If you're at all familiar with the fundamentals of CPU design, it should be blindingly obvious that the Cell should be very good at handling streaming vector data, but relatively poor at more general purpose calculations.
I'd hate to see how such a system would react to heel and toe braking. Just sounds like an unnecessary level of abstraction, to me. Gear selection is in no way the hard part of operating a manual transmission, and a system like you've described would require a painful amount of expensive equipment to be added to the vehicle. A system like you described would drive me batty.
I just built a new system last weekend with an Intel DP965LT motherboard, Pentium D 805 (yes its hot but i had a small budget), and an NVIDIA Geforce 7300 GS PCIe. My old system was a Dell Precision 650 dual 2.0ghz Xeon with an ATI AIW 9600xt. So far, my new system is much faster with disk io and cpu bound tasks. (expected with sata and faster processor) The video framerate is poor with the NVIDIA card. I expected to do about the same (60fps in ET and 30-45fps WoW). I did buy a budget card, but I find it interesting the latest generation can't even keep up with ATI's 9000 series. With ATI gaining AMD's fabrication facilities, this could be a final blow to NVIDIA. I bought the NVIDIA card because there are FreeBSD/MidnightBSD drivers.
Protip: The 9600XT was an upper midrange card in its day. The 7300GS was *never* meant to be more than a minimum-cost budget solution. ATI's current budget solutions are more or less comparable to a 9600, as well. Really, you're choosing a poor psuedo-comparison to prefer one brand over another.
The last several years, NVidia's offered a better price-to-performance ratio in the midrange of the market and been very competitive in the upper range. Compare a 6600GT to the X700 Pro that was its direct competition in terms of both performance and cost. With product offerings like that, NVidia won't be going away for a long time.
I was under the impression AMD and NVIDIA collaborated on the first nforce chipset.
They have on every NForce chipset. AMD's already very much gone out of their way to say that that won't be changing because of the ATI buyout.
So my message to you, AMD, is simple. We're sick of CPU sockets changing every 18 months. For christ sake, Socket 754 had about 6 months before it was superceeded. Slot A, Socket A, Socket 754, Socket 939, AM2 in less than 6 years with the last three having no real benefit over each other..WE'VE HAD ENOUGH.
Really now? No benefit?
Socket 754 was the original AMD64 platform. It was always intended to be a stopgap solution later relegated to the budget and mobile realm. AMD made no bones about this, and anyone who believed otherwise wasn't paying attention. It was always made very clear that S939 was just around the corner for the highest end of processors. That said, S754 A64 chips faired quite well for their time. Introduced in fall 2003, in active use up until the introduction of AM2 in May.
Socket 939 introduced dual channel memory controllers to the A64 platform, which, depending on the application, can mean performance differences of 5-15%. I'd call that relatively significant. Introduced summer 2004, still in use being slowly phased out. That's a good two years out of that socket.
AM2 introduces DDR2 memory controllers and hardware virtualization. No, it's not world-changing, but it's a solid, incremental update. AMD has also already announced that future Socket AM3 chips will work in Socket AM2 motherboards.
he second is Intel who have come along with the undeniably impressive Core 2 processors that not only run on the existing 775 socket but also the i965 chipset with many boards requiring nothing more than a BIOS update to recognise the new range of processors.
I would be very careful about praising Intel on this issue given their past history on the matter.
Prohibition created Al Capone. First of gambling and prostitution by creating an underground market for it. Then, the institution of alcohol prohibiton on (funny enough) Capone's 21st birthday.
Capone made his fortune by providing blackmarket goods and services that there was demand for. Suggesting that more prohibition would have prevented Capone from rising to power is an absolutely backwards way of looking at things.
The problem is, the Lebanese government isn't in control of the border with Israel. Hezbollah is. There certainly may have been other options, but it's not nearly so cut and dried 'let the Lebanese sort it out' as you seem to be making it.
You will never try to justify pre-emptive war on rational grounds again.
As a rule, I'm not a fan of pre-emptive war. But the Israelis themselves have certainly proven themselves that the concept is not entirely without merit. The Six Days War lasted only six days largely because Israel effectively ended it before it could really start.
This is something I've brought up in conversation with some other people, actually. AMD started making a push on their "Corporate Stable Image Program" about this time last year. Certain AMD CPUs are labeled CSIP compliant. It's very clear that Nvidia has worked closely with AMD on this effort - I can buy NForce based CSIP boards all day long without having to go through too much effort.
ATI is part of the program as well, but it always felt like they were playing more lip service to it than anything. I've yet to buy or even see an ATI based CSIP board. This compares to Nvidia and Nvidia partners like Asus who have been pushing the program pretty hard.
Except we don't know how Nvidia will react to this news, especially so far as the chipset market goes.
Fewer competitors is almost always a bad thing for consumers in the long haul, and we've just cut the number of players in the chipset market down to five (AMD, Intel, Nvidia, SiS, VIA), with two being the major CPU makers as well.
The NForce chipset was what finally made the Athlon a viable platform for many, and if this move pushes Nvidia closer to Intel, it could be bad for AMD in the long run.
Someone else already noted you can punch in the numbers with the keypad, but that bears repeating. It's a lifesaver.
Also, the "could not contact server" thing is a bit misleading. Microsoft actually disabled online activation for huge swaths of large OEM product keys, requiring you to phone in. The idea is it prevents mass piracy of these keys by making it more time consuming than it's worth. Ridiculous, in my opinion, but it's the official line from MS.
But I certainly won't talk you out of giving Ubuntu a serious try. It's a fantastic OS assuming you fall into a demographic that's not chained down to Windows for whatever reason.
If you're on volume licensing, you should've been running the VLK version of XP Pro, which doesn't require activation. OEM/Retail versions of XP generally won't accept VLK keys, so you're correct in that you're likely going to end up having to reload said machines.
If you have anything approaching hardware uniformity, invest in an imaging program (Acronis being my poison of choice these days) and teach yourself to use Sysprep. Then again, if your old IT people were using random product keys and non-VLK copies of Windows, I guess they probably took the same approach to the hardware itself as well.
One thing he didn't mention is that, as of the new 6.06 release, the Ubuntu Live CD and the Install CD are one and the same. This means you can play with it and see how you get acquainted to it. If you decide you like it and would like to give it a more permanent try, all you have to do is click a handy Install icon on the desktop and it launches a very straightforward graphical installer.
I've personally been a big fan of Ubuntu ever since its first release in October 2004, and it only keeps getting better with every release. They're doing the legwork that gives people like yourself a legitimate chance to give Linux a fair shake.
Also, if you run into anything you have questions about, one of Ubuntu's best aspects is the community. Check out http://www.ubuntuforums.org. Chances are if you run into any major issues, someone else has before and a quick search of the forum will locate a solution. If you can't find a solution, post it up. It's an amazingly friendly community and someone will almost always at least try to give you a hand.
Lowering prices below market value? That is _good_ for consumers because NO business can sell for a loss forever -- the minute that they raise their prices after they've wiped the competition clean, new competition will turn up the beat them down again.
I don't have the time to respond to your whole post, but this reeks of someone that whole-heartedly embraces free market economics but skipped the chapters regarding barriers to entry.
What you're describing is predatory pricing, which is generally only good for the consumer in the short run. In the long run, the lack of competition resulting from it generally ends up being bad for the consumer, especially in a market which has excessively high barriers to entry like the processor business.
The processor business is exceedingly difficult to get into these days. First off, you need very smart (and therefore, very expensive) engineers. Then there are IP issues all over the place. As a startup, you most likely wouldn't have the kind of patent portfolio neccessary to interest Intel, et al into any kind of cross-licensing agreements.
Now, assuming you somehow manage to overcome those obstacles you need to actually make the things. A modern chip fabrication facillity costs literally billions of dollars and takes several years to build. Oh, and assuming you somehow manage to get the capital for a fab, you're going to run into yet more IP issues regarding the fabrication process. You see, making chips that are both profitable and competitive these days means you're going to need to use bleeding edge fabrication techniques that are also patent encumbered, which generally aren't covered in any cross-licensing deals over actual processor technology. (See: IBM's strained silicon on insulator technique. There's a reason Intel's not using it.)
If you go down the list of barriers to entry in the Wikipedia article, you'll find the only two that *don't* apply to the processor business are government regulations and "restrictive practices." It's an exceedingly hard business to get into and just a difficult to stay in once you're there. Just look at the charred remains of Cyrix/National Semiconductor and Transmeta if you need examples.
Except the second parsing doesn't make any real sense grammatically in the context of the rest of Principle One.
Every child, without any exception whatsoever, shall be entitled to these rights, without distinction or discrimination on account of race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status, whether of himself or of his family.
This is a statement that the rights outlined in the Declaration are to be appied regardless of the listed attributes. Notice the attributes listed immediatey where we're talking about -- "national or social origin, property, birth or other status." These are all socio-economic conditions. For birth, in this context, to mean the actual act of being born would require a bit of a logical leap, especially given that 'birth' is grouped with 'or other status' in the list.
What we're looking at is a statement followed by a list of conditions. It might be somewhat ambiguous if birth were a singular item in the list without further clarification, but the 'or other status' addition provides the clarification needed to remove any real ambiguity from the statement, especially when listed in the context of a number of other socio-economic status factors. The final clause of the statement, 'regardless whether of himself or of his family,' would further lend to the first interpretation, given all the other attributes listed could be potential grounds for discrimination to his family, but it'd be rather hard to discriminate against his family if they were never born.:-)
Like I said before, I'm certainly willing to concede that there could be elements to the Declaration that support the notion of the listed rights beginning at conception, but Principle One just doesn't do it. The way the Declaration is structured suggests that each of the sections labled Principles are statements justifying the message of the Declaration. This structure suggests that each Principle is a facet of their argument which can logically stand on its own.
Taking a sentence a number of paragraphs prior to Principle One and using it to change the logical meaning of the statement just registers as a total misparsing to me. The intent and context of the document is to declare the rights to which all children are entitled. The first principle is a statement that these rights apply to [b]all[/b] children. It's a statement that they should be guaranteed regardless of the listed factors. The insertion of an anti-abortion statement into the middle of a denouncement of discrimination just doesn't stand up from a logical stand point. It just doesn't fit into the context of the first principle at all.
Given the specificity of the rest of the declaration and the structure of the overall document had that been the writer's intent, it seems far, far more likely that they'd have included it in a statement of its own. Shoe-horning it into a statement on a completely different matter just doesn't make sense and is why I can't see it in any way being the intended reading of that section.
That's well and fine, I was responding to what you quoted directly and, more specifically, what you emphasized. You chose two totally disparate clauses, which, upon actually having looked at the declaration myself, appear in the declaration separated by a number of other clauses and presented them as if they were intended to be interpreted together.
I was merely pointing out that the clause:
The child shall enjoy all the rights set forth in this Declaration. Every child, without any exception whatsoever, shall be entitled to these rights, without distinction or discrimination on account of race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status, whether of himself or of his family.
Which you quoted and emphasized the "birth or other status" part of has nothing to do with the morallity of abortion. The only way to interpret it as such is to intentionally misread it. The language of the selected clause is pretty clear in all actuality. Let's take the parts in question directly:
Every child, without any exception whatsoever, shall be entitled to these rights, without distinction or discrimination on account of [...] birth or other status, whether of himself or of his family.
It's meant to be part of the whole of the statement, not an individual clause in itself. There's no ambiguity to this statement - it is what it is.
I'm really not interested in debating the whole of the Declaration, and it's certainly possible that upon reading the full text of it, that there may be a few clauses that address the matter of abortion. My point was simply that Principle One of the quoted declaration does not have anything to do with the morallity of abortion. It's a statement denouncing discrimination based on a number of factors.
To suggest otherwise is either a case of improperly parsing the language of the declaration or willful misreading. I'm fully willing to believe it was the former, the language of this type of thing certainly isn't easy to grok the first time through.:-)
Principle 1: The child shall enjoy all the rights set forth in this Declaration. Every child, without any exception whatsoever, shall be entitled to these rights, without distinction or discrimination on account of race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status, whether of himself or of his family.
Note my emphasis. The list you quote isn't a declaration of rights in and of itself; it's a declaration that the deprivation of rights on the basis of the listed factors is unacceptable.
The part you emphasized is stating that it is not acceptable to deprive a child of the given human rights on a basis of the family they're born into. Basically, it's denouncing things such as India's old caste system, not making a statement on the morallity of abortion.
They already have 65mn fabs running at higher capacity than AMD, and they are near to bringing 45nm fabs online, which AMD has not done.
That could have something to do with Intel having 11 chips fabs across the world compared to AMD's 2 (including Fab 36 in Dresden which isn't even fully online yet).
Also, for the first time in a number of years, Intel actually has a production chip that looks to be genuinely faster than AMD's best offering. (Although it costs an arm and a leg.)
Actually, largely because AMD is supply constrained by their relatively limited number of fabs, Intel's been offering more competitive lower end parts lately, and that looks like it will continue with Core 2. Since AMD is selling everything they can make anyway, they've chosen to focus on the higher end, higher margin parts instead of their budget line.
While I don't know enough about AMD's financials to analyze the risk involved, the new Fab 36 in Dresden was desperately needed. The only other CPU fab AMD currently has in operation, Fab 30, is an older plant based on 200mm wafer tech that just plain can not keep up with demand. Fab 36 is a more modern 300mm wafer plant, that should allow AMD to produce chips both at a higher volume and at lower cost.
Basically, AMD has been supply constrained lately, selling every single chip that they make. As a result, they've more or less given up the budget market that's been their bread and butter to Intel in order to focus on producing and selling higher margin Opteron chips. It remains to be seen how much so, but Fab 36 should help open up supply some and allow AMD to stop willingly giving up market share Intel in some fields.
That was what AMD liked to claim for a while anyway. They dropped that claim entirely later in the Athlon XP's life.
Re:better problem if examples (real) were given
on
The CVS Cop-Out
·
· Score: 1
Except for the regular updates and multiple Gaim 2.0 beta releases in that time?
Meanwhile, we're going to be going through the *second* Summer of Code without a stable release including some of the major accomplishments, like file transfers actually working.
To quote the famous owls: O RLY?
What's this then? Or the fact that I was just transfering files over GAIM via Oscar last night?
This, of course, is ignoring the fact that Oscar file transfers are totally undocumented by AOL meaning they had to be reverse engineered, which isn't easy. It sounds like Summer of Code accomplished exactly what it was supposed to to me.
Just to make it clear again, I like Oblivion, Hardcore, and eMule. I don't like rape and the encouragement or incitement to do so, and hope Oblivion is not associated with Hot Coffee and other last-minute changes.
Care to actually be informed and know what you're talking about? From the wiki entry on the Hot Coffee mod:
Anti-videogame activists have also frequently claimed or implied that the Hot Coffee mod involves rape. This is not the case as the sexual content is depicted as being consensual. While there may be merit to claims that it objectifies or demeans women, assertions of rape are unfounded.
Moving forward:
I have no problems with porn, adult content, and hardcore sex, which I download gratuitously. I have problems with rape (which I have experienced) and encouragement of vice.
Who defines vice? Further, who defines the encouragement thereof? Where's the line between commentary and implicity? I'm not going to touch the other element of your comment simply because I feel that it'd likely come across in a manner I wouldn't intend - I assure you I've got nothing but the highest level of compassion for you in that regard.
Your view is typical of the far-right, anybody who expresses the truth should be deliberately misrepresented.
First of all, screaming "You're facist righty scum" or "You're just a pinko commie" over a disagreement's is a bit childish. Not that it really matters, but, in reality, my politics are much more along the lines of western European socialism with a strong libertarian bent than they are Bill O'Reilly - I'd have my mic cut off on The Factor in a matter of moments.
*You* are the one who made an incorrect assertation without even actually saying what made it immoral. If it's my fault that I was actually informed about the issue and aware of the content of the mod (and not some assumed rape element that *does not exist in the game*), then I apologize. My statement about puritanical ideology may have been a bit overboard, but your comment absent the undertones about rape (which again, is not present in the game) reads exactly as I responded to it.
Sorry again for the mix up, but I still stand in the same place on this one.
I love the game, and I hope that this re-rating will not invoke the flame wars caused by the frankly immoral (not just adult, immoral) Hot Coffee Mod and in fact GTA in general.
And lines like that are what spark the flame wars you're so worried about. You basically just said that sex is immoral. Nevermind that the rest of the game involved killing, drug running, gang wars and any number of other actions that could be considered immoral or socially deviated. But no, it's the (horror of all horrors) depiction of oral sex that's outright 'immoral' and gets everyone's attention.
Really, it's getting tiresome. The fact that the term 'puritanical' has become cliched at this point is an indicator that there's a definite schism in society right now.
More appropriately, anyone remember Lotus123, SideKick, WordPerfect, WordStar, DBase, ofcourse NetScape, I can go on and on Bottom line is, this is indeed a very rapidly changing industry. As long as compatibility (and I mean more than WINE) exists, people will easily switch.
How many of the above were knocked off by Microsoft products?
You keep saying that, how about some references to back it up? A good 15-20 minutes Googling on the subject didn't turn up and kind of preference for Gentoo from the NSA that I've seen. I'd imagine if such a preference were well-known, it'd be a bit easier to come by.
As it stands all I can find are references to Gentoo, Fedora/RH, and Debian all contributing to the project and compatible with the software.
You are wrong. In Gentoo community, Debian is completely irrelevant, not critical, as well as Red Hat is.
Except for all the software development memebers of both communities do. I seriously suggest you check into the amount of kernel contributions that come from people with @redhat.com e-mail addresses before you spew off nonsense about Redhat being "irellevent."
For example, does NSA use Debian? No, they are backing and contributing Gentoo with selinux.
Funny then that the NSA's contributors list for SELinux includes as many/more references to Red Hat and Debian as Gentoo.
In mission critical systems, marketing propaganda (as in Red Hat or Microsoft) does not count.
Neither does blind zeal and borderline trolling. Use what works. But don't be fooled into believing that what you like is completely independent of development going on in the rest of the Linux world. That's just plain foolish.
Slashdot Mirror
The correct answer is:
C) The Cell is a poor general purpose processor.
If you're at all familiar with the fundamentals of CPU design, it should be blindingly obvious that the Cell should be very good at handling streaming vector data, but relatively poor at more general purpose calculations.
I'd hate to see how such a system would react to heel and toe braking. Just sounds like an unnecessary level of abstraction, to me. Gear selection is in no way the hard part of operating a manual transmission, and a system like you've described would require a painful amount of expensive equipment to be added to the vehicle. A system like you described would drive me batty.
Protip: The 9600XT was an upper midrange card in its day. The 7300GS was *never* meant to be more than a minimum-cost budget solution. ATI's current budget solutions are more or less comparable to a 9600, as well. Really, you're choosing a poor psuedo-comparison to prefer one brand over another.
The last several years, NVidia's offered a better price-to-performance ratio in the midrange of the market and been very competitive in the upper range. Compare a 6600GT to the X700 Pro that was its direct competition in terms of both performance and cost. With product offerings like that, NVidia won't be going away for a long time.
They have on every NForce chipset. AMD's already very much gone out of their way to say that that won't be changing because of the ATI buyout.
Really now? No benefit?
Socket 754 was the original AMD64 platform. It was always intended to be a stopgap solution later relegated to the budget and mobile realm. AMD made no bones about this, and anyone who believed otherwise wasn't paying attention. It was always made very clear that S939 was just around the corner for the highest end of processors. That said, S754 A64 chips faired quite well for their time. Introduced in fall 2003, in active use up until the introduction of AM2 in May.
Socket 939 introduced dual channel memory controllers to the A64 platform, which, depending on the application, can mean performance differences of 5-15%. I'd call that relatively significant. Introduced summer 2004, still in use being slowly phased out. That's a good two years out of that socket.
AM2 introduces DDR2 memory controllers and hardware virtualization. No, it's not world-changing, but it's a solid, incremental update. AMD has also already announced that future Socket AM3 chips will work in Socket AM2 motherboards.
I would be very careful about praising Intel on this issue given their past history on the matter.
Prohibition created Al Capone. First of gambling and prostitution by creating an underground market for it. Then, the institution of alcohol prohibiton on (funny enough) Capone's 21st birthday.
Capone made his fortune by providing blackmarket goods and services that there was demand for. Suggesting that more prohibition would have prevented Capone from rising to power is an absolutely backwards way of looking at things.
Really, the dead give away was that there were far too many words spelled correctly in the news post for it to have been in Taco's usual style.
:-P)
I keed, I keed! (But not really.
As a rule, I'm not a fan of pre-emptive war. But the Israelis themselves have certainly proven themselves that the concept is not entirely without merit. The Six Days War lasted only six days largely because Israel effectively ended it before it could really start.
This is something I've brought up in conversation with some other people, actually. AMD started making a push on their "Corporate Stable Image Program" about this time last year. Certain AMD CPUs are labeled CSIP compliant. It's very clear that Nvidia has worked closely with AMD on this effort - I can buy NForce based CSIP boards all day long without having to go through too much effort.
ATI is part of the program as well, but it always felt like they were playing more lip service to it than anything. I've yet to buy or even see an ATI based CSIP board. This compares to Nvidia and Nvidia partners like Asus who have been pushing the program pretty hard.
Except we don't know how Nvidia will react to this news, especially so far as the chipset market goes.
Fewer competitors is almost always a bad thing for consumers in the long haul, and we've just cut the number of players in the chipset market down to five (AMD, Intel, Nvidia, SiS, VIA), with two being the major CPU makers as well.
The NForce chipset was what finally made the Athlon a viable platform for many, and if this move pushes Nvidia closer to Intel, it could be bad for AMD in the long run.
Someone else already noted you can punch in the numbers with the keypad, but that bears repeating. It's a lifesaver.
Also, the "could not contact server" thing is a bit misleading. Microsoft actually disabled online activation for huge swaths of large OEM product keys, requiring you to phone in. The idea is it prevents mass piracy of these keys by making it more time consuming than it's worth. Ridiculous, in my opinion, but it's the official line from MS.
But I certainly won't talk you out of giving Ubuntu a serious try. It's a fantastic OS assuming you fall into a demographic that's not chained down to Windows for whatever reason.
If you're on volume licensing, you should've been running the VLK version of XP Pro, which doesn't require activation. OEM/Retail versions of XP generally won't accept VLK keys, so you're correct in that you're likely going to end up having to reload said machines.
If you have anything approaching hardware uniformity, invest in an imaging program (Acronis being my poison of choice these days) and teach yourself to use Sysprep. Then again, if your old IT people were using random product keys and non-VLK copies of Windows, I guess they probably took the same approach to the hardware itself as well.
One thing he didn't mention is that, as of the new 6.06 release, the Ubuntu Live CD and the Install CD are one and the same. This means you can play with it and see how you get acquainted to it. If you decide you like it and would like to give it a more permanent try, all you have to do is click a handy Install icon on the desktop and it launches a very straightforward graphical installer.
:-)
I've personally been a big fan of Ubuntu ever since its first release in October 2004, and it only keeps getting better with every release. They're doing the legwork that gives people like yourself a legitimate chance to give Linux a fair shake.
Also, if you run into anything you have questions about, one of Ubuntu's best aspects is the community. Check out http://www.ubuntuforums.org. Chances are if you run into any major issues, someone else has before and a quick search of the forum will locate a solution. If you can't find a solution, post it up. It's an amazingly friendly community and someone will almost always at least try to give you a hand.
HTH.
I don't have the time to respond to your whole post, but this reeks of someone that whole-heartedly embraces free market economics but skipped the chapters regarding barriers to entry.
What you're describing is predatory pricing, which is generally only good for the consumer in the short run. In the long run, the lack of competition resulting from it generally ends up being bad for the consumer, especially in a market which has excessively high barriers to entry like the processor business.
The processor business is exceedingly difficult to get into these days. First off, you need very smart (and therefore, very expensive) engineers. Then there are IP issues all over the place. As a startup, you most likely wouldn't have the kind of patent portfolio neccessary to interest Intel, et al into any kind of cross-licensing agreements.
Now, assuming you somehow manage to overcome those obstacles you need to actually make the things. A modern chip fabrication facillity costs literally billions of dollars and takes several years to build. Oh, and assuming you somehow manage to get the capital for a fab, you're going to run into yet more IP issues regarding the fabrication process. You see, making chips that are both profitable and competitive these days means you're going to need to use bleeding edge fabrication techniques that are also patent encumbered, which generally aren't covered in any cross-licensing deals over actual processor technology. (See: IBM's strained silicon on insulator technique. There's a reason Intel's not using it.)
If you go down the list of barriers to entry in the Wikipedia article, you'll find the only two that *don't* apply to the processor business are government regulations and "restrictive practices." It's an exceedingly hard business to get into and just a difficult to stay in once you're there. Just look at the charred remains of Cyrix/National Semiconductor and Transmeta if you need examples.
This is a statement that the rights outlined in the Declaration are to be appied regardless of the listed attributes. Notice the attributes listed immediatey where we're talking about -- "national or social origin, property, birth or other status." These are all socio-economic conditions. For birth, in this context, to mean the actual act of being born would require a bit of a logical leap, especially given that 'birth' is grouped with 'or other status' in the list.
What we're looking at is a statement followed by a list of conditions. It might be somewhat ambiguous if birth were a singular item in the list without further clarification, but the 'or other status' addition provides the clarification needed to remove any real ambiguity from the statement, especially when listed in the context of a number of other socio-economic status factors. The final clause of the statement, 'regardless whether of himself or of his family,' would further lend to the first interpretation, given all the other attributes listed could be potential grounds for discrimination to his family, but it'd be rather hard to discriminate against his family if they were never born.
Like I said before, I'm certainly willing to concede that there could be elements to the Declaration that support the notion of the listed rights beginning at conception, but Principle One just doesn't do it. The way the Declaration is structured suggests that each of the sections labled Principles are statements justifying the message of the Declaration. This structure suggests that each Principle is a facet of their argument which can logically stand on its own.
Taking a sentence a number of paragraphs prior to Principle One and using it to change the logical meaning of the statement just registers as a total misparsing to me. The intent and context of the document is to declare the rights to which all children are entitled. The first principle is a statement that these rights apply to [b]all[/b] children. It's a statement that they should be guaranteed regardless of the listed factors. The insertion of an anti-abortion statement into the middle of a denouncement of discrimination just doesn't stand up from a logical stand point. It just doesn't fit into the context of the first principle at all.
Given the specificity of the rest of the declaration and the structure of the overall document had that been the writer's intent, it seems far, far more likely that they'd have included it in a statement of its own. Shoe-horning it into a statement on a completely different matter just doesn't make sense and is why I can't see it in any way being the intended reading of that section.
I was merely pointing out that the clause:
Which you quoted and emphasized the "birth or other status" part of has nothing to do with the morallity of abortion. The only way to interpret it as such is to intentionally misread it. The language of the selected clause is pretty clear in all actuality. Let's take the parts in question directly:
It's meant to be part of the whole of the statement, not an individual clause in itself. There's no ambiguity to this statement - it is what it is.
I'm really not interested in debating the whole of the Declaration, and it's certainly possible that upon reading the full text of it, that there may be a few clauses that address the matter of abortion. My point was simply that Principle One of the quoted declaration does not have anything to do with the morallity of abortion. It's a statement denouncing discrimination based on a number of factors.
To suggest otherwise is either a case of improperly parsing the language of the declaration or willful misreading. I'm fully willing to believe it was the former, the language of this type of thing certainly isn't easy to grok the first time through.
Note my emphasis. The list you quote isn't a declaration of rights in and of itself; it's a declaration that the deprivation of rights on the basis of the listed factors is unacceptable.
The part you emphasized is stating that it is not acceptable to deprive a child of the given human rights on a basis of the family they're born into. Basically, it's denouncing things such as India's old caste system, not making a statement on the morallity of abortion.
While I don't know enough about AMD's financials to analyze the risk involved, the new Fab 36 in Dresden was desperately needed. The only other CPU fab AMD currently has in operation, Fab 30, is an older plant based on 200mm wafer tech that just plain can not keep up with demand. Fab 36 is a more modern 300mm wafer plant, that should allow AMD to produce chips both at a higher volume and at lower cost.
Basically, AMD has been supply constrained lately, selling every single chip that they make. As a result, they've more or less given up the budget market that's been their bread and butter to Intel in order to focus on producing and selling higher margin Opteron chips. It remains to be seen how much so, but Fab 36 should help open up supply some and allow AMD to stop willingly giving up market share Intel in some fields.
That was what AMD liked to claim for a while anyway. They dropped that claim entirely later in the Athlon XP's life.
To quote the famous owls: O RLY?
What's this then? Or the fact that I was just transfering files over GAIM via Oscar last night?
This, of course, is ignoring the fact that Oscar file transfers are totally undocumented by AOL meaning they had to be reverse engineered, which isn't easy. It sounds like Summer of Code accomplished exactly what it was supposed to to me.
Care to actually be informed and know what you're talking about? From the wiki entry on the Hot Coffee mod:
Moving forward:
Who defines vice? Further, who defines the encouragement thereof? Where's the line between commentary and implicity? I'm not going to touch the other element of your comment simply because I feel that it'd likely come across in a manner I wouldn't intend - I assure you I've got nothing but the highest level of compassion for you in that regard.
First of all, screaming "You're facist righty scum" or "You're just a pinko commie" over a disagreement's is a bit childish. Not that it really matters, but, in reality, my politics are much more along the lines of western European socialism with a strong libertarian bent than they are Bill O'Reilly - I'd have my mic cut off on The Factor in a matter of moments.
*You* are the one who made an incorrect assertation without even actually saying what made it immoral. If it's my fault that I was actually informed about the issue and aware of the content of the mod (and not some assumed rape element that *does not exist in the game*), then I apologize. My statement about puritanical ideology may have been a bit overboard, but your comment absent the undertones about rape (which again, is not present in the game) reads exactly as I responded to it.
Sorry again for the mix up, but I still stand in the same place on this one.
And lines like that are what spark the flame wars you're so worried about. You basically just said that sex is immoral. Nevermind that the rest of the game involved killing, drug running, gang wars and any number of other actions that could be considered immoral or socially deviated. But no, it's the (horror of all horrors) depiction of oral sex that's outright 'immoral' and gets everyone's attention.
Really, it's getting tiresome. The fact that the term 'puritanical' has become cliched at this point is an indicator that there's a definite schism in society right now.
How many of the above were knocked off by Microsoft products?
You keep saying that, how about some references to back it up? A good 15-20 minutes Googling on the subject didn't turn up and kind of preference for Gentoo from the NSA that I've seen. I'd imagine if such a preference were well-known, it'd be a bit easier to come by.
As it stands all I can find are references to Gentoo, Fedora/RH, and Debian all contributing to the project and compatible with the software.
Except for all the software development memebers of both communities do. I seriously suggest you check into the amount of kernel contributions that come from people with @redhat.com e-mail addresses before you spew off nonsense about Redhat being "irellevent."
Funny then that the NSA's contributors list for SELinux includes as many/more references to Red Hat and Debian as Gentoo.
Neither does blind zeal and borderline trolling. Use what works. But don't be fooled into believing that what you like is completely independent of development going on in the rest of the Linux world. That's just plain foolish.