If you need a lot of ARM chips, or want to be able to do some customization to the architecture (which I believe requires a separate license) eventually the volume cost of using RISC-V is going to be cheaper. This is even a bigger driver if you're trying to produce some component yourself that's designed to be extremely low cost as the additional fees to ARM will become a substantial portion of the cost. It's the same as it was with Windows where no one really noticed the extra cost when computers were hideously expensive themselves, but once companies were able to delivery extremely cheap entry level computers Microsoft had to adjust because the Windows tax became obvious.
So were the Bolivian bolivar, the Zimbabwe dollar, or the Yugoslavian dinar right up until they weren't. A fiat currency isn't a guarantee of safety either. The drop in bitcoins value is absolutely horrendous, but some of those currencies were losing that much of their value every single week, or even more quickly. I think post-WWII Hungary holds the record at some several quadrillion percent inflation per month. That's an amount so large that if you average it out, a Hungarian pengo would have lost more value than bitcoin has over this last year in between the time it started and finished being printed.
I wonder what Google's rivals will have to say about Google's business practices. Why waste the time even sending out the survey. Either they've obviously broken some law, or the EU is just looking to legitimize their shakedown.
It seems kind of silly, but this is the silicon valley tech press. Half of the staff are aspire to be left of Marx, so it's not weird that they would act this way. Facebook is supposed to be a progressive company, so how dare they associate with a company that has associated with their enemy.
This line of thinking is totally consistent with their beliefs.
Given how the modern automotive industry works, I'm not sure if it matters. Japan manufacturers a lot of the cars that it sells in the U.S., in the U.S. so I don't think there's much worry over jobs being lost. Also, all of the Japanese companies are publicly traded, with a few of the largest shareholders being American companies, American banks, or other foreign firms that are in turn partially owned by Americans. If it gets American companies to invest in electric vehicles in the hope of regaining market share, I don't see how anyone could really complain.
Yeah. Somebody should upload a video of people getting served at Starbucks to the orgy section of some porn site, since it would be a video of a whole bunch of people getting fucked.
So what if it is? Insurance is essentially gambling as well, but I think you'd be hard pressed to insist we get rid of that. If people aren't free to make terrible life decisions, they really aren't free at all. Trying to ban them from engaging in that behavior almost never makes it go away either. Instead it merely ensures that the kind of people who offer those desired services probably won't be terribly nice.
I'm rather curious what would have been used as the next form of tie-breaking if rapid chess proved no better at establishing a victor. Even more rapid chess? Three-legged sack race is probably out, but I would be interested if anyone happens to know the rules offhand.
Why not investigate parents that have given little Billy or Susie the ability to spend money on anything without parental oversight. Letting their children buy loot boxes is probably the least harmful thing that could result from such carelessness.
I suspect that it isn't children doing most of the spending. Instead it's the same kind of people who would gladly plow hundreds or even thousands of dollars into a slot machine at the nearest casino or who would buy dozens of scratch tickets at a local gas station, but have been spared the inconvenience of traveling their with this digital crack.
I'm not sure if it's right just to ban something because a lot of adults can't behave responsibly. You'd pretty much have to get rid of everything a good size of the population enjoys on weekends if you wanted to have any form of moral consistency. Even if you want to approach it from the perspective of loot boxes being a form of gambling (it pretty much is) being done outside of a licensed casino, I think you'd have to also go after the insurance companies as well.
If that were actually easy, some company would have completely taken over the planet by now. The other side of that is if you invest in something that doesn't pan out, you've not only spent a large amount of time and resources producing something that has little or no value, but you're in exactly the same position you would have been had you taken a wait and see approach.
Over the long run, it's probably better to take a wait and see approach and get good and building things at lower cost. In a lot of ways, I think this is the approach that Apple has taken. They very rarely invent some new way of doing things, but they are pretty good at identifying a good idea and polishing the hell out of it to bring it to the mass market. People like to praise the vision of Steve Jobs, but it would have been almost entirely useless without the execution of Tim Cook.
When Apple does try to guess where things are headed next, they've rarely had anywhere near the success as taking something that consumers want now, and figuring out how to supply that at low costs. People like to think that Apple just makes computers and overcharges for them, but the other way of looking at that is that Apple has identified what customers are willing to buy and has figured out how to supply that product for a fraction of the sale price.
If you're particularly good at playing catch up, why spend money chasing down the next idea when you can get others to spend the time and effort doing that for you. Meanwhile, invest your money into manufacturing techniques that will enable you to deliver products at lower cost, enabling you to be more competitive on price or to haul in a larger share of profit.
Paying science fiction writers to predict the future is idiotic. If you poll the entirety of science fiction you will certainly find several ideas that have become reality, but you'll also find countless others that did not or failed to materialize.
I predict that companies that find out what customers want right now and figure out how to deliver that to them at the greatest cost will have profitable futures. I'm less certain about those that waste money on things like this. I foresee the departure of the idiots that approved this idea (which is probably just a way to get someone they know a job at the company) in the near future when the quarterlies don't meet investor expectations.
Hanover and some of the businesses there will likely see a dip, but it just means that everyone who previously went to CeBit now has the money to go somewhere else instead or to spend that money on something entirely different instead.
There's a new largest IT conference now, and perhaps it's seeing an increase in attendance as it absorbs some of the crowd that only went to CeBit.
Intel isn't even on 10nm yet, at least not in terms of having mass production of shipping products (I'm not even going to count the pathetic i3 they trotted out and relegated to the bottom end of the Chinese market). However, if you look at the characteristics of each process, it becomes pretty clear that TSMC is (and historically always has been) playing loose with their naming. Not that it really matters anyways since it's just a marketing term. Intel's 10nm has roughly similar characteristics to TSMC's 7nm process. Even that is bad for Intel though, as historically they tended to have at least a year (and more often two years) lead over the competition.
It doesn't directly, but it sequesters carbon, because there's an assumption that you plant a new tree to replace the one that was buried.
Even then I'm not sure about that idea. I can't imagine that it's very cost effective to do, and forestry and excavating a burial cavern are going to rely on the kinds of heavy machinery that will still probably run on fossil fuels.
If you're going to go that route, it seems far less expensive to grow a bunch of biomass and make a slurry that could be pumped underground into various caverns. It would be especially funny if we pumped it all back into the same places where we previously extracted oil.
While that sounds well and good, it could cause some problems with weight distribution. Here's one article that discusses an actual incident where this became an issue.
Board the plane back-to front which is the most sane and keeps people from having to wait to move further back and creating traffic jams.
Hardly. It sounds as though they started buying within the same week as the announcement. The deal would have been locked in, but a few people probably got a slight heads up, especially if they were expected to relocate for their job.
If you’re going to use this as a line in the sand instead of all manner of other corporate malfeasance, then I’m not really sure what to make if you. This deals like some kind of manufactured outrage.
So what? Another 12% are probably humans spreading dishonest information.
Twitter as it’s designed is shit which is why it’s been used in this way. Maybe in another decade we’ll be able to get social networks right, but they’re all awful right now and mostly make people miserable addicts.
The left for all its desire to make the world a better place does a shit job of it, because it confuses good intentions with effective policy. Look no further than Venezuela as a prime example of what happens when the left gains power.
And despite what you think of the right, you're so far off on their goals it's sad. There are the free market types (Ron Paul) that simply don't want the government involved, and others along the conservative spectrum that might think those things are nice to have, but not the duty of the Federal government. If you look at the world in terms of a liberal-conservative dichotomy, the liberals want to push ahead and change the world and the conservatives want to keep things from falling apart, and both of those are good goals.
The rest of your ranting just shows you have no understanding of why conservatives believe what they believe or why they talk about "job creators". How much wages do you pay out to anyone. Now if you were to create a job, you would need to hire someone, and you have a hard time convincing people to leave their existing job without offering better conditions or higher pay. Higher wages are a consequence of new jobs and conservatives look at all of the meddling in the economy that liberals tend to want to do and consider it a form of madness, and that all of the programs that liberals want to fund as less money left for them to invest.
I don't know what you think about rich people and their money, but it isn't something that they just hoover up and put in a mattress or vault. Money gets invested into people or companies who want to create new jobs, because they think there's money to be made by offering some product or service that's better than what already exists. Then you also say idiotic things like Amazon's HeliPad being something the right supports when Amazon is building in NYC and DC which are clearly well known Republican strongholds.
Slashdot Mirror
If you need a lot of ARM chips, or want to be able to do some customization to the architecture (which I believe requires a separate license) eventually the volume cost of using RISC-V is going to be cheaper. This is even a bigger driver if you're trying to produce some component yourself that's designed to be extremely low cost as the additional fees to ARM will become a substantial portion of the cost. It's the same as it was with Windows where no one really noticed the extra cost when computers were hideously expensive themselves, but once companies were able to delivery extremely cheap entry level computers Microsoft had to adjust because the Windows tax became obvious.
So were the Bolivian bolivar, the Zimbabwe dollar, or the Yugoslavian dinar right up until they weren't. A fiat currency isn't a guarantee of safety either. The drop in bitcoins value is absolutely horrendous, but some of those currencies were losing that much of their value every single week, or even more quickly. I think post-WWII Hungary holds the record at some several quadrillion percent inflation per month. That's an amount so large that if you average it out, a Hungarian pengo would have lost more value than bitcoin has over this last year in between the time it started and finished being printed.
I wonder what Google's rivals will have to say about Google's business practices. Why waste the time even sending out the survey. Either they've obviously broken some law, or the EU is just looking to legitimize their shakedown.
It seems kind of silly, but this is the silicon valley tech press. Half of the staff are aspire to be left of Marx, so it's not weird that they would act this way. Facebook is supposed to be a progressive company, so how dare they associate with a company that has associated with their enemy.
This line of thinking is totally consistent with their beliefs.
Given how the modern automotive industry works, I'm not sure if it matters. Japan manufacturers a lot of the cars that it sells in the U.S., in the U.S. so I don't think there's much worry over jobs being lost. Also, all of the Japanese companies are publicly traded, with a few of the largest shareholders being American companies, American banks, or other foreign firms that are in turn partially owned by Americans. If it gets American companies to invest in electric vehicles in the hope of regaining market share, I don't see how anyone could really complain.
Yeah. Somebody should upload a video of people getting served at Starbucks to the orgy section of some porn site, since it would be a video of a whole bunch of people getting fucked.
It's probably not an issue with wildlife, but an issue with digging under people's property.
*shakes fist*
Not Under My Back Yard!
Shot of vodka must be consumed after each game ending in a draw. Play until someone wins or someone is unable to play.
That probably just solidifies Russian and Easter European domination even more, but it would make for far more entertaining games.
To be fair, he did say that he lost his mind.
So what if it is? Insurance is essentially gambling as well, but I think you'd be hard pressed to insist we get rid of that. If people aren't free to make terrible life decisions, they really aren't free at all. Trying to ban them from engaging in that behavior almost never makes it go away either. Instead it merely ensures that the kind of people who offer those desired services probably won't be terribly nice.
That can be disabled. If you're not smart enough to do it before giving your child the device, you'll probably learn to do it after getting a bill.
I'm rather curious what would have been used as the next form of tie-breaking if rapid chess proved no better at establishing a victor. Even more rapid chess? Three-legged sack race is probably out, but I would be interested if anyone happens to know the rules offhand.
Why not investigate parents that have given little Billy or Susie the ability to spend money on anything without parental oversight. Letting their children buy loot boxes is probably the least harmful thing that could result from such carelessness.
I suspect that it isn't children doing most of the spending. Instead it's the same kind of people who would gladly plow hundreds or even thousands of dollars into a slot machine at the nearest casino or who would buy dozens of scratch tickets at a local gas station, but have been spared the inconvenience of traveling their with this digital crack.
I'm not sure if it's right just to ban something because a lot of adults can't behave responsibly. You'd pretty much have to get rid of everything a good size of the population enjoys on weekends if you wanted to have any form of moral consistency. Even if you want to approach it from the perspective of loot boxes being a form of gambling (it pretty much is) being done outside of a licensed casino, I think you'd have to also go after the insurance companies as well.
If that were actually easy, some company would have completely taken over the planet by now. The other side of that is if you invest in something that doesn't pan out, you've not only spent a large amount of time and resources producing something that has little or no value, but you're in exactly the same position you would have been had you taken a wait and see approach.
Over the long run, it's probably better to take a wait and see approach and get good and building things at lower cost. In a lot of ways, I think this is the approach that Apple has taken. They very rarely invent some new way of doing things, but they are pretty good at identifying a good idea and polishing the hell out of it to bring it to the mass market. People like to praise the vision of Steve Jobs, but it would have been almost entirely useless without the execution of Tim Cook.
When Apple does try to guess where things are headed next, they've rarely had anywhere near the success as taking something that consumers want now, and figuring out how to supply that at low costs. People like to think that Apple just makes computers and overcharges for them, but the other way of looking at that is that Apple has identified what customers are willing to buy and has figured out how to supply that product for a fraction of the sale price.
If you're particularly good at playing catch up, why spend money chasing down the next idea when you can get others to spend the time and effort doing that for you. Meanwhile, invest your money into manufacturing techniques that will enable you to deliver products at lower cost, enabling you to be more competitive on price or to haul in a larger share of profit.
Paying science fiction writers to predict the future is idiotic. If you poll the entirety of science fiction you will certainly find several ideas that have become reality, but you'll also find countless others that did not or failed to materialize.
I predict that companies that find out what customers want right now and figure out how to deliver that to them at the greatest cost will have profitable futures. I'm less certain about those that waste money on things like this. I foresee the departure of the idiots that approved this idea (which is probably just a way to get someone they know a job at the company) in the near future when the quarterlies don't meet investor expectations.
Hanover and some of the businesses there will likely see a dip, but it just means that everyone who previously went to CeBit now has the money to go somewhere else instead or to spend that money on something entirely different instead.
There's a new largest IT conference now, and perhaps it's seeing an increase in attendance as it absorbs some of the crowd that only went to CeBit.
Intel isn't even on 10nm yet, at least not in terms of having mass production of shipping products (I'm not even going to count the pathetic i3 they trotted out and relegated to the bottom end of the Chinese market). However, if you look at the characteristics of each process, it becomes pretty clear that TSMC is (and historically always has been) playing loose with their naming. Not that it really matters anyways since it's just a marketing term. Intel's 10nm has roughly similar characteristics to TSMC's 7nm process. Even that is bad for Intel though, as historically they tended to have at least a year (and more often two years) lead over the competition.
Sure, don't ever buy from any company that uses advertising like this, and send them a nice letter explaining why they've lost your business.
We just had this the other day: https://news.slashdot.org/story/18/11/27/2222247/youtube-to-make-new-originals-available-for-free-ad-supported-viewing.
/. has changed, at least some things stay the same.
I suppose for all the complaints about how much
It doesn't directly, but it sequesters carbon, because there's an assumption that you plant a new tree to replace the one that was buried.
Even then I'm not sure about that idea. I can't imagine that it's very cost effective to do, and forestry and excavating a burial cavern are going to rely on the kinds of heavy machinery that will still probably run on fossil fuels.
If you're going to go that route, it seems far less expensive to grow a bunch of biomass and make a slurry that could be pumped underground into various caverns. It would be especially funny if we pumped it all back into the same places where we previously extracted oil.
While that sounds well and good, it could cause some problems with weight distribution. Here's one article that discusses an actual incident where this became an issue.
Board the plane back-to front which is the most sane and keeps people from having to wait to move further back and creating traffic jams.
Only if they bring Cortana with them.
Hardly. It sounds as though they started buying within the same week as the announcement. The deal would have been locked in, but a few people probably got a slight heads up, especially if they were expected to relocate for their job.
If you’re going to use this as a line in the sand instead of all manner of other corporate malfeasance, then I’m not really sure what to make if you. This deals like some kind of manufactured outrage.
So what? Another 12% are probably humans spreading dishonest information.
Twitter as it’s designed is shit which is why it’s been used in this way. Maybe in another decade we’ll be able to get social networks right, but they’re all awful right now and mostly make people miserable addicts.
The left for all its desire to make the world a better place does a shit job of it, because it confuses good intentions with effective policy. Look no further than Venezuela as a prime example of what happens when the left gains power.
And despite what you think of the right, you're so far off on their goals it's sad. There are the free market types (Ron Paul) that simply don't want the government involved, and others along the conservative spectrum that might think those things are nice to have, but not the duty of the Federal government. If you look at the world in terms of a liberal-conservative dichotomy, the liberals want to push ahead and change the world and the conservatives want to keep things from falling apart, and both of those are good goals.
The rest of your ranting just shows you have no understanding of why conservatives believe what they believe or why they talk about "job creators". How much wages do you pay out to anyone. Now if you were to create a job, you would need to hire someone, and you have a hard time convincing people to leave their existing job without offering better conditions or higher pay. Higher wages are a consequence of new jobs and conservatives look at all of the meddling in the economy that liberals tend to want to do and consider it a form of madness, and that all of the programs that liberals want to fund as less money left for them to invest.
I don't know what you think about rich people and their money, but it isn't something that they just hoover up and put in a mattress or vault. Money gets invested into people or companies who want to create new jobs, because they think there's money to be made by offering some product or service that's better than what already exists. Then you also say idiotic things like Amazon's HeliPad being something the right supports when Amazon is building in NYC and DC which are clearly well known Republican strongholds.