You argued that there was a difference, by pretending that one was always more serious than the other. I argued that your ordering was inept. But just in case you don't really know the difference:
Copyrights protect the rights of those who produce recordings and performances without regard to ideas. Patents protect the rights of those who produce ideas of utility without regard to expression.
I can take the ideas in your story or song or picture and use them to create my own story or song or picture, I just can't use your words or notes or images or anything remarkably close to them, even if I am expressing other ideas with them.
On the other hand, I can take the exact words of your patent and sell copies of them, since they are now public property. But if I change the words into other words of any kind that express the same idea and try to get my own patent, it should be denied (the effectiveness of this depends on the skill of the examiner, but the law is quite clear), and if I transform the ideas in those words into the thing they describe, I can't sell it.
It's always been against copyright law to poach distinctive characters, infinitely so if you use the same names and settings. Characters aren't merely ideas unless the idea is the entire character. "Hooker with a heart of gold," or "fish out of water," or "super-spy" are ideas you can't copyright, but characters that are cliche'. "Irma la Douce" or "Aquaman" or "James Bond" are characters you can copyright, though by now they've become so generically smeared into their cliche'd cores you'll have to use their names to infringe, except for maybe Aquaman, but that's because nobody gets how he's so special anyway so he's never been copied...
You can do things with two simple CPUs better than one complicated CPU. And you still have a GPU to do the video.
Putting a simple GPU and a simple CPU on one chip is not the same as having a complicated CPU and complicated GPU on different chips, and putting a complicated CPU and GPU on a chip is way more expensive than putting simple ones together.
The "logic" isn't immutable with price point. CPU/GPU combinations will be the way to go in palmtop/smartphone devices at low prices, but their performance will be pathetic compared with discrete chips in desktop or laptop computers.
By that logic, you should be buying old Pentium-D chips for $5 a pound and bragging that you've got more performance/$ than the new Bulldozer will have.
Even laptops are more comfortable to use on a desktop. They're actually annoying to use on a laptop.
Regardless, almost all the laptops you've ever used had separate CPU and GPU chips in them. So "untethered" is not driving integration.
What drives integration is price and the premium that can be charged for a lighter, smaller device. But the integrated chip will not have the same performance as separated chips at the same manufacturing cost. So you will get an integrated CPU/GPU based platform that costs the same as the old one but has less CPU or GPU performance.
The amount of stuff you can cram on a single chip is smaller than the amount of stuff you can cram on two chips, and chips that are twice as big are twice as likely to have catastrophic production flaws.
At the consumer level, separate CPU and GPU will be the only way to make a buck, at least until someone reformulates both computing and graphics to be indistinguishable (what Intel was trying to do with Larabee).
Thinking like that cost AMD $3 billion in goodwill value from when they bought ATI, and led them to have to sell off their production facilities and become a design and marketing company.
"Fusion," the project they had in mind when they made the acquisition, was supposed to be out three years ago.
What they'll release this year or next will be a small, low-performing CPU melded clumsily to a small, low-performing GPU.
That is how AMD stays in business, by cutting its prices well below the average market price for the performance rating.
But there is a large chunk of performance rating they can't even approach.
Here's last year's numbers (didn't see this year's in the first page of google results), which should give you an indication of why AMD went looking for more performance from each chip. I'm still not expecting Bulldozer to get AMD up to the top. They might match the second- and third-place chips from Intel, but they haven't come up with anything that can outright beat what Intel has fielded.
And AMD's pricing policy costs it a lot of money, since its production costs are much higher than Intel's. They've never had the kind of production efficiency Intel had, and now they have sold off their fabs and are contracting their parts out to GlobalFoundries, who charge a cash profit on each one and still aren't as efficient as Intel.
The Intel one does a lot more in 3.2 GHz than the AMD one does. That's the point of AMD needing a new architecture.
Pricing is not linear with performance, and never has been. If you have a performance advantage at the high end that your competitors can't approach, you get paid for it.
But if you want a ghetto computer, by all means buy one.
The GOP's real base are rich people who want to stay rich and don't care who they fuck over to do it.
So they manipulate the stupid, who in this country happen to be blue-collar white males who listen to country music and believe Jesus will usher them into Heaven, to vote for Conservative candidates, who proceed to pass laws that favor the rich people against everyone else, including the voters they conned.
The Democrats actually believe the things they run on, and since it's not so carefully constructed the disorganization of the ideas can lead to fractioning of the voters who aren't in the GOP camp.
So, despite the fact that people who don't benefit from GOP-created legislation outnumber those who do by a vast margin, the GOP has succeeded in dividing the country almost in half and disrupting the other half's focus, keeping the plutocracy in power.
Also, they're starting to run candidates in Democratic primaries, something they couldn't do before because they couldn't funnel enough money to them to make them viable. Thank the John Roberts/Alice In Wonderland Supreme Court for that.
"AMD's lineup has been relatively stagnant while Intel continued to innovate with Nehalem and Sandy Bridge (due late this year) and the Bulldozer refresh is badly needed to keep in step."
Likely another Intel fanboy trying to spread FUD about the company that he doesn't like and at the same time getting his username posted on the front page.
The facts in that quote were presented clearly. AMD is a generation behind on architecture, trying to get comparable performance by multiplying old cores, while Intel has been advancing architecture and multiplying cores at the same time. For about 4 years now, Intel has had 2-4 chips performing at levels above anything AMD could produce.
It remains to be seen if Bulldozer will put AMD anywhere near at-par on a performance/core basis, but it's not 2002 any more, and AMD has no hope of a performance lead.
There's a Mr. Eminem here and he'd like to disagree with you that African-Americans are separate, have their own culture, or should be treated different.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm contending he knew the difference between idea and expression.
You argued that there was a difference, by pretending that one was always more serious than the other. I argued that your ordering was inept. But just in case you don't really know the difference:
Copyrights protect the rights of those who produce recordings and performances without regard to ideas. Patents protect the rights of those who produce ideas of utility without regard to expression.
I can take the ideas in your story or song or picture and use them to create my own story or song or picture, I just can't use your words or notes or images or anything remarkably close to them, even if I am expressing other ideas with them.
On the other hand, I can take the exact words of your patent and sell copies of them, since they are now public property. But if I change the words into other words of any kind that express the same idea and try to get my own patent, it should be denied (the effectiveness of this depends on the skill of the examiner, but the law is quite clear), and if I transform the ideas in those words into the thing they describe, I can't sell it.
It's always been against copyright law to poach distinctive characters, infinitely so if you use the same names and settings. Characters aren't merely ideas unless the idea is the entire character. "Hooker with a heart of gold," or "fish out of water," or "super-spy" are ideas you can't copyright, but characters that are cliche'. "Irma la Douce" or "Aquaman" or "James Bond" are characters you can copyright, though by now they've become so generically smeared into their cliche'd cores you'll have to use their names to infringe, except for maybe Aquaman, but that's because nobody gets how he's so special anyway so he's never been copied...
A combination spork and earwax auger is more serious than "Imagine"?
Not so much for you with the "logic" taunts.
You can do things with two simple CPUs better than one complicated CPU. And you still have a GPU to do the video.
Putting a simple GPU and a simple CPU on one chip is not the same as having a complicated CPU and complicated GPU on different chips, and putting a complicated CPU and GPU on a chip is way more expensive than putting simple ones together.
The "logic" isn't immutable with price point. CPU/GPU combinations will be the way to go in palmtop/smartphone devices at low prices, but their performance will be pathetic compared with discrete chips in desktop or laptop computers.
By that logic, you should be buying old Pentium-D chips for $5 a pound and bragging that you've got more performance/$ than the new Bulldozer will have.
Paying 3X as much for 2X the capability and profiting 4X as much from it is a viable strategy known as "making more money".
Seriously, if all you want is enough computer to post to /. on, you have no business worrying about CPUs more recent than the Celeron and Duron.
Google Goggles is scary at the things it can recognize. It could probably do video with a little more coding.
The wall has a few other grafitti on it, and a sign saying "post no bills".
Youtube et al encourage people to post content they own, and warn against posting material they don't.
Which is enough.
If the RIAA wants to protect its copyrights it has to enforce them itself, against the infringers. Putting Youtube out of business isn't that.
You do know he was talking about ideas, not recordings, right?
And that patent law and copyright law are very, very different beasts for just this reason, right?
Youtube et al are not responsible for uploads.
They can take down material you identify as infringing, identify infringing users to you under court order, and you can sue the users.
That's how civil law works. You don't punish people who aren't doing anything wrong.
And if it's too expensive for you to make money with your business model, you shut down your business and let life go on.
Copyright will work fine in those instances where it matters, and in those instances where it doesn't, well, you can't squeeze blood from a stone.
I'm sure they taught you that at B-school.
Even laptops are more comfortable to use on a desktop. They're actually annoying to use on a laptop.
Regardless, almost all the laptops you've ever used had separate CPU and GPU chips in them. So "untethered" is not driving integration.
What drives integration is price and the premium that can be charged for a lighter, smaller device. But the integrated chip will not have the same performance as separated chips at the same manufacturing cost. So you will get an integrated CPU/GPU based platform that costs the same as the old one but has less CPU or GPU performance.
No, it will always be true.
The amount of stuff you can cram on a single chip is smaller than the amount of stuff you can cram on two chips, and chips that are twice as big are twice as likely to have catastrophic production flaws.
At the consumer level, separate CPU and GPU will be the only way to make a buck, at least until someone reformulates both computing and graphics to be indistinguishable (what Intel was trying to do with Larabee).
Thinking like that cost AMD $3 billion in goodwill value from when they bought ATI, and led them to have to sell off their production facilities and become a design and marketing company.
"Fusion," the project they had in mind when they made the acquisition, was supposed to be out three years ago.
What they'll release this year or next will be a small, low-performing CPU melded clumsily to a small, low-performing GPU.
And Intel already did it.
That is how AMD stays in business, by cutting its prices well below the average market price for the performance rating.
But there is a large chunk of performance rating they can't even approach.
Here's last year's numbers (didn't see this year's in the first page of google results), which should give you an indication of why AMD went looking for more performance from each chip. I'm still not expecting Bulldozer to get AMD up to the top. They might match the second- and third-place chips from Intel, but they haven't come up with anything that can outright beat what Intel has fielded.
And AMD's pricing policy costs it a lot of money, since its production costs are much higher than Intel's. They've never had the kind of production efficiency Intel had, and now they have sold off their fabs and are contracting their parts out to GlobalFoundries, who charge a cash profit on each one and still aren't as efficient as Intel.
The Intel one does a lot more in 3.2 GHz than the AMD one does. That's the point of AMD needing a new architecture.
Pricing is not linear with performance, and never has been. If you have a performance advantage at the high end that your competitors can't approach, you get paid for it.
But if you want a ghetto computer, by all means buy one.
We thought the box covers were lame, and the games were totally cool.
This pope?
So, uh, what color is the sky on your planet?
The GOP's real base are rich people who want to stay rich and don't care who they fuck over to do it.
So they manipulate the stupid, who in this country happen to be blue-collar white males who listen to country music and believe Jesus will usher them into Heaven, to vote for Conservative candidates, who proceed to pass laws that favor the rich people against everyone else, including the voters they conned.
The Democrats actually believe the things they run on, and since it's not so carefully constructed the disorganization of the ideas can lead to fractioning of the voters who aren't in the GOP camp.
So, despite the fact that people who don't benefit from GOP-created legislation outnumber those who do by a vast margin, the GOP has succeeded in dividing the country almost in half and disrupting the other half's focus, keeping the plutocracy in power.
Also, they're starting to run candidates in Democratic primaries, something they couldn't do before because they couldn't funnel enough money to them to make them viable. Thank the John Roberts/Alice In Wonderland Supreme Court for that.
"AMD's lineup has been relatively stagnant while Intel continued to innovate with Nehalem and Sandy Bridge (due late this year) and the Bulldozer refresh is badly needed to keep in step."
Likely another Intel fanboy trying to spread FUD about the company that he doesn't like and at the same time getting his username posted on the front page.
The facts in that quote were presented clearly. AMD is a generation behind on architecture, trying to get comparable performance by multiplying old cores, while Intel has been advancing architecture and multiplying cores at the same time. For about 4 years now, Intel has had 2-4 chips performing at levels above anything AMD could produce.
It remains to be seen if Bulldozer will put AMD anywhere near at-par on a performance/core basis, but it's not 2002 any more, and AMD has no hope of a performance lead.
How to calculate AMD pricing:
Take AMD part's advertised performance.
Derate by 10% to estimate actual performance.
Compare to Intel part with same performance as derated AMD part.
Take price of comparable Intel part.
Reduce by 5%.
???
Profit! (About half as much as Intel does for that performance point.)
If you think the county is any less totalitarian than the city, you haven't been to the county.
There's a Mr. Eminem here and he'd like to disagree with you that African-Americans are separate, have their own culture, or should be treated different.
LOL...izzle.