I concede. There appears to be no more overclocking of those non-K Intels because Intel put a stop to it. It certainly worked well enough in the past if you had the right motherboard. But of course I see why Intel wanted it to stop.
BCLK overclocking is still in use on various systems, usually on unlocked CPUs or older systems, which of course do not include that i5-8600. As far as older systems go I've been running a i5-3570 with a 5% BCLK increase for 6 years, without issues. It's true that I don't use any NVME drives in that machine, just a couple of SATA SSDs. Again, this might only be anecdotal evidence, but the corruption rate of at least these drives seems to be low enough with such a mild BCLK increase to be negligible. Doing a little bit of research it appears like BCLK overclocks have been viable recently: https://forum.level1techs.com/... while of course Intel being the asshats that they usually are are trying to shut these things down again. AMD might be a different story, there I've heard of a lot of problems with even mildly increased BCLK on their Ryzen platforms.
Still, one doesn't have to pay that much for Intel's higher single threaded performance, if that is their main concern. Although you didn't deny that in the first place. So I should not have brought that up. I think that's where I mixed up statements from different users.
PS As far as my statements go. I only agreed with multiplier statement in (#57032196), which was not my post, and nothing beyond that. Otherwise I can only speak for myself.
Now you're turning a bit irrational as well by dismissing facts just because they don't fit your narrative.
It's true that BCLK can get problematic, but a very mild rise by something like 5MHz is considered to be stable in all scenarios that are known to me. Anyway, the point here is that you can push a lot of Intels even further this way, while you'd be lucky to get a Ryzen 2 that can run at 4.3GHz consistently. Getting that higher single core performance from Intel is not as exorbitantly more expensive as (#57031102) claimed. That was the original irrational post I was referring to.
This is something that we should be capable of admitting. In 4 of 5 other (non professional) use cases I'd still recommend to go for a R5 Ryzen 2 at the moment.
What the future brings remains to be seen. AMD also has to do something about their higher inter core latencies as far as those time critical gaming applications go, because strictly speaking games aren't really single threaded these days but rather bottlenecked by single threaded performance. And as previous testing has shown, those latencies increase for every CCX that is added to the work load (one source for example: https://www.pcper.com/reviews/...). DDR5 certainly promises some improvements here as well as their Zen2 architecture in itself, but their SoC and chipset on the mobo will also have to play nicely with those high memory clocks. Alternatively they could invest into game studios, making them aware and optimize for those CCX idiosyncrasies.
There's a lot that could happen in the future indeed. But in the end we have to be able to see it happen.
Like (#57032196) said, you can overclock non-K versions up to their turbo multiplier on all cores, which is 4.3 in the case of the i5-8600. And of course you can also always dare an old fashioned BCLK overclock to something like 105MHz if available through the motherboard. A low enough number like that should be stable and will get you up to 4.3*105MH = 4.515GHz under the best circumstances, again given that your CPU itself and other components like motherboard, cooling solution, and PSU are capable of sustaining this.
Don't get me wrong, Intel pulled a lot of crap in the past. They deserve a kick in the nuts. But that's no reason to become irrational. At least as far as I'm concerned I recommend people to choose their hardware by looking at various sources of benchmarks, which test the applications that are important to them. And then decide what to go for. And for that little niche of high performance gaming, that answer is still Intel. Is that going to change in the future? For the sake of us consumers, I hope so.
Clock for clock Ryzens and modern Intels are very similar in single threaded tasks, while Ryzens significantly outperform then in multi-threaded tasks as long as it isn't gaming (see Ashes of the Singularity benchmarks, which arguably might have the best multi-threading of any game out there).
Keeping in mind that your Ryzen 2 won't clock higher than 4.3GHz in a sustainable scenario that's what you need to shoot for in your Intel. That's for example when you can compare an R5 2600X with an i5-8600(non-K), where the latter also allows you to overclock to 4.3GHz on all cores given the right motherboard. The prices for these are very similar. If you want significantly better single-threaded performance you can go for an i5-8600k of which 88% clock to 5GHz on all cores (according to https://siliconlottery.com/col...). Let's say you even buy it from siliconlottery.com for that $280 instead of the $260 on newegg.com, in that case you get ~16% higher clocks on the already de- and relidded i5-8600k compared to the R5 2600X for a 21.7% higher price, if we use $230 for the R5 on a site like newegg.com. The boxed cooler for the R7 2700X might be very nice, but that of the R5 2600X does not really add a lot of value to it. At least not if you intend to run it at 4.3GHz.
So yeah, quit being a zealot. Choose the right tool for the job at hand.
Of course the most jobs where you need high single threaded performance is PC gaming and that also only applies to certain games. Games where the workloads are highly dynamic due to players being able to create their own assets without significant limitations. That is usually simulation games that let you build stuff - generating a huge amount of polygons - think of city builder games that allow you to have huge cities. Or (simulation) games that allow a high number of player to interact with each other - not your Counter Strike GO or Overwatch - think of ArmA 3, Elite: Dangerous, or even Grand Theft Auto V.
In these games you may need the high single threaded performance of one of those Intels to simply get playble frame rates above 30 FPS. Security checks also mean squat to users like that, because they usually do not run applications where security is that crucial.
Of course when you look at the player numbers of those games and compare it to other games that are either better optimized or simply far less hungry for resources, these demanding games are clearly a niche even within the PC gaming field. So how important can that be in the whole market? Will that be enough to carry Intel's products?
We're talking about state employees here. As far as my personal experiences with people who are employed by the German states go, they're among the least competent people that you can find. They could probably handle a desktop Android without further training but not your usual Linux distros.
If that was the case, then yes, I'd notice. Also yes to the other part.
So we can agree to disagree? Or should we start suing each other for depriving each of their control over how we spend our spare time?
Again. If you ask me personally it depends on whether I would notice it or not. You know, does a tree make a sound if there's no one there to perceive any of the effects that a falling tree may cause? Following your own premise: If they only ever take it when I don't use it, how can I be sure that it is gone?
I would only be able to notice if my property is not there when I need it or if it is/was altered. It if wasn't altered, it effectively is that hypothetical copy, which may as well exist in an alternative universe I can't possibly interact with. Of course besides of affecting possible resale values due to increased supply. But back to alteration, which apply both to diminishing and adding value. I would be able to notice that. I may not like alterations to my finite resource one way or the other, as long as they do not happen under terms and conditions I drafted and or agreed to.
So I may not like it and want it to stop. I might sue the persons who did it for damages and or trespassing. I might put security mechanisms into place to prevent it from happening further. But does that make it theft? Only if they deprive me of the car it so I can no longer use. For example if they took the car while I wasn't using it, but now I suddenly need to use it and it is not available to me, that would be depriving me of my car and theft regardless of alterations.
For most other cases there's already other legal definitions in place. For example if someone wilfully damages the brake lines of your car, possibly putting you in a life-threatening situation where your brakes don't work while you're in traffic, you don't charge them with theft of your ability to use the brakes in your car of the ability to use your care appropriately. You can charge them for property damage or similar things. Maybe the a district attorney will do half of your work an charge them with reckless endangerment, maybe attempted murder, and what not.
Anyway, is the act of copying altering the property in itself? In what way is it altered? Is copying depriving them of their property so they can no longer use it for themselves? Does a copy deprive of basic control over one's property?
Maybe you're thinking of plagiarism. Plagiarism and copyright infringement share some attributes after all. The former is fraud and defined as a kind of theft of intellectual property, but with the most important criteria of also passing that appropriated intellectual property off as your own original work. Although this isn't always a crime in the legal sense, because not all intellectual property is legally protected the moment someone creates it.
And as you bring up someone's neighbour sleeping with their wife. Certainly something most people would not like. And there's a lot of angles. Could be devastating for the cheated on spouse. Maybe grounds for voiding a marriage contract - divorce. But is it theft or illegal in other senses than voiding a contract between (usually) two people and the state? Maybe if their wife had no say in it at all. Then it might be rape. Otherwise it would depend on your local laws that may make adultery an illegal act or not, because in many places a marriage contract does not make a wife the property of their spouse. What if the neighbour created a copy of that wife? (hypothetically)
The problem with stretching definitions too much is that at some point they become meaningless, because everything is theft.
You have control over the property which was produced, not the property which may be produced. A person has control over the derivatives of their own intellectual property--control which can be taken, as control includes prevention as much as exercise. Imagine if others drove your car, but only when you weren't using it; what have they taken from you?
So, now I do own your words, but you no longer do?
To the car example: What they have taken from me? Assuming that the premise "but only when you weren't using it" is always true, that would depend on what remains of the original car in my possession when they return the car.
For example if they don't refill the tank when returning the car they have deprived me of the fuel that the car uses. They consumed it for themselves and because it is a limited resource I can no longer use it. Something like that does not happen with intellectual property.
They are putting extra strain on every car part. If they do not pay for replacements they will diminish the performance and resale value of my car. In some cases the parts can't even be replaced in any feasible manner, like the engine. So that would be something they consume for themselves and since again it is finite I can't use it any more for myself. Besides of the resale value of the property this neither applies to intellectual property. And in the case of resale value there's no intrinsic value to the intellectual property other than which is determined by supply and demand. You can't diminish the quality of the intellectual property that we are talking about here, because it is not subject to degradation.
Of course in the case of (re)sale value you can argue that by creating unlicensed copies you're driving the price people are willing do pay down by increasing the supply without necessarily increasing the demand by the same degree. I would agree with that. But that is not theft by any stretch, that is violating your rights of exclusivity when it comes to creating copies of your product.
For example if I copied your post - your intellectual property - without your agreement, do you no longer have control over what you write? Do I now have control over what you wrote or can write?
I'd argue that this stretches the definition of theft a bit too much.
Certainly, your right to exclusive control is violated by others as they force you to share it against your will, which is illegal and should be illegal in my opinion, but you still have control. If they deprived you of that control in the sense of theft, then they would have exclusive control over the property while you don't have any.
According to these definitions: theft, as an act of violating the (terms of) law or rights of another, it certainly is a form of infringement - all crime would be a form of infringement in one or another way. However the point is that not every infringement is also theft.
Think of cows for example. They're mammals or even more abstract vertebrates. But is every mammal or vertebrate a cow? Of thing of fingers and thumbs. Every thumb is a finger, but is every finger also a thumb?
Similar to thumbs or cows in the above analogy, theft is a very special case of infringement. Certain criteria must be fulfilled to call it theft. Therefore, at least sometimes, we express what kind of right is infringed - like in "copyright infringement", which signifies that... the exclusive right of making copies, which is reserved by the right holder, is violated.
You can't deprive anyone of something that they don't already own. That is what it basically comes down to.
Think of it this way. You run a record store and sell music perfectly legally. You have a rather loyal customer base that frequents your store. Based on this regular income you plan your business expenses.
Now I come along and open another record store across the street selling exactly the same stuff as you do. In my opening weeks I run special attractions that give people free records with the purchase of other records.
In the following weeks your income sees a sharp decline, because a considerate number of your customers is getting their fill at my store. And because you relied on that income maybe it disrupts your business plan a bit and causes you financial damage as a result.
Sounds like there's grounds for a lawsuit, right? But what would you sue for exactly?
Theft? Because I stole your customers and therefore your income? Are you entitled to your customers and their money? I'd dare to say that this is not true. Only if a purchase agreement is made between you and your customer you're entitled to their money and they're entitled to your product/service. You could sue for theft if I stole the records from you. But then again that would not be stealing your income, but stealing your wares.
Infringement? Maybe you have something like a licence that gives you exclusive distribution rights for certain records? If I don't have such a thing I would be infringing your exclusive rights by selling those products. That would be a lawsuit that can hold up in a court of law.
Maybe the records that I sell or even give away for free are unlicensed copies. In that case I would be infringing your right of exclusive distribution and the exclusive rights of making copies of whoever holds that right. Again, infringement, not theft.
The slippery slope becomes more apparent when we use another example.
Imagine running a hot dog stand. Maybe near a factory plant. During lunch break you get a nice number of hungry labourers that create a steady income.
Now an asshole like me decides to open another hot dog stand in the same area. Again with some kind of special attractions.
And after they consumed my food they're no longer hungry and therefore won't spend their hard earned money at your stand.
Is this theft were I stole your customers, or just competition - one of the basic principles that keeps our markets and economy running?
Other arguments can be made for the resale of products. Because technically you're also depriving someone from some hypothetical income, since if you didn't resell it, other people would certainly have bought it at the full price from an official vendor. Is that illegal? There's certainly a lot of people in the industry who think that it should be illegal. See all the DRM shenanigans where you no longer buy the software or equivalents themselves any more that can be redistributed, but you have to buy digital access rights to a remote platform, which can be easily sold by you without voiding your contract. Fortunately enough people seem to be sane enough to see that this is bogus.
I'd postulate that it is not deprivation of hypothetical income that makes such acts illegal, because that opens a can of worms. It's infringing certain rights that makes it illegal. In the case of making unlicensed copies it's infringing their copy right, which is illegal.
My hypothesis here being that the concept of theft is a lot easier to grasp for all the dumbasses out there than the concept of infringement. Because nobody likes if someone is taking away from them. So becoming a victim of theft is something most people can emphasize with - certainly something a jury could emphasize with a lot better than having their rights infringed.
As far as most civilized nations around the globe go theft is usually defined as depriving someone of something, causing damages in the process. Copying is not depriving something of the exclusive rights to copy something as they've still got that right. Copying is infringing that exclusive right.
That is a healthy stance, given the current marketing trends. I'd like to extend that sentiment to "never buy before you've seen thorough reviews".
In the case of No Man's Sky it wasn't apparent right away that the game lacked multi-player. After all it had a huge, procedurally generated universe where the odds of meeting another players would be abysmally small. Only later players found out that their client simply does not communicate with the internet in any meaningful way.
But if you look at projects like Star Citizen and their funding history (can be found in another one of my comments here) it does not appear like a lot has changed in the recent past when it comes to people 'investing' money in their dream despite it being subjected to heavy criticism frequently. There you have an increasing number of people that condemn CIG's business practices and the slow progress of the project and still a seemingly never ending stream of other vocal (maybe minorities) that defend it tooth and nail.
In these days of the video game industry you may as well give them a medal, because the modus operandi has become to never release such features that were promised for launch for free.
That sounds like a strong correlation. But you still have to examine and disprove other factors that could have an influence on the outcome in order to improve certainty.
Anyway, I suppose it's a good thing that cell phones aren't used as phones that often any more.
My point would be that their numbers are still rising steadily. There's even a spreadsheet that will give you some more insights by providing a time scale. https://docs.google.com/spread...
I mean sure, if you don't give refunds there's no other way than up, hence their curve must by definition be steady, but we should be able to see at least some stagnation there if the hypothesis of my parent was universally applicable. However, instead of that we see a nearly constant slope with some jumps (due to special events). If you scroll a bit lower you'll be able to see a similar trend in the number of pledges.
It appears like no matter what, there will always be a significant influx of new people who are happily buying into the idea, ignoring all criticism and empirical evidence from other, less ambitious projects, that is already out there on the internet.
Are you sure about that? Maybe take a loot at the numbers on this site here: https://robertsspaceindustries...
No question, Hello Games lied about a lot of features of the game as far as the release version goes. But they have been continuing to develop and expand the game in scope and features. And all that without asking for another penny of their customers for expansions or by adding micro transactions and so forth. With the update in 3 days the game is supposed to finally get its multi-player feature that lets you play together with friends and random people.
Hardware trends gravitate towards adding more and more CPU cores and threads in order to increase performance instead of increasing IPC and clocks. AMD will soon release their 64 thread monsters for HEDT and workstations and we're seriously discussing if Python will be the future?
Maybe in very specific niches, but I don't see it utilizing future hardware very well compared to the many other options that are capable of running multiple threads.
On top of that national consumer protection institutions usually don't do a lot on their own either.
First they need people to complain about something. Then they investigate the matter, maybe file class action lawsuits or take other legal routes. But that step with people complaining is crucial.
And yes, action/reaction taking too long can become a problem, because of customary laws. If things were handled that way for such a long time that they can be considered to be normal by everyone, they're sometimes allowed to technically break a law.
So? People make first impressions and others make their assumptions based on that. It may not be fair, but sometimes it can be a very important thing to keep in mind when interacting with certain people, like customers.
We are talking about a person who states on their twitter that they work on a specific game for a specific company. People who read their twitter are going to judge them based on their statements there. And the readers are going to assume that they're at least speaking in a somewhat official capacity of that company. The way they stated their affiliation is also used to claim some sort of authority here and there:
like, the next rando asshat who attempts to explain the concept of branching dialogue to me--as if, you know, having worked in game narrative for a fucking DECADE, I have never heard of it--is getting instablocked. PSA.
Source: https://twitter.com/Delafina77...
And if you act like that, affiliating yourself with a company you have to expect that said company may not like the publicity that you're creating for them. Will that company ask people who are upset to get to know that person on a more intimate level? Maybe they should, but that's not very economic for them to do so. So they're looking for cheaper solutions. Like I said, I don't think that firing them was the right choice, especially if they were doing good work.
But unfortunately that is how the business world works. If you manage to piss off/alienate a bunch of people - (potential) customers - while associating yourself with your employer, you'll get into trouble.
It's certainly a possibility that they're nice in person.
But from my perspective the way they chose to portrait themselves on twitter and that is all I have to base my assumption on. I've got nothing that urges me to assume otherwise - Occam's Razor.
But since you appear to resort to questioning the person who makes the statement instead of the statement on its own merits: let me ask why you assume that my observation is due to how their twitter sounded in my head, based on a few internet sentences?
So I'd assume that she works for whatever company develops GW2, which is ArenaNet.
Now I'm not sure whether or not she deserved to be fired over this incident. Given her twitter I can only assume that she not a very pleasant person. I can understand that ArenaNet does not want to be associated with that part of her. But that doesn't tell a lot about her actual work at ArenaNet. For example I think that Orson Scott Card is an asshole, but his Ender's Game is still a fine piece of writing and worth a read. If this was the first incident I think she deserved a warning and not to be fired right away.
As you mention slasher villains. This isn't the first incarnation either. Remember SOPA, PIPA, and ACTA? Pretty much the same bullshit as this article - tried and failed.
It will be back under a different name, maybe under different pretence, terrorism and child protection are always a good disguise.
Didn't you read "A Brave New World"? Maybe we don't design humans outright, but there's enough evolutionary programming in us already that can be exploited. Ask yourself why would anyone willingly consume and pay for poisons like cigarettes or alcohol? Consume and pay for unhealthy food, sit in front of that that TV, spent hours a day on the internet on social media looking at pictures and videos of cute animals, funny pictures and videos, and so forth.
So? It's one extreme on the spectrum of possibilities. That's the point here - there's an entire spectrum. In theory communism could even work in a libertarian society if there was a consensus on handling their economy exactly that way.
Stalin certainly wasn't stupid. He surely realized that giving all the power to the people wasn't going to work. People tend to be irresponsible and embracing cheap comforts. But Stalin didn't go for something in between, he essentially choose to make himself the new czar with unilateral control over everything and created a personal cult around him that celebrated him much like a good in the name of Marx's economic theories and labels like "people's republic" or "democracy" where all you can choose is one single party, perhaps there's also some other fake opposition. As far as I know their official position wasn't that they're communist, but that they were trying to get there through socialism. Of course they never really did what would have been at least the bare minimum to actually get there. Like teaching people to think independently and that all actions have consequences. If people were able to do that, they could question what was actually going on in those states under the guise of communism. So Stalin had to keep his people ignorant enough to not turn against him. And in order to do that there have been a lot of distraction tactics like fanning fear of bigger enemies (capitalism that came from the West) and practically blaming it for all their woes. Those that weren't convinced so easily needed a bit more help, maybe through lethal force. And it worked pretty well from the perspective of those in power (for a while at least).
I can see how other would be tyrants could get behind the idea of this "communism" and mostly copied what Stalin did, which more accurately should be described as Stalinism.
Of course don't get me wrong here. I'm not postulating that communism could work on such a large scale under different circumstances. But the "as communist as can be" just isn't correct.
Slashdot Mirror
I concede. There appears to be no more overclocking of those non-K Intels because Intel put a stop to it. It certainly worked well enough in the past if you had the right motherboard. But of course I see why Intel wanted it to stop.
BCLK overclocking is still in use on various systems, usually on unlocked CPUs or older systems, which of course do not include that i5-8600. As far as older systems go I've been running a i5-3570 with a 5% BCLK increase for 6 years, without issues. It's true that I don't use any NVME drives in that machine, just a couple of SATA SSDs. Again, this might only be anecdotal evidence, but the corruption rate of at least these drives seems to be low enough with such a mild BCLK increase to be negligible. Doing a little bit of research it appears like BCLK overclocks have been viable recently: https://forum.level1techs.com/... while of course Intel being the asshats that they usually are are trying to shut these things down again. AMD might be a different story, there I've heard of a lot of problems with even mildly increased BCLK on their Ryzen platforms.
Still, one doesn't have to pay that much for Intel's higher single threaded performance, if that is their main concern. Although you didn't deny that in the first place. So I should not have brought that up. I think that's where I mixed up statements from different users.
PS As far as my statements go. I only agreed with multiplier statement in (#57032196), which was not my post, and nothing beyond that. Otherwise I can only speak for myself.
Now you're turning a bit irrational as well by dismissing facts just because they don't fit your narrative.
It's true that BCLK can get problematic, but a very mild rise by something like 5MHz is considered to be stable in all scenarios that are known to me. Anyway, the point here is that you can push a lot of Intels even further this way, while you'd be lucky to get a Ryzen 2 that can run at 4.3GHz consistently. Getting that higher single core performance from Intel is not as exorbitantly more expensive as (#57031102) claimed. That was the original irrational post I was referring to.
This is something that we should be capable of admitting. In 4 of 5 other (non professional) use cases I'd still recommend to go for a R5 Ryzen 2 at the moment.
What the future brings remains to be seen. AMD also has to do something about their higher inter core latencies as far as those time critical gaming applications go, because strictly speaking games aren't really single threaded these days but rather bottlenecked by single threaded performance. And as previous testing has shown, those latencies increase for every CCX that is added to the work load (one source for example: https://www.pcper.com/reviews/...). DDR5 certainly promises some improvements here as well as their Zen2 architecture in itself, but their SoC and chipset on the mobo will also have to play nicely with those high memory clocks. Alternatively they could invest into game studios, making them aware and optimize for those CCX idiosyncrasies.
There's a lot that could happen in the future indeed. But in the end we have to be able to see it happen.
Like (#57032196) said, you can overclock non-K versions up to their turbo multiplier on all cores, which is 4.3 in the case of the i5-8600. And of course you can also always dare an old fashioned BCLK overclock to something like 105MHz if available through the motherboard. A low enough number like that should be stable and will get you up to 4.3*105MH = 4.515GHz under the best circumstances, again given that your CPU itself and other components like motherboard, cooling solution, and PSU are capable of sustaining this.
Don't get me wrong, Intel pulled a lot of crap in the past. They deserve a kick in the nuts. But that's no reason to become irrational. At least as far as I'm concerned I recommend people to choose their hardware by looking at various sources of benchmarks, which test the applications that are important to them. And then decide what to go for. And for that little niche of high performance gaming, that answer is still Intel. Is that going to change in the future? For the sake of us consumers, I hope so.
Clock for clock Ryzens and modern Intels are very similar in single threaded tasks, while Ryzens significantly outperform then in multi-threaded tasks as long as it isn't gaming (see Ashes of the Singularity benchmarks, which arguably might have the best multi-threading of any game out there).
Keeping in mind that your Ryzen 2 won't clock higher than 4.3GHz in a sustainable scenario that's what you need to shoot for in your Intel. That's for example when you can compare an R5 2600X with an i5-8600(non-K), where the latter also allows you to overclock to 4.3GHz on all cores given the right motherboard. The prices for these are very similar. If you want significantly better single-threaded performance you can go for an i5-8600k of which 88% clock to 5GHz on all cores (according to https://siliconlottery.com/col...). Let's say you even buy it from siliconlottery.com for that $280 instead of the $260 on newegg.com, in that case you get ~16% higher clocks on the already de- and relidded i5-8600k compared to the R5 2600X for a 21.7% higher price, if we use $230 for the R5 on a site like newegg.com. The boxed cooler for the R7 2700X might be very nice, but that of the R5 2600X does not really add a lot of value to it. At least not if you intend to run it at 4.3GHz.
So yeah, quit being a zealot. Choose the right tool for the job at hand.
Of course the most jobs where you need high single threaded performance is PC gaming and that also only applies to certain games. Games where the workloads are highly dynamic due to players being able to create their own assets without significant limitations. That is usually simulation games that let you build stuff - generating a huge amount of polygons - think of city builder games that allow you to have huge cities. Or (simulation) games that allow a high number of player to interact with each other - not your Counter Strike GO or Overwatch - think of ArmA 3, Elite: Dangerous, or even Grand Theft Auto V.
In these games you may need the high single threaded performance of one of those Intels to simply get playble frame rates above 30 FPS. Security checks also mean squat to users like that, because they usually do not run applications where security is that crucial.
Of course when you look at the player numbers of those games and compare it to other games that are either better optimized or simply far less hungry for resources, these demanding games are clearly a niche even within the PC gaming field. So how important can that be in the whole market? Will that be enough to carry Intel's products?
We're talking about state employees here. As far as my personal experiences with people who are employed by the German states go, they're among the least competent people that you can find. They could probably handle a desktop Android without further training but not your usual Linux distros.
If that was the case, then yes, I'd notice. Also yes to the other part.
So we can agree to disagree? Or should we start suing each other for depriving each of their control over how we spend our spare time?
Again. If you ask me personally it depends on whether I would notice it or not. You know, does a tree make a sound if there's no one there to perceive any of the effects that a falling tree may cause?
Following your own premise: If they only ever take it when I don't use it, how can I be sure that it is gone? I would only be able to notice if my property is not there when I need it or if it is/was altered. It if wasn't altered, it effectively is that hypothetical copy, which may as well exist in an alternative universe I can't possibly interact with. Of course besides of affecting possible resale values due to increased supply. But back to alteration, which apply both to diminishing and adding value. I would be able to notice that. I may not like alterations to my finite resource one way or the other, as long as they do not happen under terms and conditions I drafted and or agreed to.
So I may not like it and want it to stop. I might sue the persons who did it for damages and or trespassing. I might put security mechanisms into place to prevent it from happening further. But does that make it theft?
Only if they deprive me of the car it so I can no longer use. For example if they took the car while I wasn't using it, but now I suddenly need to use it and it is not available to me, that would be depriving me of my car and theft regardless of alterations.
For most other cases there's already other legal definitions in place. For example if someone wilfully damages the brake lines of your car, possibly putting you in a life-threatening situation where your brakes don't work while you're in traffic, you don't charge them with theft of your ability to use the brakes in your car of the ability to use your care appropriately. You can charge them for property damage or similar things. Maybe the a district attorney will do half of your work an charge them with reckless endangerment, maybe attempted murder, and what not.
Anyway, is the act of copying altering the property in itself? In what way is it altered? Is copying depriving them of their property so they can no longer use it for themselves? Does a copy deprive of basic control over one's property?
Maybe you're thinking of plagiarism. Plagiarism and copyright infringement share some attributes after all. The former is fraud and defined as a kind of theft of intellectual property, but with the most important criteria of also passing that appropriated intellectual property off as your own original work. Although this isn't always a crime in the legal sense, because not all intellectual property is legally protected the moment someone creates it.
And as you bring up someone's neighbour sleeping with their wife. Certainly something most people would not like. And there's a lot of angles. Could be devastating for the cheated on spouse. Maybe grounds for voiding a marriage contract - divorce. But is it theft or illegal in other senses than voiding a contract between (usually) two people and the state? Maybe if their wife had no say in it at all. Then it might be rape. Otherwise it would depend on your local laws that may make adultery an illegal act or not, because in many places a marriage contract does not make a wife the property of their spouse. What if the neighbour created a copy of that wife? (hypothetically)
You have control over the property which was produced, not the property which may be produced. A person has control over the derivatives of their own intellectual property--control which can be taken, as control includes prevention as much as exercise. Imagine if others drove your car, but only when you weren't using it; what have they taken from you?
So, now I do own your words, but you no longer do?
To the car example: What they have taken from me? Assuming that the premise "but only when you weren't using it" is always true, that would depend on what remains of the original car in my possession when they return the car.
For example if they don't refill the tank when returning the car they have deprived me of the fuel that the car uses. They consumed it for themselves and because it is a limited resource I can no longer use it.
Something like that does not happen with intellectual property.
They are putting extra strain on every car part. If they do not pay for replacements they will diminish the performance and resale value of my car. In some cases the parts can't even be replaced in any feasible manner, like the engine. So that would be something they consume for themselves and since again it is finite I can't use it any more for myself.
Besides of the resale value of the property this neither applies to intellectual property. And in the case of resale value there's no intrinsic value to the intellectual property other than which is determined by supply and demand. You can't diminish the quality of the intellectual property that we are talking about here, because it is not subject to degradation.
Of course in the case of (re)sale value you can argue that by creating unlicensed copies you're driving the price people are willing do pay down by increasing the supply without necessarily increasing the demand by the same degree. I would agree with that. But that is not theft by any stretch, that is violating your rights of exclusivity when it comes to creating copies of your product.
For example if I copied your post - your intellectual property - without your agreement, do you no longer have control over what you write? Do I now have control over what you wrote or can write?
I'd argue that this stretches the definition of theft a bit too much. Certainly, your right to exclusive control is violated by others as they force you to share it against your will, which is illegal and should be illegal in my opinion, but you still have control. If they deprived you of that control in the sense of theft, then they would have exclusive control over the property while you don't have any.
Source: https://www.merriam-webster.co...
Source: https://en.oxforddictionaries....
... the exclusive right of making copies, which is reserved by the right holder, is violated.
According to these definitions: theft, as an act of violating the (terms of) law or rights of another, it certainly is a form of infringement - all crime would be a form of infringement in one or another way. However the point is that not every infringement is also theft.
Think of cows for example. They're mammals or even more abstract vertebrates. But is every mammal or vertebrate a cow? Of thing of fingers and thumbs. Every thumb is a finger, but is every finger also a thumb?
Similar to thumbs or cows in the above analogy, theft is a very special case of infringement. Certain criteria must be fulfilled to call it theft. Therefore, at least sometimes, we express what kind of right is infringed - like in "copyright infringement", which signifies that
You can't deprive anyone of something that they don't already own. That is what it basically comes down to.
Think of it this way. You run a record store and sell music perfectly legally. You have a rather loyal customer base that frequents your store. Based on this regular income you plan your business expenses.
Now I come along and open another record store across the street selling exactly the same stuff as you do. In my opening weeks I run special attractions that give people free records with the purchase of other records.
In the following weeks your income sees a sharp decline, because a considerate number of your customers is getting their fill at my store. And because you relied on that income maybe it disrupts your business plan a bit and causes you financial damage as a result.
Sounds like there's grounds for a lawsuit, right? But what would you sue for exactly?
Theft? Because I stole your customers and therefore your income? Are you entitled to your customers and their money? I'd dare to say that this is not true. Only if a purchase agreement is made between you and your customer you're entitled to their money and they're entitled to your product/service. You could sue for theft if I stole the records from you. But then again that would not be stealing your income, but stealing your wares.
Infringement? Maybe you have something like a licence that gives you exclusive distribution rights for certain records? If I don't have such a thing I would be infringing your exclusive rights by selling those products. That would be a lawsuit that can hold up in a court of law.
Maybe the records that I sell or even give away for free are unlicensed copies. In that case I would be infringing your right of exclusive distribution and the exclusive rights of making copies of whoever holds that right. Again, infringement, not theft.
The slippery slope becomes more apparent when we use another example.
Imagine running a hot dog stand. Maybe near a factory plant. During lunch break you get a nice number of hungry labourers that create a steady income.
Now an asshole like me decides to open another hot dog stand in the same area. Again with some kind of special attractions.
And after they consumed my food they're no longer hungry and therefore won't spend their hard earned money at your stand.
Is this theft were I stole your customers, or just competition - one of the basic principles that keeps our markets and economy running?
Other arguments can be made for the resale of products. Because technically you're also depriving someone from some hypothetical income, since if you didn't resell it, other people would certainly have bought it at the full price from an official vendor. Is that illegal? There's certainly a lot of people in the industry who think that it should be illegal. See all the DRM shenanigans where you no longer buy the software or equivalents themselves any more that can be redistributed, but you have to buy digital access rights to a remote platform, which can be easily sold by you without voiding your contract. Fortunately enough people seem to be sane enough to see that this is bogus.
I'd postulate that it is not deprivation of hypothetical income that makes such acts illegal, because that opens a can of worms. It's infringing certain rights that makes it illegal. In the case of making unlicensed copies it's infringing their copy right, which is illegal.
My hypothesis here being that the concept of theft is a lot easier to grasp for all the dumbasses out there than the concept of infringement. Because nobody likes if someone is taking away from them. So becoming a victim of theft is something most people can emphasize with - certainly something a jury could emphasize with a lot better than having their rights infringed.
As far as most civilized nations around the globe go theft is usually defined as depriving someone of something, causing damages in the process. Copying is not depriving something of the exclusive rights to copy something as they've still got that right. Copying is infringing that exclusive right.
That is a healthy stance, given the current marketing trends. I'd like to extend that sentiment to "never buy before you've seen thorough reviews".
In the case of No Man's Sky it wasn't apparent right away that the game lacked multi-player. After all it had a huge, procedurally generated universe where the odds of meeting another players would be abysmally small. Only later players found out that their client simply does not communicate with the internet in any meaningful way.
But if you look at projects like Star Citizen and their funding history (can be found in another one of my comments here) it does not appear like a lot has changed in the recent past when it comes to people 'investing' money in their dream despite it being subjected to heavy criticism frequently. There you have an increasing number of people that condemn CIG's business practices and the slow progress of the project and still a seemingly never ending stream of other vocal (maybe minorities) that defend it tooth and nail.
In these days of the video game industry you may as well give them a medal, because the modus operandi has become to never release such features that were promised for launch for free.
That sounds like a strong correlation. But you still have to examine and disprove other factors that could have an influence on the outcome in order to improve certainty.
Anyway, I suppose it's a good thing that cell phones aren't used as phones that often any more.
My point would be that their numbers are still rising steadily. There's even a spreadsheet that will give you some more insights by providing a time scale. https://docs.google.com/spread... I mean sure, if you don't give refunds there's no other way than up, hence their curve must by definition be steady, but we should be able to see at least some stagnation there if the hypothesis of my parent was universally applicable. However, instead of that we see a nearly constant slope with some jumps (due to special events). If you scroll a bit lower you'll be able to see a similar trend in the number of pledges.
It appears like no matter what, there will always be a significant influx of new people who are happily buying into the idea, ignoring all criticism and empirical evidence from other, less ambitious projects, that is already out there on the internet.
Are you sure about that? Maybe take a loot at the numbers on this site here: https://robertsspaceindustries...
No question, Hello Games lied about a lot of features of the game as far as the release version goes. But they have been continuing to develop and expand the game in scope and features. And all that without asking for another penny of their customers for expansions or by adding micro transactions and so forth. With the update in 3 days the game is supposed to finally get its multi-player feature that lets you play together with friends and random people.
Hardware trends gravitate towards adding more and more CPU cores and threads in order to increase performance instead of increasing IPC and clocks. AMD will soon release their 64 thread monsters for HEDT and workstations and we're seriously discussing if Python will be the future?
Maybe in very specific niches, but I don't see it utilizing future hardware very well compared to the many other options that are capable of running multiple threads.
On top of that national consumer protection institutions usually don't do a lot on their own either.
First they need people to complain about something. Then they investigate the matter, maybe file class action lawsuits or take other legal routes. But that step with people complaining is crucial.
And yes, action/reaction taking too long can become a problem, because of customary laws. If things were handled that way for such a long time that they can be considered to be normal by everyone, they're sometimes allowed to technically break a law.
We are talking about a person who states on their twitter that they work on a specific game for a specific company. People who read their twitter are going to judge them based on their statements there. And the readers are going to assume that they're at least speaking in a somewhat official capacity of that company. The way they stated their affiliation is also used to claim some sort of authority here and there:
Source: https://twitter.com/Delafina77...
And if you act like that, affiliating yourself with a company you have to expect that said company may not like the publicity that you're creating for them. Will that company ask people who are upset to get to know that person on a more intimate level? Maybe they should, but that's not very economic for them to do so. So they're looking for cheaper solutions. Like I said, I don't think that firing them was the right choice, especially if they were doing good work.
But unfortunately that is how the business world works. If you manage to piss off/alienate a bunch of people - (potential) customers - while associating yourself with your employer, you'll get into trouble.
It's certainly a possibility that they're nice in person.
But from my perspective the way they chose to portrait themselves on twitter and that is all I have to base my assumption on. I've got nothing that urges me to assume otherwise - Occam's Razor.
But since you appear to resort to questioning the person who makes the statement instead of the statement on its own merits: let me ask why you assume that my observation is due to how their twitter sounded in my head, based on a few internet sentences?
Source: https://twitter.com/Delafina77...
So I'd assume that she works for whatever company develops GW2, which is ArenaNet.
Now I'm not sure whether or not she deserved to be fired over this incident. Given her twitter I can only assume that she not a very pleasant person. I can understand that ArenaNet does not want to be associated with that part of her. But that doesn't tell a lot about her actual work at ArenaNet. For example I think that Orson Scott Card is an asshole, but his Ender's Game is still a fine piece of writing and worth a read. If this was the first incident I think she deserved a warning and not to be fired right away.
As you mention slasher villains. This isn't the first incarnation either. Remember SOPA, PIPA, and ACTA? Pretty much the same bullshit as this article - tried and failed.
It will be back under a different name, maybe under different pretence, terrorism and child protection are always a good disguise.
Didn't you read "A Brave New World"? Maybe we don't design humans outright, but there's enough evolutionary programming in us already that can be exploited.
Ask yourself why would anyone willingly consume and pay for poisons like cigarettes or alcohol? Consume and pay for unhealthy food, sit in front of that that TV, spent hours a day on the internet on social media looking at pictures and videos of cute animals, funny pictures and videos, and so forth.
So? It's one extreme on the spectrum of possibilities. That's the point here - there's an entire spectrum. In theory communism could even work in a libertarian society if there was a consensus on handling their economy exactly that way.
Stalin certainly wasn't stupid. He surely realized that giving all the power to the people wasn't going to work. People tend to be irresponsible and embracing cheap comforts. But Stalin didn't go for something in between, he essentially choose to make himself the new czar with unilateral control over everything and created a personal cult around him that celebrated him much like a good in the name of Marx's economic theories and labels like "people's republic" or "democracy" where all you can choose is one single party, perhaps there's also some other fake opposition. As far as I know their official position wasn't that they're communist, but that they were trying to get there through socialism. Of course they never really did what would have been at least the bare minimum to actually get there. Like teaching people to think independently and that all actions have consequences. If people were able to do that, they could question what was actually going on in those states under the guise of communism. So Stalin had to keep his people ignorant enough to not turn against him. And in order to do that there have been a lot of distraction tactics like fanning fear of bigger enemies (capitalism that came from the West) and practically blaming it for all their woes. Those that weren't convinced so easily needed a bit more help, maybe through lethal force. And it worked pretty well from the perspective of those in power (for a while at least).
I can see how other would be tyrants could get behind the idea of this "communism" and mostly copied what Stalin did, which more accurately should be described as Stalinism.
Of course don't get me wrong here. I'm not postulating that communism could work on such a large scale under different circumstances. But the "as communist as can be" just isn't correct.