We see abuses all around, especially in the form of EULAs and DMCA, but judges rarely call it for what it is, and in fact usually let the abuse stand. I can only hope this is the beginning of a positive trend.
Next, I can't wait for a court to rule a copyright law by Congress is an abuse of the Copyright Clause. Unfortunately, SCOTUS tucks its tail between its legs when it comes to this.
4 sockets * 8 cores * 8 threads = 256 threads. couple this with the memory IO and capacity of a TB or two.
That's 256 threads maximum, that doesn't mean the hardware exists to process 256 threads simultaneously (not 256 cores).
In any case, 128 KB cache per core, AMD gets 512 MB per core. 4 MB L3 cache, AMD gets 12 MB (10 effective). Does it look like the T4 will be able to keep its pipelines relatively fed? Those threads need instructions and data.
Memory I/O? 25.6 GB/s for the AMD. What's the T4 have? Memory capacity? 12 DIMMs per socket AMD, 16 for T4. Okay, a bit of an advantage. But the T4 uses DDR3 1066, while the AMD uses DDR3 1333.
How about heat? T4 uses a 40 nm process and puts out 240W max at (I guess) 3 GHz. AMD is on 32 nm and only puts out 140W at 2.5 GHz.
I agree with most, the T4 is a stop-gap that could keep many disappointed T3 customers from jumping ship to x86 or POWER, but it's not likely to convince anyone to switch to it from another architecture.
I think where we disagree is that I would support a Constitutional amendment to allow nationalized health care, and I will hazard a guess that you wouldn't.
I'm on the fence, mainly because amending the Constitution in this environment is dangerous. I would support it with a compromise. While we're giving the fed this (very narrowly-defined) power, we should have a clause that that restricts the fed's ability to otherwise abuse the Commerce Clause in general. This whole "effect upon commerce" reasoning has to go. If the stoner down the street wants to grow pot, or if I want to make a machine gun for myself, it should be none of the fed's business.
That is an argument I've heard from leftists quite often. They talk of descending to the lowest common denominator of state protections for the insured.
The Constitution set us up not to be a democracy, but to be a federal republic operating on democratic principles. With this came safeguards against the tyranny of the majority.
Far too many people forget both facts. There are things my wishful thinking would like to happen, but I know it cannot due to the nature of the country and the Constitution. I accept that. Too many don't, and think their wishful thinking overrides the Constitution.
I can get a quad-socket T4 with eight cores per. That's 32 cores in a system.
Or I can get a quad-socket Opteron system with 12 cores per. That's 48 cores in a system.
Even better, the CPUs at 2.2 GHz and mobo for the latter arrangement can be had for under $6,000. Add the same memory and hot-swap hard drives as a 4-socket T4 and you're talking under $13,000.
The problem is that 3 GHz T4 costs over $90,000. I understand all the other stuff that goes into their server, but I doubt it's worth a $77,000 premium.
Technically, anything forced from you under threat is theft or, more correctly, robbery. Taxing (at least income taxes) is forcing you to give the government money under threat of being put in jail. Businesses are forced to collect sales tax under threat of being fined and put out of business.
However, if you consider your relationship with the government to be consensual, and individual taxes as being consented to, then there is no theft. But in our current system the individual taxes really don't have much to do with the consent of the people.
The end goal of libertarianism is liberty -- the free and consual association of people. At a minimum you need enough government to guarantee that. But government can very quickly be the agent that restricts that freedom and the consensual nature of the association.
There's quite a bit of it besides that, like eliminating pre-existing conditions and many other things.
Currently health insurance companies are licensed and regulated in each state individually. In many cases the larger name (such as Blue Cross Blue Shield) is just a cooperation between multiple state-level insurance companies. IMHO, those proposals don't fly because insurance doesn't always constitute interstate commerce.
The simple solution is to allow insurance to go national. A company in New York can sell insurance anywhere in the US. That is absolutely interstate commerce, and the federal government could say, for example, if you want to sell inter-state, you must not discriminate on the basis of pre-existing conditions.
But the liberals don't want to lift the state-specific operation. The reasoning is that insurance companies will supposedly all move to the one state with the most lax insurance laws, and everybody will be subject to them. They forget the federal law aspect taking over as insurance becomes a national, inter-state operation.
Taxes are admitted to be required to maintain the basic level of services necessary to secure the rights of the people.
Libertarianism does have a large diversity of thought regarding the degree of the role of the state, but in no case does it look anything like Somalia. Where you see the rights of people being violated by those in power, you do not have libertarianism.
It is not authoritative, but an aid to interpretation. The Constitution is about granting limited powers to governments and securing the rights of the people. The founders thought this framework would "...promote the general Welfare..."
Note I said "governments." There are two levels of governments involved, and each is granted powers. The federal government's powers are limited and very narrowly specified. The states' powers are much broader and undefined, expected to have more to do with the day to day lives of the people.
Universal healthare could be accomplished under the Constitution, but it must be accomplished by individual states. A lot of people complain about "RomneyCare" in MA, but at least he did it within the powers of the state, according to the Constitution.
The federal government was given nothing close to the power it attempts to seize under ObamaCare. Its multiple conflicting arguments defending this have been absurd.
Libertarianism requires a framework of laws to protect the rights of all parties, and provide for legal recourse should the rights of one party be infringed by another.
Even at its worst, Somalia operated under a combination of religious law (Sharia), feudalism and anarchy.
Copyright and patent can be general. If you're first to invent (or, now, file) or first to write, you get it.
Trademark, not being based on constitutional authorization, is a lot more squirrely. It's about consumer protection, it's just business trade law, and it is extremely dependent on the individual case, that specific use and the market.
I haven't been able to read the whole rejection notice yet, so I don't know any specific reasons for the rejection. I'm just saying that in general "multi-touch" can't be rejected just for being descriptive.
I also don't think decision of it being generic should count the time after Apple applied for the trademark. Imagine a term wasn't in popular use for the specifc market you're in. You decide to use it with a product you release, and simultaneously apply for a trademark. Two years later, due to your product being successful, the term is in common use in your market, so the USPTO rejects your application.
That is total BS. By this logic, no highly popular product or feature could ever be trademarked.
You can't legally turn away smokers? Or is it just that nobody does it because pretty much nobody cares about smoking? Is the number of non-smokers who care about smoke so small that they can't support the existence of a non-smoking bar?
If almost nobody cares, and you lobby politicians to enact laws banning smoking in bars, isn't that a perfect example of the small minority imposing its will upon the majority? Not very democratic.
Government people who had worked on the tanker contract went to work for Boeing and gave them all sorts of proprietary Airbus bid information so that Boeing could win the contract. Boeing was fined, barred from bidding, people were fired, people went to jail.
You may be thinking of the Lockheed scandal around 2000 time relating to a bidding for an Air Force rocket contract. Boeing hired on a Lockheed employe who brought with him a lot of Lockheed proprietary data. Boeing fired him for show, having "discovered" he brought the documents with him, but they kept and read a lot more than they initially disclosed.
No Touch, One Touch and Multi-Touch are descriptive.
I think it is actually NoTouch and OneTouch
Notouch, onetouch, no touch, one touch, no-touch, and one-touch are all active trademarks.
Neither "no" nor "one" is a generally accepted prefix to a word,
"Uni-Touch" and "unitouch" were also active trademarks (since abandoned). "Duo-touch" is an active trademark, as are "micro-touch" and "autotouch." Uni, duo, micro and auto are generally accepted word prefixes.
You could still advertise your product as "backup with just one touch" and be okay, whereas if you said "backup with OneTouch", you'd be in trouble.
"Manipulate your screen using multiple touches" vs. "Manipulate your screen using Multi-Touch®"
Since we're there, treatment of press is considered our responsibility. Historically, press has been generally restricted in war zones. That's also a generally dangerous place, so when a reporter gets killed it goes on our tally.
They are also political. Mumia Abu Jamal is in prison because he murdered a police officer. However, since he also plays journalist they are on his side, and consider his incarceration to be an attack on journalism.
Can I stand up on a soapbox promoting the Nazi platform in Germany?
Can I deny the Holocaust in France?
Can I express a belief that homosexuality is shameful and to be condemned in Canada?
Can I criticize the government or its treatment of religions in China?
Can I make fun of the king in Thailand?
Can I preach Christianity on a street corner in Riyadh?
The First Amendment makes the equivalent of any of these possible in the US. You have to cross a line from expousing an ideology or opinion into actually committing crimes in order to be prosecuted.
Yes, abuses have happened, and they have shaped our laws to what they are today. Attempts to suppress street preachers and Nazis alike have been successfully thwarted. The only place I see the censors currently winning is the gag orders on Patriot Act record requests -- and that's being worked on.
Even our libel laws are better than the UK. Here, truth is an absolute defense.
Slashdot Mirror
We see abuses all around, especially in the form of EULAs and DMCA, but judges rarely call it for what it is, and in fact usually let the abuse stand. I can only hope this is the beginning of a positive trend.
Next, I can't wait for a court to rule a copyright law by Congress is an abuse of the Copyright Clause. Unfortunately, SCOTUS tucks its tail between its legs when it comes to this.
But the plane with the C4 hitting the Pentagon would have triggered an evacuation.
The AK-47s that he got from the FBI were to be used by fellow Muslims he planned to recruit to shoot people as they left the building.
Their word will not have to be taken. I'm sure the following quote of his is on tape:
"This is what we have to do. This is the righteous way . . . to terrorize enemies of Allah"
Maybe that's why governments are pushing global warming so hard.
These are the same guys who habitually appoint the worst violators of human rights on the planet to their human rights bodies.
He is quoted as saying the infidel must die for Allah.
That's 256 threads maximum, that doesn't mean the hardware exists to process 256 threads simultaneously (not 256 cores).
In any case, 128 KB cache per core, AMD gets 512 MB per core. 4 MB L3 cache, AMD gets 12 MB (10 effective). Does it look like the T4 will be able to keep its pipelines relatively fed? Those threads need instructions and data.
Memory I/O? 25.6 GB/s for the AMD. What's the T4 have? Memory capacity? 12 DIMMs per socket AMD, 16 for T4. Okay, a bit of an advantage. But the T4 uses DDR3 1066, while the AMD uses DDR3 1333.
How about heat? T4 uses a 40 nm process and puts out 240W max at (I guess) 3 GHz. AMD is on 32 nm and only puts out 140W at 2.5 GHz.
I agree with most, the T4 is a stop-gap that could keep many disappointed T3 customers from jumping ship to x86 or POWER, but it's not likely to convince anyone to switch to it from another architecture.
I'm on the fence, mainly because amending the Constitution in this environment is dangerous. I would support it with a compromise. While we're giving the fed this (very narrowly-defined) power, we should have a clause that that restricts the fed's ability to otherwise abuse the Commerce Clause in general. This whole "effect upon commerce" reasoning has to go. If the stoner down the street wants to grow pot, or if I want to make a machine gun for myself, it should be none of the fed's business.
That is an argument I've heard from leftists quite often. They talk of descending to the lowest common denominator of state protections for the insured.
I think we're pretty much in agreement on this.
The Constitution set us up not to be a democracy, but to be a federal republic operating on democratic principles. With this came safeguards against the tyranny of the majority.
Far too many people forget both facts. There are things my wishful thinking would like to happen, but I know it cannot due to the nature of the country and the Constitution. I accept that. Too many don't, and think their wishful thinking overrides the Constitution.
I can get a quad-socket T4 with eight cores per. That's 32 cores in a system.
Or I can get a quad-socket Opteron system with 12 cores per. That's 48 cores in a system.
Even better, the CPUs at 2.2 GHz and mobo for the latter arrangement can be had for under $6,000. Add the same memory and hot-swap hard drives as a 4-socket T4 and you're talking under $13,000.
The problem is that 3 GHz T4 costs over $90,000. I understand all the other stuff that goes into their server, but I doubt it's worth a $77,000 premium.
Technically, anything forced from you under threat is theft or, more correctly, robbery. Taxing (at least income taxes) is forcing you to give the government money under threat of being put in jail. Businesses are forced to collect sales tax under threat of being fined and put out of business.
However, if you consider your relationship with the government to be consensual, and individual taxes as being consented to, then there is no theft. But in our current system the individual taxes really don't have much to do with the consent of the people.
The end goal of libertarianism is liberty -- the free and consual association of people. At a minimum you need enough government to guarantee that. But government can very quickly be the agent that restricts that freedom and the consensual nature of the association.
Currently health insurance companies are licensed and regulated in each state individually. In many cases the larger name (such as Blue Cross Blue Shield) is just a cooperation between multiple state-level insurance companies. IMHO, those proposals don't fly because insurance doesn't always constitute interstate commerce.
The simple solution is to allow insurance to go national. A company in New York can sell insurance anywhere in the US. That is absolutely interstate commerce, and the federal government could say, for example, if you want to sell inter-state, you must not discriminate on the basis of pre-existing conditions.
But the liberals don't want to lift the state-specific operation. The reasoning is that insurance companies will supposedly all move to the one state with the most lax insurance laws, and everybody will be subject to them. They forget the federal law aspect taking over as insurance becomes a national, inter-state operation.
Those warlords build their own fiefdoms, with alliances and fealty going up and down. That part of the operation of Somalia is more like feudalism.
Taxes are admitted to be required to maintain the basic level of services necessary to secure the rights of the people.
Libertarianism does have a large diversity of thought regarding the degree of the role of the state, but in no case does it look anything like Somalia. Where you see the rights of people being violated by those in power, you do not have libertarianism.
It is not authoritative, but an aid to interpretation. The Constitution is about granting limited powers to governments and securing the rights of the people. The founders thought this framework would "...promote the general Welfare..."
Note I said "governments." There are two levels of governments involved, and each is granted powers. The federal government's powers are limited and very narrowly specified. The states' powers are much broader and undefined, expected to have more to do with the day to day lives of the people.
Universal healthare could be accomplished under the Constitution, but it must be accomplished by individual states. A lot of people complain about "RomneyCare" in MA, but at least he did it within the powers of the state, according to the Constitution.
The federal government was given nothing close to the power it attempts to seize under ObamaCare. Its multiple conflicting arguments defending this have been absurd.
Libertarianism requires a framework of laws to protect the rights of all parties, and provide for legal recourse should the rights of one party be infringed by another.
Even at its worst, Somalia operated under a combination of religious law (Sharia), feudalism and anarchy.
Copyright and patent can be general. If you're first to invent (or, now, file) or first to write, you get it.
Trademark, not being based on constitutional authorization, is a lot more squirrely. It's about consumer protection, it's just business trade law, and it is extremely dependent on the individual case, that specific use and the market.
I haven't been able to read the whole rejection notice yet, so I don't know any specific reasons for the rejection. I'm just saying that in general "multi-touch" can't be rejected just for being descriptive.
I also don't think decision of it being generic should count the time after Apple applied for the trademark. Imagine a term wasn't in popular use for the specifc market you're in. You decide to use it with a product you release, and simultaneously apply for a trademark. Two years later, due to your product being successful, the term is in common use in your market, so the USPTO rejects your application.
That is total BS. By this logic, no highly popular product or feature could ever be trademarked.
You can't legally turn away smokers? Or is it just that nobody does it because pretty much nobody cares about smoking? Is the number of non-smokers who care about smoke so small that they can't support the existence of a non-smoking bar?
If almost nobody cares, and you lobby politicians to enact laws banning smoking in bars, isn't that a perfect example of the small minority imposing its will upon the majority? Not very democratic.
Not an issue of freedom of speech, no matter how dumb I think the ban is.
Yes. The only real danger is over-zealous police and prosecutors making your life miserable, but they will eventually lose, you will eventually win.
Government people who had worked on the tanker contract went to work for Boeing and gave them all sorts of proprietary Airbus bid information so that Boeing could win the contract. Boeing was fined, barred from bidding, people were fired, people went to jail.
You may be thinking of the Lockheed scandal around 2000 time relating to a bidding for an Air Force rocket contract. Boeing hired on a Lockheed employe who brought with him a lot of Lockheed proprietary data. Boeing fired him for show, having "discovered" he brought the documents with him, but they kept and read a lot more than they initially disclosed.
No Touch, One Touch and Multi-Touch are descriptive.
Notouch, onetouch, no touch, one touch, no-touch, and one-touch are all active trademarks.
"Uni-Touch" and "unitouch" were also active trademarks (since abandoned). "Duo-touch" is an active trademark, as are "micro-touch" and "autotouch." Uni, duo, micro and auto are generally accepted word prefixes.
"Manipulate your screen using multiple touches" vs. "Manipulate your screen using Multi-Touch®"
Quite valid IMHO.
We have control by virtue that we invented it. We're just asking for status quo. THEY want to seize the power.
Since we're there, treatment of press is considered our responsibility. Historically, press has been generally restricted in war zones. That's also a generally dangerous place, so when a reporter gets killed it goes on our tally.
They are also political. Mumia Abu Jamal is in prison because he murdered a police officer. However, since he also plays journalist they are on his side, and consider his incarceration to be an attack on journalism.
Can I stand up on a soapbox promoting the Nazi platform in Germany?
Can I deny the Holocaust in France?
Can I express a belief that homosexuality is shameful and to be condemned in Canada?
Can I criticize the government or its treatment of religions in China?
Can I make fun of the king in Thailand?
Can I preach Christianity on a street corner in Riyadh?
The First Amendment makes the equivalent of any of these possible in the US. You have to cross a line from expousing an ideology or opinion into actually committing crimes in order to be prosecuted.
Yes, abuses have happened, and they have shaped our laws to what they are today. Attempts to suppress street preachers and Nazis alike have been successfully thwarted. The only place I see the censors currently winning is the gag orders on Patriot Act record requests -- and that's being worked on.
Even our libel laws are better than the UK. Here, truth is an absolute defense.