Osama binLaden is found in 50 years, then surely he should also be found innocent
You seem to have missed the point. If in 150 years Bin Laden's great grandchildren are found guilty of the WTC attacks, then you can start to compare them.
As I said, many (but not all) problems are solved automatically. But there are some conditions that require regulation (like a monopoly, but Walmart isnt anywhere close to being a monopoly).
You think that Walmart is unethical. I don't. I have known several WalMart employees, including some in management. They all love working there and sing praises to the company. Doesn't sound to me like they are getting screwed with a two-by-four.
Walmart's purchasing decisions do not have an effect on content- the millions of people that choose to shop at Walmart do. I can't believe you ignore the fact that Walmart chooses to sell what it does based on what it's customers want.
Its the same with OEM PC vendors- they were willing to enter into licensing agreements with Microsoft because 99% of their customers wanted Microsoft software installed anyway. Microsoft's influence on what PC makers ship was not nearly as great as the influence the customers had.
I look at the bottom line because I believe in capitalism. None of the points you listed are negative.
- If it is a horrible place to work, employees will demand better or move on. - I don't know of any area where Walmart is "the only game in town." There are always alternative places to spend your money. And if there arent any in your area, there is also this new fangled thing called the "internet" where you can buy anything from anyplace in the world. - Walmart can't afford to raise their prices very much (if at all)- the likes of Target, Costco, KMart, etc will always be right at their heels. - Walmart does not dictate what artists can release. They only decide what they will sell, and they have every right to make that decision. - Nothing is wrong with moving production to Mexico or China. Farm out the low paying remedial jobs so we can grow more high paying skill jobs in our country.
Capitalism is the most ethical economic system around- it gives more people greater opportunities than any other system. It solves many of these "problems" automatically.
That said, I rarely shop at WalMart. I find their stores a little to trashy.
it hurts the people living in those areas in their freedom of choice.
What is the alternative? Regulate what Walmart must sell? Cause I'm sure that would be a whole lot better. You even said yourself that big government isn't the answer.
No freedoms are lost by Walmart's decision. You have the right to buy the same music or the same magazines either way.
Thats pretty funny. Even though Walmart is "fraudulently" not selling you pr0n, there are plenty of other places you can go. You are not mandated by the state to shop at Walmart. A quick look at Walmarts strong earnings report and you will see that a lot of the public agrees with their "censorship".
Instead of posting the same vague tid bits about Palladium over and over, and letting the/. conspiricy theorists go hog wild, why doesn't/. wait until they know what they are talking about?
Instead of posting the same vague tid bits about Palladium over and over, and letting the/. conspiricy theorists go hog wild, why don't we wait until we know what we are talking about? Because I can guarantee to you that Palladium isn't the evil system that 90% of the/. users seem to think it is.
If you are talking about DOS, Win9x, etc, Microsoft didn't write that. They bought a crappy OS and made it respectable (not perfect).
If you are talking about NT, 2000, and XP, IBM partnered with Microsoft in the late 80's to begin the development of a new kernal, and you are hard pressed to find a better OS than Windows XP.
Do you really not mind having Microsoft at the hub of everything you do?
Not really. I like the Microsoft products I use- thats why I have chosen them over competing products. If I think this is going to make my life easier, then I will give it a try. Microsoft has nothing to gain by screwing me over.
Actually, America was nearly kicked out of Kyoto by the rest of the world
So the "rest of the world" wanted to kick us out of something we didn't want to be a part of in the first place, but they didn't- so why are you pissed again?
WTF? What kind of stupid paranoia is that? Last time I checked in fact the dollar was a 1:1 parity with the Euro.
The exchange rate of the currency is not a direct or very valid measure of the relative strength or size of an economy (exhange rates are mostly determined by comparing interest rates of the countries). If you want to compare, look at the GDP. And if you don't think Kyoto is anti-American, then why does it focus on the US while allowing other major polluting countries (China, India) to go unchecked?
Do you guys realise just how much respect America lost abroad when it pulled out of Kyoto?
I lived in Europe for a few years, so I do know what it is like there. America can't win with the EU. To you, we are these hegemonic bullies that can't keep our noses out of everybodies business, but the minute something happens (like Israel entering the West Bank), the EU is complaining that the US isn't doing enough. Damned if we do and damned if we don't.
There are people here who HATE his guts because of what happened to Kyoto.
As I was saying, they are hating the wrong person then. Kyoto was unanimously defeated in the US senate back in 1997 (more than 3 years before Bush took office).
Pres Bush is not saying that he wants to screw the environment- he is saying that Kyoto was a horribly flawed solution to global climate change. You can read his response to some members of the Senate here:
First of all, Bush has nothing to do with Kyoto. Congress must agree to international treaties, and the Senate voted it down something like 99-0 back during the Clinton administration.
And don't be fooled that Kyoto is the answer. Kyoto is nothing more than an attempt to cripple the US economy to allow other nations to catch up. And it is hidden behind a solution to a "problem" that scientists can even agree exists (global warming).
FWIW, the major OEM's have been clamoring for SATA because the SATA cables are cheaper than PATA ribbon cables.
And the 70+ companies in the SATA Working Group, the PCI-Sig (for 3GIO), and the USB and Firewire designers disagree with your assessment of the scalability of these serial interfaces.
And replacing the 26 (or whatever) signal pins that are currently integrated into the southbridge chipset for parallel ATA with the 4 signals for SATA certainly does simplify MB design.
Its my computer, if I don't trust a device with bus-master trying to access my memory, I remove the device
I'm glad you keep such close tabs on your PCI traffic. How much did that bus analyzer cost you, anyway?
This example was obviously quite extreme, but it just shows that hardware support is needed to guard against some attacks.
Correct, Microsoft will do whats in *THEIR* best interests.
Its in Microsoft's best interest to keep customers happy so they continue to buy software. Pissing off users by not letting them do what they want to do or not letting them use the hardware that they want to use will probably reduce their revenue, so I just don't see them doing it.
No, my point was they didn't have to add more signals to increase the speed of ethernet, and they probably won't have to with SATA either. Look at all of the hot technologies now: USB(2), firewire, 3GIO, SATA, and Serian SCSI. They are all serial interfaces.
we might as well just keep on using parallel ATA but boost the signal freq incrementally, since it will get us to the same place in a few years anyway
One of the biggest reasons for developing SATA was that parallel ATA is pretty much maxed out at 133 right now- we can't just "boost the signal freq" any more. Plus, parallel ATA is based on TTL signaling, and that requires the integrated circuits to tolerate +5V input signals. This is getting harder and harder to support with the modern manufacturing processes of the chip. And as you pointed out, the fewer signals also has the benefit of simplified design and reduced the cost of the chips.
by the way -- PCI bus can only push 133MB anyhow -- anything beyond that is silly
I hope you weren't serious about that. #1. If PCI is becoming the bottleneck, then we will move past it. In fact, we already are. PCI's replacement (3GIO) is already in development (actually I think they changed the name to PCI Express- kind of dumb if you ask me). #2. Integrated SATA implementations will not be on the PCI bus, so they will not be limited to the bandwidth of the bus. They will only be limited by the upstream bandwidth between the southbridge and northbridge chipsets (on current Intel desktop chipsets, this is 266 MB/sec with plans to increase to 533 MB/sec soon- AMD's Hypertransport is also more than adequate for SATA)
Ethernet has had no problems scaling to higher bandwith while maintaining its serial "bus". Serial ATA is a packetized interface that is more similar to ethernet than RAMBUS. They already have 600 MB/sec SATA on the roadmap.
You have a basic misunderstanding of the technology. The hardware support is not dependant on Microsoft in any way. The standards will be published and available for any os designer. If the software does not use the security features in hardware, they are simply not used. It in no way dictates what os you can run on a pc.
There are many attacks that are impossible for an os to guard against. What if a bus master is trying to access "secure" memory? The os has no control over that access and can do nothing to prevent it. Hardware support is needed.
Time will tell how Microsoft implements it. If they decide to place more limits on what you can do then don't buy the software (you probably don't buy any Microsoft software now anyway). If enough people don't like it, Microsoft will give alternatives. Bottom line is that they are going to do what they think will sell the most software. I personally agree with danheskett- Microsoft is probably not going to implement your worst case scenario because it is not in their best interest.
Holy crap, what a breath of fresh air. Somebody who actually understands Palladium. Thank you for not blindly spouting off anti-microsoft rhetoric.
I can tell you that DRM is not the main focus of the hardware side of Palladium. The hardware focuses on creating secure locations in memory that cannot be accessed by any unauthorized people (other processes, bus masters, bios). This means that applications can store things in memory (including the application code itself) without any worry about it being revealed or modified by malicious people (like procdump for example). Palladium is a solution to one of the big security holes in computer architecture.
Intel's Itanium is different than AMD's 64 bit processor. It is a completely new RISC architecture and Intel and HP developed together. It does not build upon the x86 "hacks". Compatibility with existing x86 code is achieved with an on-chip x86 emulation unit.
Yes- not to mention the FPU in x86 processors defaults to this rounding. So even if you code in asm it will use bankers rounding (unless you change the FPU control word). This has nothing to do with VB.
Just push clockspeed up at any cost - who cares about performance?
What? It's true that clock speed alone isn't a valid measure, but it is certainly a very important part of the equation. Intel's "Megahertz sells" paradigm is turning out to be a pretty effective strategy. They have been able to jack up their clock speeds almost at will (2.533 GHz on the P4 now with a clear path to 3.3 GHz by the end of the year). On the other hand, AMD has been struggling all year to speed up their processors. The result is that Intel is leaving AMD in the dust. As toms hardware puts it, "the Athlon design is already a bit outdated and is now reaching its limits."
The consensus is that performance problems with the new XScale platform are because of poor software - not because of flaws in the hardware.
Cry me a river. Most companies do lobby congress. It doesn't mean that they are evil monopolies or that they can't produce things as cheaply- its just another tool to try to adjust the supply and demand into their favor.
Lobbying congress does not make a company a monopoly.
Slashdot Mirror
Osama binLaden is found in 50 years, then surely he should also be found innocent
You seem to have missed the point. If in 150 years Bin Laden's great grandchildren are found guilty of the WTC attacks, then you can start to compare them.
Summary- I believe in capitalism and you don't.
As I said, many (but not all) problems are solved automatically. But there are some conditions that require regulation (like a monopoly, but Walmart isnt anywhere close to being a monopoly).
You think that Walmart is unethical. I don't. I have known several WalMart employees, including some in management. They all love working there and sing praises to the company. Doesn't sound to me like they are getting screwed with a two-by-four.
Walmart's purchasing decisions do not have an effect on content- the millions of people that choose to shop at Walmart do. I can't believe you ignore the fact that Walmart chooses to sell what it does based on what it's customers want.
Its the same with OEM PC vendors- they were willing to enter into licensing agreements with Microsoft because 99% of their customers wanted Microsoft software installed anyway. Microsoft's influence on what PC makers ship was not nearly as great as the influence the customers had.
I look at the bottom line because I believe in capitalism. None of the points you listed are negative.
- If it is a horrible place to work, employees will demand better or move on.
- I don't know of any area where Walmart is "the only game in town." There are always alternative places to spend your money. And if there arent any in your area, there is also this new fangled thing called the "internet" where you can buy anything from anyplace in the world.
- Walmart can't afford to raise their prices very much (if at all)- the likes of Target, Costco, KMart, etc will always be right at their heels.
- Walmart does not dictate what artists can release. They only decide what they will sell, and they have every right to make that decision.
- Nothing is wrong with moving production to Mexico or China. Farm out the low paying remedial jobs so we can grow more high paying skill jobs in our country.
Capitalism is the most ethical economic system around- it gives more people greater opportunities than any other system. It solves many of these "problems" automatically.
That said, I rarely shop at WalMart. I find their stores a little to trashy.
it hurts the people living in those areas in their freedom of choice.
What is the alternative? Regulate what Walmart must sell? Cause I'm sure that would be a whole lot better. You even said yourself that big government isn't the answer.
No freedoms are lost by Walmart's decision. You have the right to buy the same music or the same magazines either way.
Thats pretty funny. Even though Walmart is "fraudulently" not selling you pr0n, there are plenty of other places you can go. You are not mandated by the state to shop at Walmart. A quick look at Walmarts strong earnings report and you will see that a lot of the public agrees with their "censorship".
You are right. Allow me to rephrase:
/. conspiricy theorists go hog wild, why doesn't /. wait until they know what they are talking about?
Instead of posting the same vague tid bits about Palladium over and over, and letting the
The same guarantee stands.
Ah, another example of somebody pulling something out of his/her butt and tossing it around like a fact.
Instead of posting the same vague tid bits about Palladium over and over, and letting the /. conspiricy theorists go hog wild, why don't we wait until we know what we are talking about? Because I can guarantee to you that Palladium isn't the evil system that 90% of the /. users seem to think it is.
Microsoft wrote a crap-ass OS.
If you are talking about DOS, Win9x, etc, Microsoft didn't write that. They bought a crappy OS and made it respectable (not perfect).
If you are talking about NT, 2000, and XP, IBM partnered with Microsoft in the late 80's to begin the development of a new kernal, and you are hard pressed to find a better OS than Windows XP.
Do you really not mind having Microsoft at the hub of everything you do?
Not really. I like the Microsoft products I use- thats why I have chosen them over competing products. If I think this is going to make my life easier, then I will give it a try. Microsoft has nothing to gain by screwing me over.
Actually, America was nearly kicked out of Kyoto by the rest of the world
0 010314.html
So the "rest of the world" wanted to kick us out of something we didn't want to be a part of in the first place, but they didn't- so why are you pissed again?
WTF? What kind of stupid paranoia is that? Last time I checked in fact the dollar was a 1:1 parity with the Euro.
The exchange rate of the currency is not a direct or very valid measure of the relative strength or size of an economy (exhange rates are mostly determined by comparing interest rates of the countries). If you want to compare, look at the GDP. And if you don't think Kyoto is anti-American, then why does it focus on the US while allowing other major polluting countries (China, India) to go unchecked?
Do you guys realise just how much respect America lost abroad when it pulled out of Kyoto?
I lived in Europe for a few years, so I do know what it is like there. America can't win with the EU. To you, we are these hegemonic bullies that can't keep our noses out of everybodies business, but the minute something happens (like Israel entering the West Bank), the EU is complaining that the US isn't doing enough. Damned if we do and damned if we don't.
There are people here who HATE his guts because of what happened to Kyoto.
As I was saying, they are hating the wrong person then. Kyoto was unanimously defeated in the US senate back in 1997 (more than 3 years before Bush took office).
Pres Bush is not saying that he wants to screw the environment- he is saying that Kyoto was a horribly flawed solution to global climate change. You can read his response to some members of the Senate here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/03/2
First of all, Bush has nothing to do with Kyoto. Congress must agree to international treaties, and the Senate voted it down something like 99-0 back during the Clinton administration.
And don't be fooled that Kyoto is the answer. Kyoto is nothing more than an attempt to cripple the US economy to allow other nations to catch up. And it is hidden behind a solution to a "problem" that scientists can even agree exists (global warming).
FWIW, the major OEM's have been clamoring for SATA because the SATA cables are cheaper than PATA ribbon cables.
And the 70+ companies in the SATA Working Group, the PCI-Sig (for 3GIO), and the USB and Firewire designers disagree with your assessment of the scalability of these serial interfaces.
And replacing the 26 (or whatever) signal pins that are currently integrated into the southbridge chipset for parallel ATA with the 4 signals for SATA certainly does simplify MB design.
Its my computer, if I don't trust a device with bus-master trying to access my memory, I remove the device
I'm glad you keep such close tabs on your PCI traffic. How much did that bus analyzer cost you, anyway?
This example was obviously quite extreme, but it just shows that hardware support is needed to guard against some attacks.
Correct, Microsoft will do whats in *THEIR* best interests.
Its in Microsoft's best interest to keep customers happy so they continue to buy software. Pissing off users by not letting them do what they want to do or not letting them use the hardware that they want to use will probably reduce their revenue, so I just don't see them doing it.
No, my point was they didn't have to add more signals to increase the speed of ethernet, and they probably won't have to with SATA either. Look at all of the hot technologies now: USB(2), firewire, 3GIO, SATA, and Serian SCSI. They are all serial interfaces.
we might as well just keep on using parallel ATA but boost the signal freq incrementally, since it will get us to the same place in a few years anyway
One of the biggest reasons for developing SATA was that parallel ATA is pretty much maxed out at 133 right now- we can't just "boost the signal freq" any more. Plus, parallel ATA is based on TTL signaling, and that requires the integrated circuits to tolerate +5V input signals. This is getting harder and harder to support with the modern manufacturing processes of the chip. And as you pointed out, the fewer signals also has the benefit of simplified design and reduced the cost of the chips.
by the way -- PCI bus can only push 133MB anyhow -- anything beyond that is silly
I hope you weren't serious about that.
#1. If PCI is becoming the bottleneck, then we will move past it. In fact, we already are. PCI's replacement (3GIO) is already in development (actually I think they changed the name to PCI Express- kind of dumb if you ask me).
#2. Integrated SATA implementations will not be on the PCI bus, so they will not be limited to the bandwidth of the bus. They will only be limited by the upstream bandwidth between the southbridge and northbridge chipsets (on current Intel desktop chipsets, this is 266 MB/sec with plans to increase to 533 MB/sec soon- AMD's Hypertransport is also more than adequate for SATA)
Ethernet has had no problems scaling to higher bandwith while maintaining its serial "bus". Serial ATA is a packetized interface that is more similar to ethernet than RAMBUS. They already have 600 MB/sec SATA on the roadmap.
You have a basic misunderstanding of the technology. The hardware support is not dependant on Microsoft in any way. The standards will be published and available for any os designer. If the software does not use the security features in hardware, they are simply not used. It in no way dictates what os you can run on a pc.
There are many attacks that are impossible for an os to guard against. What if a bus master is trying to access "secure" memory? The os has no control over that access and can do nothing to prevent it. Hardware support is needed.
Time will tell how Microsoft implements it. If they decide to place more limits on what you can do then don't buy the software (you probably don't buy any Microsoft software now anyway). If enough people don't like it, Microsoft will give alternatives. Bottom line is that they are going to do what they think will sell the most software. I personally agree with danheskett- Microsoft is probably not going to implement your worst case scenario because it is not in their best interest.
Holy crap, what a breath of fresh air. Somebody who actually understands Palladium. Thank you for not blindly spouting off anti-microsoft rhetoric.
I can tell you that DRM is not the main focus of the hardware side of Palladium. The hardware focuses on creating secure locations in memory that cannot be accessed by any unauthorized people (other processes, bus masters, bios). This means that applications can store things in memory (including the application code itself) without any worry about it being revealed or modified by malicious people (like procdump for example). Palladium is a solution to one of the big security holes in computer architecture.
ATA133 can only handle one device, if you use more it bumps down to ATA66.
Where did you get that? Each device has its own transfer mode setting that is independant of the other device on the controller (if there is one).
Intel's Itanium is different than AMD's 64 bit processor. It is a completely new RISC architecture and Intel and HP developed together. It does not build upon the x86 "hacks". Compatibility with existing x86 code is achieved with an on-chip x86 emulation unit.
Yes- not to mention the FPU in x86 processors defaults to this rounding. So even if you code in asm it will use bankers rounding (unless you change the FPU control word). This has nothing to do with VB.
Well, considering Clear Channel is a owner of XM satellite radio, my guess is its about the same...
Just push clockspeed up at any cost - who cares about performance?
What? It's true that clock speed alone isn't a valid measure, but it is certainly a very important part of the equation. Intel's "Megahertz sells" paradigm is turning out to be a pretty effective strategy. They have been able to jack up their clock speeds almost at will (2.533 GHz on the P4 now with a clear path to 3.3 GHz by the end of the year). On the other hand, AMD has been struggling all year to speed up their processors. The result is that Intel is leaving AMD in the dust. As toms hardware puts it, "the Athlon design is already a bit outdated and is now reaching its limits."
The consensus is that performance problems with the new XScale platform are because of poor software - not because of flaws in the hardware.
Whoops! I guess I had my troll meter turned down too much...
Cry me a river. Most companies do lobby congress. It doesn't mean that they are evil monopolies or that they can't produce things as cheaply- its just another tool to try to adjust the supply and demand into their favor.
Lobbying congress does not make a company a monopoly.