I'm going to have to punt, here, as I'm one of those people who won't actually read the releases on the grounds that I believe they're still legally classified.
I have seen excerpts inadvertently in previous threads on slashdot that include names and/or enough specifics to directly identify people who are spying for us. I've also seen reports that we have had to scramble to protect a number of people because of it. Not so much in the recent state department release, but quite a few in the Afghanistan/Iraq military intel release earlier.
This was the predictable and inevitable result of releasing the information and is the reason we need to classify information.
I don't agree with classifying information merely to prevent prosecution or embarassment. Those are illegal acts, and the laws for classifying information state as much explicitly, and provide specific methods for declassifying such information to be sure that properly classified information is not declassified. But Wikileaks ignores that and acts as though it's alright to put people in danger as long as you're getting a lot of press throwing secrets around.
That isn't anything like the reason the Supreme Court found for the Times in the Ellsberg case. They found for the Times because the Nixon White House's point was that anything the President classified was a secret and therefore barred from publication. The Supreme Court decided that this was far too broad a power and would be used to chill free speech. The rules by which presidents delegate classification authority have changed because of that, and now it may be possible to find the Times guilty of releasing properly classified information included in a pile of documents that included improperly classified information. It's the responsibility of the journalist to determine if he's breaking the law. Nothing to do with whether he stole or solicited stealing himself.
BTW, Wikileaks does solicit theft of classified information, constantly and vigorously, so don't try to help them with this when they're in court, you'll just confuse their defense.
The Constitution is based on the real experiences of the founders, not strawman arguments.
However, your point, despite the logical fallacy, is correct. Words and phrases can change meaning over time. This word included. Just not in the way it's used in this context. See below. So your point, while correct, is irrelevant.
Regulate meant then what it does now: to keep things from going out of control, to normalize*. The uses of the commerce clause that keep the states from being too different in their trade practices when dealing with each other and with foreign entities are exactly what the commerce clause was for. The FCC has a reduced jurisdiction over cable because, unlike broadcasting, cable TV communications don't emanate across state lines (you can see pussy on cable in St. Louis Missouri not because you have to request the link but because your neighbor in East St. Louis Illinois isn't having that pussy broadcast into his TV too, and the FCC's usual rules about broadcasting pussy can't be applied). Unless you're a multistate corporation like Comcast or Cox, and then you're back in federal territory.
* - there's a slightly tighter meaning to the phrase "well-regulated" as used in the 2nd Amendment, since that idiom was more of a synonym for "fit for a purpose" and didn't invoke the sense of "controlled." Not so much the words "to regulate" as used in the Commerce Clause.
All AMD stuff tends to be cheaper. For the same reason their chips tend to be cheaper. Not because they cost less to make, but because undercutting significantly on price is the only way they can compete.
And Intel's chipsets are in many ways superior these days. This isn't 2004.
I doubt it. But this isn't the first time his name has come up regarding the comparison, and it's coming up a lot more often now, so it's reasonable to see him writing this, whether it's solicited or not, so as to reduce the flood of questions.
1. The NY Times and Wikileaks are two different beasts when it comes to "journalism". If they aren't, then every spy could be issued with a press pass from his intelligence agency's house organ and be immune to prosecution. This may be a matter for the courts to delineate further, but it's clear to reasonable observers.
2. There's a distinction to be made between things that are improperly classified and should be released and things that are properly classified and should not. Since the Ellsberg case, those distinctions have been made a part of law and are explicitly spelled out in the presidential directive that delegates his authority to classify information, from which flows everyone else's authority (within the American system).
3. There is a procedure for declassifying information and a system for getting that moving. People who simply ignore that and publish so as to maximize the publicity value of the information are not interested in security at all. The law accounts for that. Ask Scooter Libby.
4. I'm about the farthest thing from a right-wing anything you could find wearing shoes, and I think that parts of the Pentagon Papers release suffer from the same problem that parts of the Wikileaks releases do. The information that shouldn't have been classified certainly should have been released, but the endangerment of the lives of people due to the release of information that was justifiably classified verges on negligent homicide.
I already pay for use by buying the top-tier bandwidth option and fitting into their stochastic model of peak usage.
But usage patterns have changed and they think they can ask for more money because now I'm using my Internet as a TV, which is outside the stochastic model they used to produce the cost apportioned to me when they set the tiered pricing model.
But the resource isn't actually scarce. I paid for unlimited usage of a 30-mbps link. It will be scarce when I need to get more than 30 mb of data into each second. And then I'll go to their competitor, who is now offering a 40-mbps option (but I'm leery of the reality of that, since it's DSL).
I'm looking at it and it says "to regulate commerce", not "to regulate trade wars". If one of the reasons was to prevent trade wars, then it succeeds, sometimes. If another was to ensure the equitable distribution of federally-funded trade protections and infrastructure improvements, then it succeeds, sometimes.
If I'm shaping the wave so that it reflects off the lateral sides of the screw slot, it can produce a reaction force in the screw. No? Send it one way at one end of the slot and the other way at the other end, and you get a torque. Yes?
Part numbers and prices will have changed by now, but the basic structure of that graph doesn't change much over time. Two years ago Intel was actually ruling performance/price in the midrange, but AMD started slashing prices because it was getting completely killed in unit sales. AMD now strategizes pricing to remain a few dollars to the left of Intel at every price point it enters, because if it doesn't it will go out of business within a few months.
But AMD chips cost more to make than Intel chips, and AMD has to share that money with its fab partners: GlobalFoundries, TSMC, UMC, and Chartered. AMD no longer fabs chips (GlobalFoundries is its fab spinoff), which puts it at a serious production-efficiency disadvantage. You can attribute some of the slip in Fusion to this.
It spanked nothing. It may have been a nudge better in performance at the same price, or $3-5 less for the same performance, but Intel gets a little juice from its brand recognition and power and reliability numbers.
In those segments where Intel and AMD compete, Intel can make better ASPs than AMD, and manufactures the goods for cheaper per unit. That's why AMD is still dinky and Intel is a behemoth. In those segments where AMD and Intel don't compete head-to-head, you find Intel parts and no AMD parts. AMD has no niche to itself. That's another reason for the dinky/behemoth ratio.
P.S. Daps for flashing the BIOS just to get a board running under your chip. 3 out of 1000/.ers would have even considered it, and 1.5 of those would have bricked their system doing it.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm going to have to punt, here, as I'm one of those people who won't actually read the releases on the grounds that I believe they're still legally classified.
I have seen excerpts inadvertently in previous threads on slashdot that include names and/or enough specifics to directly identify people who are spying for us. I've also seen reports that we have had to scramble to protect a number of people because of it. Not so much in the recent state department release, but quite a few in the Afghanistan/Iraq military intel release earlier.
This was the predictable and inevitable result of releasing the information and is the reason we need to classify information.
I don't agree with classifying information merely to prevent prosecution or embarassment. Those are illegal acts, and the laws for classifying information state as much explicitly, and provide specific methods for declassifying such information to be sure that properly classified information is not declassified. But Wikileaks ignores that and acts as though it's alright to put people in danger as long as you're getting a lot of press throwing secrets around.
yeah. you're who i want making legal arguments for me. next.
That isn't anything like the reason the Supreme Court found for the Times in the Ellsberg case. They found for the Times because the Nixon White House's point was that anything the President classified was a secret and therefore barred from publication. The Supreme Court decided that this was far too broad a power and would be used to chill free speech. The rules by which presidents delegate classification authority have changed because of that, and now it may be possible to find the Times guilty of releasing properly classified information included in a pile of documents that included improperly classified information. It's the responsibility of the journalist to determine if he's breaking the law. Nothing to do with whether he stole or solicited stealing himself.
BTW, Wikileaks does solicit theft of classified information, constantly and vigorously, so don't try to help them with this when they're in court, you'll just confuse their defense.
The Constitution is based on the real experiences of the founders, not strawman arguments.
However, your point, despite the logical fallacy, is correct. Words and phrases can change meaning over time. This word included. Just not in the way it's used in this context. See below. So your point, while correct, is irrelevant.
Regulate meant then what it does now: to keep things from going out of control, to normalize*. The uses of the commerce clause that keep the states from being too different in their trade practices when dealing with each other and with foreign entities are exactly what the commerce clause was for. The FCC has a reduced jurisdiction over cable because, unlike broadcasting, cable TV communications don't emanate across state lines (you can see pussy on cable in St. Louis Missouri not because you have to request the link but because your neighbor in East St. Louis Illinois isn't having that pussy broadcast into his TV too, and the FCC's usual rules about broadcasting pussy can't be applied). Unless you're a multistate corporation like Comcast or Cox, and then you're back in federal territory.
* - there's a slightly tighter meaning to the phrase "well-regulated" as used in the 2nd Amendment, since that idiom was more of a synonym for "fit for a purpose" and didn't invoke the sense of "controlled." Not so much the words "to regulate" as used in the Commerce Clause.
AMD actually was better, both in performance and performance/price, and especially performance/power.
Intel tried to pull away from x86 and it cost them dearly. But they got back in the game and now those AMD superiorities are distant memories.
All AMD stuff tends to be cheaper. For the same reason their chips tend to be cheaper. Not because they cost less to make, but because undercutting significantly on price is the only way they can compete.
And Intel's chipsets are in many ways superior these days. This isn't 2004.
Are you saying Ellsberg is looking for attention?
I doubt it. But this isn't the first time his name has come up regarding the comparison, and it's coming up a lot more often now, so it's reasonable to see him writing this, whether it's solicited or not, so as to reduce the flood of questions.
1. The NY Times and Wikileaks are two different beasts when it comes to "journalism". If they aren't, then every spy could be issued with a press pass from his intelligence agency's house organ and be immune to prosecution. This may be a matter for the courts to delineate further, but it's clear to reasonable observers.
2. There's a distinction to be made between things that are improperly classified and should be released and things that are properly classified and should not. Since the Ellsberg case, those distinctions have been made a part of law and are explicitly spelled out in the presidential directive that delegates his authority to classify information, from which flows everyone else's authority (within the American system).
3. There is a procedure for declassifying information and a system for getting that moving. People who simply ignore that and publish so as to maximize the publicity value of the information are not interested in security at all. The law accounts for that. Ask Scooter Libby.
4. I'm about the farthest thing from a right-wing anything you could find wearing shoes, and I think that parts of the Pentagon Papers release suffer from the same problem that parts of the Wikileaks releases do. The information that shouldn't have been classified certainly should have been released, but the endangerment of the lives of people due to the release of information that was justifiably classified verges on negligent homicide.
Really? I thought they were about Babe Ruth and a musical.
My issue wasn't with trade wars being commerce. It was with only trade wars being commerce.
why do we have to pay more as improvements in technology drive the costs towards zero?
Because that's what the capitalist economic model is all about.
From each according to his ability to pay, to each according to his ability to avoid paying.
I already pay for use by buying the top-tier bandwidth option and fitting into their stochastic model of peak usage.
But usage patterns have changed and they think they can ask for more money because now I'm using my Internet as a TV, which is outside the stochastic model they used to produce the cost apportioned to me when they set the tiered pricing model.
But the resource isn't actually scarce. I paid for unlimited usage of a 30-mbps link. It will be scarce when I need to get more than 30 mb of data into each second. And then I'll go to their competitor, who is now offering a 40-mbps option (but I'm leery of the reality of that, since it's DSL).
But you need a cable tuner for each of them. A box or a card. So they sell you service on a per-TV basis, too.
I'm looking at it and it says "to regulate commerce", not "to regulate trade wars". If one of the reasons was to prevent trade wars, then it succeeds, sometimes. If another was to ensure the equitable distribution of federally-funded trade protections and infrastructure improvements, then it succeeds, sometimes.
Well, anyone can do that. The trick is to unscrew a screw without actually touching it.
Fortunately, they unpatent themselves after 20 years.
He should be trying to resurrect his integrity.
Chris Farley for DirecTV.
Oh, he does do the doo.
If it wasn't necessary to invent it, it would already exist.
If I'm shaping the wave so that it reflects off the lateral sides of the screw slot, it can produce a reaction force in the screw. No? Send it one way at one end of the slot and the other way at the other end, and you get a torque. Yes?
You ever notice that "TiVo" is an Italian word?
Meaning that they are what, 20 % faster in real-world benchmarks?
I'll walk past the oxymoron and pretend it isn't there, just to refute the actual question:
No. The part that costs $1000 more than AMD's $200 parts is not 20% faster. More like 300% faster. It's 50-100% faster than AMD's fastest part.
Here's a graph from about 7 months ago (note those are system prices, not CPU prices): http://www.techreport.com/discussions.x/18502
Part numbers and prices will have changed by now, but the basic structure of that graph doesn't change much over time. Two years ago Intel was actually ruling performance/price in the midrange, but AMD started slashing prices because it was getting completely killed in unit sales. AMD now strategizes pricing to remain a few dollars to the left of Intel at every price point it enters, because if it doesn't it will go out of business within a few months.
But AMD chips cost more to make than Intel chips, and AMD has to share that money with its fab partners: GlobalFoundries, TSMC, UMC, and Chartered. AMD no longer fabs chips (GlobalFoundries is its fab spinoff), which puts it at a serious production-efficiency disadvantage. You can attribute some of the slip in Fusion to this.
That is, sadly, exactly the way their marketing plan was designed to work, but with a ??? and a "Profit!" somewhere in the sequence.
It spanked nothing. It may have been a nudge better in performance at the same price, or $3-5 less for the same performance, but Intel gets a little juice from its brand recognition and power and reliability numbers.
In those segments where Intel and AMD compete, Intel can make better ASPs than AMD, and manufactures the goods for cheaper per unit. That's why AMD is still dinky and Intel is a behemoth. In those segments where AMD and Intel don't compete head-to-head, you find Intel parts and no AMD parts. AMD has no niche to itself. That's another reason for the dinky/behemoth ratio.
P.S. Daps for flashing the BIOS just to get a board running under your chip. 3 out of 1000 /.ers would have even considered it, and 1.5 of those would have bricked their system doing it.