Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Glad it's keeping Intel on their toes (also ARM) (Score 1) 189

I'm glad some competition from AMD is giving Intel a since of urgency about staying competitive. Certainly in the long run, Intel can see that most processors these days are ARM, so they can't rest on their laurels. AMD's apparent success lets Intel know they have to play their "A game" in the short run as well.

Comment D/FW has been growing twice as fast (fastest in US (Score 1) 313

In the last few years, the fastest growing metro areas in the country have been Dallas/Fort Worth and Houston. Data that is seven years old is out of date.

Also, as you mentioned, there census areas are but one way to define a metro area. Other definitions have D/FW at 50% larger than the Bay Area.

The point being, it's by no means a podunk town in the middle of nowhere, it's one of the largest cities in the country - and I just bought a 3,500 square foot house here for $240K. At 3.8%, the Dallas unemployment rate is much lower than the national rate of 5%, meaning there are jobs here.

Yes, there are also specific policies and attitudes here that directly relate to having jobs - for example we think people *should* have a job, working is good. If that's a problem for you, you are welcome to stay in California and smoke weed all day under a bridge.

Comment Price change doesn't answer that - WebOS (Score 1) 189

Certainly based just on the price drop, you wouldn't know if they ever made money. HP drastically dropped the price on their WebOS devices. Was that because they were making too much money at the original price? No, it's because they weren't making any money at the original price, they lost money on the whole project. They adjusted the price (downward) to minimize their losses.

In fact, Intel's gross profit margin was around 20% last year. Now they dropped their prices* by about 20%, meaning the new price would have been the break-even point for them. They wouldn't have made any money on the project if they hadn't sold any at the higher price.

* actually MICROCENTER reduced their price. The summary is misleading, as they normally are.

Comment They do get better per-core, not per-dollar or wat (Score 1) 189

> Presumably Intel thinks it can do better than the open market.

And empirically they do in fact get better per-core, single-threaded performance. Performance per dollar and per watt, they often lose. Their priority is single threaded performance, and their approach does achieve that goal.

Comment Intel's cost is $50 billion, what should retail be (Score 1) 189

Okay, I'll play along. Each year Intel spends $10 billion on fab upgrades and $13 billion on R&D. So the cost was about $50 billion to get ready to make this generation of CPUs. Based on the $50 billion up-front cost, what do you think the retail price should be?

Comment Might have lost money even at a higher price (Score 1) 189

Everybody is forgetting the $50 billion Intel had to spend before they could even start making these CPUs. Intel might lose money at even the "old" (non-Microcenter) price.

It costs several billion dollars to build or upgrade a fab. Intel spends about $10 billion each year on upgrading its equipment, and $12 bilion on R&D. In order to survive, they need to have a high gross profit on each unit sold, in order to recover the $50 billion or so they spent getting ready to build a new processor. In other words, they could make $200 per cpu, and still lose money overall.

Let's work through it with smaller numbers to demonstrate the concept.
Suppose you buy a machine for $100,000 in order to make widgets.
You materials cost is $1/widget.
Hoping to make your $100,000 back, you start selling widgets for $5 each.
After selling 10,000 widgets, you've received $50,000, and spent $110,00.
Your currently $60,000 in the hole.
Your neighbor starts selling widgets for $3 each.
Should you match the $3 price in order to keep selling widgets?
Yes, you want to sell more widgets, so you'll need to match the $3 price.

That doesn't mean you were "gouging", or even recovering your costs at $5. It means only that your MARGINAL cost to produce one MORE widget is less than $3. You may still lose money overall, because you haven't got your $100,000 capital expenditure back yet.

Comment World class fabs, R&D aren't free (Score 1) 189

Not necessarily.

It costs several billion dollars to build or upgrade a fab. Intel spends about $10 billion each year on upgrading its equipment, and $12 bilion on R&D. In order to survive, they need to have a high gross profit on each unit sold, in order to recover the $50 billion or so they spent getting ready to build a new processor. In other words, they could make $200 per cpu, and still lose money overall.

Let's work through it with smaller numbers to demonstrate the concept.
Suppose you buy a machine for $100,000 in order to make widgets.
You materials cost is $1/widget.
Hoping to make your $100,000 back, you start selling widgets for $5 each.
After selling 10,000 widgets, you've received $50,000, and spent $110,00.
Your currently $60,000 in the hole.
Your neighbor starts selling widgets for $3 each.
Should you match the $3 price in order to keep selling widgets?
Yes, you want to sell more widgets, so you'll need to match the $3 price.

That doesn't mean you were "gouging", or even recovering your costs at $5. It means only that your MARGINAL cost to produce one MORE widget is less than $3. You may still lose money overall, because you haven't got your $100,000 capital expenditure back yet.

Comment Couldn't hurt to include that (Score 1) 43

I see what you mean, and I don't see any reason to *not* include similar language. Accounting for contributions, even small patches, from non-government sources will probably require some small change to the wording, but that's no big deal. Anyway you'd state that the code as published there is published by or on behalf of the original authors, who disclaim any rights under copyright law.

Comment Anyone using it can point to the Morris Public Lic (Score 1) 43

I could *claim* copyright to the Mac OS or Microsoft Windows, or to your post. I could sue you right now for using Windows or Mac or whatever you're using - I'd just lose since I didn't write either of those operating systems.

Anyone can claim anything they want, and there is no way to stop people from making stupid claims. The thing is, they'd need to *prove* their claims or at very least convince people the claim has some likelihood of being proven.

Can you give me an example of some wording you think should be added, which will somehow prevent frivolous claims?

  * I started to use Apache and Linux as my examples, saying "I could -claim- copyright to Apache or to Linux, but since I didn't write them ..." Then I realized I actually -do- have copyrights, because I have contributed code. Many years ago I asserted my Apache copyright against a major web hosting company, demanding that they provide the source package for the exact version they were distributing on servers. This was for the dev headers, so people could compile Apache modules on and for the servers.

Comment No such thing in international law. Morris Public (Score 1) 43

Some countries and international copyright treaties have no concept of "public domain". Other countries use those words to mean something else. The Morris Public License allows users to do anything they want with the code. Morris PL would therefore be suitable:

Morris Public License Version 1.0

1) Authorization to copy, modify, and distribute

Any person, may copy, modify, distribute, or otherwise use the work in any form, without copyright restriction of any kind. All copy rights are hereby disclaimed.

2) Disclamer of warranties
THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM âoeAS ISâ WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Comment WTFPL for two reasons (Score 1) 43

It could be released under the WTFPL and there are two big reasons to do so that I can think of. Before going into the reasons, here is the text of the WTFPL:

----
DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE
                                        Version 2, December 2004

  Copyright (C) 2004 Sam Hocevar

  Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim or modified
  copies of this license document, and changing this license is allowed as long
  as the name is changed.

                        DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE
      TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION

    0. You just DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO.
-----

Off the top of my head, there are two or three big reasons to do that:

1) Some countries, and international treaties, have no concept of "public domain". So public domain is not sufficient for projects that may involve people, including users, outside of the US.

2) Even in the US, copyright "all rights resrved" is the default - if you find some code floating around, with no license or similar statement, you can't legally copy it. So you need at least a statement disclaiming copyright attached to the code.

3) Related to number 2, companies and organized projects are set up to keep track of the license for code they might use, in order to a) avoid violating the license and b) be able to prove to an auditor or whomever that they do have the right to distribute the code.

The WTFPL, which is essentially a disclaimer of copyright, but written in the form of a one-sentence license, addresses all of those issues. It allows you to have a license, as expected by international law and organization policy, without putting any restrictions on the code whatsoever.

Comment Respect, yes. Stuck my hand in Phantom prop recent (Score 1) 49

> Toys that deserve a modicum of respect.

Respect, yes, of course.

> I wouldn't want to get smacked by the props on one, and a phantom is no joke.

Two weeks ago I did something kinda stupid. I stuck my hand in the prop of a Phantom-sized one as it was flying. This was one that has parts interchangeable with a Phantom, a clone or knock off. Anyway while it was hovering a sudden wind gust sent it toward my two year old daughter. Parental instinct kicked in and I snatched it out the air. Acting immediately, instinctively, I didn't think to grab it from the bottom, I just reached out and grabbed the arm of the drone, putting my fingers right through the spinning prop.

Fortunately, the manufacturers of these sub-$2000 drones have thought to use soft plastic for the props. The finger that took the force of the prop hurt for several minutes. There was a very small but very dark "bruise" where the edge of the prop hit my finger, a little pocket of blood under the skin. It takes two weeks for a bruise like that to come to the surface and disappear. I'd rate it similar to closing an interior door on your hand. It hurt significantly less than hitting your thumb with a hammer, maybe similar to a mousetrap.

So yeah, I try to fly safe, and I very much would not want one those props to hit my daughter. On the other hand, from experience I'd rather grab a spinning prop than hit my thumb with a hammer.

I may practice grabbing one with an underhand motion, though, coming up from the bottom and grabbing a leg. A lot of people routinely catch them that way.

Slashdot Top Deals

%DCL-MEM-BAD, bad memory VMS-F-PDGERS, pudding between the ears

Working...