That's not really a well-written article. It conflates patches with "sponsorship." But in the context of a non-profit like the Linux Foundation, "sponsorship" might imply giving them money to run their foundation.
Also keep in mind, linux has been a largely finished operating system for over a decade. It doesn't have a pressing need for code donations. The reason that Intel increased their number of patches is because they were developing processors intended to compete with ARM for the Android market, so they were writing lots of code for linux to support their own products. That isn't exactly "sponsorship" as much as, their own necessary R&D. And their push failed, they've mostly abandoned it, so expect the next few years to see RedHat back at the top, since they're the ones doing most of the bug fixes.
Supercomputers are a tiny market. It is more about bragging rights than units sold. It doesn't really matter.
In most use cases a 5% CPU performance reduction only results in 1% increased CPU electrical consumption. CPUs are not generally the bottleneck, and it is cheap to over-provision CPUs. Getting one part of the computer to run fast is easy, the harder part is IO bandwidth to actually do some useful task with it. Generally, computing is IO constrained.
Very few "enterprises" run on servers that have heavily-loaded CPUs; they tend to provision that stuff pretty well.
They've probably run the numbers and realized that they could spend $10m running in circles and easily sell an extra $2m in product from the effort.
What benefits them is that many companies with data centers will do a fresh analysis of what technologies they're using. That benefits AMD. But pushing money at hyping it might actually hurt them. The advantage is a win for them in cases that were already a close call, cases where they barely lost a big sale. Those customers have detailed, numbers-based decision-making processes, it isn't something you just throw PR at. And it isn't somewhere where their efforts would be visible to you.
If you think "IT guys" have power over purchasing decisions, just because they're given a department budget, you should be advised that in the past when those decisions were more difficult management would just ask a consultant what to buy, buy it, and foist it onto IT.
Trying to strut around like IT guys have that power would only get the power taken away; if the people you presume to be on your side actually were, that is. Most "IT guys" that choose hardware already know which brands the executives prefer, and they're not going to order a different type of machine for their own personal reasons.
You might have misunderstood what you're citing, as being a monopoly is totally legal in the US and so Judges aren't generally ruling on that. There is probably a different thing, worded differently, that the ruling involved. Specifically, they were accused of being a type of monopoly that violates section 2 of the Sherman Act.
First of all, rulings have context. The context of United States v. Alcoa that you cite was the aluminum market. It isn't presumed to be a one-size-fits-all answer. Certainly for businesses similar to aluminum manufacture, those types of numbers are considered relevant. Specifically, they found that Alcoa would substantially increase their own production capacity in anticipation of competition, and that they did so successfully in a way that prevented competitors from becoming established. The large capital investment required in the aluminum industry is very important to this.
Compare that to Intel's situation, where they compete very hard but companies like ARM who don't own a single factory can not only compete, but dominate some niches. They're not going to measure Intel based on whatever accusation you make, Intel will respond pointing to the whole computer processor market, and the Court will have to accept some portion of that definition. Who the customer is, or if the product goes in your pocket or on your desk, those are not real differences that the court will take seriously as being separate markets. It isn't enough to show that there is a monopoly, you have to show a monopoly that harms competition. If competition requires a giant factory, then 90% market share is going to get you there for obvious reasons, but if no giant factory is required, and an office with a handful of engineers can actually design a new product and sell it just fine, then 90% would be meaningless.
Like with Microsoft; having lots of market share wasn't the problem, competitors who failed to get access to that market due to behavior by Microsoft, in the context of microsoft's market share, was the problem. Compare that to Google's market share in their market; Google doesn't do anything to keep people out, their market partners aren't encouraged to sign lock-in agreements or anything. A company partnering with Google this year might partner with Bing next year, and they don't get punished in the market for that. So it doesn't matter how high Google's market share goes.
Another thing the courts look at is if a monopoly is a natural monopoly or not. If it is natural, then they don't care. If you had to do things to create it, then they do care. If you're the only person who has Magic Foo Rocks on your land, because they only come from one place, and you therefore have 100% of the Magic Foo Rock market, you have a natural monopoly and it is totally legal. Lack of competition isn't something you did, it flows naturally from the nature of your business. Whereas if you go out and buy up all the Magic Foo Rock mines, and now own them all, then that is not a natural monopoly but a created one. A more common natural monopoly is utility delivery, where it is impractical to have multiple sets of water pipes going to homes, and the investment in new pipes only makes sense when there is a lack of existing pipes. In that sort of case, a monopoly is totally legal and doesn't harm competition. Note, however, that if prices are too high you can still have problems because it is illegal for monopolies to harm competition, or customers. The remedy for high prices would likely only be partial refunds, though, not substantial changes to business practices.
Also, "80-90% of x86 CPUs" is like saying, "McDonalds has a monopoly on restaurants named McDonalds." Sure, it sounds good, but whatever "monopoly" means there, it doesn't mean any of the things talked about in the Sherman Act. Their market would include not only all the x86 CPUs, but also all the alternatives like ARM and MIPS. While it may be true that AMD's market share isn't enough to prevent Intel from being a monopoly, ARM's market share is easily enough to make it a joke. You'll be sitting there in a courtroom where most of the people in the room have an ARM CPU in their pocket, after all. Some lawyer will likely point that out.
The deal with Centos has always been that it gets the same support that RHEL gets, but later.
It is a pretty good deal, actually. They don't hold fixes back, but don't expect their engineers to be doing overtime and getting called in on the weekend to massage a free patch. That's exactly what support subscriptions are for!
Centos will get all the fixes, and they will work well. History teaches this clearly.
She is from a group that came to the area she was found 5-15,000 years before she lived.
She is related to modern groups, but from before they split. She is definitely pre-Clovis from a genetic perspective. It shows that Clovis people did not likely supersede the people in Central Beringia, but developed after having migrated out.
Also, perhaps the second wave passed through Beringia as travelers or refuges, not as conquerors, since they had large numbers but didn't displace the early wave. So not only did the "pause" happen, but the pause culture was likely very strong and outlasted the second migration, perhaps lasted until the local conditions changed. The first wave left Siberia ~10k years before they expanded down into North America from Beringia, and the second wave came through not that long after first came down. So there is overlap between all these groups.
Right, you didn't understand what I said. That's every time your purport to have read any of it.
The part that isn't clear is, why do you respond to your own ignorance with your nose in the air as if you're some sort of natural authority about something? You're consistently clueless about the literal meaning of clear statements.
And you obviously don't speak for the Irish, if you think I'm wrong go to Ireland and find out, or read a fucking book for once in your life and you might even, as I have, read books that talk about Irish history and the Irish language and how pervasive partial literacy is today, even though it has little to no practical utility.
I can explain all the conspiracies right now! Sit down, Dear Child, listen and wake.
They want you to click on it. All of the conspiracies, they're all secretly the same conspiracy! All of them, from the beginning of time to the end of time, all the conspiracies are to get you to click on it. Whatever it is. As long as you still don't know, they haven't gotten to you yet.
Might as well, I saw something about Pirates of the Caribbean, and "America's Metric System" and then something about McDonalds.
Now, as an American I know that America does not have a metric system. There is such a thing as The metric system, but there is not an American Metric System. The metric system is a form of torture that is used on children, children who know darn well that outside of the schoolhouse adults will refuse to speak to them in Metric, and if they try it they'll be looked at with suspicion, and birtherism.
And if it is supposed to have units from McDonalds, I'm gonna call it right there and say that it is actually a European conspiracy to slander our good nation, and we should probably invade and pillage all their cheese as punishment.
Exactly, when you don't read enough science news to know that there were important papers on this recently, then all you can do is make a guess. The most natural guess is whatever the old (known incorrect) belief was, in this case, that dogs are better at smelling than humans.
It goes right along with the misconception about the shape of the dog's mouth, that it would have a better sense of smell. Instead of, it has a long mouth so that it can bite at the legs of running animals, and that actually gets in the way of scent and requires oversized sinuses to compensate. It is easy to be confused just looking and guessing.
If you want a really good sense of smell, look at a vulture, which has a pretty small nasal opening, or a wood burrowing beetle, which can smell freshly exposed wood from miles away with a tiny nose. Cats have an excellent sense of smell, and a short nose. But they don't need a long mouth, because they don't bite at the legs.
The reality is that humans have a really good nose, comparable in sensitivity to most predators. We're generalists with lots of sensory processing. We're so good at sensory processing that we have few physical defenses, and can challenge large predators with pointy sticks or rocks.
Instead of asking for a citation, you should just look it up and see if it is something with a bunch of citations.
Demanding citations from ignorance is absurd, and it isn't going to get you a specialized tutoring session. Look it up, say something more intelligent.
Sure, but you're only talking cases where people are already doing science, and then also reading papers. If you're actually doing science, you need to read a lot of papers. No question.
But that does not make the reading of papers into science. People doing science also have to poop with some frequency. It doesn't making pooping into science.
On slashdot we have a very small number of "scientists," a slightly larger number of engineers, and a large number of morons who read media stories that purport to paraphrase the abstract of a study. And then they make bold statements in the comments attempting to signal how virtuous and sciencey they are.
"Your honor, my client is tens of thousands of days old, and I have hundreds of examples of days where I can prove he was a good citizen. Surely that means he never did anything bad."
You're just blathering stupid nonsense, man. Really stupid nonsense. Are you capable of actual thoughts, or only binary knee-jerk reactions?
Are you capable of understanding nuclear power as something other than heavenly or devilish? Is it possibly a dangerous tool that is not always managed safely? If so, your binary knee-jerks will be unable to participate in any side of a logical discussion.
Blind tests show that the dog mostly alerts on suspicion from the handler, rather than smelling anything.
And humans of course have almost as good of a nose as a dog. Dogs have a long snout because of the shape of their mouth. Dogs are good at tracking humans because they're close to the ground and don't have a social aversion to sniffing the ground. Humans do well at tracking if you get them to stick their face down there and do it.
They always leave out, or carefully word, the fact that the main cause is that the living relatives of the past speakers don't find value in speaking it.
Compare it to Irish, which nobody was allowed to speak for generations, but when they got their freedom they wanted to learn it again!
Slashdot Mirror
That's not really a well-written article. It conflates patches with "sponsorship." But in the context of a non-profit like the Linux Foundation, "sponsorship" might imply giving them money to run their foundation.
Also keep in mind, linux has been a largely finished operating system for over a decade. It doesn't have a pressing need for code donations. The reason that Intel increased their number of patches is because they were developing processors intended to compete with ARM for the Android market, so they were writing lots of code for linux to support their own products. That isn't exactly "sponsorship" as much as, their own necessary R&D. And their push failed, they've mostly abandoned it, so expect the next few years to see RedHat back at the top, since they're the ones doing most of the bug fixes.
Supercomputers are a tiny market. It is more about bragging rights than units sold. It doesn't really matter.
In most use cases a 5% CPU performance reduction only results in 1% increased CPU electrical consumption. CPUs are not generally the bottleneck, and it is cheap to over-provision CPUs. Getting one part of the computer to run fast is easy, the harder part is IO bandwidth to actually do some useful task with it. Generally, computing is IO constrained.
Very few "enterprises" run on servers that have heavily-loaded CPUs; they tend to provision that stuff pretty well.
They've probably run the numbers and realized that they could spend $10m running in circles and easily sell an extra $2m in product from the effort.
What benefits them is that many companies with data centers will do a fresh analysis of what technologies they're using. That benefits AMD. But pushing money at hyping it might actually hurt them. The advantage is a win for them in cases that were already a close call, cases where they barely lost a big sale. Those customers have detailed, numbers-based decision-making processes, it isn't something you just throw PR at. And it isn't somewhere where their efforts would be visible to you.
If you think "IT guys" have power over purchasing decisions, just because they're given a department budget, you should be advised that in the past when those decisions were more difficult management would just ask a consultant what to buy, buy it, and foist it onto IT.
Trying to strut around like IT guys have that power would only get the power taken away; if the people you presume to be on your side actually were, that is. Most "IT guys" that choose hardware already know which brands the executives prefer, and they're not going to order a different type of machine for their own personal reasons.
You might have misunderstood what you're citing, as being a monopoly is totally legal in the US and so Judges aren't generally ruling on that. There is probably a different thing, worded differently, that the ruling involved. Specifically, they were accused of being a type of monopoly that violates section 2 of the Sherman Act.
First of all, rulings have context. The context of United States v. Alcoa that you cite was the aluminum market. It isn't presumed to be a one-size-fits-all answer. Certainly for businesses similar to aluminum manufacture, those types of numbers are considered relevant. Specifically, they found that Alcoa would substantially increase their own production capacity in anticipation of competition, and that they did so successfully in a way that prevented competitors from becoming established. The large capital investment required in the aluminum industry is very important to this.
Compare that to Intel's situation, where they compete very hard but companies like ARM who don't own a single factory can not only compete, but dominate some niches. They're not going to measure Intel based on whatever accusation you make, Intel will respond pointing to the whole computer processor market, and the Court will have to accept some portion of that definition. Who the customer is, or if the product goes in your pocket or on your desk, those are not real differences that the court will take seriously as being separate markets. It isn't enough to show that there is a monopoly, you have to show a monopoly that harms competition. If competition requires a giant factory, then 90% market share is going to get you there for obvious reasons, but if no giant factory is required, and an office with a handful of engineers can actually design a new product and sell it just fine, then 90% would be meaningless.
Like with Microsoft; having lots of market share wasn't the problem, competitors who failed to get access to that market due to behavior by Microsoft, in the context of microsoft's market share, was the problem. Compare that to Google's market share in their market; Google doesn't do anything to keep people out, their market partners aren't encouraged to sign lock-in agreements or anything. A company partnering with Google this year might partner with Bing next year, and they don't get punished in the market for that. So it doesn't matter how high Google's market share goes.
Another thing the courts look at is if a monopoly is a natural monopoly or not. If it is natural, then they don't care. If you had to do things to create it, then they do care. If you're the only person who has Magic Foo Rocks on your land, because they only come from one place, and you therefore have 100% of the Magic Foo Rock market, you have a natural monopoly and it is totally legal. Lack of competition isn't something you did, it flows naturally from the nature of your business. Whereas if you go out and buy up all the Magic Foo Rock mines, and now own them all, then that is not a natural monopoly but a created one. A more common natural monopoly is utility delivery, where it is impractical to have multiple sets of water pipes going to homes, and the investment in new pipes only makes sense when there is a lack of existing pipes. In that sort of case, a monopoly is totally legal and doesn't harm competition. Note, however, that if prices are too high you can still have problems because it is illegal for monopolies to harm competition, or customers. The remedy for high prices would likely only be partial refunds, though, not substantial changes to business practices.
Also, "80-90% of x86 CPUs" is like saying, "McDonalds has a monopoly on restaurants named McDonalds." Sure, it sounds good, but whatever "monopoly" means there, it doesn't mean any of the things talked about in the Sherman Act. Their market would include not only all the x86 CPUs, but also all the alternatives like ARM and MIPS. While it may be true that AMD's market share isn't enough to prevent Intel from being a monopoly, ARM's market share is easily enough to make it a joke. You'll be sitting there in a courtroom where most of the people in the room have an ARM CPU in their pocket, after all. Some lawyer will likely point that out.
The deal with Centos has always been that it gets the same support that RHEL gets, but later.
It is a pretty good deal, actually. They don't hold fixes back, but don't expect their engineers to be doing overtime and getting called in on the weekend to massage a free patch. That's exactly what support subscriptions are for!
Centos will get all the fixes, and they will work well. History teaches this clearly.
Because we suspected that they existed, and because we knew that Beringia existed. Names had been coined.
Also, we don't know what they were called, Ancient Beringians is what they are called.
The summary and title of course are clickbait and should be ignored. The key phrase isn't "completely unknown" but "previously unproven."
She is from a group that came to the area she was found 5-15,000 years before she lived.
She is related to modern groups, but from before they split. She is definitely pre-Clovis from a genetic perspective. It shows that Clovis people did not likely supersede the people in Central Beringia, but developed after having migrated out.
Also, perhaps the second wave passed through Beringia as travelers or refuges, not as conquerors, since they had large numbers but didn't displace the early wave. So not only did the "pause" happen, but the pause culture was likely very strong and outlasted the second migration, perhaps lasted until the local conditions changed. The first wave left Siberia ~10k years before they expanded down into North America from Beringia, and the second wave came through not that long after first came down. So there is overlap between all these groups.
None of those practice what is called the "left" in western society. Try again!
Right, you didn't understand what I said. That's every time your purport to have read any of it.
The part that isn't clear is, why do you respond to your own ignorance with your nose in the air as if you're some sort of natural authority about something? You're consistently clueless about the literal meaning of clear statements.
And you obviously don't speak for the Irish, if you think I'm wrong go to Ireland and find out, or read a fucking book for once in your life and you might even, as I have, read books that talk about Irish history and the Irish language and how pervasive partial literacy is today, even though it has little to no practical utility.
Irish people are proud of their right to speak bad Irish, they really don't care what anybody thinks of it.
Gaelic isn't really a language that lends itself to true forms anyways...
Bad comparison.
Or, alternatively, that was my fucking point. Duh.
Google would be its 5th marriage!
I can explain all the conspiracies right now! Sit down, Dear Child, listen and wake.
They want you to click on it. All of the conspiracies, they're all secretly the same conspiracy! All of them, from the beginning of time to the end of time, all the conspiracies are to get you to click on it. Whatever it is. As long as you still don't know, they haven't gotten to you yet.
Never click on it. Never.
It is just like in Snow Crash.
First they want you to use easily converted units, the next thing you know they're checking if your thumb is on the scale, and reading their receipt!
It stifles creativity.
Might as well, I saw something about Pirates of the Caribbean, and "America's Metric System" and then something about McDonalds.
Now, as an American I know that America does not have a metric system. There is such a thing as The metric system, but there is not an American Metric System. The metric system is a form of torture that is used on children, children who know darn well that outside of the schoolhouse adults will refuse to speak to them in Metric, and if they try it they'll be looked at with suspicion, and birtherism.
And if it is supposed to have units from McDonalds, I'm gonna call it right there and say that it is actually a European conspiracy to slander our good nation, and we should probably invade and pillage all their cheese as punishment.
My money
Exactly, when you don't read enough science news to know that there were important papers on this recently, then all you can do is make a guess. The most natural guess is whatever the old (known incorrect) belief was, in this case, that dogs are better at smelling than humans.
It goes right along with the misconception about the shape of the dog's mouth, that it would have a better sense of smell. Instead of, it has a long mouth so that it can bite at the legs of running animals, and that actually gets in the way of scent and requires oversized sinuses to compensate. It is easy to be confused just looking and guessing.
If you want a really good sense of smell, look at a vulture, which has a pretty small nasal opening, or a wood burrowing beetle, which can smell freshly exposed wood from miles away with a tiny nose. Cats have an excellent sense of smell, and a short nose. But they don't need a long mouth, because they don't bite at the legs.
The reality is that humans have a really good nose, comparable in sensitivity to most predators. We're generalists with lots of sensory processing. We're so good at sensory processing that we have few physical defenses, and can challenge large predators with pointy sticks or rocks.
Instead of asking for a citation, you should just look it up and see if it is something with a bunch of citations.
Demanding citations from ignorance is absurd, and it isn't going to get you a specialized tutoring session. Look it up, say something more intelligent.
Sure, but you're only talking cases where people are already doing science, and then also reading papers. If you're actually doing science, you need to read a lot of papers. No question.
But that does not make the reading of papers into science. People doing science also have to poop with some frequency. It doesn't making pooping into science.
On slashdot we have a very small number of "scientists," a slightly larger number of engineers, and a large number of morons who read media stories that purport to paraphrase the abstract of a study. And then they make bold statements in the comments attempting to signal how virtuous and sciencey they are.
"Your honor, my client is tens of thousands of days old, and I have hundreds of examples of days where I can prove he was a good citizen. Surely that means he never did anything bad."
You're just blathering stupid nonsense, man. Really stupid nonsense. Are you capable of actual thoughts, or only binary knee-jerk reactions?
Are you capable of understanding nuclear power as something other than heavenly or devilish? Is it possibly a dangerous tool that is not always managed safely? If so, your binary knee-jerks will be unable to participate in any side of a logical discussion.
I see you found the prayer wheel, too bad you didn't understand a fucking word I said.
No, extremist hyperbole does not actually change the logical value of fake absolutes at all.
It is only the shape your stupidity takes, it is not any sort of excuse.
If you're recycling propaganda about "socialists" to describe Vietnam, you're just another blathering idiot.
McNamara even was in a movie where they go in detail into why they were totally fucking wrong to measure the Vietnam War through that lens.
Don't be such a fucking idiot. At least go download the documentary. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
If you think Vietnam has anything to do with "socialists," you don't know what socialism is, or anything about Vietnam.
Blind tests show that the dog mostly alerts on suspicion from the handler, rather than smelling anything.
And humans of course have almost as good of a nose as a dog. Dogs have a long snout because of the shape of their mouth. Dogs are good at tracking humans because they're close to the ground and don't have a social aversion to sniffing the ground. Humans do well at tracking if you get them to stick their face down there and do it.
They always leave out, or carefully word, the fact that the main cause is that the living relatives of the past speakers don't find value in speaking it.
Compare it to Irish, which nobody was allowed to speak for generations, but when they got their freedom they wanted to learn it again!