Do you stinky Linuxicists actually weare fruity little berets and camo pants as a sign of your militancy, or do you try to be more subtle?
What I'm saying, is you're out of touch with reality. Linux isn't even close to an option in this situation, and your points are so much wrestling with the winds of reality.
You can't compare single-component performance. It's an overall system benchmark. The winner wins - period. No whining about "Waaah, my FSB is slower!", "Waaah, my IDE drivers aren't as good", Waaah, Waaah, Waaah.
It's simple - which is faster in a given task - systemwide.
1. Buy an AMD system, worry about incompatibilities, various quality isues, not have access to most stable/quality motherboards, etc.. 2. Buy a _previous_ release Intel chip (e.g. the 2.53GHz) at the same price, with about the same performance. Stability. Speed (faster in optimized apps). Best motherboards money can buy. Most reliable chipsets (I845G running DDR333).
Let's take a particle. Accelerate it all to _hell_ using massive force. Then, when it behaves differently (namely, decays more slowly) we'll say we've proved that time slowed for it!
That may be your definition of time travel, but not mine. There are people with Progeria who age quickly - are they super-advanced time travelers? Hell no.
Amen my brother. If you need to munge text or write a quick script, Perl is perfection.
But for large projects it's a joke. It's the sysadmin-cum-developer language. It makes the _codeing_ part of software development seem so easy that they don't realize there's much, much more to it than getting from point a to point b.
Are you kidding? No programming expert would use perl, _ever_, for a large system. It's a joke, and this Perl6 stuff is ludicrous.
Perl5 is the limit of Perl needs to go. Perl is the perfect text processing language, and it's perfect for small prototypes and throw-away scripts. It's really flawless in that domain.
But any "expert" who would use it for large, complex systems either intends to maintain that code himself in perpetuity, or isn't really an expert at all.
Sony's right to produce their property in any way they see fit trumps any right you have. I'm saying it's survival of the fittest (or smartest). If they can copy protect their property such that you can't break it, then no court is going to say they're in the wrong.
However, I do agree the DMCA is an unconstitutional piece of shit. This battle should be fought in the technical arena, not the bribe-a-politician arena.
Why must you spread FUD? The thing itself is bad enough without you baldfaced lying about it.
It will not be a felony to produce any work without a license. Why do you think you need to lie to make something look worse - it's bad on its face without your disinformation and sky-is-falling-ism. People can still produce independent recording all they want.
Sony's right to protect their music far exceeds any "right" you think you have to fair use. Your fair use is to listen to the CD you've purchased directly.
If you can beat Sony's copy protection, more power to you. Then your fair use right remains intact. If not, tough shit.
No, it is not impressive. Why this random worship of "ooh, they're as fast at a slower clock speed!" What difference does this make?
What matters when you're buying a new computer is the overall performance, not "speed per clock". They're not doing anything right - they will be outpaced very easily in the next release of Intel's chip.
This is an asinine argument - you must be an asshole.
My argument was that there's no inalienable, God Given right to download free MP3's from some network. You come back with some gibberish about raping and pillagin'. What on Earth are you thinking - that there's some analogy or trenchant insight to be had in your comments?
Your argument works for me. There's no right to rape, kill, murder - it's been outlawed. There's no right to free porn or music, it's been outlawed.
I have to agree with the slightly braindamaged "we have a right to break copyrights!" poster on this point.
What kind of silly asshole would, with a straight face, argue that the constitution needs to _grant_ the rights of a militia or army to arm itself. Maybe while they were at it they should have granted the right to breath.
Learn English, ya ponce. The reference to militias is parenthetical, it presents a reason or explanation. The action phrase in the constitution is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
Here's one for you, Einstein. If I say "Due to overhunting of deer, this park will close on September 17th. Now, asshole, can you go hunting on the 18th because you're hunting Duck and not Deer? Good Lord, get a clue.
There is no such right. There is a doctrine, and courts may interpret things however they want, but please quit making up this phantom "fair use right". There is absolutely no such thing, certainly not in the constitution.
Well, thanks to those hella mad long pipelines, they can crank up the clock speed very quickly. And the manufacturing is superior, so the power use is well within industry standards.
In short - it's faster. Nobody cares about your philosophical debates with the architecture. Most 500HP engines burn gas like a mother, but the people who buy them buy them for speed so they _don't_ _care_.
Would you rather have, all other things more or less equal: a.) Computer A can run 1 trillion operations per clock cycle, and runs at one clock cyle per second b.) Computer B can run 2 operations per clock cycle, and runs at 1 trillion clock cycles per second
Oh, you took some Computer Archtecture [sic] in college, and used that world-weary experience to decide the P4 architecture (to which you have unrestricted access, apparently due to your world-class engineering knowledge for which reason the NSA has granted you top secret clearance) is crap.
Well, unfortunately out here in the real world the fastest consumer grade PC's run P4's. Without equivocation, restrictions, anything other than that they're a little more expensive. Period. So what in earth are you smoking?
You like to simplify things, don't you? I tell you what, let's take your little comment ad-absurdam and you try to run the SGI binaries for some 3D application on an Intel processor. Then complain "they don't run 3D software AT ALL!! Oh my god, screw them!".
In other words, chimp, there are other far more important factors, not least of which is the optimization of your application, drive speed, memory type/speed, etc...
And the alternative would be... Oh, there isn't one. I see.
What you people don't get is that there isn't a better way to do it. Self-signed certificates are even _worse_ - any asshole can say he's www.wellsfargo.com with a self-signed certificate. At least if SSL is properly implemented it would prevent that.
I would never spend money at a site with a self-signed certificate.
It's fine to hate spammers and work legitimately (or even semi-illegitimately) to stop them. But it's a pretty sick geeky dweeb who stalks them and makes death threats.
Get a freaking life. It's annoying - it's not worth killing or threatening death over.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, that's, umm, special...
Do you stinky Linuxicists actually weare fruity little berets and camo pants as a sign of your militancy, or do you try to be more subtle?
What I'm saying, is you're out of touch with reality. Linux isn't even close to an option in this situation, and your points are so much wrestling with the winds of reality.
Why would you take them with a grain of salt??
You can't compare single-component performance. It's an overall system benchmark. The winner wins - period. No whining about "Waaah, my FSB is slower!", "Waaah, my IDE drivers aren't as good", Waaah, Waaah, Waaah.
It's simple - which is faster in a given task - systemwide.
Let's see, for about the same price I can:
1. Buy an AMD system, worry about incompatibilities, various quality isues, not have access to most stable/quality motherboards, etc..
2. Buy a _previous_ release Intel chip (e.g. the 2.53GHz) at the same price, with about the same performance. Stability. Speed (faster in optimized apps). Best motherboards money can buy. Most reliable chipsets (I845G running DDR333).
I wonder...
Probably something about his drapes, or the latest Will&Grace episode.
Proved my ass. Here's some 'proof' for you:
Let's take a particle. Accelerate it all to _hell_ using massive force. Then, when it behaves differently (namely, decays more slowly) we'll say we've proved that time slowed for it!
That may be your definition of time travel, but not mine. There are people with Progeria who age quickly - are they super-advanced time travelers? Hell no.
Amen. Perl's great for 50 line scripts, crap for most of the stuff people try to use it for.
I'm surprised some chimp hasn't tried writing an operating system or a GUI word processor with it.
Amen my brother. If you need to munge text or write a quick script, Perl is perfection.
But for large projects it's a joke. It's the sysadmin-cum-developer language. It makes the _codeing_ part of software development seem so easy that they don't realize there's much, much more to it than getting from point a to point b.
Are you kidding? No programming expert would use perl, _ever_, for a large system. It's a joke, and this Perl6 stuff is ludicrous.
Perl5 is the limit of Perl needs to go. Perl is the perfect text processing language, and it's perfect for small prototypes and throw-away scripts. It's really flawless in that domain.
But any "expert" who would use it for large, complex systems either intends to maintain that code himself in perpetuity, or isn't really an expert at all.
Sony's right to produce their property in any way they see fit trumps any right you have. I'm saying it's survival of the fittest (or smartest). If they can copy protect their property such that you can't break it, then no court is going to say they're in the wrong.
However, I do agree the DMCA is an unconstitutional piece of shit. This battle should be fought in the technical arena, not the bribe-a-politician arena.
Nice fearmongering, monkey.
My sky is nicely holding itself up, asshole, and your lies and half-truths aren't going to make it start falling.
Since your opening sentence is patently, provably false the rest of your paranoid rambling is pointless.
Why must you spread FUD? The thing itself is bad enough without you baldfaced lying about it.
It will not be a felony to produce any work without a license. Why do you think you need to lie to make something look worse - it's bad on its face without your disinformation and sky-is-falling-ism. People can still produce independent recording all they want.
Sony's right to protect their music far exceeds any "right" you think you have to fair use. Your fair use is to listen to the CD you've purchased directly.
If you can beat Sony's copy protection, more power to you. Then your fair use right remains intact. If not, tough shit.
No, it is not impressive. Why this random worship of "ooh, they're as fast at a slower clock speed!" What difference does this make?
What matters when you're buying a new computer is the overall performance, not "speed per clock". They're not doing anything right - they will be outpaced very easily in the next release of Intel's chip.
This is an asinine argument - you must be an asshole.
My argument was that there's no inalienable, God Given right to download free MP3's from some network. You come back with some gibberish about raping and pillagin'. What on Earth are you thinking - that there's some analogy or trenchant insight to be had in your comments?
Your argument works for me. There's no right to rape, kill, murder - it's been outlawed. There's no right to free porn or music, it's been outlawed.
I have to agree with the slightly braindamaged "we have a right to break copyrights!" poster on this point.
What kind of silly asshole would, with a straight face, argue that the constitution needs to _grant_ the rights of a militia or army to arm itself. Maybe while they were at it they should have granted the right to breath.
Learn English, ya ponce. The reference to militias is parenthetical, it presents a reason or explanation. The action phrase in the constitution is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
Here's one for you, Einstein. If I say "Due to overhunting of deer, this park will close on September 17th. Now, asshole, can you go hunting on the 18th because you're hunting Duck and not Deer? Good Lord, get a clue.
There is no such right. There is a doctrine, and courts may interpret things however they want, but please quit making up this phantom "fair use right". There is absolutely no such thing, certainly not in the constitution.
Well, thanks to those hella mad long pipelines, they can crank up the clock speed very quickly. And the manufacturing is superior, so the power use is well within industry standards.
In short - it's faster. Nobody cares about your philosophical debates with the architecture. Most 500HP engines burn gas like a mother, but the people who buy them buy them for speed so they _don't_ _care_.
Would you rather have, all other things more or less equal:
a.) Computer A can run 1 trillion operations per clock cycle, and runs at one clock cyle per second
b.) Computer B can run 2 operations per clock cycle, and runs at 1 trillion clock cycles per second
Duh.
There's nothing wrong with Tom's Hardware. Most of the time people shouting "bias, bias!" should look int he mirror.
Oh, you took some Computer Archtecture [sic] in college, and used that world-weary experience to decide the P4 architecture (to which you have unrestricted access, apparently due to your world-class engineering knowledge for which reason the NSA has granted you top secret clearance) is crap.
Well, unfortunately out here in the real world the fastest consumer grade PC's run P4's. Without equivocation, restrictions, anything other than that they're a little more expensive. Period. So what in earth are you smoking?
Cough, cough bullcrap, cough, cough.
You like to simplify things, don't you? I tell you what, let's take your little comment ad-absurdam and you try to run the SGI binaries for some 3D application on an Intel processor. Then complain "they don't run 3D software AT ALL!! Oh my god, screw them!".
In other words, chimp, there are other far more important factors, not least of which is the optimization of your application, drive speed, memory type/speed, etc...
And the alternative would be... Oh, there isn't one. I see.
What you people don't get is that there isn't a better way to do it. Self-signed certificates are even _worse_ - any asshole can say he's www.wellsfargo.com with a self-signed certificate. At least if SSL is properly implemented it would prevent that.
I would never spend money at a site with a self-signed certificate.
What kind of pathetic filthy geek values his email sanctitity enough to stalk/threaten someone? That's truly pitiful - get a freaking life.
Block them, harass them over email, sue them - fine. But those sick fucks making death threats about it should be locked up and anally raped.
It's fine to hate spammers and work legitimately (or even semi-illegitimately) to stop them. But it's a pretty sick geeky dweeb who stalks them and makes death threats.
Get a freaking life. It's annoying - it's not worth killing or threatening death over.
Umm, what? Why would you think Microsoft would be interested in this technology? They've got their own effort going.
Is it some primitive minded linking of what you consider an evil entitity and an evil idea (the right of artists to make money from their work).
Commie.
You are clearly some kind of communist. Have you, like, missed the last 90 years of history? It doesn't work.
And you don't hate violence - communists _love_ violence. It's the great equalizer in your crusade against nature.
Advocating violence because of your simpleminded little communist agenda is pretty out there, considering we're talking about a businessman here.