I am afraid that the numbers you are looking at are old. Intel is not winning. If you wish to take a snapshot today, AMD has won the desktop war, they easily outsell Intel in the Desktop market, regardless of the Dell's that will only sell Intel. The server market still belongs to Intel, but if you look at the trends, it's difficult to say they are winning when the competition is closing the gap at what should be considered an alarming rate. It the rate AMD is picking up market share in that arena, they will surpass Intel there by the middle of next summer. With re-occuring news that their 64 bit architecture outperforms Intels nearly 2 to 1, it could be even sooner. The number is no where near the 10 to 1 that you claim. To support that arguement, even Microsoft has written their new, soon to be released OSes around the AMD core, not the Intel cores. Sure the Intel cores will be fully supported, but they were not the primary concern for MS.
I would also like to point out that you have made an error in profits by the two companies, Intels margins have fallen over the last 12 months while AMD's have risen.
With all of those facts put together, Intel is losing. They may be ahead right now in the markets that matter the most, servers, but it is quickly fading as far as real numbers are concerned. I would hardly call that winning.
AMD is also winning in the sales game. They have successfully changed the public's perception of clock speeds. That is a war I thought they couldn't win myself. Intel had entrenched it into the public's mind. Those days are over. If AMD can overcome a hurdle like that, I don't question for a second they can overcome any branding issues that may arise.
" Sure, I didn't get the full effects of the games, but I still played them quite nicely performance-wise.
"
Thats like asking a kid who has been blind since birth how he feels about no seeing anything for his whole life. Of course he doesn't miss what he never had. Until you experience a high end system displaying high end graphics, you can speak about how good or bad you old system is. You are 'blind' to what you have never seen. How can I explain what red looks like to a blind person? How can I explain what you are missing when you have never seen it yourself. I think your jaw might just drop when you see what these new cards can pump out when fully excercised.
Did you happen to actually read the article? The guy ends by blatantly stating that there is no sane reason to choose a PC over a mac. How can you possibly see this guy as an MS supporter,.. unless of course you didn't really read the article.
lol, you have to read what my response, was in response to. My response was supposed to be satire, not bigitrous in itself. I am sorry if you took offense, non was intended. I was attempting to point out what you stated in plain words, the connotation that these things have racist meaning s is utterly ridiculous. Anyone who tries to paint them that way is searching for a fight, and they know it.
We already have racist spam and virus filters, why not other things too? (white lists are 'good' lists, blacklists are 'bad' lists). Isn't that real equal opportunity?
And who is the silly person who would expect it to be otherwise? Have you actually been listening to the news at all over the past decade? Have you learned nothing? The real story would be if the ranking did not rise if it were housed on an IIS server. Otherwise it's a nothing, I would have assumed that.
"Keep dreaming.......Not only is it not going to be convinently man-portable"
It appears as though you have been consumed by 'the box'. It is a dreadful disease, and I wish you luck on finding the cure, most are doomed though. At least there are some groups that you can join that will at least help you 'think' outside of 'the box'. You can live a semi-reasonable impersonation at being a real person by practicing 'out of the box' thinking often, even if your spirit has already been consumed by the box.
Please see the other posts in this thread to see that not only is my conjecture possible, it's already been done. I predict that gaming will become much much more intense as the base set of hardware becomes more ubiquitous in the general population. Sure it's been done, but it will be a few years before we see these applications become more main stream. It will come, whether you are still in your box or not.
"Now, if a president wants to punish you for your votes and further restricts your rights, isn't that a small price to pay for liberty?"
Can your choices actually be considered as 'free' any more when there are punishments/consequences attached to one or more of those two choices? How can one be told they are free to make the choices with the knowledge that they will lose their job if they choose something other than what their leader has. Isn't this an ultimate punishment? Take away your economic power to provide food and shelter for your family if you choose other than the directive? Are we blind to what is going on? Can't anyone see this is driving our 'democracy' into something monsteraous and that serves the purpose of only those who agree with the president, all others will be punished? The side of the fence that disagrees with Bush is getting smaller and smaller. Why? Because the price is to steep to stand against him. Where did my rights go? Why can't I disagree and not be persecuted for it? Is this the kind of America we really want? I certainly don't.
You think you should be somehow rewarded for your theft? You contributed to the high cost of the retail product. If anything they should have police waiting for you at the counter. Hmm, what is the lower threshold for grand larceny? Too bad it's probably just petty larceny. I would sooner burden the cost of prosectuting you under the justice system than support your habit of theft by paying higher prices.
I don't see how the Brits are going to make a smidgen of difference. Nonacceptance of the system was broadly challenged in the US and look where it go it's citizens, new laws that protect the companies and place the public in jail or at least saddle them with hefty fines. The Brits are on the backside of the curve here and probably have little choice but to bend over and take it, just like the Americans had to.
Sorry no vaseline for you, we used it all up on ourselves.
As far as the policy set for by John Ashcroft as to how crimes are to be prosecuted, that may be true. However, that has not any bearing on how the Judical system must react to a conviction of the crime. Prosecution and penalties for the conviction are actually two very seperate phases of a criminal trial and are purposefully kept distinct under the law.
The Penalty phase of each criminal trial is driven by another set of requirements that the Supreme court has ruled on a number of times regarding how it is to be treated. The standing rule of law in this country is proportionality of punishment to the crime. See this summation of those decisions for factual reference. They are quite frankly explicitly barred from arbitrarily imposimg the maximum sentence. Now we all read in the papers where that is not the case in lower court rulings, but what we generally do not hear is that where those extreme penalties are rendered and appealed, they are most often corrected to reflect the proportionality requirement. Granted, the appeals only happen in cases where the convicted individual has resources to pursue an appeal and hence the problem lies in the fact that the lower courts are ignoring the proportionality requirement and justice is left undone for those who do not have the economic resources to pursue an appellate correction. That is where the real issue lies and where a second crime is actually occuring.
If I remember my history correctly, the vast majority of the people came to America to escape from societies that were persecuting them for not agreeing with their beliefs and laws (you must remember the church was the law in those days). They tried to create a system of government that had a system in place for not allowing those influences to effect justice in this country. What they didn't seem to forsee is that that type of system would eventually attack itself from within. With our media system being driven by profits, minority factions get a louder voice in the crowd of issues simply because make more sensational news (i.e more eyes on that channel, hence more advert revenue). Our lawmakers feel cornered on the issue, because of all of the media attention, and try to show that they aren't ignoring issues that must concern most of the public, because most of the public is following the news story(s). Anyways, we end up with a set of laws being proposed and passed that satisfy the demands of that loud factional minority. The justice system has to uphold them or strike them down according to wether they fit in the constitutional framework. It's tough to argue that this law does not fit that framework.
Now with all of the common sense stuff said, certainly your statement is correct, but when the laws don't represent the desires of the majority and their prosecutions are upheld by the justice system, then to whom do those laws serve? Isn't that contrary to and a method of circumventing the intent of the established framework of the founding fathers?
Perhaps you would like to reverse a number of Supreme Court decisions directly dealing with proportionality of punishment. We are clearly deviating from those decisions with consequences such as this bill puts forth.
Wait until there are games out there that utilize a GPS enabled tablet. Your immediate surroundings are re-interpreted by the game to show avarge pedestrians as monsters and you have to shoot them as you walk by. It's only a matter of time as the technology already exists.
"Let's say double the cost of bandwidth plus 2 seconds jail time for each email."
I agree with the charges, but jail time because you annoyed someone else? Maybe charge them for the manhours lost too would be appropriate, but jail time for an annoyance is still over-reactionary.
"Let's see, if someone puts a copy of an unreleased movie out to be shared/downloaded and say 300 people download it then the cost would be 300x$8 or $2400. That is assuming you do not live on the coasts where movie tickets can cost up to $18."
You missed the point. Using your example, the person would be charged with 300 counts of this crime and would be elidgible for a sentence of 900 years in prison. Esentially a life sentence. That is draconian under any definition. A fitting sentence would be to have the thief pay twice the dollar amount of the lost sale. I would certainly rather buy it at that point than have to pay twice the cost in the long run.
The charge the spammer twice the amount of bandwidth they consumed. 25 years in jail is overly excess. double the cost of doing it legally is certainly respective of the crime.
"It's not the theft of "one $8.00 movie ticket", it is the theft of a movie ticket for every person that downloads the film"
You are ignoring the fact that it either took several individuals 'chaining' together downloads to achieve that. Go after the several people and make them share the punishment then. Don't lump it all on the first person. That's wrong too. Charge the violator double the cost of the lost sale(s). That is more than sufficient. Doubles the income of the movie industry too. Nobody losses except the thief and the punishment isn't excessive.
As this bill is written, under your scenario, that person is going to be charged with 125 counts of this crime, no one count. They could be sent to jail for 375 years. That's still dracionian. RTFA
The article state 'a single copy' The penalties apply if one copy is shared once. That's how it is written. There is no scale on the penalties, it's up to the judge, and we read everyday how that turns out once one of them gets their underwear in a wad. Sure you can exceed that, but in your example you will stand trial for 1000 counts of the same crime. Yes, the bill is written that way. So you could potentially spend 3000 years in jail under your scenario. Think about it.
That actually makes it worse for you. The US likes to force extradition. Take you to a third country, like Afghanistan and beat the crap out of you, legally and torture you without anyone knowing. You never get to the US where you have rights. But wait.. I forget.. We actually do that to our own citizen's here too and cover it up, accept where someone catches it happening on camera and gets it to a news station before the police find you. Oh, Forget it, I guess it's a moot point. Your toast whereever you are. It's a matter of whether you want you toast burnt or shoved up your rectum, your choice.
My god, I hope sooner or later people wake up to what is happening in this country. We have absolutely lost any semblence of 'punishment fits the crime'. How can 3 years in jail be justified by sharing a single copy of a pre-release movie. Granted it's theft, but theft of one $8.00 movie ticket at the most. Even if it is stealing (which I do consider it), three years in jail is just stupidly over-reactionary and overtly excessive. Of course a possible 25 year prison sentence for spamming is right up there too. Sure I hate spam and it pee's me off, but 25 years in jail? Then lump the loss of due process with the DMCA and you start to see a middle ages picture being drawn here. Isn't this what the founding fathers of our country came here to escape?
"The answer is to manage the complexity by using well-designed and well-defined interfaces and minimizing side effects."
Well said. The problem is that nagging diminishing returns issue that constantly pops up in this process. At some point you have to stop spending money chasing possible issues and publish the code to start making money. The trick is find the right balance. Someone has to pay for all of those manhours that go into those well-designed and well-defined interfaces. People want the low cost and they want the high number of man-hours dedicated to refining the code. That's a tough one to deliver when you get into the complexity of billions of lines of operating system code. You used the the right words though, "minimizing side effects". While I disagree with the article, it does validly point of that if there was more time spent in certain areas, the problems would be minimized further, but anyone can say that about anything, the car in your driveway, the washing machine, even the toilet. It would be nice to be able to buy perfect things, but if that's what you are going to expect, your life is going to be filled with disappointment. Perhaps there is a virtue in expecting crap and living with the joy of being pleasantly surprised when the product exceeds your expectations?
"If you don't f!%* with your computer in ways with undefined behaviors, or defined-yet-detrimental behaviors (i.e. you don't start clicking on things on System Properties without knowing what they do, and you don't install viruses and spyware) you won't have any issues."
I have to agree. It's only when you start messing with things that you don't understand the reprocussions to that trouble really starts occuring. Most people seem to go back and blame the software manufacturer for those problems they themselves created. That seems to be true on both the MS and the Linux side of the fence, as this article demonstrates.
I personally have had hangups on both my MS servers and Linux ones too. I would have to say quite a few more on the Linux boxes, but that is mainly because I made changes somewhere and didn't understand all of the implications. I don't blame Linux. I don't blame anyone. It's a learning process.
I hope I don't get a troll rating on this, but I think that as any kernel grows, it becomes exponentially more difficult to project all of the possible interactions between components. Some of the ones that get missed or go untested simply because they weren't foreseen cause problems. Any kernal is going to become more unweildy as it grows. Especially when it starts to encompass so many diverse tasks and support multitude of dedicated roles. I think to attribute problems such as this article talks about as specific to Linux is biased.
Slashdot Mirror
I am afraid that the numbers you are looking at are old. Intel is not winning. If you wish to take a snapshot today, AMD has won the desktop war, they easily outsell Intel in the Desktop market, regardless of the Dell's that will only sell Intel. The server market still belongs to Intel, but if you look at the trends, it's difficult to say they are winning when the competition is closing the gap at what should be considered an alarming rate. It the rate AMD is picking up market share in that arena, they will surpass Intel there by the middle of next summer. With re-occuring news that their 64 bit architecture outperforms Intels nearly 2 to 1, it could be even sooner. The number is no where near the 10 to 1 that you claim. To support that arguement, even Microsoft has written their new, soon to be released OSes around the AMD core, not the Intel cores. Sure the Intel cores will be fully supported, but they were not the primary concern for MS.
I would also like to point out that you have made an error in profits by the two companies, Intels margins have fallen over the last 12 months while AMD's have risen.
With all of those facts put together, Intel is losing. They may be ahead right now in the markets that matter the most, servers, but it is quickly fading as far as real numbers are concerned. I would hardly call that winning.
AMD is also winning in the sales game. They have successfully changed the public's perception of clock speeds. That is a war I thought they couldn't win myself. Intel had entrenched it into the public's mind. Those days are over. If AMD can overcome a hurdle like that, I don't question for a second they can overcome any branding issues that may arise.
" Sure, I didn't get the full effects of the games, but I still played them quite nicely performance-wise. "
Thats like asking a kid who has been blind since birth how he feels about no seeing anything for his whole life. Of course he doesn't miss what he never had. Until you experience a high end system displaying high end graphics, you can speak about how good or bad you old system is. You are 'blind' to what you have never seen. How can I explain what red looks like to a blind person? How can I explain what you are missing when you have never seen it yourself. I think your jaw might just drop when you see what these new cards can pump out when fully excercised.
Did you happen to actually read the article? The guy ends by blatantly stating that there is no sane reason to choose a PC over a mac. How can you possibly see this guy as an MS supporter,.. unless of course you didn't really read the article.
lol, you have to read what my response, was in response to. My response was supposed to be satire, not bigitrous in itself. I am sorry if you took offense, non was intended. I was attempting to point out what you stated in plain words, the connotation that these things have racist meaning s is utterly ridiculous. Anyone who tries to paint them that way is searching for a fight, and they know it.
We already have racist spam and virus filters, why not other things too? (white lists are 'good' lists, blacklists are 'bad' lists). Isn't that real equal opportunity?
And who is the silly person who would expect it to be otherwise? Have you actually been listening to the news at all over the past decade? Have you learned nothing? The real story would be if the ranking did not rise if it were housed on an IIS server. Otherwise it's a nothing, I would have assumed that.
"Keep dreaming... ....Not only is it not going to be convinently man-portable"
It appears as though you have been consumed by 'the box'. It is a dreadful disease, and I wish you luck on finding the cure, most are doomed though. At least there are some groups that you can join that will at least help you 'think' outside of 'the box'. You can live a semi-reasonable impersonation at being a real person by practicing 'out of the box' thinking often, even if your spirit has already been consumed by the box.
Please see the other posts in this thread to see that not only is my conjecture possible, it's already been done. I predict that gaming will become much much more intense as the base set of hardware becomes more ubiquitous in the general population. Sure it's been done, but it will be a few years before we see these applications become more main stream. It will come, whether you are still in your box or not.
"Now, if a president wants to punish you for your votes and further restricts your rights, isn't that a small price to pay for liberty?"
Can your choices actually be considered as 'free' any more when there are punishments/consequences attached to one or more of those two choices? How can one be told they are free to make the choices with the knowledge that they will lose their job if they choose something other than what their leader has. Isn't this an ultimate punishment? Take away your economic power to provide food and shelter for your family if you choose other than the directive? Are we blind to what is going on? Can't anyone see this is driving our 'democracy' into something monsteraous and that serves the purpose of only those who agree with the president, all others will be punished? The side of the fence that disagrees with Bush is getting smaller and smaller. Why? Because the price is to steep to stand against him. Where did my rights go? Why can't I disagree and not be persecuted for it? Is this the kind of America we really want? I certainly don't.
You think you should be somehow rewarded for your theft? You contributed to the high cost of the retail product. If anything they should have police waiting for you at the counter. Hmm, what is the lower threshold for grand larceny? Too bad it's probably just petty larceny. I would sooner burden the cost of prosectuting you under the justice system than support your habit of theft by paying higher prices.
I don't see how the Brits are going to make a smidgen of difference. Nonacceptance of the system was broadly challenged in the US and look where it go it's citizens, new laws that protect the companies and place the public in jail or at least saddle them with hefty fines. The Brits are on the backside of the curve here and probably have little choice but to bend over and take it, just like the Americans had to.
Sorry no vaseline for you, we used it all up on ourselves.
As far as the policy set for by John Ashcroft as to how crimes are to be prosecuted, that may be true. However, that has not any bearing on how the Judical system must react to a conviction of the crime. Prosecution and penalties for the conviction are actually two very seperate phases of a criminal trial and are purposefully kept distinct under the law.
The Penalty phase of each criminal trial is driven by another set of requirements that the Supreme court has ruled on a number of times regarding how it is to be treated. The standing rule of law in this country is proportionality of punishment to the crime. See this summation of those decisions for factual reference. They are quite frankly explicitly barred from arbitrarily imposimg the maximum sentence. Now we all read in the papers where that is not the case in lower court rulings, but what we generally do not hear is that where those extreme penalties are rendered and appealed, they are most often corrected to reflect the proportionality requirement. Granted, the appeals only happen in cases where the convicted individual has resources to pursue an appeal and hence the problem lies in the fact that the lower courts are ignoring the proportionality requirement and justice is left undone for those who do not have the economic resources to pursue an appellate correction. That is where the real issue lies and where a second crime is actually occuring.
" In the majority of cases, it is not a crime to violate copyright. It is a tort, which is what it should be."
I love torts, especially raspberry ones!
If I remember my history correctly, the vast majority of the people came to America to escape from societies that were persecuting them for not agreeing with their beliefs and laws (you must remember the church was the law in those days). They tried to create a system of government that had a system in place for not allowing those influences to effect justice in this country. What they didn't seem to forsee is that that type of system would eventually attack itself from within. With our media system being driven by profits, minority factions get a louder voice in the crowd of issues simply because make more sensational news (i.e more eyes on that channel, hence more advert revenue). Our lawmakers feel cornered on the issue, because of all of the media attention, and try to show that they aren't ignoring issues that must concern most of the public, because most of the public is following the news story(s). Anyways, we end up with a set of laws being proposed and passed that satisfy the demands of that loud factional minority. The justice system has to uphold them or strike them down according to wether they fit in the constitutional framework. It's tough to argue that this law does not fit that framework.
Now with all of the common sense stuff said, certainly your statement is correct, but when the laws don't represent the desires of the majority and their prosecutions are upheld by the justice system, then to whom do those laws serve? Isn't that contrary to and a method of circumventing the intent of the established framework of the founding fathers?
Perhaps you would like to reverse a number of Supreme Court decisions directly dealing with proportionality of punishment. We are clearly deviating from those decisions with consequences such as this bill puts forth.
Wait until there are games out there that utilize a GPS enabled tablet. Your immediate surroundings are re-interpreted by the game to show avarge pedestrians as monsters and you have to shoot them as you walk by. It's only a matter of time as the technology already exists.
" No, you only committed one instance of the crime"
That's not how the language in this bill is written, you will stand charged with 300 counts of the crime, not one.
"Let's say double the cost of bandwidth plus 2 seconds jail time for each email."
I agree with the charges, but jail time because you annoyed someone else? Maybe charge them for the manhours lost too would be appropriate, but jail time for an annoyance is still over-reactionary.
"Let's see, if someone puts a copy of an unreleased movie out to be shared/downloaded and say 300 people download it then the cost would be 300x$8 or $2400. That is assuming you do not live on the coasts where movie tickets can cost up to $18."
You missed the point. Using your example, the person would be charged with 300 counts of this crime and would be elidgible for a sentence of 900 years in prison. Esentially a life sentence. That is draconian under any definition. A fitting sentence would be to have the thief pay twice the dollar amount of the lost sale. I would certainly rather buy it at that point than have to pay twice the cost in the long run.
The charge the spammer twice the amount of bandwidth they consumed. 25 years in jail is overly excess. double the cost of doing it legally is certainly respective of the crime.
"It's not the theft of "one $8.00 movie ticket", it is the theft of a movie ticket for every person that downloads the film"
You are ignoring the fact that it either took several individuals 'chaining' together downloads to achieve that. Go after the several people and make them share the punishment then. Don't lump it all on the first person. That's wrong too. Charge the violator double the cost of the lost sale(s). That is more than sufficient. Doubles the income of the movie industry too. Nobody losses except the thief and the punishment isn't excessive.
As this bill is written, under your scenario, that person is going to be charged with 125 counts of this crime, no one count. They could be sent to jail for 375 years. That's still dracionian. RTFA
The article state 'a single copy' The penalties apply if one copy is shared once. That's how it is written. There is no scale on the penalties, it's up to the judge, and we read everyday how that turns out once one of them gets their underwear in a wad. Sure you can exceed that, but in your example you will stand trial for 1000 counts of the same crime. Yes, the bill is written that way. So you could potentially spend 3000 years in jail under your scenario. Think about it.
"Oh wait a minute, I'm in Europe."
That actually makes it worse for you. The US likes to force extradition. Take you to a third country, like Afghanistan and beat the crap out of you, legally and torture you without anyone knowing. You never get to the US where you have rights. But wait.. I forget.. We actually do that to our own citizen's here too and cover it up, accept where someone catches it happening on camera and gets it to a news station before the police find you. Oh, Forget it, I guess it's a moot point. Your toast whereever you are. It's a matter of whether you want you toast burnt or shoved up your rectum, your choice.
My god, I hope sooner or later people wake up to what is happening in this country. We have absolutely lost any semblence of 'punishment fits the crime'. How can 3 years in jail be justified by sharing a single copy of a pre-release movie. Granted it's theft, but theft of one $8.00 movie ticket at the most. Even if it is stealing (which I do consider it), three years in jail is just stupidly over-reactionary and overtly excessive. Of course a possible 25 year prison sentence for spamming is right up there too. Sure I hate spam and it pee's me off, but 25 years in jail? Then lump the loss of due process with the DMCA and you start to see a middle ages picture being drawn here. Isn't this what the founding fathers of our country came here to escape?
"The answer is to manage the complexity by using well-designed and well-defined interfaces and minimizing side effects."
Well said. The problem is that nagging diminishing returns issue that constantly pops up in this process. At some point you have to stop spending money chasing possible issues and publish the code to start making money. The trick is find the right balance. Someone has to pay for all of those manhours that go into those well-designed and well-defined interfaces. People want the low cost and they want the high number of man-hours dedicated to refining the code. That's a tough one to deliver when you get into the complexity of billions of lines of operating system code. You used the the right words though, "minimizing side effects". While I disagree with the article, it does validly point of that if there was more time spent in certain areas, the problems would be minimized further, but anyone can say that about anything, the car in your driveway, the washing machine, even the toilet. It would be nice to be able to buy perfect things, but if that's what you are going to expect, your life is going to be filled with disappointment. Perhaps there is a virtue in expecting crap and living with the joy of being pleasantly surprised when the product exceeds your expectations?
"If you don't f!%* with your computer in ways with undefined behaviors, or defined-yet-detrimental behaviors (i.e. you don't start clicking on things on System Properties without knowing what they do, and you don't install viruses and spyware) you won't have any issues."
I have to agree. It's only when you start messing with things that you don't understand the reprocussions to that trouble really starts occuring. Most people seem to go back and blame the software manufacturer for those problems they themselves created. That seems to be true on both the MS and the Linux side of the fence, as this article demonstrates.
I personally have had hangups on both my MS servers and Linux ones too. I would have to say quite a few more on the Linux boxes, but that is mainly because I made changes somewhere and didn't understand all of the implications. I don't blame Linux. I don't blame anyone. It's a learning process.
I hope I don't get a troll rating on this, but I think that as any kernel grows, it becomes exponentially more difficult to project all of the possible interactions between components. Some of the ones that get missed or go untested simply because they weren't foreseen cause problems. Any kernal is going to become more unweildy as it grows. Especially when it starts to encompass so many diverse tasks and support multitude of dedicated roles. I think to attribute problems such as this article talks about as specific to Linux is biased.