It may not matter at all to the PS3. These may only be chips that can't be used in the PS3. In terms of yield, the 7-core, 2.8 GHz Cells in the PS3 should show up a lot on the silicon now, if they're moving from 8-core 3.2 GHz targets to 9-core 3.2 GHz targets.
I'm a college student on Facebook (yes, I'm sure you can find the profile if you look, there's nothing bad on there). I know that I, and many of my facebook friends are in these geographic regions networks as well as college networks. I'm in the Washington, DC one, for example, so that means that now people who just live in DC can view my profile, not just college or high school students from DC. I don't think most college kids realize that.
From the looks of things, a Kentsfield on a 1066MHz FSB did similarly to a Kentsfield on a 1333MHz FSB, suggesting that bandwidth isn't the key issue. In fact, they scored the same on several tests (both were at the 2.67GHz standard speed). That surprised me, but I'm not complaining. Now, it may be that those tests never utilized all four cores, but it still scored head and shoulders above a E6700, suggesting that at least 3 cores were used.
Do you see the current situation as a systemic problem in the current torts system? Specifically, do you think we need legislative intervention to correct the "money bias" in our legal system?
I mean, there doesn't seem to be much of a way to fight an RIAA lawsuit money-wise. It always seems to end quickly: Either the defendant ist so obviously innocent they drop the case or he/she settles for "pennies on the dollar". When do you think we'll see a few definite trials to answer the hanging legal questions about investigative tactics and what an IP proves?
You should at least have a starting point - generally a household or an organization. UVA uses NAT, and so you only get the UVA external IP. Most universities and companies keep logs of this sort of stuff. So either you have a place to get the logs from, or you have it narrowed down to a household or building. With TOR, you have none of that.
You can't track someone that way if they use TOR. You could track that way back to the TOR exit-node, then you have to go through TOR to get to the entrance-node, and follow the entrance-node back to the bad guy.
Internet Routers don't hide the requesting IP. My post to slashdot is passing through 20 routers to get there (6 inside UVA, about 14 outside UVA), but CmdrTaco can see my IP. If I post something illegal and he has to turn over the IP, he'll at least get one that points to UVA's network's connection to the Internet. Whereas if I was using Tor, he wouldn't get that, he'd get some random computer somewhere. That's the difference.
It doesn't matter how Tor works, and the cops probably don't know how it works. They did a blanket grab of all the IPs they could get in the place's logs. That grabbed dumb criminals and innocent people. It happens, and there's not a lot we can do about it.
The majority of Intel graphics cards are in computers whose owners (business work desks or basic non-techy home computers). Most tech-oriented people have some sort of ATi or Nvidia card
1) I never said it was equal to stealing, I just said these are more of potential customers than your average guy bittorrenting a copy of CS2. I didn't mean to put words in anyone's mouth, just convey that.
2) And for the record, I still think that this guy getting less jail time than some rapists is frakked up.
The piracy argument of "wouldn't otherwise buy" is a lot less effective here, simply because people are buying the stuff, albeit at reduced prices. I think that argument has merit in economic harms discussions in regards to people playing with photoshop as amateurs, but most of the people paying for pirated copies would probably use it somewhere.
Insofar as people getting duped, why would you buy software you thought was pirated when 99% of it is free on the net? I mean, most people either didn't know how much Photoshop is supposed to cost, or thought it was a massive sale or something, I'd bet. If you know it's pirated, it's barely harder to get it free.
Victims: 1) Software companies not making the money for the copies used 2) The guys who thought they were buying the real thing, only to eventually find out they don't have Adobe/MS support, because they bought a copied version
Apple doesn't care about iTMS. Apple uses iTMS to sell iPods. Apple makes pennies per song on iTMS after bandwidth and royalties. Apple's iPod margin is much better. iTMS is a reason to buy an iPod instead of a Creative. It's a loss-leader that just happens to make money.
You don't own the content, you never did. You always purchased the right to view it under whatever restrictions they decided to impose. If you don't agree with those restrictions, don't buy it.
I never signed a license. Nor even saw one. And if that's true, I can get DVDs replaced for $3 or so. Afterall, I already own the license (which costs $15-20), I just need the little disc the content comes on.
The free market is perfectly capable of keeping our computers secure... For anyone who values security.
Yes, but here is where externalities come into play - for home users, insecure systems pose as much of a problem for the rest of the world as it does for them. If they were meant to feel the pain that their hacked computers caused, they'd patch.
That makes it a lot easier to cheat and make the AI you run either super-smart or braindead. If you can do that, you just solo and wipe the floor with brain-dead AIs until you have enough treasure/levels/skillz to take on anyone.
And if you don't have a monitor, or speakers, or need more than 1 internal and 1 external HDD, but want a fast computer that's quiet and small (no tower). I spent $300 on a 20" monitor that maybe matches the iMac one. A 24" monitor would be at least $500. Joe, you (here and in most of your other internet comments) assume that everyone wants or needs a high-end video card and 3 hard drives. I do, but that's because I involved in amateur video, blogging, game design, and a CompSci major. My parents need a decent screen, a decent processor and a gig of RAM (for basic computer stuff) I get the Mac Pro, they (hopefully will) get the iMac.
You pointed to the 7300GT. The Build to Order 7600GT has 256 MB of RAM. that's what I said. Both the x1600 and the 7300GT have 128 MB, but the 7600GT has 256.
One would first think that the lack of Conroe would make a mid-range headless Mac a sure shot, but the new iMacs cover every price point from $1000 to $2000, including the "entry pro" market with a large 24" screen (which is normally out of home reach) and a BTO 7600 GT and FW800.
Slashdot Mirror
No, I think defaulting gets you $750 per song, and you pay court costs. $750 isn't the court cost.
It may not matter at all to the PS3. These may only be chips that can't be used in the PS3. In terms of yield, the 7-core, 2.8 GHz Cells in the PS3 should show up a lot on the silicon now, if they're moving from 8-core 3.2 GHz targets to 9-core 3.2 GHz targets.
Sorta. In theory, you could put Win64 on it, but all Apple's drivers are 32-bit for Windows. So you can do it, but you lose a lot of stuff.
I'm a college student on Facebook (yes, I'm sure you can find the profile if you look, there's nothing bad on there). I know that I, and many of my facebook friends are in these geographic regions networks as well as college networks. I'm in the Washington, DC one, for example, so that means that now people who just live in DC can view my profile, not just college or high school students from DC. I don't think most college kids realize that.
From the looks of things, a Kentsfield on a 1066MHz FSB did similarly to a Kentsfield on a 1333MHz FSB, suggesting that bandwidth isn't the key issue. In fact, they scored the same on several tests (both were at the 2.67GHz standard speed). That surprised me, but I'm not complaining. Now, it may be that those tests never utilized all four cores, but it still scored head and shoulders above a E6700, suggesting that at least 3 cores were used.
Do you see the current situation as a systemic problem in the current torts system? Specifically, do you think we need legislative intervention to correct the "money bias" in our legal system?
I mean, there doesn't seem to be much of a way to fight an RIAA lawsuit money-wise. It always seems to end quickly: Either the defendant ist so obviously innocent they drop the case or he/she settles for "pennies on the dollar". When do you think we'll see a few definite trials to answer the hanging legal questions about investigative tactics and what an IP proves?
You should at least have a starting point - generally a household or an organization. UVA uses NAT, and so you only get the UVA external IP. Most universities and companies keep logs of this sort of stuff. So either you have a place to get the logs from, or you have it narrowed down to a household or building. With TOR, you have none of that.
this would be SWEET running on WinMCE!
There, fixed that for you.
You can't track someone that way if they use TOR. You could track that way back to the TOR exit-node, then you have to go through TOR to get to the entrance-node, and follow the entrance-node back to the bad guy.
Internet Routers don't hide the requesting IP. My post to slashdot is passing through 20 routers to get there (6 inside UVA, about 14 outside UVA), but CmdrTaco can see my IP. If I post something illegal and he has to turn over the IP, he'll at least get one that points to UVA's network's connection to the Internet. Whereas if I was using Tor, he wouldn't get that, he'd get some random computer somewhere. That's the difference.
It doesn't matter how Tor works, and the cops probably don't know how it works. They did a blanket grab of all the IPs they could get in the place's logs. That grabbed dumb criminals and innocent people. It happens, and there's not a lot we can do about it.
The majority of Intel graphics cards are in computers whose owners (business work desks or basic non-techy home computers). Most tech-oriented people have some sort of ATi or Nvidia card
1) I never said it was equal to stealing, I just said these are more of potential customers than your average guy bittorrenting a copy of CS2. I didn't mean to put words in anyone's mouth, just convey that.
2) And for the record, I still think that this guy getting less jail time than some rapists is frakked up.
1. not discernable. that was the key word there.
The piracy argument of "wouldn't otherwise buy" is a lot less effective here, simply because people are buying the stuff, albeit at reduced prices. I think that argument has merit in economic harms discussions in regards to people playing with photoshop as amateurs, but most of the people paying for pirated copies would probably use it somewhere.
Insofar as people getting duped, why would you buy software you thought was pirated when 99% of it is free on the net? I mean, most people either didn't know how much Photoshop is supposed to cost, or thought it was a massive sale or something, I'd bet. If you know it's pirated, it's barely harder to get it free.
Victims:
1) Software companies not making the money for the copies used
2) The guys who thought they were buying the real thing, only to eventually find out they don't have Adobe/MS support, because they bought a copied version
To be fair, I should point out that H.264 (MPEG-4) is Apple's format basically. It's not a format sans agenda.
Apple doesn't care about iTMS. Apple uses iTMS to sell iPods. Apple makes pennies per song on iTMS after bandwidth and royalties. Apple's iPod margin is much better. iTMS is a reason to buy an iPod instead of a Creative. It's a loss-leader that just happens to make money.
You don't own the content, you never did. You always purchased the right to view it under whatever restrictions they decided to impose. If you don't agree with those restrictions, don't buy it.
I never signed a license. Nor even saw one. And if that's true, I can get DVDs replaced for $3 or so. Afterall, I already own the license (which costs $15-20), I just need the little disc the content comes on.
The free market is perfectly capable of keeping our computers secure... For anyone who values security.
Yes, but here is where externalities come into play - for home users, insecure systems pose as much of a problem for the rest of the world as it does for them. If they were meant to feel the pain that their hacked computers caused, they'd patch.
That makes it a lot easier to cheat and make the AI you run either super-smart or braindead. If you can do that, you just solo and wipe the floor with brain-dead AIs until you have enough treasure/levels/skillz to take on anyone.
Apple doesn't make the computer you want. They haven't since the intro of the G5 Powermac.
And if you don't have a monitor, or speakers, or need more than 1 internal and 1 external HDD, but want a fast computer that's quiet and small (no tower). I spent $300 on a 20" monitor that maybe matches the iMac one. A 24" monitor would be at least $500. Joe, you (here and in most of your other internet comments) assume that everyone wants or needs a high-end video card and 3 hard drives. I do, but that's because I involved in amateur video, blogging, game design, and a CompSci major. My parents need a decent screen, a decent processor and a gig of RAM (for basic computer stuff) I get the Mac Pro, they (hopefully will) get the iMac.
You pointed to the 7300GT. The Build to Order 7600GT has 256 MB of RAM. that's what I said. Both the x1600 and the 7300GT have 128 MB, but the 7600GT has 256.
One would first think that the lack of Conroe would make a mid-range headless Mac a sure shot, but the new iMacs cover every price point from $1000 to $2000, including the "entry pro" market with a large 24" screen (which is normally out of home reach) and a BTO 7600 GT and FW800.
The 7600GT has 256 MB of RAM. The summary implies it's still 128.