That's a good point. But I would say that he is out all the time and effort that he has donated to a non-profit cause for which he feels strongly. Given the professional could have charged a relatively large sum of money as a consultant, I would say the damages could be quite high.
Hey! And I can think of an equally absurd scenario:
defense: "Your Honor, my client would like to enter a plea of "non guilty" to the charge of shoplifting made by the retail store Best Buy. It seems that although the retailer has given my client permission to enter their establishment and peruse their DVD selection, they were unaware that that the movie "Free Willy" has inadvertantly been made free by its own title. In conclusion, my client cannot possibly be charged for shoplifting as he has not taking anything of value."
judge: "You are correct... case dismissed."
plaintiff: "I object. I put a price tag on the item, thereby assigning a monetary value to the product."
defense: "The meaning of 'free' as applied to a piece of merchandise is well established as meaning without cost..." et cetera, et cetera....
All true, but most people imagine that people who break the GPL will be in violation of the GPL
I think the misunderstanding centers on semantics.
If you distribute GPLd material under circumstances disallowed by the GPL, then you would be violating the GPL agreement that you inherently agreed to follow when you redistributed the material.
Under copyright law, the owner of the copyright is able to decide how the material is distributed. The FSF offers you permission to modify and redistribute only if you accept their agreement. If you modify and redistribute under other terms, you have broken the agreement, i.e. violated the GPL.
So, it follows that if you are in violation of the GPL, then you are in violation of copyright law. The copyright owner may then proceed take you to court since you have violated copyright law by violating the boundaries you accepted by agreement (the GPL).
many people seem to think that people who violate the GPL will end up having to release the source code to their products in some way
No, I would guess that is merely one term under which the FSF will settle out of court. The other is possibly to pay damages or a portion of revenue, although I don't think we've seen this before. If taken to court, the outcome may very well call for monetary damages AND for the developer to cease selling the software -- an outcome that developers would definitely not like to see.
may be hard to invoke monetary damages with most GPL'ed code
I'm sure it would be plenty easy to assign monetary damages to stolen software. You would need to be creative. For example, you could assert that the development of said software would take a certain amount of person-hours. The person-hours would be a fraction of the whole amount of development cost. Perhaps this fraction could be applied to the total potential revenue to compute the monetary damages. If the source weren't of value (for this to apply, it would have to be free to develop the code or it would have to not be worth anything to a potential user), the developer would not have stolen it in the first place.
It may be so easy to assign monetary damage that nobody has thought to fight FSF in court for fear of the consequences if they were to lose.
I'd really like to see the link to this article. I'd be willing to bet that this rogue reporter who has a degree in journalism (i.e. not telecommunication) is completely speculating about the cause. Mobile phones have specific channels that are not reused for other forms of radio.
On the other hand, there are GMRS and other 2-way radios that occupy 400-something MHz range that you might be confusing the issue with. For example I heard a while back that that there are 2-way Motorola radios at the store right now that require an FCC license to operate, but the average unlicenced users are buying these and abusing the airwaves so that the bands are becoming useless for emergency use.
But this has nothing to do with interference but is more a case of overloading the band with users that have no idea what is going on. Emergency channels are to be used sparingly, but some clueless people use these channels to socialize. When used as the FCC intended, this wouldn't be a problem. If the FCC actually cared, they would have required that customers show a license before being able to purchase a product.
Yeah, that's a good point. For example, when several devices are sharing the amateur 900MHz band, there can be a lot of information energy (as opposed to noise energy) spread over the same frequency band. Eventually, the signal to noise ratio will indeed creep up high enough to cause significant bit error that cannot be corrected in channel decode.
The device will be able to tell you that the signal integrity is not good simply by comparing the number of bit errors that it is correcting to the maximum number of bit errors the particular encoding scheme can tolerate. The FCC prescribes a maximum power level for a signal, so at some point, a device will no longer be able to crank up the signal strength to compensate.
You are right, I didn't think that's what the guy was talking about in general, but what you are saying is definitely a concern in these unlicensed bands. If you are a business or person that is relying on amateur band performance, well, that could be a problem.
The reason that the spectrum is partitioned off is precisely why we won't have interference. Each band is regulated and has either sufficient guard band so that the energy "leakage" into adjacent bands is minimal or simply has a prescribed permissable leakage that the adjacent band can tolerate.
Digital communication is inherently immune to noise caused by several types of interference. Many channel encoding schemes exist precisely to deal with interference that is typical of the frequency range of the band, doppler effects, echoes, etc. Yes, there is a statistically small amount of bit error you will receive given a statistically small amount of noise energy present in the band, but there is no recent trend of rising noise energy in any given frequency band.
So don't worry, your phone, tv, AM/FM radio, talkabout, bluetooth device, etc will not eventually stop working due to the noise level passing some magic threshold.
You try something like that, and what you end up with may be a nice, squeaky-clean architecture whose implementation have no customers because every single one of their old software and cards don't work on their new computer.
That's why it's been so tough to break the Intel/AMD cycle.
If Intel tried something like that, then Intel would lose tons of market share and then AMD would capitalize on it. And it would totally segment the marketplace, which is desirable to nobody.
If AMD tried something like that, almost nobody would buy it and AMD would go bankrupt trying it.
It has to be done in incremental fashion. It's safer for the consumer that way, and that is what the typical consumer has historically wanted.
You know, and argument is much more effective without personal attacks. Nobody, and I mean nobody is going to buy your agenda if you start insulting them. I have given no indication that I sway in either direction, so don't start condemning my views. All I say is I don't agree with your interpretations of the Bill of Rights and the freedoms to which we are granted by our government.
Jesus also said, in John 8:7, "Let he among you who is without sin cast the first stone." Be careful... the Bible is not a tool that only applies when it is convenient for your argument. I won't even go into that Genesis story here -- I'm sure you know what I'm talking about.
Regardless, as you said, this is not a religious issue but a moral issue. Exclusion does not imply hatred. The agenda of the Boy Scouts to include "morally straight" issues likely was deliberately vague. Besides, do you expect them to list out every single possible non-"morally straight" infraction in their rulebook? Does their rulebook say they can't stab or shoot each other. Does it say they can't call each other names? Does it say they can't bring a skin mag to a campout? Does it say they can't talk about raping young girls? Probably not, but I think they would discipline any of those behaviors and ban them if they persist. That doesn't mean they hate the scout they banned, it simply means they don't approve of the behavior and therefore that behavior is not welcome.
Obviously you have no idea who was Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. (A quick internet search would tell you he was a very successful Supreme Court Justice in the early 1800s. He was a powerful defendant of our personal liberties.) Which is fine -- I guess I didn't expect you to. Still, your use of the Bill of Rights seems about as adept as your use of the Bible. Quote them when they serve your purposes, bash them when they don't.
Ideally, you want your sexual orientation freedom to come before their creed freedoms. Somehow you expect the word "creed" to be trumped by your orientation. You can't have one without the other, you know.
Even if someday you have your "Sexual orientation" clause amended into the constitution, the Boy Scouts will still have their 1st amendment rights to ban people on the basis that they believe homosexuality to be morally unstraight. However, that will be a long day off since it would be difficult to add that to the constitution without disturbing too many people who are entitled to their religious freedom, which I don't have to tell you was one of the strongest principles on which thsi country was founded...
But I think you're missing the point. The point of the P3 is not to beat the tar out of the AMD line. That's why there is a 2GHz P4 slated for later this year. That's why P4 will migrate to.13u and possibly hit 3Ghz next year. AMD will struggle to hit 2GHz next year. I'm thinking they are in the compromising position to make a big mistake trying to keep their speed up (recall Intel and the 1.13GHz P3 last year).
Anyhow, anyone who buys the P3 will probably want it because it's cheaper, it works in their old P3 socket, it uses less power, etc. It could replace the Celeron line temporarily.
If it does have the old FPU (and we don't really know that it does) then so what? It's a shrink. And it's an EOL product. Intel has said that this will likely be the last desktop rev of the P3. I wouldn't expect them to spend the development costs to design and integrate a new FPU into a product that will not continue to evolve. That would be insane.
The courts are not lawmakers and will therefore not now and not ever be able to make it against federal law to be anything. The courts are only interpreters of a law that was intentionally vague so as to not be made obsolete by the mere passage of time.
The partiality of the Supreme Court justices should follow a running average of the political orientation of this country's elected administrations. This implies that the justices would reflect the opinions of the people. The inertial characteristic of this running average should guarantee that their collective views never stray too far from the views of the country. This leads to another question... if a small change in the alignment of the justices will affect the interpretation of the law, then was the previous interpretation of the law truly supported by the majority?
I acknowledge that it was not a religious issue but a moral issue. It still was an issue regarding the 1st amendment. That it is an amendment makes it no less significant than any other portion of the consitution. The Bill of Rights was the first mention of individual freedomes, and was the basis of the prosecution was also provided by an interpretation of the 13th amendment? Without the amendments, the prosecution would have had absolutely no case for legal action. The issue is whether a group with a clear agenda of expression is permitted to effectively make their expression. Whether the group is or is not funded by the government is not the issue. They are a private group, and that should be sufficient enough (however if they are truly funded by the government, I believe the funding should stop)
That the Boy Scouts denies membership is in no way impeding on an individual's personal liberties. One will find out that in life it will happen again and again that private groups will not allow that person's entry. This is another group that doesn't want that person's entry. So what? Is this new? Fraternities and sororities do this all the time, and I don't know of too many that get sued for it.
You forget to mention the huge number of times that this flag burning amendment has come up. Like the other times, I hardly think the proposal will pass and be deemed constitutional. Ironically enough, the amendment is being pushed by a democratic house, which is hardly affiliated with our republican president.
Are you serious??? Are you actually saying that the Supreme Court is provided for in the US Constitution?
I'm willing to think that what he was saying is that the current administration had nothing to do with the decision that was made in the Supreme Court. Since the Court is not an elected body, then it is supposedly impartial (Yes, I know the members are appointed by the prez and approved by Congress, TYVM).
The sole purpose of the Supreme Court is to interpret whether laws passed by the legislature follow the guidelines of the constitution. The Court said that yes, the Constitution protects the religious views of the Boy Scouts and so they can set their own agenda according to their beliefs.
That belief of course has been part of the foundation of our country for over 2 centuries -- you may be surprised to know that GW Bush or the current administration actually did NOT add the 1st Amendment to the constitution! The fact is that the vast majority of the citizens agree with the Constitution, and therefore there is not a chance in hell this will be changing anytime soon. Sorry dude.
The beliefs that founded our country largely consist of freedom of religion. This is one of the largest factors that contribute to our country today and our country's preservation of individual liberties. Without this and the rest of the Bill of Rights, America would not be the pride of its people and would not be the success that it is today.
One could argue that the world as we know it would be completely different today had there not been such a country whose populus was so thoroughly convinced that personal liberties are worth fighting for. Presumably, Europe would have been overrun by Hitler and US would certainly not be a world power and could have even fallen.
It's nice that you have the ability to sit back in a country that was created for you and presented to you and condemn the very principals that made us what we are. Fortunately for the rest of us, you were not even a notion in the days of our Founding Fathers.
It's just so preposterous. Does Nokia feel so invinceable now that they have established a lead in the wireless market? Does it even occur to them that the console market is entirely different and that even the unanimous market leaders of 6 years ago are both scrambling to maintain a presence in today's market? Can they possibly think that Micro$oft is as much of a pushover as Motorola and Ericsson?
I want to just forget that I ever read this thread or the article, but it's just so damn stupid. It's almost like when you see this bad wreck on the highway and you just have to slow down and take a look at the complete devestation and mayhem that has occurred. It's like when you know it is disturbing to scratch the chalkboard, but you do it anyway. It's like you know Madonna is like 45, but you still watch her sway that wrinkled butt of hers.
But Nokia?? Who the hell do they think they are!??
Nokia will fail worse than 3do. They will fail worse than Jaguar. They will fail worse than N64, and they will fail worse than Sega32x.
There is no way they will even beat PSX2. Hell, they won't even outdo Dreamcast, which was arguably a success in some sense of the word, but a miserable failure in actually supplying revenue to Sega.
And they will absolutely positively not beat the mighty Micro$oft. I don't care how many/.-ers support Linux, there is no way in hell that this Nokia hype-machine will do more than lose them money. What the hell are they smoking?
Yes they have the capital. Lots of companies have the capital to fund a console market. A very exceptional few can actually pull it off. Not even Sega can pull it off. M$ can, because we know they want it badly enough.
So why isn't Nokia going head-to-head against the GameBoy Advance. There is only one player in that market: Nintendo. N64 was a miserable placeholder in their product line -- a pathetic source of revenue that was a result of a poor business model. They were raped by Sony PSX. Sure the GBA is a nice piece of machinery, but it is still a 32-bit 2D platform worthy of games of but a 4 year old technology. Certainly Nokia would feel they could contribute more to a handheld (wireless) platform than wireless-newcomer Nintendo.
This thing is all wrong. Mark my words, all Nokia will do by pursuing this is reduce their earnings. Sure, allow Motorola a chance to make up some ground, why don't you...
There's no way they'll win. This is Rambus II
on
Magnet Patent Suits
·
· Score: 1
I'm quite sure they are panicking at the thought of Rambus losing legal ground against Infineon. It seems that the "magnequench" had planned to follow the same strategy as Rambus, but now fear the same fate as Rambus. I don't think the legal system appreciates it when IP holders allow their technology to become prevalent before they conveniently decide to attack the infringers.
If the manufacturers had known about their infringement, they could have pursued an alternative technology a long time ago. It's not as if the "magnequench" technology is the only technology that can ever be developed. It's just the best known solution at this time.
To me, that means that the device generates 20% the heat that it used to, which means instead of running at 322 deg Kelvin, it would run at 64degK, or about -373 degrees Fahrenheit, which is damn cool. It would keep the whole notebook at a cold-ass temperature, definitely removing any need for a fan!
Really, how can it be a mistake for Apple to abandon the 4 or 5 hundred users they had?
They had virtually no saturation in the corporate business market, so there was nothing substantial to lose. And what they did have, they lost because there was awkwards backwards compatibility so it was a good time to transition back to the good old trusty x86 architecture.
Yeah, apple never ceases to amaze me about how many of their own feet they have put bullet holes into.
The motherboard doesn't have much say in the matter. The motherboard has to use what the i850 chip uses, and the i850 uses rambus. If they don't like rambus, they'll have to make their own chipset.
The motherboard is simply a bunch of wires that merely connect all the chips in your PC. It can't change their pinouts or internal functionality.
Since you like car analogies, tell me why does a Dodge pickup with a cummins diesel engine use diesel fuel? Did you think it should burn propane instead?
Not true. The effort that has been required to get to 1GHz has been enormous. Hundreds of companies and educational institutions have worked for over half a century to get this far. Remember, 1GHz is 1000x faster than the 1MHz machines that were around almost 15 years ago.
The 2x increase in performance from 1GHz to 2GHz will be completed in less than 2 years. The industry will accomplish this by rearchitecting their chips to support higher levels of pipelining and by decreasing transistor size to increase transistor speed and lower power consumption.
Of course you have to recompile apps to take advantage of SSE2. Just like you had to recompile to use SSE. Just like you had to recompile to use MMX. Just like you had to recompile to use 3dNow. You see a pattern here?
Do you even know what SSE2 is? It's a set of instructions that use special hardware to accelerate very specific operations that are critical to some very computationally intensive algorithms. All of those extensions are the same way.
Someone has to write libraries that use those extensions. Technically, those are what need to be written. Typically, they are written in optimized assembly-level code. Then the applications link into those libraries and call the primitives that use the specific extensions. Alternatively, the compiler will insert sequences of optimized SSE2 code into your application when you include specific macro calls in your source code.
Apparently, Tom's hardware's and Anandtech's self-proclaimed hardware gurus don't quite understand this process. It's misleading when they compare Athlon running applications that were optimized for Athlon extensions against P4 running applications that were optimized for P3. They just don't seem to know better, and I can't really blame them for their ignorance. But they shouldn't claim to be omniscient either.
Holy crap. How many times will I have to hear the morons ask that question? You know, this is the wrong forum for gaining support for whatever the hell movement you think you are trying to start there. I think the typical./ reader would think that faster == better. We enjoy more immersive gaming, better graphics, smarter AI, better encryption, more voice capabilities, genetic analysis, geophysical analysis, hell. Just because you have no comprehension for what can be done with more advanced technology doesn't mean you are in the right.
And quit your bitching about "fitting" a 400MHz chip in your cell phone. In a couple years, you might see a 1GHz Xscale in your phone. What.. you gonna complain that it's too fast for your phone then? You dumbasses are never happy. Too slow. Too fast. Too hot. Too cold. Too Intel. Too AMD. Just shut the hell up and enjoy the ride already.
He's right. They don't attempt to distribute a complete set of boards to all PC vendors.
It seems to be their intent to distribute a cpu, chipset and a reference platform. Individual PC manufacturers either draw up their own boards or buy them from 3rd parties based on the reference platform. This has always been the case. I think there would be legal issues if Intel decided to own the entire PC design. It would effectively limit competition and open up the opportunity for lawsuits.
Of course, IANAL.
Hmmm.. I'm not sure if I follow your line of reasoning here.
You have totally failed to recognize the largest "dialect" of English: American English. Oops. And I realize that it is at times somewhat difficult to understand my brethren from England (bless their hearts), but it certainly contradicts your theory that English is on the decline.
One would like to think that English is being fragmented right now, but I believe the opposite is occurring. There has never before been such a concept as a global economy. Never before has technology allowed for such large-scale distribution of voice media. The economic benefits of communicating in English have never been greater in particular for 2nd and 3rd world countries looking to benefit from the unprecedented global marketplace.
English is and continues to be the world's most popular 2nd language. It is not uncommon for two non-native-English-speaking individuals from different coutries to communicate through English.
The popularity of English in this world is easily attributable to the dominance that England and USA have played in the global arena in the past century or so, but even moreso in the past couple decades. The trend is obviously in the direction of more English speaking -- not less.
And one final note: accents are due to many factors. Primarily, they are caused when speakers apply the phonetics of their native languages to their learned languages. Often times, they can't even hear the difference between the correct phonetic pronunciation and their own. As more Malaysians learn English and interact with more native English speakers, this will improve, as it has in Europe in the past decades.
I just believe your analysis was very narrow-minded. You have naively applied an extremely dated and ill-fitting analogy of Latin to the modern day. The only similarity whatsoever is that both scenarios have a dominant language.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a good point. But I would say that he is out all the time and effort that he has donated to a non-profit cause for which he feels strongly. Given the professional could have charged a relatively large sum of money as a consultant, I would say the damages could be quite high.
Hey! And I can think of an equally absurd scenario:
defense: "Your Honor, my client would like to enter a plea of "non guilty" to the charge of shoplifting made by the retail store Best Buy. It seems that although the retailer has given my client permission to enter their establishment and peruse their DVD selection, they were unaware that that the movie "Free Willy" has inadvertantly been made free by its own title. In conclusion, my client cannot possibly be charged for shoplifting as he has not taking anything of value."
judge: "You are correct... case dismissed."
plaintiff: "I object. I put a price tag on the item, thereby assigning a monetary value to the product."
defense: "The meaning of 'free' as applied to a piece of merchandise is well established as meaning without cost..." et cetera, et cetera....
I think the misunderstanding centers on semantics.
If you distribute GPLd material under circumstances disallowed by the GPL, then you would be violating the GPL agreement that you inherently agreed to follow when you redistributed the material.
Under copyright law, the owner of the copyright is able to decide how the material is distributed. The FSF offers you permission to modify and redistribute only if you accept their agreement. If you modify and redistribute under other terms, you have broken the agreement, i.e. violated the GPL.
So, it follows that if you are in violation of the GPL, then you are in violation of copyright law. The copyright owner may then proceed take you to court since you have violated copyright law by violating the boundaries you accepted by agreement (the GPL).
many people seem to think that people who violate the GPL will end up having to release the source code to their products in some way
No, I would guess that is merely one term under which the FSF will settle out of court. The other is possibly to pay damages or a portion of revenue, although I don't think we've seen this before. If taken to court, the outcome may very well call for monetary damages AND for the developer to cease selling the software -- an outcome that developers would definitely not like to see.
may be hard to invoke monetary damages with most GPL'ed code
I'm sure it would be plenty easy to assign monetary damages to stolen software. You would need to be creative. For example, you could assert that the development of said software would take a certain amount of person-hours. The person-hours would be a fraction of the whole amount of development cost. Perhaps this fraction could be applied to the total potential revenue to compute the monetary damages. If the source weren't of value (for this to apply, it would have to be free to develop the code or it would have to not be worth anything to a potential user), the developer would not have stolen it in the first place.
It may be so easy to assign monetary damage that nobody has thought to fight FSF in court for fear of the consequences if they were to lose.
On the other hand, there are GMRS and other 2-way radios that occupy 400-something MHz range that you might be confusing the issue with. For example I heard a while back that that there are 2-way Motorola radios at the store right now that require an FCC license to operate, but the average unlicenced users are buying these and abusing the airwaves so that the bands are becoming useless for emergency use.
But this has nothing to do with interference but is more a case of overloading the band with users that have no idea what is going on. Emergency channels are to be used sparingly, but some clueless people use these channels to socialize. When used as the FCC intended, this wouldn't be a problem. If the FCC actually cared, they would have required that customers show a license before being able to purchase a product.
The device will be able to tell you that the signal integrity is not good simply by comparing the number of bit errors that it is correcting to the maximum number of bit errors the particular encoding scheme can tolerate. The FCC prescribes a maximum power level for a signal, so at some point, a device will no longer be able to crank up the signal strength to compensate.
You are right, I didn't think that's what the guy was talking about in general, but what you are saying is definitely a concern in these unlicensed bands. If you are a business or person that is relying on amateur band performance, well, that could be a problem.
Digital communication is inherently immune to noise caused by several types of interference. Many channel encoding schemes exist precisely to deal with interference that is typical of the frequency range of the band, doppler effects, echoes, etc. Yes, there is a statistically small amount of bit error you will receive given a statistically small amount of noise energy present in the band, but there is no recent trend of rising noise energy in any given frequency band.
So don't worry, your phone, tv, AM/FM radio, talkabout, bluetooth device, etc will not eventually stop working due to the noise level passing some magic threshold.
For more info, look at the frequency allocation on the FCC web pages:
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/osmhome/allochrt.pdf
If Intel tried something like that, then Intel would lose tons of market share and then AMD would capitalize on it. And it would totally segment the marketplace, which is desirable to nobody.
If AMD tried something like that, almost nobody would buy it and AMD would go bankrupt trying it.
It has to be done in incremental fashion. It's safer for the consumer that way, and that is what the typical consumer has historically wanted.
You know, and argument is much more effective without personal attacks. Nobody, and I mean nobody is going to buy your agenda if you start insulting them. I have given no indication that I sway in either direction, so don't start condemning my views. All I say is I don't agree with your interpretations of the Bill of Rights and the freedoms to which we are granted by our government.
Jesus also said, in John 8:7, "Let he among you who is without sin cast the first stone." Be careful... the Bible is not a tool that only applies when it is convenient for your argument. I won't even go into that Genesis story here -- I'm sure you know what I'm talking about.
Regardless, as you said, this is not a religious issue but a moral issue. Exclusion does not imply hatred. The agenda of the Boy Scouts to include "morally straight" issues likely was deliberately vague. Besides, do you expect them to list out every single possible non-"morally straight" infraction in their rulebook? Does their rulebook say they can't stab or shoot each other. Does it say they can't call each other names? Does it say they can't bring a skin mag to a campout? Does it say they can't talk about raping young girls? Probably not, but I think they would discipline any of those behaviors and ban them if they persist. That doesn't mean they hate the scout they banned, it simply means they don't approve of the behavior and therefore that behavior is not welcome.
Obviously you have no idea who was Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. (A quick internet search would tell you he was a very successful Supreme Court Justice in the early 1800s. He was a powerful defendant of our personal liberties.) Which is fine -- I guess I didn't expect you to. Still, your use of the Bill of Rights seems about as adept as your use of the Bible. Quote them when they serve your purposes, bash them when they don't.
Ideally, you want your sexual orientation freedom to come before their creed freedoms. Somehow you expect the word "creed" to be trumped by your orientation. You can't have one without the other, you know.
Even if someday you have your "Sexual orientation" clause amended into the constitution, the Boy Scouts will still have their 1st amendment rights to ban people on the basis that they believe homosexuality to be morally unstraight. However, that will be a long day off since it would be difficult to add that to the constitution without disturbing too many people who are entitled to their religious freedom, which I don't have to tell you was one of the strongest principles on which thsi country was founded...
Anyhow, anyone who buys the P3 will probably want it because it's cheaper, it works in their old P3 socket, it uses less power, etc. It could replace the Celeron line temporarily.
If it does have the old FPU (and we don't really know that it does) then so what? It's a shrink. And it's an EOL product. Intel has said that this will likely be the last desktop rev of the P3. I wouldn't expect them to spend the development costs to design and integrate a new FPU into a product that will not continue to evolve. That would be insane.
The courts are not lawmakers and will therefore not now and not ever be able to make it against federal law to be anything. The courts are only interpreters of a law that was intentionally vague so as to not be made obsolete by the mere passage of time.
The partiality of the Supreme Court justices should follow a running average of the political orientation of this country's elected administrations. This implies that the justices would reflect the opinions of the people. The inertial characteristic of this running average should guarantee that their collective views never stray too far from the views of the country. This leads to another question... if a small change in the alignment of the justices will affect the interpretation of the law, then was the previous interpretation of the law truly supported by the majority?
I acknowledge that it was not a religious issue but a moral issue. It still was an issue regarding the 1st amendment. That it is an amendment makes it no less significant than any other portion of the consitution. The Bill of Rights was the first mention of individual freedomes, and was the basis of the prosecution was also provided by an interpretation of the 13th amendment? Without the amendments, the prosecution would have had absolutely no case for legal action. The issue is whether a group with a clear agenda of expression is permitted to effectively make their expression. Whether the group is or is not funded by the government is not the issue. They are a private group, and that should be sufficient enough (however if they are truly funded by the government, I believe the funding should stop)
That the Boy Scouts denies membership is in no way impeding on an individual's personal liberties. One will find out that in life it will happen again and again that private groups will not allow that person's entry. This is another group that doesn't want that person's entry. So what? Is this new? Fraternities and sororities do this all the time, and I don't know of too many that get sued for it.
You forget to mention the huge number of times that this flag burning amendment has come up. Like the other times, I hardly think the proposal will pass and be deemed constitutional. Ironically enough, the amendment is being pushed by a democratic house, which is hardly affiliated with our republican president.
I'm willing to think that what he was saying is that the current administration had nothing to do with the decision that was made in the Supreme Court. Since the Court is not an elected body, then it is supposedly impartial (Yes, I know the members are appointed by the prez and approved by Congress, TYVM).
The sole purpose of the Supreme Court is to interpret whether laws passed by the legislature follow the guidelines of the constitution. The Court said that yes, the Constitution protects the religious views of the Boy Scouts and so they can set their own agenda according to their beliefs.
That belief of course has been part of the foundation of our country for over 2 centuries -- you may be surprised to know that GW Bush or the current administration actually did NOT add the 1st Amendment to the constitution! The fact is that the vast majority of the citizens agree with the Constitution, and therefore there is not a chance in hell this will be changing anytime soon. Sorry dude.
The beliefs that founded our country largely consist of freedom of religion. This is one of the largest factors that contribute to our country today and our country's preservation of individual liberties. Without this and the rest of the Bill of Rights, America would not be the pride of its people and would not be the success that it is today.
One could argue that the world as we know it would be completely different today had there not been such a country whose populus was so thoroughly convinced that personal liberties are worth fighting for. Presumably, Europe would have been overrun by Hitler and US would certainly not be a world power and could have even fallen.
It's nice that you have the ability to sit back in a country that was created for you and presented to you and condemn the very principals that made us what we are. Fortunately for the rest of us, you were not even a notion in the days of our Founding Fathers.
This is a good point. For some, this may be the reason why they contribute in the first place. It surely isn't for the money...
I want to just forget that I ever read this thread or the article, but it's just so damn stupid. It's almost like when you see this bad wreck on the highway and you just have to slow down and take a look at the complete devestation and mayhem that has occurred. It's like when you know it is disturbing to scratch the chalkboard, but you do it anyway. It's like you know Madonna is like 45, but you still watch her sway that wrinkled butt of hers.
But Nokia?? Who the hell do they think they are!??
There is no way they will even beat PSX2. Hell, they won't even outdo Dreamcast, which was arguably a success in some sense of the word, but a miserable failure in actually supplying revenue to Sega.
And they will absolutely positively not beat the mighty Micro$oft. I don't care how many /.-ers support Linux, there is no way in hell that this Nokia hype-machine will do more than lose them money. What the hell are they smoking?
Yes they have the capital. Lots of companies have the capital to fund a console market. A very exceptional few can actually pull it off. Not even Sega can pull it off. M$ can, because we know they want it badly enough.
So why isn't Nokia going head-to-head against the GameBoy Advance. There is only one player in that market: Nintendo. N64 was a miserable placeholder in their product line -- a pathetic source of revenue that was a result of a poor business model. They were raped by Sony PSX. Sure the GBA is a nice piece of machinery, but it is still a 32-bit 2D platform worthy of games of but a 4 year old technology. Certainly Nokia would feel they could contribute more to a handheld (wireless) platform than wireless-newcomer Nintendo.
This thing is all wrong. Mark my words, all Nokia will do by pursuing this is reduce their earnings. Sure, allow Motorola a chance to make up some ground, why don't you...
If the manufacturers had known about their infringement, they could have pursued an alternative technology a long time ago. It's not as if the "magnequench" technology is the only technology that can ever be developed. It's just the best known solution at this time.
To me, that means that the device generates 20% the heat that it used to, which means instead of running at 322 deg Kelvin, it would run at 64degK, or about -373 degrees Fahrenheit, which is damn cool. It would keep the whole notebook at a cold-ass temperature, definitely removing any need for a fan!
They had virtually no saturation in the corporate business market, so there was nothing substantial to lose. And what they did have, they lost because there was awkwards backwards compatibility so it was a good time to transition back to the good old trusty x86 architecture.
Yeah, apple never ceases to amaze me about how many of their own feet they have put bullet holes into.
Oooohhh, good one. I see your logic there... that proves how ignorant I truly am.
The motherboard is simply a bunch of wires that merely connect all the chips in your PC. It can't change their pinouts or internal functionality.
Since you like car analogies, tell me why does a Dodge pickup with a cummins diesel engine use diesel fuel? Did you think it should burn propane instead?
The 2x increase in performance from 1GHz to 2GHz will be completed in less than 2 years. The industry will accomplish this by rearchitecting their chips to support higher levels of pipelining and by decreasing transistor size to increase transistor speed and lower power consumption.
Do you even know what SSE2 is? It's a set of instructions that use special hardware to accelerate very specific operations that are critical to some very computationally intensive algorithms. All of those extensions are the same way.
Someone has to write libraries that use those extensions. Technically, those are what need to be written. Typically, they are written in optimized assembly-level code. Then the applications link into those libraries and call the primitives that use the specific extensions. Alternatively, the compiler will insert sequences of optimized SSE2 code into your application when you include specific macro calls in your source code.
Apparently, Tom's hardware's and Anandtech's self-proclaimed hardware gurus don't quite understand this process. It's misleading when they compare Athlon running applications that were optimized for Athlon extensions against P4 running applications that were optimized for P3. They just don't seem to know better, and I can't really blame them for their ignorance. But they shouldn't claim to be omniscient either.
And quit your bitching about "fitting" a 400MHz chip in your cell phone. In a couple years, you might see a 1GHz Xscale in your phone. What.. you gonna complain that it's too fast for your phone then? You dumbasses are never happy. Too slow. Too fast. Too hot. Too cold. Too Intel. Too AMD. Just shut the hell up and enjoy the ride already.
It seems to be their intent to distribute a cpu, chipset and a reference platform. Individual PC manufacturers either draw up their own boards or buy them from 3rd parties based on the reference platform. This has always been the case. I think there would be legal issues if Intel decided to own the entire PC design. It would effectively limit competition and open up the opportunity for lawsuits. Of course, IANAL.
Ohhh, the irony ;)
You have totally failed to recognize the largest "dialect" of English: American English. Oops. And I realize that it is at times somewhat difficult to understand my brethren from England (bless their hearts), but it certainly contradicts your theory that English is on the decline.
One would like to think that English is being fragmented right now, but I believe the opposite is occurring. There has never before been such a concept as a global economy. Never before has technology allowed for such large-scale distribution of voice media. The economic benefits of communicating in English have never been greater in particular for 2nd and 3rd world countries looking to benefit from the unprecedented global marketplace.
English is and continues to be the world's most popular 2nd language. It is not uncommon for two non-native-English-speaking individuals from different coutries to communicate through English.
The popularity of English in this world is easily attributable to the dominance that England and USA have played in the global arena in the past century or so, but even moreso in the past couple decades. The trend is obviously in the direction of more English speaking -- not less.
And one final note: accents are due to many factors. Primarily, they are caused when speakers apply the phonetics of their native languages to their learned languages. Often times, they can't even hear the difference between the correct phonetic pronunciation and their own. As more Malaysians learn English and interact with more native English speakers, this will improve, as it has in Europe in the past decades.
I just believe your analysis was very narrow-minded. You have naively applied an extremely dated and ill-fitting analogy of Latin to the modern day. The only similarity whatsoever is that both scenarios have a dominant language.