Christ. In this particular story, the comments are going to be discussing alternatives, because that's pretty much what the article asks about. If you don't want to talk about alternatives, and instead want to just sit around until someone else invents them, why on Earth would you bother reading the comment section of this particular article? Just to make snarky posts and degrade the overall quality of the discussion?
TPB wins - case shows that even anti-piracy groups can't follow the law, and begs the question "if they can't follow the law, then how can they prosecute others that also don't?"
This is not a legal precedent, and that question will be answered by saying "they didn't follow the law and that claim/law was upheld, and now we're going to prosecute others that also don't follow the law".
Like I said, everyone will have a laugh for about a day when this parody site gets taken down or whatever, but things will continue as they are. It's not like the copyright people are going to drop all of their claims because they don't want to look like hypocrites on this one parody site. They'll enforce copyright against the parody site (which will require admitting that they were in the wrong and TPB has a legitimate copyright claim), but who gives a shit about that parody site? And then they will continue enforcing all the other ones too.
I guess I don't see how this can possibly be a win for TPB. The copyright on the CSS will get enforced, the parody site will come down or change, and the other copyright infringement cases against TPB will proceed. TPB will have themselves a good laugh for about a day and then continue facing the existing lawsuits. The parody site is really, really small potatoes compared to the massive amounts of copyright infringement occurring via trackers that TPB distributes that media corps have a vested interest in prosecuting.
TPB gets plenty of economic benefit from posting those episodes: they sell ads. Having content like Glee available draws eyeballs to the site, which then enables them to sell those eyeballs to ad companies. It's exactly the same thing that Fox does (sells eyeballs watching Glee to ad companies). Fox didn't shell out any money to this artist for the use of his work, and TPB didn't shell out any money to Fox for the use of their work. Seriously, it seems almost exactly the same to me. Except that Fox paid for almost all of their content (save for this guy's song), whereas TPB pays for none of theirs.
I've found that the loud commercials are just artifacts of my TV not properly implementing dialnorm. The commercial comes through with an accurate dialnorm setting indicating REALLY LOUD content, which should tell my TV to decrease the volume. But if my TV doesn't see the dialnorm metadata or fails to process it correctly, the commercial comes through with its loud content and no volume adjustment.
As soon as I switched to playing all TV audio through my receiver and speaker setup instead of the built-in TV speakers, I don't have the loud commercial problem anymore. The receiver processes the dialnorm metadata correctly and adjusts the loudness. I know this because my receiver displays a "DIALNORM +3" or "DIANORM -1" whenever the dialnorm metadata changes, and I see it change on exactly these types of commercials.
I obviously haven't read the report, but does it factor in the massive employment losses that automation is going to continue to produce? How will this global middle class actually be able to afford anything if there isn't enough employment available to pay people a living wage? Are they assuming socialization of food, water, housing, and healthcare?
That means you included the word create, and asserted that education creates intelligence. Just to make sure we're speaking the same language, you agree with that?
I'm not sure I'm parsing your English correctly, but I think the answer to your question is "yes". I do think education creates intelligence. Similarly to what you asked for here, show me some evidence that it does not. Now we get to the problem where "one can't prove a negative". Just show me anything.
First, I'm not sure if your history is correct. Second, if they lack the ability to use it, isn't handing them tools to abuse a stupid idea?
Why are you so convinced that everyone is so dumb?
My way hasn't been explained and so your claim there is off-base. For example, it could be a graduated method not unlike the first part of our current system.
Whoa, you're changing your whole assertion. First you said that it was stupid to give everyone an education. Now you're saying that it's okay for everyone to get some education. Two totally different things.
Which brings us back to my point: providing education for everyone ensures that it conforms to the lowest common denominator,
First, note I said "unearth and/or create". I put in "unearth" to address precisely what you are arguing.
Second, you're lamenting various education systems and their methods, not lack-of-education vs. education. I never said any one system perfect, but I certainly think that having a system at all is better than having 98% of people shovel cow shit and de-tassle corn for 50 years like in the middle ages. Feel free to disagree but I'll probably never buy it.
Third, your point is valid as an argument for mass-education vs. selective education if the selection method is perfect and occurs across the entire population. I'd argue it's much more feasible to just provide education for everyone. The intelligent people should mostly show up that way. With your way, if your selection method is imperfect, you might miss out.
At least, modern civilization does. I buy the study's argument if you remove the mass-education system we have from the equation, as it was in, say, the Middle Ages where monks and elites were the only ones who had a chance of studying anything. (Cue all the people lamenting the state of education in the US, but still.) But once you add mass education into the mix, you will unearth and/or create plenty of smart people that way, rather than just by the stupid people dying off.
Sigh, this thread is getting old and stale. Which one of us will give up first and let the other have the last word? I was going to be that party, but then another rabid pro-ARM article got posted today which made me revisit this thread.
Because Apple might go all ARM in the near future? We're focusing on Android in this thread (my fault), but iOS devices are ARM-based, have a significant chunk of the market, and ONLY run native code. Lots of rumors flying that Apple is considering using ARM in their laptops and desktops going forward, which could make a lot of sense in the next few years for them.
Apple has shown that it is certainly willing to change ISA at the drop of a hat when it makes sense for them to do so. Apple now has in-house ARM designs, so this wouldn't surprise me at all. But there's nothing Intel can do about Apples in-house ARM designs other than continue to make x86 chips that are better at MacBook and iMac power budgets by virtue of their higher performance (again, at that higher power budget) than any ARM chip that exists when Apple builds those machines. If the ARM stuff is worse than x86 at that power budget (which it is, today, in Q4 2012), and Apple goes with them anyway, those products will stop being cool and they will revert to sucking like they did when PowerPC was in them. If the ARM stuff does get up to x86 performance levels, I'll turn your own questions around and ask what the advantage for the consumer would be of yet another ISA change for Macs? Again, I know what the advantage would be for Apple (they kick out Intel as a supplier and make more money), but for the average consumer?
And all the base Windows NT code ran on Alpha. Developers still weren't willing to support an alternative, but more powerful, ISA for NT.
There were years and years of legacy DOS and Win apps that did not run on Alpha and were not being actively developed or maintained. Same with Itanium - it had the same problem, and (poor) runtime emulation of x86, which also killed it. However, (almost) none of that applies to Android, where the installed based can't possibly be more than 4 years old, and (as you acknowledged) the vast majority is pure Dalvik anyway.
Yes, Google, the biggest, most well-funded, most dedicated Android developer took two weeks to provide an x86 compatible version of one of their flagship apps. For a phone produced by one of their own subsidiaries. How quickly do you think one and two man shops would provide alternative versions of their apps, if ever? Why would anyone (the developer, or the consumer) want to have to worry about compatibility of their phone/app?
I debunked your example. Live with it, and please provide another. Also, please provide some statistics for the percentage of Android apps that are native ARM. If I'm a two-man Android app shop (is that what you are in your day job or something?), going to native ARM has to be more trouble than its worth. You must be talking about games, because that's the only reason I could see to bother.
Bias against x86... Is that why I asked for an i7 workstation? x86 is fine for desktop computing, I just see no advantage to using it in the mobile space. Again, what's the benefit of having a phone or tablet that is compatible with 80386 software? That's the only advantage x86 gets you.
This thread started out as a hypothetical, remember? Someone said that Intel would never produce an x86 chip that was as low-power as ARM, and I called bullshit on that, and you took some sort of exception to that bullshit-calling. Then, as yet another hypothetical, I asked if you would want an x86 chip that was lower-power than ARM, and you basically said no, and I didn't understand that since it seemed to be anti-x86 bias.
You know, I could just easily accuse you of pro-x86 bias, especially since you haven't listed any actual "technical merits" of x86, and I've m
Sigh. It seems there is a new, hip, propaganda trend on Slashdot: pro-ARM articles are posted, and a bunch of ARM zombies come out saying how anything ARM makes will (magically) be lower-power or more power-efficient than anything x86.
So I'll start a tradition of posting this same response every time (originally posted by me here):
"ARM isn't magic; there is nothing in the ARM ISA that makes it inherently lower power than x86. Yes, I'm counting all the decode hardware and microcode that x86 chips need to support legacy ISA. There just isn't much power burned there compared to modern cache sizes, execution resources, and queue/buffer depths which all high-performance cores need regardless of ISA. If you have an x86 processor that targets A9 performance levels, it will burn A9 power (or less if Intel makes it, given Intel's manufacturing advantage). If you have a ARM processor that targets Sandy Bridge performance levels, it will burn Sandy Bridge (or more) power."
This just proves that there is real competition in smartphones. Four years ago, no one would have done anything but wait until iPhoneNext came out. Now, people who want a smartphone in the 3 months leading up to iPhoneNext can get one of a selection of the latest Android phones, which are at worst merely equal to iPhoneNext, and in this particular case (GSIII), superior.
What would prevent Intel from burning a 28nm ARM design in their fab?
Oh absolutely nothing technical, just Intel's refusal to give any ISA other than x86 (since Intel only makes x86 chips, unless you know something I don't) its fab advantage. Intel could easily make ARM stuff in its fab, but why would it bother if it could put out a superior x86 chip?
...native ARM code...
Alright, I was mistaken about the extent of native ARM in Android. But what makes it different than the WinTel ecosystem that dominated PCs is that PC ISA lock-in involved the OS. Android, including all of its libraries, GUI, and the base Android-supplied apps, already runs on x86. Your Chrome for x86-Android bit is just stupid - Google released it 2 weeks after the phone's release, hardly much to get upset about, wouldn't you say?
Hopefully it makes more sense now. No, a better performing x86 chip would not guarantee my interest. I'm not biased enough to completely rule out purchasing an x86-based phone in the future, but as it stands right now x86 looks like a disadvantage as opposed to an advantage.
No, it still doesn't make sense. And at this point it appears that there is no further discussion we can have as you seem to have a baseless bias against x86 regardless of any technical merits.
Nothing in your comment offers up any advantage offered by x86, just Intel's fabs.
Intel's fabs are the advantage offered by x86. x86 processors are the only processors that can be made by Intel's fabs. If that changes, or if other fabs catch up, then great - use whatever is the best.
now I do have a vested interest in running "legacy" ARM apps I have purchased for those devices for the foreseeable future
Android apps are almost all Java - they run on any platform that has a Java runtime, which certainly includes x86. If your apps make calls into native code, that native code is shipped by the phone OEM, and you can already buy x86-based Android phones (Motorola sells one using some Intel Atom chip), so it obviously works there too. In other words, the CPU's ISA is completely invisible to app developers, so I'm not sure what your complaint is there.
If Intel pushed better performing and/or lower powered ARM chips,
This makes no sense. Why would Intel have to push an ARM chip for you to be interested? What if Intel pushed a better-performing x86 chip than any ARM chip? Would you not be interested in that because you have some inherent bias against x86?
Even if Intel chips had exactly the same power usage as ARM (highly unlikely), what's the benefit of having an Intel chip in your mobile device?
Why do you think this is unlikely? On the contrary, Intel has a massive fab/manufacturing advantage over any ARM chipmaker - they are at least 1 process shrink (node) ahead of any other foundry, not to mention their process at any given node is better than all competitors (TSMC, GloFo, Samsung). This fab advantage directly translates to lower power usage, and by all accounts, Intel's advantage there is only getting larger - ask AMD how it feels to be on the receiving end of this advantage. Intel needs to put out a microarchitecture which targets about the same performance range that ARM Cortex-A9 (or maybe A15 [1]) does, and in all likelihood, Intel's chip will be lower power because it will be manufactured on either one shrink ahead of any ARM equivalent, or the same node but using Intel's superior process at that node. In fact, Intel is doing just that - the next-gen Atom chip (Silvermont/Valleyview) is targeting right around where A15 is in terms of performance, area, and power.
ARM isn't magic; there is nothing in the ARM ISA that makes it inherently lower power than x86. Yes, I'm counting all the decode hardware and microcode that x86 chips need to support legacy ISA. There just isn't much power burned there compared to modern cache sizes, execution resources, and queue/buffer depths which all high-performance cores need regardless of ISA. If you have an x86 processor that targets A9 performance levels, it will burn A9 power (or less if Intel makes it, given Intel's manufacturing advantage). If you have a ARM processor that targets Sandy Bridge performance levels, it will burn Sandy Bridge (or more) power.
[1] I say maybe A15, because from Anandtech's latest review here, Samsung's Exynos 5250 using A15 cores does not have a prayer of getting into smartphones using 5W at load. Your smartphone will be dead in an hour of web browsing with that kind of power draw. Yeah yeah, Exynos 5250 is on a 32nm process and the 28nm A15's are right around the corner, which should be lower power. But still.
So why doesn't your argument apply to iPads? When you buy an iPad for your 60+ year old parents, why are they able to use it easily and immediately, but Win8 Metro is going to be totally incomprehensible?
See this post for a response to that. You have been trolled.
If I buy a used Ford, Ford makes no profit off my money. None at all. If I use that Ford to start a taxi company, I am profiting from Ford's work without giving Ford any of that money at all.
Your example applies to used CDs, used vinyl, used tapes. Used physical items. Not to digital music. There is no such thing as used digital music. You guys said it yourself - people aren't supposed to be able to "own" bits of information, so why on earth should I consider your used-physical-product example as relevant to this discussion?
They're giving the artists something for free that the artist would otherwise have to pay very large sums of money for -- advertising.
They are forcibly providing a means of distribution for their music. That's not advertising. If an artist wants to use recorded music as an advertisement for live shows, that's fine, but that's the artist's decision, not TPB's.
Use of the word "steal" to refer to copyright infringement was such an obvious troll on Slashdot, especially the way I wrote it, that I thought no one would bother responding to that part of it. Trust me, I know what copyright infringement is and I know how it's different than physical theft. This was a trollish (maybe childish? I don't care) joke to get a rise out of someone - so congrats, you won!
I tried to choke off this obvious troll-response that you made by being really, really snarky and insanely egregious about it. But alas, you made the obvious troll-response and got a +5 Informative.
Note I said "If what GP says is true". I obviously have no sources to cite to verify the original post. But the responder asked what his point was (in a rather snarky ill-mannered way) so I responded with the obvious answer.
If what GP says is true, then TPB is making profits (via ad revnue) by enabling people to steal (yes, steal! I said STEAL when referring to copyright infringement!) the creations of others. They are profiting off of the work of the artists and creators without giving any of that money to the creators themselves. How is this any different than the RIAA or MPAA? Please enlighten me.
If they gave any of that ad money to the creators instead of blowing it on drugs and houses, maybe I'd support them. But I have yet to hear about TPB paying creators any money.
The fallacy that because you don't believe in government interference in corporate affairs, you don't believe that corporations should ever be criticized for doing anything that isn't illegal.
Alright. Libertarianism states that if enough people don't like how things are done, the free market will fix them. In this case, you're supposed to either start a new corporation to compete with the existing one, or convince one of their competitors to do things differently such that the existing corporation either goes out of business or also changes. Those are the options that are consistent with the libertarian ideology.
Put into context, this guy's options are to start his own TV station, or convince one of the other, competing stations in that market to host their own debate with him on it (or get enough people to say that they're going to stop watching that ABC affiliate so that the lose enough ad revenue to change).
Critizing how things are done, however, is perfectly cromulent with being a libertarian.
Oh come on. The mere act of criticizing something does not imply any philosophical views or ideals. (Well, unless your ideology specifies that nothing should ever be criticized. But that's not the case here.)
No, it's the reasoning and content of the criticism, viewed with the ideology of the person making that criticism, that determine if that person's criticism is valid or not. The reasoning behind this criticism is inconsistent with libertarian ideology, thus it's invalid.
Slashdot Mirror
Christ. In this particular story, the comments are going to be discussing alternatives, because that's pretty much what the article asks about. If you don't want to talk about alternatives, and instead want to just sit around until someone else invents them, why on Earth would you bother reading the comment section of this particular article? Just to make snarky posts and degrade the overall quality of the discussion?
TPB wins - case shows that even anti-piracy groups can't follow the law, and begs the question "if they can't follow the law, then how can they prosecute others that also don't?"
This is not a legal precedent, and that question will be answered by saying "they didn't follow the law and that claim/law was upheld, and now we're going to prosecute others that also don't follow the law".
Like I said, everyone will have a laugh for about a day when this parody site gets taken down or whatever, but things will continue as they are. It's not like the copyright people are going to drop all of their claims because they don't want to look like hypocrites on this one parody site. They'll enforce copyright against the parody site (which will require admitting that they were in the wrong and TPB has a legitimate copyright claim), but who gives a shit about that parody site? And then they will continue enforcing all the other ones too.
I guess I don't see how this can possibly be a win for TPB. The copyright on the CSS will get enforced, the parody site will come down or change, and the other copyright infringement cases against TPB will proceed. TPB will have themselves a good laugh for about a day and then continue facing the existing lawsuits. The parody site is really, really small potatoes compared to the massive amounts of copyright infringement occurring via trackers that TPB distributes that media corps have a vested interest in prosecuting.
TPB gets plenty of economic benefit from posting those episodes: they sell ads. Having content like Glee available draws eyeballs to the site, which then enables them to sell those eyeballs to ad companies. It's exactly the same thing that Fox does (sells eyeballs watching Glee to ad companies). Fox didn't shell out any money to this artist for the use of his work, and TPB didn't shell out any money to Fox for the use of their work. Seriously, it seems almost exactly the same to me. Except that Fox paid for almost all of their content (save for this guy's song), whereas TPB pays for none of theirs.
How is this different from the Glee episodes themselves being available via BitTorrent seeds you can find on TPB?
I've found that the loud commercials are just artifacts of my TV not properly implementing dialnorm. The commercial comes through with an accurate dialnorm setting indicating REALLY LOUD content, which should tell my TV to decrease the volume. But if my TV doesn't see the dialnorm metadata or fails to process it correctly, the commercial comes through with its loud content and no volume adjustment.
As soon as I switched to playing all TV audio through my receiver and speaker setup instead of the built-in TV speakers, I don't have the loud commercial problem anymore. The receiver processes the dialnorm metadata correctly and adjusts the loudness. I know this because my receiver displays a "DIALNORM +3" or "DIANORM -1" whenever the dialnorm metadata changes, and I see it change on exactly these types of commercials.
I obviously haven't read the report, but does it factor in the massive employment losses that automation is going to continue to produce? How will this global middle class actually be able to afford anything if there isn't enough employment available to pay people a living wage? Are they assuming socialization of food, water, housing, and healthcare?
Not convincing.
Neither are any of your arguments. Plonk.
That means you included the word create, and asserted that education creates intelligence. Just to make sure we're speaking the same language, you agree with that?
I'm not sure I'm parsing your English correctly, but I think the answer to your question is "yes". I do think education creates intelligence. Similarly to what you asked for here, show me some evidence that it does not. Now we get to the problem where "one can't prove a negative". Just show me anything.
First, I'm not sure if your history is correct. Second, if they lack the ability to use it, isn't handing them tools to abuse a stupid idea?
Why are you so convinced that everyone is so dumb?
My way hasn't been explained and so your claim there is off-base. For example, it could be a graduated method not unlike the first part of our current system.
Whoa, you're changing your whole assertion. First you said that it was stupid to give everyone an education. Now you're saying that it's okay for everyone to get some education. Two totally different things.
Which brings us back to my point: providing education for everyone ensures that it conforms to the lowest common denominator,
No it does not.
First, note I said "unearth and/or create". I put in "unearth" to address precisely what you are arguing.
Second, you're lamenting various education systems and their methods, not lack-of-education vs. education. I never said any one system perfect, but I certainly think that having a system at all is better than having 98% of people shovel cow shit and de-tassle corn for 50 years like in the middle ages. Feel free to disagree but I'll probably never buy it.
Third, your point is valid as an argument for mass-education vs. selective education if the selection method is perfect and occurs across the entire population. I'd argue it's much more feasible to just provide education for everyone. The intelligent people should mostly show up that way. With your way, if your selection method is imperfect, you might miss out.
At least, modern civilization does. I buy the study's argument if you remove the mass-education system we have from the equation, as it was in, say, the Middle Ages where monks and elites were the only ones who had a chance of studying anything. (Cue all the people lamenting the state of education in the US, but still.) But once you add mass education into the mix, you will unearth and/or create plenty of smart people that way, rather than just by the stupid people dying off.
Sigh, this thread is getting old and stale. Which one of us will give up first and let the other have the last word? I was going to be that party, but then another rabid pro-ARM article got posted today which made me revisit this thread.
Because Apple might go all ARM in the near future? We're focusing on Android in this thread (my fault), but iOS devices are ARM-based, have a significant chunk of the market, and ONLY run native code. Lots of rumors flying that Apple is considering using ARM in their laptops and desktops going forward, which could make a lot of sense in the next few years for them.
Apple has shown that it is certainly willing to change ISA at the drop of a hat when it makes sense for them to do so. Apple now has in-house ARM designs, so this wouldn't surprise me at all. But there's nothing Intel can do about Apples in-house ARM designs other than continue to make x86 chips that are better at MacBook and iMac power budgets by virtue of their higher performance (again, at that higher power budget) than any ARM chip that exists when Apple builds those machines. If the ARM stuff is worse than x86 at that power budget (which it is, today, in Q4 2012), and Apple goes with them anyway, those products will stop being cool and they will revert to sucking like they did when PowerPC was in them. If the ARM stuff does get up to x86 performance levels, I'll turn your own questions around and ask what the advantage for the consumer would be of yet another ISA change for Macs? Again, I know what the advantage would be for Apple (they kick out Intel as a supplier and make more money), but for the average consumer?
And all the base Windows NT code ran on Alpha. Developers still weren't willing to support an alternative, but more powerful, ISA for NT.
There were years and years of legacy DOS and Win apps that did not run on Alpha and were not being actively developed or maintained. Same with Itanium - it had the same problem, and (poor) runtime emulation of x86, which also killed it. However, (almost) none of that applies to Android, where the installed based can't possibly be more than 4 years old, and (as you acknowledged) the vast majority is pure Dalvik anyway.
Yes, Google, the biggest, most well-funded, most dedicated Android developer took two weeks to provide an x86 compatible version of one of their flagship apps. For a phone produced by one of their own subsidiaries. How quickly do you think one and two man shops would provide alternative versions of their apps, if ever? Why would anyone (the developer, or the consumer) want to have to worry about compatibility of their phone/app?
I debunked your example. Live with it, and please provide another. Also, please provide some statistics for the percentage of Android apps that are native ARM. If I'm a two-man Android app shop (is that what you are in your day job or something?), going to native ARM has to be more trouble than its worth. You must be talking about games, because that's the only reason I could see to bother.
Bias against x86... Is that why I asked for an i7 workstation? x86 is fine for desktop computing, I just see no advantage to using it in the mobile space. Again, what's the benefit of having a phone or tablet that is compatible with 80386 software? That's the only advantage x86 gets you.
This thread started out as a hypothetical, remember? Someone said that Intel would never produce an x86 chip that was as low-power as ARM, and I called bullshit on that, and you took some sort of exception to that bullshit-calling. Then, as yet another hypothetical, I asked if you would want an x86 chip that was lower-power than ARM, and you basically said no, and I didn't understand that since it seemed to be anti-x86 bias.
You know, I could just easily accuse you of pro-x86 bias, especially since you haven't listed any actual "technical merits" of x86, and I've m
Sigh. It seems there is a new, hip, propaganda trend on Slashdot: pro-ARM articles are posted, and a bunch of ARM zombies come out saying how anything ARM makes will (magically) be lower-power or more power-efficient than anything x86.
So I'll start a tradition of posting this same response every time (originally posted by me here):
"ARM isn't magic; there is nothing in the ARM ISA that makes it inherently lower power than x86. Yes, I'm counting all the decode hardware and microcode that x86 chips need to support legacy ISA. There just isn't much power burned there compared to modern cache sizes, execution resources, and queue/buffer depths which all high-performance cores need regardless of ISA. If you have an x86 processor that targets A9 performance levels, it will burn A9 power (or less if Intel makes it, given Intel's manufacturing advantage). If you have a ARM processor that targets Sandy Bridge performance levels, it will burn Sandy Bridge (or more) power."
This just proves that there is real competition in smartphones. Four years ago, no one would have done anything but wait until iPhoneNext came out. Now, people who want a smartphone in the 3 months leading up to iPhoneNext can get one of a selection of the latest Android phones, which are at worst merely equal to iPhoneNext, and in this particular case (GSIII), superior.
What would prevent Intel from burning a 28nm ARM design in their fab?
Oh absolutely nothing technical, just Intel's refusal to give any ISA other than x86 (since Intel only makes x86 chips, unless you know something I don't) its fab advantage. Intel could easily make ARM stuff in its fab, but why would it bother if it could put out a superior x86 chip?
...native ARM code...
Alright, I was mistaken about the extent of native ARM in Android. But what makes it different than the WinTel ecosystem that dominated PCs is that PC ISA lock-in involved the OS. Android, including all of its libraries, GUI, and the base Android-supplied apps, already runs on x86. Your Chrome for x86-Android bit is just stupid - Google released it 2 weeks after the phone's release, hardly much to get upset about, wouldn't you say?
Hopefully it makes more sense now. No, a better performing x86 chip would not guarantee my interest. I'm not biased enough to completely rule out purchasing an x86-based phone in the future, but as it stands right now x86 looks like a disadvantage as opposed to an advantage.
No, it still doesn't make sense. And at this point it appears that there is no further discussion we can have as you seem to have a baseless bias against x86 regardless of any technical merits.
Nothing in your comment offers up any advantage offered by x86, just Intel's fabs.
Intel's fabs are the advantage offered by x86. x86 processors are the only processors that can be made by Intel's fabs. If that changes, or if other fabs catch up, then great - use whatever is the best.
now I do have a vested interest in running "legacy" ARM apps I have purchased for those devices for the foreseeable future
Android apps are almost all Java - they run on any platform that has a Java runtime, which certainly includes x86. If your apps make calls into native code, that native code is shipped by the phone OEM, and you can already buy x86-based Android phones (Motorola sells one using some Intel Atom chip), so it obviously works there too. In other words, the CPU's ISA is completely invisible to app developers, so I'm not sure what your complaint is there.
If Intel pushed better performing and/or lower powered ARM chips,
This makes no sense. Why would Intel have to push an ARM chip for you to be interested? What if Intel pushed a better-performing x86 chip than any ARM chip? Would you not be interested in that because you have some inherent bias against x86?
Even if Intel chips had exactly the same power usage as ARM (highly unlikely), what's the benefit of having an Intel chip in your mobile device?
Why do you think this is unlikely? On the contrary, Intel has a massive fab/manufacturing advantage over any ARM chipmaker - they are at least 1 process shrink (node) ahead of any other foundry, not to mention their process at any given node is better than all competitors (TSMC, GloFo, Samsung). This fab advantage directly translates to lower power usage, and by all accounts, Intel's advantage there is only getting larger - ask AMD how it feels to be on the receiving end of this advantage. Intel needs to put out a microarchitecture which targets about the same performance range that ARM Cortex-A9 (or maybe A15 [1]) does, and in all likelihood, Intel's chip will be lower power because it will be manufactured on either one shrink ahead of any ARM equivalent, or the same node but using Intel's superior process at that node. In fact, Intel is doing just that - the next-gen Atom chip (Silvermont/Valleyview) is targeting right around where A15 is in terms of performance, area, and power.
ARM isn't magic; there is nothing in the ARM ISA that makes it inherently lower power than x86. Yes, I'm counting all the decode hardware and microcode that x86 chips need to support legacy ISA. There just isn't much power burned there compared to modern cache sizes, execution resources, and queue/buffer depths which all high-performance cores need regardless of ISA. If you have an x86 processor that targets A9 performance levels, it will burn A9 power (or less if Intel makes it, given Intel's manufacturing advantage). If you have a ARM processor that targets Sandy Bridge performance levels, it will burn Sandy Bridge (or more) power.
[1] I say maybe A15, because from Anandtech's latest review here, Samsung's Exynos 5250 using A15 cores does not have a prayer of getting into smartphones using 5W at load. Your smartphone will be dead in an hour of web browsing with that kind of power draw. Yeah yeah, Exynos 5250 is on a 32nm process and the 28nm A15's are right around the corner, which should be lower power. But still.
So why doesn't your argument apply to iPads? When you buy an iPad for your 60+ year old parents, why are they able to use it easily and immediately, but Win8 Metro is going to be totally incomprehensible?
Mod me redundant because I and m...blah blah
See this post for a response to that. You have been trolled.
If I buy a used Ford, Ford makes no profit off my money. None at all. If I use that Ford to start a taxi company, I am profiting from Ford's work without giving Ford any of that money at all.
Your example applies to used CDs, used vinyl, used tapes. Used physical items. Not to digital music. There is no such thing as used digital music. You guys said it yourself - people aren't supposed to be able to "own" bits of information, so why on earth should I consider your used-physical-product example as relevant to this discussion?
They're giving the artists something for free that the artist would otherwise have to pay very large sums of money for -- advertising.
They are forcibly providing a means of distribution for their music. That's not advertising. If an artist wants to use recorded music as an advertisement for live shows, that's fine, but that's the artist's decision, not TPB's.
Use of the word "steal" to refer to copyright infringement was such an obvious troll on Slashdot, especially the way I wrote it, that I thought no one would bother responding to that part of it. Trust me, I know what copyright infringement is and I know how it's different than physical theft. This was a trollish (maybe childish? I don't care) joke to get a rise out of someone - so congrats, you won!
I tried to choke off this obvious troll-response that you made by being really, really snarky and insanely egregious about it. But alas, you made the obvious troll-response and got a +5 Informative.
Ah, Slashdot.
Note I said "If what GP says is true". I obviously have no sources to cite to verify the original post. But the responder asked what his point was (in a rather snarky ill-mannered way) so I responded with the obvious answer.
If what GP says is true, then TPB is making profits (via ad revnue) by enabling people to steal (yes, steal! I said STEAL when referring to copyright infringement!) the creations of others. They are profiting off of the work of the artists and creators without giving any of that money to the creators themselves. How is this any different than the RIAA or MPAA? Please enlighten me.
If they gave any of that ad money to the creators instead of blowing it on drugs and houses, maybe I'd support them. But I have yet to hear about TPB paying creators any money.
The fallacy that because you don't believe in government interference in corporate affairs, you don't believe that corporations should ever be criticized for doing anything that isn't illegal.
Alright. Libertarianism states that if enough people don't like how things are done, the free market will fix them. In this case, you're supposed to either start a new corporation to compete with the existing one, or convince one of their competitors to do things differently such that the existing corporation either goes out of business or also changes. Those are the options that are consistent with the libertarian ideology.
Put into context, this guy's options are to start his own TV station, or convince one of the other, competing stations in that market to host their own debate with him on it (or get enough people to say that they're going to stop watching that ABC affiliate so that the lose enough ad revenue to change).
Critizing how things are done, however, is perfectly cromulent with being a libertarian.
Oh come on. The mere act of criticizing something does not imply any philosophical views or ideals. (Well, unless your ideology specifies that nothing should ever be criticized. But that's not the case here.)
No, it's the reasoning and content of the criticism, viewed with the ideology of the person making that criticism, that determine if that person's criticism is valid or not. The reasoning behind this criticism is inconsistent with libertarian ideology, thus it's invalid.