AMD processors have exactly the same special features.
I'm sure my AMD 386/40 doesn't have all the features of Intels last chip. I don't think it is unreasonable that Intel only considers the features on their own CPU, and considers all other CPUs as a basic implementations.
However this could free AMD to have their CPU report GenuineIntel as it is required for proper interoperability.
The death penalty does not prevent murder, the crime stats don't show reduced murder rates in states with the death penalty. One could argue inherent differences between states causes the murder rates.
Since there is no reduction in crime with the death penalty, the additional cost of executing innocents is unacceptable. If there was no risk, I say kill them, not for any larger social purpose other than I prefer not to have murderers/rapists etc exist. It's not that I want to kill them, it's just that I'd like them to be not alive anymore.
>It may or may not be a deterrant, but it definitely cuts down on repeat offenders.
Because the alternative doesn't?
Correct, too many crimes are committed by released/paroled offenders. I consider a single offence too many, particularly for a murderer, you've been given a second chance you better be thankful and not screw it up.
I am totally for the death penalty, not even just for murder.
Rape, child abuse, drunk driving, kill them all, we don't need those vermin around.
I like the idea of solving a problem for all time, you kill the offender and your risk of reoffending becomes zero.
However I can't support the death penalty today because it is impractical. We can't guarantee we caught and convict the right person, and it's too expensive. In our quest to limit executing the innocent we spend more than simply jailing them forever. For those two reasons I am against implementing it, although in theory it's a good idea.
OJ Simpson got off without a murder conviction because they were simply unable to prove he murdered someone. When there is not enough evidence to convict someone of a crime, they get no punishment. "It's a feature not a bug"
You don't reconsider because of terrorism. If all it takes is a few bombs to get what you want people will do it all the time.
You shouldn't drastically alter behaviour after a terrorist act, it will just encourage more.
That being said, it is ALWAYS time to review and reconsider all actions. The important thing is to make a decision and stand behind it, don't be wishy-washy, don't change because of terrorism, but do be willing to change if you were wrong.
As for actions. I think it was wrong to invade Iraq. It may have been wrong to invade afghanistan.
Now that those governments have been overthrown, the countries that invaded have a responsibility to provide some security until their own government can take over.
To overthrow a government, then leave the country in ruins is not acceptable.
Maybe people aren't buying it because anime isn't worth the money.
Sure I enjoyed it when I was younger, and to be fair some of it is pretty good. I won't even argue that people don't buy it, I know many people who do.
But I don't think the market of people willing to pay for it is large enough. There will likely continue to be a number of smaller importers and grey market imports, for a while.
Of course when Video On Demand takes off a bit more, we'll have international VOD and then we'll have the same stuff available everywhere.
Not quite. The company promoting illegal usage becomes somewhat liable for that illegal usage. The device itself is not illegal.
Think of an amunition supplier who comes up with a new round that has excellent performance. They decide to market Copkiller brand amunition, advertised as designed to kill cops. Not surprisingly they get found partially liable when someone uses their ammunition to kill a cop. As this was the advertised and promoted reason for this product.
They also sell the same stuff branded as Bearstopper ammunition, advertised to stop bears and other large animals. Again someone shoots a cop, under this type of ruling the ammunition company wouldn't be liable for encouraging this behaviour.
This ruling will permit the devices to exist, and specifically targets INTENT of the user and the producer. It is a good decision IMO.
1. Broadband isn't a common carier. 2. Many bands Social distortion for example have put up for free many of their songs. You can go download the bowling for soup video if you want, right from their website.
If something can be done cheaper it is a more efficient use of resources. This allows a given company to produce MORE for less.
Look at cars, computers, air conditioning, microwaves, cell phones. All these things started out as expensive toys for the rich, but through cost reductions have become available to the population at large.
I'm in my 20's and I remember watching people use manual washing machines on their clothes, now most people I know not only have washers and dryers, but dishwashers too.
Why does democracy require a healthy middle class, I know that money is power in the US, but unless I'm mistaken the rich get the same vote that the poor get.
Being in Michigan you are probaly familiar with a certain union that is a little less flexible.
I think you must realize that unions which demand too much are going to run themselves right out of ajob. What things does your union do to ensure it remains flexible and efficient. How do you handle the lazy employees or those that excel? Any hints on how others can help ensure interaction with union workers is productive and beneficial, rather than confrontational?
Canadian universal health care is reflected in the tax rate. After taxes and comperable insurance the resultant net pay is approximately equal, if not slightly higher in the US.
Here our Provincial budgets are half health care spending. Drug/Dental coverage is still paid for by the companies.
I doubt it, they'll just have to adjust to a new business model.
The free + advertising model is only one of them. When done correctly it works, done poorly it doesn't.
Look at the google ads and a newspaper. If you're in the auto section you see car ads, this is potentially useful to the consumer, and better for the advertiser.
So you're saying that only a track or two is worth buying. But if we don't buy all the other crap we don't want we'll destroy music? Isn't the fact that they aren't making products people want to buy kinda their problem?
I think if X can't manufacture a product people want to buy they will go out of business. X can be Musicians Watermelon farmers Software Programmers Pretty much any other job.
They spent $2 billion registering guns, after they said it would cost $2 million and screwed it up so bad the registry is useless.
Then they literally stole millions in cash in their own little friends and family program.
Don't worry, Ontario will re-elect the Liberals again. There is some unnatural fear of the Conservatives that will keep them from cleaning up the mess. At least the NDP won't run the country, I wouldn't want to think of what would happend to our economy if the party that considers debt reduction "throwing away money paying down the debt" was in charge.
At least the Bloc has a semi intelligent Federal platform, namely "Leave us alone"
Slashdot Mirror
AMD processors have exactly the same special features.
I'm sure my AMD 386/40 doesn't have all the features of Intels last chip.
I don't think it is unreasonable that Intel only considers the features on their own CPU, and considers all other CPUs as a basic implementations.
However this could free AMD to have their CPU report GenuineIntel as it is required for proper interoperability.
You're correct IMO.
The death penalty does not prevent murder, the crime stats don't show reduced murder rates in states with the death penalty.
One could argue inherent differences between states causes the murder rates.
Since there is no reduction in crime with the death penalty, the additional cost of executing innocents is unacceptable.
If there was no risk, I say kill them, not for any larger social purpose other than I prefer not to have murderers/rapists etc exist.
It's not that I want to kill them, it's just that I'd like them to be not alive anymore.
If it is their CPU, they use the special features of their product.
If it is a competing product they simply use the most reliable implementation.
Sounds quite reasonable to me, and anything less could get them in trouble.
What if they coded in an AMD feature incorrectly, and didn't happen to notice?
Even in prison they can continue to commit crimes.
Ask a guard if they like the risk of death or exposure to various dieseass, let alone the risk to other inmates.
If there is truely no hope of release, they have nothing to lose.
Life is hard.
Its harder if your stupid.
Let the punishment fit the crime, let them live.
>It may or may not be a deterrant, but it definitely cuts down on repeat offenders.
Because the alternative doesn't?
Correct, too many crimes are committed by released/paroled offenders.
I consider a single offence too many, particularly for a murderer, you've been given a second chance you better be thankful and not screw it up.
I am totally for the death penalty, not even just for murder.
Rape, child abuse, drunk driving, kill them all, we don't need those vermin around.
I like the idea of solving a problem for all time, you kill the offender and your risk of reoffending becomes zero.
However I can't support the death penalty today because it is impractical. We can't guarantee we caught and convict the right person, and it's too expensive. In our quest to limit executing the innocent we spend more than simply jailing them forever.
For those two reasons I am against implementing it, although in theory it's a good idea.
OJ Simpson got off without a murder conviction because they were simply unable to prove he murdered someone.
When there is not enough evidence to convict someone of a crime, they get no punishment.
"It's a feature not a bug"
You don't reconsider because of terrorism.
If all it takes is a few bombs to get what you want people will do it all the time.
You shouldn't drastically alter behaviour after a terrorist act, it will just encourage more.
That being said, it is ALWAYS time to review and reconsider all actions. The important thing is to make a decision and stand behind it, don't be wishy-washy, don't change because of terrorism, but do be willing to change if you were wrong.
As for actions.
I think it was wrong to invade Iraq.
It may have been wrong to invade afghanistan.
Now that those governments have been overthrown, the countries that invaded have a responsibility to provide some security until their own government can take over.
To overthrow a government, then leave the country in ruins is not acceptable.
It was nice to find a rare DVD for $9.99, and have it show up for only $9.99+tax
Which is why I liked shopping at bestbuy.ca, None of those horrible clerks and FREE SHIPPING!
Otherwise I just go to a local shop.
Maybe people aren't buying it because anime isn't worth the money.
Sure I enjoyed it when I was younger, and to be fair some of it is pretty good.
I won't even argue that people don't buy it, I know many people who do.
But I don't think the market of people willing to pay for it is large enough.
There will likely continue to be a number of smaller importers and grey market imports, for a while.
Of course when Video On Demand takes off a bit more, we'll have international VOD and then we'll have the same stuff available everywhere.
Yeah because being a major oil exporter is so unimportant to the rest of the world.
They only produce 1/2 of what Saudi Arabia produces. And 1 1/2 times what Iraq does.
Surely we can neglect countries as insignificant as this.
Not quite.
The company promoting illegal usage becomes somewhat liable for that illegal usage.
The device itself is not illegal.
Think of an amunition supplier who comes up with a new round that has excellent performance.
They decide to market
Copkiller brand amunition, advertised as designed to kill cops. Not surprisingly they get found partially liable when someone uses their ammunition to kill a cop. As this was the advertised and promoted reason for this product.
They also sell the same stuff branded as Bearstopper ammunition, advertised to stop bears and other large animals. Again someone shoots a cop, under this type of ruling the ammunition company wouldn't be liable for encouraging this behaviour.
This ruling will permit the devices to exist, and specifically targets INTENT of the user and the producer. It is a good decision IMO.
1. Broadband isn't a common carier.
2. Many bands Social distortion for example have put up for free many of their songs.
You can go download the bowling for soup video if you want, right from their website.
Now it is clear, it is legal to distribute a device to infringe copyright.
It is not legal to promote the illegal uses of that device.
This seems pretty reasonable to me. You can make the device, you just aren't allowed to actively benefit from its illegal use.
I think you have it a little backwards.
If something can be done cheaper it is a more efficient use of resources. This allows a given company to produce MORE for less.
Look at cars, computers, air conditioning, microwaves, cell phones. All these things started out as expensive toys for the rich, but through cost reductions have become available to the population at large.
I'm in my 20's and I remember watching people use manual washing machines on their clothes, now most people I know not only have washers and dryers, but dishwashers too.
Why does democracy require a healthy middle class, I know that money is power in the US, but unless I'm mistaken the rich get the same vote that the poor get.
Being in Michigan you are probaly familiar with a certain union that is a little less flexible.
I think you must realize that unions which demand too much are going to run themselves right out of ajob.
What things does your union do to ensure it remains flexible and efficient.
How do you handle the lazy employees or those that excel?
Any hints on how others can help ensure interaction with union workers is productive and beneficial, rather than confrontational?
Thanks for explaining the solution to the offshoring "problem".
Really these are just temporary adjustments due to the current market conditions.
Canadian universal health care is reflected in the tax rate.
After taxes and comperable insurance the resultant net pay is approximately equal, if not slightly higher in the US.
Here our Provincial budgets are half health care spending. Drug/Dental coverage is still paid for by the companies.
And most people are cheap, just look at the sucess of Walmart.
Until people are willing to pay more, this is what we'll get.
I just want a USB port, or audio in jack on my car stereo so I can plug my flash mp3 player in.
I doubt it, they'll just have to adjust to a new business model.
The free + advertising model is only one of them. When done correctly it works, done poorly it doesn't.
Look at the google ads and a newspaper. If you're in the auto section you see car ads, this is potentially useful to the consumer, and better for the advertiser.
Art is still a product.
I would buy some CD's and wouldn't by others depending on the value they offer me.
So you're saying that only a track or two is worth buying.
But if we don't buy all the other crap we don't want we'll destroy music?
Isn't the fact that they aren't making products people want to buy kinda their problem?
I think if X can't manufacture a product people want to buy they will go out of business.
X can be
Musicians
Watermelon farmers
Software Programmers
Pretty much any other job.
We can't get rid of the Liberals
They spent $2 billion registering guns, after they said it would cost $2 million and screwed it up so bad the registry is useless.
Then they literally stole millions in cash in their own little friends and family program.
Don't worry, Ontario will re-elect the Liberals again. There is some unnatural fear of the Conservatives that will keep them from cleaning up the mess. At least the NDP won't run the country,
I wouldn't want to think of what would happend to our economy if the party that considers debt reduction "throwing away money paying down the debt" was in charge.
At least the Bloc has a semi intelligent Federal platform, namely "Leave us alone"