Bullshit. The "exploit" in question here is badly written code allowing SQL injection. Your inane point is like saying that it's an "exploit" that if I get root on your Linux machine I can access almost any resource on your local machine or on any NFS server attached to the linux machine.
He was talking about the Java..VM of course. And Java isn't faster than C, of course, unless your C compiler sucks. It's pretty fast in some things, though.
And evidence of this criminal conviction is where, exactly? Note that some bellyaching by their competitors to the DoJ which brought about a stupid investigation which resulted in a consent decree is not a criminal conviction.
Not at all practical, and also quite pointless. First, you can't just flip-flop between completely different architectures like that. Apple's done it a few times, and it's always painful. Second, this processor would suck in a desktop, you'd need a big old loud water pump and a huge case capable of cooling it. Third, you couldn't use it in a laptop at all. Really, it's just impossible - this is a niche CPU and it'll be old news in 9 months anyway.
Microsoft is not a criminally convicted monopolist, for the 50th time. If you believe otherwise, please provide documentation of Microsoft being convicted in criminal court of a crime. The reason you can't is because you are full of shit.
convicted criminal organisation I'm sure you can point out where Microsoft was convicted of a criminal offense, then? Not a civil offense or regulatory agreement, but an actual criminal conviction?
Not sure if this is joke or not, but we're definitely not a long way from practical implementations. I'd say 2 years at max before it's feasible at HDTV resolutions. The multi-core revolution is upon us - we're up to 4 cores now, 8 cores by end of year or early the next. Plus there are specialized implementations with e.g. 80 cores that run at, say, 1Ghz. That's a lot of computing power for something as highly parallelizable like ray tracing.
I was expecting DX11 more like late 2009, myself, though so maybe it is a (rather pointless, lame) april fools joke. "Oooh, we were joking haha, it's really one year later that it'll be out! Haha, isn't that funny that we prtended it would be out 1 year early haha!".
Your grasp of logic is... weak. If people don't like it enough, someone else will come in and fill the need and sell me forks. If people don't like Sirius/XM merger, they won't pay or someone will come in and offer a similar, better service cheaper. You're using some kind of retarded false constraint "argument" or some shit, but it sure is stupid.
This isn't about entrenching consumer choice in law -- this is about rules against monopolies which will tend to shit on the consumer if they have nobody to keep them in check. But, I suspect you're happy with whatever the corporations feel you should get. Good luck with that. Your definition of a monopoly and mine differ greatly. Yours seems to emphasize a "but by the grace of the government" approach, mine would be that unless people are tremendously harmed en mass, it's not a monopoly. Think oil, power, water, medical treatement, food, etc... You not being able to hear someone say "fuck" on the radio or having to listen to FM radio or your Ipod instead would hardly constitute a burden great enough to allow government meddling.
Fuck that. I'm Canadian -- I'm honest about my left leanings and the fact that I don't believe that unbridled capitalism ever is a good thing. Sure, I could dust off my old Ayn Rand books (I have quite a few) and try once again to be a knee-jerk right-wing moron. However, I've found it to not be very fun, and mostly bullshit, and doesn't really get you to useful answers because your world is defined so narrowly. I'm not for unbridled capitalism, either. I fully agree that since we provide certain protections to companies and corporations we ("the people") have a right to regulation on as limited a basis as necessary. From this derives the right to taxation and other necessary evils. Alternately, "we" the people outnumber them and can simply tear them limb from limb. By buying into our system, they get protections.
Monopoly/anti-trust law makes sense in limited cases of an importantsupply limited commodity controlled by a single source. Again, think oil, water, food, medicine, power, things of that nature. Applying it to a single entertainment distribution is a little silly. OK, more than a little - it's completely irrational.
Horseshit. Depending on the rights, ab-suh-fucking-lutely they are. Should your individual rights allow you to commit murder, rape or theft of property without consequences? Would your self-correcting anarchy basically leave us with a peaceful equilibrium, or would it be the rule of the strong over the weak like Neitzche would have us with? See, civil society only works with some constraint upon individual rights. If you give every individual an unbridled set of rights, "society" eventually falls apart into a Darwinistic shit hole. You seem to be arguing against some imagined boogie-man. Society as a whole has no rights, individuals have rights. That right includes not being murdered, raped, or stolen from. I'm all for a civil society with laws, etc... I'm not some crackpot "privatize the police" nutjob. I'm more pragmatic. Your individual rights end where mine begin.
I am neither the rabid commie you think I am, nor the reactionary right wing wanker I think you are. So get over your damned self and stop acting like you know the one-true truth and have everyone nicely pigeon holed. Life is more complicated than a black and white position you have entrenched and can't see past. Right wing? Not quite. But on this issue I'm quite stubborn. You don't go willy nilly applying government regulation because a few people may be slightly inconvenienced by something.
The short answer is we're slowly turning into socialists who value collective rights more than individual rights and who want a Big Brother regulating everything for the "betterment of society".
The longer answer to your question is that people are irrational. They like to apply anti-trust and monopoly law to things that make no sense. You know when monopoly law is important? When someone has sole control of a physically limited resource that is critical to the welfare of a large percentage of people. Think oil, water, food, power delivery, medical care, etc... I'm all for regulating monopolies and trusts in that domain. It's government regulation, but the social contract is that those things are so important we're going to do the minimum possible to make sure society is protected. Basically, we provide them security from theft/murder/robbery/etc... so we have some right to regulate them when absolutey necessary.
The last 30 years or so has seen this devolve into the public wanting to regulate anything they think will make something cheaper. I wouldn't be surprised if the porn industry consolidated to one single owner if they wouldn't whine that they have a porn monopoly. It seriously gets that ridiculous nowadays. I mean, read some of the replies. People have the nuts to claim that since they want satellite radio, don't like commercials, and are worried about prices they think the government should step in. This in spite of the fact that a) Satellite radio is trivial, who cares - it's entertainment and b) there are literally dozens of alternative delivery mechanisms for entertainment.
Haha, yeah - because listening to Howard Stern is _sooo_ important. I mean, people will literally be stuck unable to drive, work, or get food if they can't listen to Howard Stern.
Your analogy is god damn stupid. A more apt analogy would be it's not OK for the (let's pretend) two hydrogen fuel cell makers to merge. Satellite is a small market, and a struggling one. More imporantly as to the stupidity of your point, entertainment isn't all that important and this is but one single delivery mechanism for it.
Yet more devolvement into obscure issues to justify government regulation of a company. Let me get this straight, you have the gall to sit there and whine about obscure stuff like Clear Channel quality and being able to listen to same thing driving across country and then claim the government should step in "for the customers"?
Quite simply - I don't subscribe to your socialist leanings. You would have the government regulate something at the drop of a hat ("but I have to change channels, or I can't listen to the song I want") for "consumer choice". I would say leave it alone until it becomes an unreasonable burden on people, and by 'unreasonable' I don't mean "whaaa, I don't get a consistent listening experience across country".
You are one of the new breed of closet socialists who think "consumer choice" is more important automatically no matter how trivial the issue than anything else. You remind me of the poeple who think societal rights are more important than individual rights. They're not. If there's one good thing about Republicans, it's that they don't buy the bullshit you're selling.
I find your message hopeful, but in your hopeful view of the future you forgot the importance of dreams. Dreams are what can also, hopefully, bring change. I know some cynics may think all this talk of dreams and hope is meaningless drivel, but I dream that someday, once hope has returned to this great land, it will be OK to dream again. The dream I see for America is something I...dream for and...hope to see. Hopefully.
And what if it turns out that they do have a legitimate claim on patent infringement? The odds of this are exactly 0. Zero. There is nothing that could be done in a SSD that would be unique enough and have cost Seagate enough money to research that would justify a patent. If the patent is something ridiculously obvious, then indeed I'm sure there is something in every storage device that uses it. Big deal, unless you think "legitimate" means "whatever the lazy patent examiners allowed to be patented".
This is the real problem - space for games. As you say, Microsoft will be forced to do something, though I'm not sure whether they'll do it for the 360 or for their next-gen. They could actually just use HD-DVD. Just because it's dead for home video doesn't mean they couldn't scavenge it to use as the internal drive for a next-gen console.
You got some SheepleDotters to give you some moderation points, but your point is stupid. Every business "monopoly" or not makes assessments about these types of things. If supporting a competitor's product is beneficial, they will do it, otherwise they won't. Crybabying about a "monopoly" is laughable in this case, but it sure does get you some mod points from this rabble, huh?
Umm, dumping doesn't mean what you think it means. The competitor's selling point is immaterial, of course. It would be rather stupid to define "dumping" as having greater efficiency or lower costs. No, in fact dumping has absolutely nothing to do with how much your competitor needs to sell their product for. I'll let you go figure out what dumping really means.
I'm confused. You think the US should _not_ discourage other countries from getting a weapon that can impact the entire world if used anywhere in the world? OK, you win - it's not "fair". It's still the correct thing and frankly it's stupid to think otherwise.
Here they come... "But why would evolution get rid of a useful trait!". I'll tell you one possible reason why - random mutation. Offspring mutates to inactive "regen gene". Offspring lives. Bingo - whole line of offspring with inactive gene. It could also be that other mutations mitigated the benefit of this gene making it of small use and hence when it went away it didn't, in practice, limit viability of the offspring without it. For example (I'm making this up, but sounds plausible to me), cold-blooded species maybe able to live longer to allow repair mechanism to repair some types of catastrophic damage that would nearly instantly kill other species.
[Not that only ID people will wonder about this, btw, just that they love to harp on this stuff - if, indeed, the research is even correct and this is actually even in our genome somewhere.]
People seem to think outer space is cold. It isn't, it just has no temperature because there's nothing there. If you dump water in outer space it isn't going to just instantly freeze because the only way it loses heat is through radiating it out - nothing pulls the heat out of it.
Exactly. Saying it can pass a limited turing test is like saying you've discovered an algorithm that can crack exactly 1 specific 256-bit AES key. i.e. meaningless.
I think we're crazy far away from real AI that can pass a real turing test. I'm thinking more like 100 years than 20, personally.
Slashdot Mirror
Bullshit. The "exploit" in question here is badly written code allowing SQL injection. Your inane point is like saying that it's an "exploit" that if I get root on your Linux machine I can access almost any resource on your local machine or on any NFS server attached to the linux machine.
He was talking about the Java..VM of course. And Java isn't faster than C, of course, unless your C compiler sucks. It's pretty fast in some things, though.
It's both criminal and civil. They weren't convicted in any criminal court.
Again, you've shown no criminal conviction. You've shown a civil court case brought by the DoJ.
And evidence of this criminal conviction is where, exactly? Note that some bellyaching by their competitors to the DoJ which brought about a stupid investigation which resulted in a consent decree is not a criminal conviction.
Again, please show me a criminal conviction by Microsoft in any court for antitrust or any other serious crime. So far, you simply haven't.
Not at all practical, and also quite pointless. First, you can't just flip-flop between completely different architectures like that. Apple's done it a few times, and it's always painful. Second, this processor would suck in a desktop, you'd need a big old loud water pump and a huge case capable of cooling it. Third, you couldn't use it in a laptop at all. Really, it's just impossible - this is a niche CPU and it'll be old news in 9 months anyway.
Microsoft is not a criminally convicted monopolist, for the 50th time. If you believe otherwise, please provide documentation of Microsoft being convicted in criminal court of a crime. The reason you can't is because you are full of shit.
Hint: You can't, and your phrase is nonsensical.
I was expecting DX11 more like late 2009, myself, though so maybe it is a (rather pointless, lame) april fools joke. "Oooh, we were joking haha, it's really one year later that it'll be out! Haha, isn't that funny that we prtended it would be out 1 year early haha!".
Your grasp of logic is... weak. If people don't like it enough, someone else will come in and fill the need and sell me forks. If people don't like Sirius/XM merger, they won't pay or someone will come in and offer a similar, better service cheaper. You're using some kind of retarded false constraint "argument" or some shit, but it sure is stupid.
Monopoly/anti-trust law makes sense in limited cases of an important supply limited commodity controlled by a single source. Again, think oil, water, food, medicine, power, things of that nature. Applying it to a single entertainment distribution is a little silly. OK, more than a little - it's completely irrational.
Horseshit. Depending on the rights, ab-suh-fucking-lutely they are. Should your individual rights allow you to commit murder, rape or theft of property without consequences? Would your self-correcting anarchy basically leave us with a peaceful equilibrium, or would it be the rule of the strong over the weak like Neitzche would have us with? See, civil society only works with some constraint upon individual rights. If you give every individual an unbridled set of rights, "society" eventually falls apart into a Darwinistic shit hole. You seem to be arguing against some imagined boogie-man. Society as a whole has no rights, individuals have rights. That right includes not being murdered, raped, or stolen from. I'm all for a civil society with laws, etc... I'm not some crackpot "privatize the police" nutjob. I'm more pragmatic. Your individual rights end where mine begin. I am neither the rabid commie you think I am, nor the reactionary right wing wanker I think you are. So get over your damned self and stop acting like you know the one-true truth and have everyone nicely pigeon holed. Life is more complicated than a black and white position you have entrenched and can't see past. Right wing? Not quite. But on this issue I'm quite stubborn. You don't go willy nilly applying government regulation because a few people may be slightly inconvenienced by something.The last 30 years or so has seen this devolve into the public wanting to regulate anything they think will make something cheaper. I wouldn't be surprised if the porn industry consolidated to one single owner if they wouldn't whine that they have a porn monopoly. It seriously gets that ridiculous nowadays. I mean, read some of the replies. People have the nuts to claim that since they want satellite radio, don't like commercials, and are worried about prices they think the government should step in. This in spite of the fact that a) Satellite radio is trivial, who cares - it's entertainment and b) there are literally dozens of alternative delivery mechanisms for entertainment.
Your analogy is god damn stupid. A more apt analogy would be it's not OK for the (let's pretend) two hydrogen fuel cell makers to merge. Satellite is a small market, and a struggling one. More imporantly as to the stupidity of your point, entertainment isn't all that important and this is but one single delivery mechanism for it.
Quite simply - I don't subscribe to your socialist leanings. You would have the government regulate something at the drop of a hat ("but I have to change channels, or I can't listen to the song I want") for "consumer choice". I would say leave it alone until it becomes an unreasonable burden on people, and by 'unreasonable' I don't mean "whaaa, I don't get a consistent listening experience across country".
You are one of the new breed of closet socialists who think "consumer choice" is more important automatically no matter how trivial the issue than anything else. You remind me of the poeple who think societal rights are more important than individual rights. They're not. If there's one good thing about Republicans, it's that they don't buy the bullshit you're selling.
I find your message hopeful, but in your hopeful view of the future you forgot the importance of dreams. Dreams are what can also, hopefully, bring change. I know some cynics may think all this talk of dreams and hope is meaningless drivel, but I dream that someday, once hope has returned to this great land, it will be OK to dream again. The dream I see for America is something I...dream for and...hope to see. Hopefully.
Oooh, good argument. If I had mod points I'd totally mod you up as "+1 Insightful" for a gem like that.
This is the real problem - space for games. As you say, Microsoft will be forced to do something, though I'm not sure whether they'll do it for the 360 or for their next-gen. They could actually just use HD-DVD. Just because it's dead for home video doesn't mean they couldn't scavenge it to use as the internal drive for a next-gen console.
You got some SheepleDotters to give you some moderation points, but your point is stupid. Every business "monopoly" or not makes assessments about these types of things. If supporting a competitor's product is beneficial, they will do it, otherwise they won't. Crybabying about a "monopoly" is laughable in this case, but it sure does get you some mod points from this rabble, huh?
Umm, dumping doesn't mean what you think it means. The competitor's selling point is immaterial, of course. It would be rather stupid to define "dumping" as having greater efficiency or lower costs. No, in fact dumping has absolutely nothing to do with how much your competitor needs to sell their product for. I'll let you go figure out what dumping really means.
I'm confused. You think the US should _not_ discourage other countries from getting a weapon that can impact the entire world if used anywhere in the world? OK, you win - it's not "fair". It's still the correct thing and frankly it's stupid to think otherwise.
[Not that only ID people will wonder about this, btw, just that they love to harp on this stuff - if, indeed, the research is even correct and this is actually even in our genome somewhere.]
People seem to think outer space is cold. It isn't, it just has no temperature because there's nothing there. If you dump water in outer space it isn't going to just instantly freeze because the only way it loses heat is through radiating it out - nothing pulls the heat out of it.
Exactly. Saying it can pass a limited turing test is like saying you've discovered an algorithm that can crack exactly 1 specific 256-bit AES key. i.e. meaningless. I think we're crazy far away from real AI that can pass a real turing test. I'm thinking more like 100 years than 20, personally.