Which is also wrong, but enforced that way. The First Amendment makes no distinction between personal, corporate, or commercial speech. "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech." "Shall" does not mean "should," "no" does not mean "some." And saying Commercial speech doesn't deserve the same protection as personal speech under the First Amendment is ludicrous, as you have just admitted that Telemarketing is speech, so therefore no laws shall be made by Congress abridging it. "Congress" is also very specific ("shall consist of a House of Representitives and a Senate"- Article I, Section 1). If you want a Do-Not-Call list, it should be done through the individual States. I'm not saying this isn't how the system works, I'm just saying the system is broken and this is how the law is written.
Of course though, it seems MoBo makers are still only putting three DIMMs on their boards for the Athlon64 (at least from what I've seen), so while the Athlon64 can handle massive ammounts of RAM, it's looking like the only MoBos available for it currently will cap you with 3GB.
Not at all, the question is which inventor's accomplishment actually had an impact on the world. Is Pearse's accomplishment a historical milestone or a historical curiosity, like the Aeolipile?
I'll take that up. Lief Erickson may have been the first European to hit the North American Continent, but it didn't actually change anything as the information that there's a whole other continent out there didn't travel very far, and was eventually lost to the Europeans. When Columbus reached the New World, the news spread around Europe and expeditions weren't sent off and colonies were made. Columbus's "discovery" was also not influence by Erickson's journey, so the fact vikings may have been the first Europeans in the New World is more of a historical curiosity. It's a similar story with the airplane. A few others may have flown before, but the Wright's airplane was constructed independantly of all knowledge of sucessful flights and they were the ones who introduced it to the world. Invention is a bit like starting a lawmower engine. One pull doesn't necessarily mean you'll get the motor going. Hell, the Greek's invented the steam engine before the Roman Empire even existed, but we credit Thomas Savery (and later, James Watt) for inventing it, not Heron of Alexandria, because Savery made it independantly and James Watt took it and changed the world.
Well, he was using spare CDs to make the neutron modulator, whose to say there isn't an illegal copy of a Metallica CD in the reactor? The RIAA should definately subpoena it. It does get hot in there, he could litterally be burning CDs!
Of course, though, everyone is a moderate according to themselves. Rumsfeld is a moderate surrounded by a bunch of left-wingers, just as Howard Dean is a moderate surrounded by a bunch of right-wingers. You can tell who is a conservative and who is a liberal by the bias they percieve. People who see only right-wing bias in the media are liberals, people who see only left-wing bias are conservatives. It's the people who have figured out that there is lots of both left-wing and right-wing bias in the media that have the possibility of actually being moderates.
But an HD-DVD is not a regular DVD, is it. Why is it that the DVD is anti-consumer because its replacement will have unreasonable restrictions placed on it? Does that mean VHS was also anti-consumer because of its replacement's replacement?
Let's see; The movie industry is giving me movies in a format that I have confidence in that they won't degrade any time soon at an affordable (sometimes dirt cheap) price with loads of extra material that wasn't in the theaters (a good percent of which is actually worth my time to enjoy). All of the discs can play on devices from my four year old DVD-ROM drive to the latest progressive scan player from Panasonic without a hitch. Yeah, that sure fits the definition of anti-consumer.
Also, you're underestimating the revenue DVDs bring in. It gets more and more significant each passing year and many movies that flopped at the box office have nearly redeemed themselves on DVD.
As for the anti-priacy ads, I thought those were supposed to be for comic relief! And here I was rudely chuckling with many of my fellow movie goers...
I don't think he meant "conquered" in quite that way. When the concept of MAD was still frighteningly real and only a political mis-step away, SciFi writers always had a means where the status quo could be swepped asside and their idealistic view become reality. References to WWIII abounded in SciFi, normally taking the role as the bop on the head humanity needed in order to start seeing it from the author's point of view, and thus they could write about their future. Now, we look around and we feel stuck, so what's the point in writing about the future if we can only see more of the same coming down the pipe?
Oh, the US did conquer Syria and it's now a happy democracy overflowing with good will twoards the US. It's just that the liberal media refuses to report it;D
I'm not arguing for speed, but reliability in this case. You don't want your video card booting you out of Maya or locking up your system because it can't begin to handel the textures or polycount (DCC and CAD certifications do exist for a reason). Right now, the Quadro FX 3000 IS only for those people for whom price is no object. The Quadro FX 1000, at around $850, or the Quadro FX 500, at $400, are practicle buys. I'd like to think when an FX 4000 is released the FX 2000 will become practicle as well.
I didn't say they had to do with rendering, but if you're trying to set up a scene with lots and lots of actors and then, heaven forbid, you do an OpenGL or even a wireframe fly through of it to preview it (which you do quite often in DCC) then you will run into a scinereo where a gaming card can crap out. What, you think the designers just set up the keyframes and then let it render for the next several hours (or days) tying up all their system's resources and hope it comes out right?
Oh, and with hardware rendering in Maya, graphics cards are now able to have SIGNIFICANT impact on actual rendering.
And you are, in fact, correct, this is not a Mac vs. PC issue (but you specified "Mac" which is just asking for it here). Anyone in digital video editing needs as much power and resources as they can get their hands on, Mac or PC, especially since HD came along and screwed everything up again.
One word: Reliability. Professional workstation cards are orders of magnitudes less likely to crash on any demanding application that is being stressed out. You can "get by" with a gaming card if you're on a tight budget and aren't rendering scenes for the next Star Wars movie (although a gaming card was probably used in the first episode from the looks of it)
Thank you, Mr. IAAL, for participating in hijacking our government. Show me where in the Fourth Amendment it limits the rights granted to protection against state actors. Please, quote the line from the Constitution. Show me where in the Constitution it limits rights granted to commercial speech. Where's the distinction made?
Article I of the Constitution grants Congress the power to create ALL LAWS. If the judicial branch is making laws, that means Congress isn't making ALL LAWS. Show me where in the Constitution the courts have the authority to toss out a law? All cases UNDER the law, not OVER, is their jurisdiction.
Yes, you are a lawyer, I know, but I reject your basic premise that courts have the authority they have seized as it does not exist in the Constitution as it is written.
Interestingly enough, the bulk of our technology is devoted to making it unnecessary for us to have to kill them all. Sure, a reliable cruise missile is an very potent instrument of death on what it hits, but the beauty (if I may use that term) in the cruise missile is it doesn't require you to level a city in order to destroy a bunker. It'd probably even be cheaper to drop thousands of dumb gravity bombs over a city than use smart bombs to destroy every single target.
Seems there would be a lot of practicle uses for electromagnetic scattering, computer aided design, fly-by-wire controls, and who knows, perhaps even tail-less aircraft in the civilian sector. The B-2, as a finished product, certainly doesn't have civilian applications, but the technology and processes developed to build it (and its sister craft, the F1-117A) certainly does.
I for one would like to not have a military, but then we're left with the problem of gaining a reliable ally that has a very strong one.
The Constitution does grant you the right to prevent people from tatooing on your head. It's called the Fourth Amendment. Of course though, let's hope the courts don't take their second amendment rulings to heart, that the phrase "the right of the people" does not grant individual rights, as that phrase is used to establish just about every single right in the Constitution. Interpritation is one thing, but often it isn't interpritation, it is re-writing the law. Someone said that the courts have ruled commercial speech isn't protected under the First Amendment. How can it not be if it is commercial SPEECH. Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion has become Government shall make no statement regarding the establishment of religion. Why? Apparently because when the drafters of the First Amendment choose a word that was clearly defined in Article I, Section I, they didn't know what they were doing. I propose liberally interpriting the Constitution so that when it says a Representitive has four years in office, it also applies to Supreme Court judges. When it says a President can only serve two terms in office, it also applies to judges. Same logic as the court ruling the word Congress = Government, and by your argument, the courts should not be able to interpret laws differently each and everytime, so I must have a strong case there.
The whole deal with these VERY VERY VERY liberal (not political affiliation) interpritations of the law ASSURES that we will never know if we have a strong case or not without hiring the most expensive attornies out there. The courts power was indeed constrained under the Constitution. Article I grants Congress the SOLE power to create law, yet the Supreme Court has been drafting law recently, such as in the Sodomy case where it sourced neither the Constitution nor Federal law, but European case law. That's patently unconstitutional. The courts do not have this power because it is not good for an unelected group of nine partisan people to grant and deny rights as they see fit.
As the Supreme Court demonstrates time and again, forcing the courts to deal with each case on an individual basis is not a flaw, it is a safety valve, as the alternative does not work because there is no such thing as a law that can't be misinterpreted.
there are already several legal precedents where a judge has decided that commercial speach is NOT the speach being nprotected by the constitution.
That would mean something if the courts had the authority to do that. Read Articles I and III of the Constitution please.
your right to free speach does not extend into forcing your free speach down my throat
To bad that wasn't an issue in the case. A customer who recieved the ads was not a part of the proceedings. But, as I stated before, this is where your Fourth Amendment rights come in. Unfortunately again, the courts have (illegally, I might add) decided that Fourth Amendment protections only protect against government searches and seizures, despite the fact that the word "government" doesn't appear.
Time, place and manner restrictions (yelling fire in a crowded theater) have been exempt for quite a while now, provided that there are other avenues for the speech in question.
Ah, yes, how could I forget the time, place and manner exemption in the First Amendment... oh wait... there isn't one. It was the courts seeing something to be annoying, and so AMENDING the Constitution to allow it. The interesting thing is there's a process to amend the Constitution and the courts do not appear anywhere in it. Under Articles I and Articles III of the Constitution, the Courts don't have authority over laws, only cases under the law. (So "Case Law" and "Common Law" are not laws because they were not made by Congress and court rulings cannot be based on them)
If this was the individual States placing restrictions on speech, that's fine, but the First Amendment is clear that the Federal government cannot create laws governing speech.
No, you do not have the Constitutional RIGHT to say anything. Nowhere in the First Amendment is speech called a "right", only that Congress shall make no law infringing upon it. The Contitution does not discriminate between speech coming from an individual or a buisness nor the medium it is transmitted, it is simply called "freedom of speech," so nothing has been subverted as you are claiming.
There are many regulations governing advertisement here as well on the Federal level, however, they are all unconstitutional. Regulation of speech is left to each individual State for the reasons you outline in your last paragraph, however, the courts (which actually have no authority in the matter) have been either amending or ignoring the text of the First Amendment so much that it makes consistant, enforceable law all but impossible. While I like to argue from the Constitution, I must admit that, in the US, it is functionally dead and that the people here have only the rights the courts wish to grant them. This will only change when enough people become outraged by it, but the situation has been neatly constructed so as if we were to take back our laws we would lose convienient (not necessary) rights, and the average US citizen likes nothing more than convienience.
I hope I never see you complaining about infringements on free speech. This is a federal judge, as such he is subject only to the US Constitution and federal law (so no State issues unless they conflict). Under Article I and Article III of the US Constitution, the judge has no authority to create law. Under the First Amendment, Congress shall make no law infringing on the freedom of speech. Spam, like it or not, is speech. So Congress can't outlaw it because it's annoying speech, and the judge has no authority to create laws because he doesn't like something. So, it seems on the basis the case was argued (of course, there were few details given) nothing should have come from it.
Since it wasn't the consumer who brought the lawsuit, whose bandwidth and screen realestate is being used to display the ad, there can be no charge of tresspassing, which is the one way under the Constitution that such spam can be stopped. The Fourth Amendment's garuntee that the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures should prove effective at stopping such practices (it does not limit this right to be secure against unreasonable government searches and seizures). But unfortunately, this was not an issue in the case due to the parties involved. If a consumer brought the case and argued the Fourth Amendment and laws based upon it and THEN the judge threw out the case, I would agree with you. As it is, this case was a speech issue, something the Federal Court did, in fact, have no authority over, and so rightfully the case was dismissed.
Re:64-benchmarks wont be good
on
AMD64 Preview
·
· Score: 1
Well, I only looked at workstation performance, where AMD64 did not "own" it just performed, on average, better than the P4. Considering I don't see 64bit aps that really need 64bit processing which the majority of people (including a great deal of power users) will use coming out in the next couple years, the 64bit performance of the AMD64 (and perhaps even the G5) may well be just a footnote to anyone not building a hundred+ processor supercomputer for a good long while. I'm going to wait for Prescott, see which is the better 32bit performer for the dollar, and then go with that. Then, a year or two later when it's time to upgrade my processor and mobo, I'll see what the state of 64bit is before I take 64bit performance into consideration.
I'm just looking at this from the perspective of a video editor. If you're a gamer, from the looks of it, rock on Opteron!
Slashdot Mirror
Which is also wrong, but enforced that way. The First Amendment makes no distinction between personal, corporate, or commercial speech. "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech." "Shall" does not mean "should," "no" does not mean "some." And saying Commercial speech doesn't deserve the same protection as personal speech under the First Amendment is ludicrous, as you have just admitted that Telemarketing is speech, so therefore no laws shall be made by Congress abridging it. "Congress" is also very specific ("shall consist of a House of Representitives and a Senate"- Article I, Section 1). If you want a Do-Not-Call list, it should be done through the individual States. I'm not saying this isn't how the system works, I'm just saying the system is broken and this is how the law is written.
Of course though, it seems MoBo makers are still only putting three DIMMs on their boards for the Athlon64 (at least from what I've seen), so while the Athlon64 can handle massive ammounts of RAM, it's looking like the only MoBos available for it currently will cap you with 3GB.
Note, this does not apply to Opteron MoBos.
Not at all, the question is which inventor's accomplishment actually had an impact on the world. Is Pearse's accomplishment a historical milestone or a historical curiosity, like the Aeolipile?
I'll take that up. Lief Erickson may have been the first European to hit the North American Continent, but it didn't actually change anything as the information that there's a whole other continent out there didn't travel very far, and was eventually lost to the Europeans. When Columbus reached the New World, the news spread around Europe and expeditions weren't sent off and colonies were made. Columbus's "discovery" was also not influence by Erickson's journey, so the fact vikings may have been the first Europeans in the New World is more of a historical curiosity. It's a similar story with the airplane. A few others may have flown before, but the Wright's airplane was constructed independantly of all knowledge of sucessful flights and they were the ones who introduced it to the world. Invention is a bit like starting a lawmower engine. One pull doesn't necessarily mean you'll get the motor going. Hell, the Greek's invented the steam engine before the Roman Empire even existed, but we credit Thomas Savery (and later, James Watt) for inventing it, not Heron of Alexandria, because Savery made it independantly and James Watt took it and changed the world.
Next case mod project; merging your case with an air filter from Sharper Image. While you're at it, embed a massive Vornado fan into the side panel.
Well, he was using spare CDs to make the neutron modulator, whose to say there isn't an illegal copy of a Metallica CD in the reactor? The RIAA should definately subpoena it. It does get hot in there, he could litterally be burning CDs!
Happy now?
Of course, though, everyone is a moderate according to themselves. Rumsfeld is a moderate surrounded by a bunch of left-wingers, just as Howard Dean is a moderate surrounded by a bunch of right-wingers. You can tell who is a conservative and who is a liberal by the bias they percieve. People who see only right-wing bias in the media are liberals, people who see only left-wing bias are conservatives. It's the people who have figured out that there is lots of both left-wing and right-wing bias in the media that have the possibility of actually being moderates.
Divx was also the brainchild of Circuit City, not the MPAA.
But an HD-DVD is not a regular DVD, is it. Why is it that the DVD is anti-consumer because its replacement will have unreasonable restrictions placed on it? Does that mean VHS was also anti-consumer because of its replacement's replacement?
Let's see; The movie industry is giving me movies in a format that I have confidence in that they won't degrade any time soon at an affordable (sometimes dirt cheap) price with loads of extra material that wasn't in the theaters (a good percent of which is actually worth my time to enjoy). All of the discs can play on devices from my four year old DVD-ROM drive to the latest progressive scan player from Panasonic without a hitch. Yeah, that sure fits the definition of anti-consumer.
Also, you're underestimating the revenue DVDs bring in. It gets more and more significant each passing year and many movies that flopped at the box office have nearly redeemed themselves on DVD.
As for the anti-priacy ads, I thought those were supposed to be for comic relief! And here I was rudely chuckling with many of my fellow movie goers...
I don't think he meant "conquered" in quite that way. When the concept of MAD was still frighteningly real and only a political mis-step away, SciFi writers always had a means where the status quo could be swepped asside and their idealistic view become reality. References to WWIII abounded in SciFi, normally taking the role as the bop on the head humanity needed in order to start seeing it from the author's point of view, and thus they could write about their future. Now, we look around and we feel stuck, so what's the point in writing about the future if we can only see more of the same coming down the pipe?
;D
Oh, the US did conquer Syria and it's now a happy democracy overflowing with good will twoards the US. It's just that the liberal media refuses to report it
Gotta love the MX700, the best mouse I've ever come across. Why haven't more manufacturers started including charging cradles?
I'm not arguing for speed, but reliability in this case. You don't want your video card booting you out of Maya or locking up your system because it can't begin to handel the textures or polycount (DCC and CAD certifications do exist for a reason). Right now, the Quadro FX 3000 IS only for those people for whom price is no object. The Quadro FX 1000, at around $850, or the Quadro FX 500, at $400, are practicle buys. I'd like to think when an FX 4000 is released the FX 2000 will become practicle as well.
I didn't say they had to do with rendering, but if you're trying to set up a scene with lots and lots of actors and then, heaven forbid, you do an OpenGL or even a wireframe fly through of it to preview it (which you do quite often in DCC) then you will run into a scinereo where a gaming card can crap out. What, you think the designers just set up the keyframes and then let it render for the next several hours (or days) tying up all their system's resources and hope it comes out right?
Oh, and with hardware rendering in Maya, graphics cards are now able to have SIGNIFICANT impact on actual rendering.
And you are, in fact, correct, this is not a Mac vs. PC issue (but you specified "Mac" which is just asking for it here). Anyone in digital video editing needs as much power and resources as they can get their hands on, Mac or PC, especially since HD came along and screwed everything up again.
One word: Reliability. Professional workstation cards are orders of magnitudes less likely to crash on any demanding application that is being stressed out. You can "get by" with a gaming card if you're on a tight budget and aren't rendering scenes for the next Star Wars movie (although a gaming card was probably used in the first episode from the looks of it)
Thank you, Mr. IAAL, for participating in hijacking our government. Show me where in the Fourth Amendment it limits the rights granted to protection against state actors. Please, quote the line from the Constitution. Show me where in the Constitution it limits rights granted to commercial speech. Where's the distinction made? Article I of the Constitution grants Congress the power to create ALL LAWS. If the judicial branch is making laws, that means Congress isn't making ALL LAWS. Show me where in the Constitution the courts have the authority to toss out a law? All cases UNDER the law, not OVER, is their jurisdiction. Yes, you are a lawyer, I know, but I reject your basic premise that courts have the authority they have seized as it does not exist in the Constitution as it is written.
Interestingly enough, the bulk of our technology is devoted to making it unnecessary for us to have to kill them all. Sure, a reliable cruise missile is an very potent instrument of death on what it hits, but the beauty (if I may use that term) in the cruise missile is it doesn't require you to level a city in order to destroy a bunker. It'd probably even be cheaper to drop thousands of dumb gravity bombs over a city than use smart bombs to destroy every single target.
Seems there would be a lot of practicle uses for electromagnetic scattering, computer aided design, fly-by-wire controls, and who knows, perhaps even tail-less aircraft in the civilian sector. The B-2, as a finished product, certainly doesn't have civilian applications, but the technology and processes developed to build it (and its sister craft, the F1-117A) certainly does.
I for one would like to not have a military, but then we're left with the problem of gaining a reliable ally that has a very strong one.
The Constitution does grant you the right to prevent people from tatooing on your head. It's called the Fourth Amendment. Of course though, let's hope the courts don't take their second amendment rulings to heart, that the phrase "the right of the people" does not grant individual rights, as that phrase is used to establish just about every single right in the Constitution. Interpritation is one thing, but often it isn't interpritation, it is re-writing the law. Someone said that the courts have ruled commercial speech isn't protected under the First Amendment. How can it not be if it is commercial SPEECH. Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion has become Government shall make no statement regarding the establishment of religion. Why? Apparently because when the drafters of the First Amendment choose a word that was clearly defined in Article I, Section I, they didn't know what they were doing. I propose liberally interpriting the Constitution so that when it says a Representitive has four years in office, it also applies to Supreme Court judges. When it says a President can only serve two terms in office, it also applies to judges. Same logic as the court ruling the word Congress = Government, and by your argument, the courts should not be able to interpret laws differently each and everytime, so I must have a strong case there.
The whole deal with these VERY VERY VERY liberal (not political affiliation) interpritations of the law ASSURES that we will never know if we have a strong case or not without hiring the most expensive attornies out there. The courts power was indeed constrained under the Constitution. Article I grants Congress the SOLE power to create law, yet the Supreme Court has been drafting law recently, such as in the Sodomy case where it sourced neither the Constitution nor Federal law, but European case law. That's patently unconstitutional. The courts do not have this power because it is not good for an unelected group of nine partisan people to grant and deny rights as they see fit.
As the Supreme Court demonstrates time and again, forcing the courts to deal with each case on an individual basis is not a flaw, it is a safety valve, as the alternative does not work because there is no such thing as a law that can't be misinterpreted.
there are already several legal precedents where a judge has decided that commercial speach is NOT the speach being nprotected by the constitution.
That would mean something if the courts had the authority to do that. Read Articles I and III of the Constitution please.
your right to free speach does not extend into forcing your free speach down my throat
To bad that wasn't an issue in the case. A customer who recieved the ads was not a part of the proceedings. But, as I stated before, this is where your Fourth Amendment rights come in. Unfortunately again, the courts have (illegally, I might add) decided that Fourth Amendment protections only protect against government searches and seizures, despite the fact that the word "government" doesn't appear.
Time, place and manner restrictions (yelling fire in a crowded theater) have been exempt for quite a while now, provided that there are other avenues for the speech in question.
Ah, yes, how could I forget the time, place and manner exemption in the First Amendment... oh wait... there isn't one. It was the courts seeing something to be annoying, and so AMENDING the Constitution to allow it. The interesting thing is there's a process to amend the Constitution and the courts do not appear anywhere in it. Under Articles I and Articles III of the Constitution, the Courts don't have authority over laws, only cases under the law. (So "Case Law" and "Common Law" are not laws because they were not made by Congress and court rulings cannot be based on them)
If this was the individual States placing restrictions on speech, that's fine, but the First Amendment is clear that the Federal government cannot create laws governing speech.
No, you do not have the Constitutional RIGHT to say anything. Nowhere in the First Amendment is speech called a "right", only that Congress shall make no law infringing upon it. The Contitution does not discriminate between speech coming from an individual or a buisness nor the medium it is transmitted, it is simply called "freedom of speech," so nothing has been subverted as you are claiming.
There are many regulations governing advertisement here as well on the Federal level, however, they are all unconstitutional. Regulation of speech is left to each individual State for the reasons you outline in your last paragraph, however, the courts (which actually have no authority in the matter) have been either amending or ignoring the text of the First Amendment so much that it makes consistant, enforceable law all but impossible. While I like to argue from the Constitution, I must admit that, in the US, it is functionally dead and that the people here have only the rights the courts wish to grant them. This will only change when enough people become outraged by it, but the situation has been neatly constructed so as if we were to take back our laws we would lose convienient (not necessary) rights, and the average US citizen likes nothing more than convienience.
I hope I never see you complaining about infringements on free speech. This is a federal judge, as such he is subject only to the US Constitution and federal law (so no State issues unless they conflict). Under Article I and Article III of the US Constitution, the judge has no authority to create law. Under the First Amendment, Congress shall make no law infringing on the freedom of speech. Spam, like it or not, is speech. So Congress can't outlaw it because it's annoying speech, and the judge has no authority to create laws because he doesn't like something. So, it seems on the basis the case was argued (of course, there were few details given) nothing should have come from it. Since it wasn't the consumer who brought the lawsuit, whose bandwidth and screen realestate is being used to display the ad, there can be no charge of tresspassing, which is the one way under the Constitution that such spam can be stopped. The Fourth Amendment's garuntee that the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures should prove effective at stopping such practices (it does not limit this right to be secure against unreasonable government searches and seizures). But unfortunately, this was not an issue in the case due to the parties involved. If a consumer brought the case and argued the Fourth Amendment and laws based upon it and THEN the judge threw out the case, I would agree with you. As it is, this case was a speech issue, something the Federal Court did, in fact, have no authority over, and so rightfully the case was dismissed.
Well, I only looked at workstation performance, where AMD64 did not "own" it just performed, on average, better than the P4. Considering I don't see 64bit aps that really need 64bit processing which the majority of people (including a great deal of power users) will use coming out in the next couple years, the 64bit performance of the AMD64 (and perhaps even the G5) may well be just a footnote to anyone not building a hundred+ processor supercomputer for a good long while. I'm going to wait for Prescott, see which is the better 32bit performer for the dollar, and then go with that. Then, a year or two later when it's time to upgrade my processor and mobo, I'll see what the state of 64bit is before I take 64bit performance into consideration.
I'm just looking at this from the perspective of a video editor. If you're a gamer, from the looks of it, rock on Opteron!