God forbid someone have a different opinion of the GPLv3 than you do! Why, they should be tarred and feathered out of the fine profession of "journalism"!
Oooh, sorry. There will be no shift towards OpenSolaris. The fact is serious people don't give a flying shit about what it's licensed under, they care what they can do with the software. GPLv2, while still a piece of shit license, is more open than GPLv3. Nobody but a few nutcase zealots will move from Linux to OpenSolaris because of the licensing.
Umm.. You do know it's just music right? You're make believing that it's some super important thing and they're these horrible monopolies. Oh no, I can't listen to the latest Rhianna song! Save me, I only have dozens of free operating systems and several commercial operating systems to choose from! Save me from the bad monopolies!
The whining, though old, never ceases to amaze and amuse me. Who gives a shit about the RIAA or what they do.
I'm a traditional early adopter, just not for HDDVD/BluRay. I've seen plenty in 1080p, I have a 60" SXRD and seen broadcast films in 1080i, and of course 1080i film-sourced content can be losslessly deinterlaced to 1080p. It's certainly better than DVD upscaled, but not enough better that I'm going to go all crazy and pick a winner and not be able to view movies on the other format, or lose the ability to backup my movies.
I am the market. Early adapter. Unfortunately for Sony, I can easily live with DVDs for a long while. Upscaled by a good upscaler, I'm not missing out on a whole lot. VHS->DVD=100. DVD->BluRay/HDDVD=10. I can live without that extra 10% perceived quality. Fuck 'em.
It's content that drives sales, and all the content is on DVD.
I won't be buying BluRay discs for at least 10+ years. I don't crybaby about DRM, I just don't buy it if it doesn't suit my needs and can't be cracked, ergo if he's right I won't buy BluRay. This is one reason I like HD-DVD, it's had the shit cracked out of it.
Sorry, your arguments are meaningless. You (if you did) and all the other assholes who voted Bush in should lose their voting rights next election. Without doubt they voted the absolute, positively 100% worst president in US history. You might be excused for 2000 (I was torn, but didn't vote for him) but there is no excuse for 2004. Please don't vote in this election, you've been proved incompetent.
Haha. Good parody of a complete dipshit. I imagine you got modded as Flamebait because people thought you were serious and hence a completely ridiculous idiot. I get the joke, though.
You seem to inhabit the same bizarro world as the rest of these dweebs carrying on about this supposed monopoly. So tell me, how exactly can one have a monopoly on a) intellectual property and b) something where there are literally dozens of alternatives, many free and several proclaimed by you SELF SAME filthy nerds as being far, far better technically than Windows? I seriously don't get it. Monopoly law makes sense when applied to physically limited resources - important things like oil, water, food, etc... It makes 0 sense when applied to something someone sat down and created from nothing.
As for the second part - I'm unclear. Is linux better than windows or not? You all seem to swear it is. And it's free. So in the face of that, how exactly can anyone have a monopoly on operating systems? Yeah, that's a rhetorical question. The answer is they can't - it's nonsensical.
Porting Win32 code to Win64 code is a trivial operation in the vast majority of cases. You just go "durr...generate 64-bit. ok, me done". It's not hard. Poorly written code will be exactly as difficult to port as it would be in Linux, and your assertion that "Linux supports 64-bit far better" is simply uninformed fanboism with no basis in reality.
Ooh, zing! Unfortunately, your baseless arrogance has no basis in reality. AMD is sinking like a rotting turd, and good riddance. They used to be a good engineering company, but they got a little too whiny and complacent and now they're suffering a much deserved smackdown. It's amusing that you would bring up "itanic", which nobody but you cares about one way or the other, to counter AMD's sinking ship.
AMD's solution is provably inferior. It costs more to manufacture, has poorer yields, and doesn't perform as well. In fact, VHS was provably superior to Beta contrary to the urban legend. It had more capacity and hence provided more value to the customers to who it was marketed. You seem to confuse some kind of "engineering superiority in a few narrowly defined categories" for "meaningful technical superiority". The two are orthogonal.
This is just science fiction. They can claim they're simulating whatever they want, but simulating something like this would be orders of magnitude more complex than predicting weather, and they can't even do that. The idea that they're somehow doing meaningful simulations of people or societies is ridiculous.
If any of what you said was true, you'd have a good point. Unfortunately Intel's chips outperform AMD's in 64-bit as well, just by a slightly smaller margin. What you call "cutting corners" is actually called "making money". A business doesn't release something first for the sake of releasing something first, they do it to make money.
Intel "cut corners" because they know they can get very good yields on the parts that way, hence making money. Now, if this part performed badly then you'd have a point, unfortunately for your non-point Intel chips are outperforming AMD chips in just about every segment. The only exception is in the 4S+ domain where AMD's HT does give them an edge. Unfortunately for AMD, Intel is releasing chipsets with per-socket FSB's.
So explain how releasing a faster product that costs less to manufacture is somehow a negative in some bizarro world? I know, FSB isn't pretty! It's ugly! Nobody cares. And CSI is just around the corner, I wonder what people will find to complain about then.
In short, the statement "the technology itself is not superior to what AMD is offering" is provably and undeniably false. It performs better and it's cheaper to produce. Ergo, it's better technology.
Incorrect. As I clearly explained, my point was that AMD's insistence on "native quad core" may do them in because they can't manufacture the thing. Them losing face is more amusing and gratifying than meaningful.
How are my comments odd? AMD is releasing Barcelona at a slower than expected speed. Now I know GHz ain't everything, but the fact is that for a chip this delayed they had to come out strong and they're not. My assertion is that this is because they're having problems getting good yields and enough higher clocking CPUs. They're trying to produce a chip that has 4 cores and add to that that it's on a relatively new (to AMD anyway) process and things don't look good.
My other point was that AMD has mocked the "glue 'em together" approach. Well, they can still mock but they certainly won't be mocking all the way to the bank.
True enough. I can only judge based on known information and rumor because, well, there's nothing else to judge on at this point. Based on those things it ain't looking good for Barcelona.
They were so vocal about "true dual core" and then "native quad core", they made it sound like it actually meant something important. Now they're paying the price - they can't manufacture it. All indications I've heard are that they're having production problems. Compare this with the alternative of just gluing a few dual cores together. AMD can mock this approach all they want, we'll see who's laughing when they're "next gen" chip underperforms (in many benchmarks, I'm betting) a previous gen competitor's chip and falls quite a way behind the competitor's "next gen" chip.
First, god DAMN I wish you people would quity dramatically trotting out the "convicted criminal monopolist" and "convicted monopolist" monikers. It has no meaning, and it's not funny unless I can see the dramatic, meaningful expression your face takes on when you say it.
Second, any game MS sells only runs on MS OS's. Nobody's whined about it yet.
Oh no! You mean you have to run an alternative OS if you don't like Windows!? The humanity! And, oh my God, those other platforms aren't good for games because the studios choose not to suppor them?!!! Good lord, Microsoft should not only be broken up they should be executed in public!!!!!!!! Games are a matter of life and death and important enough for the DoJ to confiscate MS!
Many audiophiles may disagree, but they'd be demonstrating abject stupidity to do so. An analog copy of digital content cannot in any universe match the quality of a given digital representation of said content.
Now, I know there are still a few crackpots who think their vinyl sounds better, but this is a different proposition from saying that an analog copy of an existing digital performance can match the quality of the digital.
Slashdot Mirror
God forbid someone have a different opinion of the GPLv3 than you do! Why, they should be tarred and feathered out of the fine profession of "journalism"!
Hard core high performance (per watt especially) SOC.
Oooh, sorry. There will be no shift towards OpenSolaris. The fact is serious people don't give a flying shit about what it's licensed under, they care what they can do with the software. GPLv2, while still a piece of shit license, is more open than GPLv3. Nobody but a few nutcase zealots will move from Linux to OpenSolaris because of the licensing.
The whining, though old, never ceases to amaze and amuse me. Who gives a shit about the RIAA or what they do.
I kid, I kid!
I'm a traditional early adopter, just not for HDDVD/BluRay. I've seen plenty in 1080p, I have a 60" SXRD and seen broadcast films in 1080i, and of course 1080i film-sourced content can be losslessly deinterlaced to 1080p. It's certainly better than DVD upscaled, but not enough better that I'm going to go all crazy and pick a winner and not be able to view movies on the other format, or lose the ability to backup my movies.
It's content that drives sales, and all the content is on DVD.
I won't be buying BluRay discs for at least 10+ years. I don't crybaby about DRM, I just don't buy it if it doesn't suit my needs and can't be cracked, ergo if he's right I won't buy BluRay. This is one reason I like HD-DVD, it's had the shit cracked out of it.
Sorry, your arguments are meaningless. You (if you did) and all the other assholes who voted Bush in should lose their voting rights next election. Without doubt they voted the absolute, positively 100% worst president in US history. You might be excused for 2000 (I was torn, but didn't vote for him) but there is no excuse for 2004. Please don't vote in this election, you've been proved incompetent.
Haha. Good parody of a complete dipshit. I imagine you got modded as Flamebait because people thought you were serious and hence a completely ridiculous idiot. I get the joke, though.
As for the second part - I'm unclear. Is linux better than windows or not? You all seem to swear it is. And it's free. So in the face of that, how exactly can anyone have a monopoly on operating systems? Yeah, that's a rhetorical question. The answer is they can't - it's nonsensical.
I am quite content to use MySQL and PHPMyAdmin, though I will continue to be forced to used MSSQL at work.
Not for long, I'm sure. People with your level of...competence generally don't stick around for long.
Porting Win32 code to Win64 code is a trivial operation in the vast majority of cases. You just go "durr...generate 64-bit. ok, me done". It's not hard. Poorly written code will be exactly as difficult to port as it would be in Linux, and your assertion that "Linux supports 64-bit far better" is simply uninformed fanboism with no basis in reality.
Have a nice trip back down to $12.
AMD's solution is provably inferior. It costs more to manufacture, has poorer yields, and doesn't perform as well. In fact, VHS was provably superior to Beta contrary to the urban legend. It had more capacity and hence provided more value to the customers to who it was marketed. You seem to confuse some kind of "engineering superiority in a few narrowly defined categories" for "meaningful technical superiority". The two are orthogonal.
I wondered when some anonymous jerkoff would catch this. Congratulations, you have officially won the jerkoff of the month award, you caught a typo!
This is just science fiction. They can claim they're simulating whatever they want, but simulating something like this would be orders of magnitude more complex than predicting weather, and they can't even do that. The idea that they're somehow doing meaningful simulations of people or societies is ridiculous.
Intel "cut corners" because they know they can get very good yields on the parts that way, hence making money. Now, if this part performed badly then you'd have a point, unfortunately for your non-point Intel chips are outperforming AMD chips in just about every segment. The only exception is in the 4S+ domain where AMD's HT does give them an edge. Unfortunately for AMD, Intel is releasing chipsets with per-socket FSB's.
So explain how releasing a faster product that costs less to manufacture is somehow a negative in some bizarro world? I know, FSB isn't pretty! It's ugly! Nobody cares. And CSI is just around the corner, I wonder what people will find to complain about then.
In short, the statement "the technology itself is not superior to what AMD is offering" is provably and undeniably false. It performs better and it's cheaper to produce. Ergo, it's better technology.
Incorrect. As I clearly explained, my point was that AMD's insistence on "native quad core" may do them in because they can't manufacture the thing. Them losing face is more amusing and gratifying than meaningful.
My other point was that AMD has mocked the "glue 'em together" approach. Well, they can still mock but they certainly won't be mocking all the way to the bank.
True enough. I can only judge based on known information and rumor because, well, there's nothing else to judge on at this point. Based on those things it ain't looking good for Barcelona.
Second, any game MS sells only runs on MS OS's. Nobody's whined about it yet.
See what I did there, Ken?
Now, I know there are still a few crackpots who think their vinyl sounds better, but this is a different proposition from saying that an analog copy of an existing digital performance can match the quality of the digital.