Yes, if you think in terms of the way corporations operate today as a direct result of copyright and IP protection. Which is exactly the problem- Human greed.
If Factory owner wasn't corrupted by the MegaCorp market, he'd have no incentive to want to screw Inventor. That aside, if he did screw Inventor, wouldn't that discourage Inventor from inventing widget B, and choosing Factory to produce it? If Factory discourages Inventor from inventing, Factory looses future production. However, if Factory does good business with Inventor, when widget B, C, and D come along, there will be a good working relationship between Inventor and Factory that will result in the procurement of additional invention.
Then tell me, how would a MegaCorp become a MegaCorp without patents in the first place? Where would MS be if it couldn't "protect" it's valued Windows code? Where would any major corp be if it couldn't patent what it built it's success on?
Preportionally, where would the legal system be without large corps? Would Napster still exist if there was no RIAA to shoot it down? Would Napster even be created if music wasn't protected and procured by major corporations?
This exactly what's wrong with corporate America (a.k.a. the "legal system") Rather than willingly share technology and ideas, people hoarde whatever they can in the hopes of becoming the next overnight Joe Millionaire. The problem is, the success of the one in no way benefits the many. In fact, the contrary is true- this sort of crap hurts the industry more than anything. Meanwhile consumers are complaining to their providors, threatening to take their business elsewhere, crippling an already painful market. If people weren't so damn selfish, and freely shared concepts and ideas (e.g. Open Source), without the need to excessively profit, imagine where technology would be.
I was under the impression this is exactly what the Segway HT was designed to accomplish. Cleaning up cars obviously means much less pollution.
It's a great concept in general- people would be more likely to walk to where they had to go, rather than drive half a mile to the store to pick up the ice cream and chocolate syrup.
Yes and no. Yes, there are various iterations of Windows (NT vs 95, 2k vs 98/ME, combine the two into XP). However, each iteration is still fundamentally based on the same coding concepts presented in Windows 3.1. I've seen many articles and forums highlighting exactly what bits of code were recycled, and I'm sure a google will produce the same results. Some DLL's, for example, are still identical to those in 3.1, and not necessarily all are as stable as their re-use would imply. Granted, Joe Computer User could care less, so long as they have a stable product to use, but that's just it- Microsoft has a proven history of producing unstable products for the desktop (Win95 A, B, C, Win98 and it's pay for bug-fix, 98SE, the still disasterous WinME). Granted again, their stability has come a long way with the introduction of the NT kernel to the consumer market, however, a truely stable shipped product would not require service packs.
As for compiling a kernel, I don't know how to either. I mentioned it because some businesses may wish to compile one to suit their needs, if they have a particular application or neccessity which a custom would fit better than a stock. Imagine a system that runs just a webserver and it's required dependancies, rather than loading graphics drivers and sound drivers, and various other things that wouldn't be required to initialize a network connection and run a webserver. Also, try getting a system like that from Microsoft. Essentially, you can custom create an operating system that does JUST what you want it to do, and do it well, rather than do many things at a fraction of capacity.
Seems to me the business/government market has clung to MS for the sole purposes of familiarity and ease of support. Hire any MCSE off the street and you have qualified support personell. Have a problem, call up Redmund and tell them about it.
Windows has kept essentially the same for the past few years, minus a few "enhancements" (a.k.a. extra features not many people need). This facilitates people turning their heads towards more customizeable software, where a kernel can be compiled for any given specific purpose, and only the required software runs.
Aside from the incredibly cheap software itself, the unmatched compatibility-for-purpose, and customizability make Open Source a very viable solution for previously proprietary, overpriced, "as is out of box" software. And as potential support people and developers materialize out of the mould, it's getting more and more serious consideration.
It's just plain sick of Microsoft that they would consider just giving their multi-thousand dollar software away simply to keep market share. Wonder how that would make me feel, if I were a business owner. Knowing I paid $2,500 for an enterprise server, when a friend of mine's business gets it free just so they remain a Microsoft customer. Really would make me consider the alternatives all the more, for fear of getting played like a fiddle by the monster of dominance.
Are these loudspeakers designed for use in say, a PA system? Or for use in home theater, or theater theater? Perhaps for DJing purposes? What exactly is it intended to do that a well equalized set of JBL speakers can't produce?
Seems like it's only prominant feature is the ability to produce 360 degree sound, but for that price, you could easily get 5 or 6 high quality speakers and arrange them in a circle.
The flash based site doesn't yield any useful specs either.
Eventually, better quality things will be integrated, resulting in relatively high quality all-in-one components. Motherboards, for example, are now avaliable with integrated Geforce 4 MX440s, along with an AGP slot in the event it's not good enough. Once decent quality components are avaliable for integration, such as a 4 megapixel digital camera built in a 3g wireless phone, with a 5 gig memory stick and MP3/OGG/ACC/WMA playback, I'll buy that phone, and ditch my camera, MP3 player, and 2.5g phone. Of course, once that happens, there will be better things out there, but for my purposes, that would be more than enough.
Once quality of components reach a certain level, the segregation will cease... and while seperate components will always remain avaliable (since some photogrophers don't want a phone, and some people just want to talk and not take pictures), the cost of getting them all together anyway won't be much more than the stand alone components individually, and again, if the quality is good enough, there's no reason not to get everything if the price is right.
Will we ever see a balance between integration and segragation of digital devices?
My guess is not right away... Integrated components usually come at some sacrifice to quality or function, e.g. integrated motherboards for computers. Sure, it's cheaper, and more convenient, but if you're looking for performance, do you really want a 8mb Trident video card onboard with no expandable AGP port? Same thing with integrated cameras on phones and PDAs... the resolution isn't anywhere near what that of a stand alone camera would be. Generally speaking, the more you try to do with less space, something must be sacrificed to make it work. With completely seperate components, everything is free to take up as much space/power as necessary to produce quality results.
Bottom line is- budget minded consumers will happily embrace integrated hardware, who could care less about quality or function than a phone that can take pictures and play 32kbit MP3s for under $99.
Meanwhile, consumers who know what they want and don't mind spending the extra money for it will always seek out the best resolution on a digital camera, the largest capacity MP3 player, and the phone with the best reception/service plan/.
As long as the market itself is segregated, the electronics themselves will be segregated to fit their specific niches in what a consumer wants.
Were not all these concepts intended for the Palm platform originally? Mobile computing has come a long way in the past 5 years, with more and more powerful processors leading to smaller and better things. Where is the PalmOS headed? The place it's always been going- to provide a comprehensive interface to perform certain computing functions on an ultra-portable level. The introduction of more/enhanced features/functions/uses is only following the initial path set by mobile computing.
In case of slashdotting, the text of the article reads:
People For Internet Responsibility (PFIR) co-founders Lauren Weinstein and Peter G. Neumann today called on the Internet and Open-Source Communities to consider a proposal for the most significant and far-reaching changes to e-mail systems since the creation of the Internet and its ancestor ARPANET more than 30 years ago. PFIR today released a white paper describing a proposed project to consider the implementation and deployment of widespread encryption, authentication, anti-spam, and other advances directly into the fundamental structure of Internet, intranet, and local e-mail systems.
The "TRIPOLI" project overview paper located at:
http://www.pfir.org/tripoli-overview
describes the proposed new environment which focuses on ensuring that choices and power regarding e-mail are vested directly with e-mail users themselves, rather than with Internet Service Providers (ISPs) or government agencies.
The changes described by the TRIPOLI proposal could be gradually implemented, largely based upon open-source software tools that already exist. Ultimately under TRIPOLI, the volumes of forgeries and spam (both received by users and traversing the Internet) would be drastically reduced, by default all e-mail would be encrypted, and e-mail users would have essentially complete control over how they individually choose to send and receive e-mail.
"Current e-mail systems were not designed to deal with the kind of world we have today -- they've become a hopeless nightmare for users and ISPs alike," said Weinstein. "E-mail users are inundated with spam, forged mail, and other garbage, and unfortunately the actions many ISPs are taking to try control spam and other e-mail are shackling their honest customers with unreasonable restrictions and making matters even worse. Some of the proposed anti-spam laws may also exacerbate these problems without really controlling spam at all. Legitimate e-mail users need to be put back in the driver's seat, and there isn't a moment to lose."
"These problems are getting more severe every day," said Neumann. "Not only are users and networks drowning under spam and other e-mail deficiencies, but basic matters of security and reliability on the Internet are being largely ignored under the current intolerable situation. These critical problems simply cannot be fixed without coordinated and major changes to the way e-mail is handled throughout the Internet. It's going to be a big job, but we have to get going on this right now."
PFIR hopes that the TRIPOLI proposal can act as a starting point for discussion and implementation of systems to solve the many e-mail problems that exist today, in a manner that empowers users rather than unfairly restricting them. PFIR invites the participation of the open-source and Internet communities at large towards these crucial goals.
Persons interested in participating or getting more information about the TRIPOLI project can send e-mail to:
Most airliners in use today were designed and built well before cell phones became mainstream, and well before WiFi standards were adopted. When they were built, there was no need for concern over something that for all intents and purposes, didn't exist.
I'd imagine an overhaul to "cell proof" all commercial planes would cost the already struggling air industry more than they can handle.
I agree. There is nothing wrong with taking credit for great work, so long as it's in an unobtrusive fashion, e.g. Photoshop.
I personally like Windows 3.1's credits system. It's an easter egg within the program (windows 3.1 was not an operating system;) where a combination of clicks and buttons in the right places transformed the "About Windows 3.1" section in the help menu of program manager into a scrolling credit system displaying everyone who worked on Windows, with a random little picture to the left that featured Gates, and Gates with a rodent head. Very clever, and once I found out how to do it, I actually read the list of names, simply because it was a cool little thing not many people are aware of.
So that's another idea, embed the credits in an easter egg type system, where certain things have to be done to get them to dislpay. Maybe then people will actually hunt down the credits simply because it's something most people would never know how to do.
Has anyone from the RIAA or the students themselves made any effort to contact the artists regarding all this? If the students could contact some of the artists of the music in question, perhaps they could negotiate directly with them to pay the cost of each "pirated" CD directly to the artist, completely sidestepping the RIAA. The artists should have no qualms, since they are being payed back for "damages" incurred to them, and the total cost would probably be considerably less than the $17k they are paying presently. I wonder what the artists themselves think... especially if they won't see any of that $17k and the damage is supposedly done to them, when the students are already paying enough to be schooled. I wonder too, how the artists would be viewed as per popularity if they took a stance on the piracy issue. Perhaps they would declare the RIAA itself the pirates for hoarding the better portion of CD sale profits for material that technically belongs to the artists themselves?
Regardless, the credit card companies would get the same amount... (3% of.99) times X number of songs is the same as 3% (.99 times X number of songs). It's more or less a "per charge" amount than a "per amount" charge. In either case it ends up the same.
Most credit card companies charge an average of 3% on transactions, so 3% of.99 = $.0297 per song, times 275,000, that's roughly $8,000. If they pay 65% to record companies, $176,962.5 goes to them. That leaves 32% for Apple, or $87,120. Not too shabby if I say so. That might just cover some of their bandwith bills and hardware investment.
Within the extra thermal junction though, more suface area is presented for the heat to spread out evenly to be transfered into the heatsink. Rather than all heat being pumped into the sink directly from the die, a spreader would evenly distribute the heat throughout the contact area. This is one of the bigger reasons people argue "Intel runs cooler."
Intel's die temperature is not too far off from AMD's in a chip to chip comparison, but because the die is enclosed in a speader, and a beefier heat sink and bigger fan are used, resulting in the appearance of a "cooler running system."
I wouldn't blame the chipsets right away... Most problems as you've described are caused by the motherboard itself. It's a well known fact in the IT world that ECS motherboards are crap, and are oftentimes expected to crash.. i.e. it's an anomoly to have one run stable for more than 3 days. Same deal with Abit, Tiger, and to an extent Asus. The latter manufacturers put more of an emphasis on performance than stability. For the past 3 years I've worked as a system builder and technician for a small company, and have worked with virtualy every motherboard manufacturer on the planet. I've seen a number of very stable motherboards, mainly from MSI, Biostar, DFI, and a few others, with VIA chipsets, and not one of them had any sort of hardware problems, once all drivers are properly installed. I have seen and heard of many issues with SiS chipsets, but VIA is rock solid when integrated properly by a manufacturer.
If I'm not mistake, they affixed a heat spreader to the Opteron. What would stop them from/why wouldn't they slap one on the higher power Athlons? Seems to me that's what keeps the P4's "cooler," along with heatsinks of twice the mass... simple thermodynamic physics.
AMD can take advantage of DDR 400 for synchronous system performance. Expanded front side bus + more work per clock cycle= damn good performance. Great stuff.
So when ISPs are required to release customer information on open p2p connections and their respective users, and the open source community developes a self organizing, encrypted p2p network, using similar encryption technology to that of online purchasing (credit cards, etc) will the RIAA tackle encryption citing the DMCA? I'd like to see that hold up in a court. If all transmissions must be monitored for piracy, and one can not conceal the source of information, does this mean the RIAA and our ISPs have access to our credit card numbers when purchasing from amazon.com? If the same technology used to encrypt private information were applied tp p2p applications, such that the ISPs can't tell the difference between a credit card number and the Dixie Chick's latest hit, what would the RIAA do?
Linux itself is a clone of an operating system that is 20-plus years old. That's what it is. That is what you can get today, a clone of a 20-year-old system. I'm not saying that it doesn't have some place for some customers, but that is not an innovative proposition.
Gee, so 5 years down the road when M$ is integrating open source software to maintain value in the consumer market, I wonder where this guy will be...
That aside, generally don't things get better with age? With more time on the open market, would that not imlpy 20 years of innovation and development? If not, why is it still alive and more popular than ever? Would that explain the relatively small number of security holes and bugs of the 20 year old system, compared to the "modern" Window$ core?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, if you think in terms of the way corporations operate today as a direct result of copyright and IP protection. Which is exactly the problem- Human greed.
If Factory owner wasn't corrupted by the MegaCorp market, he'd have no incentive to want to screw Inventor. That aside, if he did screw Inventor, wouldn't that discourage Inventor from inventing widget B, and choosing Factory to produce it? If Factory discourages Inventor from inventing, Factory looses future production. However, if Factory does good business with Inventor, when widget B, C, and D come along, there will be a good working relationship between Inventor and Factory that will result in the procurement of additional invention.
Then tell me, how would a MegaCorp become a MegaCorp without patents in the first place? Where would MS be if it couldn't "protect" it's valued Windows code? Where would any major corp be if it couldn't patent what it built it's success on?
Preportionally, where would the legal system be without large corps? Would Napster still exist if there was no RIAA to shoot it down? Would Napster even be created if music wasn't protected and procured by major corporations?
This exactly what's wrong with corporate America (a.k.a. the "legal system") Rather than willingly share technology and ideas, people hoarde whatever they can in the hopes of becoming the next overnight Joe Millionaire. The problem is, the success of the one in no way benefits the many. In fact, the contrary is true- this sort of crap hurts the industry more than anything. Meanwhile consumers are complaining to their providors, threatening to take their business elsewhere, crippling an already painful market. If people weren't so damn selfish, and freely shared concepts and ideas (e.g. Open Source), without the need to excessively profit, imagine where technology would be.
I was under the impression this is exactly what the Segway HT was designed to accomplish. Cleaning up cars obviously means much less pollution.
It's a great concept in general- people would be more likely to walk to where they had to go, rather than drive half a mile to the store to pick up the ice cream and chocolate syrup.
Wrong.
Yes and no. Yes, there are various iterations of Windows (NT vs 95, 2k vs 98/ME, combine the two into XP). However, each iteration is still fundamentally based on the same coding concepts presented in Windows 3.1. I've seen many articles and forums highlighting exactly what bits of code were recycled, and I'm sure a google will produce the same results. Some DLL's, for example, are still identical to those in 3.1, and not necessarily all are as stable as their re-use would imply. Granted, Joe Computer User could care less, so long as they have a stable product to use, but that's just it- Microsoft has a proven history of producing unstable products for the desktop (Win95 A, B, C, Win98 and it's pay for bug-fix, 98SE, the still disasterous WinME). Granted again, their stability has come a long way with the introduction of the NT kernel to the consumer market, however, a truely stable shipped product would not require service packs.
As for compiling a kernel, I don't know how to either. I mentioned it because some businesses may wish to compile one to suit their needs, if they have a particular application or neccessity which a custom would fit better than a stock. Imagine a system that runs just a webserver and it's required dependancies, rather than loading graphics drivers and sound drivers, and various other things that wouldn't be required to initialize a network connection and run a webserver. Also, try getting a system like that from Microsoft. Essentially, you can custom create an operating system that does JUST what you want it to do, and do it well, rather than do many things at a fraction of capacity.
Seems to me the business/government market has clung to MS for the sole purposes of familiarity and ease of support. Hire any MCSE off the street and you have qualified support personell. Have a problem, call up Redmund and tell them about it.
Windows has kept essentially the same for the past few years, minus a few "enhancements" (a.k.a. extra features not many people need). This facilitates people turning their heads towards more customizeable software, where a kernel can be compiled for any given specific purpose, and only the required software runs.
Aside from the incredibly cheap software itself, the unmatched compatibility-for-purpose, and customizability make Open Source a very viable solution for previously proprietary, overpriced, "as is out of box" software. And as potential support people and developers materialize out of the mould, it's getting more and more serious consideration.
It's just plain sick of Microsoft that they would consider just giving their multi-thousand dollar software away simply to keep market share. Wonder how that would make me feel, if I were a business owner. Knowing I paid $2,500 for an enterprise server, when a friend of mine's business gets it free just so they remain a Microsoft customer. Really would make me consider the alternatives all the more, for fear of getting played like a fiddle by the monster of dominance.
Are these loudspeakers designed for use in say, a PA system? Or for use in home theater, or theater theater? Perhaps for DJing purposes? What exactly is it intended to do that a well equalized set of JBL speakers can't produce?
Seems like it's only prominant feature is the ability to produce 360 degree sound, but for that price, you could easily get 5 or 6 high quality speakers and arrange them in a circle.
The flash based site doesn't yield any useful specs either.
I forgot to mention my "not right away" part...
Eventually, better quality things will be integrated, resulting in relatively high quality all-in-one components. Motherboards, for example, are now avaliable with integrated Geforce 4 MX440s, along with an AGP slot in the event it's not good enough. Once decent quality components are avaliable for integration, such as a 4 megapixel digital camera built in a 3g wireless phone, with a 5 gig memory stick and MP3/OGG/ACC/WMA playback, I'll buy that phone, and ditch my camera, MP3 player, and 2.5g phone. Of course, once that happens, there will be better things out there, but for my purposes, that would be more than enough.
Once quality of components reach a certain level, the segregation will cease... and while seperate components will always remain avaliable (since some photogrophers don't want a phone, and some people just want to talk and not take pictures), the cost of getting them all together anyway won't be much more than the stand alone components individually, and again, if the quality is good enough, there's no reason not to get everything if the price is right.
Will we ever see a balance between integration and segragation of digital devices?
My guess is not right away... Integrated components usually come at some sacrifice to quality or function, e.g. integrated motherboards for computers. Sure, it's cheaper, and more convenient, but if you're looking for performance, do you really want a 8mb Trident video card onboard with no expandable AGP port? Same thing with integrated cameras on phones and PDAs... the resolution isn't anywhere near what that of a stand alone camera would be. Generally speaking, the more you try to do with less space, something must be sacrificed to make it work. With completely seperate components, everything is free to take up as much space/power as necessary to produce quality results.
Bottom line is- budget minded consumers will happily embrace integrated hardware, who could care less about quality or function than a phone that can take pictures and play 32kbit MP3s for under $99.
Meanwhile, consumers who know what they want and don't mind spending the extra money for it will always seek out the best resolution on a digital camera, the largest capacity MP3 player, and the phone with the best reception/service plan/.
As long as the market itself is segregated, the electronics themselves will be segregated to fit their specific niches in what a consumer wants.
Were not all these concepts intended for the Palm platform originally? Mobile computing has come a long way in the past 5 years, with more and more powerful processors leading to smaller and better things. Where is the PalmOS headed? The place it's always been going- to provide a comprehensive interface to perform certain computing functions on an ultra-portable level. The introduction of more/enhanced features/functions/uses is only following the initial path set by mobile computing.
In case of slashdotting, the text of the article reads:
People For Internet Responsibility (PFIR) co-founders Lauren Weinstein and Peter G. Neumann today called on the Internet and Open-Source Communities to consider a proposal for the most significant and far-reaching changes to e-mail systems since the creation of the Internet and its ancestor ARPANET more than 30 years ago.
PFIR today released a white paper describing a proposed project to consider the implementation and deployment of widespread encryption, authentication, anti-spam, and other advances directly into the fundamental structure of Internet, intranet, and local e-mail systems.
The "TRIPOLI" project overview paper located at:
http://www.pfir.org/tripoli-overview
describes the proposed new environment which focuses on ensuring that choices and power regarding e-mail are vested directly with e-mail users themselves, rather than with Internet Service Providers (ISPs) or government agencies.
The changes described by the TRIPOLI proposal could be gradually implemented, largely based upon open-source software tools that already exist. Ultimately under TRIPOLI, the volumes of forgeries and spam (both received by users and traversing the Internet) would be drastically reduced, by default all e-mail would be encrypted, and e-mail users would have essentially complete control over how they individually choose to send and receive e-mail.
"Current e-mail systems were not designed to deal with the kind of world we have today -- they've become a hopeless nightmare for users and ISPs alike," said Weinstein. "E-mail users are inundated with spam, forged mail, and other garbage, and unfortunately the actions many ISPs are taking to try control spam and other e-mail are shackling their honest customers with unreasonable restrictions and making matters even worse. Some of the proposed anti-spam laws may also exacerbate these problems without really controlling spam at all. Legitimate e-mail users need to be put back in the driver's seat, and there isn't a moment to lose."
"These problems are getting more severe every day," said Neumann. "Not only are users and networks drowning under spam and other e-mail deficiencies, but basic matters of security and reliability on the Internet are being largely ignored under the current intolerable situation. These critical problems simply cannot be fixed without coordinated and major changes to the way e-mail is handled throughout the Internet. It's going to be a big job, but we have to get going on this right now."
PFIR hopes that the TRIPOLI proposal can act as a starting point for discussion and implementation of systems to solve the many e-mail problems that exist today, in a manner that empowers users rather than unfairly restricting them. PFIR invites the participation of the open-source and Internet communities at large towards these crucial goals.
Persons interested in participating or getting more information about the TRIPOLI project can send e-mail to:
tripoli-info@pfir.org
Most airliners in use today were designed and built well before cell phones became mainstream, and well before WiFi standards were adopted. When they were built, there was no need for concern over something that for all intents and purposes, didn't exist.
I'd imagine an overhaul to "cell proof" all commercial planes would cost the already struggling air industry more than they can handle.
I agree. There is nothing wrong with taking credit for great work, so long as it's in an unobtrusive fashion, e.g. Photoshop.
;) where a combination of clicks and buttons in the right places transformed the "About Windows 3.1" section in the help menu of program manager into a scrolling credit system displaying everyone who worked on Windows, with a random little picture to the left that featured Gates, and Gates with a rodent head. Very clever, and once I found out how to do it, I actually read the list of names, simply because it was a cool little thing not many people are aware of.
I personally like Windows 3.1's credits system. It's an easter egg within the program (windows 3.1 was not an operating system
So that's another idea, embed the credits in an easter egg type system, where certain things have to be done to get them to dislpay. Maybe then people will actually hunt down the credits simply because it's something most people would never know how to do.
Now my stocks and my digested raison bran have something MORE in common...
Then theoretically, the RIAA can go after an artist who downloads their own song?
Has anyone from the RIAA or the students themselves made any effort to contact the artists regarding all this? If the students could contact some of the artists of the music in question, perhaps they could negotiate directly with them to pay the cost of each "pirated" CD directly to the artist, completely sidestepping the RIAA. The artists should have no qualms, since they are being payed back for "damages" incurred to them, and the total cost would probably be considerably less than the $17k they are paying presently. I wonder what the artists themselves think... especially if they won't see any of that $17k and the damage is supposedly done to them, when the students are already paying enough to be schooled. I wonder too, how the artists would be viewed as per popularity if they took a stance on the piracy issue. Perhaps they would declare the RIAA itself the pirates for hoarding the better portion of CD sale profits for material that technically belongs to the artists themselves?
Regardless, the credit card companies would get the same amount... (3% of .99) times X number of songs is the same as 3% (.99 times X number of songs). It's more or less a "per charge" amount than a "per amount" charge. In either case it ends up the same.
Most credit card companies charge an average of 3% on transactions, so 3% of .99 = $.0297 per song, times 275,000, that's roughly $8,000. If they pay 65% to record companies, $176,962.5 goes to them. That leaves 32% for Apple, or $87,120. Not too shabby if I say so. That might just cover some of their bandwith bills and hardware investment.
Within the extra thermal junction though, more suface area is presented for the heat to spread out evenly to be transfered into the heatsink. Rather than all heat being pumped into the sink directly from the die, a spreader would evenly distribute the heat throughout the contact area. This is one of the bigger reasons people argue "Intel runs cooler."
Intel's die temperature is not too far off from AMD's in a chip to chip comparison, but because the die is enclosed in a speader, and a beefier heat sink and bigger fan are used, resulting in the appearance of a "cooler running system."
I wouldn't blame the chipsets right away... Most problems as you've described are caused by the motherboard itself. It's a well known fact in the IT world that ECS motherboards are crap, and are oftentimes expected to crash.. i.e. it's an anomoly to have one run stable for more than 3 days. Same deal with Abit, Tiger, and to an extent Asus. The latter manufacturers put more of an emphasis on performance than stability. For the past 3 years I've worked as a system builder and technician for a small company, and have worked with virtualy every motherboard manufacturer on the planet. I've seen a number of very stable motherboards, mainly from MSI, Biostar, DFI, and a few others, with VIA chipsets, and not one of them had any sort of hardware problems, once all drivers are properly installed. I have seen and heard of many issues with SiS chipsets, but VIA is rock solid when integrated properly by a manufacturer.
If I'm not mistake, they affixed a heat spreader to the Opteron. What would stop them from/why wouldn't they slap one on the higher power Athlons? Seems to me that's what keeps the P4's "cooler," along with heatsinks of twice the mass... simple thermodynamic physics.
AMD can take advantage of DDR 400 for synchronous system performance. Expanded front side bus + more work per clock cycle= damn good performance. Great stuff.
So when ISPs are required to release customer information on open p2p connections and their respective users, and the open source community developes a self organizing, encrypted p2p network, using similar encryption technology to that of online purchasing (credit cards, etc) will the RIAA tackle encryption citing the DMCA? I'd like to see that hold up in a court. If all transmissions must be monitored for piracy, and one can not conceal the source of information, does this mean the RIAA and our ISPs have access to our credit card numbers when purchasing from amazon.com? If the same technology used to encrypt private information were applied tp p2p applications, such that the ISPs can't tell the difference between a credit card number and the Dixie Chick's latest hit, what would the RIAA do?
Linux itself is a clone of an operating system that is 20-plus years old. That's what it is. That is what you can get today, a clone of a 20-year-old system. I'm not saying that it doesn't have some place for some customers, but that is not an innovative proposition.
Gee, so 5 years down the road when M$ is integrating open source software to maintain value in the consumer market, I wonder where this guy will be...
That aside, generally don't things get better with age? With more time on the open market, would that not imlpy 20 years of innovation and development? If not, why is it still alive and more popular than ever? Would that explain the relatively small number of security holes and bugs of the 20 year old system, compared to the "modern" Window$ core?
Whoops, guess I underestimated the importance of proofreading yet again...