Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Deal of the Day - Pay What You Want for the Learn to Code Bundle, includes AngularJS, Python, HTML5, Ruby, and more. ×

Comment How on earth? (Score 3, Interesting) 84

A couple of reasons. First as others have mentioned IBM still needs the lines. IBM's processor design is fairly integrated. It needs custom circuits which really on their fabrication technology. Their chip design process is the antithesis of fabless development. So they can't just shut off lights to the fab without crippling the Power, Mainframe, and high end storage business for years to come. The other issue is there are customers getting chips manufactured. If you shut that down there are typically very steep contract termination fees. This is really 6 year wind down with higher costs every year. The fab business is very cutthroat, you have to hit fairly high yields and have the line near full capacity or else you lose a boatload because the fixed costs are so high. They've been getting out of this business for years, especially on the low end. This is just the last step.

Comment Re: Half a century (Score 1) 113

IBM is deploying system I on power now but they are still making custom z processors for the mainframe, although the mainframe can also have some power and x86 processors they really aren't for mainframe processing just hi RAS local access for offloading certain workloads. It's going to be interesting what arm does. There are multiple vendors looking at arm based servers with hp already having one out.

Comment Re:it's to fight the content owners (Score 2) 424

I'm regurgitating this from an article I read recently, so hopefully I'll do it justice. By and far the bundles are really the doing of cable companies as a way to try and control per channel costs. The stronger stances the channels have taken on their cut more recently are because they don't want to subdivide their channels anymore. Now the following scenario didn't play out for everyone but it played out for many. The way the bundles started was because channel wanted $x per month because they had y viewer hours. The cable company didn't want to set a precedent that Y viewable hours get $x so they said if you come out with a channel-2 we'll give you $.7x for channel-1 and $.3x for channel-2. This initially looked like a deal. Advertising money was skewed toward TV and the cable landscape was sparse. The channel didn't want the sister network to be a total dog because there was a cost and they needed to hit minimum bars to get some good advertising revenue so they shifted some content from channel-1 to channel-2 diluting the brand a little but cashed in for a ton of combo cash. The cable companies won as well. They got more channels, weaker individual channels, some of those channel-2's were exclusive for a period of time and now when a lesser channel came the could say the more popular channel only gets $.7x why do you deserve more? Now TV advertising has lost a bunch of share to web based advertising and the cable landscape has so many channels the -2,3,and 4s are just getting lost, so they no longer want to subdivide their brands, they want what they see as their fair share based of the number of hours viewers watch the channel. When you look at how some of the fights break down the cable companies portray it as greedy network wants a 100% increase. What they leave out it's a 100% increase on a rate established 6 years ago and this is the last rate increase they'll get for the next 5. They also leave out the network is just trying to get money more inline with what other networks are getting for the same amount of views. Neither is really at fault but neither is innocent. The predication is for cable prices to stay somewhere between flat to mildly up, network prices to increase faster, but the number of channels to start to decrease.

Comment Should read the low-end of the x86 business (Score 2) 202

The article should read the low end of the x86 business. IBM has already picked over the best parts of System X and moved them into PureSystems and has also started co-designing x86 server hardware with Hitachi for PureSystems. So they are going to be focusing on integrated server, networking, and storage plays instead of just plain standalone servers. Really trying to mimic the success EMC and NetApp have had partnering with Cisco and their UCS platform.

Comment Re:Summary should probably also mention... (Score 1) 202

IBM sold their hard drive division to Hitachi, storage is still in STG Lexmark was essentially a spin-off of the consumer printer group Ricoh purchased IBM's enterprise printer business Lenovo purchased IBM's PC group Network Hardware Group was sold to Cisco, NHD was drunk on token ring, although IBM is back into networking by purchasing BNT. Point of Sales systems was sold to Fujitsu IBM sold their low end PowerPC business to Applied Micro. Lenovo's also been OEMing low end IBM servers for years and if I understand it correctly selling them for a lower price at higher margin.

Comment Re:Lenovo - a collector of IBM garbage (Score 5, Interesting) 202

One man's trash is another man's treasure. Selling off PC group was a huge win for both companies. IBM shed a low margin business, margins that were so low investing the money the put into PC group into t-bills would have yielded more profit. Lenovo had a leaner operating structure and different business options being a Chinese company that would let them run higher margin and they've made more then enough profit to pay off the acquisition several times over. IBM also got a nice revenue stream from licensing IP to Lenovo as well as the services for running Lenovo's first line support as well as coordinating their break fix.

Comment Re:Cyberbullying (Score 1) 775

I guess this is the difference between your view and my view. I see Savage's redefinition of Santorum's name as only loosely related to what he said. If he made Rick Santorum equal closed minded homophobe much like Benedict Arnold equals traitor, that would be valid. You're right, Santorum was immature and exceptional ignorant first, and he should have been reprimanded, in my mind removed from office, for what he said but he did it first is no excuse.

Comment Re:Cyberbullying (Score 1) 775

I'm not sure how you drew your conclusion. I said up front I thought what Santorum said was horrible. I don't think Santorum should get a pass, as a matter of fact as a public official I think he should be held to an even higher standard, in fact I thought Santorum should have been removed from office in 2003 for his comments and was ecstatic when he lost the election in 2006.

Comment Re:Cyberbullying (Score 1) 775

For some reason you make the assumption that I think what Santorum said was ok, I decidedly do not think that or that Santorum should get a pass on his comments. I think the comparison he made crossed the line so far he should have been removed from office. I’m actually somewhat disgusted that Santorum can even be making a run at the nomination. I'm totally fine with Savage's site being ranked so high and I'm fine with almost everything he said. If Savage made Rick Santorum synonymous with closed minded homophobe I'd be fine with that, but he didn't he made the name a sex term, that's line I think was crossed. I disagree with your belief that the only way to win is to go negative or go tit for tat. Let them say their stupid things. Call them out on it. Show everyone their idiocy. You will win over new people which will bring change. Be as polarizing as they are and all you do is isolate yourself. You begin to look petty and ignorant and people stay away. Do you really want to become what you call out the Republicans for?

Comment Re:Cyberbullying (Score 1, Insightful) 775

I don't think a lot of the posters here realize what Dan Savage is doing. As a disclaimer I think Santorum's views on homosexuality are horrible I disagree with a lot of his platform, I actively discourage people from considering him. What Savage is doing goes above and beyond what is reasonable. He's not just bashing him for his narrow minded views he took his named and turned it into a juvenile sex term. That's what goes to far. That's what takes it from political discourse to childishness. Bash Santorum, rip him apart for what he says, he deserves it, but don't go down that immature road. The trivializing of his name does more then just affect him. He has kids who have to deal with it and there are other people with the same name that have to deal with this as well. What if a conservative said I disagree with Obama on X, let's come up with a derogatory sex term for Obama and plaster it all over the web. I would bet most of the people here saying it's something he should deal with would be changing their tune, of course I think a lot of people on Santorum's side would change as well, and that's the problem. We need to hold a level of reasonable treatment whether we like a candidate or not. Treat the opposition the same way we treat our candidate of choice. Hammer them when they say something stupid, hold them to task, fight against their spread of ignorance, but don't descend into childish name calling and what is essentially bullying.

I have a theory that it's impossible to prove anything, but I can't prove it.