If you think the relative strength of the dollar == economic strength I've got a bridge to sell you. There are strengths and weaknesses to having your currency either strong or weak relative to other currencies. One important one which the Slashdot crowd seems to pretend to care about is: A strong dollar makes outsourcing a good deal, a weak dollar makes outsourcing less attractive.
Oh, and China intentionally keeps its currency weak compared to the dollar even though it shouldn't be as weak as it is. So are you claiming China's economy is in the tank too?
Every single review I saw of the 4x4 had it losing to Intel quad cores using the "crippled" FSB. Hypertransport is great for 4 socket+ systems which is why Intel is going to a point-to-point interconnect next year. However, on smaller systems like desktops and up to 2 socket servers, Hypertransport's benefits are much less clear. For example, when Anandtech did the initial K10 benchmarks it turns out that it took the K10 about 76ns to transfer data between any 2 cores on the chip using its layer 3 shared cache (which is faster than the Hypertransport used in the 4x4). However the more interesting number was that it took Intel's FSB 77ns to transfer data between the dual-dies, and if the data were only going between cores on the same die that time was only 26ns. So the upshot was, that the worst case scenario for Intel's data latency was less than 2%, while the better case scenario (which is not too hard to achieve) gave Intel a 50% reduction in data latency. If you want to talk about 4 socket+ systems then Hypertransport is a winner, but on a desktop I wouldn't obsess over it too much.
Anandtech had a preview of Wolfdale including benchmarks back in August (here). The ironic thing is that with the limited availability of the K10 and its late arrival at most review sites, I've seen about as much real benchmarking of the unreleased Intel parts as I have of the supposedly widely-released AMD parts.
No, that's just your fantasy world. You are making the logical error of assuming that since you don't like Microsoft, there would be a magical Utopia without Microsoft.
You have presented 0 evidence to show that this would ever occur without MS being present. For a counterexample of how this would not really occur, just look at how UNIX disintegrated into factions in the 80's that were all kinda-sorta but not really compatible. And don't think just because some software is open source that everything is in nirvana either, just look at the spat over wireless drivers between OpenBSD and Linux... neither one of them is the big evil monopoly you hate, and they can't even get along all the time.
That might be theoretically true, but in practice public keys are in use for YEARS (if not decades).
Example, vising gmail and checking out the certificate Google (which is pretty security conscious) has a key valid from 05/03/2007 through 05/14/2008 (over a year). In order to trivially look at EVERY session encrypted over gmail an attack would need to crack that key ONCE. Google is pretty good by the way, there are certs in existence for far longer than 1 year out on the intraweb.
It is true that every session uses a symmetric cypher with a different session key... but how do you think the keys are exchanged? Once the PKI encryption is broken, the attacker will be able to read the session key in plaintext and decrypt the entire session. And this is for every single person using Google's certificate. That is why cracking PKI is so profitable, the long-term nature of the keys means once it is cracked, you have free reign for a long time.
Because anybody who's seen a money laundering scheme would immediately know this is not one:
1. Supply and demand, you took a linear price relationship for a small sampling of products and extended it into infinity. This is known as the "rule of small numbers" error. Right now 64Gb flash drives are extremely expensive due to the small number produced and the fact that flash chips are not yet dense enough to easily support 64Gb.
2. A money laundering scheme would probably be trying to sell items for LESS than (or maybe about the same as) comparable goods. Firstly, the proceeds for stolen goods are 100% profit, and secondly any fence worth his salt is not going to try to attract too much attention. He could sell it cheap, but won't go for $1 or anything ridiculous, and if he were to try to sell the goods for an insanely high price, nobody would buy them... and no money would be laundered... and the entire point of the scheme would be defeated.
Read the first sentence of my post again. I know that they technically don't actually accuse MS of violating the GPL. However, the title is written in a way that would lead the casual reader to that conclusion anyway. Yes I am more than capable of reading the "actual" meaning vs the "subtle implied" meaning.
If you don't like my analysis, then you lose the right to complain about Bush & Co. before the Iraq war. You'll never find a quote where anyone in the Bush administration actually said Saddam caused 9/11 (really you won't, even Moveon.org doesn't have one). However, you will see lots of quotes about Saddam & terrorism (which aren't entirely wrong, he was involved with terrorism, just not Al-Quaida). The exact same principle applies in both cases.
Nice try at trying to accuse MS of violating the GPL while being able to come back later and say you didn't actually accuse them of it. This is about applications that happen to run on Windows that may be violating the GPL. There are plenty of other potential GPL violators out there too (especially in the embedded space), and there can be violations in closed-source software on Linux too. It's a good way to get more page hits and foam up the usual 2 minutes of anti-MS hate on Slashdot though.
If I wrote an article talking about how a bunch of movie "sharers" used Linux and tried to accuse Linux of copyright infringement there would be about 10,000 screaming Slashdotters talking about how wrong I was. I somehow doubt the same level of intellectual integrity will go towards MS.
Intel is taking the quick and dirty route to quad core - smash two dual core CPUs onto the same die. AMD is actually doing a proper quad core architecture.
A 'smashed' Xeon runs much better than an AMD CPU that I can't buy. If I said AMD sucked because they took the 'quick and dirty' route with the K10's shared L3 victim cache, limited memory prefetching, and limited incomplete subset of SSE4 you'd probably just say those are buzzwords.
Barcelona is faster than Intel's current line-up and does not want to see Intel up the pace more by releasing such numbers.
That may have been true 6 months ago, but the K10 is supposed to be officially announced in about 16 days on September 10 (since AMD claims not to do paper launches it is supposed to be widely available then too... ymmv). AMD is not going to be able to stop benchmarks after it is released, and while Intel can adapt quickly, it can't turn on a dime in 2 weeks time. AMD has not been doing well in the PR and benchmarking battles since Core 2 came out, if K10 really was that amazing you would be seeing all the usual suspects putting out full reviews right now in order to generate hype. I'm leaning towards your second theory, and most analysts are too.
Today only at powerpoint city.. 2 slides for the price of one! With a neat blending effect and a free press release!
OK I kid, but AMD going to DDR3 in 2009 (assuming the date doesn't slip) is not exactly the biggest revolution in all of computing. I'm sure it will be a very nice memory interface, but by then the standard 'Intel is evil because of the FSB' rant will be obsolete due to CSI (now called 'Quickpath' in marketese).
What I want instead of an AMD press release: Honest to God numbers on the K10! The thing is supposed to be 'officially' launched in 3 weeks and there is nothing from any independent source! Meanwhile over at Anandtech there is a full preview of an actual Wolfdale chip that was run, tested, overclocked, all without Intel's supervision (or apparently their permission either). We now have a whole hell of a lot more information on an Intel chip that is not due out until very late this year or next year than we do about the amazing new AMD chip that is supposed to already be at system integrators by this point. That is not a good sign for AMD.
Oh, and I do want AMD to do well, they have some nice technology, I'm just not necessarily enamored with their more vocal fanboys. Despite what some people here think, AMD is also a multi-billion dollar company that outsources production overseas, tries to charge more for its products than it had to pay to make them, has those evil patents, supports DRM technology, and has agreements with that evil Microsoft company. Despite the propoganda they are not pure angels and Intel is not pure evil either.
I'm not aware of any central Windows library being encrypted, that doesn't mean Wine has only taken 5 minutes to replicate Windows. I think you're barking up the wrong tree.
Gmail by default only uses https for your login, not actually reading/sending mail. To get a full session via https you need to login to this URL: https://mail.google.com/ Note: https://gmail.com/ will NOT encrypt the session further than the login screen (see for yourself, look for the https connection).
Having said all of that: Email is not an encrypted protocol by default! The method above is a good method for preventing sniffing on the last hop between you and Gmail (which is why I use it when I'm on an unsecured wifi connection to prevent easy eavesdropping). However, once the mail server sends the message on the open network... it is 100% cleartext. If you want real encryption, get PGP, this advice was true long before Slashdot got its panties in a bind over ISP's 'snooping' on your traffic.
Oh and one more thing: I love the Slashdot doublethink: Having a large evil corporation (the ISP) possibly being able to sniff traffic to read some of my emails is a terrible invasion of my privacy!! Simultaneously: Having a large non-evil (because they said so) corporation (Google) actually store all my emails (much easier to get at them then trying to wire-sniff) and index them and use them to generate ads: SUPER!
You have 0 idea of what the hell you are talking about. First to file only applies to interference cases where 2 parties are competing over a patent (see 35 U.S.C. 102(g)), prior art would still be available to defeat a patent application under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)-(b), and the SIR and previous patents under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) would still be available as well.
First to file is a very good idea since it means that the bickering going back and forth of who 'conceived' of an invention first (not to mention the evidentiary needs of showing continuuos due diligence in getting to reduction to practice from just before the point that the other party conceived of the invention, etc.) will no longer be necessary. Interference proceedings are actually relatively rare (only about 1% of applications enter interference), but they are very costly.
Oh and yes, I am studying to take the patent bar so don't think some slashdot accepted emotional rant will be able to convince me otherwise. Learning about patents from Slashdot is like learning about black people from a KKK rally.
1. This story is a dupe 2. Yay firefox... but honestly is it all that important? How about discussing ways we can actually get firefox to perform better? Now that's a conversation actually worth having, but it might involve thinking instead of rabid fanboyism & MS hatred, so don't expect to see it on Slashdot. 3. For the last freakin' time: Your mom is loose, you are just a loser can you finally get it right!!??!?!?!!
Windows continues to be built on a base of 1970s-era operating system principles.
Thank Gawd Linux isn't using any relic of an OS that started in the 1970's as its base! No, no, all 100% 21st clean legacy-free implementation there.
On a more serious note, I used Beos myself back in the day. It was definitely more responsive than Win98 was, but not everything was perfect either. The networking implementation absolutely sucked. Oh, it had lots of threads, its just that the threads were not all that beneficial to actual performance. The networking stack and some other forms of processing in the system that handle streams of many relatively similar tasks would probably parallelize better via a pipeline scheme where parallelism is achieved by having independent stages of the pipeline run in parallel (much as CPUs break up the task of executing instructions into a pipeline). The type of parallelism that works best can depend on the application, and the one-size fits all philosophy is not usually correct no matter what the solution is.
OK, hold on, I think there is just a pinch of 'hate Bush no matter what' in your post. If none of the auctions were taking place, I could just as easily spin this as the Evil Bush administration staying in league with media giants to retain control over UHF and VHF spectrum that was being wasted (which it is in buckets by the way) and cut off from any and all new innovation. I could further decry the fact that the US was continuing to languish with the old NTSC transmission standard instead of moving into the 21st century with digital & HD standards, and how consumers were being hurt by the stifling entrenched interests that wanted to stop the growth of new technology. I have a question: If Hillary were auctioning off the spectrum would you still hate it, and if the Bush administration canceled the auction would you say it was a good idea?
Hey Dumbass, read the article that this story is about. Search & Seizure for the ENVIRONMENT! Do you think those environmentalists that want to photograph your car to charge you extra for driving in 'restricted zones' want to stop there? How about environmentalists monitoring your home to see if you are destroying the earth by grilling in the backyard? And for that matter, why is is suddenly fine to restrict travel in the name of the environment, but asking for ID at the Airport is somehow unconstitutional??
Let my lay this out for you: When George Bush takes away your freedoms to protect you from terrorists that is bad, and George Bush is evil and wants power. Environmentalists want to take away your freedoms to 'save the earth' and that is good because they have no motives whatsoever to get power.
I'll let you ruminate on where you went wrong in your analysis. I think a great example was Greenpeace's response to gas going > $3 a gallon. Instead of celebrating the fact that gas was expensive, they started screaming like girls that the 'evil' oil companies were 'gouging' consumers. Keep in mind, if gas was $25 a gallon and they were getting the $$$ they would have 0 problem with this and say that it is 'good for the earth'.
You think all those red staters are gullible and naive for believing Bush wants to stop terrorism, but simultaneously think all those environmental lobbying groups in DC are somehow perfect beings descended from a higher plane of existence? I've got a bridge to sell you.
Part of this (driving below 86th St) is part of Bloomberg's environmental stop global warming initiative. When you consider the fact that all American vehicles put together (not just SUV's but every vehicle) only account for about 6% of Co2 emissions ( in the neighborhood of underground coal fires in China that are blazing out of control) this starts to look more like a money/power grab disguised as environmentalism.
In fact, many environmentalists who really hate Bush are not that far away from him. They just want to take away your freedoms in the name of environmentalism instead of fighting terrorism. Of course, on this site there will be thousands of apologists for destroying the constitution in the name of the environment, but not for stopping terrorists.
Hold on, my hypocrisy meter just went red.....
If this was any of you guys downloading stuff off Bittorrent all we'd here is "It's NOT STEALING WAAHH!!!" However, now if the guys at GeekSquad do the exact same thing it's now 'stealing'.... So what you are saying is that if I get something from Bittorrent over my comparatively slow link that's not stealing, but being efficient about it (which these guys seem to be) is now 'stealing'. Check.
Oh, and don't even try that: 'But on Bittorrent it's OK since I have permission' bit with me, unless you yourself made the content (and for the love of God I hope it ain't Porn), your 'permission' is about as relevant as me giving you 'permission' to buy the Brooklyn Bridge.
If they don't, telecom companies will ruin the Internet. You mean the same companies that you depend on to actually do anything on the Internet and have relied on since day 1 to do so? Why haven't they already ruined it? Why don't you just stop paying them to ruin the Internet?
How some things get modded up on Slashdot is beyond me. How about: If we pass the wrong type of network neutrality law, there will be 0 profit in expanding broadband access, and while that will make everyone on Slashdot extremely happy that those 'evil' companies cannot make money, it will also guarantee no new broadband, because unlike Slashdot, in the real world if you make something unprofitable, companies will take the hint and not do it anymore.
Maybe you need to look up the term 'speed binning' sometime. The X6800 is simply an e6600 or e6700 only at a higher clock speed. There is no differnce in cache or in architecture so I see nothing wrong with using it in this manner. There is one way in which the results might change, and that would be to differences in memory bandwidth due to messing with the FSB. However, the X6800 has an unlocked memory multiplier (Intel unlocks this on the 'X' series CPU's to make overclocking easier). By changing the multiplier and leaving the FSB alone, the reviewers are able to turn the chip into an e6600 or e6700 for any practical purpose. I mean, there will probably be some minute differences between different batches of the same e6600/e6700 production run that would have miniscule differences just as big as the difference between a properly clocked X6800 and the 'real thing'.
Slashdot Mirror
If you think the relative strength of the dollar == economic strength I've got a bridge to sell you.
There are strengths and weaknesses to having your currency either strong or weak relative to other currencies. One important one which the Slashdot crowd seems to pretend to care about is: A strong dollar makes outsourcing a good deal, a weak dollar makes outsourcing less attractive.
Oh, and China intentionally keeps its currency weak compared to the dollar even though it shouldn't be as weak as it is. So are you claiming China's economy is in the tank too?
Every single review I saw of the 4x4 had it losing to Intel quad cores using the "crippled" FSB. Hypertransport is great for 4 socket+ systems which is why Intel is going to a point-to-point interconnect next year. However, on smaller systems like desktops and up to 2 socket servers, Hypertransport's benefits are much less clear. For example, when Anandtech did the initial K10 benchmarks it turns out that it took the K10 about 76ns to transfer data between any 2 cores on the chip using its layer 3 shared cache (which is faster than the Hypertransport used in the 4x4).
However the more interesting number was that it took Intel's FSB 77ns to transfer data between the dual-dies, and if the data were only going between cores on the same die that time was only 26ns. So the upshot was, that the worst case scenario for Intel's data latency was less than 2%, while the better case scenario (which is not too hard to achieve) gave Intel a 50% reduction in data latency. If you want to talk about 4 socket+ systems then Hypertransport is a winner, but on a desktop I wouldn't obsess over it too much.
Anandtech had a preview of Wolfdale including benchmarks back in August (here). The ironic thing is that with the limited availability of the K10 and its late arrival at most review sites, I've seen about as much real benchmarking of the unreleased Intel parts as I have of the supposedly widely-released AMD parts.
No, that's just your fantasy world. You are making the logical error of assuming that since you don't like Microsoft, there would be a magical Utopia without Microsoft.
You have presented 0 evidence to show that this would ever occur without MS being present. For a counterexample of how this would not really occur, just look at how UNIX disintegrated into factions in the 80's that were all kinda-sorta but not really compatible. And don't think just because some software is open source that everything is in nirvana either, just look at the spat over wireless drivers between OpenBSD and Linux... neither one of them is the big evil monopoly you hate, and they can't even get along all the time.
That might be theoretically true, but in practice public keys are in use for YEARS (if not decades).
Example, vising gmail and checking out the certificate Google (which is pretty security conscious) has a key valid from 05/03/2007 through 05/14/2008 (over a year).
In order to trivially look at EVERY session encrypted over gmail an attack would need to crack that key ONCE. Google is pretty good by the way, there are certs in existence for far longer than 1 year out on the intraweb.
It is true that every session uses a symmetric cypher with a different session key... but how do you think the keys are exchanged? Once the PKI encryption is broken, the attacker will be able to read the session key in plaintext and decrypt the entire session. And this is for every single person using Google's certificate. That is why cracking PKI is so profitable, the long-term nature of the keys means once it is cracked, you have free reign for a long time.
Because anybody who's seen a money laundering scheme would immediately know this is not one:
1. Supply and demand, you took a linear price relationship for a small sampling of products and extended it into infinity. This is known as the "rule of small numbers" error. Right now 64Gb flash drives are extremely expensive due to the small number produced and the fact that flash chips are not yet dense enough to easily support 64Gb.
2. A money laundering scheme would probably be trying to sell items for LESS than (or maybe about the same as) comparable goods. Firstly, the proceeds for stolen goods are 100% profit, and secondly any fence worth his salt is not going to try to attract too much attention. He could sell it cheap, but won't go for $1 or anything ridiculous, and if he were to try to sell the goods for an insanely high price, nobody would buy them... and no money would be laundered... and the entire point of the scheme would be defeated.
Read the first sentence of my post again. I know that they technically don't actually accuse MS of violating the GPL. However, the title is written in a way that would lead the casual reader to that conclusion anyway. Yes I am more than capable of reading the "actual" meaning vs the "subtle implied" meaning.
If you don't like my analysis, then you lose the right to complain about Bush & Co. before the Iraq war. You'll never find a quote where anyone in the Bush administration actually said Saddam caused 9/11 (really you won't, even Moveon.org doesn't have one). However, you will see lots of quotes about Saddam & terrorism (which aren't entirely wrong, he was involved with terrorism, just not Al-Quaida). The exact same principle applies in both cases.
Nice try at trying to accuse MS of violating the GPL while being able to come back later and say you didn't actually accuse them of it.
This is about applications that happen to run on Windows that may be violating the GPL. There are plenty of other potential GPL violators out there too (especially in the embedded space), and there can be violations in closed-source software on Linux too. It's a good way to get more page hits and foam up the usual 2 minutes of anti-MS hate on Slashdot though.
If I wrote an article talking about how a bunch of movie "sharers" used Linux and tried to accuse Linux of copyright infringement there would be about 10,000 screaming Slashdotters talking about how wrong I was. I somehow doubt the same level of intellectual integrity will go towards MS.
Intel is taking the quick and dirty route to quad core - smash two dual core CPUs onto the same die. AMD is actually doing a proper quad core architecture.
A 'smashed' Xeon runs much better than an AMD CPU that I can't buy. If I said AMD sucked because they took the 'quick and dirty' route with the K10's shared L3 victim cache, limited memory prefetching, and limited incomplete subset of SSE4 you'd probably just say those are buzzwords.
Barcelona is faster than Intel's current line-up and does not want to see Intel up the pace more by releasing such numbers.
That may have been true 6 months ago, but the K10 is supposed to be officially announced in about 16 days on September 10 (since AMD claims not to do paper launches it is supposed to be widely available then too... ymmv). AMD is not going to be able to stop benchmarks after it is released, and while Intel can adapt quickly, it can't turn on a dime in 2 weeks time. AMD has not been doing well in the PR and benchmarking battles since Core 2 came out, if K10 really was that amazing you would be seeing all the usual suspects putting out full reviews right now in order to generate hype. I'm leaning towards your second theory, and most analysts are too.
Today only at powerpoint city.. 2 slides for the price of one! With a neat blending effect and a free press release!
OK I kid, but AMD going to DDR3 in 2009 (assuming the date doesn't slip) is not exactly the biggest revolution in all of computing. I'm sure it will be a very nice memory interface, but by then the standard 'Intel is evil because of the FSB' rant will be obsolete due to CSI (now called 'Quickpath' in marketese).
What I want instead of an AMD press release: Honest to God numbers on the K10! The thing is supposed to be 'officially' launched in 3 weeks and there is nothing from any independent source! Meanwhile over at Anandtech there is a full preview of an actual Wolfdale chip that was run, tested, overclocked, all without Intel's supervision (or apparently their permission either). We now have a whole hell of a lot more information on an Intel chip that is not due out until very late this year or next year than we do about the amazing new AMD chip that is supposed to already be at system integrators by this point. That is not a good sign for AMD.
Oh, and I do want AMD to do well, they have some nice technology, I'm just not necessarily enamored with their more vocal fanboys. Despite what some people here think, AMD is also a multi-billion dollar company that outsources production overseas, tries to charge more for its products than it had to pay to make them, has those evil patents, supports DRM technology, and has agreements with that evil Microsoft company. Despite the propoganda they are not pure angels and Intel is not pure evil either.
Don't confuse graphics DDR3 with DDR3 SDRAM used for general system memory. They are completely different beasts.
I'm not aware of any central Windows library being encrypted, that doesn't mean Wine has only taken 5 minutes to replicate Windows. I think you're barking up the wrong tree.
Gmail by default only uses https for your login, not actually reading/sending mail. To get a full session via https you need to login to this URL: https://mail.google.com/ Note: https://gmail.com/ will NOT encrypt the session further than the login screen (see for yourself, look for the https connection).
Having said all of that: Email is not an encrypted protocol by default! The method above is a good method for preventing sniffing on the last hop between you and Gmail (which is why I use it when I'm on an unsecured wifi connection to prevent easy eavesdropping). However, once the mail server sends the message on the open network... it is 100% cleartext. If you want real encryption, get PGP, this advice was true long before Slashdot got its panties in a bind over ISP's 'snooping' on your traffic.
Oh and one more thing: I love the Slashdot doublethink: Having a large evil corporation (the ISP) possibly being able to sniff traffic to read some of my emails is a terrible invasion of my privacy!! Simultaneously: Having a large non-evil (because they said so) corporation (Google) actually store all my emails (much easier to get at them then trying to wire-sniff) and index them and use them to generate ads: SUPER!
You have 0 idea of what the hell you are talking about. First to file only applies to interference cases where 2 parties are competing over a patent (see 35 U.S.C. 102(g)), prior art would still be available to defeat a patent application under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)-(b), and the SIR and previous patents under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) would still be available as well.
First to file is a very good idea since it means that the bickering going back and forth of who 'conceived' of an invention first (not to mention the evidentiary needs of showing continuuos due diligence in getting to reduction to practice from just before the point that the other party conceived of the invention, etc.) will no longer be necessary. Interference proceedings are actually relatively rare (only about 1% of applications enter interference), but they are very costly.
Oh and yes, I am studying to take the patent bar so don't think some slashdot accepted emotional rant will be able to convince me otherwise. Learning about patents from Slashdot is like learning about black people from a KKK rally.
1. This story is a dupe
2. Yay firefox... but honestly is it all that important? How about discussing ways we can actually get firefox to perform better? Now that's a conversation actually worth having, but it might involve thinking instead of rabid fanboyism & MS hatred, so don't expect to see it on Slashdot.
3. For the last freakin' time: Your mom is loose, you are just a loser can you finally get it right!!??!?!?!!
Thank Gawd Linux isn't using any relic of an OS that started in the 1970's as its base! No, no, all 100% 21st clean legacy-free implementation there.
On a more serious note, I used Beos myself back in the day. It was definitely more responsive than Win98 was, but not everything was perfect either. The networking implementation absolutely sucked. Oh, it had lots of threads, its just that the threads were not all that beneficial to actual performance. The networking stack and some other forms of processing in the system that handle streams of many relatively similar tasks would probably parallelize better via a pipeline scheme where parallelism is achieved by having independent stages of the pipeline run in parallel (much as CPUs break up the task of executing instructions into a pipeline). The type of parallelism that works best can depend on the application, and the one-size fits all philosophy is not usually correct no matter what the solution is.
OK, hold on, I think there is just a pinch of 'hate Bush no matter what' in your post. If none of the auctions were taking place, I could just as easily spin this as the Evil Bush administration staying in league with media giants to retain control over UHF and VHF spectrum that was being wasted (which it is in buckets by the way) and cut off from any and all new innovation. I could further decry the fact that the US was continuing to languish with the old NTSC transmission standard instead of moving into the 21st century with digital & HD standards, and how consumers were being hurt by the stifling entrenched interests that wanted to stop the growth of new technology. I have a question: If Hillary were auctioning off the spectrum would you still hate it, and if the Bush administration canceled the auction would you say it was a good idea?
Hey Dumbass, read the article that this story is about. Search & Seizure for the ENVIRONMENT! Do you think those environmentalists that want to photograph your car to charge you extra for driving in 'restricted zones' want to stop there? How about environmentalists monitoring your home to see if you are destroying the earth by grilling in the backyard? And for that matter, why is is suddenly fine to restrict travel in the name of the environment, but asking for ID at the Airport is somehow unconstitutional??
Let my lay this out for you: When George Bush takes away your freedoms to protect you from terrorists that is bad, and George Bush is evil and wants power. Environmentalists want to take away your freedoms to 'save the earth' and that is good because they have no motives whatsoever to get power.
I'll let you ruminate on where you went wrong in your analysis. I think a great example was Greenpeace's response to gas going > $3 a gallon. Instead of celebrating the fact that gas was expensive, they started screaming like girls that the 'evil' oil companies were 'gouging' consumers. Keep in mind, if gas was $25 a gallon and they were getting the $$$ they would have 0 problem with this and say that it is 'good for the earth'.
You think all those red staters are gullible and naive for believing Bush wants to stop terrorism, but simultaneously think all those environmental lobbying groups in DC are somehow perfect beings descended from a higher plane of existence? I've got a bridge to sell you.
Part of this (driving below 86th St) is part of Bloomberg's environmental stop global warming initiative. When you consider the fact that all American vehicles put together (not just SUV's but every vehicle) only account for about 6% of Co2 emissions ( in the neighborhood of underground coal fires in China that are blazing out of control) this starts to look more like a money/power grab disguised as environmentalism.
In fact, many environmentalists who really hate Bush are not that far away from him. They just want to take away your freedoms in the name of environmentalism instead of fighting terrorism. Of course, on this site there will be thousands of apologists for destroying the constitution in the name of the environment, but not for stopping terrorists.
Hold on, my hypocrisy meter just went red.....
If this was any of you guys downloading stuff off Bittorrent all we'd here is "It's NOT STEALING WAAHH!!!"
However, now if the guys at GeekSquad do the exact same thing it's now 'stealing'....
So what you are saying is that if I get something from Bittorrent over my comparatively slow link that's not stealing, but being efficient about it (which these guys seem to be) is now 'stealing'. Check.
Oh, and don't even try that: 'But on Bittorrent it's OK since I have permission' bit with me, unless you yourself made the content (and for the love of God I hope it ain't Porn), your 'permission' is about as relevant as me giving you 'permission' to buy the Brooklyn Bridge.
If they don't, telecom companies will ruin the Internet.
You mean the same companies that you depend on to actually do anything on the Internet and have relied on since day 1 to do so? Why haven't they already ruined it? Why don't you just stop paying them to ruin the Internet?
How some things get modded up on Slashdot is beyond me. How about: If we pass the wrong type of network neutrality law, there will be 0 profit in expanding broadband access, and while that will make everyone on Slashdot extremely happy that those 'evil' companies cannot make money, it will also guarantee no new broadband, because unlike Slashdot, in the real world if you make something unprofitable, companies will take the hint and not do it anymore.
Maybe you need to look up the term 'speed binning' sometime. The X6800 is simply an e6600 or e6700 only at a higher clock speed. There is no differnce in cache or in architecture so I see nothing wrong with using it in this manner. There is one way in which the results might change, and that would be to differences in memory bandwidth due to messing with the FSB. However, the X6800 has an unlocked memory multiplier (Intel unlocks this on the 'X' series CPU's to make overclocking easier). By changing the multiplier and leaving the FSB alone, the reviewers are able to turn the chip into an e6600 or e6700 for any practical purpose. I mean, there will probably be some minute differences between different batches of the same e6600/e6700 production run that would have miniscule differences just as big as the difference between a properly clocked X6800 and the 'real thing'.