I can't believe it would be them. Undermining EULAs hardly serves MS's interests.
Creating turmoil to eventually get what you want has happened since the beginning of time. Politicians, goverments, businesses, and even the star wars prequel "Palpatine becomes Emperor" plotline all used this to advantage.
If MS was involved (I don't know but let's just say maybe they are), they could have several motives- black eye for Apple just being the bad guy in an EULA dispute, using Apple to pay for litigation whose victory would set a precedent favorable to MS, some kind of FUD effort to create Apple skepticism, or even the possibility that Apple would lose thrashing their business model.
if all the money destroyed in Iraq would have been used for good the USA would be in a completely different position right now.
I'm not sure I understand this argument. Certainly we'd have a lower deficit and inflation risk would be lowered... but most of the money goes to men and material. That money goes right back into the economy, since the men are American and the material is mostly sourced from the US.
By that reasoning, it's good no matter where the gov't spends that money. Spend the money on healthcare instead? The money goes right back into the economy! Spend it on education? Back into the economy! Homeless problem? Mass transit? Local law enforcement? Back into the economy!
But if 9/11 had never happened, the people running the gov't in 2001 would never have considered those options.
What that statement was trying to get across was that graphene is so thin that you could almost cover a football field with only a gram of it. Think of spreading cream cheese on a bagel. You only have a gram of cream cheese, though, so you have to spread very, very thin. Except the bagel is the size of a football field, so you have to spread it even more ridiculously thin: only an atom thick. Now instead of cream cheese it's carbon atoms.
Reminds me of Dilbert- "Imagine a donut, fired from a cannon at the speed of light while
rotating. Time is like that, except without the cannon and the donut."
> That's one of those things they use to justify sin taxes. It's not true. People with unhealthy lifestyles die more rapidly than people with unhealthy lifestyles. Which means they cost much, much less.
Doesn't that also mean they pay in much, much less in lifetime premiums?
I'd be dragging ass too in constructing new oil pipelines, infrastructure, refineries, and the like, when, if said politicians have their way, much of that new stuff'll be useless in a few years as oil use decreases and thus you cannot recoup your billions.
I can assure you, the work we're doing to comply with the EU regulations is *not* minimal.
While I can't really opine on the EU's regulations themselves for various reasons, I've been talking with people who are directly affected by them, and the amount of work we're doing to accommodate the EU is astronomical.
Maybe it would've been easier for MS to not be a prick in the first place...
That's stupid. If you must do something with domain names, then create '.kids' and make it kiddy safe. This makes much more sense, since then you can 'deny all; allow *.kids' on your censoring device of choice.
.kids makes sense for constraining searches for children, but doesn't help me when I'm using the computer but the children are around. For example, if I'm doing the searching for whatever random topic, but my children are in the room, I don't want to limit my search to white-listed kid-centric sites; I just want to avoid adult-only sites.
Think of the web as being 3 broad (if slightly blurred) classes:
1-for kids
2-for whomever, even though kids wouldn't be interested
3-for adults only .kids would keep searches in the first class, but sometimes I'm interested in just staying out of the third class.
Look at the recent postings of losses by GM. The outrageous fees they have to pay for retirements and other union perks, is killing them. They cannot sell a car at a decent price with a decent profit any longer....and they're more shoddily made, due to unions having people in there that cannot be fired without an act of God. It is almost like a govt. job.
Seriously....while I know the unions at their start helped make things right that were wrong, they have proved to go far beyond their useful place in labor relations, and have now been strangling US businesses. I'm sorry, but, a manual laborer should not expect $30/hour, and lifetime benefits...it isn't a special job, anyone could do it without formal education, but, due to job lock-ins, there isn't competition for that job.
Amen, brother. GM might want people to spend the most productive 30 years of their working life working for them, but once they're out the door they're not GM's problem any more. If the union was busted, and employees wages were cut down to the minimum needed to hire, good for GM. And then if people couldn't save for retirement while working for this "effective minimum wage", too f'ing bad- it's not like the free market stopped them from switching to another company with this same effective minimum wage.
I mean, if people wanted to have a good retirement package when they left a company, then every one of those thousands of employees should've worked hard and become CEO (where they pay is big because the level of responsibility is maximum). Am I right or am I right?
Friggin' serfs- thinking the company should give two shits about them after 30 years of service.
As a Catholic Geek who is big into both (I am studying to be a priest and I write software that will serve me as a Priest), it is important to understand what is going on, the parallels to the Borg collective and what isn't parallel. In the case of the Borg collective, it is a community dedicated to unity through compulsive slavery. The difference is that when we chant our prayers in unison, we are affirming what we have individually chosen to believe (which ought to be in unison with every other Catholic). It is a large organization, but not one based on slavery (like the Borg) but one based on a personal choice. I personally thing that chanting psalms in community is awesome.
From the Borg perspective, I doubt that many consider it "unity through compulsive slavery"; they consider it as they were created and taught in a group that needs common beliefs and goals, forgoing personal good for the group's good, and assimilation, to survive. Borg that stay in the collective do so "voluntarily", according to their beliefs.
Compared to the Catholics, which members consider it as they were born and raised in a society that needs common beliefs and goals, forgoing personal good for church's and society's good, and recruiting, to survive. Catholics that stay with the church do so "voluntarily", according to their beliefs.
From the members' point of view, they're not so different...
Did you know that you can tape that envelope to ANYTHING (almost...) that weighs less than 70 lbs.? And it will be delivered?
That's how I get rid of my old 486, 386, etc computers. And I don't fill up MY landfill! (And they have to dispose of them correctly!)
A problem for them and useful for you- even I have to admit that's pretty clever. All the credit card companies ever got from me were a few phone books and a box full of rocks and metal washers.
Let's use Merrill Lynch, which you brought up, as example. According to Wikipedia, they reported a net income of $7.49 Billion in 2006 (all further numbers are derived from simple arithmetic or taken from this same article). That's about $625M a month. Or $146M every week. Keep that number in mind.
and
Stanley O'Neal got about $161M in stock options and retirement benefits as "severance pay". Based on my earlier math, that's just over 1 week of net income, which is, simply put, peanuts, seeing as he reportedly lost Merrill Lynch some $2.24 Billion (over 3 months' worth of net income) in how he was handling the sub prime crisis. How much would the company stand to lose by keeping him on-board any longer?
By this reasoning, if he had handled the subprime crisis better, an appropriate severance pay would've been much smaller? OTOH, good thing they didn't lose a whole $trillion under his watch- then $700M would've been reasonable severance (being only a week's loss, of course)...
A few, but not very many. The main one is that many power uses require DC in the end, so AC has to be rectified and filtered before it's used -- and in doing so, some power is lost. When/where you're using a lot of power in a relatively restricted area, that can make a meaningful difference. Automobiles, for one obvious example, mostly use 12V DC systems (nominally 12V -- really around 14V). Aircraft, for another example, mostly run on 48V DC (IIRC). Some data centers have also gone to having a single big power supply, and then piping DC around to the individual computers. I haven't measured it personally, but they claim this can cut power usage by around 30% in some cases.
Even if we used DC transmission, would the specific transmission voltage be useful? ie- if 100v DC coming in has to be changed into 12v DC for my purposes, it's going to go through a lossy transformation anyway.
It's a good thing if examined in a vacuum (assuming the ludicrous notion of CO2 being a pollutant, or that you could accurately figure out the damage caused by climate change within trillions of dollars).
When you consider China and India doing nothing to pass those costs on to their users, you don't have a free market. You have the US destroying their competitiveness (and their ability to innovate) while doing little to solve the problem on a global scale (it is called "global warming").
Guys like Spitzer are always the first to attack private business. A better solution would be to offer tax incentives to companies that want to replace coal plants with clean power sources, including nuclear. But you won't see Spitzer proposing that because it's a truly innovative idea. Suing the Feds and attacking business is the easy way out.
That's a good thing if examined in a vacuum (assuming the ludicrous notion of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and mercury not being pollutants, or that you could accurately figure out the cost of not polluting within some range of dollars).
When you consider US corporations generating the pollution but taking no responsibility for it, you don't have a free market. You have the corporations with their inability or unwillingness to innovate to solve the problem on a global scale (it is called "global warming").
A better solution would be to make the companies generating the pollution be responsible for cleaning them up. But you won't see Bush proposing that because it's a truly obvious idea. Putting your fingers in your ears and doing nothing is the easy way out (even easier than your idea of taking our tax dollars and funneling them to the polluters).
> The people who are killing or injuring or severely maiming others are not people who had two beers and hopped in a car to go home. It's being done by the people that HAVE a PROBLEM and are downing a case of beer and covering one eye to make it to the next bar.
And the people who had two beers are probably not the ones over.08, the ones downing a case are.
> This country needs to come to grips with is that Americans DRINK. Drinking is a part of our society and is not going away.
Drunk-driving laws != prohibition.
> The problem that everyone keeps overlooking is that there is no way to evaluate how intoxicated you are
How about that tool you tout a little later in your post: > I went to a bar in Windsor, Ontario and was blown away by the greatest invention. They had a freakin 25 cent breathalyzer that told you exactly how drunk you were!
> and if you are beyond the legal limit, there IS NO WAY TO GET HOME!
And that's the real problem- people and cars need to get home. How about, I dunno, having a designated driver if you know you're going to drink?
> So what are doing with all the extra cash we get from persecuting people who had one beer too many? Certainly not building up our infrastructure to SOLVE THE PROBLEM.
Serious question- what infrastructure to build? Government (ie public) funded shuttle services, but I can't imagine that gaining nationwide traction.
The function of the economy (pick a model, any model) is to distribute goods as efficiently as possible. Now suppose the natural equilibrium price for a good is 100 zorkmids, and you artificially constrict the market so that you can charge 300 zorkmids for it. What this does is cause 200 zorkmids worth of inefficiency in the marketplace.
You're measuring "efficiently as possible" in zorkmids, not all models use money as the prime efficiency metric (socialism, etc). Choice of metric skews the "optimal" behavior toward things that metric measures.
So of course your answer is "Aha! But those zorkmids don't disappear! I have them in my pocket!" Quite. But because your customer buys fewer goods due to your unscrupulous overcharging, all those vendors have fewer zorkmids, and they buy fewer goods. And so it propagates across the entire economy, all the way back to you. Everyone ends up with less.
Your conclusion (everyone ends up with less) is based only on the customer, and vendors he/she buys from. When you take into account the one with zorkmids in their pocket, and the extra sellers THEY buy from, the net zorkmids impact might go either way.
Not saying GP isn't evil, just that it isn't demonstrated here.
The pastor at my church says it's the gays promoting their choices as normal behind all this. Two Sundays ago he said (and I quote as I remember it well) "The homosexuals are indoctrinating your children and making them choose their lifestyle. They can't reproduce so they have no choice BUT to recruit. They are forcing the government to back their behavior with laws... Laws against God and Jesus."
Yes, government says that beating the shit out of gays "just for fun" is wrong, and that's the proof that gays use the gov't to promote homosexuality.
Maybe your pastor should spend less time regurgitating that scary-sounding-but-bullshit story, and more time preaching about the (very well documented) evils of members of the clergy abusing young boys. But I suppose that would hit too close to home...
Careful now, all of you Slashdotties are going to be grossly guilty of hypocrisy if you don't support the twins right to make a mix CD. Unreasoned Bushy-hate should be no substitute for doing the "right thing".
The stink isn't that the BUSHIES made a mix CD. The stink is the selective persecution. It's related to "why do college kids get sued for $thousands, while kids of industry insiders get off with a stern lecture?"
Maybe if presidents, congresscritters, judges were also in the line of fire, the lawmaking/enforcing juggernaut (made of those people) would move slightly toward a reasonable/common sense approach.
"Bush & Co" as you so elegantly called our Chief Executive and his staff, are just the first people to actually be OPEN about it.
Wow, put it like that and it almost sounds like the current guys are being honorable about it, as if they said "We're doing exactly A and B, but we'd never stoop to C!".
When what's actually happening is they're being called out for taking the existing slimy activity, and trying to quietly expand it to unconstitutional new levels C, D, and F.
After sending Diebold their check and W-2 (or whatever the business equivalent is), and Diebold asks "why is our check $37, but the W-2 reports $7Billion in taxable income", tell them "because mutliple clients were writing the two databases, maybe one of them is corrupt. The fault is the outdated Microsoft software we use, we don't know which number is incorrect, so we're not changing anything. Have a nice day! ."
The fact is, because x86 was so wildly successful, and because so much software was written for it, Intel had to ensure that future processors were compatible with the x86 instruction set. Doing otherwise would have been deliberately alienating a large part of their market share. It could be argued that x86 compatibility (or lack thereof, more specifically) is one of the major reasons why IA-64 was unsuccessful. Completely moving off of x86 would be devastating to the company, and irresponsible in the eyes of their shareholders/employees.
I can't believe that any engineer in his right mind would actually want to stick with IA-32 in the face of its glaring defects, they're very bright people, and if you need proof of that, just look at the Core. But if you want to sell consumer chips, you don't have any other choice.
Look at a modern x86 cpu, it actually doesn't have much x86-centric logic in them. They don't execute x86 instructions in x86-handling pipes, they internally convert each x86 instruction into one or more ops that are much more RISKy in nature (3-operand format, access to internal-only temp registers, allow register renaming, more unified ops than x86 provides, etc).
Maybe 10% of the core (and even less taking caches+optional NB into account) needs to know x86, making the cpu more of a "superscaler RISK processor with built-in x86-instruction-translation", than an "x86 cpu".
For a lot of code sequences, the x86 nature of the opcodes isn't the bottleneck, other internal hardware is, which keeps the cpu on a much more level playing field with high-performance parts than a pure x86 could be.
Then they were expected to issue a grand jury subpoena or a 'national security letter,' which legally authorized the collection after the fact. Agents often did not follow up with that paperwork, the inspector general's investigation found. The new instructions tell agents there is no need to follow up with national security letters or subpoenas. The agents are also told that... they may make requests orally, with no paperwork sent to phone companies.
If the feds didn't follow up with the required paperwork, then does this even qualify as a patriot-act request? Seems like the companies could follow up in next month's phone bill:
Dear Customer,
On Jan 1, 2007 the FBI invoked the patriot act to ask for the records of John Q Smith, saying they would provide us with a subpoena in a timely fashion to keep this request confidential.
The subpoena was never brought to us. We thought you might like to know.
but it ain't gone over the edge, the proof? We can still report on it, the story of this and other mistakes is getting out and is getting attention. If the dictators had won, you wouldn't even know about it until you were taken off the street and never heard from again.
Absolutely. If the dictators had won, there might be a place (I'll make up a name- Gitmo), where people are sent after being taken off the streets (our streets or other country's streets). In this imaginary Gitmo, people would be held without charge and without access to lawyers. They would be aggressively tortured (waterboarding, etc), with little accountability for those who organized this treatment. And if news of this imaginary Gitmo ever came out, the government would carefully manage it via PR to say "details are too secret to be allowed to be disemenated".
I sure am glad this Gitmo is just a figment of my imagination
In the end, by going virtual you end up actually removing so much complexity from your systems that you'll never know how you did it before. No longer does each server have it's own drivers, quirks, OpenManage/hardware monitor, etc etc.
Sure you do- the virtual server is running on hardware, after all. You've just moved the complexity to where the virtual server doesn't see it, so it's somebody else's problem.
If you're not discarding data when you're adjusting color-balance and other settings, you're by definition not compressing as much as you possibly can.
By that reasoning, any image file more than 1 byte long isn't compressed "as much as possible".
Actually for anyone who's actually tried Vista and Office 2k7 it is clear that there are massive improvements in security, stability, and most importantly ease of use.
So you're saying the previous versions were massively worse than they needed to be in security, stability, and ease of use?
Who wants to buy something from a company with a history of shipping product that's massively worse than it needs to be?
Slashdot Mirror
I can't believe it would be them. Undermining EULAs hardly serves MS's interests.
Creating turmoil to eventually get what you want has happened since the beginning of time. Politicians, goverments, businesses, and even the star wars prequel "Palpatine becomes Emperor" plotline all used this to advantage.
If MS was involved (I don't know but let's just say maybe they are), they could have several motives- black eye for Apple just being the bad guy in an EULA dispute, using Apple to pay for litigation whose victory would set a precedent favorable to MS, some kind of FUD effort to create Apple skepticism, or even the possibility that Apple would lose thrashing their business model.
By that reasoning, it's good no matter where the gov't spends that money. Spend the money on healthcare instead? The money goes right back into the economy! Spend it on education? Back into the economy! Homeless problem? Mass transit? Local law enforcement? Back into the economy!
But if 9/11 had never happened, the people running the gov't in 2001 would never have considered those options.
Reminds me of Dilbert-
"Imagine a donut, fired from a cannon at the speed of light while rotating. Time is like that, except without the cannon and the donut."
> That's one of those things they use to justify sin taxes. It's not true. People with unhealthy lifestyles die more rapidly than people with unhealthy lifestyles. Which means they cost much, much less.
Doesn't that also mean they pay in much, much less in lifetime premiums?
Is "cannot recoup your profits" doublespeak for oil companies reporting the largest corporate profits ever ?
Maybe it would've been easier for MS to not be a prick in the first place...
That's stupid. If you must do something with domain names, then create '.kids' and make it kiddy safe. This makes much more sense, since then you can 'deny all; allow *.kids' on your censoring device of choice.
.kids makes sense for constraining searches for children, but doesn't help me when I'm using the computer but the children are around. For example, if I'm doing the searching for whatever random topic, but my children are in the room, I don't want to limit my search to white-listed kid-centric sites; I just want to avoid adult-only sites.
.kids would keep searches in the first class, but sometimes I'm interested in just staying out of the third class.
Think of the web as being 3 broad (if slightly blurred) classes:
1-for kids
2-for whomever, even though kids wouldn't be interested
3-for adults only
Amen, brother. GM might want people to spend the most productive 30 years of their working life working for them, but once they're out the door they're not GM's problem any more. If the union was busted, and employees wages were cut down to the minimum needed to hire, good for GM. And then if people couldn't save for retirement while working for this "effective minimum wage", too f'ing bad- it's not like the free market stopped them from switching to another company with this same effective minimum wage.
I mean, if people wanted to have a good retirement package when they left a company, then every one of those thousands of employees should've worked hard and become CEO (where they pay is big because the level of responsibility is maximum). Am I right or am I right?
Friggin' serfs- thinking the company should give two shits about them after 30 years of service.
From the Borg perspective, I doubt that many consider it "unity through compulsive slavery"; they consider it as they were created and taught in a group that needs common beliefs and goals, forgoing personal good for the group's good, and assimilation, to survive. Borg that stay in the collective do so "voluntarily", according to their beliefs.
Compared to the Catholics, which members consider it as they were born and raised in a society that needs common beliefs and goals, forgoing personal good for church's and society's good, and recruiting, to survive. Catholics that stay with the church do so "voluntarily", according to their beliefs.
From the members' point of view, they're not so different...
A problem for them and useful for you- even I have to admit that's pretty clever. All the credit card companies ever got from me were a few phone books and a box full of rocks and metal washers.
By this reasoning, if he had handled the subprime crisis better, an appropriate severance pay would've been much smaller? OTOH, good thing they didn't lose a whole $trillion under his watch- then $700M would've been reasonable severance (being only a week's loss, of course)...
Even if we used DC transmission, would the specific transmission voltage be useful? ie- if 100v DC coming in has to be changed into 12v DC for my purposes, it's going to go through a lossy transformation anyway.
That's a good thing if examined in a vacuum (assuming the ludicrous notion of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and mercury not being pollutants, or that you could accurately figure out the cost of not polluting within some range of dollars).
When you consider US corporations generating the pollution but taking no responsibility for it, you don't have a free market. You have the corporations with their inability or unwillingness to innovate to solve the problem on a global scale (it is called "global warming").
A better solution would be to make the companies generating the pollution be responsible for cleaning them up. But you won't see Bush proposing that because it's a truly obvious idea. Putting your fingers in your ears and doing nothing is the easy way out (even easier than your idea of taking our tax dollars and funneling them to the polluters).
> The people who are killing or injuring or severely maiming others are not people who had two beers and hopped in a car to go home. It's being done by the people that HAVE a PROBLEM and are downing a case of beer and covering one eye to make it to the next bar.
.08, the ones downing a case are.
And the people who had two beers are probably not the ones over
> This country needs to come to grips with is that Americans DRINK. Drinking is a part of our society and is not going away.
Drunk-driving laws != prohibition.
> The problem that everyone keeps overlooking is that there is no way to evaluate how intoxicated you are
How about that tool you tout a little later in your post:
> I went to a bar in Windsor, Ontario and was blown away by the greatest invention. They had a freakin 25 cent breathalyzer that told you exactly how drunk you were!
> and if you are beyond the legal limit, there IS NO WAY TO GET HOME!
And that's the real problem- people and cars need to get home. How about, I dunno, having a designated driver if you know you're going to drink?
> So what are doing with all the extra cash we get from persecuting people who had one beer too many? Certainly not building up our infrastructure to SOLVE THE PROBLEM.
Serious question- what infrastructure to build? Government (ie public) funded shuttle services, but I can't imagine that gaining nationwide traction.
The function of the economy (pick a model, any model) is to distribute goods as efficiently as possible. Now suppose the natural equilibrium price for a good is 100 zorkmids, and you artificially constrict the market so that you can charge 300 zorkmids for it. What this does is cause 200 zorkmids worth of inefficiency in the marketplace.
You're measuring "efficiently as possible" in zorkmids, not all models use money as the prime efficiency metric (socialism, etc). Choice of metric skews the "optimal" behavior toward things that metric measures.
So of course your answer is "Aha! But those zorkmids don't disappear! I have them in my pocket!" Quite. But because your customer buys fewer goods due to your unscrupulous overcharging, all those vendors have fewer zorkmids, and they buy fewer goods. And so it propagates across the entire economy, all the way back to you. Everyone ends up with less.
Your conclusion (everyone ends up with less) is based only on the customer, and vendors he/she buys from. When you take into account the one with zorkmids in their pocket, and the extra sellers THEY buy from, the net zorkmids impact might go either way.
Not saying GP isn't evil, just that it isn't demonstrated here.
The pastor at my church says it's the gays promoting their choices as normal behind all this. Two Sundays ago he said (and I quote as I remember it well) "The homosexuals are indoctrinating your children and making them choose their lifestyle. They can't reproduce so they have no choice BUT to recruit. They are forcing the government to back their behavior with laws... Laws against God and Jesus."
Yes, government says that beating the shit out of gays "just for fun" is wrong, and that's the proof that gays use the gov't to promote homosexuality.
Maybe your pastor should spend less time regurgitating that scary-sounding-but-bullshit story, and more time preaching about the (very well documented) evils of members of the clergy abusing young boys. But I suppose that would hit too close to home...
Careful now, all of you Slashdotties are going to be grossly guilty of hypocrisy if you don't support the twins right to make a mix CD. Unreasoned Bushy-hate should be no substitute for doing the "right thing".
The stink isn't that the BUSHIES made a mix CD. The stink is the selective persecution. It's related to "why do college kids get sued for $thousands, while kids of industry insiders get off with a stern lecture?"
Maybe if presidents, congresscritters, judges were also in the line of fire, the lawmaking/enforcing juggernaut (made of those people) would move slightly toward a reasonable/common sense approach.
"Bush & Co" as you so elegantly called our Chief Executive and his staff, are just the first people to actually be OPEN about it.
Wow, put it like that and it almost sounds like the current guys are being honorable about it, as if they said "We're doing exactly A and B, but we'd never stoop to C!".
When what's actually happening is they're being called out for taking the existing slimy activity, and trying to quietly expand it to unconstitutional new levels C, D, and F.
After sending Diebold their check and W-2 (or whatever the business equivalent is), and Diebold asks "why is our check $37, but the W-2 reports $7Billion in taxable income", tell them "because mutliple clients were writing the two databases, maybe one of them is corrupt. The fault is the outdated Microsoft software we use, we don't know which number is incorrect, so we're not changing anything. Have a nice day! ."
The fact is, because x86 was so wildly successful, and because so much software was written for it, Intel had to ensure that future processors were compatible with the x86 instruction set. Doing otherwise would have been deliberately alienating a large part of their market share. It could be argued that x86 compatibility (or lack thereof, more specifically) is one of the major reasons why IA-64 was unsuccessful. Completely moving off of x86 would be devastating to the company, and irresponsible in the eyes of their shareholders/employees.
I can't believe that any engineer in his right mind would actually want to stick with IA-32 in the face of its glaring defects, they're very bright people, and if you need proof of that, just look at the Core. But if you want to sell consumer chips, you don't have any other choice.
Look at a modern x86 cpu, it actually doesn't have much x86-centric logic in them. They don't execute x86 instructions in x86-handling pipes, they internally convert each x86 instruction into one or more ops that are much more RISKy in nature (3-operand format, access to internal-only temp registers, allow register renaming, more unified ops than x86 provides, etc).
Maybe 10% of the core (and even less taking caches+optional NB into account) needs to know x86, making the cpu more of a "superscaler RISK processor with built-in x86-instruction-translation", than an "x86 cpu".
For a lot of code sequences, the x86 nature of the opcodes isn't the bottleneck, other internal hardware is, which keeps the cpu on a much more level playing field with high-performance parts than a pure x86 could be.
Then they were expected to issue a grand jury subpoena or a 'national security letter,' which legally authorized the collection after the fact. Agents often did not follow up with that paperwork, the inspector general's investigation found. The new instructions tell agents there is no need to follow up with national security letters or subpoenas. The agents are also told that... they may make requests orally, with no paperwork sent to phone companies.
If the feds didn't follow up with the required paperwork, then does this even qualify as a patriot-act request? Seems like the companies could follow up in next month's phone bill:
Dear Customer,
On Jan 1, 2007 the FBI invoked the patriot act to ask for the records of John Q Smith, saying they would provide us with a subpoena in a timely fashion to keep this request confidential.
The subpoena was never brought to us. We thought you might like to know.
Sincerely,
Phone Company
but it ain't gone over the edge, the proof? We can still report on it, the story of this and other mistakes is getting out and is getting attention. If the dictators had won, you wouldn't even know about it until you were taken off the street and never heard from again.
Absolutely. If the dictators had won, there might be a place (I'll make up a name- Gitmo), where people are sent after being taken off the streets (our streets or other country's streets). In this imaginary Gitmo, people would be held without charge and without access to lawyers. They would be aggressively tortured (waterboarding, etc), with little accountability for those who organized this treatment. And if news of this imaginary Gitmo ever came out, the government would carefully manage it via PR to say "details are too secret to be allowed to be disemenated".
I sure am glad this Gitmo is just a figment of my imagination
In the end, by going virtual you end up actually removing so much complexity from your systems that you'll never know how you did it before. No longer does each server have it's own drivers, quirks, OpenManage/hardware monitor, etc etc.
Sure you do- the virtual server is running on hardware, after all. You've just moved the complexity to where the virtual server doesn't see it, so it's somebody else's problem.
If you're not discarding data when you're adjusting color-balance and other settings, you're by definition not compressing as much as you possibly can.
By that reasoning, any image file more than 1 byte long isn't compressed "as much as possible".
Actually for anyone who's actually tried Vista and Office 2k7 it is clear that there are massive improvements in security, stability, and most importantly ease of use.
So you're saying the previous versions were massively worse than they needed to be in security, stability, and ease of use?
Who wants to buy something from a company with a history of shipping product that's massively worse than it needs to be?