The only problem with that is the possibility of a performance negative using the expansion. It may be negligable, but the speed freaks out there may very well still care. And none of the "love my proc comapany or die" people will like the thought of possibly being shortchanged in the benchmark process.
But only if the Intel and AMD chips that provided the features I want were close to the same price. By the time that I needed a new proc, though, I would probably want a new mobo to take advantage of 6 months to a year of new development.
I would dearly love to continue this long-winded discussion of the merits of democritization of the Middle-East, finishing what the UN started, and addressing the underlying racist tendencies of many (though not necessarily yourself) who deride the current progress of these young Arab and Middle-Eastern democracies. Unfortunately, such a discussion would be outside of the original scope of this thread. I will therefore limit myself to answering your last arguement.
You claim that, according to my reasoning, if telephones were run the way the internet is, then there would be no way of calling foreign countries. I can't see how you got to that conclusion, perhaps because I said no such thing. What I said was that there wasn't a need to move anything outside of the US. You seem to have thought that I meant that the US should control all of the regional networks because they happen to connect to the US. That makes no sense.
Besides, there is ALREADY an international group in charge. Just because that group doesn't happen to have UN in front of its name, doesn't mean that it can't do a good job. And it doesn't mean that the group is under some nation's control. According to your logic, the system should stay the way it is.
One other thing - the authorization was written into 1441. Go read it. I like to use information that I have verified, rather than attacking someone because they might sound like a personality that I despise.
1. If the Internet is part of a nation's infrastructure and they don't like it, then they need to create a solution that removes that dependence.
2. The War On Terror *IS* being won by the US and like-minded allies without the help of the UN. And because of that, over 50 Million people now have self-determinated representative governments.
3. Security Council Resolution 1441: Unanimously passed by all 15 member nations of the Security Council, including China, France, and Syria. Solely executed by the US (with some support from like-minded allies). The US was ready and willing to take care of business with or without help.
4. The US isn't talking about taking things, the EU and UN are. Of course a product invented in one country can be used in others, but that doesn't mean that the HQ for the company has to be moved to Brussels or The Hague. Besides, as many others have pointed out, the invention was funded by the US Dept of Defense and worked on by US universities. There is no grounds for "forcing" the US to do anything.
Slashdot Mirror
The only problem with that is the possibility of a performance negative using the expansion. It may be negligable, but the speed freaks out there may very well still care. And none of the "love my proc comapany or die" people will like the thought of possibly being shortchanged in the benchmark process.
But only if the Intel and AMD chips that provided the features I want were close to the same price. By the time that I needed a new proc, though, I would probably want a new mobo to take advantage of 6 months to a year of new development.
Reality called... You can wake up now.
I would dearly love to continue this long-winded discussion of the merits of democritization of the Middle-East, finishing what the UN started, and addressing the underlying racist tendencies of many (though not necessarily yourself) who deride the current progress of these young Arab and Middle-Eastern democracies. Unfortunately, such a discussion would be outside of the original scope of this thread. I will therefore limit myself to answering your last arguement.
You claim that, according to my reasoning, if telephones were run the way the internet is, then there would be no way of calling foreign countries. I can't see how you got to that conclusion, perhaps because I said no such thing. What I said was that there wasn't a need to move anything outside of the US. You seem to have thought that I meant that the US should control all of the regional networks because they happen to connect to the US. That makes no sense.
Besides, there is ALREADY an international group in charge. Just because that group doesn't happen to have UN in front of its name, doesn't mean that it can't do a good job. And it doesn't mean that the group is under some nation's control. According to your logic, the system should stay the way it is.
One other thing - the authorization was written into 1441. Go read it. I like to use information that I have verified, rather than attacking someone because they might sound like a personality that I despise.
1. If the Internet is part of a nation's infrastructure and they don't like it, then they need to create a solution that removes that dependence.
2. The War On Terror *IS* being won by the US and like-minded allies without the help of the UN. And because of that, over 50 Million people now have self-determinated representative governments.
3. Security Council Resolution 1441: Unanimously passed by all 15 member nations of the Security Council, including China, France, and Syria. Solely executed by the US (with some support from like-minded allies). The US was ready and willing to take care of business with or without help.
4. The US isn't talking about taking things, the EU and UN are. Of course a product invented in one country can be used in others, but that doesn't mean that the HQ for the company has to be moved to Brussels or The Hague. Besides, as many others have pointed out, the invention was funded by the US Dept of Defense and worked on by US universities. There is no grounds for "forcing" the US to do anything.