on the first result, from AMD's own website, in the summary it says 16.9 percent.
i don't know about you but that seems a lot less than 50%, even using fuzzy logic and or reasoning.
if you want an alternative method, pick up a sunday newspaper and go through the ads. count up the number of computers that have amd cpus and count the number of computers that have intel chips. intel comes out ahead at least 5:1 and sometimes 14:1. do this for an entire month (4 sunday ads total, 1 each week.)
then come to slashdot and tell me and the rest of the audience the results. i've already done this as you can no doubt tell.
and you know what the funny thing is? after AMD announced yet another anti-trust suit (the current one), i found a few more AMD computers for sale in the sunday ads. which is why i said 14:1... it came down a bit, to an overall average of 5:1 now.
intel has been busted twice by the japanese commerce commission, and are being investigated by the south korean govt. they have the balls other countries can only dream of. and that's saying a hell of a lot, considering the way japan does business. but that's another story.
and you're suggesting that if we have a system that doesn't produce honest commerce, that we should transfer to another system that isn't honest either.
i like that type of logic. i don't endorse it but i like it.
it's nutty.
and you condone illegal business practices? or are you simply saying that what happened, happened and we should just move on (and hope that it doesn't happen in the future). i suppose it is within the realm of possibility that AMD enjoyed being kept out of lucrative contracts with Dell and toshiba, ibm, fujitsu, gateway, etc through intel's strongarm tactics and "incentive" based rebates among other things.
yeah i suppose so.
i vote for no dishonest commerce. i would like to know what you vote for but maybe you sort of hinted at what you prefer.
the market HAS to bear it because the "justice" dept. has deemed that it hasn't the interest of the citizens in mind.
same deal with MS.
so the market will bear it but the smart cookies will tell the other cookies why they shouldn't bear it. and since freedom of speech aint worth a damn anymore, i guess the public won't be hearing this sort of talk much longer.
i guess that means they're selling them at a loss.
which might somewhat bring to light the accusations of collusion south korean mp3 player manufacturers have made against apple and samsung.
or maybe not.
whenever people bring up the cost of things... someone inevitably brings up the "what the market will bear".
so which is it, are they priced according to supply and demand in compliance to cost of materials, labor and distribution or "what the market will bear"?
with modern notions of justice, we can be rest assured that nothing will be done to help AMD or any other company that gets crushed by illegal monopolists.
whether you think that's right or not can be discussed further but it's clear that people in general don't give a sh*t about honest commerce, hence we have the world the way it is today.
how they can get away with this... it boggles my mind that more people don't stand up to stuff like this. even if it's just saying "i think this sucks".
certainly not financially supporting them is the best bet but all companies try to pull this garbage.
changing a contract without notice only means you cannot enforce the changes on the ones who've already signed. you need to have them sign again. that's the logical solution but then they would have to have a good reason to sign a more restrictive agreement.
who is rooting for the rights of customers?
certainly not enough people, that's for sure.
and i wonder how business got it's crooked and dishonest reputation from...
and since apple didn't borrow the GUI from xerox and since they live in a vacuum, they generate ideas out of non-existence...
this is a silly way of thinking.
all humans share ideas and knowledge together and have been doing so since the begining of time. no man is an island and standing on the shoulders of giants...
that means that the stuff in your head, wasn't generated out of nothingness, but came from other people and sources. there is no creation but merely sharing of matter, energy and time.
shakespeare didn't just come up with those stories and plays out of nothing... they came from his experience and other authors from his time as well as the past.
and it's true microsoft innovates very little, especially compared to other companies. but you must remember, sharing ideas and what people like to call "ripoffs" aren't the same thing.
if and when you get an idea that hasn't existed anywhere else in the universe in any form, then please feel free to slap me and tell me i'm an idiot. and you are free also to slap everyone else who shares ideas and reconfigures them to make a slightly different form. (which is everyone)
i just see this faulty line of thinking too often to stay silent.
this is a fundamental way of living and existence.
1st law of thermodynamics.
there is no innovation in that sense but what we recognize as "innovation".
it's only another form that has always existed.
at least Michaelangelo was aware of and honest about it...
i just ignored it slightly and allowed myself to explain the situation and implications further.
in this case, both are inferior. being slightly less evil and restrictive doesn't really correspond to the beta vs vhs debate.
and i've been on the internet a long time too... it's degraded badly but i'd rather everyone have a voice, no matter how much it may be disagreed with. the alternative is to go back to the bad old days.
in a free market, chinese companies would be able to sell you a device to bypass the HDCP restrictions on your TV.
a European company would be able to sell you a ppc box to install Mac OS on.
a Canadian company could sell you a modified Tivo to record and transfer video into and out of it and to enable all features.
an Indian company could sell you a region free DVD player legally, in let's say Circuit City stores.
a Russian Company could sell you a playstation3 or xbox360 modified to allow you to actually have access to the chips inside the box.
a Brazilian company would be legally allowed to sell you a monitor that would enable you to play high definition video and audio without the OS crippling the output.
and the list goes on and on.
that free market died.. a few days after it was born, when they found out that in a free market, customers got a fair deal and that they couldn't milk and control the customers and products after the sale.
we are in a quagmire in these modern times.
we have to fight for every little right that we had just, relatively, a while ago.
actually only people like RMS have the restraint and insight to only use Free software and hardware.
some of us are working towards a future where selling products really means you own it after the sale. that includes software as well as hardware.
give us some time. we'll educate enough people to counter the DRM propoganda to get a citizenry that is vehemently anti-aftersale control.
DRM is only compatible with renting and not selling. thus currently DRM breaks the rules of commerce. and we as customers and ugh, "consumers" have the right to tell them to fuck off.
i admire RMS' position. he isn't at the mercy of those a**holes but eventually he won't have the right to read. DRM is slowly creeping in into every product and service in the world. the day will come when everything is hardended down against "ownership", including physical items. and nobody really cared until it was too late. they didn't understand the issues until it was already well integrated into their lives.
education is the key.
you want to rent? be my guest. that is a legal business model.
want to sell? you better make sure the customer has FULL control over the product otherwise you are the thief. and you have broken the laws of commerce. common sense and otherwise tells us that you will be fucked financially and in mind share. people talk... like the MPAA wanting movie goers not to talk negatively about movies they've seen so that they can continue to get revenue.
people will get fed up with it. the DIVX fiasco of the 90s gives us just enough hope that it might be possible to have the right to read... someday at least.
if the media cartels want to have rights after a sale has been made, they can stop selling in first, second and third world countries which still have reasonable property laws.
they're SELLING and not RENTING. that's the difference.
if they want to sell, then sell. DRM goes completely against SELLING. DRM is only compatible with RENTING.
that's why.
let them find a country which has corrupt laws, i mean more corrupt laws and don't recognize property laws.
and how many real contracts do you know of which have a clause that allows the terms to be changed after the agreement and still coerces the signer to be bound by the new terms automatically?
if i were a judge, i would throw them all into jail and throw away the key.
what kind of moronic lawyer would put in an illegal clause into the agreement?
as far as i'm concerned, it voids the whole contract.
but then won't replaytv still work without calling home? sure you won't get the scheduling features but it will still provide basic recording.
as i hear it, series 2 and above tivos won't work at all without an updated schedule.
anyway.
the best solution as always, is never to buy (you can rent if you think it's worth it) any DRM products. you don't own it but are paying for it.
and maybe get congress to represent us citizens and not allow companies to SELL you products which you cannot fully own. it already is illegal in common sense and old fashioned PROPERTY laws before the lobbyists and their money-hungry congress handlers came to town.
and the difference is that replaytv units will continue to work without modification even if replay goes out of business.
series 2 and newer tivos won't work at all without the service.
and if you can crack the lockouts and DRM then maybe you can coax it to get back some of the features you paid for. it will certainly be crippled enough that you'd have regretted not buying a Free solution.
this is the problem with ALL DRM. you don't own it and if something goes wrong, you have no recourse.
imagine a world full of DRM...
and what's the saying... Rome wasn't built in a day... yeah that DRM world won't be built in one day but it will boil the frog slowly.
remember kids, every DRM product you buy, God brings our dystopic future closer.
people continue to plunk down cash because most of them are not informed of the situation.
they don't have a clue as to what this whole "digital restriction" (and analog with macrovision etc) thing is really about. they just see it as some kind of lock but they lack the context in which to make sense of it.
they don't understand why that top of the line dvd player won't send a digital signal over to their new fangled HDTV but the video is downsampled (crippled) to 480p. they don't understand why they can't record their favorite shows anymore due to the broadcast flag. they don't understand that there is an entire industry whose sole purpose is to prevent people using their bought and paid for products after the sale has been made.
they lack the insight to view the issue in a big picture sort of way. they don't understand why the RIAA and MPAA exist to shield the studios and reroute customer anger. they also have never seen any program on TV that raises the question the DRM is not for the benefit of the customers. they have never read an article in a magazine or newspaper as to why manufacturers have the right to control their products after the sale.
so the goal becomes clear: education.
you and i, as informed geeks have the duty and obligation to make the uninformed public aware of the issues.
democracy only works with a well informed and clueful citizenry.
you control your MythTV, TiVO controls the box you paid for.
that's as much as i and others need to know.
if you don't control it, someone else does.
DRM is all about control, especially after a sale has been made. if that doesn't disgust you, i have a state to sell you and you are permitted to cleanse it ethnically.
people have been propogandized so thoroughly, they think DRM is for their benefit. that's something we informed geeks need to help educate the public about.
this is the same "business model" that the console industry practices. they control access to the physical machine you paid for through the use of encryption to prevent you using the chips you own.
ALL DRM is bad. period. notice i said DRM and not access mechanisms like file system permissions and having locks on doors so don't try that;-)
education is the key and i'll keep saying it until i die.
you want control over something, then sign a real contract, written on paper, using a real signature with a pen, with an employee of the company in question. don't try to trojan horse your EULA into the equation. people don't believe bullshit like that and i'll keep bringing it up until it becomes mainstream.
just like the console business. i have no problem with this kind of business model provided they rent and not sell the devices. once something is sold, the vendor loses all rights to the product in question unless a signed contract (a real one, not the hope-the-public-buys-our-nonsense-and-thinks -it-is-binding-and-legal-EULA).
thank you.
seeing comments like yours brings me a NEW HOPE that human kind has the ability to STRIKE BACK at such nonsense.
so you're saying that the websites in question need to provide doctors a voice?
sounds like a bad precident to set.... think about a few scenarios and then stretch that to it's logical conclusion.
if you want due process, go to the agency that provides it: the courts.
the core problem with the internet, is that it provides everyone a voice. people like Linus Torvalds, Richard Stallman and wierdos like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs.
there's nothing wrong with the internet. only people who want to maintain the status quo don't like the internet's enabling of freedom of speech and freedom to publish as well as freedom of having a voice.
these problems you speak of are extremely minor compared to the benefits we've gotten from the internet. hell, even losers like me and you can publish so called "comments" on web logs like/. .
but since libel and slander are illegal and already handled by the courts, i don't see anything different in this situation.
"If Patients who may be not be satisfied due to a combination of myriad factors start using the Web primarly as a means to get back at the doctors, what is going to stop the Doctors to retaliate likewise by releasing confidential health details about their patients if they are not satisfied with the patients for example?"
the law.
one is legal and the other is illegal.
take a guess as to which is which.
the burden is on the physician, who is licensed by the state to provide quality health care, to provide good service.
why should these people be licensed if they cannot even meet the minimum requirements?
in other words, why is it up to the patient to find a competent doctor? doesn't the license guarantee some level of competence?
or maybe it's time to see physicians as software....
full of bugs and since your health is involved, can be quite deadly.
Slashdot Mirror
AMD owns a lot less than 50%.
ask anyone or look it up.
http://www.google.com/search?q=amd+market+share
on the first result, from AMD's own website, in the summary it says 16.9 percent.
i don't know about you but that seems a lot less than 50%, even using fuzzy logic and or reasoning.
if you want an alternative method, pick up a sunday newspaper and go through the ads. count up the number of computers that have amd cpus and count the number of computers that have intel chips. intel comes out ahead at least 5:1 and sometimes 14:1. do this for an entire month (4 sunday ads total, 1 each week.)
then come to slashdot and tell me and the rest of the audience the results. i've already done this as you can no doubt tell.
and you know what the funny thing is? after AMD announced yet another anti-trust suit (the current one), i found a few more AMD computers for sale in the sunday ads. which is why i said 14:1... it came down a bit, to an overall average of 5:1 now.
intel has been busted twice by the japanese commerce commission, and are being investigated by the south korean govt. they have the balls other countries can only dream of. and that's saying a hell of a lot, considering the way japan does business. but that's another story.
nice try to you too.
and you're suggesting that if we have a system that doesn't produce honest commerce, that we should transfer to another system that isn't honest either.
i like that type of logic. i don't endorse it but i like it.
it's nutty.
and you condone illegal business practices? or are you simply saying that what happened, happened and we should just move on (and hope that it doesn't happen in the future). i suppose it is within the realm of possibility that AMD enjoyed being kept out of lucrative contracts with Dell and toshiba, ibm, fujitsu, gateway, etc through intel's strongarm tactics and "incentive" based rebates among other things.
yeah i suppose so.
i vote for no dishonest commerce. i would like to know what you vote for but maybe you sort of hinted at what you prefer.
they design chips, all chips that way.
they cut out a group of pipelines or disable half the cache and other features and sell them as a lesser model.
gfx, cpu, sound, network, etc.
the market doesn't bear it.
they are a monopolist and an illegal one at that.
the market HAS to bear it because the "justice" dept. has deemed that it hasn't the interest of the citizens in mind.
same deal with MS.
so the market will bear it but the smart cookies will tell the other cookies why they shouldn't bear it. and since freedom of speech aint worth a damn anymore, i guess the public won't be hearing this sort of talk much longer.
then why do 30-60 year old songs/albums/movies sell for as much (or close to it) as they sold for when they first came out?
trying to legitimize the RIAA and MPAA by that analogy is pretty disgusting. not that you meant to.
except that the chips are actually the product but in the case of software, the disc is only the means of distribution.
so that certainly isn't a good analogy overall but i get your point.
i guess that means they're selling them at a loss.
which might somewhat bring to light the accusations of collusion south korean mp3 player manufacturers have made against apple and samsung.
or maybe not.
whenever people bring up the cost of things... someone inevitably brings up the "what the market will bear".
so which is it, are they priced according to supply and demand in compliance to cost of materials, labor and distribution or "what the market will bear"?
with modern notions of justice, we can be rest assured that nothing will be done to help AMD or any other company that gets crushed by illegal monopolists.
whether you think that's right or not can be discussed further but it's clear that people in general don't give a sh*t about honest commerce, hence we have the world the way it is today.
it's not even remotely logical.
and that's what i'm talking about.
how they can get away with this... it boggles my mind that more people don't stand up to stuff like this. even if it's just saying "i think this sucks".
certainly not financially supporting them is the best bet but all companies try to pull this garbage.
changing a contract without notice only means you cannot enforce the changes on the ones who've already signed. you need to have them sign again. that's the logical solution but then they would have to have a good reason to sign a more restrictive agreement.
who is rooting for the rights of customers?
certainly not enough people, that's for sure.
and i wonder how business got it's crooked and dishonest reputation from...
and since apple didn't borrow the GUI from xerox and since they live in a vacuum, they generate ideas out of non-existence...
this is a silly way of thinking.
all humans share ideas and knowledge together and have been doing so since the begining of time. no man is an island and standing on the shoulders of giants...
that means that the stuff in your head, wasn't generated out of nothingness, but came from other people and sources. there is no creation but merely sharing of matter, energy and time.
shakespeare didn't just come up with those stories and plays out of nothing... they came from his experience and other authors from his time as well as the past.
and it's true microsoft innovates very little, especially compared to other companies. but you must remember, sharing ideas and what people like to call "ripoffs" aren't the same thing.
if and when you get an idea that hasn't existed anywhere else in the universe in any form, then please feel free to slap me and tell me i'm an idiot. and you are free also to slap everyone else who shares ideas and reconfigures them to make a slightly different form. (which is everyone)
i just see this faulty line of thinking too often to stay silent.
this is a fundamental way of living and existence.
1st law of thermodynamics.
there is no innovation in that sense but what we recognize as "innovation".
it's only another form that has always existed.
at least Michaelangelo was aware of and honest about it...
i didn't miss it.
i just ignored it slightly and allowed myself to explain the situation and implications further.
in this case, both are inferior. being slightly less evil and restrictive doesn't really correspond to the beta vs vhs debate.
and i've been on the internet a long time too... it's degraded badly but i'd rather everyone have a voice, no matter how much it may be disagreed with. the alternative is to go back to the bad old days.
old saying: "if you don't control it, someone else does".
the free market is like dehydrated water.
it simply ceased to exist a long time ago.
in a free market, chinese companies would be able to sell you a device to bypass the HDCP restrictions on your TV.
a European company would be able to sell you a ppc box to install Mac OS on.
a Canadian company could sell you a modified Tivo to record and transfer video into and out of it and to enable all features.
an Indian company could sell you a region free DVD player legally, in let's say Circuit City stores.
a Russian Company could sell you a playstation3 or xbox360 modified to allow you to actually have access to the chips inside the box.
a Brazilian company would be legally allowed to sell you a monitor that would enable you to play high definition video and audio without the OS crippling the output.
and the list goes on and on.
that free market died.. a few days after it was born, when they found out that in a free market, customers got a fair deal and that they couldn't milk and control the customers and products after the sale.
we are in a quagmire in these modern times.
we have to fight for every little right that we had just, relatively, a while ago.
we had property rights and we liked it that way.
we had honest commerce and we liked it.
actually only people like RMS have the restraint and insight to only use Free software and hardware.
some of us are working towards a future where selling products really means you own it after the sale. that includes software as well as hardware.
give us some time. we'll educate enough people to counter the DRM propoganda to get a citizenry that is vehemently anti-aftersale control.
DRM is only compatible with renting and not selling. thus currently DRM breaks the rules of commerce. and we as customers and ugh, "consumers" have the right to tell them to fuck off.
i admire RMS' position. he isn't at the mercy of those a**holes but eventually he won't have the right to read. DRM is slowly creeping in into every product and service in the world. the day will come when everything is hardended down against "ownership", including physical items. and nobody really cared until it was too late. they didn't understand the issues until it was already well integrated into their lives.
education is the key.
you want to rent? be my guest. that is a legal business model.
want to sell? you better make sure the customer has FULL control over the product otherwise you are the thief. and you have broken the laws of commerce. common sense and otherwise tells us that you will be fucked financially and in mind share. people talk... like the MPAA wanting movie goers not to talk negatively about movies they've seen so that they can continue to get revenue.
people will get fed up with it. the DIVX fiasco of the 90s gives us just enough hope that it might be possible to have the right to read... someday at least.
because DRM is against the laws of commerce.
if the media cartels want to have rights after a sale has been made, they can stop selling in first, second and third world countries which still have reasonable property laws.
they're SELLING and not RENTING. that's the difference.
if they want to sell, then sell. DRM goes completely against SELLING. DRM is only compatible with RENTING.
that's why.
let them find a country which has corrupt laws, i mean more corrupt laws and don't recognize property laws.
and how many real contracts do you know of which have a clause that allows the terms to be changed after the agreement and still coerces the signer to be bound by the new terms automatically?
if i were a judge, i would throw them all into jail and throw away the key.
what kind of moronic lawyer would put in an illegal clause into the agreement?
as far as i'm concerned, it voids the whole contract.
but then won't replaytv still work without calling home? sure you won't get the scheduling features but it will still provide basic recording.
as i hear it, series 2 and above tivos won't work at all without an updated schedule.
anyway.
the best solution as always, is never to buy (you can rent if you think it's worth it) any DRM products. you don't own it but are paying for it.
and maybe get congress to represent us citizens and not allow companies to SELL you products which you cannot fully own. it already is illegal in common sense and old fashioned PROPERTY laws before the lobbyists and their money-hungry congress handlers came to town.
and the difference is that replaytv units will continue to work without modification even if replay goes out of business.
series 2 and newer tivos won't work at all without the service.
and if you can crack the lockouts and DRM then maybe you can coax it to get back some of the features you paid for. it will certainly be crippled enough that you'd have regretted not buying a Free solution.
this is the problem with ALL DRM. you don't own it and if something goes wrong, you have no recourse.
imagine a world full of DRM...
and what's the saying... Rome wasn't built in a day... yeah that DRM world won't be built in one day but it will boil the frog slowly.
remember kids, every DRM product you buy, God brings our dystopic future closer.
people continue to plunk down cash because most of them are not informed of the situation.
they don't have a clue as to what this whole "digital restriction" (and analog with macrovision etc) thing is really about. they just see it as some kind of lock but they lack the context in which to make sense of it.
they don't understand why that top of the line dvd player won't send a digital signal over to their new fangled HDTV but the video is downsampled (crippled) to 480p. they don't understand why they can't record their favorite shows anymore due to the broadcast flag. they don't understand that there is an entire industry whose sole purpose is to prevent people using their bought and paid for products after the sale has been made.
they lack the insight to view the issue in a big picture sort of way. they don't understand why the RIAA and MPAA exist to shield the studios and reroute customer anger. they also have never seen any program on TV that raises the question the DRM is not for the benefit of the customers. they have never read an article in a magazine or newspaper as to why manufacturers have the right to control their products after the sale.
so the goal becomes clear: education.
you and i, as informed geeks have the duty and obligation to make the uninformed public aware of the issues.
democracy only works with a well informed and clueful citizenry.
and don't forget the to list the associates, otherwise how will thoughtful customers avoid such intentionally crippled products.
education is key.
you control your MythTV, TiVO controls the box you paid for.
;-)
that's as much as i and others need to know.
if you don't control it, someone else does.
DRM is all about control, especially after a sale has been made. if that doesn't disgust you, i have a state to sell you and you are permitted to cleanse it ethnically.
people have been propogandized so thoroughly, they think DRM is for their benefit. that's something we informed geeks need to help educate the public about.
this is the same "business model" that the console industry practices. they control access to the physical machine you paid for through the use of encryption to prevent you using the chips you own.
ALL DRM is bad. period. notice i said DRM and not access mechanisms like file system permissions and having locks on doors so don't try that
education is the key and i'll keep saying it until i die.
you want control over something, then sign a real contract, written on paper, using a real signature with a pen, with an employee of the company in question. don't try to trojan horse your EULA into the equation. people don't believe bullshit like that and i'll keep bringing it up until it becomes mainstream.
just like the console business. i have no problem with this kind of business model provided they rent and not sell the devices. once something is sold, the vendor loses all rights to the product in question unless a signed contract (a real one, not the hope-the-public-buys-our-nonsense-and-thinks
-it-is-binding-and-legal-EULA).
thank you.
seeing comments like yours brings me a NEW HOPE that human kind has the ability to STRIKE BACK at such nonsense.
and yes, we are RETURNing.
so you're saying that the websites in question need to provide doctors a voice?
/. .
sounds like a bad precident to set.... think about a few scenarios and then stretch that to it's logical conclusion.
if you want due process, go to the agency that provides it: the courts.
the core problem with the internet, is that it provides everyone a voice. people like Linus Torvalds, Richard Stallman and wierdos like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs.
there's nothing wrong with the internet. only people who want to maintain the status quo don't like the internet's enabling of freedom of speech and freedom to publish as well as freedom of having a voice.
these problems you speak of are extremely minor compared to the benefits we've gotten from the internet. hell, even losers like me and you can publish so called "comments" on web logs like
but since libel and slander are illegal and already handled by the courts, i don't see anything different in this situation.
"If Patients who may be not be satisfied due to a combination of myriad factors start using the Web primarly as a means to get back at the doctors, what is going to stop the Doctors to retaliate likewise by releasing confidential health details about their patients if they are not satisfied with the patients for example?"
the law.
one is legal and the other is illegal.
take a guess as to which is which.
the burden is on the physician, who is licensed by the state to provide quality health care, to provide good service.
why should these people be licensed if they cannot even meet the minimum requirements?
in other words, why is it up to the patient to find a competent doctor? doesn't the license guarantee some level of competence?
or maybe it's time to see physicians as software....
full of bugs and since your health is involved, can be quite deadly.
and just because it's in a book or on tv or in a newspaper doesn't mean jack that it's even vaguely true.