A year's income is a year's income, and losing that HURTS. Whether you make 4 or 7 digits (or in case of a corporation, 10+).
It'll only work for a short while. 10 years from now, when you're suing Apple, I'm sure their accounts will be able to document the fact that the company is only pulling in a 4-figure income. Those billions of dollars are actually going to unrelated companies, owned by lawyers, which aren't actually owned by or part of Apple.
I never said single-core performance stopped progressing or went down
Haha! That's pretty explicit backpedaling, there. Are you familiar with the concept of quotation marks? Because it kinda, sorta means that's EXACTLY what you said.
I kept telling you: "The performance of a processor core can be improved DRAMATICALLY, even while REDUCING the clock frequency." But you just wouldn't listen. You just kept it up, claiming "they are performance increases".
Oh well. I've wasted far too much time on this pointless thread of ignorance, already.
The article you link to CLEARLY slows single-core performance continues to INCREASE quickly, even as clock speeds have reduced. Just not as quickly as it did pre-2004. In fact the whole thing is a detailed rebuttal to those who claim speeds are falling, as they are not.
Your claims were that single-core performance did "stop progressing" and even "gone down".
The graphs also show that speed increases were never "exponentially improving" but only linearly increasing.
TFA is a pile of crap, with no evidence to support its conclusions.
Rationale #1: "Yield" is just as safe as "Stop", and saves energy for bikers. Problem: It saves energy for cars, too, and if used with cars as bikers use it (slowing to 5MPH), should be just as safe for cars.
Rationale #2: Treating a stoplight as a 1-way stop sign is just as safe for a bike. Problem: Why not treat those stoplights as "Yield" signs, too, if those are safe? Why can't motorists adopt the same not-so-strict rules as bikes, for the same benefits? Also, the lower speed of bikes, combined with the possibility of blind corners and drivers that see the green light long before the biker, seems likely to make this very dangerous in *some* areas, particularly in the dark.
Rationale #3: Eliminate the laws cyclists don't follow, and they'll follow all the rest. Problem: "The rest" include the ones we're changing, because they don't follow them. ie. If they don't stop at stop-signs when there are cars waiting, NOW, why would they do so when they're effectively changed to Yield signs? If cyclists really have figured out the "Idaho Stop" on their own, why aren't the accident rates equally as low, and/or falling quickly?
Rationale #4: "the low-traffic routes that are safer for bikes are the kinds of roads with many stop signs." Problem: Low traffic routes are safer for cars, too. Sounds like we're changing the laws to encourage devaluing a number of roads for cars, in order to provide a biker's oasis.
Rationale #5: "he found that Sacramento had 30.5 percent more accidents per bike commuter and Bakersfield had 150 percent more". Problem: The improvement over Sacramento sounds like a very tiny improvement which could have been caused by any number of minor variables. Additionally, the HUGE GAPING DISPARITY between Sacramento and Bakersfield, both cities without these rule changes, clearly shows that the Idaho stop rules aren't causing these differences, and there's far too much uncontrolled variability to draw any conclusion about the Idaho method.
Where is the evidence... ANY evidence, that this is a positive change?
40K people die every day of hunger and the while the USD 60M or more that were spent so far on this stupid search couldn't have prevented that, it would have helped a lot of people have another chance.
For every $6 cup of coffee you buy, you're KILLING a person. For every $300 TV you buy, you're killing dozens. Every month you pay for cable TV, you're killing a handful. Is that about right? Because lack of monetary handouts are the ONLY cause of all those deaths? Political instability doesn't have anything to do with it, and/or could be fixed with a small influx of cash?
When clock speeds are sustained at an exponential pace, they are performance increases.
They can be, unless the processors are getting pipeline increases at the same time. But the opposite is absolutely, positively NOT true. ie. It doesn't REQUIRE clock speed increases to provide core performance improvements.
Instead of all your bullshit wordplay, all you need to do is look up some benchmarks. They'll prove your assertions wrong in 30 seconds flat.
Clock increases are not performance increases. Intel figured that out when the P4 got trounced, and now everyone is TRYING to keep clock speeds low, precisely because higher clocks waste energy for no benefit, and performance improvements are happening at a decent clip even while they lower clock speeds. I think AMD may have created their PR ratings system just for you, personally.
Higher clock speeds give you NOTHING. That's why it's called the MHz myth.
A few short years, and a small head-start, countered by other military weakness. The main reason for the US to nuke the USSR was their overwhelming superiority in ground forces. That's completely and totally different than the scenario here, of two massively mismatched forces.
. I grew up with an 8MHz PC in the 80s.
This is just the MHz myth in full force... The performance of a processor core can be improved DRAMATICALLY, even while REDUCING the clock frequency.
Just like there was no reason to believe CPU speeds would stop progressing, based on decades of history.
CPU speeds HAVEN'T stopped progressing. And furthermore, the physical limitations of silicon, and the approximate time-frame at which they could not longer be shrunk any further, have been known for quite a long time.
I think it strains credulity to think that NBC went ahead with this without getting the OK from Comcast.
Not objecting to it isn't "endorsed or supported". You're suggesting that Comcast instructed NBC to sue on their behalf. All the other broadcasters without cable parent companies in the group suggest otherwise, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary. Bringing NBC's parentage into it is just muddying the waters for absolutely, positively no reason, other than pedantry.
The real reason that cable companies are not directly suing is that they don't have standing. They don't own the rights that the lawsuit alleges are being violated.
The cable companies do have standing to sue, but it would be a very different lawsuit, indeed. They aren't suing right now. They didn't funnel some cash to some tiny broadcasters they could use as puppets. There's no reason to believe they will sue later. This is absolutely, purely a broadcaster lawsuit, not a cable companies vs Aereo lawsuit.
Umm... I must assume you don't know the definition of "edge case", since that statement makes no sense.
that Aereo lawsuit was filed by BROADCASTERS and cable companies".
That's being extremely pedantic.
There was no cable company represented. One major broadcaster happens to have a cable company parent, but that cable company still wasn't represented. All parties are broadcasters.
All evidence indicates cable companies would benefit if Aereo wins this lawsuit, so that they can adopt the same model. With the downside of their own broadcast assets potentially being devalued being substantially lesser than their profits from the change.
If you'd like to provide ANY evidence that Comcast endorsed or supported NBC's part in the lawsuit, or evidence that they'd benefit from Aereo's failure more than they'd benefit from its success, feel free to do so. I'm all ears. Otherwise, I'll stick to my original, still correct, statement. And the GP's statement, that cable companies are going after Aereo, is still horrifically inaccurate.
Parallel networks in many places are prevented by legislation, not by cost.
They are sometimes prevented by legislation.
They are ALWAYS prevent by cost.
You can name some areas where there are legal restrictions in-place, but I can name some places where there are no such restrictions, and yet no competitors jump-in to the market. The economics just make it impractical.
That's one single edge case, which does not detract from the point in the slightest. No other cable companies were represented, and all other parties were broadcasters, so the situation is extremely clear.
As I said, declare sovereignty on your own home tonight, do something illegal in your country and see if you don't get arrested for it.
I lack the requisite army to do so. Didn't we cover this 3 or 4 times already? Strange you keep failing to grasp this very, very simple point.
there's still the problem with your theory that even that guy recognised he was part of the Ukraine which is why he needed a referendum in the first place.
Your circular logic here hinges on the "need" part. In fact, just because they decided to hold a vote, does not in any way imply that they NEEDED to do so. It was a PR stunt, really. Lots of countries hold fake elections on a regular basis.
it doesn't make any sense to require a referendum.
Nobody (other than you) said it was required. It's still your own circular logic gone haywire, here.
people who will keep arguing even when their argument is long past salvageable
You're the one arguing against the very definition of the word sovereign. You just refuse to admit you're utterly wrong, because denying one simple fact helps you justify your own political opinions.
You haven't provided one single bit of counter evidence to a thing I've said, and instead just keep repeating the same baseless illogical nonsense, arguing that a sovereign leader isn't a sovereign leader unless YOU say he is. Meanwhile, I can list plenty of internationally recognized governments that were overthrown, where their new rulers-by-force continue to exist for the long-term, without the benefit of international recognition. There haven't been quite as many secessions.
they subsidize the creation of the network infrastructure with our tax dollars
Allowing cable companies to charge their subscribers a few dollars more is NOT a "tax" by any stretch of the imagination. What's more, it was for UPGRADES of their infrastructure, which already had to exist or they wouldn't have had subscribers to pay it in the first place. And finally, it's the government regulation that REQUIRED them get the government's PERMISSION to do it in the first place, so it's massively hypocritical to hold it up as evidence in support of far LESS government regulation. If they weren't regulated, they'd have been charging that and more, long, long before.
and fight back any competition via litigation.
Nope. That Aereo lawsuit was filed by BROADCASTERS. Specifically: "CBS, Disney, Fox, and NBCUniversal" NOT by the cable operators.
Cable operators would like to see Aereo win, because they would love to be able to copy the tiny-antenna model, and deliver all the OTA channels to their customers OnDemand, without having to pay those broadcasters a penny for the right, unlike the truck-loads of money they have to pay right now.
So you're 0 for 2 with your claims and sources, yet still ranting that the government is bad, and advocating for deregulation, which will only serve to remove the last barrier to cable companies really completely raping their customers.
Everyone in said sovereign territory... They are under no illusions about who is in-charge. What anyone outside the territory believes is irrelevant.
but not your own personally defined local laws
Wrong. That's PRECISELY what I said, and what I meant.
As I said before, you really might want to stop digging at this point,
You've said a lot of BS before, and I don't expect you to stop now. Name calling, directed at me, won't make your idiotic assertions any less inaccurate. Nor will all your silly games get you anywhere.
He presents NO EVIDENCE in support of his wild claims. Just a lot of baseless assertions and out of context quotations. An utterly mindless right-wing hit piece.
Meanwhile, there's an endless assortment of material out there with lots of examples and case studies of natural monopolies, and economies of scale. One starting point:
I assumed your question was rhetorical, because the answer is idiotically simple.
I can't declare my backyard a soverign country, because after some time, armed men would come and incarcerate or kill me.
If I had an army, that was fully capable of defending the territory from other armies that wanted to take it, then it would be soverign territory.
Nothing else matters. "Recognition" is political hot-air. You don't have to recognize my back yard as a country, but stepping foot in it will still get you subject to local laws, and/or shot for failure to comply.
No idea why you keep ranting about someone not being elected. Democracy is new. Kings and dictators have been around forever. Voting isn't a prerequisite for anything.
You just keep talking out of your ass. Lots of wishful thinking that has no bearing on the real world, just because you support one side, and want any excuse to dislike the other.
Governments don't create cable monopolies. Once there's one network there, there's too little profit, and requires too big of capital investments, to be profitable. It's called a "natural monopoly" and being ignorant of the economic realities that cause it, will make your alternate universe political theory fail miserably in the real world.
Now then, governments have options to shift the power torwards competition.
They can offer incentives for competitors to build a parallel network... which is what Google Fiber depends on.
They can nationalize and/or regulate the natural monopolies, so that they can be forced to keep prices low and improvements coming, in exchange for their rights to run their lines through private and public property.
They can seperate the last-mile provider from the service provider, perhaps requring the former to be a non-profit.
But notice that the unregulated free market doing it's own thing isn't one of those scenarios. Not only does deregulation make for less competition and worse service, but without the government doing the eminent domain thing, and leasing space on power poles, no cable company would ever be able to cover a city profitably. There will ALWAYS be holdouts, and everybody will be looking to get an unfairly large chunk of fees from the big company that wants to bury cables on their land.
The USSR was very closely matched with the US. It's an utterly different scenario than I outlined.
And processor speed increases just slightly slowing for a few years is an insignificant blip. Other technologies are positioned to replace silicon in the coming decades. No singularity is needed. Progress has been exponential for centuries now, and there's no reason to believe it will stop.
Slashdot Mirror
It'll only work for a short while. 10 years from now, when you're suing Apple, I'm sure their accounts will be able to document the fact that the company is only pulling in a 4-figure income. Those billions of dollars are actually going to unrelated companies, owned by lawyers, which aren't actually owned by or part of Apple.
Haha! That's pretty explicit backpedaling, there. Are you familiar with the concept of quotation marks? Because it kinda, sorta means that's EXACTLY what you said.
I kept telling you: "The performance of a processor core can be improved DRAMATICALLY, even while REDUCING the clock frequency." But you just wouldn't listen. You just kept it up, claiming "they are performance increases".
Oh well. I've wasted far too much time on this pointless thread of ignorance, already.
The article you link to CLEARLY slows single-core performance continues to INCREASE quickly, even as clock speeds have reduced. Just not as quickly as it did pre-2004. In fact the whole thing is a detailed rebuttal to those who claim speeds are falling, as they are not.
Your claims were that single-core performance did "stop progressing" and even "gone down".
The graphs also show that speed increases were never "exponentially improving" but only linearly increasing.
How does that support your claims in any way?
TFA is a pile of crap, with no evidence to support its conclusions.
Rationale #1: "Yield" is just as safe as "Stop", and saves energy for bikers. Problem: It saves energy for cars, too, and if used with cars as bikers use it (slowing to 5MPH), should be just as safe for cars.
Rationale #2: Treating a stoplight as a 1-way stop sign is just as safe for a bike. Problem: Why not treat those stoplights as "Yield" signs, too, if those are safe? Why can't motorists adopt the same not-so-strict rules as bikes, for the same benefits? Also, the lower speed of bikes, combined with the possibility of blind corners and drivers that see the green light long before the biker, seems likely to make this very dangerous in *some* areas, particularly in the dark.
Rationale #3: Eliminate the laws cyclists don't follow, and they'll follow all the rest. Problem: "The rest" include the ones we're changing, because they don't follow them. ie. If they don't stop at stop-signs when there are cars waiting, NOW, why would they do so when they're effectively changed to Yield signs? If cyclists really have figured out the "Idaho Stop" on their own, why aren't the accident rates equally as low, and/or falling quickly?
Rationale #4: "the low-traffic routes that are safer for bikes are the kinds of roads with many stop signs." Problem: Low traffic routes are safer for cars, too. Sounds like we're changing the laws to encourage devaluing a number of roads for cars, in order to provide a biker's oasis.
Rationale #5: "he found that Sacramento had 30.5 percent more accidents per bike commuter and Bakersfield had 150 percent more". Problem: The improvement over Sacramento sounds like a very tiny improvement which could have been caused by any number of minor variables. Additionally, the HUGE GAPING DISPARITY between Sacramento and Bakersfield, both cities without these rule changes, clearly shows that the Idaho stop rules aren't causing these differences, and there's far too much uncontrolled variability to draw any conclusion about the Idaho method.
Where is the evidence... ANY evidence, that this is a positive change?
For every $6 cup of coffee you buy, you're KILLING a person. For every $300 TV you buy, you're killing dozens. Every month you pay for cable TV, you're killing a handful. Is that about right? Because lack of monetary handouts are the ONLY cause of all those deaths? Political instability doesn't have anything to do with it, and/or could be fixed with a small influx of cash?
I don't see how you can develop infinite anything in a finite time, but maybe I'm just dumb that way.
Some reason you didn't bother to read the entirety of my comment?
"They can offer incentives for competitors to build a parallel network... which is what Google Fiber depends on."
They can be, unless the processors are getting pipeline increases at the same time. But the opposite is absolutely, positively NOT true. ie. It doesn't REQUIRE clock speed increases to provide core performance improvements.
Instead of all your bullshit wordplay, all you need to do is look up some benchmarks. They'll prove your assertions wrong in 30 seconds flat.
Clock increases are not performance increases. Intel figured that out when the P4 got trounced, and now everyone is TRYING to keep clock speeds low, precisely because higher clocks waste energy for no benefit, and performance improvements are happening at a decent clip even while they lower clock speeds. I think AMD may have created their PR ratings system just for you, personally.
Higher clock speeds give you NOTHING. That's why it's called the MHz myth.
Hard to see something that's not there.
Funny how your claims are down to absolutely, positively NOTHING but name-calling, and you still think you HAVE an arguement.
Goodbye.
Yes, I foolishly do so, every once in a while...
A few short years, and a small head-start, countered by other military weakness. The main reason for the US to nuke the USSR was their overwhelming superiority in ground forces. That's completely and totally different than the scenario here, of two massively mismatched forces.
This is just the MHz myth in full force... The performance of a processor core can be improved DRAMATICALLY, even while REDUCING the clock frequency.
CPU speeds HAVEN'T stopped progressing. And furthermore, the physical limitations of silicon, and the approximate time-frame at which they could not longer be shrunk any further, have been known for quite a long time.
Not objecting to it isn't "endorsed or supported". You're suggesting that Comcast instructed NBC to sue on their behalf. All the other broadcasters without cable parent companies in the group suggest otherwise, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary. Bringing NBC's parentage into it is just muddying the waters for absolutely, positively no reason, other than pedantry.
The cable companies do have standing to sue, but it would be a very different lawsuit, indeed. They aren't suing right now. They didn't funnel some cash to some tiny broadcasters they could use as puppets. There's no reason to believe they will sue later. This is absolutely, purely a broadcaster lawsuit, not a cable companies vs Aereo lawsuit.
Umm... I must assume you don't know the definition of "edge case", since that statement makes no sense.
That's being extremely pedantic.
There was no cable company represented. One major broadcaster happens to have a cable company parent, but that cable company still wasn't represented. All parties are broadcasters.
All evidence indicates cable companies would benefit if Aereo wins this lawsuit, so that they can adopt the same model. With the downside of their own broadcast assets potentially being devalued being substantially lesser than their profits from the change.
If you'd like to provide ANY evidence that Comcast endorsed or supported NBC's part in the lawsuit, or evidence that they'd benefit from Aereo's failure more than they'd benefit from its success, feel free to do so. I'm all ears. Otherwise, I'll stick to my original, still correct, statement. And the GP's statement, that cable companies are going after Aereo, is still horrifically inaccurate.
They are sometimes prevented by legislation.
They are ALWAYS prevent by cost.
You can name some areas where there are legal restrictions in-place, but I can name some places where there are no such restrictions, and yet no competitors jump-in to the market. The economics just make it impractical.
That's one single edge case, which does not detract from the point in the slightest. No other cable companies were represented, and all other parties were broadcasters, so the situation is extremely clear.
I lack the requisite army to do so. Didn't we cover this 3 or 4 times already? Strange you keep failing to grasp this very, very simple point.
Your circular logic here hinges on the "need" part. In fact, just because they decided to hold a vote, does not in any way imply that they NEEDED to do so. It was a PR stunt, really. Lots of countries hold fake elections on a regular basis.
Nobody (other than you) said it was required. It's still your own circular logic gone haywire, here.
You're the one arguing against the very definition of the word sovereign. You just refuse to admit you're utterly wrong, because denying one simple fact helps you justify your own political opinions.
You haven't provided one single bit of counter evidence to a thing I've said, and instead just keep repeating the same baseless illogical nonsense, arguing that a sovereign leader isn't a sovereign leader unless YOU say he is. Meanwhile, I can list plenty of internationally recognized governments that were overthrown, where their new rulers-by-force continue to exist for the long-term, without the benefit of international recognition. There haven't been quite as many secessions.
Allowing cable companies to charge their subscribers a few dollars more is NOT a "tax" by any stretch of the imagination. What's more, it was for UPGRADES of their infrastructure, which already had to exist or they wouldn't have had subscribers to pay it in the first place. And finally, it's the government regulation that REQUIRED them get the government's PERMISSION to do it in the first place, so it's massively hypocritical to hold it up as evidence in support of far LESS government regulation. If they weren't regulated, they'd have been charging that and more, long, long before.
Nope. That Aereo lawsuit was filed by BROADCASTERS. Specifically: "CBS, Disney, Fox, and NBCUniversal" NOT by the cable operators.
Cable operators would like to see Aereo win, because they would love to be able to copy the tiny-antenna model, and deliver all the OTA channels to their customers OnDemand, without having to pay those broadcasters a penny for the right, unlike the truck-loads of money they have to pay right now.
So you're 0 for 2 with your claims and sources, yet still ranting that the government is bad, and advocating for deregulation, which will only serve to remove the last barrier to cable companies really completely raping their customers.
Everyone in said sovereign territory... They are under no illusions about who is in-charge. What anyone outside the territory believes is irrelevant.
Wrong. That's PRECISELY what I said, and what I meant.
You've said a lot of BS before, and I don't expect you to stop now. Name calling, directed at me, won't make your idiotic assertions any less inaccurate. Nor will all your silly games get you anywhere.
He presents NO EVIDENCE in support of his wild claims. Just a lot of baseless assertions and out of context quotations. An utterly mindless right-wing hit piece.
Meanwhile, there's an endless assortment of material out there with lots of examples and case studies of natural monopolies, and economies of scale. One starting point:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I assumed your question was rhetorical, because the answer is idiotically simple.
I can't declare my backyard a soverign country, because after some time, armed men would come and incarcerate or kill me.
If I had an army, that was fully capable of defending the territory from other armies that wanted to take it, then it would be soverign territory.
Nothing else matters. "Recognition" is political hot-air. You don't have to recognize my back yard as a country, but stepping foot in it will still get you subject to local laws, and/or shot for failure to comply.
No idea why you keep ranting about someone not being elected. Democracy is new. Kings and dictators have been around forever. Voting isn't a prerequisite for anything.
You just keep talking out of your ass. Lots of wishful thinking that has no bearing on the real world, just because you support one side, and want any excuse to dislike the other.
Except it's usually a light bulb for a control panel on an aircraft carrier.
The government gets decent prices on most things they buy. The lowest bidder wins, so there's always price pressure.
The whole article is about the fact that government contracts actually offer SMALLER margins than commercial/private contracts and sales.
Governments don't create cable monopolies. Once there's one network there, there's too little profit, and requires too big of capital investments, to be profitable. It's called a "natural monopoly" and being ignorant of the economic realities that cause it, will make your alternate universe political theory fail miserably in the real world.
Now then, governments have options to shift the power torwards competition.
They can offer incentives for competitors to build a parallel network... which is what Google Fiber depends on.
They can nationalize and/or regulate the natural monopolies, so that they can be forced to keep prices low and improvements coming, in exchange for their rights to run their lines through private and public property.
They can seperate the last-mile provider from the service provider, perhaps requring the former to be a non-profit.
But notice that the unregulated free market doing it's own thing isn't one of those scenarios. Not only does deregulation make for less competition and worse service, but without the government doing the eminent domain thing, and leasing space on power poles, no cable company would ever be able to cover a city profitably. There will ALWAYS be holdouts, and everybody will be looking to get an unfairly large chunk of fees from the big company that wants to bury cables on their land.
Yes, I'm probably misusing accepted terminology here. Finite time and finite planets, versus a non-finite space.
The USSR was very closely matched with the US. It's an utterly different scenario than I outlined.
And processor speed increases just slightly slowing for a few years is an insignificant blip. Other technologies are positioned to replace silicon in the coming decades. No singularity is needed. Progress has been exponential for centuries now, and there's no reason to believe it will stop.