USB 2.0 is really not that hot for continuous sustained output. I mean, it's good in bursts, but my experience with it isn't all that positive in terms of non-stop I/O use. That's why I prefer FW400 HDDs (or FW800). I wasn't "all hot" on FC, I was just trying to give an idea of how much bandwidth a graphics card uses.
Most current video cards use 16 PCIe lanes. That's 4 GB/s. By comparison, that's 10 Firewire 400 ports, or 4 Ethernet ports. Bandwidth to the outside of the case is harder to get by a mile than bandwidth inside the case. You'd need a Fibre Channel connection (like the ones used for huge RAID cases). This sort of bandwidth would equal just about every other connector on the M1710.
I think local media will put more of a negative spin on it. I mean, local media is going to interview the guy sued, and I'm more inclined to have sympathy for a guy I know than someone I don't. And if this is a leading story in a local paper, then when cases go bad for the RIAA, that'll make more of a splash too.
I don't think Linux "dodged a bullet" at all. but there are three groups of people with three levels of knowledge on the subject (I'm fast-forwarding 2 years here): 1) you, me, and everyone here know that SCO was totally baseless, IBM couldn't lose this case. 2) there are people who know what SCO, IBM, and Linux are, and that Linux and IBM won against SCO. They are the semi-literate tech bosses. 3) There are the PHBs of the world (and the sheeple), who don't know the Internet from IE, and don't know Windows from Word. They haven't heard of Linux or SCO.
MS rep comes around, does his "buy more licenses/longer contract" spiel. If the company has any interest in going to Linux, he'll work to dissuade them, via TCO, transition costs, and FUD.
Group 1 will respond with "SCO was total BS, and you know it".
Group 2 will be like "But IBM/RedHat/Novell won", and MS says "They got off b/c of a judge's ruling dismissing half the case"
Group 3 will only hear "IP issues, licensing dispute, still in appeal, very messy" and re-sign with MS.
The truth isn't as important as perception, unfortunately.
How does this affect the Red Hat and Novell cases? I seem to recall they were waiting on a decision here, but since they also deal with Linux code ownership, could any of the now-dead claims come back up in those cases?
No, I agree that SCO was an MS puppet. I just mean that you can't prove that. The only real way to prove it is with the money (at least in the US). I mean, unless you have Darl's phone bugged and a recorded conversation, only really suspicious monetary ties will get anything done investigative. And my point was to show that MS can easily refute the money charges.
I know that SCO had no evidence. I know that the remaining claims are totally gonna flop.
But Linux's great disadvantage is that it has no single voice speaking for it. So MS or whoever will be spinning the saga in a year or two as "hey, they were still looking, that's a lot of code", and make it out as a travesty of justice.
There are two angles of MS's involvement, as I understand.
The first is the actual SCO licenses MS bought, right? Well, I recall reading a tiny paragraph in a magazine from around then of Ballmer mentioning having a lab studying Linux. So of course, since Ballmer was on the record saying "Linux might have IP issues!! Linux might have IP issues!!", it would seem plausible that they bought the licenses just in case ($699 is pennies compared to $125,000 per infringement). Now, we all doubt that Ballmer really believed Linux was doomed, but it's hard to prove he didn't believe what he was preaching.
There's also the Baystar loans thing, right? But isn't that an issue of interlocking directorates? I mean, at worst you could nail a few MS execs, but not MS, right?
Hope I'm wrong, because MS is IMHO backing SCO or at least cheering them on, so I hope they get hit for it.
I'm sort of worried here. Someone allay this fear:
To a non-legal mind, this could be portrayed as "losing on a technicality". So my worry is that anti-Linux FUDders can point at this and say "Well, Linux dodged a bullet based on shoddy lawyering/poor rulings, so it's still risky". Granted, we know (and have known for a while) that SCO has a very weak cases, but PHBs don't, and Joe Average doesn't.
My worry is that SCO dies quietly when it suddenly announces bankruptcy, screws it shareholders, and abruptly the lawsuits all vanish.
The wonderful thing about Linux is that all you need to have for that to happen is a friend who knows how to assemble it. All you'd have to do is get OO.o, DSL, FF, and any other packages you want, and stick them behind an installer. Unlike OS X or Windows, where you have to sort of hope Apple/MS release something you like.
Or to save a lot of space? I recall reading an article about making a cheap file server. It basically consisted of 4 x 250GB HDDs in a case with some crappy Sempron. They used a cheap $10 USB stick with DSL to run it, and only connected a borrowed monitor and keyboard to set up Samba and the networking. Otherwise, they'd have had to use space on the disks, or trade one disc out for a CD-ROM to run and boot CD.
The main problem is money. Studio time is very expensive, and you'd either have to replicate it cheaply or fork over the rental cash (I'd favor a build-a-mini-studio option). CD songs might be a mix of upwards of 50 recordings per song - requiring good computers and lot of work to clean up each part.
That said, I'm in: zachary.pruckowski@gmail.com Let me know if I can help. I've done a lot of work at concerts in college (still there).
Could that article have been more indecisive? All it says is that they can't find Steve Jobs on a list of large donations. They then concede that: 1) Most of his money is tied up in Pixar stock 2) That only covers large donations, a thousand $100,000 donations would be unnoticed by that. 3) Steve Jobs is known as intensely private, and might well be making anonymous donations.
I'm not taking a pro- or anti- Steve Jobs stand here, but the simple fact is the article is so wishy-washy as to be meaningless.
However you spell it, isn't Rendezvous basically what you're looking for? I mean, that's the simplest way to do messages and file-sharing over a LAN, right? I think it's called Bonjour on a Mac. I've only used it once or twice, but it seems pretty simple.
All they can do is increase the difficulty of copying. But as long as one person successfully makes a copy, it's almost as bad as if 50 people made a copy, because it'll spread like wildfire, especially on bittorrent. Therefore, even if they get it so that you have to build your own box with multiple illegally hacked programs to get a pirateable copy, there will still be at least a handful of people who are willing to do that.
Most internet advertising is pay-per-click, as I understand it. If Mac users are totally uninterested in ads for stuff for Windows, they don't click on the ads, the advertisers lose nothing. PC Magazine loses bandwidth though. The only way a Mac user who doesn't have Windows would click on a PC ad would be "Hey that looks cool. Oh, the webpage says Windows only. OH well"
You totally, totally missed my point. My point was that the Wii would probably return a profit first. MS concedes it'll be years until profitability, and the PS3 costs (if within a mile of the reported price of $800-900) are huge. Even if N's losing a little bit on the Wii, they're still likely to be profitable first. That lets them make another console quicker, which'll probably meet or beat the PS3 or the Xbox 360.
The article said pretty much that they ran two benchmarks at once, and recorded one of them. The whole thing is pretty unreliable, but that much of a loss in advantage is worth looking at.
Re:Proof we are not capitalist
on
Death By DMCA
·
· Score: 1
First off, free-market capitalism is not the same thing as giving concessions to particular businesses. It's actually counter free-market. A lot of pro-capitalist economists are very much against things like software patents because they restrict markets. They allow a company to become a monopolist.
You assume that Nintendo wants a 6 year lifecycle. They may well have a 4 year cycle in mind. In any case, Nintendo is probably gonna go into the black in the first year, whereas Microsoft might take 2 or 3 years, and Sony might not get there until 4 years from now. In 8 years, when the PS4 is where the PS3 is now, Nintendo will be shipping the Wii2 (or whatever name it has) for the last year or two, and rumors will be floating around about Wii3. And even a low-end to mid-range console system in 4 years will beat the PS3.
Re:Proof we are not capitalist
on
Death By DMCA
·
· Score: 1
I'm not saying we should have pure capitalism, but a lot of the time, it's companies who when confronted with regulations against them, bitch and moan about "government interference", but demand it in other cases. And that duplicity is getting more and more common as conglomerates buy more and more companies.
The benchmarks show a serious drop in multi-tasking capabilities in Conroe relative to the P XE 965. In some cases, a multi-tasking Conroe was beaten by a multi-tasking PXE.
However, we have some worries about its multi-tasking performance, which doesn't appear to be quite as good as the chip that Conroe will be replacing later this year.
We found that it was faster than the current flagship Pentium Extreme Edition 965 processor in nearly every single-threaded scenario, but there were times where Conroe fell behind in multi-tasking scenarios.
That seems pretty bad if we're trying to move to a more multi-threaded and multi-tasking computer system (yes, I know the difference between the two).
The real question to most of the rest of the world is: how do these chips handle regular desktop duty? I mean, all we've seen tested is a high end chip versus a high end chip, not mid-range testing. Conroe is supposed to replace Pentium 4s almost everywhere, with single-core variants or Pentium Ds handling the low end. Where does that put us for a $1200 or $1500 computer from Dell or Gateway that everyone else is going to be buying. In my mind, the real issue is how this helps the huge mid-range of consumers and computers, not the 2% upper end that can afford ATI Crossfire X1900XTXs.
Proof we are not capitalist
on
Death By DMCA
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I'm not an economics major, but all the capitalists I've ever talked to seem to love the whole idea of "the market will solve". It's sort of their silver bullet to any arguement. So why don't we let the market solve? Capitalism is supposed to be dynamic. Companies have to accept changing roles and adapt to them, not fight them. Big companies have to be forced to accept that sometimes they "have to roll the hard 6" and take risks. There should be no corporate entitlement. No company is guaranteed to make money. That's what pisses me off about the RIAA and MPAA. They refuse to consider changing themselves to the world, they'd rather change the world to suit themselves. Granted, that might mean the end to $300 million production value blockbusters or fewer 1 hit wonders and more solid bands, but the world will cope, and the market can decide which model they like better.
Slashdot Mirror
USB 2.0 is really not that hot for continuous sustained output. I mean, it's good in bursts, but my experience with it isn't all that positive in terms of non-stop I/O use. That's why I prefer FW400 HDDs (or FW800). I wasn't "all hot" on FC, I was just trying to give an idea of how much bandwidth a graphics card uses.
Most current video cards use 16 PCIe lanes. That's 4 GB/s. By comparison, that's 10 Firewire 400 ports, or 4 Ethernet ports. Bandwidth to the outside of the case is harder to get by a mile than bandwidth inside the case. You'd need a Fibre Channel connection (like the ones used for huge RAID cases). This sort of bandwidth would equal just about every other connector on the M1710.
I think local media will put more of a negative spin on it. I mean, local media is going to interview the guy sued, and I'm more inclined to have sympathy for a guy I know than someone I don't. And if this is a leading story in a local paper, then when cases go bad for the RIAA, that'll make more of a splash too.
I don't think Linux "dodged a bullet" at all. but there are three groups of people with three levels of knowledge on the subject (I'm fast-forwarding 2 years here):
1) you, me, and everyone here know that SCO was totally baseless, IBM couldn't lose this case.
2) there are people who know what SCO, IBM, and Linux are, and that Linux and IBM won against SCO. They are the semi-literate tech bosses.
3) There are the PHBs of the world (and the sheeple), who don't know the Internet from IE, and don't know Windows from Word. They haven't heard of Linux or SCO.
MS rep comes around, does his "buy more licenses/longer contract" spiel. If the company has any interest in going to Linux, he'll work to dissuade them, via TCO, transition costs, and FUD.
Group 1 will respond with "SCO was total BS, and you know it".
Group 2 will be like "But IBM/RedHat/Novell won", and MS says "They got off b/c of a judge's ruling dismissing half the case"
Group 3 will only hear "IP issues, licensing dispute, still in appeal, very messy" and re-sign with MS.
The truth isn't as important as perception, unfortunately.
How does this affect the Red Hat and Novell cases? I seem to recall they were waiting on a decision here, but since they also deal with Linux code ownership, could any of the now-dead claims come back up in those cases?
No, I agree that SCO was an MS puppet. I just mean that you can't prove that. The only real way to prove it is with the money (at least in the US). I mean, unless you have Darl's phone bugged and a recorded conversation, only really suspicious monetary ties will get anything done investigative. And my point was to show that MS can easily refute the money charges.
I know that SCO had no evidence. I know that the remaining claims are totally gonna flop.
But Linux's great disadvantage is that it has no single voice speaking for it. So MS or whoever will be spinning the saga in a year or two as "hey, they were still looking, that's a lot of code", and make it out as a travesty of justice.
There are two angles of MS's involvement, as I understand.
The first is the actual SCO licenses MS bought, right? Well, I recall reading a tiny paragraph in a magazine from around then of Ballmer mentioning having a lab studying Linux. So of course, since Ballmer was on the record saying "Linux might have IP issues!! Linux might have IP issues!!", it would seem plausible that they bought the licenses just in case ($699 is pennies compared to $125,000 per infringement). Now, we all doubt that Ballmer really believed Linux was doomed, but it's hard to prove he didn't believe what he was preaching.
There's also the Baystar loans thing, right? But isn't that an issue of interlocking directorates? I mean, at worst you could nail a few MS execs, but not MS, right?
Hope I'm wrong, because MS is IMHO backing SCO or at least cheering them on, so I hope they get hit for it.
I'm sort of worried here. Someone allay this fear:
To a non-legal mind, this could be portrayed as "losing on a technicality". So my worry is that anti-Linux FUDders can point at this and say "Well, Linux dodged a bullet based on shoddy lawyering/poor rulings, so it's still risky". Granted, we know (and have known for a while) that SCO has a very weak cases, but PHBs don't, and Joe Average doesn't.
My worry is that SCO dies quietly when it suddenly announces bankruptcy, screws it shareholders, and abruptly the lawsuits all vanish.
The wonderful thing about Linux is that all you need to have for that to happen is a friend who knows how to assemble it. All you'd have to do is get OO.o, DSL, FF, and any other packages you want, and stick them behind an installer. Unlike OS X or Windows, where you have to sort of hope Apple/MS release something you like.
Or to save a lot of space? I recall reading an article about making a cheap file server. It basically consisted of 4 x 250GB HDDs in a case with some crappy Sempron. They used a cheap $10 USB stick with DSL to run it, and only connected a borrowed monitor and keyboard to set up Samba and the networking. Otherwise, they'd have had to use space on the disks, or trade one disc out for a CD-ROM to run and boot CD.
Dude. It was the middle of a Friday night. Maybe they were wasted and playing a prank on geeks worldwide.
The main problem is money. Studio time is very expensive, and you'd either have to replicate it cheaply or fork over the rental cash (I'd favor a build-a-mini-studio option). CD songs might be a mix of upwards of 50 recordings per song - requiring good computers and lot of work to clean up each part.
That said, I'm in: zachary.pruckowski@gmail.com Let me know if I can help. I've done a lot of work at concerts in college (still there).
Could that article have been more indecisive? All it says is that they can't find Steve Jobs on a list of large donations. They then concede that:
1) Most of his money is tied up in Pixar stock
2) That only covers large donations, a thousand $100,000 donations would be unnoticed by that.
3) Steve Jobs is known as intensely private, and might well be making anonymous donations.
I'm not taking a pro- or anti- Steve Jobs stand here, but the simple fact is the article is so wishy-washy as to be meaningless.
However you spell it, isn't Rendezvous basically what you're looking for? I mean, that's the simplest way to do messages and file-sharing over a LAN, right? I think it's called Bonjour on a Mac. I've only used it once or twice, but it seems pretty simple.
All they can do is increase the difficulty of copying. But as long as one person successfully makes a copy, it's almost as bad as if 50 people made a copy, because it'll spread like wildfire, especially on bittorrent. Therefore, even if they get it so that you have to build your own box with multiple illegally hacked programs to get a pirateable copy, there will still be at least a handful of people who are willing to do that.
Most internet advertising is pay-per-click, as I understand it. If Mac users are totally uninterested in ads for stuff for Windows, they don't click on the ads, the advertisers lose nothing. PC Magazine loses bandwidth though. The only way a Mac user who doesn't have Windows would click on a PC ad would be "Hey that looks cool. Oh, the webpage says Windows only. OH well"
You totally, totally missed my point. My point was that the Wii would probably return a profit first. MS concedes it'll be years until profitability, and the PS3 costs (if within a mile of the reported price of $800-900) are huge. Even if N's losing a little bit on the Wii, they're still likely to be profitable first. That lets them make another console quicker, which'll probably meet or beat the PS3 or the Xbox 360.
The article said pretty much that they ran two benchmarks at once, and recorded one of them. The whole thing is pretty unreliable, but that much of a loss in advantage is worth looking at.
First off, free-market capitalism is not the same thing as giving concessions to particular businesses. It's actually counter free-market. A lot of pro-capitalist economists are very much against things like software patents because they restrict markets. They allow a company to become a monopolist.
That was my point?
You assume that Nintendo wants a 6 year lifecycle. They may well have a 4 year cycle in mind. In any case, Nintendo is probably gonna go into the black in the first year, whereas Microsoft might take 2 or 3 years, and Sony might not get there until 4 years from now. In 8 years, when the PS4 is where the PS3 is now, Nintendo will be shipping the Wii2 (or whatever name it has) for the last year or two, and rumors will be floating around about Wii3. And even a low-end to mid-range console system in 4 years will beat the PS3.
I'm not saying we should have pure capitalism, but a lot of the time, it's companies who when confronted with regulations against them, bitch and moan about "government interference", but demand it in other cases. And that duplicity is getting more and more common as conglomerates buy more and more companies.
The benchmarks show a serious drop in multi-tasking capabilities in Conroe relative to the P XE 965. In some cases, a multi-tasking Conroe was beaten by a multi-tasking PXE.
However, we have some worries about its multi-tasking performance, which doesn't appear to be quite as good as the chip that Conroe will be replacing later this year.
We found that it was faster than the current flagship Pentium Extreme Edition 965 processor in nearly every single-threaded scenario, but there were times where Conroe fell behind in multi-tasking scenarios.
That seems pretty bad if we're trying to move to a more multi-threaded and multi-tasking computer system (yes, I know the difference between the two).
The real question to most of the rest of the world is: how do these chips handle regular desktop duty? I mean, all we've seen tested is a high end chip versus a high end chip, not mid-range testing. Conroe is supposed to replace Pentium 4s almost everywhere, with single-core variants or Pentium Ds handling the low end. Where does that put us for a $1200 or $1500 computer from Dell or Gateway that everyone else is going to be buying. In my mind, the real issue is how this helps the huge mid-range of consumers and computers, not the 2% upper end that can afford ATI Crossfire X1900XTXs.
I'm not an economics major, but all the capitalists I've ever talked to seem to love the whole idea of "the market will solve". It's sort of their silver bullet to any arguement. So why don't we let the market solve? Capitalism is supposed to be dynamic. Companies have to accept changing roles and adapt to them, not fight them. Big companies have to be forced to accept that sometimes they "have to roll the hard 6" and take risks. There should be no corporate entitlement. No company is guaranteed to make money. That's what pisses me off about the RIAA and MPAA. They refuse to consider changing themselves to the world, they'd rather change the world to suit themselves. Granted, that might mean the end to $300 million production value blockbusters or fewer 1 hit wonders and more solid bands, but the world will cope, and the market can decide which model they like better.