Which just means that my next upgrade will be AMD.
Thanks for making the decision easy, Intel!
Cause AMD would never knowingly ship defective parts to the market? Remember the Phenom triple-core?
Why do you care if a chipset has a few bad ports, if that chipset is put in a system where those ports will not be used? How is that any different than the ports simply not being on the chipset?
You can bet that OEMs are getting these chipsets at a discount. So Intel sells inventory that they would otherwise have to trash. OEMs get parts for less money than they would otherwise have to pay. Consumers pay less money for their computer, and get a kick-ass product earlier than they would otherwise.
Less waste, lower prices, quicker TTM. Given the unfortunate recall, this is the best of all possibilities. Where's the problem, exactly?
There's another school of thought:
If you owe the bank $1,000, the bank owns you. If you owe the bank $100M, you own the bank.
But replace 'you' with US, '$100M' with $1T, and 'the bank' with China. Not saying it's true in this case, but there's an argument to be made that China can't afford to let the US fail.
Do you have any support for your assertion?
Do you know what the lawyer's expenses were?
If you are a plaintiff with a legitimate lawsuit, what would you do if no lawyer agreed to take your case, because of a cap on his payments? In that case, would you be better off without caps?
I'm sorry, but your post is written out of ignorance.
Short answer is that he doesn't get to keep it. There's whatever he gets to keep as a part of his salary, but there's the cost of the paralegals, office, professional literature, time spent interviewing witnesses, time spent researching the case and coming up with a strategy. There's a lot of work that goes into the practice of practicing law.
Plus, if the case was taken on contingency, which it looks like it was, he has to worry about the possibility of losing and ending up being paid nothing. Which can and does happen, there's a reason why attorneys work so hard to keep things out of the courts, the jury can be very unpredictable at times.
You didn't explicitly mention it, but it's important to remember -- not everyone working on the case is paid on contingency. Even if the lawyer loses the case and gets/no/ money, he must still pay the paralegals, the secretaries, the office rent, etc..
In other words there is a very real possibility that by taking the case the lawyer will lose a large sum of money. So there/must/ be a large payout if he wins.
If the cost for garbage pickup were $1000 per month, the reasonable conclusion is that *someone* thinks the service is worth $1000 per month. You may disagree, and you may take your stinky smelly garbage to the landfill yourself.
Someone else may happily pay the fee, and that may be an entirely reasonable decision for him.
I'm sorry but that's just scary, around here the (horrible horrible tax-funded) fire department will at least make an effort, even if you live out in the middle of nowhere...
Let's say you choose to build your house in Sweden 100KM from the nearest fire department. Your house catches on fire. Will your tax dollars help put out the fire?
Most emergency response workers don't care about the money. They are doing their job to help people. Who else would sign up to run into burning buildings, or any of the other stuff that they do?
I know plenty of emergency response workers. Some of them care about people, some of them don't. But they all care about the money.
A gold broker. They're quite easy to find. In Portland, I've used AJPM: http://www.ajpm.com/gold-bullion.html
They have a spread of about 0.5%, which doesn't strike me as too bad.
Bah. While there's no doubt that, at one point, unions served a vital purpose in protecting workers from abuse, nowadays, they're merely another expensive middle-man cost.
When did we become a country when it has been decided you have too much, you don't deserve what you earned
When did contributing 5% of the personal income above $200K to the running of a civilized society become too burdensome and greedy? You certainly deserve most of that money, but to say that 1-2% of your total income is too big a price to pay is pretty selfish and counter-productive.
I see your confusion. The tax proposed does not replace the federal income tax, or the state sales tax, or proper tax, or vehicle tax, or gas tax, or any of the myriad other taxes that Washington residents already pay. It is in addition to.
So the most productive Washington State residents are not being asked to pay '"1-2% of total income". They are being asked to pay that much *on top of* the already significant taxes they are already paying.
Perhaps with that context, you'll understand why fighting any additional taxes is a necessary and honorable thing to do. I am a Washington State resident who will not be taxed under this proposal, but I will still vote against it. I moved to Washington State in part because Oregon recently increased taxes on its most productive citizens.
I suspect Ballmer and Bezos aren't overly concerned about their own incomes. They are worried about losing their highly compensated and extremely valuable engineers to companies in lower-tax states.
This is incorrect. The majority of taxes go towards paying for entitlement programs. The defense budget should be cut, but the real meat comes from cutting social security, medicare, universal health care, welfare, etc...
So, let's assume we can cut approximately $200 billion from defense contractors. There goes the balance sheet of Boeing, Northrup-Grumman, etc. and some of their employees get laid off, which means they'll be added to the fed. dole. And that probably knackers any thought of countering China and their claims on Taiwan, the entire S. China Sea, and and other assorted mineral and territorial claims they can think of...and they can think of a lot. And it is only $200 against a deficit this year of $1.3 trillion.
There are plenty of places to cut money from the budget, including defense. Please don't use the argument that cutting defense spending puts defense workers on the 'federal dole'. That is fallacious reasoning. The same reasoning justifies hiring workers to dig holes and then fill them in, simply to take workers off the federal dole.
The opportunity cost of spending money on defense needs to be weighed against its other uses, such as returning this money to the taxpayers from whom it was taken.
Businesses expand by borrowing money to invest in infrastructure. Borrowing money requires that somebody else saves it. The less money saved, the higher the borrowing rate and the more difficult to expand.
The answer is not academic. Higher MPG is *not* necessarily better. That's a remarkably one-dimensional view, and an incorrect one.
Higher mileage comes with tradeoffs. It's important, not academic, that customers understand what they're trading for.
Haven't you heard? Everything in the US is backward. The korporations don't want you to know about the free 1Gbit/s provided by unicorn farts enjoyed everywhere else.
And to date, AMD has arguably always held the performance/$$$ award.
Baloney. That all depends on which specific slice of the performance market you look at. You can certainly find markets for which AMD offers better bang for the buck, and you can find plenty where Intel offers better value.
Sure, Intel has started gaining a lead (Marginal with C2 series, but significant with the i7 series) in recent times, but AMD isn't THAT far behind.
Right now, AMD is quite far behind in terms of performance by any subjective measure.
And if you consider that most of the true innovations in CPU design have come from AMD (true multi-core (I mean where there are 4 physical cores on die, not 2 dual core cpus on the die), 64bit, shared L3 cache, on-die memory controller, elimination of the north bridge and hence the system bus, etc), I find it VERY funny that "It is the price you pay for getting the bleeding edge" is applied to the more expensive Intel as opposed to the innovator AMD.
This is misleading. None of the items you list were first developed by AMD unless you limit yourself to the x86 space. Your multi-core example is a common but incorrect simplification. Intel suffered from this lesson. The P4 was extremely had an unconventional and aggressive microarchitecture but many of those bets did not pay off. Some such as hyperthreading, have survived and returned to the lineup. AMD's "innovations" are by comparison downright pedestrian.
"Innovation" is ultimately marketing-speak for engineering tradeoffs. Perhaps it's "innovative" to over-engineer a product, but if the end result is that you're a day late and a dollar short, then that innovation was a stupid business decision.
Assuming a price of $15 per album, the defendant could have stolen 128,000 CDs and resold them and it would have been less damage than what they are collecting for two dozen songs.
Perhaps, but why must the punishment not exceed the maximum possible loss by the RIAA?
As a producer of intellectual property, I would find it debilitating if the data I create were taken from me without compensation.
Why are construction workers or lawyers more entitled to the fruits of their labor than musicians or computer programmers?
Hello,
I think you just made Mr. Ohm's point.
It is likely not the judges and lawyers who don't understand the implications of the technical argument, but rather the techies who don't understand why their flimsy technical argument doesn't pass legal muster.
Of course when we wish "good luck" to our Russian cosmonaut counterparts by whacking their femurs with a baseball bat as they enter a spacecraft, it causes an international incident.
Slashdot Mirror
Which just means that my next upgrade will be AMD. Thanks for making the decision easy, Intel!
Cause AMD would never knowingly ship defective parts to the market? Remember the Phenom triple-core? Why do you care if a chipset has a few bad ports, if that chipset is put in a system where those ports will not be used? How is that any different than the ports simply not being on the chipset? You can bet that OEMs are getting these chipsets at a discount. So Intel sells inventory that they would otherwise have to trash. OEMs get parts for less money than they would otherwise have to pay. Consumers pay less money for their computer, and get a kick-ass product earlier than they would otherwise. Less waste, lower prices, quicker TTM. Given the unfortunate recall, this is the best of all possibilities. Where's the problem, exactly?
There's another school of thought: If you owe the bank $1,000, the bank owns you. If you owe the bank $100M, you own the bank. But replace 'you' with US, '$100M' with $1T, and 'the bank' with China. Not saying it's true in this case, but there's an argument to be made that China can't afford to let the US fail.
Do you have any support for your assertion?
Do you know what the lawyer's expenses were?
If you are a plaintiff with a legitimate lawsuit, what would you do if no lawyer agreed to take your case, because of a cap on his payments? In that case, would you be better off without caps?
I'm sorry, but your post is written out of ignorance.
Short answer is that he doesn't get to keep it. There's whatever he gets to keep as a part of his salary, but there's the cost of the paralegals, office, professional literature, time spent interviewing witnesses, time spent researching the case and coming up with a strategy. There's a lot of work that goes into the practice of practicing law. Plus, if the case was taken on contingency, which it looks like it was, he has to worry about the possibility of losing and ending up being paid nothing. Which can and does happen, there's a reason why attorneys work so hard to keep things out of the courts, the jury can be very unpredictable at times.
You didn't explicitly mention it, but it's important to remember -- not everyone working on the case is paid on contingency. Even if the lawyer loses the case and gets /no/ money, he must still pay the paralegals, the secretaries, the office rent, etc..
In other words there is a very real possibility that by taking the case the lawyer will lose a large sum of money. So there /must/ be a large payout if he wins.
If the cost for garbage pickup were $1000 per month, the reasonable conclusion is that *someone* thinks the service is worth $1000 per month. You may disagree, and you may take your stinky smelly garbage to the landfill yourself. Someone else may happily pay the fee, and that may be an entirely reasonable decision for him.
I'm sorry but that's just scary, around here the (horrible horrible tax-funded) fire department will at least make an effort, even if you live out in the middle of nowhere...
Let's say you choose to build your house in Sweden 100KM from the nearest fire department. Your house catches on fire. Will your tax dollars help put out the fire?
Most emergency response workers don't care about the money. They are doing their job to help people. Who else would sign up to run into burning buildings, or any of the other stuff that they do?
I know plenty of emergency response workers. Some of them care about people, some of them don't. But they all care about the money.
Oops, the spread is actually 5%, not 0.5%. Still considerably better than less savory transaction methods.
A gold broker. They're quite easy to find. In Portland, I've used AJPM: http://www.ajpm.com/gold-bullion.html They have a spread of about 0.5%, which doesn't strike me as too bad.
Bah. While there's no doubt that, at one point, unions served a vital purpose in protecting workers from abuse, nowadays, they're merely another expensive middle-man cost.
Tell that to the workers of the Upper Big Branch Mine.
How, precisely, did the union protect the safety of the twenty-nine miners killed?
When did contributing 5% of the personal income above $200K to the running of a civilized society become too burdensome and greedy? You certainly deserve most of that money, but to say that 1-2% of your total income is too big a price to pay is pretty selfish and counter-productive.
I see your confusion. The tax proposed does not replace the federal income tax, or the state sales tax, or proper tax, or vehicle tax, or gas tax, or any of the myriad other taxes that Washington residents already pay. It is in addition to.
So the most productive Washington State residents are not being asked to pay '"1-2% of total income". They are being asked to pay that much *on top of* the already significant taxes they are already paying.
Perhaps with that context, you'll understand why fighting any additional taxes is a necessary and honorable thing to do. I am a Washington State resident who will not be taxed under this proposal, but I will still vote against it. I moved to Washington State in part because Oregon recently increased taxes on its most productive citizens.
I suspect Ballmer and Bezos aren't overly concerned about their own incomes. They are worried about losing their highly compensated and extremely valuable engineers to companies in lower-tax states.
This is incorrect. The majority of taxes go towards paying for entitlement programs. The defense budget should be cut, but the real meat comes from cutting social security, medicare, universal health care, welfare, etc...
So, let's assume we can cut approximately $200 billion from defense contractors. There goes the balance sheet of Boeing, Northrup-Grumman, etc. and some of their employees get laid off, which means they'll be added to the fed. dole. And that probably knackers any thought of countering China and their claims on Taiwan, the entire S. China Sea, and and other assorted mineral and territorial claims they can think of...and they can think of a lot. And it is only $200 against a deficit this year of $1.3 trillion.
There are plenty of places to cut money from the budget, including defense. Please don't use the argument that cutting defense spending puts defense workers on the 'federal dole'. That is fallacious reasoning. The same reasoning justifies hiring workers to dig holes and then fill them in, simply to take workers off the federal dole. The opportunity cost of spending money on defense needs to be weighed against its other uses, such as returning this money to the taxpayers from whom it was taken.
Businesses expand by borrowing money to invest in infrastructure. Borrowing money requires that somebody else saves it. The less money saved, the higher the borrowing rate and the more difficult to expand.
The answer is not academic. Higher MPG is *not* necessarily better. That's a remarkably one-dimensional view, and an incorrect one. Higher mileage comes with tradeoffs. It's important, not academic, that customers understand what they're trading for.
Haven't you heard? Everything in the US is backward. The korporations don't want you to know about the free 1Gbit/s provided by unicorn farts enjoyed everywhere else.
can't these people do simple math? 2 / 3 = 0.66666666... 106 / 236 = 0.660194175 Whats the problem here? It didn't pass.
Me and my Pentium beg to differ.My pentium begs to differ.
And to date, AMD has arguably always held the performance/$$$ award.
Baloney. That all depends on which specific slice of the performance market you look at. You can certainly find markets for which AMD offers better bang for the buck, and you can find plenty where Intel offers better value.
Sure, Intel has started gaining a lead (Marginal with C2 series, but significant with the i7 series) in recent times, but AMD isn't THAT far behind.
Right now, AMD is quite far behind in terms of performance by any subjective measure.
And if you consider that most of the true innovations in CPU design have come from AMD (true multi-core (I mean where there are 4 physical cores on die, not 2 dual core cpus on the die), 64bit, shared L3 cache, on-die memory controller, elimination of the north bridge and hence the system bus, etc), I find it VERY funny that "It is the price you pay for getting the bleeding edge" is applied to the more expensive Intel as opposed to the innovator AMD.
This is misleading. None of the items you list were first developed by AMD unless you limit yourself to the x86 space. Your multi-core example is a common but incorrect simplification. Intel suffered from this lesson. The P4 was extremely had an unconventional and aggressive microarchitecture but many of those bets did not pay off. Some such as hyperthreading, have survived and returned to the lineup. AMD's "innovations" are by comparison downright pedestrian. "Innovation" is ultimately marketing-speak for engineering tradeoffs. Perhaps it's "innovative" to over-engineer a product, but if the end result is that you're a day late and a dollar short, then that innovation was a stupid business decision.
I'm not a lawyer, but I thought she was being tried for copyright infringement, not for theft? Wikipedia describes the difference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement#Comparison_to_theft
Assuming a price of $15 per album, the defendant could have stolen 128,000 CDs and resold them and it would have been less damage than what they are collecting for two dozen songs.
Perhaps, but why must the punishment not exceed the maximum possible loss by the RIAA?
As a producer of intellectual property, I would find it debilitating if the data I create were taken from me without compensation. Why are construction workers or lawyers more entitled to the fruits of their labor than musicians or computer programmers?
Hello, I think you just made Mr. Ohm's point. It is likely not the judges and lawyers who don't understand the implications of the technical argument, but rather the techies who don't understand why their flimsy technical argument doesn't pass legal muster.
Personally I haven't seen a dime of money "re-distributed" into my pocket.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/incometaxandtheirs/a/rebates2008.htm If you didn't get yours, you are one of the "rich", whose excessive productivity excludes you from the welfare class.
Of course when we wish "good luck" to our Russian cosmonaut counterparts by whacking their femurs with a baseball bat as they enter a spacecraft, it causes an international incident.