As you said, use the best tool for the job. As an example, if you're coding a combobox control, that control has a visual representation, some behaviors (methods), some properties, and some things that can happen in it (events). There are likely to be several comboboxes should should have approximately the same behavior. Combobox is naturally an object.
On the other hand, the small inner loop of lookup service which needs to be fast takes one parameter, a single value, and returns one value. There's no need for any object. This:
return x + 3;
Is much better than:
Number three = new Number; three.value = 3; return three.plus(x);
Turn on compression with -C and select a fast cipher with -c
ssh -C -c blowfish-cbc,arcfour -X
Also, some applications (Firefox) seem to do all their own per-pixel rendering rather than using appropriate X primitives. For those applications, VNC with a a minimum color palette may work much better, or choose a different application that does the same job.
Speaking of choosing different applications, consider CLI options. A CLI interface is quite usable at about 64 kbps. I use the GUI only for a browser and email, and occasionally virt-manager. The browser and email can use the socks proxy feature of ssh, so that only leaves virt-manager as the only application I ever forward.
There is no consistent set of rules which result in a Gore win. His camp acknowledged that by insisting on strict rules in conservative precincts and liberal rules in precincts that leaned Democrat. Additionally, you have to ALSO exclude votes from the men and women serving overseas.
If you think you can come up with ANY set of procedures that result in a Gore win when applied consistently, please link to it. You may have seen a Comedy Central sketch which implied otherwise. I can understand you're disappointed and perhaps a little bitter because it was SO close - if you ignore all the votes from those who volunteered to put their lives on the line to protect you.
People mess up. An API key will occasionally get into a file that's in a source tree. It is an API - an Application Programming Interface, so programs will have that key. Program source gets posted to github. Shit happens.
My bank knows shit happens and I could get my card stolen, so when I make a large purchase which appears unusual my cell phone rings - the bank's security company calling to verify the purchase. That's the bank doing a good job.
People should watch where they're walking. That doesn't mean you leave an open manhole in the middle of the sidewalk unmarked - someone is likely to mess up and fall in.
The ruling was that because the officer's understanding of the law was reasonable, a stop based on that understanding was reasonable. The law said "all originally installed lights" - that sounds like it includes brake lights. Reading "all originally installed lights", it is reasonable to stop someone whose originally installed lights aren't working, the court ruled.
So they can't "always claim they misunderstood the law", they can do so only if the their understanding of it is the reasonable interpretation of the wording of the law.
>. I'm of the opinion Bush was the worst thing that ever > happened to this country, until Obama came along of course.
Worst presidents since 1980, anyway. We've had a lot of bad stuff happen - the depression, the civil war, etc. We've had some pretty crappy presidents in the last 200 years also, and those two were certainly crappy.
>> Your contention is that it was unconstitutionally unreasonable to make the traffic stop
> never said that.
The ruling was that it was NOT so unreasonable as to be a Constitutional violation. The court said it wasn't terribly unreasonable to make the stop because it was based on the officer's _reasonable_ understanding of the law (though the court later interpreted it differently). I thought you indicated that was a horrible ruling. I'm curious why you think so.
I can see why you might disagree somewhat with the ruling, but I don't see how anyone would choose it as a major example of a really bad ruling.
In Helen, the state law required that all "originally equipped rear lamps [be] in good working order" . The officer saw that the rear brake light was not in working order. Your contention is that it was unconstitutionally unreasonable to make the traffic stop, because a year later an appeals court might decide that "all originally equipped rear lamps" means only tail lights, not brake lights?
In Bush v Gore, the court declined to force a state to hand-pick different voting standards for different precincts. Are you of the opinion that the Gore campaign must be allowed to tailor the rules not just on a county a by a county basis, but also precinct a by precinct? You realize that's the only way to get to a Gore win, right? One of Gore's team released a complete analysis two years layer, giving details of "why Gore should have won". To get there, he had to argue that hanging chads SHOULD count in precinct 3 (which leaned Democrat) but should NOT count in precinct 1 (which leaned Republican). You don't even have to read Florida's arguments in that case; Gore's arguments are ridiculous prima facial, insisting on having inconsistent rules from polling place to polling place. The number one fundamental principle required for a fair election (or fair anything) is that the same rules need to apply to everyone. Insisting on different rules for Republican vs Democrat districts makes the "Gore won" proposition preposterous.
ASM for certain inner loops can be a good sixth step in the optimization process. It only matters after the algorithm is optimized, then optimized again, then the system stuff is right (ie look at how the storage structures used by the program translate to actual physical operations).
Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc. used to be called Columbia Pictures. Headquartered in Burbank, California, it's run by an American CEO and produces American films for an American audience. It was renamed after Sony bought almost half of the stock.
Exactly. Saying bugs are shallow doesn't mean they don't exist. Shallow vs deep refers to how much effort it takes to characterize and fix - is it a "hard" bug or an "easy" one. Wikipedia explains it well:
As the Heartbleed bug shows, even shallow bugs[7] may persist in important pieces of open softwareâ"it took two years for the bug to be discovered, and the OpenSSL library containing it is used by millions of servers. Raymond said that in the case of Heartbleed, "there weren't any eyeballs".[8]
When it was discovered that there was a problem, many eyeballs starting looking at it and it didn't take long (hours) for someone to clearly identify the problem and the solution.
In contrast, there is code at my workplace that only I look at. There are intermittent problems that have persisted for MONTHS. I'm just not seeing quite what the cause is. If 1,000 other programmers looked at it, one them would probably spot the problem right away. It would be shallow _to_them_.
The federal court has already ruled against that argument. The executive, sworn to faithfully execute the law, properly has the power to implement the legislative intent, "the spirit of the law", to a PARTICULAR case, a specific individual. One example would be that I have about dozen permits from the ATF to possess professional fireworks. The reason there are a dozen of them is that the company I work with operates in several states and therefore has a subsidiary incorporated in each state, modeled on that state's law. If ATF showed up and I had my stack of permits, but the specific permit for that subsidiary was left at home, the prosecutor could decide not to charge me with illegal possession of explosives because the intent of that legislature is that operators be trained and have permits - not to throw people in prison for misplacing paperwork.
What Obama has tried to do is change the rules, not apply the rules. Congress said "people may not remain in the country unless they received a permit prior to entry, if they entered illegally". Obama has said "yes people can stay. Once you cross the river you're allowed to be here". That's changing the law, not applying to a particular case. That's the ruling of the federal court, and supported by petitions filed by 24 state's attorney general.
We already tried that. There was one set of communication lines, and various companies had access to them, at rates set by the government. Somebody had to maintain the infrastructure of course, and their rates and profit margins were heavily regulated. The company managing the infrastructure was called Bell.
Under that model, calls could cost a dollar per minute. We then tried a different model, and immediately rates went to 10 cents per minute. Later, we now have four different companies providing competing coverage, redundant towers covering the same area, and I pay $25 for unlimited calls and unlimited* data.
Your proposal makes perfect sense on a planet with no humans, only perfectly logical machines, or Vulcans. It's been tried here on earth many, many times in various ways and it always fails when there is actual human nature involved. Humans are greedy and lazy.
When the various wireless companies compete, meaning they each try to provide better service in a particular area (meaning putting towers in the same area), their greed offsets their laziness. In order to get my money they need to provide better service than the other three companies, and/or a better price. Without that, you end up with "we're the phone company, we don't care".
Again, what you suggest SOUNDS logical, and would probably work if it weren't for humans. It never works in this world though, unfortunately.
It sounds like you put together a nice system. Of course, you chose to spend more on your CPU fan alone than most of these ARM SOC systems cost. Different strokes for different folks.
I had a garage sale P4 as my DVR for a couple of years. You could tell something was using too much CPU when the fans became as loud as the TV AMD the room got warm.
Wintel: Windows on Intel You think Linux "panders to wintel".
More proof that aside from being 100% completely devoid of social skills, you also have zero technical knowledge. You're not a nerd, you're just a dweeb.
How often does he print, and how often does he need to print? I make the distinction because many people who grew up with paper use "print" as "save". They print it so they'll have it in case they need it later. Some of these people can take to saving documents rather than printing everything and it might be good and useful as a training aid if printing were slightly less convenient. Other people actually need to print quite often, and some people print maybe twice per year. If dad prints twice per year, the Kinko's service that prints to the FedEx Kinko's around the corner might be good.
Some uber-nerds, or wannabe uber nerds, shout "get a real computer!". Well my wife has had several "real" computers, running various operating systems. Her favorite device, the one she uses all day every day, is her Chrome book. I see why. She can leave it laying around and whenever she picks it up it's instantly ready to do what she needs to do. She charges it maybe a couple of times per week. It has been completely reliable and simple - she never needs to ask her computer geek husband for help. It is IDEAL for certain people.
I say this as a guy who has personally owned a $10,000 network switch and whose name is in the kernel changelog - I know real computers. I have systems with sixteen hard drives each. Those monsters are well suited to their task, and the Chromebook is well suited to its task.
You mention some reasonably good examples, though clearly from a very one-sided viewpoint.
Obama has chosen not to "work around" decisions of the courts and the Congress, but rather to simply declare new law. He then declared that he MUST write new law because the Congress "failed to" (chose not to) pass the law he wanted. I think that might be a completely new precedent, for a president to say "Congress decided not to approve my proposal to chanhe the law, so I must therefore proceed as if they did" (rather than faithfully executing the law). The implication is that it's illegitimate for Congress to do anything but rubber-stamp the president's proposals. That may be new in American history.
Examples include Congress (at his urging) passed a health insurance law with certain dates and deadlines in it. Obama then unilaterally changed the deadlines, and also unilaterally changed the qualifications for eligibility that Congress wrote into the law. More concerning, probably, are his statements about illegal immigrants. Congress voted down his proposal - so he implemented it anyway, claiming that it's the job of Congress to approve whatever he wants to do. That's new, isn't it, or do you know of any earlier examples of that doctrine?
PS - in the example of you quoting me, you could of course try to claim fair use of my writing, but that's not the situation you're talking about. If I understand you correctly, you are talking about if "your" words were copypasta from someone else, in doesn't which case adding my words wouldn't give me grounds to authorize infringing their copyright.
>. include ones that describe Brad Pitt's reaction to certain movie cuts". If you read the email (God forbid), it seems the content is somewhere in-between personal and private and 80% of it is summarizing an email/text/conversation/whatever that, if anything, would be copyrighted by Brad Pitt
It describes a party contracted with Sony Pictures threatening to breach that contract; a contract to make and publicize a Sony Pictures product. It then addresses what Sony Pictures has done (reassured the other party) and what else Sony needs to do about it (nothing yet). I'm not sure how you can say that a discussion among Sony people about handling a Sony contract dispute isn't a business email.
The copyright goes to the author. If I write about what you did yesterday, I'm the author, and I have copyright. In California, you might have publicity rights, but no copyright on my words. Brad Pitt didn't write the email, so he has no copyright claim.
You asked about a post which DOES quote another offer. Would I have any say as to removal if _your_ post was infringing? Under current law, that's exactly the same as if a breakfast cereal contained oats, honey, and strychnine. It contains something unlawful, and can be removed from distribution. The fact that the unlawful stuff has some lawful stuff mixed in doesn't matter.
Let me startbby saying, "rootkit" Sony sucks. With that out of the way:
The emails mentioned in TFA appear to be business emails from Sony people. Did they send a DMCA notice about any personal emails? Did I miss that somewhere?
Regarding perjury, the DMCA doesn't say that any erroneous or improper notice is perjury. The perjury clause refers to identifying yourself. If I were to send a DMCA notice about content owned by Dice, claiming to be a representative of Dice, that claim that I am Dice's representative would be under penalty of perjury. I'd be in trouble because I'm not actually a representative of Dice.
Any other deficiency in a DMCA notice is likely to be grounds for a civil suit, only, based on damages. It might be tortiuous interference, for example. It wouldn't be perjury.
If you click on the link to the article and ctrl-f sata, you'll find the thirteen that have sata, of the forty mentioned in the article. Some desktop standard sata, some are msata or esata.
You can of course use Google to find hundreds or thousands of example projects. They tend to fall into two categories: low power, fanless PCs, and interfacing with real, physical objects.
Examples of the first group include media PCs / DVRs, because you don't want loud CPU, case, and power supply fans in your living room, and network appliances such as network storage, high deluxe SOHO router / firewall boxes, etc.
The other group involves automating and programming the physical world, by connecting motors, relays, etc. That includes autopilots for RC planes and drones and all of the "smart house" stuff. If you wanted a programmable device to feed and water your cat while you're on vacation, while running the self-cleaning litter box, these are the right platform to build something like that.
Are you wanting a normal desktop, for normal desktop work, or the world's fastest per-thread CPU, regardless of cost, for benchmark bragging?
My work desktop does a great job simultaneously running a couple of IDEs, three browsers with many tabs, Outlook, and various utility programs on its dual core, 3Ghz CPU - made in 2008. Therefore when you say you're looking for "a normal desktop" AND say "compete with Intel's latest chips" I'm not sure what you want. Do you want to do desktop stuff, or do you want to "compete" in single-threaded benchmarks?
nVidia's new ARM processor, with seven-stage pipeline, has performance similar to a Haswell. That's more than enough for MY desktop work.
Perhaps even worse than only 36% voting, the majority of voters couldn't name the incumbent VP. This indicates that they are not nearly informed enough to cast an informed, meaningful vote. They vote based on physical appearance, headlines, and Comedy Central.
Slashdot Mirror
As you said, use the best tool for the job. As an example, if you're coding a combobox control, that control has a visual representation, some behaviors (methods), some properties, and some things that can happen in it (events). There are likely to be several comboboxes should should have approximately the same behavior. Combobox is naturally an object.
On the other hand, the small inner loop of lookup service which needs to be fast takes one parameter, a single value, and returns one value. There's no need for any object. This:
return x + 3;
Is much better than:
Number three = new Number;
three.value = 3;
return three.plus(x);
Turn on compression with -C and select a fast cipher with -c
ssh -C -c blowfish-cbc,arcfour -X
Also, some applications (Firefox) seem to do all their own per-pixel rendering rather than using appropriate X primitives. For those applications, VNC with a a minimum color palette may work much better, or choose a different application that does the same job.
Speaking of choosing different applications, consider CLI options. A CLI interface is quite usable at about 64 kbps. I use the GUI only for a browser and email, and occasionally virt-manager. The browser and email can use the socks proxy feature of ssh, so that only leaves virt-manager as the only application I ever forward.
There is no consistent set of rules which result in a Gore win. His camp acknowledged that by insisting on strict rules in conservative precincts and liberal rules in precincts that leaned Democrat. Additionally, you have to ALSO exclude votes from the men and women serving overseas.
If you think you can come up with ANY set of procedures that result in a Gore win when applied consistently, please link to it. You may have seen a Comedy Central sketch which implied otherwise. I can understand you're disappointed and perhaps a little bitter because it was SO close - if you ignore all the votes from those who volunteered to put their lives on the line to protect you.
People mess up. An API key will occasionally get into a file that's in a source tree. It is an API - an Application Programming Interface, so programs will have that key. Program source gets posted to github. Shit happens.
My bank knows shit happens and I could get my card stolen, so when I make a large purchase which appears unusual my cell phone rings - the bank's security company calling to verify the purchase. That's the bank doing a good job.
People should watch where they're walking. That doesn't mean you leave an open manhole in the middle of the sidewalk unmarked - someone is likely to mess up and fall in.
The ruling was that because the officer's understanding of the law was reasonable, a stop based on that understanding was reasonable. The law said "all originally installed lights" - that sounds like it includes brake lights. Reading "all originally installed lights", it is reasonable to stop someone whose originally installed lights aren't working, the court ruled.
So they can't "always claim they misunderstood the law", they can do so only if the their understanding of it is the reasonable interpretation of the wording of the law.
>. I'm of the opinion Bush was the worst thing that ever
> happened to this country, until Obama came along of course.
Worst presidents since 1980, anyway. We've had a lot of bad stuff happen - the depression, the civil war, etc. We've had some pretty crappy presidents in the last 200 years also, and those two were certainly crappy.
>> Your contention is that it was unconstitutionally unreasonable to make the traffic stop
> never said that.
The ruling was that it was NOT so unreasonable as to be a Constitutional violation. The court said it wasn't terribly unreasonable to make the stop because it was based on the officer's _reasonable_ understanding of the law (though the court later interpreted it differently). I thought you indicated that was a horrible ruling. I'm curious why you think so.
I can see why you might disagree somewhat with the ruling, but I don't see how anyone would choose it as a major example of a really bad ruling.
That's funny. I pulled up my brother's custom dictionary one time - wow.
In Helen, the state law required that all "originally equipped rear lamps [be] in good working order" . The officer saw that the rear brake light was not in working order. Your contention is that it was unconstitutionally unreasonable to make the traffic stop, because a year later an appeals court might decide that "all originally equipped rear lamps" means only tail lights, not brake lights?
In Bush v Gore, the court declined to force a state to hand-pick different voting standards for different precincts. Are you of the opinion that the Gore campaign must be allowed to tailor the rules not just on a county a by a county basis, but also precinct a by precinct? You realize that's the only way to get to a Gore win, right? One of Gore's team released a complete analysis two years layer, giving details of "why Gore should have won". To get there, he had to argue that hanging chads SHOULD count in precinct 3 (which leaned Democrat) but should NOT count in precinct 1 (which leaned Republican). You don't even have to read Florida's arguments in that case; Gore's arguments are ridiculous prima facial, insisting on having inconsistent rules from polling place to polling place. The number one fundamental principle required for a fair election (or fair anything) is that the same rules need to apply to everyone. Insisting on different rules for Republican vs Democrat districts makes the "Gore won" proposition preposterous.
ASM for certain inner loops can be a good sixth step in the optimization process. It only matters after the algorithm is optimized, then optimized again, then the system stuff is right (ie look at how the storage structures used by the program translate to actual physical operations).
Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc. used to be called Columbia Pictures. Headquartered in Burbank, California, it's run by an American CEO and produces American films for an American audience. It was renamed after Sony bought almost half of the stock.
Exactly. Saying bugs are shallow doesn't mean they don't exist. Shallow vs deep refers to how much effort it takes to characterize and fix - is it a "hard" bug or an "easy" one. Wikipedia explains it well:
As the Heartbleed bug shows, even shallow bugs[7] may persist in important pieces of open softwareâ"it took two years for the bug to be discovered, and the OpenSSL library containing it is used by millions of servers. Raymond said that in the case of Heartbleed, "there weren't any eyeballs".[8]
When it was discovered that there was a problem, many eyeballs starting looking at it and it didn't take long (hours) for someone to clearly identify the problem and the solution.
In contrast, there is code at my workplace that only I look at. There are intermittent problems that have persisted for MONTHS. I'm just not seeing quite what the cause is. If 1,000 other programmers looked at it, one them would probably spot the problem right away. It would be shallow _to_them_.
The federal court has already ruled against that argument. The executive, sworn to faithfully execute the law, properly has the power to implement the legislative intent, "the spirit of the law", to a PARTICULAR case, a specific individual. One example would be that I have about dozen permits from the ATF to possess professional fireworks. The reason there are a dozen of them is that the company I work with operates in several states and therefore has a subsidiary incorporated in each state, modeled on that state's law. If ATF showed up and I had my stack of permits, but the specific permit for that subsidiary was left at home, the prosecutor could decide not to charge me with illegal possession of explosives because the intent of that legislature is that operators be trained and have permits - not to throw people in prison for misplacing paperwork.
What Obama has tried to do is change the rules, not apply the rules. Congress said "people may not remain in the country unless they received a permit prior to entry, if they entered illegally". Obama has said "yes people can stay. Once you cross the river you're allowed to be here". That's changing the law, not applying to a particular case. That's the ruling of the federal court, and supported by petitions filed by 24 state's attorney general.
>. Re:Why shouldnt Barack Obama follow the Tea Party?
Because he has the IRS to do that for him?
We already tried that. There was one set of communication lines, and various companies had access to them, at rates set by the government. Somebody had to maintain the infrastructure of course, and their rates and profit margins were heavily regulated. The company managing the infrastructure was called Bell.
Under that model, calls could cost a dollar per minute. We then tried a different model, and immediately rates went to 10 cents per minute. Later, we now have four different companies providing competing coverage, redundant towers covering the same area, and I pay $25 for unlimited calls and unlimited* data.
Your proposal makes perfect sense on a planet with no humans, only perfectly logical machines, or Vulcans. It's been tried here on earth many, many times in various ways and it always fails when there is actual human nature involved. Humans are greedy and lazy.
When the various wireless companies compete, meaning they each try to provide better service in a particular area (meaning putting towers in the same area), their greed offsets their laziness. In order to get my money they need to provide better service than the other three companies, and/or a better price. Without that, you end up with "we're the phone company, we don't care".
Again, what you suggest SOUNDS logical, and would probably work if it weren't for humans. It never works in this world though, unfortunately.
It sounds like you put together a nice system. Of course, you chose to spend more on your CPU fan alone than most of these ARM SOC systems cost. Different strokes for different folks.
I had a garage sale P4 as my DVR for a couple of years. You could tell something was using too much CPU when the fans became as loud as the TV AMD the room got warm.
Wintel: Windows on Intel
You think Linux "panders to wintel".
More proof that aside from being 100% completely devoid of social skills, you also have zero technical knowledge. You're not a nerd, you're just a dweeb.
How often does he print, and how often does he need to print? I make the distinction because many people who grew up with paper use "print" as "save". They print it so they'll have it in case they need it later. Some of these people can take to saving documents rather than printing everything and it might be good and useful as a training aid if printing were slightly less convenient. Other people actually need to print quite often, and some people print maybe twice per year. If dad prints twice per year, the Kinko's service that prints to the FedEx Kinko's around the corner might be good.
Some uber-nerds, or wannabe uber nerds, shout "get a real computer!". Well my wife has had several "real" computers, running various operating systems. Her favorite device, the one she uses all day every day, is her Chrome book. I see why. She can leave it laying around and whenever she picks it up it's instantly ready to do what she needs to do. She charges it maybe a couple of times per week. It has been completely reliable and simple - she never needs to ask her computer geek husband for help. It is IDEAL for certain people.
I say this as a guy who has personally owned a $10,000 network switch and whose name is in the kernel changelog - I know real computers. I have systems with sixteen hard drives each. Those monsters are well suited to their task, and the Chromebook is well suited to its task.
You mention some reasonably good examples, though clearly from a very one-sided viewpoint.
Obama has chosen not to "work around" decisions of the courts and the Congress, but rather to simply declare new law. He then declared that he MUST write new law because the Congress "failed to" (chose not to) pass the law he wanted. I think that might be a completely new precedent, for a president to say "Congress decided not to approve my proposal to chanhe the law, so I must therefore proceed as if they did" (rather than faithfully executing the law). The implication is that it's illegitimate for Congress to do anything but rubber-stamp the president's proposals. That may be new in American history.
Examples include Congress (at his urging) passed a health insurance law with certain dates and deadlines in it. Obama then unilaterally changed the deadlines, and also unilaterally changed the qualifications for eligibility that Congress wrote into the law. More concerning, probably, are his statements about illegal immigrants. Congress voted down his proposal - so he implemented it anyway, claiming that it's the job of Congress to approve whatever he wants to do. That's new, isn't it, or do you know of any earlier examples of that doctrine?
PS - in the example of you quoting me, you could of course try to claim fair use of my writing, but that's not the situation you're talking about. If I understand you correctly, you are talking about if "your" words were copypasta from someone else, in doesn't which case adding my words wouldn't give me grounds to authorize infringing their copyright.
>. include ones that describe Brad Pitt's reaction to certain movie cuts". If you read the email (God forbid), it seems the content is somewhere in-between personal and private and 80% of it is summarizing an email/text/conversation/whatever that, if anything, would be copyrighted by Brad Pitt
It describes a party contracted with Sony Pictures threatening to breach that contract; a contract to make and publicize a Sony Pictures product. It then addresses what Sony Pictures has done (reassured the other party) and what else Sony needs to do about it (nothing yet). I'm not sure how you can say that a discussion among Sony people about handling a Sony contract dispute isn't a business email.
The copyright goes to the author. If I write about what you did yesterday, I'm the author, and I have copyright. In California, you might have publicity rights, but no copyright on my words. Brad Pitt didn't write the email, so he has no copyright claim.
You asked about a post which DOES quote another offer. Would I have any say as to removal if _your_ post was infringing? Under current law, that's exactly the same as if a breakfast cereal contained oats, honey, and strychnine. It contains something unlawful, and can be removed from distribution. The fact that the unlawful stuff has some lawful stuff mixed in doesn't matter.
Let me startbby saying, "rootkit" Sony sucks. With that out of the way:
The emails mentioned in TFA appear to be business emails from Sony people. Did they send a DMCA notice about any personal emails? Did I miss that somewhere?
Regarding perjury, the DMCA doesn't say that any erroneous or improper notice is perjury. The perjury clause refers to identifying yourself. If I were to send a DMCA notice about content owned by Dice, claiming to be a representative of Dice, that claim that I am Dice's representative would be under penalty of perjury. I'd be in trouble because I'm not actually a representative of Dice.
Any other deficiency in a DMCA notice is likely to be grounds for a civil suit, only, based on damages. It might be tortiuous interference, for example. It wouldn't be perjury.
If you click on the link to the article and ctrl-f sata, you'll find the thirteen that have sata, of the forty mentioned in the article. Some desktop standard sata, some are msata or esata.
You can of course use Google to find hundreds or thousands of example projects. They tend to fall into two categories: low power, fanless PCs, and interfacing with real, physical objects.
Examples of the first group include media PCs / DVRs, because you don't want loud CPU, case, and power supply fans in your living room, and network appliances such as network storage, high deluxe SOHO router / firewall boxes, etc.
The other group involves automating and programming the physical world, by connecting motors, relays, etc. That includes autopilots for RC planes and drones and all of the "smart house" stuff. If you wanted a programmable device to feed and water your cat while you're on vacation, while running the self-cleaning litter box, these are the right platform to build something like that.
Are you wanting a normal desktop, for normal desktop work, or the world's fastest per-thread CPU, regardless of cost, for benchmark bragging?
My work desktop does a great job simultaneously running a couple of IDEs, three browsers with many tabs, Outlook, and various utility programs on its dual core, 3Ghz CPU - made in 2008. Therefore when you say you're looking for "a normal desktop" AND say "compete with Intel's latest chips" I'm not sure what you want. Do you want to do desktop stuff, or do you want to "compete" in single-threaded benchmarks?
nVidia's new ARM processor, with seven-stage pipeline, has performance similar to a Haswell. That's more than enough for MY desktop work.
Perhaps even worse than only 36% voting, the majority of voters couldn't name the incumbent VP. This indicates that they are not nearly informed enough to cast an informed, meaningful vote. They vote based on physical appearance, headlines, and Comedy Central.