a graphics chip too complex to ride on the NB (gaming), but not in the mainstream "office" type system or laptop, which together make up well over half the market.
Foreign companies simply cannot own factories in China. You must partner with a local company. Because of that and other factors, it doesn't make sense to buy a factory in China. So your contractor owns it, and they do what they want.
You could pay more and tell the contractor to pay the employees more. And they might do it, but then every worker will want to work there, and the employees will have to pay bribes and kickbacks to get jobs at that factory, just reducing their pay again.
Employees already often pay "favors" to get on the list to get jobs in desireable factories in China, even at these wages.
So, if Apple wants to save money building in China, they may not have a reasonable way of controlling employee wages.
I'm not sure why I bothered to explain it at all. You just didn't read it (or comprehend it), hit reply and posted nonsense.
Early devices have large amounts of (gross) profit attached to them. Because they know supplies will be limited, and demand will be fulfilled even at the high prices. The high gross profit probably doesn't cover R&D costs at these low volumes, making it a net loss. But regardless, the unit is not sold "at a loss", since after the R&D is done, not selling it wouldn't decrease the loss, so the units are not contributing any loss.
I'll explain it again. Let's say you have a part. It has a fixed price, and a fixed supply. You know you can't get any more. You know you can sell more than you can get. So you can easily raise the price to moderate demand. A great example is Xbox 360. They simply couldn't get any more RAM. So they could have charged $600+ per unit, which would have increased their profit per unit, and as long as all the units sold (they sold for this price anyway, retailers just took the profit) they would have made MORE money.
But by your limited world-view, this can't happen.
AGAIN: "Whatever the market will bear."
With early-adopter type devices, don't assume the pricing of the unit has anything to do with the cost of goods.
So, as to your point, yes, the standalone BR player is 40% gross profit.
I bought the first (mass-market) DVD player Sony made. (DVP-S7000). It was $900. Sony made a ton of money selling these. Probably even 40%, as a player with nearly identical internals was sold within a year at only $600 (DVP-S3000).
PS3 will not be a loss leader. Xbox 360 isn't a loss leader. These prices are high enough that they actually do cover the cost of goods. They don't cover development costs, I'm sure. That's why they sell games and movies, to get that money back.
I don't think PSP was intended to be a loss leader. It might have been at launch at $200 (it was a forced $250 bundle in the US with some high-margin accessories, thus solving that problem). I don't think now that they are losing money on it anymore, even at $200. Still, I bet they'd make a lot more if they got rid of that UMD drive...
Freakin' echo chamber. One person says something, others repeat it, whether it's right or wrong.
The original article claims the iPod factory is 200,000 people, despite the fact that Foxconn only employees 211,000 people total. The Longhua campus has about 200,000 people. Not all of them make iPods.
Then the Wired article repeats two paragraphs almost word for word and adds a little more info, like Invatec (giving a horrible link) makes iPods for Apple.
Except they don't. Inventec (http://www.forbes.com/personaltech/2004/11/18/cx_ ld_1118ipod.html) makes iPods for Apple (Foxconn does too).
These stores are nearly-fact free. And as to people being surprised about this, did they look at the back of their iPod? They didn't see the "Made in China" mark? Or they thought perhaps it was made in China, but Apple still paid employees $50,000 a year?
These people make decent money. That's why it is difficult for Chinese to get one of these jobs, many people compete for them. People just don't have any idea of the cost of living in other countries. Heck, look at me above, putting down $50,000 a year for factory workers! That's my Bay Area experience messing me up, where I grew up in the Rust Belt, it would be more like $38,000!
Slashdot Mirror
""a 500 GHz Silicon-germanium (SiGe) chip, operating at 4.5 Kelvins.""
"Imagine how fast it would run if they got it down to 0 Kelvins!"
Imagine how fast it would run if they got it down to -5 Kelvins!
A/C needs far less than a Watt to move a Watt from inside the house to outside. A decent unit will move something like 15 Watts outside with a single Watt of power used.
I agree with the parent though, I encourage people to measure stuff like this, even if they can't do it completely scientifically. It's good for people to get used to measuring and moderating their power usage, especially wasted power like standby power.
Is the kicker.
They only score half as much on each play (3 pts versus 6), but they score a lot more often. And that's before you even count extra points.
And the total distance gained in punts is virtually always larger than the total distance from runs and passes.
The foot is an enormous factor in American football. No team could win without applying it to the ball (let alone running on it).
They almost certainly used a device made for measuring this stuff. Like a Kill-A-Watt. It's cheap and effective. And it knows about the power factor. I'll even display Watts, Volt-Amps and of since it knows both of those, the power factor.
A Kill-A-Watt only reads out tenths of a Watt. Although since it can average over time, you can measure lower values by looking at the cumulative Watt-Hours later and dividing by time.
The heat may not always be waste, but it's still useless. If the system did the same with less power, and I needed the extra heat, I could turn on a heater (which, if it were gas powered would be more efficient too).
The power usage of the TV doesn't necessarily dwarf the console's power. My TV is a 55" rear projection LCD. It takes 160W (with the bulb on low, I measured it with a Kill-A-Watt). As you can see, the playing Xbox 360 doubles my electric bill. That's a long way from being dwarfed. And if I used a reasonably-sized TV instead of this one, the Xbox 360 power usage might actually dwarf my TV's usage.
Safeway does it here. And Peapod also offers a service.
I see the employee shoppers in Safeway a lot. They have these carts that know what they are to buy, and route the person on the shortest path through the store to pick up each item, and tells them which items to buy and which bin to put them in (since they shop for a couple people at once).
Destruction is not.
Government agencies are paranoid, and in many cases for good reason. When an enemy has your data for years at a time, there's a good chance they can break it. They can dupe it and try to brute force it in parallel.
There's a lot of peace of mind knowing that you don't have to worry about any of this.
China did hold our people and our plane, and returned the plane in pieces.
That seems like the actions of an enemy, declared or no.
Reason.
The Diesel-electric hybrid shown was developed with US government money actually. But after the car was finished, the government changed the laws so that no Diesel car can qualify as a PZEV (SULEV), the classification hybrids are in.
So the car had no future, so GM didn't put their own money in to continue developing it. You also remove the mention that California cancelled the ZEV laws before the EV1 debuted, putting the EV1 into a difficult position in the marketplace.
And I think rightly so, since Diesels then (and only slightly less so now) pollute so much that driving one to help the environment is kidding yourself.
Note that in no way does Toyota excel at low-volume custom manufacturing. Toyota is fantastic at manufacturing, but it's of the high volume kind.
http://www.fatwallet.com/t/74/622042
It was only that price for 2 days.
But I expect it'll hit that price full-time in a month or so. We'll see.
There's no 720i.
And 1080p TVs (full 1920x1080x60 output and input) can be had for very little now. Dell is selling one for $800 (24" 2407FPW), and a friend bought a Westinghouse 42" 1080P with 3 1080p inputs for $1500 last week. Two other friends have had 42" Sharp HDTVs with 1080p input for 6 months, and each paid only $3400 for them.
So please stop spreading the rumors that 1080p HDTVs cost $10,000.
It's not as complex as you make it out.
If you want to buy an HDTV, you have a choice. One that will display at about 1280x720 resolution. Most plasmas, smaller direct-view LCDs and rear projection LCDs and DLPs are this way. You can get one that displays at 1920x1080 resolution, but doesn't accept 1080p input. Many higher-end rear projection units and some direct-view LCDs are this way. Or, you can get one that does 1920x1080 resolution and accepts 1080p input. New high-end rear projectors and direct-view LCDs are this way.
It basically comes down to "how much do you want to spend?".
And next year, the middle tier won't even exist. The choice will be full 1080p or a cheaper unit.
Any of these have HDCP and will display digital and analog content with no problems.
It's not as compex as you make it out to be. Like choosing a DVD player was easy?
In the early days it was "do you need CD playback?" (early Panasonics didn't do it).
Then it was "some have good anamorphic unsqueeze and some have really bad unsqueeze"
Then it was "Do you want DTS capability?"
then it was " do you want deinterlacing/480p output?"
Now it's "do you want one that upscales?"
And yet DVD did great.
That was certainly a huge factor and I totally forgot about it.
The California regulations required that some percent (5%? 10%?) of the cars sold in California be zero emissions by a certain date. So companies start to make electric cars.
And what does California do? Back away from the regulations. First, they declared that some gas-powered could be qualified as partial zero emissions vehicles (PZEV) and thus qualify for the regulations. I don't have a problem with SULEVs (the less Orwellian name for PZEVs), but anyone who thinks they deserve credit for being zero emissions should have to sleep in a bedroom ventilated by the exhaust of PZEVs for a couple nights and report back how the "zero" emissions are treating them.
So after GM spends a lot on real ZEVs, California allows other companies to spend less than 10% as much and make the grade. then they flat out ditch the program making GM (and Honda's) efforts an almost total waste of money.
No wonder the car companies fight new regulations that seem likely to force them to make vehicles there probably isn't a market for. Once bitten, twice shy.
I agree with the other posters. What killed the car was economic unviability. So that's why it was discontinued.
But why were the cars all taken back and destroyed? The same reason Beechcraft took back the Starship. If anyone owns one out there, the company has an obligation to provide certain services. For example, in the US you must make repair parts for a car for some amount of time after you discontinue it. And there's plenty more costs too.
But by taking them back, they could forgo this stuff and probably write off the program for a nice loss too.
So, the car became unviable for all but a tiny number of people. And then some beancounter did the math and found it was far cheaper to recall them all than let people buy them and keep running them.
No conspiracy. It's just the way corporations work. Money talks.
Anyone who says GM was just setting up electric cars for a fall is drawing an inexplicable link between GM and oil. GM wants to sell cars. If people want electric cars, they want to sell you electric cars. They had a huge advantage in the electric market, there's no reason to think they would kill that market rather than cash in on it.
Well more than 5-10. I have friends who have had 1080p-capable (display and input) for more than 6 months now. They have Sharp 45" direct-view TVs (45GXsomethingerother). These not only have native 1920x1080 resolution but accept 1080p (60fps) input. Each paid about $3400.
A coworker bought a Westinghouse 42" LVM-42w2 last weekend for $1500. It has 1920x1080 resolution and has 3 1080p (x60) digital inputs (plus a VGA input that will take 1920x1080x60fps too).
Sony also has announced (but not yet shipped) replacements for the Sony SXRDs you speak of. These accept 1080p and display it at full resolution. They are in the Bravia line now. http://www.sony.com/2006TV
I am writing this on a Dell 24" monitor for my computer that has 1920x1200 resolution and accepts full 60fps 1080p input. (I only paid $600 for it!) Mine (2405) doesn't do HDCP (unlike all the above), but the most revent one (2407) does.
There are many, many HDTVs now that can display 1080p at full resolution. People who keep repeating that there aren't 1080p displays available are just stuck in the past. It is true most people don't have a 1080p display, but there are plenty available now. Unless you are economizing, you'd do well to get one that does 1080p.
http://www.linuxpipeline.com/187200374
They covered it pretty well. The labels are not only charging them breakage and other costs that don't exist on digital downloads, but they are also paying a different rate, claming it is licensing, not distribution.
Cheap Trick and The Allman Brothers are standing up, why doesn't Weird Al?
Nothing new here, labels screwing artists. I do agree with the others, the labels aren't doing too much for Weird Al anymore (in terms of advertising, etc.), he should break away from them and sell his own albums direct. It won't fix his royalties for "Like a Surgeon", but at least he can make more off of new stuff he records.
It is difficult to make someone understand something if their job depends on them not understanding it
- Upton Sinclair
(thanks, Al!)
Yeah, the intro would come up, and you had to push right a couple times to jump across the bridges before he even went in the castle.
Most machines had this turned off. Perhaps your experience is why they turned it off. I figured it was to decrease game time and thus increase throughput.
No, the Mac Mini as-is could not be done on an AMD solution.
It would simply cost too much because you would need to purchase an additional graphics solution chip. Apple could do that before because they were using an outdated processor (G4). Buying an up to date, dual core CPU plus GPU plus NB plus SB just costs too much (even if you can fit it in there) to make the margins Apple demands.
The complexity of chips does affect their cost. But even a simple chip with a lot of pins (an AMD NB) costs almost as much as a complex chip with a lot of pins (an Intel NB). the difference is here that the Intel NB also is a GPU in mainstream solutions.
So, I say again, just count the chips. AMD is looking at a 4-chip solution, Intel has it down to 3, and the extra chip isn't even a chip one, it's a graphics chip, which even in basic form costs $20. You also have to add the cost of graphics RAM (unless you get a chip with embedded GRAM, which costs more but saves money overall compared to external GRAM). Intel's solution leverages the onboard RAM, which it can do easily since it has the RAM directly attached to the NB.
Putting the GPU in an HTX slot or HT socket doesn't save money in the same way that not having a separate GPU does. And you can't remove the NB as long as the machine has any slots or PCI or PCIe peripherals (like Firewire interfaces). The NB in an AMD system acts as an HT to PCIe/PCI bridge.
And that is why I doubt Apple is seriously looking at AMD right now. I'm sure they got Mac OS X running on an AMD, but I doubt they even built any AMD hardware prototypes. AMD can't meet Intel on cost structures on the Mac Mini or Mac Book (non-Pro), and these make up a lot of Apple's sales. They also can't meet it on XServes. All of these are because all of these machines can usefully use Intel's on-chip (950) GPU. Apple could probably not use AMD for their other laptops either given how hot they already run with Core Duos, which provide Athlon X2 4200+ performance at just over half the power/heat, they wouldn't make it with an Athlon X2.
So Apple could use AMD in the iMac and in the towers, but nowhere else.
And that is almost certainly why Apple went with Intel. And it's why the AMD+ATI rumor made a lot of sense to me. If AMD wants to sell to Apple and other cost-conscious manufacturers (presumably Dell amongst them) they need to have a solution that matches Intel on cost on the low end. And licensing a graphics engine from ATI (probably one of the ones they got with the BitBoys acquision) would do it. From a competition standpoint, I don't really want AMD and ATI to merge, but companies see these things in a different light. They want to maximize their profits, not my choice.
Mentioning 4x4: there's another thing AMD's onboard NB locked them out of. Since the CPU interfaces directly to the RAM, that means you have to have a RAM subsystem for each CPU chip. That means you have to install at least 4 DIMMs in a machine. In a world where a 1GB (DDR400) DIMM costs only 30% more than a 512MB DIMM, making the user install 4 512MB DIMMs instead of two 1GB DIMMs is a killer. That means they couldn't do affordable MP unless they got both cores on one chip (which they did very well).
Additionally, if you have seen what Intel showed at their conference (IDC) this year, they showed a Core Duo plus North bridge plus South bridge plus CPU power controller on a single chip (obviously multiple chips on one package). That included a GPU of course, since there is on in Intel's NB. Apple could buy that from Intel and make a smaller and cheaper (although multiple chips on one package don't save nearly as much money as putting more on one die) system than they can with AMD. Why? Because AMD doesn't make a GPU or a NB (they do make an SB, Geode). That means anyone who wants them together has to work with manufacturers to get them all put together themself. That's difficult to do if you don't have very high volumes.
All of this just underscores AMDs difficult position in the laptop and mainstream markets in the next couple years. They're not stupid, I'm sure they see it. But they'll need to not just understand it, but also fix it before they can compete with Intel in these markets.
No, a more interesting question to answer would not be "is the job making the factory worker's life better"?
If you aren't getting what you want out of your job, get another job. It isn't your employer's job to fulfill your life. Even in China (odd, since it's allegedly a Communist country).
And these people are not skilled welders. Skilled workers are making more than the minimum which was presented here for maximum shock value.
I'm not piggybacking on Linus.
Hehe. Linus Torvalis was just involved in a discussion like this over at RWT. It makes PERFECT sense for AMD to have done this. It allows their fabs to produce a single basic design for multiple markets instead of dividing their effort into multiple designs. The mass production of one design lowered the cost enough to make up for any extra expense in the consumer market. This same effect has allowed x86 to overtake higher end markets from the bottom over time. Presumably Sony and IBM (or at least Sony) are looking to do the same thing to x86 with Cell starting with the console market but I think Cell is too specialized to pull it off not to mention Sony's past successes in introducing new standards and products. They have become expert in snatching defeat from he jaws of victory.
Long term, that doesn't work. I do see what it did for them now, I don't see it continuing to work. Because all the "single solution" stuff won't reduce the number of chips on the board. An Athlon solution has CPU, NB, SB and graphics accelerator (possible NB and SB together). An Intel solution now has just CPU, NB and SB (SB is almost vestigal). AMD simply cannot match on price when they have to make more chips, no matter how broadly they apply the chips to the market. I don't see the GPU going onto the CPU, so they can't ditch a chip that way. AMD seems like they think they can put the GPU next to the CPU (opening up HT on the board), but that doesn't save chips either.
Let me ask you this, could a Mac Mini have been made with an AMD solution?
I've heard rumors Intel wants to go to FB-DIMMs with Conroe. We'll see what happens if they do that. That could really hurt them in the same way you mention with Athlon non-registered ECC.
Someone else already did it in the responses. These people are making above average money for ALL JOBS in China (something like 55th percentile). And they don't have to risk their lives mining coal.
Doesn't seem all that bad. Do factory workers make average or better money for the economy as a whole in the US?
And anyway, like I said in another post, these people have to pay bribes to even get jobs at these factories already. If you raise the wages, the bribes will just become bigger, because the jobs will be that much more valueable.
I see. You say that 875P draws from A and B at the same time: AB AB AB AB. That makes sense to me, since if you do the math with DDR400, it was the only way to maximize the "800 MHz" FSB on the P4-3GHz.
But that DDR2 chipsets might draw from A and B alternately, sharing the bus. A B A B A B A B.
The 2nd appears slower, since it takes 8 clocks, but the clocks are so fast that both fill the FSB bandwidth equally.
And you're saying that even though the 2nd is "fast enough", if they went to the first system again, they'd be able to double throughput on an Athlon, although an Intel would be FSB-limited.
Right?
So I have to ask, doesn't system 1 require twice as many data lines on the mobo as system 2, since system 2 timeshares them? If so, can't you just look at the socket or mobo to see which is being used where?
I do agree that what AMD did was move the NB on-chip. I just don't see the sense in that, given that the NB is not going to go away, in fact, it is going to become more important as the graphics accelerators move there. I just don't see AMD's solution making financial sense in the bulk of the market in the long term. It does make sense where latency is paramount (servers? render farms?) and where you're gonna have a graphics chip too complex to ride on the NB (gaming), but not in the mainstream "office" type system or laptop, which together make up well over half the market.
Apple doesn't have any choice.
Foreign companies simply cannot own factories in China. You must partner with a local company. Because of that and other factors, it doesn't make sense to buy a factory in China. So your contractor owns it, and they do what they want.
You could pay more and tell the contractor to pay the employees more. And they might do it, but then every worker will want to work there, and the employees will have to pay bribes and kickbacks to get jobs at that factory, just reducing their pay again.
Employees already often pay "favors" to get on the list to get jobs in desireable factories in China, even at these wages.
So, if Apple wants to save money building in China, they may not have a reasonable way of controlling employee wages.
I'm not sure why I bothered to explain it at all. You just didn't read it (or comprehend it), hit reply and posted nonsense.
Early devices have large amounts of (gross) profit attached to them. Because they know supplies will be limited, and demand will be fulfilled even at the high prices. The high gross profit probably doesn't cover R&D costs at these low volumes, making it a net loss. But regardless, the unit is not sold "at a loss", since after the R&D is done, not selling it wouldn't decrease the loss, so the units are not contributing any loss.
I'll explain it again. Let's say you have a part. It has a fixed price, and a fixed supply. You know you can't get any more. You know you can sell more than you can get. So you can easily raise the price to moderate demand. A great example is Xbox 360. They simply couldn't get any more RAM. So they could have charged $600+ per unit, which would have increased their profit per unit, and as long as all the units sold (they sold for this price anyway, retailers just took the profit) they would have made MORE money.
But by your limited world-view, this can't happen.
AGAIN:
"Whatever the market will bear."
With early-adopter type devices, don't assume the pricing of the unit has anything to do with the cost of goods.
So, as to your point, yes, the standalone BR player is 40% gross profit.
I bought the first (mass-market) DVD player Sony made. (DVP-S7000). It was $900. Sony made a ton of money selling these. Probably even 40%, as a player with nearly identical internals was sold within a year at only $600 (DVP-S3000).
PS3 will not be a loss leader. Xbox 360 isn't a loss leader. These prices are high enough that they actually do cover the cost of goods. They don't cover development costs, I'm sure. That's why they sell games and movies, to get that money back.
I don't think PSP was intended to be a loss leader. It might have been at launch at $200 (it was a forced $250 bundle in the US with some high-margin accessories, thus solving that problem). I don't think now that they are losing money on it anymore, even at $200. Still, I bet they'd make a lot more if they got rid of that UMD drive...
Freakin' echo chamber. One person says something, others repeat it, whether it's right or wrong.
_ ld_1118ipod.html) makes iPods for Apple (Foxconn does too).
The original article claims the iPod factory is 200,000 people, despite the fact that Foxconn only employees 211,000 people total. The Longhua campus has about 200,000 people. Not all of them make iPods.
Then the Wired article repeats two paragraphs almost word for word and adds a little more info, like Invatec (giving a horrible link) makes iPods for Apple.
Except they don't. Inventec (http://www.forbes.com/personaltech/2004/11/18/cx
These stores are nearly-fact free. And as to people being surprised about this, did they look at the back of their iPod? They didn't see the "Made in China" mark? Or they thought perhaps it was made in China, but Apple still paid employees $50,000 a year?
These people make decent money. That's why it is difficult for Chinese to get one of these jobs, many people compete for them. People just don't have any idea of the cost of living in other countries. Heck, look at me above, putting down $50,000 a year for factory workers! That's my Bay Area experience messing me up, where I grew up in the Rust Belt, it would be more like $38,000!
Some study by Brown in 1992 says that the discovery of aluminum was due to the misuse of a chemical agent in that first study.
Keep searching, there's info out there that seems to back this up.