So... what's the advantage to having one core running at 7GHz versus four at standard clock speeds, assuming that whatever you're running takes full advantage of all the threads?
End-users want to put something else on the computer. Given the UEFI, they can't - they're locked into what could be called, say, "Son of Vista", but without the means to do something about it (such as installing/"downgrading" to Windows XP). Enough end users complain to get a lawyer interested... but that little EULA says they can't.
Whether it's legal or not? Who knows. I agree with you in principle, but unfortunately, most end users haven't the foggiest idea about such principles. I suspect the legal team at MSFT has an equally tenuous grasp of it.
Let's assume (okay, state) that Windows 8 is a direct, reactionary response to the iPad and the whole "Post PC" thing.
What if Apple did it as a fake-out? What if, say, they pushed on tablets, but knew it would only go so far, yet pronounced that it would be the end-all, be-all? Microsoft spends all this time and treasure in a panicked reaction, turning their monster ship around to sail towards the mobile UI, overreacts (well, they already did IMHO), and commits irreversibly to the Metro UI thing. Once Windows 8 has been out for awhile, Tim Cook mounts the stage at the next Apple event, and proclaims that from here on in OSX would be sold retail for use on select Dell/HP/Lenovo OEM models, at reasonable prices. Furthermore, let's say that Apple would (from its rather massive war chest) pay OEMs more than Microsoft pays (at a ratio of 2:1 or perhaps 3:1) in "co-marketing" money in order to promote OSX over Windows.
Any takers on how big of a brick Steve Ballmer would shit out at the news? As an alternate bet, how much time do you think it would take him to call those OEMs with dire threats?
(I know - impossible, etc etc... but now with Jobs gone, maybe not so impossible? It would certainly liven up the OS wars a bit, and would be fun to watch. As a bonus, I could stop having to bother with the PITA efforts I usually expend in hackintoshing each new machine I get...)
Depends on the local job market. Not everyone can telecommute (I do), so if there are no jobs in the area, and you've no real source of income, it's really hard to justify buying a home in some far-flung coastal town at any price.
The fact that many of these houses are posted at prices comparable to the choicest parts of San Francisco only makes that calculation even worse.
I'm just wondering why Fedora doesn't include a small boot ISO that starts up, presents a simple menu, and takes the pain of unlocking the UEFI chip out of the equation.
I agree perfectly that they shouldn't have to do that, but the tech is certainly there, and most folks are sufficiently apt enough to do it (see also jailbreaking phones, etc).
Oh noes! I lost one whole karma point? Color me unimpressed.
Here - let me burn off a few more to prove the point, child: I have more of them stocked up over the years than you have public hairs, so kindly shut the hell up and crawl back under your rock, oh illiterate and insignificant fucktard.
Not sure about the East Coast, but I can tell you that on my little slice of coast (Oregon), most of the empty houses are the big, pricey ones. These are the ones that were (more often than not) bubble-mortgaged by people who can barely (or in many cases no longer) afford the payments, and cannot sell the houses due to their drastically lowered market values.
(Some rent them out as vacation homes, but given seasonal variations in income, it can't be enough to afford both mortgage payments and massive flood/storm insurance rates)
Actually, if memory serves, they've been washing away and coming back in various places for some time now. Hurricanes wash out parts of it, and the Gulf Stream drops off more due to North Carolina's unique geology (basically, it sticks out into the current).
The Outer Banks are pretty much a dynamic setup, and IIRC are not as cyclical or regular like, say, the removal and deposition of sand out here on the Oregon Coast (winter storms wash it away, currents drop more off come Spring, etc).
In either case, they've not always been there, and in truth, won't always be there - well, unless climate, tectonics, ocean currents, and weather all conspired to suddenly stop changing.
By the way: "science-based predictions" isn't enough. I'd prefer "accurate science-based predictions" before whipping out the hysteria.
Wow... a Strawman wrapped in a "For the chilluns!" argument! That's new.
So - what makes you so certain the guy doesn't have a massive life insurance policy? What makes you sure that the other parent isn't also employed and perfectly capable of caring for the kids in question? Fact is, you don't. Because you don't have such information, you have no ground or basis from which to dictate his behavior. QED: You have no rights to dictate others actions in that regard.
Ah, but instead of thinking it through, you relied on too many self-constructed assumptions, then started screaming about child neglect (which I believe you haven't grasped the actual meaning of...)
Seriously. Get a grip. People are going to do things that, while not criminal, are still dumb long-term. It's not your place to dictate that they behave otherwise, lest the rest of us decide to start dictating to you how you live your life.
No one said anything about preventing government intervention in cases of actual crime. Also, your assertion that some fat guy is abusing his kids by simple dint of his being fat is nonsensical.
As long as society feels obligated to help those in need, society should feel absolutely justified in putting strict limitations on the ways that people can take advantage of that.
So why not place those restrictions only on those receiving assistance? It wouldn't take much to restrict EBT/Food-Stamp purchases to only vegetables, certain meats (turkey, chicken), and such. As a bonus, anyone receiving government-supplied healthcare (medicaid, Obamacare, whatever) be restricted to a certain diet for as long as they remain on it, and that any violation of that diet equals denied services.
...and those who don't, won't buy one. Not my place to tell folks what or how they should buy something.
I often buy the smaller ones (or better, a small bottle), since the soda in a cup would go flat long before I'd even make a dent in, say, a typical 64 oz. demi-bucket of the stuff. Nothing really to do with economic analysis; it's just common sense.
But you know? I do find it hilarious that those who look down on folks who buy a monster-sized $1 soda at the fountain are often the same types that will happily walk to the cooler and pull out a $2 bottle of water for purchase.
...which is their problem, and not yours, mine, or the government's.
Oh, but then there's that welfare/medicaid thing, yes? Well, maybe if the government got out of the business of parenting humanity from womb to tomb, this wouldn't be such a big problem, now would it?
When you can put a corporation in prison for life or better yet, publicly execute it, then we can start talking.
Actually, you can do both (if any judge would have the cojones to actually do it):
Analogue to imprisonment? We got options:
* Legally require a company to fire its executive employees (from the CxOs down to VP level or so) minus any severance or other compensation, and replace them with new hires from outside the company, and approved by a court trustee.
-or- * Require that all stock trading in the company (we'll call it "CORP") be suspended for n years. -or- * Require all stock holders of CORP to pay a fine of x% of the aggregate value, with all trading on CORP frozen at the time of verdict. If you own 100 shares of stock of CORP at $10/share, and the fine is 10%, you then, personally, owe the court $100.00. Hedge/mutual finds are treated the same way. What, not fair? Well, you're a shareholder, you partially own the company, you are therefore partially responsible, in proportion to your holdings. Suck it down and use your head the next time you buy stock.
Analogue to the death penalty? No problem:
Revoke any and all corporate charters. Terminate all positions outside of whatever you absolutely need to handle the corporation until all assets are sold. Put the assets up for public auction. Dissolve the value of any existing stock to $0.00, with no compensation given. The sale, jobs, etc. are supervised by a court-appointed trustee until the final asset is sold or destroyed.
Personally, the better option would be to just not bother with Windows 8, and demand a refund (or if the OEM allows it, demand a non-Windows 8 preload). If Microsoft refuses to refund your money, take them to small claims court for that refund.
I wonder though - can an enterprising lawyer raise up a class-action lawsuit over the EULA clause itself?
Not buying it, due to one big flaw in the poll... specifically, the prevailing question, which is:
"3) God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so." (emphasis mine).
That statement could mean anything from "*poof!* human beings outta dirt!", to "turned cavemen into civilized men." It's too ambiguous to mean much of anything, since "present form" can mean physical, psychological, intellectual, skillsets, or, well, anything.
Seriously - how did Gallup let that bit of ambiguity slip through, especially when you consider that most folks don't consider humanity to have been capable of anything civilized before 8,000 BCE - and thus not "in their present form"?
Romney? The quote as you presented it does not contradict Darwin's theories. He is Mormon, but what he said in that quote is not in contradiction to Darwin's theory of evolution.
The Santorum Amendment you referenced has less to do with contradicting Darwin's theories, and more to do with stating that schools should have the leeway to set their curricula as they see fit. In fact, your link has Santorum saying specifically: "I'm not comfortable with intelligent design being taught in the science classroom." This is a pretty emphatic damnation of ID by the very guy (I think that you) sought to claim was for it.
In fact, that quote I mentioned goes on to say "What we should be teaching are the problems and holes... in the theory of evolution." (copied verbatim, including ellipses)
Last I checked, teaching kids to challenge accepted theory and to look for flaws in them is the very cornerstone of science itself! You want kids to develop critical thought, and to not just blindly accept whatever is presented to them.
In other words, I'm not really understanding where I should re-think the statement, especially as the evidence you presented only reinforces it.
Slashdot Mirror
Err, can't you get an $11k fine out of him for doing that?
Can't find the original story, but it got referenced here (though whoever put that website up likely needs to have his diaper changed. :/ )
Fo' shizzle.
. ...what?
.
So... what's the advantage to having one core running at 7GHz versus four at standard clock speeds, assuming that whatever you're running takes full advantage of all the threads?
To play Quake at ~9x its rated speed, of course.
Why else would you want to do it?
It's pretty simple, actually.
End-users want to put something else on the computer. Given the UEFI, they can't - they're locked into what could be called, say, "Son of Vista", but without the means to do something about it (such as installing/"downgrading" to Windows XP). Enough end users complain to get a lawyer interested... but that little EULA says they can't.
Whether it's legal or not? Who knows. I agree with you in principle, but unfortunately, most end users haven't the foggiest idea about such principles. I suspect the legal team at MSFT has an equally tenuous grasp of it.
You know what would be funny?
Let's assume (okay, state) that Windows 8 is a direct, reactionary response to the iPad and the whole "Post PC" thing.
What if Apple did it as a fake-out? What if, say, they pushed on tablets, but knew it would only go so far, yet pronounced that it would be the end-all, be-all? Microsoft spends all this time and treasure in a panicked reaction, turning their monster ship around to sail towards the mobile UI, overreacts (well, they already did IMHO), and commits irreversibly to the Metro UI thing. Once Windows 8 has been out for awhile, Tim Cook mounts the stage at the next Apple event, and proclaims that from here on in OSX would be sold retail for use on select Dell/HP/Lenovo OEM models, at reasonable prices. Furthermore, let's say that Apple would (from its rather massive war chest) pay OEMs more than Microsoft pays (at a ratio of 2:1 or perhaps 3:1) in "co-marketing" money in order to promote OSX over Windows.
Any takers on how big of a brick Steve Ballmer would shit out at the news? As an alternate bet, how much time do you think it would take him to call those OEMs with dire threats?
(I know - impossible, etc etc... but now with Jobs gone, maybe not so impossible? It would certainly liven up the OS wars a bit, and would be fun to watch. As a bonus, I could stop having to bother with the PITA efforts I usually expend in hackintoshing each new machine I get...)
Depends on the local job market. Not everyone can telecommute (I do), so if there are no jobs in the area, and you've no real source of income, it's really hard to justify buying a home in some far-flung coastal town at any price.
The fact that many of these houses are posted at prices comparable to the choicest parts of San Francisco only makes that calculation even worse.
Maybe that's why Microsoft was so eager to drop in that 'no class action' thing into their EULA.
I'm just wondering why Fedora doesn't include a small boot ISO that starts up, presents a simple menu, and takes the pain of unlocking the UEFI chip out of the equation.
I agree perfectly that they shouldn't have to do that, but the tech is certainly there, and most folks are sufficiently apt enough to do it (see also jailbreaking phones, etc).
Oh noes! I lost one whole karma point? Color me unimpressed.
Here - let me burn off a few more to prove the point, child: I have more of them stocked up over the years than you have public hairs, so kindly shut the hell up and crawl back under your rock, oh illiterate and insignificant fucktard.
Not sure about the East Coast, but I can tell you that on my little slice of coast (Oregon), most of the empty houses are the big, pricey ones. These are the ones that were (more often than not) bubble-mortgaged by people who can barely (or in many cases no longer) afford the payments, and cannot sell the houses due to their drastically lowered market values.
(Some rent them out as vacation homes, but given seasonal variations in income, it can't be enough to afford both mortgage payments and massive flood/storm insurance rates)
Actually, if memory serves, they've been washing away and coming back in various places for some time now. Hurricanes wash out parts of it, and the Gulf Stream drops off more due to North Carolina's unique geology (basically, it sticks out into the current).
The Outer Banks are pretty much a dynamic setup, and IIRC are not as cyclical or regular like, say, the removal and deposition of sand out here on the Oregon Coast (winter storms wash it away, currents drop more off come Spring, etc).
In either case, they've not always been there, and in truth, won't always be there - well, unless climate, tectonics, ocean currents, and weather all conspired to suddenly stop changing.
By the way: "science-based predictions" isn't enough. I'd prefer "accurate science-based predictions" before whipping out the hysteria.
You;re still working off the false assumption that the guy is intentionally killing himself.
Wow... a Strawman wrapped in a "For the chilluns!" argument! That's new.
So - what makes you so certain the guy doesn't have a massive life insurance policy? What makes you sure that the other parent isn't also employed and perfectly capable of caring for the kids in question? Fact is, you don't. Because you don't have such information, you have no ground or basis from which to dictate his behavior. QED: You have no rights to dictate others actions in that regard.
Ah, but instead of thinking it through, you relied on too many self-constructed assumptions, then started screaming about child neglect (which I believe you haven't grasped the actual meaning of...)
Seriously. Get a grip. People are going to do things that, while not criminal, are still dumb long-term. It's not your place to dictate that they behave otherwise, lest the rest of us decide to start dictating to you how you live your life.
False Continuum much?
No one said anything about preventing government intervention in cases of actual crime. Also, your assertion that some fat guy is abusing his kids by simple dint of his being fat is nonsensical.
As long as society feels obligated to help those in need, society should feel absolutely justified in putting strict limitations on the ways that people can take advantage of that.
So why not place those restrictions only on those receiving assistance? It wouldn't take much to restrict EBT/Food-Stamp purchases to only vegetables, certain meats (turkey, chicken), and such. As a bonus, anyone receiving government-supplied healthcare (medicaid, Obamacare, whatever) be restricted to a certain diet for as long as they remain on it, and that any violation of that diet equals denied services.
Well, you are correct that it is ultimately the people who pay via taxes.
OTOH, we don't get any real/immediate say-so in how it is spent.
Most people don't really want the oversized cup.
...and those who don't, won't buy one. Not my place to tell folks what or how they should buy something.
I often buy the smaller ones (or better, a small bottle), since the soda in a cup would go flat long before I'd even make a dent in, say, a typical 64 oz. demi-bucket of the stuff. Nothing really to do with economic analysis; it's just common sense.
But you know? I do find it hilarious that those who look down on folks who buy a monster-sized $1 soda at the fountain are often the same types that will happily walk to the cooler and pull out a $2 bottle of water for purchase.
It would be his choice to make, and not yours.
Who gave you the right to think or do otherwise?
...which is their problem, and not yours, mine, or the government's.
Oh, but then there's that welfare/medicaid thing, yes? Well, maybe if the government got out of the business of parenting humanity from womb to tomb, this wouldn't be such a big problem, now would it?
Because design patents != engineering/software patents.
HTH a little.
Actually, it'll be sponsored by Carl's Jr. and Brawndo. Maybe Starbucks.
When you can put a corporation in prison for life or better yet, publicly execute it, then we can start talking.
Actually, you can do both (if any judge would have the cojones to actually do it):
Analogue to imprisonment? We got options:
* Legally require a company to fire its executive employees (from the CxOs down to VP level or so) minus any severance or other compensation, and replace them with new hires from outside the company, and approved by a court trustee.
-or-
* Require that all stock trading in the company (we'll call it "CORP") be suspended for n years.
-or-
* Require all stock holders of CORP to pay a fine of x% of the aggregate value, with all trading on CORP frozen at the time of verdict. If you own 100 shares of stock of CORP at $10/share, and the fine is 10%, you then, personally, owe the court $100.00. Hedge/mutual finds are treated the same way. What, not fair? Well, you're a shareholder, you partially own the company, you are therefore partially responsible, in proportion to your holdings. Suck it down and use your head the next time you buy stock.
Analogue to the death penalty? No problem:
Revoke any and all corporate charters. Terminate all positions outside of whatever you absolutely need to handle the corporation until all assets are sold. Put the assets up for public auction. Dissolve the value of any existing stock to $0.00, with no compensation given. The sale, jobs, etc. are supervised by a court-appointed trustee until the final asset is sold or destroyed.
It may well depend on what state you live in.
Personally, the better option would be to just not bother with Windows 8, and demand a refund (or if the OEM allows it, demand a non-Windows 8 preload). If Microsoft refuses to refund your money, take them to small claims court for that refund.
I wonder though - can an enterprising lawyer raise up a class-action lawsuit over the EULA clause itself?
Not buying it, due to one big flaw in the poll... specifically, the prevailing question, which is:
"3) God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so." (emphasis mine).
That statement could mean anything from "*poof!* human beings outta dirt!", to "turned cavemen into civilized men." It's too ambiguous to mean much of anything, since "present form" can mean physical, psychological, intellectual, skillsets, or, well, anything.
Seriously - how did Gallup let that bit of ambiguity slip through, especially when you consider that most folks don't consider humanity to have been capable of anything civilized before 8,000 BCE - and thus not "in their present form"?
Romney? The quote as you presented it does not contradict Darwin's theories. He is Mormon, but what he said in that quote is not in contradiction to Darwin's theory of evolution.
The Santorum Amendment you referenced has less to do with contradicting Darwin's theories, and more to do with stating that schools should have the leeway to set their curricula as they see fit. In fact, your link has Santorum saying specifically: "I'm not comfortable with intelligent design being taught in the science classroom." This is a pretty emphatic damnation of ID by the very guy (I think that you) sought to claim was for it.
In fact, that quote I mentioned goes on to say "What we should be teaching are the problems and holes ... in the theory of evolution."
(copied verbatim, including ellipses)
Last I checked, teaching kids to challenge accepted theory and to look for flaws in them is the very cornerstone of science itself! You want kids to develop critical thought, and to not just blindly accept whatever is presented to them.
In other words, I'm not really understanding where I should re-think the statement, especially as the evidence you presented only reinforces it.