So if I press winkey,1,1 it "explores" the desktop.
I also have a "C Explore C" etc in the folder. so winkey,1,C = explore C. Same for the other stuff (My Documents, etc). Also have a "4 Command Prompt" shortcut and a "2 Tools" folder.
I haven't got around to doing this on Linux - doesn't seem as easy to setup.
Sure Windows has its shortcomings, but so does Linux. I haven't used OSX much.
Well they are paying people to show ads. Which can be legal, so I don't think they should just shut them down just like that.
The problem is some (many?) of the people they are paying are hijacking computers.
So what should be done is the authorities should just ask them to cough up info on the people who are hijacking computers. The ads have to be traceable to the hijacker since that's how hijacker gets paid, and there should be logs and stats - otherwise how do they themselves get paid by their customers? So just get a number of hijacked computers and get the IDs.
If there really is enough will, they can start making/using laws and freeze the bank accounts involved and start going after the account holders. It's not like the hijackers get paid in untraceable cash (if they do, then just tell the companies they can't do that anymore).
If that industry doesn't regulate itself well enough then the people should ask the government to step in and regulate it - (e.g. the companies could be required to do things in certain ways that make it easier and faster for cops to investigate stuff).
If they are paying people who make _unauthorized_ access to other people's computers, then all it takes is for them to cooperate with the authorities and soon the baddies won't get money.
Do you really think a legit advertising company would want to be associated with malware and to even be seen as encouraging it?
Also it's not fair if the annoying kids vandalize computers for fun get whacked with a big stick but the people making money from doing the same illegal thing get clean away.
Same goes for Sony's rootkit - Sony should be charged in many countries for unauthorized access and modification of computer systems.
There is a difference and you miss an important point.
Any government must maintain it's monopoly over such things (violence, killing people, imprisoning them etc), otherwise you will have vigilantism, lynching, mob justice, anarchy and/or someone else takes over and forms a new government.
This applies whether the government is democratically elected or otherwise (evil dictatorship).
When an individual or group tries to usurp the powers of a legitimately elected government, the government and the people should be very concerned.
Of course in the USA the gov is so obviously not on the side of "Joe Schmoe" that the people there can't tell the difference between "democratically-established laws" and "'corrupt, rigged, anti-democratic assault on personal rights'".
Because the former has actually become "corrupt crony-established laws". Don't forget that with the Diebold scandal, "democratically elected" becomes a sick joke.
Out of millions of sperm you get one and it goes with an egg, if the result is not good enough, poof, try again.
Otherwise, you get an embryo and all that cell division with chances of errors each time. If the end result is successful enough, you get either another millions of sperm thingy, or some few hundred thousands of eggs, and the process repeats.
If you have very very good error detection and correction, there won't be very much evolution.
However, if we are that point where we don't want to take a random approach to evolution, then the way to longer lifespans is to improve the good error detection and correction during cell reproduction (either through breeding or engineering).
Alternatively assuming that if it is OK for DNA to remain unchanged in a human for the entire lifespan then what one could do is this:
Take samples of stem cells at birth (or even before) - make 99.9999% copies of them (digitized?) - removing those that differ from the majority.
Periodically boost the "if cell is even slightly mutated then self destruct" system - I suspect normally this not cranked up as much if not one could run out of cells too fast;). Maybe there could also be
After that, create and reintroduce a whole bunch of those stem cell copies.
Now the problem is this may not work so well if there are actually some important cells where a change in the DNA plays a required and important function.
The other potential problem is if the differences are too great between the original copies and the current self and a war starts...
You might like your current self mutation (spiderman?) - in which case you'd probably want to make a new copy.
Of course, the tech to make 100% copies of stem cells and make enough of them is not there yet...
That's not such a bad idea. Esp if the tobacco taxes are high. Then you'd be paying for your short illness and probably for one or two others too.
A very commendable sacrifice Citizen!
I don't know why Govs around the world complain about smoking etc, and worry about aging populations on the other.
Just tax tobacco at a reasonably high rate, educate citizens on the dangers of smoking. And if people still want to smoke, why make it so hard for them?
I'd rather have computers and systems that augment humans and make them "smarter".
Rather than computers and systems that allow stupid humans to stay just about as stupid as they are.
There is a difference between the two. Really!
For the latter, the goal is making AI or some other system to second guess individual humans (who are assumed to be stupid) and make decisions for them, or have some "expert" or "centralized authority" make the decisions for them (e.g. the RIAA decides whether you get to play the song again).
For the former, your goal is making systems that help make humans superhuman. Sure there is some overlap (you usually don't want to micromanage), but the goals and thus paths would be different.
It's the difference between aiming for smart lifts that still let you choose which floor you want to go to, and lifts that try to guess which floor you want to go to, once you get on them - or rearrange their lift buttons so that it's "easier for you to press the right ones"- context sensitive lift buttons, wonderful idea eh?
The lifts in the former (and latter) could still check (cams etc) to see how many people are waiting on each floor and try to distribute themselves accordingly.
Our species core competency and specialization is supposed to be "intelligence and reproduction" (whereas ruminants are "digesting cellulose and reproduction").
I really don't think it is a good idea to keep aiming for the "humans get to be really stupid" target.
That said intelligence is overrated, maybe we would have a better future if all the individuals were nicer.
For most of the games out there, people don't want good AI. Good as in the AI makes a decent job of finding the best way to defeat you.
If the ghosts were really smart in Pacman, it would be really really hard to get very far. Imagine the ghosts just hogging the last pill once you've run out of power pills.
If the enemies were really smart in DOOM and other FPS, you'd probably never make it past the first few levels.
Imagine if mobs behaved really intelligently in WoW or some similar game.
In many games it is fairly easy to come up with something (even with minimal learning - just decent heuristics) that beats most if not all human players.
Most humans are stupid/ignorant, don't have perfect aim, reflexes and timing so for most games out there, they wouldn't want to play against a smart AI.
Even in chess you have settings for weak human players.
Otherwise most human players would be crushed, and the game just wouldn't be fun for most.
The only fun part then could be writing/designing bots to battle each other and possibly watching them in action.
I dunno, I'm righthanded and I can use the mouse fairly well with both hands. Nowadays for most desktop work I use my left hand for mouse, and for games I might use the right hand.
I think most people can learn to use either hand to do stuff. It's just not worth the trouble for most.
Most people's brains are asymmetric and tend to specialize, so even though a person is apparently right handed and they use the right hand exclusively for writing, they may still prefer to use their left hand for rubbing/scratching their noses or combing their hair.
Since it's likely that our left and right sides aren't exactly the same, just because you learn to do something with one hand doesn't automatically mean you can do it as well with the other. So given that most people never ever need to be ambidextrous, they just stay specialized and don't train their brains to be ambidextrous.
Many of us use both hands to type, doesn't matter which handedness we are. Left hand is specialized to left bit of the keyboard and right to the right side. I think very very few of us can use a "flipped" left-to-right keyboard and automatically be able to type as well as before...
And whether you're right handed or not doesn't necessarily indicate which foot you use the brake pedal with. For automatic cars you can get away with using the left foot for brake exclusively. But for manual cars, you might use the right (leaving the left free for clutch), and I hear some people actually use either depending on the situation!
Of course there is such a thing as too much swap. Go figure out how long it takes for a normal ATA drive to page in and out 500GB of stuff.
You may be different but I believe that most people want their PCs or applications to run out of memory way before that point.
Because I believe it is rare to have a scenario where people have thousands of small/medium sized loaded applications taking up 500GB in swap, and only wake up and run once in a long while. Or one where users intentionally run a single app that takes 500GB, and effectively runs from disk (in the old days something like that was not so rare but the numbers were smaller and the relative speeds of disk to ram weren't as big - or the disk was the "RAM").
Thus 500GB is too much swap, and thus there is such a thing as "too much swap".
QED
If you'd rather run out of memory than wait for 1GB to be read from and written to disk, then adjust your swap accordingly.
I haven't really had a big problem with Linux's disk cache handling, windows memory/cache handling seems a bit crappy, and you can't even tune the system cache max properly nowadays- sysinternal's cacheset utility doesn't seem to work as advertised on > NT4.
Of course cable quality still matters. But who needs a 100 metre cable from their console to their TV?
IMO USD15 is already expensive for a short digital cable, so unless it's got tons of wires in it, or has to carry 10Gbps, higher prices are just silly or Sony;).
Seriously if a user is waiting for a minute or two for things to swap back in, and the user thinks that is too long, then the swap file is too big.
Set it to something smaller and fixed, till the user only has to wait X seconds for things to swap back in in typical/worse case, where X is considered by the users to be a tolerable amount.
IMO the people who talk about setting swap to multiples of RAM are silly. It's little to do with multiples of RAM and more the sort of apps you run and how slow you can tolerate your computer to be when it is low on memory.
The sustained random read/write throughput of an ATA drive is probably about 10-15MB/sec, sequential throoughput is about 40-60MB/sec, so read+write probably about half those speeds - if your O/S pages in and out your stuff sequentially use the sequential values. But probably best to just test it out. Given the drives don't appear to be getting very much faster, the seconds/swap size figures would probably be usable for the next few years. The figures could change if you have swap on a RAID.
Disadvantage: you are more likely to run out of memory. Advantage: you are more likely to run out of memory before your system starts crawling.
After the sony rootkit thing, who was charged with unauthorized tampering with computers? Which individuals were punished?
Just because I let you into my house to install a CD player doesn't mean you should unlatch the backdoor, open windows, even if you give me a stupid piece of paper to sign with lots of fine print saying that you can do that sort of stuff.
Maybe that's legal in the USA, but I think it's not in other countries, and AFAIK the Sony rootkit has affected other countries, so why hasn't anyone been charged with the crime? AFAIK, in some countries the Judge could say that the piece of paper is "unreasonable" and it is likely that what Sony did is illegal.
So naturally companies and the bosses of such companies should be emboldened by the result of the "Sony rootkit" incident. They now know they can do stuff that will put a typical amateur hacker in jail, and get away with just some negative publicity.
Multinational corps, spammers, spyware/adware companies can all install rootkits/malware but not silly high school/college kids doing it for kicks or for "rep".
And then get upset when their parents read their blogs or something...
Doh...
If you are a creature of habit (like most people), an attacker can know what time you are likely to be at home posting on slashdot/your blog etc. Just a simple sampling of the times you've posted will do.
But hey if you're going to target a physical house, you might as well just watch it first...
All those people saying it's not real have no idea what their own money is.
That said the countries the game is run in will probably want to have some say.
AND even if the US shouldn't mess with the EU's business, it will;). After all, democratically elected governments are still "rogue" unless the US approves of them...
Actually, say a person is convicted, and they serve their time and get out. Does that mean they are still never free forever because they end up on this list? Doh why not be "honest" and give them a life sentence then?
Has the punishment for the crime been legally changed, or is this extra nonofficial punishment?
If the punishment and rehab stuff isn't good enough, change it. Don't start adding shit like this.
I'm definitely not a fan of criminals, but actually I'm more afraid of bad cops, bad laws and bad systems then some random criminal.
When the state becomes criminal, everyone is both a victim and a perpetrator.
Actually I don't think it's a problem if you have laws that make sure the people at the top go to jail if they do something really wrong AND those laws are enforced.
The typical sociopaths at the top usually won't want to go to jail.
Now the problem is when you have a situation where responsibility is "outsourced" and spread over many allegedly distinct entities/organisations.
Say A promised to people that they will do X, and then outsources it to B who promises to do Y=X*0.95, who outsources it to C who promises to do Z=Y*0.95 and so on.
When the people get shafted, A can say we were just cutting costs a bit, and point a finger to B and so on.
There are other sort of "pathological" scenarios similar or otherwise - e.g. bosses intentionally not wanting to be aware of bad stuff going on.
Then it gets hard to legally pin any particular person down for a crime.
While the recent "stolen houses" in Canada thing isn't a great example because the people doing the fraud are the crooks - the banks are arguably doing something wrong even though apparently _legal_ as of now.
Well the problem AMD has is if they don't announce, people could go "Core 2 Duo".
I suggest it's better for AMD to lose some sales to their "future" than to Intel.
Especially given that so far historically you are more likely to be able to upgrade an AMD system meaningfully than an Intel system. So if AMD announces a nice shiny future, people might still buy an AMD _now_ that is slower than a Core 2 Duo, in hope of being able to upgrade to the next AMD stuff.
Whereas Intel's new stuff just tends to not work with their old chipsets/sockets/memory etc. If you buy Core 2 Duo now, the odds of you being able to easily upgrade to some new Intel CPU next year is pretty slim.
So it doesn't look good for AMD.
It's just like the past few years when Intel had no answer to AMD's opterons - they just had crappy P4 stuff. Intel lost quite a bit of share to AMD because of that.
I've managed to burn a few DVDs that could be played back on a crappy philips DVD player that couldn't even read CD-RWs (and some CD-Rs?) - it does play CDs, but strangely can't play any CD-R I've tried.
And I was using a el-cheapo Benq DVD burner that died after about 1.5 years (wow such quality;) ). The higher end Plextor DVD burners are apparently pretty good - but I can't afford those. Currently using LG.
Slashdot Mirror
But why do you want to "show desktop". When I setup windows I usually set up a folder called "1 Explore" in the start menu.
/e, "%HOMEDRIVE%%HOMEPATH%\Desktop"
And in it I put a shortcut called "1 Explore Desktop"
Target=%SystemRoot%\explorer.exe ,
Start in=%HOMEDRIVE%%HOMEPATH%
So if I press winkey,1,1 it "explores" the desktop.
I also have a "C Explore C" etc in the folder. so winkey,1,C = explore C. Same for the other stuff (My Documents, etc). Also have a "4 Command Prompt" shortcut and a "2 Tools" folder.
I haven't got around to doing this on Linux - doesn't seem as easy to setup.
Sure Windows has its shortcomings, but so does Linux. I haven't used OSX much.
Well they are paying people to show ads. Which can be legal, so I don't think they should just shut them down just like that.
The problem is some (many?) of the people they are paying are hijacking computers.
So what should be done is the authorities should just ask them to cough up info on the people who are hijacking computers. The ads have to be traceable to the hijacker since that's how hijacker gets paid, and there should be logs and stats - otherwise how do they themselves get paid by their customers? So just get a number of hijacked computers and get the IDs.
If there really is enough will, they can start making/using laws and freeze the bank accounts involved and start going after the account holders. It's not like the hijackers get paid in untraceable cash (if they do, then just tell the companies they can't do that anymore).
If that industry doesn't regulate itself well enough then the people should ask the government to step in and regulate it - (e.g. the companies could be required to do things in certain ways that make it easier and faster for cops to investigate stuff).
If they are paying people who make _unauthorized_ access to other people's computers, then all it takes is for them to cooperate with the authorities and soon the baddies won't get money.
Do you really think a legit advertising company would want to be associated with malware and to even be seen as encouraging it?
Also it's not fair if the annoying kids vandalize computers for fun get whacked with a big stick but the people making money from doing the same illegal thing get clean away.
Same goes for Sony's rootkit - Sony should be charged in many countries for unauthorized access and modification of computer systems.
There is a difference and you miss an important point.
Any government must maintain it's monopoly over such things (violence, killing people, imprisoning them etc), otherwise you will have vigilantism, lynching, mob justice, anarchy and/or someone else takes over and forms a new government.
This applies whether the government is democratically elected or otherwise (evil dictatorship).
When an individual or group tries to usurp the powers of a legitimately elected government, the government and the people should be very concerned.
Of course in the USA the gov is so obviously not on the side of "Joe Schmoe" that the people there can't tell the difference between "democratically-established laws" and "'corrupt, rigged, anti-democratic assault on personal rights'".
Because the former has actually become "corrupt crony-established laws". Don't forget that with the Diebold scandal, "democratically elected" becomes a sick joke.
The way I see it:
;). Maybe there could also be
Out of millions of sperm you get one and it goes with an egg, if the result is not good enough, poof, try again.
Otherwise, you get an embryo and all that cell division with chances of errors each time. If the end result is successful enough, you get either another millions of sperm thingy, or some few hundred thousands of eggs, and the process repeats.
If you have very very good error detection and correction, there won't be very much evolution.
However, if we are that point where we don't want to take a random approach to evolution, then the way to longer lifespans is to improve the good error detection and correction during cell reproduction (either through breeding or engineering).
Alternatively assuming that if it is OK for DNA to remain unchanged in a human for the entire lifespan then what one could do is this:
Take samples of stem cells at birth (or even before) - make 99.9999% copies of them (digitized?) - removing those that differ from the majority.
Periodically boost the "if cell is even slightly mutated then self destruct" system - I suspect normally this not cranked up as much if not one could run out of cells too fast
After that, create and reintroduce a whole bunch of those stem cell copies.
Now the problem is this may not work so well if there are actually some important cells where a change in the DNA plays a required and important function.
The other potential problem is if the differences are too great between the original copies and the current self and a war starts...
You might like your current self mutation (spiderman?) - in which case you'd probably want to make a new copy.
Of course, the tech to make 100% copies of stem cells and make enough of them is not there yet...
That's not such a bad idea. Esp if the tobacco taxes are high. Then you'd be paying for your short illness and probably for one or two others too.
A very commendable sacrifice Citizen!
I don't know why Govs around the world complain about smoking etc, and worry about aging populations on the other.
Just tax tobacco at a reasonably high rate, educate citizens on the dangers of smoking. And if people still want to smoke, why make it so hard for them?
Well you claimed there's no such thing as too much swap.
And in your case, too much swap is probably anything much above 0MB.
I doubt you've even tried my suggestion. If you don't like that answer well that's just too bad, your loss.
Feel free to waste your time waiting for swap and grumbling about it.
I think we should make many of these UI designers use lifts/elevators with context sensitive lift/elevator buttons.
Put the worst of them into one with "personalized" buttons - the "least used" buttons are hidden by default...
Look at Douglas Englebart's 1968 demo. We sure haven't really got very far in the past 40 years.
I definitely don't like those stupid "innovations" like "wobbly windows" and silly animations that actually _DELAY_ responses to user commands.
I'd rather have computers and systems that augment humans and make them "smarter".
Rather than computers and systems that allow stupid humans to stay just about as stupid as they are.
There is a difference between the two. Really!
For the latter, the goal is making AI or some other system to second guess individual humans (who are assumed to be stupid) and make decisions for them, or have some "expert" or "centralized authority" make the decisions for them (e.g. the RIAA decides whether you get to play the song again).
For the former, your goal is making systems that help make humans superhuman. Sure there is some overlap (you usually don't want to micromanage), but the goals and thus paths would be different.
It's the difference between aiming for smart lifts that still let you choose which floor you want to go to, and lifts that try to guess which floor you want to go to, once you get on them - or rearrange their lift buttons so that it's "easier for you to press the right ones"- context sensitive lift buttons, wonderful idea eh?
The lifts in the former (and latter) could still check (cams etc) to see how many people are waiting on each floor and try to distribute themselves accordingly.
Our species core competency and specialization is supposed to be "intelligence and reproduction" (whereas ruminants are "digesting cellulose and reproduction").
I really don't think it is a good idea to keep aiming for the "humans get to be really stupid" target.
That said intelligence is overrated, maybe we would have a better future if all the individuals were nicer.
The dumb AI is mandatory part of most games.
For most of the games out there, people don't want good AI. Good as in the AI makes a decent job of finding the best way to defeat you.
If the ghosts were really smart in Pacman, it would be really really hard to get very far. Imagine the ghosts just hogging the last pill once you've run out of power pills.
If the enemies were really smart in DOOM and other FPS, you'd probably never make it past the first few levels.
Imagine if mobs behaved really intelligently in WoW or some similar game.
In many games it is fairly easy to come up with something (even with minimal learning - just decent heuristics) that beats most if not all human players.
Most humans are stupid/ignorant, don't have perfect aim, reflexes and timing so for most games out there, they wouldn't want to play against a smart AI.
Even in chess you have settings for weak human players.
Otherwise most human players would be crushed, and the game just wouldn't be fun for most.
The only fun part then could be writing/designing bots to battle each other and possibly watching them in action.
I dunno, I'm righthanded and I can use the mouse fairly well with both hands. Nowadays for most desktop work I use my left hand for mouse, and for games I might use the right hand.
I think most people can learn to use either hand to do stuff. It's just not worth the trouble for most.
Most people's brains are asymmetric and tend to specialize, so even though a person is apparently right handed and they use the right hand exclusively for writing, they may still prefer to use their left hand for rubbing/scratching their noses or combing their hair.
Since it's likely that our left and right sides aren't exactly the same, just because you learn to do something with one hand doesn't automatically mean you can do it as well with the other. So given that most people never ever need to be ambidextrous, they just stay specialized and don't train their brains to be ambidextrous.
Many of us use both hands to type, doesn't matter which handedness we are. Left hand is specialized to left bit of the keyboard and right to the right side. I think very very few of us can use a "flipped" left-to-right keyboard and automatically be able to type as well as before...
And whether you're right handed or not doesn't necessarily indicate which foot you use the brake pedal with. For automatic cars you can get away with using the left foot for brake exclusively. But for manual cars, you might use the right (leaving the left free for clutch), and I hear some people actually use either depending on the situation!
For USD0.60 I will :)
1) Tortoise baking in hot sun
2) ???
3) Lunch!
Next!
Of course there is such a thing as too much swap. Go figure out how long it takes for a normal ATA drive to page in and out 500GB of stuff.
You may be different but I believe that most people want their PCs or applications to run out of memory way before that point.
Because I believe it is rare to have a scenario where people have thousands of small/medium sized loaded applications taking up 500GB in swap, and only wake up and run once in a long while. Or one where users intentionally run a single app that takes 500GB, and effectively runs from disk (in the old days something like that was not so rare but the numbers were smaller and the relative speeds of disk to ram weren't as big - or the disk was the "RAM").
Thus 500GB is too much swap, and thus there is such a thing as "too much swap".
QED
If you'd rather run out of memory than wait for 1GB to be read from and written to disk, then adjust your swap accordingly.
I haven't really had a big problem with Linux's disk cache handling, windows memory/cache handling seems a bit crappy, and you can't even tune the system cache max properly nowadays- sysinternal's cacheset utility doesn't seem to work as advertised on > NT4.
Of course cable quality still matters. But who needs a 100 metre cable from their console to their TV?
;).
IMO USD15 is already expensive for a short digital cable, so unless it's got tons of wires in it, or has to carry 10Gbps, higher prices are just silly or Sony
Simple. Set swap to zero ;).
Seriously if a user is waiting for a minute or two for things to swap back in, and the user thinks that is too long, then the swap file is too big.
Set it to something smaller and fixed, till the user only has to wait X seconds for things to swap back in in typical/worse case, where X is considered by the users to be a tolerable amount.
IMO the people who talk about setting swap to multiples of RAM are silly. It's little to do with multiples of RAM and more the sort of apps you run and how slow you can tolerate your computer to be when it is low on memory.
The sustained random read/write throughput of an ATA drive is probably about 10-15MB/sec, sequential throoughput is about 40-60MB/sec, so read+write probably about half those speeds - if your O/S pages in and out your stuff sequentially use the sequential values. But probably best to just test it out. Given the drives don't appear to be getting very much faster, the seconds/swap size figures would probably be usable for the next few years. The figures could change if you have swap on a RAID.
Disadvantage: you are more likely to run out of memory.
Advantage: you are more likely to run out of memory before your system starts crawling.
Pick your poison.
Yeah, and those are the ones you'd want to target in a "pump and dump" scheme.
;).
Since it'll probably take them ages to sell when things go sour.
The "buy" screens are probably subliminal to such folk
Maybe someone should check the previous bush and kerry campaign ads for such messages.
After the sony rootkit thing, who was charged with unauthorized tampering with computers? Which individuals were punished?
Just because I let you into my house to install a CD player doesn't mean you should unlatch the backdoor, open windows, even if you give me a stupid piece of paper to sign with lots of fine print saying that you can do that sort of stuff.
Maybe that's legal in the USA, but I think it's not in other countries, and AFAIK the Sony rootkit has affected other countries, so why hasn't anyone been charged with the crime? AFAIK, in some countries the Judge could say that the piece of paper is "unreasonable" and it is likely that what Sony did is illegal.
So naturally companies and the bosses of such companies should be emboldened by the result of the "Sony rootkit" incident. They now know they can do stuff that will put a typical amateur hacker in jail, and get away with just some negative publicity.
Multinational corps, spammers, spyware/adware companies can all install rootkits/malware but not silly high school/college kids doing it for kicks or for "rep".
Some expose the tiniest details of their lives.
And then get upset when their parents read their blogs or something...
Doh...
If you are a creature of habit (like most people), an attacker can know what time you are likely to be at home posting on slashdot/your blog etc. Just a simple sampling of the times you've posted will do.
But hey if you're going to target a physical house, you might as well just watch it first...
Finally someone who gets it.
;). After all, democratically elected governments are still "rogue" unless the US approves of them...
All those people saying it's not real have no idea what their own money is.
That said the countries the game is run in will probably want to have some say.
AND even if the US shouldn't mess with the EU's business, it will
Actually, say a person is convicted, and they serve their time and get out. Does that mean they are still never free forever because they end up on this list? Doh why not be "honest" and give them a life sentence then?
Has the punishment for the crime been legally changed, or is this extra nonofficial punishment?
If the punishment and rehab stuff isn't good enough, change it. Don't start adding shit like this.
I'm definitely not a fan of criminals, but actually I'm more afraid of bad cops, bad laws and bad systems then some random criminal.
When the state becomes criminal, everyone is both a victim and a perpetrator.
Actually I don't think it's a problem if you have laws that make sure the people at the top go to jail if they do something really wrong AND those laws are enforced.
The typical sociopaths at the top usually won't want to go to jail.
Now the problem is when you have a situation where responsibility is "outsourced" and spread over many allegedly distinct entities/organisations.
Say A promised to people that they will do X, and then outsources it to B who promises to do Y=X*0.95, who outsources it to C who promises to do Z=Y*0.95 and so on.
When the people get shafted, A can say we were just cutting costs a bit, and point a finger to B and so on.
There are other sort of "pathological" scenarios similar or otherwise - e.g. bosses intentionally not wanting to be aware of bad stuff going on.
Then it gets hard to legally pin any particular person down for a crime.
While the recent "stolen houses" in Canada thing isn't a great example because the people doing the fraud are the crooks - the banks are arguably doing something wrong even though apparently _legal_ as of now.
Well the problem AMD has is if they don't announce, people could go "Core 2 Duo".
I suggest it's better for AMD to lose some sales to their "future" than to Intel.
Especially given that so far historically you are more likely to be able to upgrade an AMD system meaningfully than an Intel system. So if AMD announces a nice shiny future, people might still buy an AMD _now_ that is slower than a Core 2 Duo, in hope of being able to upgrade to the next AMD stuff.
Whereas Intel's new stuff just tends to not work with their old chipsets/sockets/memory etc. If you buy Core 2 Duo now, the odds of you being able to easily upgrade to some new Intel CPU next year is pretty slim.
So it doesn't look good for AMD.
It's just like the past few years when Intel had no answer to AMD's opterons - they just had crappy P4 stuff. Intel lost quite a bit of share to AMD because of that.
Smart movie makers don't target the nongullible as their audience.
The less gullible they are the easier it is to part them from their money.
I've managed to burn a few DVDs that could be played back on a crappy philips DVD player that couldn't even read CD-RWs (and some CD-Rs?) - it does play CDs, but strangely can't play any CD-R I've tried.
;) ). The higher end Plextor DVD burners are apparently pretty good - but I can't afford those. Currently using LG.
And I was using a el-cheapo Benq DVD burner that died after about 1.5 years (wow such quality