As an individualist, I agree 100%, although not about the cruel and unusual punishment you describe. I was thinking more along the lines of "shaved, sterilized and destroyed."
The man was convicted basically for the "crime" of being politically inconvenient.
Justice is not about equality or necessarily correcting wrongs. We all agree our system is unequal, especially nowadays. Justice about maintaining the status-quo; actions are taken when certain "illegitimate" action has caused damage to interests aligned with whatever the current status-quo happens to be.
The only thing that can be said about what you perceive as "injustice" is that the status-quo that determines what is just has has become very very fascist.
Gifts of this nature are just hard to receive as they are to produce. For any of the lucky winners who decide to receive their coveted boson, they need only be advised to pbzr cercnerq gb gel naq pngpu fzbxr jvgu gurve oner unaqf.
The thing is, if you unencrypt the message without properly agreeing to the licensing agreement, you can say hello to the Aaron Swartz prosecutor for unauthorized access to "sensitive" information. That is what we all mean by "productivity".
Buying goods and services using a ledger works. The problem is not everyone is willing to accept Vintermann notes. So your notes need to come with some guarantee. In the case of a check, that guarantee is that your bank will give the holder of your note Federal Reserve Notes (FRN) in exchange for the note you signed.
The bank's deal with you is that they reduce their debit to you by honoring your note.
The FRNs are just like any other note, except that the only guarantee it offers is the backing of the entire financial institution and public policy that something of value is represented by the note. Ultimately we need to trust that the note has value, that the institution has value.
Some circles claim that the American public's private trust accounts contains the asset that backs or guarantees FRNs'. But that is off topic anyway.
If you use FRN's your whole life in cash transactions only, you won't get on the IRS's radar because they work with declared income that goes through corporate accounts. That is the difference between declared and undeclared income. You are actually taxed for your use of the financial system, not because you earn money or its equivalent. There simply is no evidence of income if you only deal with cash. (until the FBI knocks down your door and discovers a safe full of FRNs. Then if they don't have enough evidence to actually convict you for being a mobster, they get you for tax evasion.)
The reason more people don't use a ledger based system is because the public is actually disorganized and untrusting of one another. They prefer to trust the banking organizations, the corporations and the government than each other.
And fundamentally that's why these organizations are powerful, they have a public that sponsors them by confiding trust, productive efforts and life to their governance.
Groups that don't fall inline, one example being the Davidian Group in Wako TX, get targeted.
Another example that is emerging is this group that backs bitcoin transactions. Make no mistake that govt policy is specifically to target them. The first matter of business is to identify who are part of this group.
Government may not be able to regulate the currency directly. But US Corporations that may trade the currency have their corporate charter based on US law, making them "insular possessions" of the US Federal Government and subject to their regulation. That analogy can easily be extended to citizens (nice title of nobility there) as well.
So while government may not be able to regulate currency, and technically they can't even regulate the US Dollar - that's done by a private institution called The Federal Reserve, they certainly can regulate how US corporations are required to manage the currency or any other asset. That includes provisions to police exchanges involving an asset.
As I stated before, the value of any currency depends on people willing to accept it for goods and services, US dollar and Bitcoin alike. Perhaps part of the strategy the US govt is employing is to "sour the milk" and make bitcoin less attractive for exchanges. In that way force its devaluation.
My opinion is that govt works from the presumption that legitimate transactions can easily be made using the standard currency, and that anyone who believes they require a bitcoin transaction is performing an exchange where they believe the bitcoin currency can offer protection from possibly legal retributions the current system and standard currency has in place. There may be tax evasion intentions buried in there too, but the focus has to be more sinister.
If you read legal definitions defined in the UCC 1-201 item 4 you see a definition for bank:
"Bank" means any person engaged in the business of Banking.
(http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/1/1-201.html)
And the definitions of banking:
The business of receiving money on deposit, loaning money, discounting notes, issuing notes for circulation, collecting money on notes deposited, negotiating bills, etc.
The fact is, all people are in the business of receiving money on deposits even if depositions of money or it's equivalent is done informally, they loan their monies to banking institutions or to each other, they issue notes (checks) and most do negotiate terms when they take a 2nd mortgage out or perform any number of commercial negotiations at one point or another.
So while it may appear that we can't force people to become banks, it appears that that appearance is deceiving.
As one last bid to offer support for my claim, grab a magnifying lens and your checkbook. Using the magnifying lens examine the line on any check where the drawer is indicated to apply his signature. Examining that line very carefully, you will notice the words "Authorized Representative" in very small letters. You sign a check as an authorized representative of the bank, as a banker, unless you specifically apply a different endorsement (most people don't) you accept being a banker through the principles of tacit acquiescence.
Just because they sign up does not mean they are except from liability.
Bloggers in the UK are just as likely to be liable, the only difference is going to be whether they followed the conduct requirements established for the press if they happen to have signed up.
Basically a blogger is trading 6 for half-a-dozen by signing up. IMO
From the government angle, freedom has been infringed, they win either way.
Another Idle speculation of equal value is that Homo Sapiens killed out the Neandrethals as part of a "cleanse the world" campaign in the dark ages.
Think of our current racial prejudicial disposition aimed at something that can more easily be denied as being made "in the image of god". An animal. Something that would rather die than submit to slavery.
Why? Maybe because the short cronies had larger members and the inferiority complex protection mechanisms kicked in. Or maybe because the matriarchs of the time had takan a position to protect or shelter them and the men felt an insatiable urge to defy. Or maybe because the Homo Sapiens at the time needed something shorter to skull fvck (dominate).
Your idea that they simply where bred away is a logical start down a path supporting my speculations where Homo Sapien men would feel the need to reject and destroy the matriarchs as well as destroy their genetic opposition (Pre-Christian religions like paganism supported values largely around matriarchal ideologies and family lineages). Take that idea a little further and you have academic/intelectual reasoning of spiritual leaders writing about "original sin" being the fault of women who fell into temptation. Witch hunts, the raise of patriarchal values, christianity etc etc.
Their BI stuff in their SQL server is state of the art for now...
They can't seem to release a new OS that works though and that's their bread and butter. You would think they have tried an equivalent of the OP's suggestion that Intel drop x86...
They can't support their software development ecosystems, How many other variants of languages are they going to invent so that developers can get "Hello world" up on the screen?
I think they have a management issue first and foremost. Not a backwards compatibility issue, it's easy enough to include dll files that support previous standards. Windows 95 did that to support 3.1 applications.
I prefer Gentoo linux personally, the CLI interface I use is very simple but the actual underlying platform is top notch.
I see absolutely no evidence that one instruction set is going to give better performance or energy efficiency over another. CPU speeds have to do with the design considerations (circuit design as well as substrate technologies) taken when designing the chip.
During the 1990's there was a "war" between the RISC (Reduced Instructions) and CISC (x86 Complex Instructions) instruction sets. (I can't be bothered to reference this but you can try googling it.) RISC is considered to be simpler, equal in length, though more numerous, and faster to process by the instruction loader and decoders at the time. CISC, was unequal in length, and required more decoder time. And in-fact for some time there was competition between RISC processor manufacturers: Alpha made by Digital, SPARC made by Sun, and PowerPC made by IBM (to name a few) where king of the hill. Today, Digital is no more, Sun was snapped up by Oracle for Java and SPARC binned, and IBM, well, is a Jauggernaught that can't be stopped even by solar radiation. IBM still sells RISC based PowerPC chips for their bigger iron boxes and specially applications.
At one point it was revealed that CISC was actually a superior instruction set to RISC because it was more compact and made better use on on-chip "close to the iron" L1 cache space. As fetchers, decoders and branch prediction became better and chips shrank the performance differences boil down to process technology and chip design. At a market level, product support, reliability and serviceability are all key...
The main benefit of x86 is that its widely supported. The problem with creating a new Instruction Set is that compilers and development platforms need to be updated to target the new platform. This considerable time requires companies to invest. Optimizers etc etc all represent additional investments for newer platforms. And yet are available for x86, even for free. Even it an i7 is not reliable enough for the redundant services banks require, it's cheap and available enough to replace when it goes bad or becomes obsolete.
In reality, CPU's are general purpose chips. The basic operations like fetch, add, subtract, push pop etc have been around from the beginning of the computing age when CPU's where as big as rooms and constructed from vacuum tubes. And that is probably not going to change. The tendency is to add graphic related vectorial processing instructions to speed up that department.
Perhaps, the only gain in a new instruction set is where the new instructions are more purpose specific, or where that purpose requires fewer or different operations that make the x86 instructions bloated. That even then, the "waste" comes from engineering efforts go into implementations are are unused, and perhaps, just perhaps, a tiny bit of substrate area that happens to be associated with that unused area. But with the onset of SOC (System on Chip) the tendency is to want more features rather than fewer.
SOC (System on Chip) also takes other factors that are normally put on a northbridge (like until recently a memory controller) and puts them together. But this type of integrations is normally more limited by protocols that are a level higher than the instruction set. DMA, PCIe, USB etc etc. It's this integration that increases efficiency, not the instruction set or the nature of the protocols themselves.
Intel has some very very brightest engineers working on their process technology as well as their chip design. The only reason ARM has a head-start in mobile space is because Intel was caught with it's pants around it's ankles in a war with AMD in a performance race, which they have won. They had been focused on the 130W power envelope that Microsoft pushed for the PC era when Bill was at the helm.
Rest assured that now with the new goalpost in sight (mobile space, iOS and Android) Intel will utilize its massive resources to compete very well with technology that they are very very confortable with, x86 instructions, the very best manufacturing process as well as chip engineers. They do not need to change what does not need to be fixed. They need only get Samsung, LG or even Motorola onboard with one successful product to convince everyone x86 suites mobile space.
That means a Notice of Fault and a Notice of Default. The process needs to be put together in a way that it is self documenting, either in itself of accompanied by your receivables people. I would include a Statement of Account that would enumerate your invoices, fines/fees, monetary corrections, etc etc. in your first mailing that would include the Notice of Fault. And perhaps you would include a letter of intent and/or Affidavit as well as a Bill of Lading (Certificate of Mailing for example) that has been notarized. And you should send the envelope directly to their CFO in their US office.
The Bill of Lading would need to enumerate all the documents sent. It's notarization is essentially the stamp of a 3rd party witness who is authorized by the state to issue oaths, it certifies the authenticity of the mailing in a definitive way.
In you letter of intent, sent with the Notice of Fault you need to clearly express your course of action. Perhaps something like if payment is not received within 15 days, it will cause the emission of a notice of Default. (30 days if you are dealing with government [USC Title 5])
If payment is not received you send the out a similar mailing with a Notice of Default. You give them 5 days to remedy the situation. And then register a UCC1 Commercial Lean against the corporation in the US. That can be done online in most states. You want to register in the state where their corporate HQ is located.
Your mailings need to be done by Registered or Certified mail that have tracking numbers so that you have evidence of service.
With your original contract, unpaid invoices, evidence of the corporate merger, the undisputed Statement of Account sent with the Notice of Fault, the Notice of Default, the certified mail receipts and your UCC1 Lean you have all the evidence you need to have a judge back your collection efforts. A lawyer can be of much greater assistance at this stage rather than merely being a suit who sends out demands. The court will have their own "Due Process" related procedure they follow, but in the end, if the corporation does not manifest itself with payment or a lawyer, the county Sheriff will accompany you to their corporate office and you can take possession of their corporate assets and have a firesale on their front lawn until enough of their property has been sold to cover the unpaid balance.
It's important that in your process, you properly identify exactly which commercial entities you are seeking out because the courts will not permit you to collect from any unnamed third party who has not been given due process. I would include the name of the CFO, he is a corporate officer who is responsible for finances, not a mere employee. If you have a lawyer available to verify your presentations you can get some extra piece of mind. This process done properly will give you all the documentary teeth needed to get court backing. FYI, the IRS performs tax collections is somewhat a similar way, minus that the notarization and certified mailings.
For most people this level of commerce is overwhelming. Most people give value to following corporate procedures or some version of their rules. This process is one where you govern your business according to your rules. That being said there is nothing that says you can't accept some aspects of their policy as they may suggest it in their counter-offers (possibly made by lawyers) so as to facilitate remedy, even if your acceptance is conditional:) The only thing you should _not_ do is ignore anything they send you (counter-offers).
You mean to say, it's equally stupid. But who made any claim that patent law regarding stupidity as a form of meritorious criteria what-so-ever? The systems obliges its players to bow to an equal level of stupidity.
So, perhaps a justification based on who first bows to these new levels of stupidity has more merit than you would like admit.
One last comment on this. I have a friend who as I previously posted in Colorado. The cop ignored his request to see identification, he shut the door and called the cops and communicated the following points: Fear for his life, possible that a cop had been kidnapped and someone impersonating him because of the refusal to identify himself, concerned for the well-being of the officer.
The next day, the cop returned and apologized.
In the eyes of the state, the well-being of their police force is very important, more important than what detail the officer may be attending to; safety first. In a way, they depend on a vigilant public for their own safety as well. That's why harming a cop is treated so much more seriously and that's why cops are required to properly identify themselves to people they approach. If they don't properly identify themselves, or ignore your request to see their ID, it's not unreasonable to consider their actions as suspicious. Remember that you are a law abiding vigilant citizen that, despite their efforts to make appear the contrary, look after your community and the law of your community.
Perhaps that's the attitude people need to embrace for things to start getting better.
One last note: It's always better to have at least two impeccable witnesses who can back you up. A couple passive 3rd party onlooker maybe. Here is why:
An LEO is an officer of the law who has sworn an oath to his office; that reason that the court treats their word with more weight, they speak the facts as far as the court is concerned. That is their job.
The courts position is that what you say is hearsay, unless you have been sworn in, but even then they can swear the officer in too. Nevertheless, it's a presumption that normally goes unchallenged. However, according to the rules of civil procedure, two witnesses who corroborates your statement elevates their value to that of a fact. As long as your two witnesses can recount the same thing, your voices can no longer treated as hearsay and you get equal footing. It then becomes the cat and mouse game of producing relevant facts to support your case. That's why lawyers spend time to discredit witnesses. It's their way of tearing down a case. Impeccable witnesses are valuable.
That's why cameras are actually unnecessary; their other more drastic function can be to stimulate the public disgust by displaying graphic and often sensationalized contents. And there is the true reason courts tend to favor the more LEO friendly view that filming police action is questionable. Their value in court is not always clear-cut; the issue of who is truly being filmed, who the actors or even when the film was made can all come under scrutiny. But those are only the issues on the surface.
Courts have a lot more work when contradictory evidence that would suggest it's officers are being negligent of their duties. It breaks down the fabric of their workings because it challenges those presumptions that otherwise never get looked at. They are especially mindful of how public may react to their decisions especially after that Rodney King episode where LEO was filmed and it got played by the local media over and over, riots etc etc. So if they can keep Officer moral up, limit the production of possible video type materials that can be used to sensationalize issues they may not even consider important, and maintain their "grip" on things, they win. They don't want the disciplinary actions of their officers to need to include the public.
I agree. The problem is, we all have a sense of righteousness and what's happening isn't it. "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." "Give me liberty of give me death."
But, we all need to choose our own battles; we need to be practical. Eventually it will get to a point where the blind eye cannot be turned anymore. I mean to say that the sad state of affairs isn't going to fix itself. Certainly trying to game the system with a telephone call to the cops isn't the solution.
For me, the exact solution is not clear; I didn't approve of the war on terror, but it happened anyway. On of our presidents managed to unite the whole country in that movement and now the results of his efforts is not easily undone. And certainly some people have achieved exactly what they want.
Or you can ask for their identification, after all you really don't know who is engaging you and you should know they are genuine representatives of the state.
If they refuse to further identify themselves, you need to call the police immediately and report that you are in fear for your life because one or more individuals appear to be impersonating law enforcement officers. Your genuine concern is that one or more law enforcement officers may have been kidnapped, possibly at their homes or while on route to or from their homes, and their uniforms have been taken by individual performing questionable and suspicious acts. Your genuine concern is for the safety of the officers down.
If they do identify themselves, you respectfully require that your lawyer be present to mediate any further communications. Furthermore, it's perfectly reasonable to counter-offer their "delete this request" by requesting that such an order be formalized in writing as a court order signed by a standing judge residing over the case. Since it's likely that's where you will go anyway, there is no reason not to play that card.
Except that I'm not 86% of slashdot, sir. I'd actually say, based on your id 1203850, that I'm actually at most 0.000083066827263% of/. (assuming I can use a calculator).
You lose.
Thanks for the correction for what's worth, I'd hate to mess that punchline up next time I send you posting on/.:)
Slashdot Mirror
to include in your list:
3.1 Public Protests
Those things are an equivalent to funeral ceremonies in that it's an occasion to reflect and move on, not to cause any change.
Browns Gas...
Is used to process depleted uranium to reduce its radioactivity so that it can be deployed as armaments.
But I'll just tell you. That isn't mentioned in Wikipedia.
As an individualist, I agree 100%, although not about the cruel and unusual punishment you describe. I was thinking more along the lines of "shaved, sterilized and destroyed."
The man was convicted basically for the "crime" of being politically inconvenient.
Justice is not about equality or necessarily correcting wrongs. We all agree our system is unequal, especially nowadays. Justice about maintaining the status-quo; actions are taken when certain "illegitimate" action has caused damage to interests aligned with whatever the current status-quo happens to be.
The only thing that can be said about what you perceive as "injustice" is that the status-quo that determines what is just has has become very very fascist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
Prolonged exposure? You mean no more than 1.6Ã--10â'22 seconds?
Gifts of this nature are just hard to receive as they are to produce. For any of the lucky winners who decide to receive their coveted boson, they need only be advised to pbzr cercnerq gb gel naq pngpu fzbxr jvgu gurve oner unaqf.
:) indeed
Sbe jung vg'f jbegu, fbzr bs gur yngrfg erny arjf znxrf zr jvgu rirel qnl jurer Ncevy, 6.
Cyrnfr qba'g zvfhaqrefgnaq, V zrna gb fnl gurer ner fbzr cerggl zrffrq hc arjf jr nyy jbhyq jvfu jurer hagehr.
For what it's worth, while we are all enjoying this joke...
Fbhaq yvxr nabgure ornhebpeng gb zr!
The thing is, if you unencrypt the message without properly agreeing to the licensing agreement, you can say hello to the Aaron Swartz prosecutor for unauthorized access to "sensitive" information. That is what we all mean by "productivity".
Buying goods and services using a ledger works. The problem is not everyone is willing to accept Vintermann notes. So your notes need to come with some guarantee. In the case of a check, that guarantee is that your bank will give the holder of your note Federal Reserve Notes (FRN) in exchange for the note you signed.
The bank's deal with you is that they reduce their debit to you by honoring your note.
The FRNs are just like any other note, except that the only guarantee it offers is the backing of the entire financial institution and public policy that something of value is represented by the note. Ultimately we need to trust that the note has value, that the institution has value.
Some circles claim that the American public's private trust accounts contains the asset that backs or guarantees FRNs'. But that is off topic anyway.
If you use FRN's your whole life in cash transactions only, you won't get on the IRS's radar because they work with declared income that goes through corporate accounts. That is the difference between declared and undeclared income. You are actually taxed for your use of the financial system, not because you earn money or its equivalent. There simply is no evidence of income if you only deal with cash. (until the FBI knocks down your door and discovers a safe full of FRNs. Then if they don't have enough evidence to actually convict you for being a mobster, they get you for tax evasion.)
The reason more people don't use a ledger based system is because the public is actually disorganized and untrusting of one another. They prefer to trust the banking organizations, the corporations and the government than each other.
And fundamentally that's why these organizations are powerful, they have a public that sponsors them by confiding trust, productive efforts and life to their governance.
Groups that don't fall inline, one example being the Davidian Group in Wako TX, get targeted.
Another example that is emerging is this group that backs bitcoin transactions. Make no mistake that govt policy is specifically to target them. The first matter of business is to identify who are part of this group.
Government may not be able to regulate the currency directly. But US Corporations that may trade the currency have their corporate charter based on US law, making them "insular possessions" of the US Federal Government and subject to their regulation. That analogy can easily be extended to citizens (nice title of nobility there) as well.
So while government may not be able to regulate currency, and technically they can't even regulate the US Dollar - that's done by a private institution called The Federal Reserve, they certainly can regulate how US corporations are required to manage the currency or any other asset. That includes provisions to police exchanges involving an asset.
As I stated before, the value of any currency depends on people willing to accept it for goods and services, US dollar and Bitcoin alike. Perhaps part of the strategy the US govt is employing is to "sour the milk" and make bitcoin less attractive for exchanges. In that way force its devaluation.
My opinion is that govt works from the presumption that legitimate transactions can easily be made using the standard currency, and that anyone who believes they require a bitcoin transaction is performing an exchange where they believe the bitcoin currency can offer protection from possibly legal retributions the current system and standard currency has in place. There may be tax evasion intentions buried in there too, but the focus has to be more sinister.
If you read legal definitions defined in the UCC 1-201 item 4 you see a definition for bank:
"Bank" means any person engaged in the business of Banking.
(http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/1/1-201.html)
And the definitions of banking:
The business of receiving money on deposit, loaning money, discounting notes, issuing notes for circulation, collecting money on notes deposited, negotiating bills, etc.
http://thelawdictionary.org/banking/
The fact is, all people are in the business of receiving money on deposits even if depositions of money or it's equivalent is done informally, they loan their monies to banking institutions or to each other, they issue notes (checks) and most do negotiate terms when they take a 2nd mortgage out or perform any number of commercial negotiations at one point or another.
So while it may appear that we can't force people to become banks, it appears that that appearance is deceiving.
As one last bid to offer support for my claim, grab a magnifying lens and your checkbook. Using the magnifying lens examine the line on any check where the drawer is indicated to apply his signature. Examining that line very carefully, you will notice the words "Authorized Representative" in very small letters. You sign a check as an authorized representative of the bank, as a banker, unless you specifically apply a different endorsement (most people don't) you accept being a banker through the principles of tacit acquiescence.
Sounds like a neat way to avoid paying taxes...
As long as there is someone willing to accept bitcoin for goods and services, it has value.
Once nobody want's to accept a currency, it is worthless.
Just because they sign up does not mean they are except from liability.
Bloggers in the UK are just as likely to be liable, the only difference is going to be whether they followed the conduct requirements established for the press if they happen to have signed up.
Basically a blogger is trading 6 for half-a-dozen by signing up. IMO
From the government angle, freedom has been infringed, they win either way.
Another Idle speculation of equal value is that Homo Sapiens killed out the Neandrethals as part of a "cleanse the world" campaign in the dark ages.
Think of our current racial prejudicial disposition aimed at something that can more easily be denied as being made "in the image of god". An animal. Something that would rather die than submit to slavery.
Why? Maybe because the short cronies had larger members and the inferiority complex protection mechanisms kicked in. Or maybe because the matriarchs of the time had takan a position to protect or shelter them and the men felt an insatiable urge to defy. Or maybe because the Homo Sapiens at the time needed something shorter to skull fvck (dominate).
Your idea that they simply where bred away is a logical start down a path supporting my speculations where Homo Sapien men would feel the need to reject and destroy the matriarchs as well as destroy their genetic opposition (Pre-Christian religions like paganism supported values largely around matriarchal ideologies and family lineages). Take that idea a little further and you have academic/intelectual reasoning of spiritual leaders writing about "original sin" being the fault of women who fell into temptation. Witch hunts, the raise of patriarchal values, christianity etc etc.
refund...
It seems they don't really have a concrete business model for their core business anymore.
They are more about tweaking their assets and trying to milk it.
Maybe in Windows 9, they will retract Metro due to customer feedback, then declare their new changes innovative and declare it a success.
Their BI stuff in their SQL server is state of the art for now...
They can't seem to release a new OS that works though and that's their bread and butter. You would think they have tried an equivalent of the OP's suggestion that Intel drop x86...
They can't support their software development ecosystems, How many other variants of languages are they going to invent so that developers can get "Hello world" up on the screen?
I think they have a management issue first and foremost. Not a backwards compatibility issue, it's easy enough to include dll files that support previous standards. Windows 95 did that to support 3.1 applications.
I prefer Gentoo linux personally, the CLI interface I use is very simple but the actual underlying platform is top notch.
I see absolutely no evidence that one instruction set is going to give better performance or energy efficiency over another. CPU speeds have to do with the design considerations (circuit design as well as substrate technologies) taken when designing the chip.
During the 1990's there was a "war" between the RISC (Reduced Instructions) and CISC (x86 Complex Instructions) instruction sets. (I can't be bothered to reference this but you can try googling it.) RISC is considered to be simpler, equal in length, though more numerous, and faster to process by the instruction loader and decoders at the time. CISC, was unequal in length, and required more decoder time. And in-fact for some time there was competition between RISC processor manufacturers: Alpha made by Digital, SPARC made by Sun, and PowerPC made by IBM (to name a few) where king of the hill. Today, Digital is no more, Sun was snapped up by Oracle for Java and SPARC binned, and IBM, well, is a Jauggernaught that can't be stopped even by solar radiation. IBM still sells RISC based PowerPC chips for their bigger iron boxes and specially applications.
At one point it was revealed that CISC was actually a superior instruction set to RISC because it was more compact and made better use on on-chip "close to the iron" L1 cache space. As fetchers, decoders and branch prediction became better and chips shrank the performance differences boil down to process technology and chip design. At a market level, product support, reliability and serviceability are all key...
The main benefit of x86 is that its widely supported. The problem with creating a new Instruction Set is that compilers and development platforms need to be updated to target the new platform. This considerable time requires companies to invest. Optimizers etc etc all represent additional investments for newer platforms. And yet are available for x86, even for free. Even it an i7 is not reliable enough for the redundant services banks require, it's cheap and available enough to replace when it goes bad or becomes obsolete.
In reality, CPU's are general purpose chips. The basic operations like fetch, add, subtract, push pop etc have been around from the beginning of the computing age when CPU's where as big as rooms and constructed from vacuum tubes. And that is probably not going to change. The tendency is to add graphic related vectorial processing instructions to speed up that department.
Perhaps, the only gain in a new instruction set is where the new instructions are more purpose specific, or where that purpose requires fewer or different operations that make the x86 instructions bloated. That even then, the "waste" comes from engineering efforts go into implementations are are unused, and perhaps, just perhaps, a tiny bit of substrate area that happens to be associated with that unused area. But with the onset of SOC (System on Chip) the tendency is to want more features rather than fewer.
SOC (System on Chip) also takes other factors that are normally put on a northbridge (like until recently a memory controller) and puts them together. But this type of integrations is normally more limited by protocols that are a level higher than the instruction set. DMA, PCIe, USB etc etc. It's this integration that increases efficiency, not the instruction set or the nature of the protocols themselves.
Intel has some very very brightest engineers working on their process technology as well as their chip design. The only reason ARM has a head-start in mobile space is because Intel was caught with it's pants around it's ankles in a war with AMD in a performance race, which they have won. They had been focused on the 130W power envelope that Microsoft pushed for the PC era when Bill was at the helm.
Rest assured that now with the new goalpost in sight (mobile space, iOS and Android) Intel will utilize its massive resources to compete very well with technology that they are very very confortable with, x86 instructions, the very best manufacturing process as well as chip engineers. They do not need to change what does not need to be fixed. They need only get Samsung, LG or even Motorola onboard with one successful product to convince everyone x86 suites mobile space.
I love how the tall guy over his right shoulder rolled his eyes.
You need to give them due process.
That means a Notice of Fault and a Notice of Default. The process needs to be put together in a way that it is self documenting, either in itself of accompanied by your receivables people. I would include a Statement of Account that would enumerate your invoices, fines/fees, monetary corrections, etc etc. in your first mailing that would include the Notice of Fault. And perhaps you would include a letter of intent and/or Affidavit as well as a Bill of Lading (Certificate of Mailing for example) that has been notarized. And you should send the envelope directly to their CFO in their US office.
The Bill of Lading would need to enumerate all the documents sent. It's notarization is essentially the stamp of a 3rd party witness who is authorized by the state to issue oaths, it certifies the authenticity of the mailing in a definitive way.
In you letter of intent, sent with the Notice of Fault you need to clearly express your course of action. Perhaps something like if payment is not received within 15 days, it will cause the emission of a notice of Default. (30 days if you are dealing with government [USC Title 5])
If payment is not received you send the out a similar mailing with a Notice of Default. You give them 5 days to remedy the situation. And then register a UCC1 Commercial Lean against the corporation in the US. That can be done online in most states. You want to register in the state where their corporate HQ is located.
Your mailings need to be done by Registered or Certified mail that have tracking numbers so that you have evidence of service.
With your original contract, unpaid invoices, evidence of the corporate merger, the undisputed Statement of Account sent with the Notice of Fault, the Notice of Default, the certified mail receipts and your UCC1 Lean you have all the evidence you need to have a judge back your collection efforts. A lawyer can be of much greater assistance at this stage rather than merely being a suit who sends out demands. The court will have their own "Due Process" related procedure they follow, but in the end, if the corporation does not manifest itself with payment or a lawyer, the county Sheriff will accompany you to their corporate office and you can take possession of their corporate assets and have a firesale on their front lawn until enough of their property has been sold to cover the unpaid balance.
It's important that in your process, you properly identify exactly which commercial entities you are seeking out because the courts will not permit you to collect from any unnamed third party who has not been given due process. I would include the name of the CFO, he is a corporate officer who is responsible for finances, not a mere employee. If you have a lawyer available to verify your presentations you can get some extra piece of mind. This process done properly will give you all the documentary teeth needed to get court backing. FYI, the IRS performs tax collections is somewhat a similar way, minus that the notarization and certified mailings.
For most people this level of commerce is overwhelming. Most people give value to following corporate procedures or some version of their rules. This process is one where you govern your business according to your rules. That being said there is nothing that says you can't accept some aspects of their policy as they may suggest it in their counter-offers (possibly made by lawyers) so as to facilitate remedy, even if your acceptance is conditional :) The only thing you should _not_ do is ignore anything they send you (counter-offers).
You mean to say, it's equally stupid. But who made any claim that patent law regarding stupidity as a form of meritorious criteria what-so-ever? The systems obliges its players to bow to an equal level of stupidity.
So, perhaps a justification based on who first bows to these new levels of stupidity has more merit than you would like admit.
One last comment on this. I have a friend who as I previously posted in Colorado. The cop ignored his request to see identification, he shut the door and called the cops and communicated the following points: Fear for his life, possible that a cop had been kidnapped and someone impersonating him because of the refusal to identify himself, concerned for the well-being of the officer.
The next day, the cop returned and apologized.
In the eyes of the state, the well-being of their police force is very important, more important than what detail the officer may be attending to; safety first. In a way, they depend on a vigilant public for their own safety as well. That's why harming a cop is treated so much more seriously and that's why cops are required to properly identify themselves to people they approach. If they don't properly identify themselves, or ignore your request to see their ID, it's not unreasonable to consider their actions as suspicious. Remember that you are a law abiding vigilant citizen that, despite their efforts to make appear the contrary, look after your community and the law of your community.
Perhaps that's the attitude people need to embrace for things to start getting better.
One last note: It's always better to have at least two impeccable witnesses who can back you up. A couple passive 3rd party onlooker maybe. Here is why:
An LEO is an officer of the law who has sworn an oath to his office; that reason that the court treats their word with more weight, they speak the facts as far as the court is concerned. That is their job.
The courts position is that what you say is hearsay, unless you have been sworn in, but even then they can swear the officer in too. Nevertheless, it's a presumption that normally goes unchallenged. However, according to the rules of civil procedure, two witnesses who corroborates your statement elevates their value to that of a fact. As long as your two witnesses can recount the same thing, your voices can no longer treated as hearsay and you get equal footing. It then becomes the cat and mouse game of producing relevant facts to support your case. That's why lawyers spend time to discredit witnesses. It's their way of tearing down a case. Impeccable witnesses are valuable.
That's why cameras are actually unnecessary; their other more drastic function can be to stimulate the public disgust by displaying graphic and often sensationalized contents. And there is the true reason courts tend to favor the more LEO friendly view that filming police action is questionable. Their value in court is not always clear-cut; the issue of who is truly being filmed, who the actors or even when the film was made can all come under scrutiny. But those are only the issues on the surface.
Courts have a lot more work when contradictory evidence that would suggest it's officers are being negligent of their duties. It breaks down the fabric of their workings because it challenges those presumptions that otherwise never get looked at. They are especially mindful of how public may react to their decisions especially after that Rodney King episode where LEO was filmed and it got played by the local media over and over, riots etc etc. So if they can keep Officer moral up, limit the production of possible video type materials that can be used to sensationalize issues they may not even consider important, and maintain their "grip" on things, they win. They don't want the disciplinary actions of their officers to need to include the public.
+1
I agree. The problem is, we all have a sense of righteousness and what's happening isn't it. "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." "Give me liberty of give me death."
But, we all need to choose our own battles; we need to be practical. Eventually it will get to a point where the blind eye cannot be turned anymore. I mean to say that the sad state of affairs isn't going to fix itself. Certainly trying to game the system with a telephone call to the cops isn't the solution.
For me, the exact solution is not clear; I didn't approve of the war on terror, but it happened anyway. On of our presidents managed to unite the whole country in that movement and now the results of his efforts is not easily undone. And certainly some people have achieved exactly what they want.
Or you can ask for their identification, after all you really don't know who is engaging you and you should know they are genuine representatives of the state.
If they refuse to further identify themselves, you need to call the police immediately and report that you are in fear for your life because one or more individuals appear to be impersonating law enforcement officers. Your genuine concern is that one or more law enforcement officers may have been kidnapped, possibly at their homes or while on route to or from their homes, and their uniforms have been taken by individual performing questionable and suspicious acts. Your genuine concern is for the safety of the officers down.
If they do identify themselves, you respectfully require that your lawyer be present to mediate any further communications. Furthermore, it's perfectly reasonable to counter-offer their "delete this request" by requesting that such an order be formalized in writing as a court order signed by a standing judge residing over the case. Since it's likely that's where you will go anyway, there is no reason not to play that card.
OK You win.
Except that I'm not 86% of slashdot, sir. I'd actually say, based on your id 1203850, that I'm actually at most 0.000083066827263% of /. (assuming I can use a calculator).
You lose.
Thanks for the correction for what's worth, I'd hate to mess that punchline up next time I send you posting on /. :)