X6 CPUs don't really deliver compared to i5, except in uses where you can really blast out all the cores, like vid encoding with certain programs.
If you're not "blasting out all the cores" then you're not shopping for Phenoms or i5s anyway; you're shopping for Atoms or Semprons, or maybe Athlon IIs or i3s.
What a dumb thing to say: "the Phenom X6 doesn't compete with the i5 because the Phenom is more powerful than what you need." I think it's doubly-ironic to make that kind of argument in favor of the guys who actually have hyperthreading, something my AMD e-peen misses.
He searched on the name, shed collisions and obvious myths; the Friends of Privacy piled the lies so deep that sometimes it was hard to find the truth.
people seem to always associate "concentrate on profit" with "being a dick"...the two are not mutually exclusive.
They're not, but Google is an example of a company (I'm not trying to bash Google here; this applies to much of the web, pretty much anything other than shopping sites) where customers and users aren't the same thing. They actually could be a dick to 99% of the population and cause great suffering, as long as it doesn't alienate their customers (advertisers).
Obviously if Google is annoying enough, users will leave and their ad revenue will decline. But all the time we see ways that we'd think would annoy users, but which users end up tolerating (ads on cable TV, Google scanning gmail boxes for ad keywords). You might even say that what this document is about, is Google further exploring ways they can serve their customers at the expense of users' interests.
The situation we have now is a victory for the criminals, and no-one else. If the law gives the scum who steal a right to life, the law itself is wrong.
Maybe people who didn't steal anything, were getting shot. "I shot him and then took my wallet back off his corpse." The guy who got shot can't present his side of the story. How is anyone to know who the victim was and who the criminal was?
If it's ok to kill criminals, then it makes a lot of sense for you (who doesn't intend to be a criminal) to wonder when you'll be labeled a criminal. Selfishly, the best thing for innocent people to do, is band together and try to outlaw tactical killing (or anything else which reduced the number of potential witnesses).
I don't see why this is a big deal, though. If you bid $50.00 and it sells to someone else for $50.01, all that happened is that you failed to buy something. For you, that's a neutral outcome, not a bad one. The sniper bought the item they wanted and the seller got a fair price. Everyone either won or broke even. No harm happened to anyone. What's the problem?
Many people like gadgets... Being elitist or being a sheep has nothing to do with it.
Yes, liking gadgets isn't elitist or sheepish. It's the liking of a particular gadget where the distinction shows itself. A gadget that works for you: you're a leader. A gadget that works for them: you're a follower. That's the point I was trying to make.
The ankle bracelet that criminals wear to monitor whether or not they're complying with house arrest is a gadget too, but wearing one doesn't make you a "selfish elite."
You damn well know the only reason someone would modify a computer to get it to do what they want, is so they can play pirated games. And if they're telling people what they did, isn't that contributory infringement?
There's also the DMCA aspects. Requiring the hand-controller dongle in order to work, is a technological measure that limits access to the game, which this dude is circumventing.
Ok, do that. But also vote against the Republicans and Democrats. Getting it repealed should never be taken off the table, and anyone who runs for Congress without that on their agenda, needs to be told that they're running on the "fuck the public" platform.
But what about when Sony claims we only bought a license to view their movie?
Not trying to be a smartass with the "citation needed" here, but actually want it. Does anyone have any recent (less than 10 years old) statements from movie or music publishers where they've asserted that they sell licenses rather than copies of the movies? All I know of is the Blizzard case (but that's games, not movies).
As others have mentioned, the movie people are advertising with "own it now," and it would be pretty funny (in a Daily Show kind of way) to catch their left hand (sales dept) and right hand (legal dept) blatantly contradicting each other.
The irony is that the Cocoa devices are based on the idea that from a owner's point of view, "They[Apple] know what's best," rather than "I know what's best." You would think selfish elites would be, well, too selfish to surrender their egos and walk through a corral like cattle, and would go for something that maximizes decision-making and self-determination instead. The iPad is all about submission, not selfishness. Selfish Elites, of all people, are the ones who are most likely to give up on themselves and get down on their bellies before the pack leader?!
We all see the slack-jawed staring-eyed zombie horde out there and learn to accept its robotic obedience to some arbitrary undeserved authority. It's just one of those sad facts of life, and you either learn to live with it or you go crazy. Fair enough. But we never call the zombies elite! That the process happens: Yes. That the process is an ideal to strive for? FUCK NO! What a weird concept. Yet maybe selfish-elite vs submission are orthogonal concepts rather than opposites. What if it's true?
Is the lesson here that servitude, rather than the burden of power, is the ultimate luxury which we all want? Is the happiness of a humble slave the goal which we all seek, and upon achieving it, we become elite? If that's true, then it's selfish to become so selfless, so at least that part starts to make sense. It's so.. Zen.
I could totally go off on a rant about how people vote in politics ("government, please solve the problem because we the people are too overwhelmed") to support that idea, but it's just too depressing.
Anyway, my guess is that the survey is just totally wrong, and they'll find that the iPad owners are just what you expect. Nevertheless, the 'iPad owners are selfish elite' idea is a fun one to think about, if only to mock with self-indulgent cynicism.
Well hang on...why wouldn't the walled garden work for desktop applications? Users do not seem to mind it for the iPad,
Because deep down, those users are telling themselves, "It's ok that this thing sucks, it's just a mobile, it's 'not a personal computer' and I still have my personal computer for whenever I need more power and flexibility."
IMO care for the elderly is one of the biggest clusterf*cks in UK society today.
This makes me wonder what has gone so differently between US and UK democracy. In UK, don't old people vote (and in large numbers compared to younger people)? In US politics, the elderly's entitlements are practically untouchable.
Do you really think the Chinese would hesitate for a moment if the American military vanished over night?
I'm not going to deny the need for a military force, but let's follow through with your thought. China wouldn't hesitate to do what? Let's go ahead and look at just what our fears are, then compare those things to the Constitutional rationale for the military.
Because if you're gonna say, "they wouldn't hesitate to invade Taiwan," then you're going to have to do a lot of research to determine when Taiwan became the 51st state or find a good reason why we should have a treaty with them such that Taiwanese interests are strong enough that American people should be willing to die.
If you're going to say, "they wouldn't hesitate to invade the west coast of America," then I'll agree we do need a military for that contingency, but that it's not going to cost a whole lot to keep a force around that is more than capable of handling that job.
I think a good defense budget would need to cover a preposterous Canada+Mexico axis alliance, and then maybe sanity-check it against France's budget.
mining companies pump bulk cash into economies and employ 10,000's of people
Employing people is irrelevant. What those people really need is ownership the mines, i.e. equity. If they happen to work there too, fine (everyone has to spend their day somehow), but working for The Man isn't the road to prosperity. Real life isn't Star Trek, where dilithium miners are so rich that they can buy Mudd's women.
If the Afghans know what's good for them, they will be the corporations. Subcontract out to "experienced" western specialists if they want, but they should be making dividends (not paychecks) from chopping the tops off of their mountains.
I think it's pretty sad that some people are talking about all the employment, taxes, supporting the populations of miners -- all the parasites and costs of production, which ingenuity and technology hope to some day eliminate -- being Afghanistan's payoff. It's exactly wrong. If a few of them can make a few extra pennies off of the waste of industry, that's ok, but their main focus ought to Be The Man.
You'll know that Afghanistan is doing things right, when instead of being happy about mining jobs, Afghan citizens are instead bitching about the miners union, or even better, raving like a paranoid Slashdot-loon about Chinese backdoors in the miner-bots' software. That is what Afghanistan really needs. The only trick (and this is colossal understatement) is making sure that it's all of their citizens who are doing this bitching, not just a few lords.
Unfortunately, I have to agree. Not only has the communication become parodically terse, but it has also become imperative to answer as quickly as possible. If you actually re-read what you wrote, take time to correct errors, and perhaps add a new point or two, i.e. spend some time on improving your post, it won't be seen by many if any.
And I hate to say it, but I think slashdot has played its part in steering posting fora towardes this decline. Slashdot has also done some things to try to stem it, like the grading of both articles and posts, but it's an afterthought that doesn't solve the problem, but created karma whores instead.
The moderators too are unlikely to see good posts deep into a thread that isn't on the front page, no matter how good they are. So they never get moderated up to the point where others see them either.
It's the likes of Mozille, Xiph and the FSF that are putting the breaks on HTML5, to the great benefit of Adobe's Flash... Others have offered their support for HTML5 with H.264 video, and without the attempts to frustrate it's use, it would be a widely accepted standard by now.
Emphasis mine. Uh, was that a typo? You probably meant to say "US Congress" because it sure as hell isn't Mozilla, Xiph, or FSF who insists that nobody in US is allowed to implement H.264 without first asking for permission. That's the nature of patent law, and in US, Congress is who is responsible for that.
The FSF prefers to be anti-pragmatic
Software patents are anti-pragmatic, and again, that's not FSF's fault. You've got one of the most powerful governments in the world telling programmers what they're allowed and not allowed to implement. That's an outrage, especially in the so-called "land of the free," so maybe focus your anger where's it's deserved.
So the space program not only killed seven people, but needlessly killed seven people.
I bet seven people died in the last 24 hours driving to 7-11 for a munchie run. It sucks that those astronauts died, but at least they consented to a risky career. Taxpayer consent, on the other hand, is a lot more indirect, if it exists at all.
Or lets take the Hubble repair missions. A repair mission on the Hubble costs a billion dollars plus. It would be cheaper just to strap a new telescope on a rocket and just launch a replacement instead!
Hear hear! People are right when they say robots aren't as good at repair missions as people are. But when you scrap life-support systems and assorted safety stuff, you've got so much money left over that you can build redundant equipment. Gimme ten Hubbles and when a couple of 'em break, you're not gonna hear me crying.
It's all about efficiency.
There was a time when I bought "good" hard disks. It made sense. (Sort of. In theory it did, anyway.) Then something happened with capacity and price, and using RAID1ed cheap shitty disks started to make more sense. You gotta go with the flow that the tech/economics gives you.
The gap between what is possible with automation versus what is possible with people, is really only moving in one direction. People may still be able to argue about which one is better right now, but there's no argument at all when we look at the overall trend and what the future holds. When the genetic engineers come up with Human 2.0 who doesn't need oxygen, perhaps there will be a serious debate again.
You've already drank their koolaide. For piracy to convince them of anything (whether mistakenly or correctly), piracy would have to have a yoctonewton impact, to be even faintly detectable enough that it could convince them of anything.
Piracy is invisible. It is exerts the exact same market pressure as not buying, because that's what it is. If it's not invisible, then something more than just piracy is going on.
That's how you know, when publishers deploy DRM or other measures against piracy (instead of deploying measures to increase sales), they're not thinking like businessmen. It all comes down to sales, and piracy isn't a factor in sales. But DRM is a factor, and it's not a positive one.
Don't worry about what they're being convinced of, because it's all bullshit. Buy the stuff you like; vote for good things with your wallet. As for the rest, it doesn't matter what you do, whether it's pirate or totally abstain. There does not exist any mechanism to vote against something with your wallet. You're either voting for, or abstaining.
Considering the distribution we're talking about (it's not Gentoo), you just said the equivalent of "If you're running a desktop personal computer, I suspect you have the necessary knowledge and skills..."
Bush Sr., the guy who asked for CALEA? Bush Sr., the guy who defended our country after Iraq invaded us, oops I mean, took us to war for Kuwaiti interests?
Clinton, the guy who signed CALEA? Clinton, they guy who signed DMCA?! Clinton, the guy who signed eternal-copyright extension?
Those aren't good presidents. Every president ends up making us long for the previous guy, and always to our amazement, i.e. "I can't believe I miss whatsisface, because I hated him," but that doesn't mean whatsisface was a good president. Every 4 years, we lower our standards so that we can vote for one of the Republicrat candidates without feeling too ashamed about it.
Of all the states, you picked California?! (The only worse examples you could have picked, would have been Alaska or Hawaii.) California happens to be a particularly geographically large state. Sure, lots of people make interstate road trips, but overall (this is a generalization, but it's a damn true one), the people who pay the price for bad Californian drivers are CALIFORNIANS. A Rhode Island resident has very little reason to care whether California drivers are good or bad. Since Californians largely bear the burden of bad Californian drivers, they are the perfect political entity to decide how well trained Californian drivers should be.
Sheesh, at least if you had used New Jersey or some state like that for your example, your argument for federal standards would have sounded a lot smarter.
Slashdot Mirror
If you're not "blasting out all the cores" then you're not shopping for Phenoms or i5s anyway; you're shopping for Atoms or Semprons, or maybe Athlon IIs or i3s.
What a dumb thing to say: "the Phenom X6 doesn't compete with the i5 because the Phenom is more powerful than what you need." I think it's doubly-ironic to make that kind of argument in favor of the guys who actually have hyperthreading, something my AMD e-peen misses.
They're not, but Google is an example of a company (I'm not trying to bash Google here; this applies to much of the web, pretty much anything other than shopping sites) where customers and users aren't the same thing. They actually could be a dick to 99% of the population and cause great suffering, as long as it doesn't alienate their customers (advertisers).
Obviously if Google is annoying enough, users will leave and their ad revenue will decline. But all the time we see ways that we'd think would annoy users, but which users end up tolerating (ads on cable TV, Google scanning gmail boxes for ad keywords). You might even say that what this document is about, is Google further exploring ways they can serve their customers at the expense of users' interests.
Profit should be the highest priority for a business. Public Good should be the highest priority for a corporation.
Maybe people who didn't steal anything, were getting shot. "I shot him and then took my wallet back off his corpse." The guy who got shot can't present his side of the story. How is anyone to know who the victim was and who the criminal was?
If it's ok to kill criminals, then it makes a lot of sense for you (who doesn't intend to be a criminal) to wonder when you'll be labeled a criminal. Selfishly, the best thing for innocent people to do, is band together and try to outlaw tactical killing (or anything else which reduced the number of potential witnesses).
I don't see why this is a big deal, though. If you bid $50.00 and it sells to someone else for $50.01, all that happened is that you failed to buy something. For you, that's a neutral outcome, not a bad one. The sniper bought the item they wanted and the seller got a fair price. Everyone either won or broke even. No harm happened to anyone. What's the problem?
Yes, liking gadgets isn't elitist or sheepish. It's the liking of a particular gadget where the distinction shows itself. A gadget that works for you: you're a leader. A gadget that works for them: you're a follower. That's the point I was trying to make.
The ankle bracelet that criminals wear to monitor whether or not they're complying with house arrest is a gadget too, but wearing one doesn't make you a "selfish elite."
You damn well know the only reason someone would modify a computer to get it to do what they want, is so they can play pirated games. And if they're telling people what they did, isn't that contributory infringement?
There's also the DMCA aspects. Requiring the hand-controller dongle in order to work, is a technological measure that limits access to the game, which this dude is circumventing.
There are tons of places on the internet for that. Try monster.com. "Wanted: Linux kernel hacker."
Ok, do that. But also vote against the Republicans and Democrats. Getting it repealed should never be taken off the table, and anyone who runs for Congress without that on their agenda, needs to be told that they're running on the "fuck the public" platform.
Not trying to be a smartass with the "citation needed" here, but actually want it. Does anyone have any recent (less than 10 years old) statements from movie or music publishers where they've asserted that they sell licenses rather than copies of the movies? All I know of is the Blizzard case (but that's games, not movies).
As others have mentioned, the movie people are advertising with "own it now," and it would be pretty funny (in a Daily Show kind of way) to catch their left hand (sales dept) and right hand (legal dept) blatantly contradicting each other.
The irony is that the Cocoa devices are based on the idea that from a owner's point of view, "They[Apple] know what's best," rather than "I know what's best." You would think selfish elites would be, well, too selfish to surrender their egos and walk through a corral like cattle, and would go for something that maximizes decision-making and self-determination instead. The iPad is all about submission, not selfishness. Selfish Elites, of all people, are the ones who are most likely to give up on themselves and get down on their bellies before the pack leader?!
We all see the slack-jawed staring-eyed zombie horde out there and learn to accept its robotic obedience to some arbitrary undeserved authority. It's just one of those sad facts of life, and you either learn to live with it or you go crazy. Fair enough. But we never call the zombies elite! That the process happens: Yes. That the process is an ideal to strive for? FUCK NO! What a weird concept. Yet maybe selfish-elite vs submission are orthogonal concepts rather than opposites. What if it's true?
Is the lesson here that servitude, rather than the burden of power, is the ultimate luxury which we all want? Is the happiness of a humble slave the goal which we all seek, and upon achieving it, we become elite? If that's true, then it's selfish to become so selfless, so at least that part starts to make sense. It's so .. Zen.
I could totally go off on a rant about how people vote in politics ("government, please solve the problem because we the people are too overwhelmed") to support that idea, but it's just too depressing.
Anyway, my guess is that the survey is just totally wrong, and they'll find that the iPad owners are just what you expect. Nevertheless, the 'iPad owners are selfish elite' idea is a fun one to think about, if only to mock with self-indulgent cynicism.
Because deep down, those users are telling themselves, "It's ok that this thing sucks, it's just a mobile, it's 'not a personal computer' and I still have my personal computer for whenever I need more power and flexibility."
This makes me wonder what has gone so differently between US and UK democracy. In UK, don't old people vote (and in large numbers compared to younger people)? In US politics, the elderly's entitlements are practically untouchable.
I'm not going to deny the need for a military force, but let's follow through with your thought. China wouldn't hesitate to do what? Let's go ahead and look at just what our fears are, then compare those things to the Constitutional rationale for the military.
Because if you're gonna say, "they wouldn't hesitate to invade Taiwan," then you're going to have to do a lot of research to determine when Taiwan became the 51st state or find a good reason why we should have a treaty with them such that Taiwanese interests are strong enough that American people should be willing to die.
If you're going to say, "they wouldn't hesitate to invade the west coast of America," then I'll agree we do need a military for that contingency, but that it's not going to cost a whole lot to keep a force around that is more than capable of handling that job.
I think a good defense budget would need to cover a preposterous Canada+Mexico axis alliance, and then maybe sanity-check it against France's budget.
Employing people is irrelevant. What those people really need is ownership the mines, i.e. equity. If they happen to work there too, fine (everyone has to spend their day somehow), but working for The Man isn't the road to prosperity. Real life isn't Star Trek, where dilithium miners are so rich that they can buy Mudd's women.
If the Afghans know what's good for them, they will be the corporations. Subcontract out to "experienced" western specialists if they want, but they should be making dividends (not paychecks) from chopping the tops off of their mountains.
I think it's pretty sad that some people are talking about all the employment, taxes, supporting the populations of miners -- all the parasites and costs of production, which ingenuity and technology hope to some day eliminate -- being Afghanistan's payoff. It's exactly wrong. If a few of them can make a few extra pennies off of the waste of industry, that's ok, but their main focus ought to Be The Man.
You'll know that Afghanistan is doing things right, when instead of being happy about mining jobs, Afghan citizens are instead bitching about the miners union, or even better, raving like a paranoid Slashdot-loon about Chinese backdoors in the miner-bots' software. That is what Afghanistan really needs. The only trick (and this is colossal understatement) is making sure that it's all of their citizens who are doing this bitching, not just a few lords.
Me too!!1
Emphasis mine. Uh, was that a typo? You probably meant to say "US Congress" because it sure as hell isn't Mozilla, Xiph, or FSF who insists that nobody in US is allowed to implement H.264 without first asking for permission. That's the nature of patent law, and in US, Congress is who is responsible for that.
Software patents are anti-pragmatic, and again, that's not FSF's fault. You've got one of the most powerful governments in the world telling programmers what they're allowed and not allowed to implement. That's an outrage, especially in the so-called "land of the free," so maybe focus your anger where's it's deserved.
I bet seven people died in the last 24 hours driving to 7-11 for a munchie run. It sucks that those astronauts died, but at least they consented to a risky career. Taxpayer consent, on the other hand, is a lot more indirect, if it exists at all.
Hear hear! People are right when they say robots aren't as good at repair missions as people are. But when you scrap life-support systems and assorted safety stuff, you've got so much money left over that you can build redundant equipment. Gimme ten Hubbles and when a couple of 'em break, you're not gonna hear me crying.
It's all about efficiency.
There was a time when I bought "good" hard disks. It made sense. (Sort of. In theory it did, anyway.) Then something happened with capacity and price, and using RAID1ed cheap shitty disks started to make more sense. You gotta go with the flow that the tech/economics gives you.
The gap between what is possible with automation versus what is possible with people, is really only moving in one direction. People may still be able to argue about which one is better right now, but there's no argument at all when we look at the overall trend and what the future holds. When the genetic engineers come up with Human 2.0 who doesn't need oxygen, perhaps there will be a serious debate again.
You've already drank their koolaide. For piracy to convince them of anything (whether mistakenly or correctly), piracy would have to have a yoctonewton impact, to be even faintly detectable enough that it could convince them of anything.
Piracy is invisible. It is exerts the exact same market pressure as not buying, because that's what it is. If it's not invisible, then something more than just piracy is going on.
That's how you know, when publishers deploy DRM or other measures against piracy (instead of deploying measures to increase sales), they're not thinking like businessmen. It all comes down to sales, and piracy isn't a factor in sales. But DRM is a factor, and it's not a positive one.
Don't worry about what they're being convinced of, because it's all bullshit. Buy the stuff you like; vote for good things with your wallet. As for the rest, it doesn't matter what you do, whether it's pirate or totally abstain. There does not exist any mechanism to vote against something with your wallet. You're either voting for, or abstaining.
Considering the distribution we're talking about (it's not Gentoo), you just said the equivalent of "If you're running a desktop personal computer, I suspect you have the necessary knowledge and skills..."
Bush Sr., the guy who asked for CALEA? Bush Sr., the guy who defended our country after Iraq invaded us, oops I mean, took us to war for Kuwaiti interests?
Clinton, the guy who signed CALEA? Clinton, they guy who signed DMCA?! Clinton, the guy who signed eternal-copyright extension?
Those aren't good presidents. Every president ends up making us long for the previous guy, and always to our amazement, i.e. "I can't believe I miss whatsisface, because I hated him," but that doesn't mean whatsisface was a good president. Every 4 years, we lower our standards so that we can vote for one of the Republicrat candidates without feeling too ashamed about it.
Sounds like you're saying the voters have abandoned themselves.
Of all the states, you picked California?! (The only worse examples you could have picked, would have been Alaska or Hawaii.) California happens to be a particularly geographically large state. Sure, lots of people make interstate road trips, but overall (this is a generalization, but it's a damn true one), the people who pay the price for bad Californian drivers are CALIFORNIANS. A Rhode Island resident has very little reason to care whether California drivers are good or bad. Since Californians largely bear the burden of bad Californian drivers, they are the perfect political entity to decide how well trained Californian drivers should be.
Sheesh, at least if you had used New Jersey or some state like that for your example, your argument for federal standards would have sounded a lot smarter.
He's a guy who works for The Daily Show.