What you mean to say is that brain scans among those that are addicted to certain substances (and allegedly to certain activities) show some degree of correlation. And THAT IS ALL you can say about this.
There is no way you can point to a brain scan and say someone is addicted to one particular substance and to what degree they are addicted. If you looked at "before" and "after" scans of the same person, or compared the scan of a person to the scans of several other addicted and non-addicted persons, you *may* be able to hypothesize that the person may be addicted to *something*. But these are all heuristics, nothing more. Don't pretend that we know enough about neurology to measure a darn thing.
Ok, so maybe insurance companies want the speed limits to be lower. I'll humor you and incorporate that into his statement, but that still doesn't change his point. It only makes it stronger-- in order to hold people accountable for their actions, speed limits must be imposed.
So to clarify:
"When people drive, they are responsible for other people's lives and property. Because most people do not have the free cash sitting around to afford the massive damage their vehicle could potentially cause, they must buy insurance to cover the liability. Because most people would not be able to afford this liability insurance if speeds were unlimited, the government (perhaps in response to insurance company data or lobbying) imposes speed limits to bring down liability costs so that insurance is affordable enough so that most people can be financially held accountable for their actions. "
Unfortunately, that still means good drivers pay more for liability coverage they do not need, and the worst drivers are still a burden on society. It is not an ideal system, but this way is better than the possibility of no speed limits and a bunch of idiot teenagers killing my innocent children while they speed down my neighborhood street.
If your argument were true, then it still does not explain how the world's #1 PC seller (who designs and manufacturers their OWN motherboards) would be affected by AMD's motherboard incompetence?
So, why is Dell still Intel-only? Someone explain to me how Dell, who is #1 in the world and has chosen Intel, makes money selling PC's in a market where the rest of the PC vendors barely scrape by? If there were more money to be had by going with AMD, then why doesn't Dell choose that route and even further bury their competitors? If anyone had the leverage to stand up against Intel, wouldn't it be Dell?
Would someone here please make some sense of this?
in encouraging the socialites to migrate from the quiet libraries and into a huge "study hall" where talking is more acceptable. That way the engineers and other serious students can actually study in peace (and away from those awkward social situations)
That way, the real libraries can be more of what people expect from a library. It's not like the other libraries don't have wifi, ethernet, and power outlets.
The only thing that is different is the UGL loses the books that people didn't go there to read in the first place.
Of course, Transmeta's already GOT the technology to cut leakage by tremendous amounts... Given that they are no longer a direct competitor of Intel's
Yeah, they have it. Their approach is a bit like this:
0) Preach, preach, preach about performance/watt 1) IPO 2) Deliver low power 3) Performance sucks a big donkey (i.e. fail to deliver) 4) Fail to hit your market and go out of business (i.e. no longer a direct competitor of Intel)
...it would make some sense if Intel simply licensed Transmeta's LongRun2 tech.
LongRun2???? You mean pay money for something that does not exist and is not proven and is already a generation behind the competition. That would be suicide.
But what do I know?
Precisely. Have a seat please. The adults are talking.
It's not entirely impossible that some day a court might rule that income tax will have to be charged on game money for the simple reason that there is a market for it - just as if it was money earned in another country.
Would this income tax be paid in this game money as well? And if so, what the hell would the government do with it... provide entitlement programs to our hobo population and fight a game war on terrorism in Iraq?
When they first came out, the phones were the size of a cinder block and cost a few dollars per minute when the celular industry was already at small form-factor and 20 cents/minute rate and going towards semi-flat rate plans that we see today. Of course they went belly-up about a year after launch, even at the rise of the dot-com frenzy.
We have very close and intensive contacts with our American colleagues not to know about such activities on their side. Even if we are not involved in joint scientific activities, we still exchange information. This is why I am absolutely sure that nothing like this did ever take place on board [the] space shuttle. Neither did we, the Russians, ever conduct sex experiments in flights.
The article you linked was very interesting. Kudos to you for posting it. However, according to the arcticle, he may yet get to be the first.
Airlines rent space at airports, and if they don't want you there because your a belligerent ass, then they have the right to call the cops to kick you out.
Not true... the airports belong to the city or government that provides them to the airlines. The airlines do not run the show unless they are aware of a security threat involving their planes or facilities. And even then, the federal security is responsible for assessing the threat level.
You must understand that airlines are heavily regulated by FAA and other government agencies. The airlines are not typical retailers and unlike retailers, they do NOT have the right to refuse service to just anyone. There are offices such as the FAA Office of Civil Rights etc which define relevany policy.
As far as free speech goes, if you RTFA, i.e his full recount of the scenario, you would realize that the agent did mislead RMS, and it is reasonable for him to feel misled. If there were a policy to detain those who did not send their shoes through the machine, they should tell him. If there were a "mandatory penalty" for not following the guard's "recommendation" then it really is not a recommendation, is it? Neither he nor I, nor anyone else for that matter, should have to experience such an absurd policy. I am sure you'll agree, airport security is and always has been a complete disaster.
On a similar note, unless he was unruly or inciting a riot or causing a disturbance (no, simply causing people to notice him does not count) it will be difficult for the airport security to claim his behavior was a security threat.
Nobody had to listen to what he was saying, but it was obvious that they did not want him to be heard by anyone. They should not have the right to take away his ability to peacefully speak -- this is important in all aspects of our life, particularly in areas such as aviation where the government rules with a heavy hand -- however nobody has to listen to him.
And you don't have to like him either. But just because you don't, you shouldn't be so narrowminded as to deny his (i.e. your) right to speak out against the government. Why would you give that up -- it is practically the *only* mechanism you have to influence policy!
It hardly shifts the burden of proof such that all deleted documents must now be proven to contain no incriminating data. What school of law did you attend again?
I'm not so sure it serves the interests of their client
How can you even think this PR free-for-all isn't serving their client's interest? This whole thing is all about publicity. Think about it... First the court case which has doubious legal standing at best. The complaint was a hand-crafted PR piece. Did you read it? The 1-page ads in the papers the next day? The constant daily spewage of press releases since then? Deterrence purposes my ass... this is purely PR motivated.
Believe what you want about my BS. I am quite comfortable that if Dell and HP both wanted 10K units of the high-end stuff that one of them would be waiting quite some time. Make them 20K each, or more, and you've definitely got capacity problems.
Turions suck and you know it. They are nowhere near Centrinos, expecially with the latest gen 2.0-2.4 GHz parts Intel is shipping. And they run almost as hot as a desktop. Yeah, the vendors are sabotaging AMD by deliberately making the mobos suck... that makes a lot of sense.
And AMD is barely on the 90nm bandwagon while Intel is migrating to 65nm. And AMD has "stayed even... or beat them for the last 5 years"??? I may be on weed, but you, my friend are on crack.
I am looking at the 50 page complaint that AMD filed.
Please tell me their logic is valid... They claim that Intel is hurting the market with "monopoly prices". They assert Dell is exclusively Intel (and noone will argue with that) I now refer to charts on p.14.
Dell is exclusively Intel. Intel has a monopoly and artificially inflates prices. Dell has is locked to Intel yet has the lowest prices and most compelling products (to the average consumer) and is consequently dominating the market with incredible margins (for the PC world). If Dell, the whore of this PC world, thought it could make money by promising "a free hooker with every PC", believe me they would do it. They would definitely change to AMD if there were a business reason to do it. It has nothing to do with an edge in desktop benchmark numbers.
How can they argue with a straight face that Intel's pricing is monopolistic? Is it too high? If so, then why aren't AMD-only vendors picking up steam? Why can't AMD undercut Intel? Nothing is stopping Toshiba or Sony from abandoning Intel for AMD, except that it would be suicide to try to compete without having an Intel CPU, and it would be suicide to go with such flaky delivery that AMD provides, particularly with their high-end stuff.
There are many reasons, mostly non-technical, why AMD still loses in the market. Now, they abuse our courts in what should be a criminal way in order to reclaim market share. You apparently don't see a problem with this. You apparently think AMD and their $4 billion/year revenue is the "little guy" who is being oppressed by "the man". The fact of the matter is they are miserably managed by a series of whiners who fail to understand why they continue to lose to a smarter, better opponent.
I read the entire PDF, and quite frankly, I think the majority of it is absurd. It reads like a longass commercial. I am convinced it is mostly baseless, mostly exxageration, and mostly going to be dismissed in court. I am convinced AMD will not win this, and it is not because Intel is overwhelmingly powerful. It is because it is a sob story of the monumental money pit that is AMD.
Yeah, there is a reason why AMD has a tiny amount of revenue... They sell more of their product to the lower end of the marketplace. I'm not sure where you are going though: revenue is not a factor of margins, it is a factor of average-selling-price times sales volume. If your volumes are at 10%, but your revenue is 1/2 that, then your their ASP is 1/2 Intel's ASP. Simple math.
I don't know about the whole "monopoly rates" accusation either... How do you define "monopoly rates"? If these rates are so high, why wouldn't the vendor go AMD all the way?
And why the hell can't an AMD-exclusive vendor succeed anyway? When someone can sufficiently answer this question, maybe I'll feel a bit more sympathy for your argument and for AMD.
The answers I've heard are: AMD cannot deliver in volume, particularly their high-end stuff. AMD is too unpredictable with their schedules. AMD has too high field failure rates. AMD does not deliver chipsets. Good AMD motherboards are too pricey. AMD mobile CPUs suck power and are inferior overall. Yes, they win the price/performance curve for most of their CPUs. And yes, they win over half of the benchmarks for their desktop CPUs which are very expensive. And they can't provide the same volume discounts because their margins are too small because they are 1-2 years behind Intel in process technology/geometry.
But will Hector present the complete picture? Hahaha, hell no, his excuse: "hey look at me! The only reason Apple passed on us is because Intel strongarmed them!" Give me a freaking break. This is a cheap PR move. The fact that they are abusing the courts for PR is despicable.
Sure, mod me down too... (flamebait, offtopic, overrated, whatever).
But unless you are bitter b/c you work for AMD, or you own an AMD cpu, or you are an AMD stockholder, etc, then how the hell can you mod the parent as flamebait???
There are many analysts that agree that AMD is just using this opportunity as the least expensive path to publicity. There is a likely chance that all of you "uneducated masses" are being duped. LOL. If so, then what a monumental misuse of the courts and abuse of our capitalism!
Wasn't that said by... Jen-Hsun Huang, the Nvidia CEO? I think he was interviewed in Wired, and on the cover it said Nvidia would be the "Intel killer". It's no surprise that the Nvidia CEO would say things that inspire such headlines.
But wasn't that several years ago, just before Intel increased their market share to well over half the market by selling Intel integrated graphics?
I am not sure that paying their customers is truly a demonstration of anti-competitive behavior.
Intel has a large market share, but what they do not have is a monopoly. From what I can tell, Intel has taken measures to ensure that AMD is always a viable alternative, therefore antitrust laws do not comply.
If they try to play hardball with Dell, Dell always has the power to say, "screw you Intel, we will not do any business with you whatsoever". They can choose AMD. If Intel is not selling to Dell below cost, and they are not abusing a monopoly status that they don't have.
Intel has much, much better margins than AMD due to their significant process technology advantages and a more focused feature list (i.e. they are willing to take a few percent performance hit to save lots of $$ and yield -- something that underdog AMD cannot afford to do). Taking advantage of these margins to preserve their market share is exactly what a free market is. If they were prevented from doing this, then what would be the point of innovation, of cost reduction, and of technology shrinks, etc???
Hah! I'm not an Intel analyst, but even I could come up with something like this if I din't have to actually say how it works:P
I'm very confused and unsure what you mean by this. Here are some of my thoughts after reading it:
1) You think that Intel analysts are the ones who "come up with something like this". This is definitely a problem -- it is generally Intel employees (i.e. smart engineers who research and develop, not mediocre marketing people) who would come up with ideas and create proofs of concept to demonstrate them.
2) You don't understand that a "Proof of Concept" is a milestone on the way to a complete product. A POC demonstrates a capability that you did not previously have and that you had doubts about. These milestones are required by senior management to continue funding a product. Additionally, it may or may not have been meant to demonstrate a capability to the public or at least Intel sales targets to increase their confidence in Intel's ability to take wireless networking to the next stage.
3) You think that a corporation is "hiding" something from you if they don't contact you personally to give you a demonstration. Note this is not a revolutionary concept to combine multiple transceivers on the same piece of silicon, and there are some (but probably not too many) others with this capability. Consequently, it should not be necessary for them to give a demo just to "prove it to you".
4) You think companies should have to "say how it works" in order for the general public to accept that they are capable of implementing something. First of all, the general public does not have the ability to comprehend most of what is implemented in silicon, much less a piece of analog wireless transceiver. Heck, most people in the semiconductor industry haven't a clue about either analog design or digital communications. So what makes you think "saying how it works" would help their case? Second, you must not be aware of the concepts of Intellectual Property and competitive advandage. Why would someone want to disclose more information than they need to disclose? It would potentially disclose secrets or defeat a competitive advantage they have over the competition.
5) You are giving yourself too much credit. I highly doubt that even you could come up with something like this. Like I said above, there aren't too many who can do this, and to date, apparently even Intel could not.
That is the most flawed reasoning. Individual rights (i.e. civil rights, personal liberty, etc) is so very different from handouts, social programs, and inclusive "otherwise fall through cracks" crap.
Most libertarians associate with the republican party as the lesser of the two evils of the major parties. One notable exception is in the abortion scene. IMHO, the dems jump on this issue mostly b/c they consider it an achilles heel of the religious right in terms of popular support.
And fair use generally falls more in the civil rights camp than in the handout camp, or as the previous poster put, in the robin hood camp.
But, as you say, the corporate and PAC dollar is far more interesting to the politician than is the average citizen, so by any measure, a politician who cares about fair use is a rarity.
Slashdot Mirror
Measurable???? How so?
What you mean to say is that brain scans among those that are addicted to certain substances (and allegedly to certain activities) show some degree of correlation. And THAT IS ALL you can say about this.
There is no way you can point to a brain scan and say someone is addicted to one particular substance and to what degree they are addicted. If you looked at "before" and "after" scans of the same person, or compared the scan of a person to the scans of several other addicted and non-addicted persons, you *may* be able to hypothesize that the person may be addicted to *something*. But these are all heuristics, nothing more. Don't pretend that we know enough about neurology to measure a darn thing.
Step 5: Plug the analog hole. So that you can't "cache" an image of the message on your camera.
Ok, so maybe insurance companies want the speed limits to be lower. I'll humor you and incorporate that into his statement, but that still doesn't change his point. It only makes it stronger-- in order to hold people accountable for their actions, speed limits must be imposed.
So to clarify:
"When people drive, they are responsible for other people's lives and property. Because most people do not have the free cash sitting around to afford the massive damage their vehicle could potentially cause, they must buy insurance to cover the liability. Because most people would not be able to afford this liability insurance if speeds were unlimited, the government (perhaps in response to insurance company data or lobbying) imposes speed limits to bring down liability costs so that insurance is affordable enough so that most people can be financially held accountable for their actions. "
Unfortunately, that still means good drivers pay more for liability coverage they do not need, and the worst drivers are still a burden on society. It is not an ideal system, but this way is better than the possibility of no speed limits and a bunch of idiot teenagers killing my innocent children while they speed down my neighborhood street.
And this is relevant to the AMD vs. Intel balance in what way???
If your argument were true, then it still does not explain how the world's #1 PC seller (who designs and manufacturers their OWN motherboards) would be affected by AMD's motherboard incompetence?
So, why is Dell still Intel-only? Someone explain to me how Dell, who is #1 in the world and has chosen Intel, makes money selling PC's in a market where the rest of the PC vendors barely scrape by? If there were more money to be had by going with AMD, then why doesn't Dell choose that route and even further bury their competitors? If anyone had the leverage to stand up against Intel, wouldn't it be Dell?
Would someone here please make some sense of this?
in encouraging the socialites to migrate from the quiet libraries and into a huge "study hall" where talking is more acceptable. That way the engineers and other serious students can actually study in peace (and away from those awkward social situations)
That way, the real libraries can be more of what people expect from a library. It's not like the other libraries don't have wifi, ethernet, and power outlets.
The only thing that is different is the UGL loses the books that people didn't go there to read in the first place.
Of course, Transmeta's already GOT the technology to cut leakage by tremendous amounts... Given that they are no longer a direct competitor of Intel's
Yeah, they have it. Their approach is a bit like this:
0) Preach, preach, preach about performance/watt
1) IPO
2) Deliver low power
3) Performance sucks a big donkey (i.e. fail to deliver)
4) Fail to hit your market and go out of business (i.e. no longer a direct competitor of Intel)
LongRun2???? You mean pay money for something that does not exist and is not proven and is already a generation behind the competition. That would be suicide.
But what do I know?
Precisely. Have a seat please. The adults are talking.
Would this income tax be paid in this game money as well? And if so, what the hell would the government do with it... provide entitlement programs to our hobo population and fight a game war on terrorism in Iraq?
When they first came out, the phones were the size of a cinder block and cost a few dollars per minute when the celular industry was already at small form-factor and 20 cents/minute rate and going towards semi-flat rate plans that we see today. Of course they went belly-up about a year after launch, even at the rise of the dot-com frenzy.
... but at least you can turn your cell phone off and it's not illegal to do so.
Here is the key quote:
We have very close and intensive contacts with our American colleagues not to know about such activities on their side. Even if we are not involved in joint scientific activities, we still exchange information. This is why I am absolutely sure that nothing like this did ever take place on board [the] space shuttle. Neither did we, the Russians, ever conduct sex experiments in flights.
The article you linked was very interesting. Kudos to you for posting it. However, according to the arcticle, he may yet get to be the first.
Airlines rent space at airports, and if they don't want you there because your a belligerent ass, then they have the right to call the cops to kick you out.
Not true... the airports belong to the city or government that provides them to the airlines. The airlines do not run the show unless they are aware of a security threat involving their planes or facilities. And even then, the federal security is responsible for assessing the threat level.
You must understand that airlines are heavily regulated by FAA and other government agencies. The airlines are not typical retailers and unlike retailers, they do NOT have the right to refuse service to just anyone. There are offices such as the FAA Office of Civil Rights etc which define relevany policy.
As far as free speech goes, if you RTFA, i.e his full recount of the scenario, you would realize that the agent did mislead RMS, and it is reasonable for him to feel misled. If there were a policy to detain those who did not send their shoes through the machine, they should tell him. If there were a "mandatory penalty" for not following the guard's "recommendation" then it really is not a recommendation, is it? Neither he nor I, nor anyone else for that matter, should have to experience such an absurd policy. I am sure you'll agree, airport security is and always has been a complete disaster.
On a similar note, unless he was unruly or inciting a riot or causing a disturbance (no, simply causing people to notice him does not count) it will be difficult for the airport security to claim his behavior was a security threat.
Nobody had to listen to what he was saying, but it was obvious that they did not want him to be heard by anyone. They should not have the right to take away his ability to peacefully speak -- this is important in all aspects of our life, particularly in areas such as aviation where the government rules with a heavy hand -- however nobody has to listen to him.
And you don't have to like him either. But just because you don't, you shouldn't be so narrowminded as to deny his (i.e. your) right to speak out against the government. Why would you give that up -- it is practically the *only* mechanism you have to influence policy!
It hardly shifts the burden of proof such that all deleted documents must now be proven to contain no incriminating data. What school of law did you attend again?
I'm not so sure it serves the interests of their client
How can you even think this PR free-for-all isn't serving their client's interest? This whole thing is all about publicity. Think about it... First the court case which has doubious legal standing at best. The complaint was a hand-crafted PR piece. Did you read it? The 1-page ads in the papers the next day? The constant daily spewage of press releases since then? Deterrence purposes my ass... this is purely PR motivated.
Believe what you want about my BS. I am quite comfortable that if Dell and HP both wanted 10K units of the high-end stuff that one of them would be waiting quite some time. Make them 20K each, or more, and you've definitely got capacity problems.
Turions suck and you know it. They are nowhere near Centrinos, expecially with the latest gen 2.0-2.4 GHz parts Intel is shipping. And they run almost as hot as a desktop. Yeah, the vendors are sabotaging AMD by deliberately making the mobos suck... that makes a lot of sense.
And AMD is barely on the 90nm bandwagon while Intel is migrating to 65nm. And AMD has "stayed even... or beat them for the last 5 years"??? I may be on weed, but you, my friend are on crack.
I am looking at the 50 page complaint that AMD filed.
Please tell me their logic is valid...
They claim that Intel is hurting the market with "monopoly prices". They assert Dell is exclusively Intel (and noone will argue with that) I now refer to charts on p.14.
Dell is exclusively Intel. Intel has a monopoly and artificially inflates prices. Dell has is locked to Intel yet has the lowest prices and most compelling products (to the average consumer) and is consequently dominating the market with incredible margins (for the PC world). If Dell, the whore of this PC world, thought it could make money by promising "a free hooker with every PC", believe me they would do it. They would definitely change to AMD if there were a business reason to do it. It has nothing to do with an edge in desktop benchmark numbers.
How can they argue with a straight face that Intel's pricing is monopolistic? Is it too high? If so, then why aren't AMD-only vendors picking up steam? Why can't AMD undercut Intel? Nothing is stopping Toshiba or Sony from abandoning Intel for AMD, except that it would be suicide to try to compete without having an Intel CPU, and it would be suicide to go with such flaky delivery that AMD provides, particularly with their high-end stuff.
There are many reasons, mostly non-technical, why AMD still loses in the market. Now, they abuse our courts in what should be a criminal way in order to reclaim market share. You apparently don't see a problem with this. You apparently think AMD and their $4 billion/year revenue is the "little guy" who is being oppressed by "the man". The fact of the matter is they are miserably managed by a series of whiners who fail to understand why they continue to lose to a smarter, better opponent.
I read the entire PDF, and quite frankly, I think the majority of it is absurd. It reads like a longass commercial. I am convinced it is mostly baseless, mostly exxageration, and mostly going to be dismissed in court. I am convinced AMD will not win this, and it is not because Intel is overwhelmingly powerful. It is because it is a sob story of the monumental money pit that is AMD.
Yeah, there is a reason why AMD has a tiny amount of revenue... They sell more of their product to the lower end of the marketplace. I'm not sure where you are going though: revenue is not a factor of margins, it is a factor of average-selling-price times sales volume. If your volumes are at 10%, but your revenue is 1/2 that, then your their ASP is 1/2 Intel's ASP. Simple math.
I don't know about the whole "monopoly rates" accusation either... How do you define "monopoly rates"? If these rates are so high, why wouldn't the vendor go AMD all the way?
And why the hell can't an AMD-exclusive vendor succeed anyway? When someone can sufficiently answer this question, maybe I'll feel a bit more sympathy for your argument and for AMD.
The answers I've heard are: AMD cannot deliver in volume, particularly their high-end stuff. AMD is too unpredictable with their schedules. AMD has too high field failure rates. AMD does not deliver chipsets. Good AMD motherboards are too pricey. AMD mobile CPUs suck power and are inferior overall. Yes, they win the price/performance curve for most of their CPUs. And yes, they win over half of the benchmarks for their desktop CPUs which are very expensive. And they can't provide the same volume discounts because their margins are too small because they are 1-2 years behind Intel in process technology/geometry.
But will Hector present the complete picture? Hahaha, hell no, his excuse: "hey look at me! The only reason Apple passed on us is because Intel strongarmed them!" Give me a freaking break. This is a cheap PR move. The fact that they are abusing the courts for PR is despicable.
Sure, mod me down too... (flamebait, offtopic, overrated, whatever).
But unless you are bitter b/c you work for AMD, or you own an AMD cpu, or you are an AMD stockholder, etc, then how the hell can you mod the parent as flamebait???
There are many analysts that agree that AMD is just using this opportunity as the least expensive path to publicity. There is a likely chance that all of you "uneducated masses" are being duped. LOL. If so, then what a monumental misuse of the courts and abuse of our capitalism!
Wasn't that said by... Jen-Hsun Huang, the Nvidia CEO? I think he was interviewed in Wired, and on the cover it said Nvidia would be the "Intel killer". It's no surprise that the Nvidia CEO would say things that inspire such headlines.
But wasn't that several years ago, just before Intel increased their market share to well over half the market by selling Intel integrated graphics?
I am not sure that paying their customers is truly a demonstration of anti-competitive behavior.
Intel has a large market share, but what they do not have is a monopoly. From what I can tell, Intel has taken measures to ensure that AMD is always a viable alternative, therefore antitrust laws do not comply.
If they try to play hardball with Dell, Dell always has the power to say, "screw you Intel, we will not do any business with you whatsoever". They can choose AMD. If Intel is not selling to Dell below cost, and they are not abusing a monopoly status that they don't have.
Intel has much, much better margins than AMD due to their significant process technology advantages and a more focused feature list (i.e. they are willing to take a few percent performance hit to save lots of $$ and yield -- something that underdog AMD cannot afford to do). Taking advantage of these margins to preserve their market share is exactly what a free market is. If they were prevented from doing this, then what would be the point of innovation, of cost reduction, and of technology shrinks, etc???
the second core would just be idle and convert electricity into heat
You mean I they don't just turn off its power when it's idle???
Wow... when did corporate welfare become a social program? And how can I sign up for it??
Hah! I'm not an Intel analyst, but even I could come up with something like this if I din't have to actually say how it works :P
I'm very confused and unsure what you mean by this. Here are some of my thoughts after reading it:
1) You think that Intel analysts are the ones who "come up with something like this". This is definitely a problem -- it is generally Intel employees (i.e. smart engineers who research and develop, not mediocre marketing people) who would come up with ideas and create proofs of concept to demonstrate them.
2) You don't understand that a "Proof of Concept" is a milestone on the way to a complete product. A POC demonstrates a capability that you did not previously have and that you had doubts about. These milestones are required by senior management to continue funding a product. Additionally, it may or may not have been meant to demonstrate a capability to the public or at least Intel sales targets to increase their confidence in Intel's ability to take wireless networking to the next stage.
3) You think that a corporation is "hiding" something from you if they don't contact you personally to give you a demonstration. Note this is not a revolutionary concept to combine multiple transceivers on the same piece of silicon, and there are some (but probably not too many) others with this capability. Consequently, it should not be necessary for them to give a demo just to "prove it to you".
4) You think companies should have to "say how it works" in order for the general public to accept that they are capable of implementing something. First of all, the general public does not have the ability to comprehend most of what is implemented in silicon, much less a piece of analog wireless transceiver. Heck, most people in the semiconductor industry haven't a clue about either analog design or digital communications. So what makes you think "saying how it works" would help their case? Second, you must not be aware of the concepts of Intellectual Property and competitive advandage. Why would someone want to disclose more information than they need to disclose? It would potentially disclose secrets or defeat a competitive advantage they have over the competition.
5) You are giving yourself too much credit. I highly doubt that even you could come up with something like this. Like I said above, there aren't too many who can do this, and to date, apparently even Intel could not.
Ya... I'm gonna sift through hundreds of pages of govt docs because your lame ass is being vague... that's gonna happen.
Duh...Learn to cite.
That is the most flawed reasoning. Individual rights (i.e. civil rights, personal liberty, etc) is so very different from handouts, social programs, and inclusive "otherwise fall through cracks" crap.
Most libertarians associate with the republican party as the lesser of the two evils of the major parties. One notable exception is in the abortion scene. IMHO, the dems jump on this issue mostly b/c they consider it an achilles heel of the religious right in terms of popular support.
And fair use generally falls more in the civil rights camp than in the handout camp, or as the previous poster put, in the robin hood camp.
But, as you say, the corporate and PAC dollar is far more interesting to the politician than is the average citizen, so by any measure, a politician who cares about fair use is a rarity.