Brother refills are pretty inexpensive as well. I can't comment for the US prices, but in the UK they cost about the same as the 363 cartridges HPs newer lines use, and carry a good deal more ink.
Oh, and they're not chipped cartridges like Lexmark, HP, Epson, and more recent Canon cartridges (like the 40/41 for the ip1600), so you can refill them at home pretty easily. Hell, they even tell you how to do it in the manual.
They're talking about access to system memory for independant applications.
Basically, if you farm out four tasks to a 2xDual intel setup, the memory bandwidth available doesn't scale. IE, you can add more dies, but at the cost of reducing the memory bandwidth available to each of those dies (to/from system).
With AMD's setup, adding a new die also adds a new memory controller (they're on the die, remember?), which in turn increases the amount of memory bandwidth available (to/from system).
It's already bieng proven an effective scheme in certain server markets, but as always the best solution for you will always depend on exactly what you are doing with the hardware.
The HP Deskjet 5440 and Deskjet 5940 look identical, bar the latter having a metal top as opposed to white plastic. The former is £59, the latter £69.
The former has 5ml cart's that cost about £13 each (336)(black). The latter has 21ml cart's that cost about £24 each (339), and 11ml carts that cost about £19 each.
The two are sat right next to each other on the shelf, and a customer that looked through the spec sheet would see two printers with similar speed, the same resolution, and an pictbridge port on the 5940. If I don't point the difference out to them, they will buy the cheaper 5440.
As you can imagine, I'm very quick to point out the difference. Hell, I don't get commission, there's an extra £10 in the till (the bean-counters don't see past today) and I'm less likely to get a complaint about the consumables running out every two bloody minutes.
Instead, they'll run out every eight.:P
If you're buying HP, take a moment to spin the box around and check sizes and prices of the cartridges BEFORE you buy.
Because there's a difference between a companies value and the amount of cash it can afford to spend. How much of that 'worth' is tied up in property, IP, bonds, etc. and how much of it is available as cold hard cash?
The whole point of a fine is to be a punishment, severe enough to bring it into line, but not severe enough to break it altogether. MS Europe's liquid assets also have to pay its day to day running costs, as well as any fines. With that in mind, the EC would be nuts to fine it too heavily.
At least, right now. If MS doesn't come into line, then it's likely that the EC will up the ante and approach the problem from the bottom up - keep raising the fines until they're big enough to make MS come into compliance, as opposed to aiming high and striking the heart with the first shot.
Your assuming, of course, that raising their prices won't cause businesses to reevaluate their hardware/software solutions. Remember, Microsoft has a very real monolopy - it cannot make a saturated market more profitable, so it has to maintain good relations with its customers.
If raising prices forces even a handful of customers into a competing product or products, then Microsoft has a problem. How long before those customers, or their employees, start using those products outside of that business? Before they introduce _other_ customers to that competing product?
Therein lies the problem. When your market share can only go down, you have to do everything you can to retain it. Microsoft could raise the prices in the EU, but it runs the risk of reducing its monopoly within and without by doing so.
The reason's pretty sound too - Backups. A mail provider that cannot ensure that its users can pick up their mail reliably will quickly be deserted, and the easiest way of making sure that noones email gets lost is to make sure that you have both backups and audit trails of all the mail that comes through your servers.
Deleting your email from the 'live' servers will tag those emails for deletion, but what about the backups? Either those continue to exist until the backups are destroyed (if the provider keeps them for a set timeframe), or the live servers have to delay deletion until the next time the mirror is updated (if the server only keeps one 'complete' backup), so that it can keep track of what needs removing from the mirror.
Remember, you don't want to store data once its no longer needed as it only takes up space that you can use for other things, and drives up your operating costs. So far as google goes, they make their money on advertising, and with that in mind they're unlikely to keep full logs beyond a few months (unless required by law to do otherwise). People tend to be fickle, and whats in fashion this month may not be in six. Any long-term interests will keep cropping up over any given period, hence never drop from the records, and if they thought they needed records going back further they could probably save a lot of resources by storing reoccuring searches as aggregrate keywords (Eg, X visited N pr0n sites, M webcomics, O movie review sites, and P technology relates sites - they don't need to know exactly which sites you visit to keep tabs on what interests you have.).
Dumping is illegal, Loss headers aren't. There's a difference between the two, and you might want to look into them.:P
Oh, and so far as Betamax went, the reason Betamax players were more expensive than VCRs were the licensing fees that Sony was charging. It's great to have a superior product, but if your licensing is too expensive or two picky, then you ultimately hurt that product by reducing the potential market for it.
Grandparent was incomplete in his/her argument. It's not the contracts that even it out, but rather the (b)millions that the US government gives to Boeing in research grants.
In any case, I'm just going to sit back and let the WTO take care of the claim/counterclaims. funny thing is, if it wasn't for the WTO it would be a non-issue anyway.
Uk copyright law doesn't have a fair use clause. Instead, it's 'fair dealing', and your only legal entitlement under it is to make copies for research purposes.
It's not that UK law has always allowed for it - in reality, it never has. It's that the law as it stands has never actually been enforced. Just the way we like it.:D
If they've said that they won't pursue, in the press (ie, in front of millions of witnesses), then they've effectively given up their right to pursue someone for those actions. The nice thing about the courts in the UK is that they actually hold people to their word - if the BPI tried to take action against someone, all the defendant would have to do is refer the judge to this (very public) statement and the case gets thrown out.
It's nice to live in a country that still respects common law.:)
"Amnesty International has a new online campaign against governments which censor websites, monitor online communications, and persecute citizens who express dissent in blogs, emails, or chat-rooms."
Emphasis mine. Every government does that, and it's unlikely that any petition will end that. Why? Because not all of that monitoring is done with 'Evil Intent'. I'm not going to complain because the police are watching IRC rooms as part of operation Avalanche or whatever. I'm not going to complain when they shut down some idiots website telling someone to go poison the water supply.
This may not be a popular view with the yanks, but not all censorship or eavesdropping is inherently bad. The problem is making sure there are controls in place, so that that power can't be abused. The other problem is trust.
at least you know that the PS3 is really the only next-generation video game system because nobody concerned with raw performance and power efficiency would want to use the Xbox 2 in a HPC environment.
Not quite. What they're saying is that the Cell is better suited to parralel applications, like physics simulations, and that it is more scaleable - ie, easier to build supercomputers or distributed computing nodes from.
However, that has no bearing upon what 'generation' the host console is - largely because a console has a pre-determined number of chips installed, and cannot be scaled without breaking it's own specification. Remember, the fact that there are exactly n cores in a console is what makes that console a stable development platform (as opposed to the PC, where performance is different on each unit).
You *could* argue that console is using more modular technology, but that on its own doesn't tell you anything about overall performance, ease of development, stability, robustness, nor any of the other metrics that you can really apply to a console. If 'older' technology can be used to provide those same metrics in a home console, then which is better simply becomes an issue of cost. If the older gear does the same job, but is cheaper to produce, then it is the better alternative from everything but a marketing standpoint. Expandibility of the hardware in other platforms does not affect the quality of the platform in question.
What if this is something that they *are* actually doing? Who would they be targetting this funcionality at?
Tip : It's not the end user. The cost of education (and incoming litigation) regarding this would be extremely expensive, and the lost goodwill would do more damage to the company than even *we* can imagine.
If it was implemented, chances are that there would be a bit set in a header somewhere on the disc that says 'this game binds' or 'this game doesn't bind'. The developers or publishers could then set that bit at will. Why would they do that?
To stop internal development copies bieng used outside the company. Think about it - you set the bit to 'on' for all development discs - the ones testers are using, for instance. They then get locked to the machine of the respective tester. If the disc gets 'lost' or leaked, the finder (or reciever) cannot use the disc, and gets nothing from it. IE, it's a great way to improve internal security for your projects. Turn the bit back to the 'off' position when it's time to publish (or else make sure that the mass production presses wont stamp an image that has the 'on' switch set), and the general public can use the finished game the same way they always have.
They'd never know differently. If one of the console developers ever implemented a system like that, this is what its most likely to be used for.
What if this is something that they *are* actually doing? Who would they be targetting this funcionality at?
Tip : It's not the end user. The cost of education (and incoming litigation) regarding this would be extremely expensive, and the lost goodwill would do more damage to the company than even *we* can imagine.
If it was implemented, chances are that there would be a bit set in a header somewhere on the disc that says 'this game binds' or 'this game doesn't bind'. The developers or publishers could then set that bit at will.
Why would they do that?
To stop internal development copies bieng used outside the company. Think about it - you set the bit to 'on' for all development discs - the ones testers are using, for instance. They then get locked to the machine of the respective tester. If the disc gets 'lost' or leaked, the finder (or reciever) cannot use the disc, and gets nothing from it.
IE, it's a great way to improve internal security for your projects.
Turn the bit back to the 'off' position when it's time to publish (or else make sure that the mass production presses wont stamp an image that has the 'on' switch set), and the general public can use the finished game the same way they always have. They'd never know differently.
If one of the console developers ever implemented a system like that, this is what its most likely to be used for.
More specifically - PNG files will be larger than JPEG files with any image that contains a lot of colours. Cartoons, logos, and other 'simple' images on the other hand, compress much more nicely using png or gif than they do using jpeg.
They're simply two different tools - you'd no more use PNG for a photo than you would use a hammer to tighten a bolt.
A democratic government is supposed to have limited power by design. However, as they grow, they tend to cut themselves free of the shackles that their founders placed on them. If you're going to be suprised about anything, be suprised that it didn't happen sooner.
True, but the key difference is that TV's dont tend to get imported from overseas on a daily basis - we constantly have people coming in from overseas expecting to be able to use their cells, on the other hand. London is one of the major financial capitals of the world, and a move like this would probably cost the economy billions - way more than they'd make on selling the waves.
umm, so the frequency response is no better than on a pair of headphones I can buy for £5 outta tesco's. Oh, and given what the rest of the article descibes, that £5 set probably sounds better and has a higher build quality too.
'accurate to the pixel'?/me breaks out the shotgun. The one used for killing people.
Can't speak for the US market, but they've just reintroduced themselves to the UK market in style. The MX6635b had an awesome specification for it's price, and our chain was literally unable to buy them in fast enough to keep up with demand. the 3020's were selling like hotcakes too. Now discontinued - yet we still get dozens of calls asking about availability at our store alone.
If gateways new models are that competetive, then they'll do well in the UK, even if the US operation flounders.
Like you said, it's about lining their pockets. One method : Deliberately add words to the list that end up with independant artists (who might release their music on Kazaa themselves) getting blocked.
Prevent your competition from getting exposure = preventing them from becoming 'real' competition.
Likely a false alert. The Rootkit itself doesn't communicate on the internet - the Music player (which is a seperate program, even 'tho it's installed at the same time), however, does.
Given that the two are installed at the same time, you can be fairly sure that any traffic from the player itself is indicative of the rootkit. Hits from other software, on the other hand, don't mean a damned thing.
Well, except that that other software uses the 'net for something. >_>
Slashdot Mirror
Brother refills are pretty inexpensive as well. I can't comment for the US prices, but in the UK they cost about the same as the 363 cartridges HPs newer lines use, and carry a good deal more ink.
Oh, and they're not chipped cartridges like Lexmark, HP, Epson, and more recent Canon cartridges (like the 40/41 for the ip1600), so you can refill them at home pretty easily.
Hell, they even tell you how to do it in the manual.
Oops, my bad.
The second paragraph also applies to a single-die, quad core setup. No additional bandwidth is provided for the extra cores.
They're talking about access to system memory for independant applications.
Basically, if you farm out four tasks to a 2xDual intel setup, the memory bandwidth available doesn't scale. IE, you can add more dies, but at the cost of reducing the memory bandwidth available to each of those dies (to/from system).
With AMD's setup, adding a new die also adds a new memory controller (they're on the die, remember?), which in turn increases the amount of memory bandwidth available (to/from system).
It's already bieng proven an effective scheme in certain server markets, but as always the best solution for you will always depend on exactly what you are doing with the hardware.
[Working at staples at the moment.]
:P
Here's an off-the-top-of-my-head example.
The HP Deskjet 5440 and Deskjet 5940 look identical, bar the latter having a metal top as opposed to white plastic. The former is £59, the latter £69.
The former has 5ml cart's that cost about £13 each (336)(black).
The latter has 21ml cart's that cost about £24 each (339), and 11ml carts that cost about £19 each.
The two are sat right next to each other on the shelf, and a customer that looked through the spec sheet would see two printers with similar speed, the same resolution, and an pictbridge port on the 5940. If I don't point the difference out to them, they will buy the cheaper 5440.
As you can imagine, I'm very quick to point out the difference. Hell, I don't get commission, there's an extra £10 in the till (the bean-counters don't see past today) and I'm less likely to get a complaint about the consumables running out every two bloody minutes.
Instead, they'll run out every eight.
If you're buying HP, take a moment to spin the box around and check sizes and prices of the cartridges BEFORE you buy.
Because there's a difference between a companies value and the amount of cash it can afford to spend. How much of that 'worth' is tied up in property, IP, bonds, etc. and how much of it is available as cold hard cash?
The whole point of a fine is to be a punishment, severe enough to bring it into line, but not severe enough to break it altogether. MS Europe's liquid assets also have to pay its day to day running costs, as well as any fines. With that in mind, the EC would be nuts to fine it too heavily.
At least, right now. If MS doesn't come into line, then it's likely that the EC will up the ante and approach the problem from the bottom up - keep raising the fines until they're big enough to make MS come into compliance, as opposed to aiming high and striking the heart with the first shot.
Your assuming, of course, that raising their prices won't cause businesses to reevaluate their hardware/software solutions. Remember, Microsoft has a very real monolopy - it cannot make a saturated market more profitable, so it has to maintain good relations with its customers. If raising prices forces even a handful of customers into a competing product or products, then Microsoft has a problem. How long before those customers, or their employees, start using those products outside of that business? Before they introduce _other_ customers to that competing product? Therein lies the problem. When your market share can only go down, you have to do everything you can to retain it. Microsoft could raise the prices in the EU, but it runs the risk of reducing its monopoly within and without by doing so.
At least, not if they're any good.
The reason's pretty sound too - Backups. A mail provider that cannot ensure that its users can pick up their mail reliably will quickly be deserted, and the easiest way of making sure that noones email gets lost is to make sure that you have both backups and audit trails of all the mail that comes through your servers.
Deleting your email from the 'live' servers will tag those emails for deletion, but what about the backups? Either those continue to exist until the backups are destroyed (if the provider keeps them for a set timeframe), or the live servers have to delay deletion until the next time the mirror is updated (if the server only keeps one 'complete' backup), so that it can keep track of what needs removing from the mirror.
Remember, you don't want to store data once its no longer needed as it only takes up space that you can use for other things, and drives up your operating costs. So far as google goes, they make their money on advertising, and with that in mind they're unlikely to keep full logs beyond a few months (unless required by law to do otherwise). People tend to be fickle, and whats in fashion this month may not be in six. Any long-term interests will keep cropping up over any given period, hence never drop from the records, and if they thought they needed records going back further they could probably save a lot of resources by storing reoccuring searches as aggregrate keywords (Eg, X visited N pr0n sites, M webcomics, O movie review sites, and P technology relates sites - they don't need to know exactly which sites you visit to keep tabs on what interests you have.).
Dumping is illegal, Loss headers aren't. There's a difference between the two, and you might want to look into them. :P
Oh, and so far as Betamax went, the reason Betamax players were more expensive than VCRs were the licensing fees that Sony was charging. It's great to have a superior product, but if your licensing is too expensive or two picky, then you ultimately hurt that product by reducing the potential market for it.
Grandparent was incomplete in his/her argument. It's not the contracts that even it out, but rather the (b)millions that the US government gives to Boeing in research grants. In any case, I'm just going to sit back and let the WTO take care of the claim/counterclaims. funny thing is, if it wasn't for the WTO it would be a non-issue anyway.
Uk copyright law doesn't have a fair use clause. Instead, it's 'fair dealing', and your only legal entitlement under it is to make copies for research purposes.
:D
It's not that UK law has always allowed for it - in reality, it never has. It's that the law as it stands has never actually been enforced. Just the way we like it.
If they've said that they won't pursue, in the press (ie, in front of millions of witnesses), then they've effectively given up their right to pursue someone for those actions. The nice thing about the courts in the UK is that they actually hold people to their word - if the BPI tried to take action against someone, all the defendant would have to do is refer the judge to this (very public) statement and the case gets thrown out.
:)
It's nice to live in a country that still respects common law.
"Amnesty International has a new online campaign against governments which censor websites, monitor online communications, and persecute citizens who express dissent in blogs, emails, or chat-rooms."
Emphasis mine. Every government does that, and it's unlikely that any petition will end that. Why? Because not all of that monitoring is done with 'Evil Intent'. I'm not going to complain because the police are watching IRC rooms as part of operation Avalanche or whatever. I'm not going to complain when they shut down some idiots website telling someone to go poison the water supply.
This may not be a popular view with the yanks, but not all censorship or eavesdropping is inherently bad. The problem is making sure there are controls in place, so that that power can't be abused. The other problem is trust.
at least you know that the PS3 is really the only next-generation video game system because nobody concerned with raw performance and power efficiency would want to use the Xbox 2 in a HPC environment.
Not quite. What they're saying is that the Cell is better suited to parralel applications, like physics simulations, and that it is more scaleable - ie, easier to build supercomputers or distributed computing nodes from.
However, that has no bearing upon what 'generation' the host console is - largely because a console has a pre-determined number of chips installed, and cannot be scaled without breaking it's own specification. Remember, the fact that there are exactly n cores in a console is what makes that console a stable development platform (as opposed to the PC, where performance is different on each unit).
You *could* argue that console is using more modular technology, but that on its own doesn't tell you anything about overall performance, ease of development, stability, robustness, nor any of the other metrics that you can really apply to a console. If 'older' technology can be used to provide those same metrics in a home console, then which is better simply becomes an issue of cost. If the older gear does the same job, but is cheaper to produce, then it is the better alternative from everything but a marketing standpoint. Expandibility of the hardware in other platforms does not affect the quality of the platform in question.
Why not? Some of the more powerful car engines out there are literally a couple of V8's sliced apart and welded together. Different job, similar idea.
Same post, set to 'plain old text'.
What if this is something that they *are* actually doing? Who would they be targetting this funcionality at?
Tip : It's not the end user. The cost of education (and incoming litigation) regarding this would be extremely expensive, and the lost goodwill would do more damage to the company than even *we* can imagine.
If it was implemented, chances are that there would be a bit set in a header somewhere on the disc that says 'this game binds' or 'this game doesn't bind'. The developers or publishers could then set that bit at will. Why would they do that?
To stop internal development copies bieng used outside the company. Think about it - you set the bit to 'on' for all development discs - the ones testers are using, for instance. They then get locked to the machine of the respective tester. If the disc gets 'lost' or leaked, the finder (or reciever) cannot use the disc, and gets nothing from it. IE, it's a great way to improve internal security for your projects. Turn the bit back to the 'off' position when it's time to publish (or else make sure that the mass production presses wont stamp an image that has the 'on' switch set), and the general public can use the finished game the same way they always have.
They'd never know differently. If one of the console developers ever implemented a system like that, this is what its most likely to be used for.
What if this is something that they *are* actually doing? Who would they be targetting this funcionality at? Tip : It's not the end user. The cost of education (and incoming litigation) regarding this would be extremely expensive, and the lost goodwill would do more damage to the company than even *we* can imagine. If it was implemented, chances are that there would be a bit set in a header somewhere on the disc that says 'this game binds' or 'this game doesn't bind'. The developers or publishers could then set that bit at will. Why would they do that? To stop internal development copies bieng used outside the company. Think about it - you set the bit to 'on' for all development discs - the ones testers are using, for instance. They then get locked to the machine of the respective tester. If the disc gets 'lost' or leaked, the finder (or reciever) cannot use the disc, and gets nothing from it. IE, it's a great way to improve internal security for your projects. Turn the bit back to the 'off' position when it's time to publish (or else make sure that the mass production presses wont stamp an image that has the 'on' switch set), and the general public can use the finished game the same way they always have. They'd never know differently. If one of the console developers ever implemented a system like that, this is what its most likely to be used for.
More specifically - PNG files will be larger than JPEG files with any image that contains a lot of colours. Cartoons, logos, and other 'simple' images on the other hand, compress much more nicely using png or gif than they do using jpeg. They're simply two different tools - you'd no more use PNG for a photo than you would use a hammer to tighten a bolt.
'Absolute power'.
A democratic government is supposed to have limited power by design. However, as they grow, they tend to cut themselves free of the shackles that their founders placed on them.
If you're going to be suprised about anything, be suprised that it didn't happen sooner.
True, but the key difference is that TV's dont tend to get imported from overseas on a daily basis - we constantly have people coming in from overseas expecting to be able to use their cells, on the other hand. London is one of the major financial capitals of the world, and a move like this would probably cost the economy billions - way more than they'd make on selling the waves.
Shutting down the GSM networks would pretty much kill every mobile phone out there - so that shoulda been a dead giveaway to.
;)
Well, that and the fact that the ID cards aren't cumpulsory - yet
[note to self, spellhink mistaxe]
umm, so the frequency response is no better than on a pair of headphones I can buy for £5 outta tesco's. Oh, and given what the rest of the article descibes, that £5 set probably sounds better and has a higher build quality too.
/me breaks out the shotgun. The one used for killing people.
'accurate to the pixel'?
Can't speak for the US market, but they've just reintroduced themselves to the UK market in style. The MX6635b had an awesome specification for it's price, and our chain was literally unable to buy them in fast enough to keep up with demand. the 3020's were selling like hotcakes too. Now discontinued - yet we still get dozens of calls asking about availability at our store alone. If gateways new models are that competetive, then they'll do well in the UK, even if the US operation flounders.
Like you said, it's about lining their pockets. One method : Deliberately add words to the list that end up with independant artists (who might release their music on Kazaa themselves) getting blocked.
Prevent your competition from getting exposure = preventing them from becoming 'real' competition.
Me? Paranoid? naaaaaaa.
Well duh. Tape is so 2004.
Superglue - that's what you need!
Likely a false alert. The Rootkit itself doesn't communicate on the internet - the Music player (which is a seperate program, even 'tho it's installed at the same time), however, does.
Given that the two are installed at the same time, you can be fairly sure that any traffic from the player itself is indicative of the rootkit. Hits from other software, on the other hand, don't mean a damned thing.
Well, except that that other software uses the 'net for something. >_>