Email on phones is a much newer thing than SMS which has been in use for nearly two decades in Europe. It is well entrenched and requires the knowledges of a phone number as opposed to the knowledge of email addresses.
You've got it completely backwards with "larger non limited contact base".
Yes, you may know more email addresses than phone numbers, but for most people they know more people with mobile phone numbers (every single mobile phone owner) than people with email capable mobile phones (the subset of mobile phone owners who has a smart phone and has it set up to check that specific email address).
Also when you send someone a text, it is with the assumption that they may be anywhere and well away from a computer. They may even be in an area with very limited 3G (or even EDGE) connection, leading to slow use of email, but sufficient basic signal to get text messages.
I hope you now see some of the advantages of SMS over email. It may not be for you, but it is a different thing altogether.
5. You get semi-permanent storage/note taking for free. If someone texted you "I'll pick you up at 5PM tomorrow" (as posted by Shikaku above), it will remain in your inbox with no need to write it down on a piece of paper. Similarly, people can text you contact details. 6. Receiving a text is a thousand times less annoying than a voice mail. Voice mail requires much better phone signal, requires you to pay to listen to it (yes I know Americans get fleeced on receiving text messages) and most importantly you receive the information immediately rather than go through hoops ("You have [pause] one [pause] new message and [pause] two [pause] saved messages. To listen to your messages press one...[long pause]... Hi this is Jeremy, I wanted to know if you fancied going to the cinema tonight. Give me a call when you get this."). By the time you've got the information, it could easily be two minutes later. Apple improved on this with the iPhone's visual voice mail, but it is still not as good as a text.
GSM was not the first mobile phone network in Europe. The Nordic countries used the analogue NMT (Nordic Mobile Telephone) system, and other countries had other analogue systems.
However, the lack of a Europe-wide standard analogue network made the arguments for GSM considerably stronger and because consumer adoption was also quick, the analogue networks became obsolete very quickly and some places switched off soon after the GSM network became widespread.
It's not. It is Lee-nucks. There are very few rules about pronunciation in the English language, and that is why you end up with Lie-Knicks, Lynn Nucks, etc. But Linux is named after Linus Torvalds, who would pronounce his name "Lee-nus".
As far as I can tell (and please correct me) Glenn Beck was given an honorary PhD from a not very well renowned evangelical university. That is not the same as earning a PhD.
To bring things slightly back on topic, far more deserving people, such as Linus Torvalds, have received honorary degrees from far more established universities (1 and 2).
Yet, only pompous people, and certainly not Torvalds, would refer to themselves as Dr. on the basis of an honorary degree. Torvalds, who is educated to a Masters degree (unlike Beck), which in Scandinavia used to be quite close to some countries' PhD, knows better.
Not quite that simple. Both the Apple A4 and Samsung's own version (which seem to be practically the same chips (*)) were co-developed by Samsung and Intrinsity and Intrinsity was absorbed by Apple earlier this year.
So technically, they are using processors which are co-developed between them (and manufactured by Samsung).
(*) Samsung has upgraded the PowerVR part in their version of the chip for the Galaxy S.
"Women initiate about 70% of all divorces in the United States, which puts the average man at a 33% risk that for whatever reason,"
Eh.. no. You can't deduce 33% risk from that 70% of all divorces in any possible way. If there was a hundred divorces a year in the US and women initiated 99% of those, the probability of getting divorced that year would still be in the order of one in tens of millions.
"The fact that a woman can divorce a man for literally no reason in particular (this is what "no fault divorce" really means) has made divorce extremely likely to happen to most men"
It has also made it much more likely that a woman can live a reasonable self-fulfilled life without abuse and domestic violence.
People may have the best intentions when they get married, but life has a tendency to not work out the way you planned. You see; it is impossible to know fully whether you are going to be able to live together 50 years from now. I know several families that are far better off divorced than they ever were as married.
Do we REALLY want them to sell broadband to anyone even if they know the service will be shit? As far as I can see, this isn't the crux of the matter and I think Slashdot could be doing a lot more to improve the quality of their editing.
"Bioware needs to jump ship from the cinematic epic and graphics shell game and take stock of the history behind RPG gaming."
Bioware needs to do no such thing. They are among the successful ones competing in the overcrowded £35+ game segment. Mass Effect was my least favourite Bioware game for a very long time but it was massively successful.
What they are really is saying is that unless you are as good as them, you are unlikely to make any money in the Blockbuster game segment and you might as well focus on smaller, simpler titles in the £20 range. This is clearly self-serving (they'd make more money with less competition), but it is also true and it probably would be in the interest of gamers.
There are too many games and games studios that fail and go bankrupt, striving for that epic. If they had just taken a somewhat narrower and leaner approach, they might have survived. And us consumers might have gotten a great (although less flashy) game instead of a pretty but bug ridden mess released in desperation.
Could they have released a borked up driver named after the competition so that in time people looking into Ubuntu might recognize the name Canonical and associate it with something that "compromise the stability and security of PCs?"
I think this post demonstrates a new level of paranoia when it comes to Microsoft.
"If people don't want netbooks, then why do they buy netbooks [netbookchoice.com]? Are you suggesting that people are somehow buying netbooks against their will?"
Did you stop reading his post early on purpose? If you finish the paragraph you quoted you will see that he has already answered your question:
"What they want is low cost and portable. Until now, netbooks were pretty much the only product to fit that bill."
He has an excellent point. People haven't had a choice before if they wanted something portable and cheap.
People are different and your experiences do not negate the parent poster's.
I have seen lots of people that are too timid to touch anything they don't know what does. I've also seen lots of people that will just press buttons willy nilly with no idea what anything does.
These are both extreme examples of users with a poor understanding of computer systems. The majority exists somewhere in the middle of them.
Quoting the Daily Mail does not give you any credibility whatsoever in political debate. Also note that the author of your article worked for the Daily Express, an even more hate-mongering and populist rag between 1977 and 2000.
That's probably because we think it would have been a good thing for someone to blow up the houses of parliament and take down a corrupt government. At least that's what I thought until I was about 20. It never occurred to me that the government wasn't corrupt and that Fawkes wasn't a 'freedom fighter'. I suppose that just goes to show the quality of our historical education at school and the faith in the current government (the one I've grown up with) from a average lowly commoner.
Whether Fawkes was a 'freedom fighter' or not depends on your point of view. Fawkes was a Catholic, and Catholics at this time were a persecuted and oppressed minority deprived of many rights others took for granted. Being a Catholic was in many cases enough to be guilty of treason and many were executed and many more were exiled and/or had their property taken away. While King James I was originally more moderate than previous monarchs, he became harsher in the years before the Gunpowder plot.
The gunpowder plot aimed to kill the king and the government (the people actually responsible for the oppressive legislation). You could thus argue that they weren't 'innocent civilians'. Furthermore, it is hard to envision any non-violent and democratic way which British Catholics could have used at the time.
So there may be nothing wrong with your historical education giving you the impression that Fawkes was a freedom fighter who aimed to take down a corrupt government.
But as often happens when using violence to get your way, the opposite happened. The violent reactions by the conspirators led to even harsher treatment of Catholics in Britain.
It seems to me that the whole ordeal was a sad mess with little to be proud of on either side.
"Well, Jeremy Clarkson may disagree with you [bbc.co.uk]. He was stung after putting his account details in a national paper."
This is clearly an implementation issue that can be sorted out.
You should never be able to set up a direct debit without proving who you are. The best way to do this is if you have to set it up yourself, either in person or on your Internet bank.
The Brits came late to this game and failed to understand and copy the systems that have worked well in other countries. One of the worst is allowing companies to set up a direct debit with your bank as long as you have signed some piece of paper with them. This is not how it is done in Norway at least.
"The wire transfer exists, true, but it is not free. It may cost you $20 to send a couple thousand dollars to another country. A check will cost you just a stamp. "
This is simply not true. All banks I've been with charge money to "cash" a foreign cheque. And why shouldn't they? They require all the work that wire transfers do and then some.
What you are talking about are small and artificial obstacles based on economics/greed. Not some technical or practical difficulty. And sooner or later paying by cheque will start to get expensive.
Last year I bought a freezer. Recently, just as the warranty ran out I received a letter urging me to buy a £35 three year extended warranty for it for "peace of mind". The letter told me that replacing the engine on it could cost as much as £100. Given that the freezer only cost me £95 to begin with, I wasn't impressed.
When I didn't respond to this shambolic offer, the insurance company sent me another letter to reinforce how important it is for me to "protect my investment".
I'm pretty sure there are people around who do go for these offers, otherwise why would the insurance company even bother?
"You have it RIGHT on the head. That is why when ppl speak of CO2 on a per capita basis, I just want to shoot them. Basically, it rewards nations that breed like f***ing rabbits. Instead, it should be based on emissions per SQ KM".
You have an interesting sense of justice. Wealth and education are well known for being the most effective birth control measures we have. Since the western way of life is built on our massive energy consumption per capita, it follows that one of the chief reasons for our lower birth rates is our energy consumption and thus our CO2-emissions.
The fact is that the US is the world's biggest polluter per capita. This probably looks a lot better if you measure per SQ KM instead but quite frankly this would be meaningless. It not like Americans spend a large part of their energy heating the Rocky Mountains (*), so why should they benefit from their huge land areas (**)?
The problem is definitely not overpopulation. The wealthiest 7% of people contribute approximately 50% of the world's emissions and the 50% poorest contribute approximately 7% of the emissions (source).
Thus if everyone produced as much CO2 as the nations that breed like "f***ing rabbits", our CO2 emissions would be roughly 14% of what it is now. I'm fully aware this is simplistic, if everyone produced that little CO2 everyone would likely be breeding like "f***ing rabbits", however it is very likely that we could reduce our emissions by 50% at least by behaving more sensibly.
Attempting to switch the measurements is essentially an easy and actually quite evil cop-out. Think of the allowances that would be given to the British or Japanese compared to that of the Americans? Do you really think that is fair? It is far, far easier for countries with big land mass to reduce their energy consumption per capita than it is for countries with a small landmass and large population to reduce their energy consumption per SQ KM. Only mass deportation or deaths would solve those problems for Japan and Britain.
(*) Well, actually you do due to the green house effect, but it is surely not deliberate. (**) I am Norwegian, which due to a very low population density would benefit greatly from measuring CO2 per SQ KM rather than per capita. I currently live in Britain who would comparably suffer greatly from this change.
"(E.g., if I squat in a building you aren't using, or cross your property to get to the other side, etc.)"
You most definitely are depriving me of something if you are doing either of those things.
First, houses experience wear and tear and need periodic maintenance and refurbishment to remain usable. Every house is unused at some point or another, either when I am away on holiday or a period before I manage to sell a house. If you squat in the house, you are reducing the value of my house and in real practical terms it almost always causes real complications trying to sell the house.
Second. Crossing a property may seem completely harmless to you, but it may be an invasion of privacy and if enough people do it, it can cause real wear and tear on your property. It may also ruin crops, upset animals and cause people real problems.
First of all, this is a shared memory system, meaning it isn't really comparable to a cluster-supercomputer using distributed memory. Building a big shared memory system isn't usually something done by hobbyists or regular sysadmins.
If you need a shared memory system, you need a shared memory system and no amount of cluster nodes can do the job for you.
Instead this is more like an entry, low end, version of some of SGI's other offerings such as the Altix 4700 which supports up to 1024 cores in a shared memory system.
That you can get an 80 core shared-memory system with 240GB of memory for $53k is news to me, but then I haven't been watching the prices of these systems lately. Also the price point is certainly attractive enough that it may make sense to buy one of these rather than convert your shared-memory code to MPI, even if such a transition is possible for your purpose. Given complex enough algorithms the transition could easily cost you much more than that in manpower.
Actually, I just realised my posts probably reads a bit like SGI astroturfing....
Could someone please stop modding this down? It really is not a troll and the post is essentially true.
Comparing a quad core high-performance desktop processor with a lightweight low power mobile/embedded processor would be completely pointless. An argument which the parent actually made with a little bit of humour.
The quad core desktop processor would absolutely trash the ARM in performance, but would result in a phone that would (literally) burn a whole in your pocket for 5 minutes until it ran out of battery.
It really is like comparing apples to oranges. Both types of processors are completely unsuitable for the main uses of the other.
Besides I can think of at least one use for a female flyweight newbie for which I'd never consider a male heavyweight champion.
Slashdot Mirror
Email on phones is a much newer thing than SMS which has been in use for nearly two decades in Europe. It is well entrenched and requires the knowledges of a phone number as opposed to the knowledge of email addresses.
You've got it completely backwards with "larger non limited contact base".
Yes, you may know more email addresses than phone numbers, but for most people they know more people with mobile phone numbers (every single mobile phone owner) than people with email capable mobile phones (the subset of mobile phone owners who has a smart phone and has it set up to check that specific email address).
Also when you send someone a text, it is with the assumption that they may be anywhere and well away from a computer. They may even be in an area with very limited 3G (or even EDGE) connection, leading to slow use of email, but sufficient basic signal to get text messages.
I hope you now see some of the advantages of SMS over email. It may not be for you, but it is a different thing altogether.
5. You get semi-permanent storage/note taking for free. If someone texted you "I'll pick you up at 5PM tomorrow" (as posted by Shikaku above), it will remain in your inbox with no need to write it down on a piece of paper. Similarly, people can text you contact details.
6. Receiving a text is a thousand times less annoying than a voice mail. Voice mail requires much better phone signal, requires you to pay to listen to it (yes I know Americans get fleeced on receiving text messages) and most importantly you receive the information immediately rather than go through hoops ("You have [pause] one [pause] new message and [pause] two [pause] saved messages. To listen to your messages press one...[long pause]... Hi this is Jeremy, I wanted to know if you fancied going to the cinema tonight. Give me a call when you get this."). By the time you've got the information, it could easily be two minutes later. Apple improved on this with the iPhone's visual voice mail, but it is still not as good as a text.
GSM was not the first mobile phone network in Europe. The Nordic countries used the analogue NMT (Nordic Mobile Telephone) system, and other countries had other analogue systems.
However, the lack of a Europe-wide standard analogue network made the arguments for GSM considerably stronger and because consumer adoption was also quick, the analogue networks became obsolete very quickly and some places switched off soon after the GSM network became widespread.
"corrected that it's Lynn Nucks"
It's not. It is Lee-nucks. There are very few rules about pronunciation in the English language, and that is why you end up with Lie-Knicks, Lynn Nucks, etc. But Linux is named after Linus Torvalds, who would pronounce his name "Lee-nus".
"earned a PhD"?
As far as I can tell (and please correct me) Glenn Beck was given an honorary PhD from a not very well renowned evangelical university. That is not the same as earning a PhD.
To bring things slightly back on topic, far more deserving people, such as Linus Torvalds, have received honorary degrees from far more established universities (1 and 2).
Yet, only pompous people, and certainly not Torvalds, would refer to themselves as Dr. on the basis of an honorary degree. Torvalds, who is educated to a Masters degree (unlike Beck), which in Scandinavia used to be quite close to some countries' PhD, knows better.
"Apple is using Samsung's processor"
Not quite that simple. Both the Apple A4 and Samsung's own version (which seem to be practically the same chips (*)) were co-developed by Samsung and Intrinsity and Intrinsity was absorbed by Apple earlier this year.
So technically, they are using processors which are co-developed between them (and manufactured by Samsung).
(*) Samsung has upgraded the PowerVR part in their version of the chip for the Galaxy S.
"Women initiate about 70% of all divorces in the United States, which puts the average man at a 33% risk that for whatever reason,"
Eh.. no. You can't deduce 33% risk from that 70% of all divorces in any possible way. If there was a hundred divorces a year in the US and women initiated 99% of those, the probability of getting divorced that year would still be in the order of one in tens of millions.
"The fact that a woman can divorce a man for literally no reason in particular (this is what "no fault divorce" really means) has made divorce extremely likely to happen to most men"
It has also made it much more likely that a woman can live a reasonable self-fulfilled life without abuse and domestic violence.
People may have the best intentions when they get married, but life has a tendency to not work out the way you planned. You see; it is impossible to know fully whether you are going to be able to live together 50 years from now. I know several families that are far better off divorced than they ever were as married.
Do we REALLY want them to sell broadband to anyone even if they know the service will be shit? As far as I can see, this isn't the crux of the matter and I think Slashdot could be doing a lot more to improve the quality of their editing.
"It's a game that benefits no one"
Not true. It benefits the lawyers and the rest of the legal industry massively.
"Bioware needs to jump ship from the cinematic epic and graphics shell game and take stock of the history behind RPG gaming."
Bioware needs to do no such thing. They are among the successful ones competing in the overcrowded £35+ game segment. Mass Effect was my least favourite Bioware game for a very long time but it was massively successful.
What they are really is saying is that unless you are as good as them, you are unlikely to make any money in the Blockbuster game segment and you might as well focus on smaller, simpler titles in the £20 range. This is clearly self-serving (they'd make more money with less competition), but it is also true and it probably would be in the interest of gamers.
There are too many games and games studios that fail and go bankrupt, striving for that epic. If they had just taken a somewhat narrower and leaner approach, they might have survived. And us consumers might have gotten a great (although less flashy) game instead of a pretty but bug ridden mess released in desperation.
Canonical
Could they have released a borked up driver named after the competition so that in time people looking into Ubuntu might recognize the name Canonical and associate it with something that "compromise the stability and security of PCs?"
I think this post demonstrates a new level of paranoia when it comes to Microsoft.
"Why would anyone want to get an iPad if they have an iPhone and a Kindle?"
I have no idea. But then very, very (I'm tempted to use a few more "very"s) few people actually have Kindles.
"If people don't want netbooks, then why do they buy netbooks [netbookchoice.com]? Are you suggesting that people are somehow buying netbooks against their will?"
Did you stop reading his post early on purpose? If you finish the paragraph you quoted you will see that he has already answered your question:
"What they want is low cost and portable. Until now, netbooks were pretty much the only product to fit that bill."
He has an excellent point. People haven't had a choice before if they wanted something portable and cheap.
People are different and your experiences do not negate the parent poster's.
I have seen lots of people that are too timid to touch anything they don't know what does. I've also seen lots of people that will just press buttons willy nilly with no idea what anything does.
These are both extreme examples of users with a poor understanding of computer systems. The majority exists somewhere in the middle of them.
Quoting the Daily Mail does not give you any credibility whatsoever in political debate. Also note that the author of your article worked for the Daily Express, an even more hate-mongering and populist rag between 1977 and 2000.
That's probably because we think it would have been a good thing for someone to blow up the houses of parliament and take down a corrupt government. At least that's what I thought until I was about 20. It never occurred to me that the government wasn't corrupt and that Fawkes wasn't a 'freedom fighter'. I suppose that just goes to show the quality of our historical education at school and the faith in the current government (the one I've grown up with) from a average lowly commoner.
Whether Fawkes was a 'freedom fighter' or not depends on your point of view. Fawkes was a Catholic, and Catholics at this time were a persecuted and oppressed minority deprived of many rights others took for granted. Being a Catholic was in many cases enough to be guilty of treason and many were executed and many more were exiled and/or had their property taken away. While King James I was originally more moderate than previous monarchs, he became harsher in the years before the Gunpowder plot.
The gunpowder plot aimed to kill the king and the government (the people actually responsible for the oppressive legislation). You could thus argue that they weren't 'innocent civilians'. Furthermore, it is hard to envision any non-violent and democratic way which British Catholics could have used at the time.
So there may be nothing wrong with your historical education giving you the impression that Fawkes was a freedom fighter who aimed to take down a corrupt government.
But as often happens when using violence to get your way, the opposite happened. The violent reactions by the conspirators led to even harsher treatment of Catholics in Britain.
It seems to me that the whole ordeal was a sad mess with little to be proud of on either side.
"Well, Jeremy Clarkson may disagree with you [bbc.co.uk]. He was stung after putting his account details in a national paper."
This is clearly an implementation issue that can be sorted out.
You should never be able to set up a direct debit without proving who you are. The best way to do this is if you have to set it up yourself, either in person or on your Internet bank.
The Brits came late to this game and failed to understand and copy the systems that have worked well in other countries. One of the worst is allowing companies to set up a direct debit with your bank as long as you have signed some piece of paper with them. This is not how it is done in Norway at least.
Actually, most grandparents seems to have adapted to the new system in Europe, which has existed since the 80s.
When it comes to the UK, the 65 year old grand parent is only 58 years old now and have 8 years to adapt. Seems reasonable to me.
"The wire transfer exists, true, but it is not free. It may cost you $20 to send a couple thousand dollars to another country. A check will cost you just a stamp. "
This is simply not true. All banks I've been with charge money to "cash" a foreign cheque. And why shouldn't they? They require all the work that wire transfers do and then some.
What you are talking about are small and artificial obstacles based on economics/greed. Not some technical or practical difficulty. And sooner or later paying by cheque will start to get expensive.
Last year I bought a freezer. Recently, just as the warranty ran out I received a letter urging me to buy a £35 three year extended warranty for it for "peace of mind". The letter told me that replacing the engine on it could cost as much as £100. Given that the freezer only cost me £95 to begin with, I wasn't impressed.
When I didn't respond to this shambolic offer,
the insurance company sent me another letter to reinforce how important it is for me to "protect my investment".
I'm pretty sure there are people around who do go for these offers, otherwise why would the insurance company even bother?
"You have it RIGHT on the head. That is why when ppl speak of CO2 on a per capita basis, I just want to shoot them. Basically, it rewards nations that breed like f***ing rabbits. Instead, it should be based on emissions per SQ KM".
You have an interesting sense of justice. Wealth and education are well known for being the most effective birth control measures we have. Since the western way of life is built on our massive energy consumption per capita, it follows that one of the chief reasons for our lower birth rates is our energy consumption and thus our CO2-emissions.
The fact is that the US is the world's biggest polluter per capita. This probably looks a lot better if you measure per SQ KM instead but quite frankly this would be meaningless. It not like Americans spend a large part of their energy heating the Rocky Mountains (*), so why should they benefit from their huge land areas (**)?
The problem is definitely not overpopulation. The wealthiest 7% of people contribute approximately 50% of the world's emissions and the 50% poorest contribute approximately 7% of the emissions (source).
Thus if everyone produced as much CO2 as the nations that breed like "f***ing rabbits", our CO2 emissions would be roughly 14% of what it is now. I'm fully aware this is simplistic, if everyone produced that little CO2 everyone would likely be breeding like "f***ing rabbits", however it is very likely that we could reduce our emissions by 50% at least by behaving more sensibly.
Attempting to switch the measurements is essentially an easy and actually quite evil cop-out. Think of the allowances that would be given to the British or Japanese compared to that of the Americans? Do you really think that is fair? It is far, far easier for countries with big land mass to reduce their energy consumption per capita than it is for countries with a small landmass and large population to reduce their energy consumption per SQ KM. Only mass deportation or deaths would solve those problems for Japan and Britain.
(*) Well, actually you do due to the green house effect, but it is surely not deliberate.
(**) I am Norwegian, which due to a very low population density would benefit greatly from measuring CO2 per SQ KM rather than per capita. I currently live in Britain who would comparably suffer greatly from this change.
"(E.g., if I squat in a building you aren't using, or cross your property to get to the other side, etc.)"
You most definitely are depriving me of something if you are doing either of those things.
First, houses experience wear and tear and need periodic maintenance and refurbishment to remain usable. Every house is unused at some point or another, either when I am away on holiday or a period before I manage to sell a house. If you squat in the house, you are reducing the value of my house and in real practical terms it almost always causes real complications trying to sell the house.
Second. Crossing a property may seem completely harmless to you, but it may be an invasion of privacy and if enough people do it, it can cause real wear and tear on your property. It may also ruin crops, upset animals and cause people real problems.
First of all, this is a shared memory system, meaning it isn't really comparable to a cluster-supercomputer using distributed memory. Building a big shared memory system isn't usually something done by hobbyists or regular sysadmins.
If you need a shared memory system, you need a shared memory system and no amount of cluster nodes can do the job for you.
Instead this is more like an entry, low end, version of some of SGI's other offerings such as the Altix 4700 which supports up to 1024 cores in a shared memory system.
That you can get an 80 core shared-memory system with 240GB of memory for $53k is news to me, but then I haven't been watching the prices of these systems lately. Also the price point is certainly attractive enough that it may make sense to buy one of these rather than convert your shared-memory code to MPI, even if such a transition is possible for your purpose. Given complex enough algorithms the transition could easily cost you much more than that in manpower.
Actually, I just realised my posts probably reads a bit like SGI astroturfing....
I live in Portugal and never heard of a "large "net cafe" industry around here. Most people access net from home, school or the office.
He's probably thinking as a tourist. All tourist places tend to have plenty of net cafes. Not to cater for locals, but to cater for the tourists.
When I last visited a tourist trap in Portugal, there was plenty of net cafes there, but they are probably very rare outside the tourist areas.
Could someone please stop modding this down? It really is not a troll and the post is essentially true.
Comparing a quad core high-performance desktop processor with a lightweight low power mobile/embedded processor would be completely pointless. An argument which the parent actually made with a little bit of humour.
The quad core desktop processor would absolutely trash the ARM in performance, but would result in a phone that would (literally) burn a whole in your pocket for 5 minutes until it ran out of battery.
It really is like comparing apples to oranges. Both types of processors are completely unsuitable for the main uses of the other.
Besides I can think of at least one use for a female flyweight newbie for which I'd never consider a male heavyweight champion.