This is nonsense.
Any time someone throws out the word RISC in the context of modern superscalar processors, they invariably have no fucking idea what they're talking about.
The denotation between RISC and CISC existed because once upon a time, CISC processors had richer instruction sets at the cost of more cycles per instruction.
These days, all processors (relevant to this discussion) are essentially CISC, and run at more than 1 instruction per cycle. The terms RISC and CISC are dead terms.
All superscalar ARMs have instruction decoders that break them into smaller micro-operations, a la microcode.
Agreed. But I own an ARM laptop running Windows 10. I bought it because I'm a long-term ARM aficionado, and have been dreaming of the day they were available. ARM is nowhere near overtaking Intel. I can see why ARM ChromeBooks and laptops simply don't sell vs. their low-power Intel equivalents. ARM just isn't there yet. Benchmarks of the CPUs look good, but the entire system just isn't up to par with an Intel or AMD based hardware stack. My 8-core 2.45Ghz ARM laptop feels like a 1.5ghz dual-core Celeron.
Yeah, those of us who climbed up from the bottom really do like meritocracy, because we know that people got there on skill, ability, and competence.
I am also one of those people. And I know why so many of us are so bitter about seeing handouts. We struggled, and we want to see other people struggle too. It's some kind of messed up desire for fairness, when really, we should be trying to make sure nobody else has to go through the bullshit we did to succeed. The part you missed in the above formula is actually the largest factor- luck. Get over yourself, asshole.
I was going to post the same thing, but you did it for me.
My Bay Trail Celeron ChromeBook has really reset my preconceptions about Intel in the low-power area.
My N2830 can play a 60fps Steam game stream from my PC for about 8 hours straight (using hardware decoding, of course). Idle web browsing- 15+ easily.
That Intel GPU may not be an amazing piece of hardware, but it does run Plasma 5 fluidly, and has precisely zero driver-related issues unlike my AMD full-size laptop. Really, this ChromeBook is the best Linux laptop I've ever owned.
The Pythagorean Theorum only applies to right triangles... And only right triangles have a hypotenuse... I'm really not sure how you came to the conclusion that "The theorum states that the square of the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the other two squares on the triangle" is wrong.
Oh man. You literally have no idea what you're talking about.
I get that you have some experience in the field, but you should be smart enough to know that your experience doesn't make you all-knowing.
The petitioners are claiming they have standing to sue based on Section 4 of the Clayton Antitrust Act, Title 15 of the United States Code, Section 15(a).
Section 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 15(a),
provides that “any person who shall be injured in his
business or property by reason of anything forbidden
in the antitrust laws . . . shall recover threefold the
damages by him sustained, and the cost of suit,
including a reasonable attorney’s fee.”
In their complaint, they are asserting that Apple has violated Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, Title 15 of the United States Code, Section 2.
Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 2, makes
it unlawful for any “person . . . [to] monopolize, or
attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any
other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the
trade or commerce among the several States, or with
foreign nations.”
As you can see, the suit's standing is asserted statutorily by the Clayton Act, in supposition that Apple is in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, as an entity that isn't an "innocent monopoly". If Apple is determined not to be in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, then the Class has no standing to sue. Ergo, the determination by the Supreme Court will be whether or not Apple is engaging in monopolistic behavior, which in the Sherman Antitrust Act, means a non-natural monopoly.
Ergo, the court will rule whether or not Apple is a monopoly when they rule whether or not the class has standing to sue.
This has nothing to do with any penalty against Apple- that's not the court's job. But they will in fact rule whether or not they are a monopoly as determined by the Sherman Antitrust Act.
Here's your sign.
That doesn't quite work...
The problem isn't their control over their store. It's that as a store that basically enforces itself as the only possible distributor of bicycles in the world, they're subject to antitrust regulations. This protects people who want to buy bicycles from you jacking up the cost of bicycles beyond what a free market would reasonably allow.
If apple allowed side-loading of apps, or existence of other stores- then they would circumvent this antitrust problem.
Also, if the court decides that you can't actually have a monopoly on the distribution of something that you're not selling, then they're also free from it. Otherwise, they will be subject to antitrust law, and it won't be pretty for them.
You're correct in general, but there are more restrictions than that. You can prevent another company from entering the market you have made that only serves your customer base... As long as you don't abuse your monopoly. For instance, if Apple is maintaining a monopoly on App distribution on iOS devices so that it can inflate the price of iOS apps, then they are running afoul of antitrust laws.
You are not allowed to abuse your monopoly, and you're not allowed to engage in anti-competitive behavior as a monopoly. Basically, being a monopoly means there are a bunch of extra rules you have to play by.
Wrong again, chap.
Whether or not they have standing is directly dependent on whether or not they have a monopoly.
For against Apple has *nothing* to do with whether or not they have a monopoly. There is nothing wrong with having a monopoly. But if they have a monopoly, then the class in the class action suit has standing to sue.
I never argued the nature of antitrust laws. They were designed to attack trusts and other market-abusive entities... Probably why they didn't call them antimonopoly laws. I was simply correcting the definition of monopoly.
From what I'm reading, they are merely deciding on whether the class actually has standing to sue.
Well, you're not wrong... but you're implying that the summary isn't, and it is.
Whether or not they have standing is based on the litmus test for whether or not Apple has a monopoly on the distribution of applications to iOS devices, and whether or not such a thing can even be a monopoly. So in essence, they are ruling on whether or not Apple's App Store is a monopoly.
No, it won't. This case has nothing to do with Android vs. Apple. It has to do with Apple owning a monopoly on App distribution on iPhones, and whether or not the class action suit ongoing against them has legal standing.
Completely irrelevant. They are determining if they are a monopoly in iOS applications. They are, of course, if they're the ones selling the App, not just providing a store. There is nothing inherently illegal about this, unless it's being abused. The question before the court will be whether or not Apple's argument really holds water- that they're not a monopoly because they're not the ones selling the apps, the developers are, via their store.
If they're determined not to be a monopoly, as in they're not the ones selling the apps, then the class-action suit must be dropped because it fails the litmus test of being able to sue for damages against a monopoly under antitrust law.
A monopoly isn't about how much market share a company has
Actually, that is precisely what a monopoly is about. Meaning literally, single seller. A monopoly isn't illegal. There are lots of monopolies.
Where you as a monopoly need to be careful, is running afoul of the antitrust laws meant to protect us from corporations turning evil once they lack real competition in a market.
Na, but I have a cousin who is, which is how I originally got schooled on this topic after making fun of him;)
The coast guard is an armed active duty service by US federal statute that also has maritime law enforcement responsibilities.
No, uniformed services was not the term I was looking for. The USCG is a branch of the US armed forces, as written in the United States Code, Title 14, Section 1.
I'll quote it for you.
The Coast Guard, established January 28, 1915, shall be a military service and a branch of the armed forces of the United States at all times.
It doesn't really matter that the Coast Guard operates as part of DHS instead of the DOD except in war time, they're still a branch of the armed forces, just as the Marine Corps is, even though it's actually part of the department of the navy.
Slashdot Mirror
This is nonsense.
Any time someone throws out the word RISC in the context of modern superscalar processors, they invariably have no fucking idea what they're talking about.
The denotation between RISC and CISC existed because once upon a time, CISC processors had richer instruction sets at the cost of more cycles per instruction.
These days, all processors (relevant to this discussion) are essentially CISC, and run at more than 1 instruction per cycle. The terms RISC and CISC are dead terms.
All superscalar ARMs have instruction decoders that break them into smaller micro-operations, a la microcode.
Agreed. But I own an ARM laptop running Windows 10. I bought it because I'm a long-term ARM aficionado, and have been dreaming of the day they were available. ARM is nowhere near overtaking Intel. I can see why ARM ChromeBooks and laptops simply don't sell vs. their low-power Intel equivalents. ARM just isn't there yet. Benchmarks of the CPUs look good, but the entire system just isn't up to par with an Intel or AMD based hardware stack. My 8-core 2.45Ghz ARM laptop feels like a 1.5ghz dual-core Celeron.
Yeah, those of us who climbed up from the bottom really do like meritocracy, because we know that people got there on skill, ability, and competence.
I am also one of those people. And I know why so many of us are so bitter about seeing handouts. We struggled, and we want to see other people struggle too. It's some kind of messed up desire for fairness, when really, we should be trying to make sure nobody else has to go through the bullshit we did to succeed. The part you missed in the above formula is actually the largest factor- luck. Get over yourself, asshole.
I was going to post the same thing, but you did it for me.
My Bay Trail Celeron ChromeBook has really reset my preconceptions about Intel in the low-power area.
My N2830 can play a 60fps Steam game stream from my PC for about 8 hours straight (using hardware decoding, of course). Idle web browsing- 15+ easily.
That Intel GPU may not be an amazing piece of hardware, but it does run Plasma 5 fluidly, and has precisely zero driver-related issues unlike my AMD full-size laptop. Really, this ChromeBook is the best Linux laptop I've ever owned.
Definitely not. Having spent enough time in the latter, and living in the former, I can say our weather is infinitely more tolerable.
The Pythagorean Theorum only applies to right triangles... And only right triangles have a hypotenuse... I'm really not sure how you came to the conclusion that "The theorum states that the square of the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the other two squares on the triangle" is wrong.
I get that you have some experience in the field, but you should be smart enough to know that your experience doesn't make you all-knowing.
The petitioners are claiming they have standing to sue based on Section 4 of the Clayton Antitrust Act, Title 15 of the United States Code, Section 15(a).
Section 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 15(a), provides that “any person who shall be injured in his business or property by reason of anything forbidden in the antitrust laws . . . shall recover threefold the damages by him sustained, and the cost of suit, including a reasonable attorney’s fee.”
In their complaint, they are asserting that Apple has violated Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, Title 15 of the United States Code, Section 2.
Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 2, makes it unlawful for any “person . . . [to] monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations.”
As you can see, the suit's standing is asserted statutorily by the Clayton Act, in supposition that Apple is in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, as an entity that isn't an "innocent monopoly". If Apple is determined not to be in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, then the Class has no standing to sue. Ergo, the determination by the Supreme Court will be whether or not Apple is engaging in monopolistic behavior, which in the Sherman Antitrust Act, means a non-natural monopoly.
Ergo, the court will rule whether or not Apple is a monopoly when they rule whether or not the class has standing to sue.
This has nothing to do with any penalty against Apple- that's not the court's job. But they will in fact rule whether or not they are a monopoly as determined by the Sherman Antitrust Act.
Here's your sign.
I doubt that's true, but I'll admit I can't say for certain it isn't. Can you back it up?
That doesn't quite work...
The problem isn't their control over their store. It's that as a store that basically enforces itself as the only possible distributor of bicycles in the world, they're subject to antitrust regulations. This protects people who want to buy bicycles from you jacking up the cost of bicycles beyond what a free market would reasonably allow.
If apple allowed side-loading of apps, or existence of other stores- then they would circumvent this antitrust problem.
Also, if the court decides that you can't actually have a monopoly on the distribution of something that you're not selling, then they're also free from it. Otherwise, they will be subject to antitrust law, and it won't be pretty for them.
You're correct in general, but there are more restrictions than that. You can prevent another company from entering the market you have made that only serves your customer base... As long as you don't abuse your monopoly. For instance, if Apple is maintaining a monopoly on App distribution on iOS devices so that it can inflate the price of iOS apps, then they are running afoul of antitrust laws.
You are not allowed to abuse your monopoly, and you're not allowed to engage in anti-competitive behavior as a monopoly. Basically, being a monopoly means there are a bunch of extra rules you have to play by.
Wrong again, chap.
Whether or not they have standing is directly dependent on whether or not they have a monopoly.
For against Apple has *nothing* to do with whether or not they have a monopoly. There is nothing wrong with having a monopoly. But if they have a monopoly, then the class in the class action suit has standing to sue.
She fell funny
Couldn't agree more.
I never argued the nature of antitrust laws. They were designed to attack trusts and other market-abusive entities... Probably why they didn't call them antimonopoly laws. I was simply correcting the definition of monopoly.
From what I'm reading, they are merely deciding on whether the class actually has standing to sue.
Well, you're not wrong... but you're implying that the summary isn't, and it is.
Whether or not they have standing is based on the litmus test for whether or not Apple has a monopoly on the distribution of applications to iOS devices, and whether or not such a thing can even be a monopoly. So in essence, they are ruling on whether or not Apple's App Store is a monopoly.
No, it won't. This case has nothing to do with Android vs. Apple. It has to do with Apple owning a monopoly on App distribution on iPhones, and whether or not the class action suit ongoing against them has legal standing.
Completely irrelevant. They are determining if they are a monopoly in iOS applications. They are, of course, if they're the ones selling the App, not just providing a store. There is nothing inherently illegal about this, unless it's being abused. The question before the court will be whether or not Apple's argument really holds water- that they're not a monopoly because they're not the ones selling the apps, the developers are, via their store.
If they're determined not to be a monopoly, as in they're not the ones selling the apps, then the class-action suit must be dropped because it fails the litmus test of being able to sue for damages against a monopoly under antitrust law.
A monopoly isn't about how much market share a company has
Actually, that is precisely what a monopoly is about. Meaning literally, single seller. A monopoly isn't illegal. There are lots of monopolies.
Where you as a monopoly need to be careful, is running afoul of the antitrust laws meant to protect us from corporations turning evil once they lack real competition in a market.
Na, but I have a cousin who is, which is how I originally got schooled on this topic after making fun of him ;)
The coast guard is an armed active duty service by US federal statute that also has maritime law enforcement responsibilities.
I'll quote it for you.
The Coast Guard, established January 28, 1915, shall be a military service and a branch of the armed forces of the United States at all times.
We've been at the table with them many times. Insert yawn here.
Holy shit. You're like a crazy person, aren't you?
Anyone who uses the phrase True Patriots has less functioning brain cells than it has words.
May I suggest watching a little less Alex Jones?
Not at all, he just wants the new Space Force to have to sit in the back of the bus and drink from its own water fountains.
It doesn't really matter that the Coast Guard operates as part of DHS instead of the DOD except in war time, they're still a branch of the armed forces, just as the Marine Corps is, even though it's actually part of the department of the navy.