AMD did have the lead once upon a time. Basically they had processors that ran on PAR with Intel (even thumped them in many benchmarks), but sold cheaper. Then Intel came out with the Core 2 Duo and on a smaller die fab than AMD could muster. AMD has never been able to catch up since. About the ONLY thing that makes AMD even slightly attractive is that currently the Intel spec motherboards are still a bit pricier than AMD's offerings. However that difference has been dropping over time, and AMD hasn't made any noticeable advancements. At the reasonable level (i.e. not the razors edge technology) the difference only really amounts to 20-30$ on the MB. So if your looking at total cost, bump up your cost for your AMD cpu by that much and compare. However at the same time start looking at which technology you want to have as well features available. Anyway if I were to buy a chip today, it would be Intel hands down without a doubt in my mind. AMD would have to offer me a big discount in order to convince me to buy theirs.
My first thoughts also. 240-270$ isn't low cost at all. My last one was 150$ also (though now I am wishing I ponied up the extra 40-50$ bucks). I still wouldn't go north of 200$ before taxes on a CPU.
Which is exactly my point. Only the context is different. I am not saying that words do not change. I am simply saying is that the word "Piracy" in the context of copyright infringement DID NOT enter our vernacular through what you might call Common Usage.
It has become a buzz word, deliberately mentioned by the copyright lobby every. single. chance. it. gets. A reprehensible word with deep long lasting connotation was chosen deliberately to foster opinion based on an emotional response. It is not new, the copyright lobby has been doing it for years, and as a result the word has another meaning. The only difference is was it was forced, purposefully changed, for political reasons, which I do not agree, and as such reject the usage of.
To use your example, it would be like if there was a "Gay" lobby that really wanted to promote a positive image of their group by purposely using a word commonly associated with "Joy". Then repeating it as many times over decades in hopes of fostering that change, and corresponding public opinion.
Now I don't know if that is true or not. I don't know how well organized the Gay's are or if they have the same type of financial backing, but would guess it was more of a common usage thing.
Anyway arguing with you is pointless and I am not going to bother wasting my breath. You'll just refute everything I argue with "childish handwaving". Clearly a superior logical well thought out argument.
However I would like to point out if you want someone to sound like a thief, you might want to call them a thief and not a pirate then. Just sayin'. That's why we have all these wonderful words!
A) It was a joke. B) I bet if I asked some asshole 200 years ago what "Piracy" was, it would not be as you suggest. Too bad I don't own a time machine. C) Gads! Using a dictionary to "define things". How absurd and provincial! I mean the only civilized way to define things is to just arbitrarily make things up to support whatever you are trying to say! D) I don't think me or my ilk are confused as to what the word means only that it is being misused to purpose. E) I find it ironic that you use the term "Newspeak". Did you actually read the book 1984 or understand what it was about? Newspeak is the authority making up words to suit their political purposes, which is EXACTLY what this is. They might as well call it Copyrape or something. In fact you just using that word confused me a bit in that you seemed to agree with me and then go on a rant. F) I sentence you for your transgressions to sail your expensive looking yacht through Somali waters to see what a real pirate is.
Now think of a pirate. What are his motivations? Booty (money), rape, and pillage.
So as long as file sharers are not motivated by raping (Julian Assange doesn't count!) and pillaging then they should finally be off the hook and put to bed that stupid terminology!
I guess "The founder of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, has been arrested by London police on behalf of Swedish authorities on allegation of rape." sounds more juicy than:
"After an arrest warrant was issued for Julian Assange in England, he (likely at the advice from his lawyer) turned himself in."
Sure technically he was arrested, just the little detail that he turned himself in and submitted himself. It wasn't as if the police just found him in a raid or something...
Heck rather than check people at security, they should just issue everyone on board a knife. Go ahead announce your a terrorist at 30,000 feet with no where to run.
I can just see some terrorist saying he has a box cutter so watch out, and then he hears 200 knives being drawn as people get up out of their seats. Enjoy the 51 virgins, you'll be in about as many pieces.
I think I would also gain some satisfaction from knowing that while the plane may go down and we all may die, it won't be before that guy gets his in a most painful way.
The next day the headline will read: "US government confirms with study that torrents steal billions from RIAA and MPAA with the proceeds going directly to terrorism!"
The day after "US invades internet looking for torrents of mass destruction!"
"I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain."
This is just a corollary of humans apparent inability to understand abstract concepts they cannot readily define. Humans define things with boundaries. Heck by the very meaning of "define" it is to explain by limitation, the reduction to the point of understanding. In fact that is why we have arguments that make no sense with absolutes, as while we may have created an abstract concept of absolute values (never, forever, infinity, largest, smallest, etc...) humans have trouble using them logically. This is "why" Good needs Evil. Because these concepts are absolute values we cannot define without boundaries, which are provided by using another absolute value to try and make it make sense.
Cyclic logic and all that. Absolute power cannot pick up an infinitely heavy rock. The universe is expanding, but into what? Nothingness? We are obsessed with encapsulating stuff, we need fences and walls and boundaries. I am not sure if it has to do with how we think, our language or what, or even if we will able to ever overcome it due to how we exist.
US: "Sooo we hear you've been getting off pretty light in the tax department eh Amazon?" Amazon: "Er... yes that's right, thank you..." US: "Be an awful shame should we start trying to enforce some tax law, or perhaps create some new ones wouldn't it?" Amazon: "Yes that would be a shame, hold on a sec I think we have some guy violating our 300 page service agreement in someway our lawyers just found" Amazon: "Wikileaks we regret to inform you that you have violated section 12.4B paragraph 32, page 211 of our EULA, and have terminated our agreement" Wikileaks: "Buggers!" US: Smiles.
You know that's what's great about the universe. Just when you think you know something to some degree of accuracy, and then make up other stuff on those assumptions, we see that we are out by not 0.1% or 1%, or even 10% but 300%.
I doubt anyone really remembers that anymore, and probably most of them never really knew in the first place. The Taliban basically said they would try Bin Laden in their courts. Bush said "Gimmie now or I will invade you and crush you like a bug". Taliban said "take a hike"... and voila!
Slashdot Mirror
It's just a matter of time til some asshole straps it to one of these:
http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/10/10/12/1724211/Robots-Guarding-US-Nuclear-Stockpiles-In-Nevada
and then flips the auto go button to see what happens. Robotic gun turret hitching a ride on a robotic hummer.
Life is going to get real interesting where ever that thing is.
AMD did have the lead once upon a time. Basically they had processors that ran on PAR with Intel (even thumped them in many benchmarks), but sold cheaper. Then Intel came out with the Core 2 Duo and on a smaller die fab than AMD could muster. AMD has never been able to catch up since. About the ONLY thing that makes AMD even slightly attractive is that currently the Intel spec motherboards are still a bit pricier than AMD's offerings. However that difference has been dropping over time, and AMD hasn't made any noticeable advancements. At the reasonable level (i.e. not the razors edge technology) the difference only really amounts to 20-30$ on the MB. So if your looking at total cost, bump up your cost for your AMD cpu by that much and compare. However at the same time start looking at which technology you want to have as well features available. Anyway if I were to buy a chip today, it would be Intel hands down without a doubt in my mind. AMD would have to offer me a big discount in order to convince me to buy theirs.
i7 > 275$
i5 760 quad core can be had for 200$.
i3 150$
So there you go. High end. Mid Range. Low end.
240-270$ isn't exactly low cost. AMD or Intel.
My first thoughts also. 240-270$ isn't low cost at all. My last one was 150$ also (though now I am wishing I ponied up the extra 40-50$ bucks). I still wouldn't go north of 200$ before taxes on a CPU.
"Read"? You must be new here!
Netcraft I need to know!
IDC Era Forecasted To End In 18 Months...
Far more likely.
Which is exactly my point. Only the context is different. I am not saying that words do not change. I am simply saying is that the word "Piracy" in the context of copyright infringement DID NOT enter our vernacular through what you might call Common Usage.
It has become a buzz word, deliberately mentioned by the copyright lobby every. single. chance. it. gets. A reprehensible word with deep long lasting connotation was chosen deliberately to foster opinion based on an emotional response. It is not new, the copyright lobby has been doing it for years, and as a result the word has another meaning. The only difference is was it was forced, purposefully changed, for political reasons, which I do not agree, and as such reject the usage of.
To use your example, it would be like if there was a "Gay" lobby that really wanted to promote a positive image of their group by purposely using a word commonly associated with "Joy". Then repeating it as many times over decades in hopes of fostering that change, and corresponding public opinion.
Now I don't know if that is true or not. I don't know how well organized the Gay's are or if they have the same type of financial backing, but would guess it was more of a common usage thing.
Anyway arguing with you is pointless and I am not going to bother wasting my breath. You'll just refute everything I argue with "childish handwaving". Clearly a superior logical well thought out argument.
However I would like to point out if you want someone to sound like a thief, you might want to call them a thief and not a pirate then. Just sayin'. That's why we have all these wonderful words!
A) It was a joke.
B) I bet if I asked some asshole 200 years ago what "Piracy" was, it would not be as you suggest. Too bad I don't own a time machine.
C) Gads! Using a dictionary to "define things". How absurd and provincial! I mean the only civilized way to define things is to just arbitrarily make things up to support whatever you are trying to say!
D) I don't think me or my ilk are confused as to what the word means only that it is being misused to purpose.
E) I find it ironic that you use the term "Newspeak". Did you actually read the book 1984 or understand what it was about? Newspeak is the authority making up words to suit their political purposes, which is EXACTLY what this is. They might as well call it Copyrape or something. In fact you just using that word confused me a bit in that you seemed to agree with me and then go on a rant.
F) I sentence you for your transgressions to sail your expensive looking yacht through Somali waters to see what a real pirate is.
Money Doesn't Motivate File-sharers.
Now think of a pirate. What are his motivations? Booty (money), rape, and pillage.
So as long as file sharers are not motivated by raping (Julian Assange doesn't count!) and pillaging then they should finally be off the hook and put to bed that stupid terminology!
I guess "The founder of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, has been arrested by London police on behalf of Swedish authorities on allegation of rape." sounds more juicy than:
"After an arrest warrant was issued for Julian Assange in England, he (likely at the advice from his lawyer) turned himself in."
Sure technically he was arrested, just the little detail that he turned himself in and submitted himself. It wasn't as if the police just found him in a raid or something...
Seriously. I don't know much about it, but I thought that the MJ game was a "Dance" game, or that's what the commercials depict.
How the heck do you play a "dance" game on a DS handheld?
Even if that wasn't the case, it still doesn't deserve to be pirated.
That's when you know you really created some useless crap. If people don't even want to copy it for free.
Heck rather than check people at security, they should just issue everyone on board a knife. Go ahead announce your a terrorist at 30,000 feet with no where to run.
I can just see some terrorist saying he has a box cutter so watch out, and then he hears 200 knives being drawn as people get up out of their seats. Enjoy the 51 virgins, you'll be in about as many pieces.
I think I would also gain some satisfaction from knowing that while the plane may go down and we all may die, it won't be before that guy gets his in a most painful way.
I was waiting for some kind of RISK reference.
Shhhhhh!
That's just what we need.
The next day the headline will read: "US government confirms with study that torrents steal billions from RIAA and MPAA with the proceeds going directly to terrorism!"
The day after "US invades internet looking for torrents of mass destruction!"
"I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain."
This is just a corollary of humans apparent inability to understand abstract concepts they cannot readily define. Humans define things with boundaries. Heck by the very meaning of "define" it is to explain by limitation, the reduction to the point of understanding. In fact that is why we have arguments that make no sense with absolutes, as while we may have created an abstract concept of absolute values (never, forever, infinity, largest, smallest, etc...) humans have trouble using them logically. This is "why" Good needs Evil. Because these concepts are absolute values we cannot define without boundaries, which are provided by using another absolute value to try and make it make sense.
Cyclic logic and all that. Absolute power cannot pick up an infinitely heavy rock. The universe is expanding, but into what? Nothingness? We are obsessed with encapsulating stuff, we need fences and walls and boundaries. I am not sure if it has to do with how we think, our language or what, or even if we will able to ever overcome it due to how we exist.
Wikileaks is basically buying legitimacy and moral authority for the cost of sharing the spotlight on headlines.
Considering the flack they have taken it is a very smart move. It also spreads the blame, in an attempt to diffuse the focus on them from the US.
Key is using big News from various countries closely allied with the US and most importantly the New York Times.
The Splice Must Flow!
US: "Sooo we hear you've been getting off pretty light in the tax department eh Amazon?"
Amazon: "Er... yes that's right, thank you..."
US: "Be an awful shame should we start trying to enforce some tax law, or perhaps create some new ones wouldn't it?"
Amazon: "Yes that would be a shame, hold on a sec I think we have some guy violating our 300 page service agreement in someway our lawyers just found"
Amazon: "Wikileaks we regret to inform you that you have violated section 12.4B paragraph 32, page 211 of our EULA, and have terminated our agreement"
Wikileaks: "Buggers!"
US: Smiles.
Considering we bought all their crappy second hand subs, we might as well get an aircraft carrier...
I know what Steven Harper wants under his Christmas tree now!
Too bad he's been a very naughty boy! He will have to make do with coal (ore at least tar sands...)
You know that's what's great about the universe. Just when you think you know something to some degree of accuracy, and then make up other stuff on those assumptions, we see that we are out by not 0.1% or 1%, or even 10% but 300%.
Science: "Whoopsie my bad!"
Will this be as useful, as enforceable, and as successful as the "Do Not Call List"...
If so, I fail to see the point in such a creation.
I doubt anyone really remembers that anymore, and probably most of them never really knew in the first place. The Taliban basically said they would try Bin Laden in their courts. Bush said "Gimmie now or I will invade you and crush you like a bug". Taliban said "take a hike"... and voila!