Why should I throw out my existing smartphone software created for ARM to get "legacy" software for x86?
Even if they can catch up with ARM on power usage (which is far from certain, and probably at least a couple years off) Intel will have a really difficult time convincing smart phone makers to abandon all their old ARM software.
Intel should focus on making smart phones better for smart phone buyers rather than making smart phones better for Intel.
These types of government regulations always turn out like this:
- Businesses are forced to use "certified" firms as contractors or auditors - "Certified" firms are politically-connected firms with Washington lobbyists on their payroll - Government agencies get created to police whatever is regulated in the law - "Certified" firms work with the agencies to make sure certification is exclusive so they can charge above-market rates (rent seeking) - Executives at "certified" firms contribute to Richard Blumenthal's re-election campaign. - Small startup firms are kept out - Innocent business operators are raided by regulating agencies, even though they never had a security breach. - Security breaches and private data compromises continue despite government regulation - There are fewer jobs for everyone handling private data, and there are fewer choices of services. - Everyone wonders why we have high unemployment and private data breaches. - People propose deregulating so we can have our freedom back. - Someone comes up with the private-data equivalent of "think of the children!!!!"
- Time passes. Another hundred such regulatory regimes get added for every facet of life. Life steadily gets worse for everyone who isn't politically connected.
Because Tcl wasn't chosen, GNU spent 16 years with no scripting language. The future for GNU is probably many more years without a scripting language.
Instead of wishing for a perfect scripting language, rejecting all the imperfect ones, and going without a scripting language for another couple decades, why not choose one that people use, be productive with it, and try to evolve the language and fix the problems over time?
Tcl or Python are good choices Also probably Lua and a few others I don't have personal experience with. JavaScript is probably an acceptable choice. A lisp-like language is a way to empower a few people and dis-empower the majority.
I can write code in any of them. But it doesn't matter for GNU stuff because none of them were deemed perfect enough for GNU.
Because they have to. Their competitors are using the 28nm tech also. If it works (which is likely, since you can already get chips produced with this tech from a couple companies) then Apple needs to be in on it rather than stuck with an older, slower, hotter, more power-hungry chip. If it fails, then it fails for everyone and Apple is no worse off than their competitors.
I see. "I have to pay for a small part of my healthcare" means "my job sucks".
Let's all organize and demand unlimited freebies until executives cut their pay to $50,000 per year. I'm sure they'll be doing that almost right away. Remember all those times that executives cut their own pay to under $100,000 at all those other companies?
All natural resource exploration is stopped in this country?
No one said that. Are you claiming that environmentalists don't file lawsuits to stop or delay production of natural resources?
They haven't succeeded in stopping all production. They're working hard at it though.
I will admit that perhaps environmentalists failed to sue a few times. Perhaps once in a while someone is allowed to use a natural resource without legal harassment by environmentalists. I just can't think of any examples.
They sued to stop 4th of July fireworks because because the spent rockets land in the ocean. Their concerns can be dismissed until they start acting like rational people who care about humans rather than religious zealots.
So what if there are minerals? We have lots of natural mineral and petroleum and other fossil fuel resources all over the US. Every time anyone wants to mine or drill for them, the environmentalists step in a file lawsuits to stop or delay the mining or drilling.
In southern California, environmentalists are trying to stop solar power stations out in the desert by suing to prevent the power lines that would carry the electricity to where people live.
So there's a solution to the rare earths problem. What difference does it make if we won't be allowed to use it?
How do you justify the First World not simply sharing half its wealth with the Third World?
Why would anyone want to or need to "justify" such a thing? The answer is simply "no". Third World people are welcome to earn their own wealth. That's the only way wealth provides a long-term benefit anyway. Wealth that's received as a gift just gets spent and never replaced. And the folks who receive it only learn how to put their hands out, often forgetting how to earn an honest living by helping their fellow man.
But back to your extremely odd question. Why should anyone need to "justify" not doing some strange and unnatural thing? How do you justify not riding a unicycle from city to city burning down random buildings?
Anyone who says "we have to address X bad spending FIRST before we address Y bad spending" is wrong. The only time to address (cut, eliminate, end) X, Y or Z bad spending is now. Waiting serves no purpose.
Someone else said it originally, but if you play NASA's history backwards, they start out with no manned space flight capability, develop shuttles, and eventually land on the moon.
Boo fricken hoo. It's their house, they make the rules.
Isn't it just as unethical to run the ad for Facebook's competitor in the first place? Facebook has to follow some ethical code and be nice, but their advertisers can't be asked to be considerate in return?
Maybe if the advertiser says he's sorry and he won't do it again, then they can make up and resume a working relationship.
You can think (as I do) that Facebook is acting unethically...
Really? There's an ethical code somewhere that requires companies to sell advertisements to (or for) their competitors? How so? Does Facebook have to sell them ads at a discount? At a loss?
I wonder how many Slashdot people actually think that people who work at Facebook should be arrested and hauled off to prison for not advertising Google Plus?
Google seems to be really good at drumming up sympathy from people with a totalitarian ethic.
It's a deal. We'll cut US income taxes to zero and then, when there's a war, raise them to 3-5% with all the money going to fund the war effort. And sure, don't pay if you don't support the war.
It is the eternal struggle between these two principles -- right and wrong -- throughout the world. They are the two principles that have stood face to face from the beginning of time, and will ever continue to struggle. The one is the common right of humanity and the other the divine right of kings. It is the same principle in whatever shape it develops itself. It is the same spirit that says, 'You work and toil and earn bread, and I'll eat it.' No matter in what shape it comes, whether from the mouth of a king who seeks to bestride the people of his own nation and live by the fruit of their labor, or from one race of men as an apology for enslaving another race, it is the same tyrannical principle.
-- Abraham Lincoln, October 15, 1858 Debate at Alton
Slashdot Mirror
Why should I throw out my existing smartphone software created for ARM to get "legacy" software for x86?
Even if they can catch up with ARM on power usage (which is far from certain, and probably at least a couple years off) Intel will have a really difficult time convincing smart phone makers to abandon all their old ARM software.
Intel should focus on making smart phones better for smart phone buyers rather than making smart phones better for Intel.
So any low level employee with access to data can "accidentally" cause a security breach and get the executives put in prison. Justice!
These types of government regulations always turn out like this:
- Businesses are forced to use "certified" firms as contractors or auditors
- "Certified" firms are politically-connected firms with Washington lobbyists on their payroll
- Government agencies get created to police whatever is regulated in the law
- "Certified" firms work with the agencies to make sure certification is exclusive so they can charge above-market rates (rent seeking)
- Executives at "certified" firms contribute to Richard Blumenthal's re-election campaign.
- Small startup firms are kept out
- Innocent business operators are raided by regulating agencies, even though they never had a security breach.
- Security breaches and private data compromises continue despite government regulation
- There are fewer jobs for everyone handling private data, and there are fewer choices of services.
- Everyone wonders why we have high unemployment and private data breaches.
- People propose deregulating so we can have our freedom back.
- Someone comes up with the private-data equivalent of "think of the children!!!!"
- Time passes. Another hundred such regulatory regimes get added for every facet of life. Life steadily gets worse for everyone who isn't politically connected.
Because Tcl wasn't chosen, GNU spent 16 years with no scripting language. The future for GNU is probably many more years without a scripting language.
Instead of wishing for a perfect scripting language, rejecting all the imperfect ones, and going without a scripting language for another couple decades, why not choose one that people use, be productive with it, and try to evolve the language and fix the problems over time?
Tcl or Python are good choices Also probably Lua and a few others I don't have personal experience with. JavaScript is probably an acceptable choice. A lisp-like language is a way to empower a few people and dis-empower the majority.
I can write code in any of them. But it doesn't matter for GNU stuff because none of them were deemed perfect enough for GNU.
Because they have to. Their competitors are using the 28nm tech also. If it works (which is likely, since you can already get chips produced with this tech from a couple companies) then Apple needs to be in on it rather than stuck with an older, slower, hotter, more power-hungry chip. If it fails, then it fails for everyone and Apple is no worse off than their competitors.
What number is the right number? Exactly what amount should executives make so the unions won't strike?
I see. "I have to pay for a small part of my healthcare" means "my job sucks".
Let's all organize and demand unlimited freebies until executives cut their pay to $50,000 per year. I'm sure they'll be doing that almost right away. Remember all those times that executives cut their own pay to under $100,000 at all those other companies?
The level of disinformation happening in this Slashdot discussion far exceeds the normal level.
No, it's about average for Slashdot.
All natural resource exploration is stopped in this country?
No one said that. Are you claiming that environmentalists don't file lawsuits to stop or delay production of natural resources?
They haven't succeeded in stopping all production. They're working hard at it though.
I will admit that perhaps environmentalists failed to sue a few times. Perhaps once in a while someone is allowed to use a natural resource without legal harassment by environmentalists. I just can't think of any examples.
Here's the Senate vote on final passage of that bill. It was 100-0.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2001-295
They sued to stop 4th of July fireworks because because the spent rockets land in the ocean. Their concerns can be dismissed until they start acting like rational people who care about humans rather than religious zealots.
So what if there are minerals? We have lots of natural mineral and petroleum and other fossil fuel resources all over the US. Every time anyone wants to mine or drill for them, the environmentalists step in a file lawsuits to stop or delay the mining or drilling.
In southern California, environmentalists are trying to stop solar power stations out in the desert by suing to prevent the power lines that would carry the electricity to where people live.
So there's a solution to the rare earths problem. What difference does it make if we won't be allowed to use it?
How do you justify the First World not simply sharing half its wealth with the Third World?
Why would anyone want to or need to "justify" such a thing? The answer is simply "no". Third World people are welcome to earn their own wealth. That's the only way wealth provides a long-term benefit anyway. Wealth that's received as a gift just gets spent and never replaced. And the folks who receive it only learn how to put their hands out, often forgetting how to earn an honest living by helping their fellow man.
But back to your extremely odd question. Why should anyone need to "justify" not doing some strange and unnatural thing? How do you justify not riding a unicycle from city to city burning down random buildings?
Let's give them more money and put them in charge of health care.
He's "locked in" to an ecosystem he likes. Horrors!
And if he decided something else was better and it's worth the nominal effort and expense of switching, he can switch.
I hear that all terrorist attacks are Americas fault, and that we deserve it because of our foreign policy.
So is this attack in Oslo America's fault? Or is this Norway's fault because of the Norwegian Government's belligerent foreign policy?
Is George Bush to blame? Please help. How can we understand world events without one of these explanations?
Anyone who says "we have to address X bad spending FIRST before we address Y bad spending" is wrong. The only time to address (cut, eliminate, end) X, Y or Z bad spending is now. Waiting serves no purpose.
Someone else said it originally, but if you play NASA's history backwards, they start out with no manned space flight capability, develop shuttles, and eventually land on the moon.
Boo fricken hoo. It's their house, they make the rules.
Isn't it just as unethical to run the ad for Facebook's competitor in the first place? Facebook has to follow some ethical code and be nice, but their advertisers can't be asked to be considerate in return?
Maybe if the advertiser says he's sorry and he won't do it again, then they can make up and resume a working relationship.
You can think (as I do) that Facebook is acting unethically ...
Really? There's an ethical code somewhere that requires companies to sell advertisements to (or for) their competitors? How so? Does Facebook have to sell them ads at a discount? At a loss?
Why should they?
I wonder how many Slashdot people actually think that people who work at Facebook should be arrested and hauled off to prison for not advertising Google Plus?
Google seems to be really good at drumming up sympathy from people with a totalitarian ethic.
It's a deal. We'll cut US income taxes to zero and then, when there's a war, raise them to 3-5% with all the money going to fund the war effort. And sure, don't pay if you don't support the war.
It's an acceptable compromise. Good idea.
A whopping 3-5% tax to pay for the Civil War. The tax was repealed ten years later after the war was paid for.
-- Abraham Lincoln, October 15, 1858 Debate at Alton
Amazingly enough, his real name is Airbus A320.