AMD's new chip is out - it's nothing terribly special. Or do you mean Phenom? Logic would dictate that since Barcelona isn't anything special (considering it's competing with a 1 year+ older chip), that a desktop chip based on this arch will not dominate since it competes with the same Intel arch on the desktop. I'm not saying Barcelona sucks - it's competitive (at least), but generally you'd kind of want a chip with a 1 year newer arch to beat its competition.
Tick-tock isn't just a name for something everyone else already does. There was really no such regimentation for how semiconductor companies released their products. tick-tock is very regimented and tightly scheduled. Previously you might have 2-3 major arch changes on the same process before a new process was used, or you would roll out a new process and a new arch at the same time (or very close together).
He has somewhere between 0 and no chance to win this. Who gives a shit what his GPS says. If the radar gun was properly calibrated and can be documented as such, it makes 0 difference - he's screwed.
So I see sarcasm, but it confuses me. Apparently the sarcasm points out that Microsoft isn't "flkuffy and altruistic". So of course, for this to be mildly interesting sarcasm someone would have to think they should be such. Now, here's what confuses me. Since when do companies give away their product out of altruism? Answer: they don't. Even charitable activities are for PR value. In other words, your sarcasm is nonsensical and you could replace the word "Microsoft" with "".
Or shortly, of course there'd be an ulterior motive - they have a legal responsibity to turn a profit just like every other publicly traded corporation.
Wait, you mean a corporation in a capitalist society, a corporation which has a legal responsibility to do so, is interested in...money?!!?! That's absolutely horrible! I mean... come on!
And heaven forbid we have to deal with Windows/IE's "horrible insecurities" instead of Firefox/Linux's!
Perhaps, but we have vastly different definitions of "practical". Yours appears to be "if people are too dumb or lazy to change or look for alternatives", mine is "literally have no alternatives that approach the functionality or use of the product". It's hard to argue that there is no "practical" alternative for Office when I can download OpenOffice in minutes. Or that there's no "practical" alternative to Windows when I can download a Linux DVD, pop it in, and install it as easily as Windows.
When the price of being a monopoly is the government asserting, effectively, ownership and control over a company I tend to consider "practical" to havce a fairly low burden. The simple fact is people _want_ one dominant OS. That people choose to buy one product should not make that product a monopoly - in fact the concept of a monopoly based on intellectual property is a little...suspicious to put it nicely.
That's exactly what a monopoly is - no other choices. If one person hoards all the oil, and I can't buy oil from anyone else, that person has a monoply. If 20 people have all the oil, and everyone decides for some stupid reason to buy oil from one person that one person does not have a monopoly.
Furthermore, a monopoly, for the concept to have any meaning, requires that the monopolist have pricing power. MS has no pricing power over any OS or Office product other than their own. They can't control the price of Linux, Apple, IBM, HP, or any other OS.
The cognitive dissonance is in the implication that Microsoft has a monopoly despite the fact that you just enumerated that people can and do have choices, many of which are absolutely free.
People absolutely have a realistic alternaWindows. It cracks me up you people will swear up and down that Linux is vastly superior to Windows and that Windows sucks in one breath, then in the other claim people have no alternatives and that MS has a monopoly. It's called cognitive dissonance, look it up.
All your gibber jabber is par for the course from people who really just hate Microsoft and apparently love socialism. Same old tired markets about how government intervention in a free market which has _repeatedly_ said with resounding authority that it _wants_ a near monopoly on the desktop operating system market. The idea that you think there could have conceivably been some kind of market for web browsers shows you are hopelessly naive.
Furthermore, you can't have a monppoly without pricing power. MS has no pricing power over a _free_ OS, or over Apple's, or over anything. In fact, Microsoft has no pricing power whatsoever over anything but their own products which people have repeatedly _chosen_ to buy in the face of what your average SlashWhiner swears is the superior and free OS in Linux.
Really, in the end, I get bored with seeing such trite crap from you people. It's either the blowhard who thinks he can rationalize government regulation of the tech sector with some contrived, ridiculous, long-winded and facile treatise on how really a free market needs the government to step in and control it with an iron fist because people are too stupid to choose a supposedly better, cheaper alternative.
Repeat after me. There is no "web browser market". There never would have been one. The web browser is something that's become intrinsic to using a computer. It's silly to think people would still be buying web browsers if MS hadn't, gasp, given away a free one.
Ding ding ding! You win today's installment of "Which dipshit will dramatically use the phrase 'convicted monopolist' in a retarded whine-fest about MS"! Congratulations!
Oh, and you do have evidence that MS is currently preventing OEM's from installing additional web browsers, right? Only morons or liars can say Microsoft is a monopoly in one breath then try to get people to switch to the _free_ competitor they claim is 1000% better. Microsoft is not any any legal way a monopoly, at least to anyone with at least half a wit. It's very easy to explain why. Microsoft has no pricing power in the market for computer operating systems. They cannot control the price at which Linux is sold. They cannot control the price at which OSX is sold. They cannot control the price at which any of the dozens of other commercial or open source operating systems are sold. You cannot, in any logical world, have a monopoly without pricing power. This is a simple truism. Logically you can't have a monopoly over intellectual property, either, but MS's competitors have whined enough to make the government think that a computer operating system is a physically limited resource over which someone could have a "monopoly".
Bullshit. "Part" of the problem isn't the vendors, it's the entire problem. You're urging socialism (where the government goes in and effectively takes everything but fiscal control of the company) becuase a few people want to use Firefox and the people writing the software won't properly support it? This logic is simply ridiculous. It's the same logic that says that since the market _wants_ a near monopoly and _choose_ Microsoft products, they should be penalized. In the "logical" world, market availability of a free competitor pretty much negates the concept of a monopoly in that market.
So really a market isn't what people want/need, it's what you think they should want/need? Very "interesting" thinking there. So apparently even though most people don't bother/don't care about which browser they use, it's a super important issue and the government should step in and make the choice for them? That is truly "brilliant" logic.
I hit submit because it's fucking stupid. It's like saying it's "cool, but unfortunate" when some drag racing little douchebag kills a bunch of people in a crash. Or that it's cool but unfortunate when a bunch of kids tie up some gay or retarded kid to a fencepost somewhere and he accidentally dies.
More importantly, the guy who did this was 19. Unfortunately for him, that's adult age and he's going to pay.
Ahh, good point. I find it especially amusing when some 16 year old punk drag races, crashes, and kills a family of 5. Haha, good times - good times. That sure beats an atomic wedgie!
I don't want him to be a better man, I want him to suffer for being a jackass.
Hey, dipshit, he hacked caller ID not "Windoze" or "M% OS" or whatever you fucking dweebs call it these days. He should be sent to prison for at least 5 years and raped in the ass repeatedly.
Yeah, I don't really understand this. The executive can make claims until they're blue in the face. Big deal. Congress subpoenas people, if they don't comply they get contempt of congress. Why isn't this happening? I'm sure my understanding is wrong, but can someone explain why?
If I had mod points I'd totally mod you down. There should be a special mod down category for "claiming he will be modded down for speaking well of UNIX/Linux/FOSS or speaking badly of Microsoft."
It's a bunch of god damn gobbledy gook. They think if they call it "quantum" something it sounds high tech and futuristic. This technology isn't quantum anything, any more than any process that uses light or electricity is "quantum" something.
It's a bunch of shit, and it will never come to anything. Repeat after me: Quantum (x) is, for any value of x, just nerd porn and will never provide super-fast or super-secure _anything_ in the real workd.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you people still carrying on about this? RISC lost. Get over it.
AMD's new chip is out - it's nothing terribly special. Or do you mean Phenom? Logic would dictate that since Barcelona isn't anything special (considering it's competing with a 1 year+ older chip), that a desktop chip based on this arch will not dominate since it competes with the same Intel arch on the desktop. I'm not saying Barcelona sucks - it's competitive (at least), but generally you'd kind of want a chip with a 1 year newer arch to beat its competition.
Tick-tock isn't just a name for something everyone else already does. There was really no such regimentation for how semiconductor companies released their products. tick-tock is very regimented and tightly scheduled. Previously you might have 2-3 major arch changes on the same process before a new process was used, or you would roll out a new process and a new arch at the same time (or very close together).
He has somewhere between 0 and no chance to win this. Who gives a shit what his GPS says. If the radar gun was properly calibrated and can be documented as such, it makes 0 difference - he's screwed.
Or shortly, of course there'd be an ulterior motive - they have a legal responsibity to turn a profit just like every other publicly traded corporation.
And heaven forbid we have to deal with Windows/IE's "horrible insecurities" instead of Firefox/Linux's!
When the price of being a monopoly is the government asserting, effectively, ownership and control over a company I tend to consider "practical" to havce a fairly low burden. The simple fact is people _want_ one dominant OS. That people choose to buy one product should not make that product a monopoly - in fact the concept of a monopoly based on intellectual property is a little...suspicious to put it nicely.
Furthermore, a monopoly, for the concept to have any meaning, requires that the monopolist have pricing power. MS has no pricing power over any OS or Office product other than their own. They can't control the price of Linux, Apple, IBM, HP, or any other OS.
The cognitive dissonance is in the implication that Microsoft has a monopoly despite the fact that you just enumerated that people can and do have choices, many of which are absolutely free.
People absolutely have a realistic alternaWindows. It cracks me up you people will swear up and down that Linux is vastly superior to Windows and that Windows sucks in one breath, then in the other claim people have no alternatives and that MS has a monopoly. It's called cognitive dissonance, look it up.
Oh my God, they have to go "out of their way"!? That's crazy shit, they need to convene a panel in Nuremburg!
Furthermore, you can't have a monppoly without pricing power. MS has no pricing power over a _free_ OS, or over Apple's, or over anything. In fact, Microsoft has no pricing power whatsoever over anything but their own products which people have repeatedly _chosen_ to buy in the face of what your average SlashWhiner swears is the superior and free OS in Linux.
Really, in the end, I get bored with seeing such trite crap from you people. It's either the blowhard who thinks he can rationalize government regulation of the tech sector with some contrived, ridiculous, long-winded and facile treatise on how really a free market needs the government to step in and control it with an iron fist because people are too stupid to choose a supposedly better, cheaper alternative.
Repeat after me. There is no "web browser market". There never would have been one. The web browser is something that's become intrinsic to using a computer. It's silly to think people would still be buying web browsers if MS hadn't, gasp, given away a free one.
Don't rain on his parade with your so-called "facts"!
Oh, and you do have evidence that MS is currently preventing OEM's from installing additional web browsers, right? Only morons or liars can say Microsoft is a monopoly in one breath then try to get people to switch to the _free_ competitor they claim is 1000% better. Microsoft is not any any legal way a monopoly, at least to anyone with at least half a wit. It's very easy to explain why. Microsoft has no pricing power in the market for computer operating systems. They cannot control the price at which Linux is sold. They cannot control the price at which OSX is sold. They cannot control the price at which any of the dozens of other commercial or open source operating systems are sold. You cannot, in any logical world, have a monopoly without pricing power. This is a simple truism. Logically you can't have a monopoly over intellectual property, either, but MS's competitors have whined enough to make the government think that a computer operating system is a physically limited resource over which someone could have a "monopoly".
Bullshit. "Part" of the problem isn't the vendors, it's the entire problem. You're urging socialism (where the government goes in and effectively takes everything but fiscal control of the company) becuase a few people want to use Firefox and the people writing the software won't properly support it? This logic is simply ridiculous. It's the same logic that says that since the market _wants_ a near monopoly and _choose_ Microsoft products, they should be penalized. In the "logical" world, market availability of a free competitor pretty much negates the concept of a monopoly in that market.
So really a market isn't what people want/need, it's what you think they should want/need? Very "interesting" thinking there. So apparently even though most people don't bother/don't care about which browser they use, it's a super important issue and the government should step in and make the choice for them? That is truly "brilliant" logic.
More importantly, the guy who did this was 19. Unfortunately for him, that's adult age and he's going to pay.
Ahh, good point. I find it especially amusing when some 16 year old punk drag races, crashes, and kills a family of 5. Haha, good times - good times. That sure beats an atomic wedgie! I don't want him to be a better man, I want him to suffer for being a jackass.
Well, if by awesome you mean "could have killed someone" then yeah. This little shitcake should be sent to prison for quite a while.
Hey, dipshit, he hacked caller ID not "Windoze" or "M% OS" or whatever you fucking dweebs call it these days. He should be sent to prison for at least 5 years and raped in the ass repeatedly.
Yeah, I don't really understand this. The executive can make claims until they're blue in the face. Big deal. Congress subpoenas people, if they don't comply they get contempt of congress. Why isn't this happening? I'm sure my understanding is wrong, but can someone explain why?
If I had mod points I'd totally mod you down. There should be a special mod down category for "claiming he will be modded down for speaking well of UNIX/Linux/FOSS or speaking badly of Microsoft."
It's a bunch of shit, and it will never come to anything. Repeat after me: Quantum (x) is, for any value of x, just nerd porn and will never provide super-fast or super-secure _anything_ in the real workd.
Forgot to post: http://www.cnn.com/EARTH/9710/31/pepper.spray.update/ Not that I like dirty ass hippies much, but this is simply torture to get them to comply.