I've found this applies to whatever business you're in. I've started, grown, and sold 4 different companies, in completely unrelated industries. The more we were able to make ourselves unnecessary, the more work we got.
Indeed, nothing gets you more good business than word of mouth. At one of the companies I work for, a locksmith, my boss constantly turns away work. I was talking to an employee of one of our competitors and apparently they spend a lot of time waiting for the phone to ring. It's not advertising, 'cause we have a one line ad in the yellow pages and they have a two-page full color spread. The difference is that we do quality work that stays done for years. The other guys use crap materials and do a half-assed job. They charge 20% less than us per hour. We work 8-4 mon-fri and they all take turns taking 24hr emergency pages all week. Quality work sells itself, and sells for more money.
Also, one important thing. The crucial time is often the time until the patient is under medical treatment. In an ambulance, you're being treated by highly qualified paramedics.
I think the point that's being missed here is that anyone not injured enough for you to dial 911 on the first phone you reach isn't badly injured enough for those few seconds saved to matter.
There are times (driving a ill or injured person to the hospital, for instance) that you need to speed.
Those are not legitimate reasons to drive at excessive speeds. Accelerating out of a dangerous traffic situation: yes. Shaving fifty seconds off a ten minute drive to the emergency room at the risk of colliding with another car, rolling over in a ditch, or wrapping around a tree: absolutely fucking NOT. Look at how fast ambulances drive. They don't exceed the speed limit. Honestly, where do people get the idea that careening down city streets at 80mph is a smart way to transport people to the hospital?
Out of curosity, since when would an American English user use the British English spelling?
As evidenced by the fact that it's capitalized, it's an official title. You don't "correct" the spelling of someone's title. That's be like "correcting" the spelling of their name.
Yes, because 100% of Catholics have committed suicide...
0% of Heaven's Gate cult members have historically tortured and killed people for heresy. I leave it as an exercise to the reader to determine whether 30-odd people committing suicide is better or worse than the Inquisition...
I love how ignorant people are of religion on./
I love how people on/. use strawman arguments to prove ignorance.
1) Attacking Scientology's abuses while ignoring/minimizing the (worse) abuses of other groups diminishes the credibility of the attacker.
Except that nobody specifically ignored or minimized the actions of other groups. Catholicism is essentially silent on the volcano subject. I think cridibility is strained more when you randomly accuse them of giving Catholicism a pass when Catholicism is not germane to the subject at hand.
2) Maligning Scientology for its outlandish, but harmless, beliefs is silly, because most popular religions share equally outlandish beliefs.
So? Personally, I could go on at length ridiculing the absurd nonsense in many religions, Catholicism included; but when it comes down to vulcanism and religion, you basically only have the choice between assorted polynesian tribal religions who had the excuse of total ignorance of plate tectonics, and Scientology's Xenu story which is just patently absurd given that it was written only fifty years ago.
But I'm not going to stoop to the level of mocking their beliefs about Xenu.
(shrug) To each his own, I guess, but I personally see no reason to even afford that small level of respect for a "religion" based on cheap parlor tricks and mind games, founded by a megalomaniacal hack science fiction writer for the sole purpose of filling his coffers and gratifying his ego.
SATOR SATOR
AREPO AREPO
TENET TENET
OPERA OPERA
ROTAS ROTAS
SATOR SATOR
AREPO AREPO
TENET TENET
OPERA OPERA
ROTAS ROTAS
I don't speak german and subsequently couldn't find any german example puzzles, but presuming you found four 5x5 puzzles with combinable words, how does this not work? I mean, sure it might be said to fail due to the compound word rule, but it does seem to simply combine the words quite neatly.
Dude, saying "but catholicism did it too" is probably the worst justification you could choose for the actions/beliefs of a religion. Even the Heaven's Gate cult has a better track record than the catholic church.
OT I know, but campaign finance reform is ideal in theory, but impossible in reality. The only thing campaign finance reform will do is make it so only the very richest and most powerful will have the resources necessary to game the system and circumvent the law, e.g. if donations were limited to $10 from any one person or entity, the only people who could muster the necessary exposure to get elected would be those whose views coincided with (either by choice or chance) the current biases in play at Fox News, CBS, or wherever, or who are already famous for whatever reason. This would lead to nobody but incumbents and movie stars getting elected. Of course, that's practically how it is now. The CFR rallying cry of "let's get the money out of politics" is absurd in the face of the fact that politics is money.
Maybe if you paid attention you would know that 'willfulness' is not a part of products liability law.
Maybe if you paid attention you'd know that I never said it was.
You sir, are a hypocrite. You are guilty of a higher level of ignorance than the person you accused of being ignorant of the law.
No, I have showed less ignorance. The OP spouted off like the typical american boob who thinks liabilty extends forever and wants to sue everyone from the liquor store owner and Seagrams, to the water company and the CEO of Unilever when he drunkenly slips on the soap in the shower. I don't claim to be a legal scholar, and my knowledge of terminology is limited, but I do understand the basic premises of law better than that.
I have shown your ignorance to the world,
No, you simply show your lack of reading comprehension. I said:
...as long as it's not willful, vehicular malfunction that doesn't directly contribute to the death or injury is unlikely to result in liability
My use of the word "willful" is secondary and unrelated to the question of negligence, expanding to "willful, as opposed to negligent". It exists only as a caveat to preempt all-too common ridiculous and irrelevant arguments involving sabotage, conspiracy, etc. which would probably result in liability. If you thought I said willful or gross negligence is the only kind of negligence, then you need to read a bit more carefully.
and I will now add you to my "foes" list so I will never have to read any more of your ignorant babbling.
(shrug) as you wish. Really all that does is give me the last word in any potential conversation.
End of conversation.
Actually, this is the end of the conversation-- unless you're one of those who can't stand not to have the last word.
So instruction on sniper shooting combined with, say, the home address of one person, pictured with a crosshair over his head, and inflammatory material linking him to something controversial like, for instance, providing abortions, could cross the line.
No doubt. In fact, if you threw a paper bag with $5000 in small bills into the deal, you'd have a pretty much slam-dunk case for solicitation. The "sniper instruction" aspect is really only relevant in context of the other things, though. Take out the sniper instruction and you'd still have a good murder for hire case. Point is, a book or treatise on sniping is no more illegal in and of itself than a crowbar, screwdriver, flashlight, or gloves. Throw those things in a bag and get caught with them in front of an unoccupied house at night, though, and you're probably going down for posession of burglar tools. Pretty much any legal thing can be incriminating in the right context.
So I just replaced a few words, how does that sound? Absurd? Well I've heard drunks say very similar things. I'm not saying an addict, I'm not saying you have a problem; I'm saying that your pattern of behavior and rationalization is consistent with that of someone with an addiction. Two completely different things but don't blow it off so quickly just because you may not like the implications.
The problem with this line of thinking is that it implies symptoms work in reverse. While it may be correct to say "all addicts display behavior X", it's not true that all displays of behavior X indicate addiction. This is a common problem among many AA evangelists, I 've noticed. Despite the fact that AA says in no uncertain terms "only you can truly know you're an alcoholic", they'll narrow their eyes and engage in implication through questioning. The master-stroke of such debate is usually "denial is a symptom of alcoholism", which they smugly play as some sort of unbeatable trump card, conveniently ignoring the fact that NON-addicts will logically deny addiction as well. I had an AA/NA nutcase constantly needle me with insinuations regarding my methamphetamine usage some years back. He never believed me when I said I could stop whenever I wanted to, no matter how many times I insisted it was true in my case. He was smug when I decided one day speed no longer interested me and just quit using, sure I would start again. It was rather amusing to watch his dismay grow the longer I went without. I did the same thing with cigarettes about a year later, and that REALLY bugged him. Addicts have a tendency to project addiction on everyone; since it's such a major part of their lives, they can't imagine it not also being at least a small part of everyone else's.
I am likewise leery of psychiatric professionals who see mental illness everywhere. Indeed, I have never met a psych medicine person who wasn't themselves a nut.
Look at those 3 guys with the underwater lazer coupler. They were just trying to get their due from a large military contractor and their lawsuit was quashed on grounds of national security.
Different situation. It wasn't the use of the device that was a national security issue, but rather the design. The device design is classified. Allowing the lawsuit to go forward would have exposed classified information. Blackberry devices aren't state secrets.
f my car had a device like this on it (it never would, but IF) and it failed on the way to the hospital, you're damn right I'd sue 'em.
Why are you driving someone to the hospital instead of getting them timely medical attention by dialing 911 like a reasonable and prudent person would?
Didn't he say something about "willfulness"? I'm tired to to go read his post again.. but:
"willfulness" is not really an issue in products liability (based on a negligence standard).
Like the other guy said, google "proximate causation". Product liability is a really tough sell when the product didn't directly injure anyone. The used car dealer is selling you a car not an emergency response system. Negligence would come into play if he sold you a car and the wheel fell off at high speed. Negligence would come into play if the keypad wiring started a fire and burned you to death. Negligence implies that the guilty party should have known the negative result and taken action to prevent it. You not being able to drive to the hospital when "driving to the hospital in an emergency" is an extraordinary event pretty much fails the test completely. A lot of law in this area comes down to "what would a reasonable and prudent person expect/do?" It's not reasonable and prudent to regularly act as your own ambulance service, nor is it reasonable and prudent to anticipate the person you're selling a '91 Honda Civic to is going to do that.
Or if someone gets shot, you can sue the gun manufacturer.
Or if someone breaks into your house and injures themselves, they can sue you for it.
Both have happened, so I wouldn't be surprised if someone would sue over this.
I can sue the chairman of the board of Johnson and Johnson for making the sky turn green with Q-tips. Doesn't matter that it's not green, and if it was, he didn't do it. Hence my comment about the sad state of the civil justice system. People see it as a chance to win the lottery, rather than a means to get just compensation for injury.
"The Man is an Idiot"
I need not read the rest of your post.
Only a fellow idiot would lead anything with an insult.
What, you think this is the Harvard debate team or something here? It's slashdot, for cripes sake. Getting on your high horse over arrogance here is a waste of your time. And for that matter, telling the rest of us when you're getting on your high horse is a waste of our time. You really think he cares that his post title turned you away? You really think the rest of us care ?
Someone comes along and enters something illegal: how to be a sniper
Hey genius, it's not illegal to instruct people in how to kill others. You see, knowing how to shoot someone doesn't hurt anyone. Nor does sharing that information with others. It's the actual shooting that's illegal. Information, legal. Very simple. Honestly, it degrades your entire argument when you don't understand this basic precept.
don't you think that the better comparison would be between Opera and Firefox? I think so. In this case, is Firefox really more advanced? In my personal opinion, it is greately inferior (I use Firefox instead only because I got addicted to some of it's extensions).
Err....got any specifics there, or just random opinion? What so great about Opera? Its failure to gracefully handle non-standard pages? Its immutable toolbars? Its dearth of third-party extensions? I'd love to hear more about Firefox's greater inferiority, since I haven't seen it. I used Opera before I switched to Firefox and I can't think of a single thing that was worse after the switch.
Scientists may not be interchangable, but money sure is.
"More money" alone is almost never the solution. Money is just a token to represent work and/or raw materials. You have to accept that it's very likely that we aren't capable of curing AIDS yet, no matter how hard we try. Just as Pythagorus could never build a superconducting supercollider, we might not be able to cure AIDS. This isn't Civilization (the game) where you just need to allocate enough trade points to research and, after enough points accumulate, you're awarded the advance. There are multiple, unknown dependencies. We're better off advancing all aspects of science in general rather than futilely trying to "dogpile" one goal.
And what if the system malfunctions and you are unable to get to the hospital in time and someone dies?
Yeah, worst case scenario, but a liability nonetheless.
No, more like "no liability". You think there's not something in the contract about this already? Besides, as long as it's not willful, vehicular malfunction that doesn't directly contribute to the death or injury is unlikely to result in liability regardless of contract. Would Motorola be liable for you not being able to dial 911 on your cell because the '9' button was faulty? Would Abercrombie and Fitch be liable if your A&F belt failed, causing your pants to fall down, making you trip and drop your only phone in the fish tank, thus preventing you from summoning an ambulance? It's just such craptacular ignorance of the basic workings of law that makes our jury system so fail so spectacularly, particularly in civil cases.
It takes resources to efficiently decode variable length opcodes [CISC no less] to RISC operations....A "dual mode" chip where you do x86 and RISCop would defeat the purpose since you still have the x86 decoders there. The only solution is to drop the ISA alltogether.
Oh, I totally agree that a completely new ISA using the same modern tricks and techniques would yield significantly better performance. The point I'm getting at is that the performance gain doesn't yet outweigh the inertia of the installed base. As one who currently does a lot of assembly programming with very RISCy microcontrollers and who used to do a lot of (ahem) "debugging via disassembler" of copy protection on games back in the 486 days I can certainly appreciate the benefits of RISC and deplore the horrors of x86; I'm just saying that sitting in the bathwater of the X86 ISA is one huge, nigh immovable, expensive baby. Thing is, CPU performance has (in general) so outstripped application demand that abandonment of X86 hasn't been necessary. It'd be nice to have a clean, modern ISA, but the old one just isn't a pressing problem. Everyone wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to die. At this point the only way we'll ever get away from X86 is for performance to so outgrow demand that soft emulation will be possible. But even then it'll take a long time for the old stuff to die.
If Intel [or AMD] had any sense of justice they wouldn't prolong the x86 line because it's just plain ugly.
Actually, all that's left of x86 is an abstraction interface in the cpus. Software may be compiled into x86 assembly, but those x86 opcodes no longer translate to actual specific bits of on-die logic. The cpu takes that x86 and internally converts it into something more RISC-like than anything else. Unless you do a lot of work in assembly, I'm not sure I understand what the advantage of a new architecture would be. At this point, efficient backwards compatibility is far and away more valuable than whatever you'd gain from adopting a new platform.
Slashdot Mirror
Looking back at my wasted teenage years, I find myself wishing for some negative Coors.
Indeed, nothing gets you more good business than word of mouth. At one of the companies I work for, a locksmith, my boss constantly turns away work. I was talking to an employee of one of our competitors and apparently they spend a lot of time waiting for the phone to ring. It's not advertising, 'cause we have a one line ad in the yellow pages and they have a two-page full color spread. The difference is that we do quality work that stays done for years. The other guys use crap materials and do a half-assed job. They charge 20% less than us per hour. We work 8-4 mon-fri and they all take turns taking 24hr emergency pages all week. Quality work sells itself, and sells for more money.
I think the point that's being missed here is that anyone not injured enough for you to dial 911 on the first phone you reach isn't badly injured enough for those few seconds saved to matter.
Those are not legitimate reasons to drive at excessive speeds. Accelerating out of a dangerous traffic situation: yes. Shaving fifty seconds off a ten minute drive to the emergency room at the risk of colliding with another car, rolling over in a ditch, or wrapping around a tree: absolutely fucking NOT. Look at how fast ambulances drive. They don't exceed the speed limit. Honestly, where do people get the idea that careening down city streets at 80mph is a smart way to transport people to the hospital?
Out of curosity, since when would an American English user use the British English spelling?
As evidenced by the fact that it's capitalized, it's an official title. You don't "correct" the spelling of someone's title. That's be like "correcting" the spelling of their name.
0% of Heaven's Gate cult members have historically tortured and killed people for heresy. I leave it as an exercise to the reader to determine whether 30-odd people committing suicide is better or worse than the Inquisition...
I love how ignorant people are of religion on ./
I love how people on /. use strawman arguments to prove ignorance.
Except that nobody specifically ignored or minimized the actions of other groups. Catholicism is essentially silent on the volcano subject. I think cridibility is strained more when you randomly accuse them of giving Catholicism a pass when Catholicism is not germane to the subject at hand.
2) Maligning Scientology for its outlandish, but harmless, beliefs is silly, because most popular religions share equally outlandish beliefs.
So? Personally, I could go on at length ridiculing the absurd nonsense in many religions, Catholicism included; but when it comes down to vulcanism and religion, you basically only have the choice between assorted polynesian tribal religions who had the excuse of total ignorance of plate tectonics, and Scientology's Xenu story which is just patently absurd given that it was written only fifty years ago.
But I'm not going to stoop to the level of mocking their beliefs about Xenu.
(shrug) To each his own, I guess, but I personally see no reason to even afford that small level of respect for a "religion" based on cheap parlor tricks and mind games, founded by a megalomaniacal hack science fiction writer for the sole purpose of filling his coffers and gratifying his ego.
SATOR SATOR
AREPO AREPO
TENET TENET
OPERA OPERA
ROTAS ROTAS
SATOR SATOR
AREPO AREPO
TENET TENET
OPERA OPERA
ROTAS ROTAS
I don't speak german and subsequently couldn't find any german example puzzles, but presuming you found four 5x5 puzzles with combinable words, how does this not work? I mean, sure it might be said to fail due to the compound word rule, but it does seem to simply combine the words quite neatly.
Dude, saying "but catholicism did it too" is probably the worst justification you could choose for the actions/beliefs of a religion. Even the Heaven's Gate cult has a better track record than the catholic church.
OT I know, but campaign finance reform is ideal in theory, but impossible in reality. The only thing campaign finance reform will do is make it so only the very richest and most powerful will have the resources necessary to game the system and circumvent the law, e.g. if donations were limited to $10 from any one person or entity, the only people who could muster the necessary exposure to get elected would be those whose views coincided with (either by choice or chance) the current biases in play at Fox News, CBS, or wherever, or who are already famous for whatever reason. This would lead to nobody but incumbents and movie stars getting elected. Of course, that's practically how it is now. The CFR rallying cry of "let's get the money out of politics" is absurd in the face of the fact that politics is money.
Maybe if you paid attention you'd know that I never said it was.
You sir, are a hypocrite. You are guilty of a higher level of ignorance than the person you accused of being ignorant of the law.
No, I have showed less ignorance. The OP spouted off like the typical american boob who thinks liabilty extends forever and wants to sue everyone from the liquor store owner and Seagrams, to the water company and the CEO of Unilever when he drunkenly slips on the soap in the shower. I don't claim to be a legal scholar, and my knowledge of terminology is limited, but I do understand the basic premises of law better than that.
I have shown your ignorance to the world,
No, you simply show your lack of reading comprehension. I said:
My use of the word "willful" is secondary and unrelated to the question of negligence, expanding to "willful, as opposed to negligent". It exists only as a caveat to preempt all-too common ridiculous and irrelevant arguments involving sabotage, conspiracy, etc. which would probably result in liability. If you thought I said willful or gross negligence is the only kind of negligence, then you need to read a bit more carefully.and I will now add you to my "foes" list so I will never have to read any more of your ignorant babbling.
(shrug) as you wish. Really all that does is give me the last word in any potential conversation.
End of conversation.
Actually, this is the end of the conversation-- unless you're one of those who can't stand not to have the last word.
No doubt. In fact, if you threw a paper bag with $5000 in small bills into the deal, you'd have a pretty much slam-dunk case for solicitation. The "sniper instruction" aspect is really only relevant in context of the other things, though. Take out the sniper instruction and you'd still have a good murder for hire case. Point is, a book or treatise on sniping is no more illegal in and of itself than a crowbar, screwdriver, flashlight, or gloves. Throw those things in a bag and get caught with them in front of an unoccupied house at night, though, and you're probably going down for posession of burglar tools. Pretty much any legal thing can be incriminating in the right context.
The problem with this line of thinking is that it implies symptoms work in reverse. While it may be correct to say "all addicts display behavior X", it's not true that all displays of behavior X indicate addiction. This is a common problem among many AA evangelists, I 've noticed. Despite the fact that AA says in no uncertain terms "only you can truly know you're an alcoholic", they'll narrow their eyes and engage in implication through questioning. The master-stroke of such debate is usually "denial is a symptom of alcoholism", which they smugly play as some sort of unbeatable trump card, conveniently ignoring the fact that NON-addicts will logically deny addiction as well. I had an AA/NA nutcase constantly needle me with insinuations regarding my methamphetamine usage some years back. He never believed me when I said I could stop whenever I wanted to, no matter how many times I insisted it was true in my case. He was smug when I decided one day speed no longer interested me and just quit using, sure I would start again. It was rather amusing to watch his dismay grow the longer I went without. I did the same thing with cigarettes about a year later, and that REALLY bugged him. Addicts have a tendency to project addiction on everyone; since it's such a major part of their lives, they can't imagine it not also being at least a small part of everyone else's.
I am likewise leery of psychiatric professionals who see mental illness everywhere. Indeed, I have never met a psych medicine person who wasn't themselves a nut.
Different situation. It wasn't the use of the device that was a national security issue, but rather the design. The device design is classified. Allowing the lawsuit to go forward would have exposed classified information. Blackberry devices aren't state secrets.
Why are you driving someone to the hospital instead of getting them timely medical attention by dialing 911 like a reasonable and prudent person would?
Didn't he say something about "willfulness"? I'm tired to to go read his post again.. but: "willfulness" is not really an issue in products liability (based on a negligence standard).
Like the other guy said, google "proximate causation". Product liability is a really tough sell when the product didn't directly injure anyone. The used car dealer is selling you a car not an emergency response system. Negligence would come into play if he sold you a car and the wheel fell off at high speed. Negligence would come into play if the keypad wiring started a fire and burned you to death. Negligence implies that the guilty party should have known the negative result and taken action to prevent it. You not being able to drive to the hospital when "driving to the hospital in an emergency" is an extraordinary event pretty much fails the test completely. A lot of law in this area comes down to "what would a reasonable and prudent person expect/do?" It's not reasonable and prudent to regularly act as your own ambulance service, nor is it reasonable and prudent to anticipate the person you're selling a '91 Honda Civic to is going to do that.
I can sue the chairman of the board of Johnson and Johnson for making the sky turn green with Q-tips. Doesn't matter that it's not green, and if it was, he didn't do it. Hence my comment about the sad state of the civil justice system. People see it as a chance to win the lottery, rather than a means to get just compensation for injury.
They might be if they disabled the '9' button.
That would be a situation involving the words "willful" and "knowingly". We're talking about liability for malfunction.
What, you think this is the Harvard debate team or something here? It's slashdot, for cripes sake. Getting on your high horse over arrogance here is a waste of your time. And for that matter, telling the rest of us when you're getting on your high horse is a waste of our time. You really think he cares that his post title turned you away? You really think the rest of us care ?
Hey genius, it's not illegal to instruct people in how to kill others. You see, knowing how to shoot someone doesn't hurt anyone. Nor does sharing that information with others. It's the actual shooting that's illegal. Information, legal. Very simple. Honestly, it degrades your entire argument when you don't understand this basic precept.
Err....got any specifics there, or just random opinion? What so great about Opera? Its failure to gracefully handle non-standard pages? Its immutable toolbars? Its dearth of third-party extensions? I'd love to hear more about Firefox's greater inferiority, since I haven't seen it. I used Opera before I switched to Firefox and I can't think of a single thing that was worse after the switch.
"More money" alone is almost never the solution. Money is just a token to represent work and/or raw materials. You have to accept that it's very likely that we aren't capable of curing AIDS yet, no matter how hard we try. Just as Pythagorus could never build a superconducting supercollider, we might not be able to cure AIDS. This isn't Civilization (the game) where you just need to allocate enough trade points to research and, after enough points accumulate, you're awarded the advance. There are multiple, unknown dependencies. We're better off advancing all aspects of science in general rather than futilely trying to "dogpile" one goal.
No, more like "no liability". You think there's not something in the contract about this already? Besides, as long as it's not willful, vehicular malfunction that doesn't directly contribute to the death or injury is unlikely to result in liability regardless of contract. Would Motorola be liable for you not being able to dial 911 on your cell because the '9' button was faulty? Would Abercrombie and Fitch be liable if your A&F belt failed, causing your pants to fall down, making you trip and drop your only phone in the fish tank, thus preventing you from summoning an ambulance? It's just such craptacular ignorance of the basic workings of law that makes our jury system so fail so spectacularly, particularly in civil cases.
Oh, I totally agree that a completely new ISA using the same modern tricks and techniques would yield significantly better performance. The point I'm getting at is that the performance gain doesn't yet outweigh the inertia of the installed base. As one who currently does a lot of assembly programming with very RISCy microcontrollers and who used to do a lot of (ahem) "debugging via disassembler" of copy protection on games back in the 486 days I can certainly appreciate the benefits of RISC and deplore the horrors of x86; I'm just saying that sitting in the bathwater of the X86 ISA is one huge, nigh immovable, expensive baby. Thing is, CPU performance has (in general) so outstripped application demand that abandonment of X86 hasn't been necessary. It'd be nice to have a clean, modern ISA, but the old one just isn't a pressing problem. Everyone wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to die. At this point the only way we'll ever get away from X86 is for performance to so outgrow demand that soft emulation will be possible. But even then it'll take a long time for the old stuff to die.
Hoo-wee. Mobile processor uses less power than desktop processor, film at 11.
Actually, all that's left of x86 is an abstraction interface in the cpus. Software may be compiled into x86 assembly, but those x86 opcodes no longer translate to actual specific bits of on-die logic. The cpu takes that x86 and internally converts it into something more RISC-like than anything else. Unless you do a lot of work in assembly, I'm not sure I understand what the advantage of a new architecture would be. At this point, efficient backwards compatibility is far and away more valuable than whatever you'd gain from adopting a new platform.