Mostly, the poor performance (subjectively, save the benchmarks) of the 64 bit processors made me balk. I had two of them, and they were garbage, IMO.
And this is from a long time supporter of AMD.
Now I have to ask, what's the market for this?
Is it going to compete against Atom?
It seems from the article, it's actually going to compete against the higher/mid range of intel processors, at which point I have to wonder, if they burned me with their 64 bit processors, why would I consider 100 bucks a good deal when I fully expect to get burned again?
I strongly suspect it isn't, nor was it ever, one type of evolution over the other, but a complex interaction between many environmental pressures where both types of evolution played a role.
Exactly what I thought after reading your initial post, where you got the facts completely wrong and slathered your smug all over the screen.
It was quite unpleasant to read, actually, because you don't seem terribly interested in real debate, but in that sarcastic teenage crap that adults stop engaging in after they leave high school.
Luckily, I now know that you're that guy who continues slathering his now-proven-irrelevant point all over everything in spite of the fact that his credibility is shot to hell by his well proven willingness to shoot his mouth off with all the facts.
Virtually all of the discussion here (at the moment 450 comments) regards the US Airlines security response and the various and sundry ways it's stupid.
Which, really, is the least important, least interesting, most overdone subject on Slashdot, but never ceases to be the only thing that occupies Slashdotters minds, as though serious, critical thinking about what happened is beyond you.
Try going here. Next, type the words, "mobile phone" (without the quotes) into the box and click where it says "search". Among the 2200 results are a number of studies on the influence of mobile phones on cells and EEG rhythms.
No sir, YOU made the assertions, now you're trying to avoid supporting them because you know you can't.
Show us these "sheernumbers" of studies, and stop assuming I haven't already done exactly the search you're talking about.
I want youto support your assertions. YOU MADE THEM after all, so pointing at a search engine and running away is a real cop put.
No there shouldn't and the California debacle you've ignored the discussion of in this thread proves why.
"The evidence is inconclusive at this point, but there are a number of studies that do seem to show that cell phones are capable of causing, at the very least, changes in levels of certain proteins in cells, but potentially damaging neurons and causing cancer."
CITE THEM.
RIGHT NOW. Unless you do so, you will be added to the rolls of those who try to make shit up and presume no on will call themon it.
You've bee called, defend your already debunked assertions or admit you can't.
"I thought these were crazy ideas when they were first raised. "
They are.
"But the sheer number of studies that are coming out "
THAT YOU COMPLETELY FAIL TO CITE OR EVEN DISCUSS BEYOND VAGARIES.
You mean THOSE studies? They don't exist. Prove me wrong.
I made a real point about a dishonest poster, and someone thought is was necessary to attempt to censor me.
Well, when he claimed that "taking someone's education away and forcing them to be blue collar" when preventing student from getting student loans, I have to say I was insulted.
And rightly so I think. My education involved no student loans. I suspect there is a significant amount of the audience that is in the same boat.
So, again, when I saw him claiming something that many of the readers know to be false, and then to see it so highly moderated when his central point is just wrong, I was again insulted.
So, I spoke, and apparently, someone thought it was a "troll". Well, my point was valid, so that's not it. Was it the language?
Well, adults speak here. Sometimes, when confronting others who are engaging in dishonesty, we say things with sharp points on them. Modding someone down for that is a misuse of your points and you should be ashamed.
In short, I said something that is 100% correct, in a tone that expressed my appropriate distaste for a case of misrepresentation, and you felt it was necessary to, what, punish me? Pretend you're my mom and chastise me for naughty language?
HOW DARE YOU?
There's a REAL point here, that your ham handed moderation ignores.
MANY MANY COLLEGE GRADUATES HAVE NEVER HAD A STUDENT LOAN, AND IT IS NEITHER IMPOSSIBLE NOR PARTICULARLY DIFFICULT TO BE ONE OF SAID GRAUDATES.
Which OP presumes is not possible when he incorrectly claims "taking someone's education away and forcing them to be blue collar" is the result of not having student loans.
He was wrong.
And so was your moderation, and your attempt to censor me.
"It's still denying a person the same opportunity based on their personal choices, which in my mind is in the same league as denying a person a student loan on the basis of religion (another personal choice). "
Religion isn't agianst the law.
Seems to me to be a pretty big difference, I suppose for the purpose of making your point, you chose to ignore it.
"People should not be judged by what they choose to do with their own bodies, only actions as they relate to other people."
They chose not to follow the eligibility guidelines.
How is that different than saying "Sorry, you needed 4 Advanced Placement classes for this scholarship, but you only took one. You made a choice not to make yourself eligible".
It's not different, and I don't really think any of your points hold up.
"Because of course taking someone's education away"
What, it's impossible to go to community college, then pay the rest yourself? What kind of crap is this?
Nobody is taking anyone's education away, why are you using hyperbolic stupidity that borders lying to prove your "point"(which isn't much of a point even if you weren't making shit up).
"More seriously though: they should be listened to because then you can point out the flaws in their position."
My point was that their position is flawed in its face.
You can listen beyond an obviously flawed premise, I'm not diplomatic enough to waste time pretending I give a crap what people who are obviously wrong are arguing about.
I guess I consider my time more valuable than you do yours.
What, that some places are more sensitive to criticism than others?
I doubt anyone was making that argument on the playground.
Or do you mean your perception that he was arguing about the relative merits of one country vs another, a perception which is clearly faulty to anyone with playground level reading comprehension (which you seem to lack).
The saddest part is that the argument your extraordinarily poor reading comprehension caused you to misapply was stolen from an earlier post, verbatim.
"But what it does mean is that we took a land from indigenous people who had it first"
So what? What does having it first have to do with anything,just being on it doesn't convey ownership, the law is pretty clear on that and always has been.
You people always harp on about this crap with the unstated assumption that people who generally didn't recognize ownership and were pretty mobile were the original owners just by virtue of being there, which is just bullshit.
'Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.'
'The Day of Judgment will not come about until Moslems fight Jews and kill them. Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the rocks and trees will cry out: 'O Moslem, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him.'
So, what do you have to gain from pretending the charter of Hamas, the party that rules "Palestine" with an iron fist, isn't the defacto constitution of the country?
It must suck for you to win on the letter and TOTALLY GET DESTROYED on the spirit.
"In addition, what if this actually interferes with an emergency call?"
Oh no, what if we get DIRTY!
Seriously, I hate this argument. It really adds nothing to the conversation and smacks of Republican "what about the children" alarmism.
You really polluted your point with that, and I really don't mean to flame, but I chafe when people try to use edge cases like you have for no real purpose whatsoever.
And despite the fact that many would argue that any censorship is wrong, the distasteful part of these initiatives, the part that really cannot tolerate debate, is the lack of transparency.
I don't care for censorship, but I'm willing to listen if you say it's necessary. I'll probably tell you to screw, but I'll at least listen.
However, if you don't even bother to solicit opinion, or make yourself accountable to scrutiny, that's unacceptable, in a way that any normal, well adjusted individual would immediately recognize.
So all you get is screw, and no, I really won't listen, thanks, get out.
Slashdot Mirror
I state my honest opinion, and SAY IT'S MY OPINION, and the AMD fan trolls come in here and nuke me into oblivion.
There wasn't ANYTHING "troll" about my honest discussion of my experience,and you people who modded me down are fucking idiots.
"The performance is absolutely stellar."
Not for me it wasn't, which is the only thing that matters, much more than your assertions.
"Would you please elaborate on the "poor performance"."
Why? I don'thave to explain/justify anything, so why would I?
"so please further elaborate on how "they burned (you) with their 64 bit processors"."
No, I won't.
"What additional benefit were you expecting from 64-bit architecture?"
Where did I say I "expected an additional benefit"? Why are you putting words in my mouth?
I don't get why you think a) I have to justify my experience to you, and b) you think I said something I clearly didn't.
I used them they were slow, nuff said.
And by that I mean
I paid for a product which , IN MY OPINION, underperformed. AS A CUSTOMER, MY OPINION IS SUFFICIENT TO DETER ME FROM BUYING AMD AGAIN
And no other explanation is necessary, for you or anyone else.
However, before you assume I'm trolling, I will say I used them in a professional capacity, and daily, and they were not up to the task.
Mostly, the poor performance (subjectively, save the benchmarks) of the 64 bit processors made me balk. I had two of them, and they were garbage, IMO.
And this is from a long time supporter of AMD.
Now I have to ask, what's the market for this?
Is it going to compete against Atom?
It seems from the article, it's actually going to compete against the higher/mid range of intel processors, at which point I have to wonder, if they burned me with their 64 bit processors, why would I consider 100 bucks a good deal when I fully expect to get burned again?
I strongly suspect it isn't, nor was it ever, one type of evolution over the other, but a complex interaction between many environmental pressures where both types of evolution played a role.
Why are you proud of showing everyone you have the emotional maturity of an infant?
http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=arguing+on+the+internet&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
"they aren't worth taking seriously"
Exactly what I thought after reading your initial post, where you got the facts completely wrong and slathered your smug all over the screen.
It was quite unpleasant to read, actually, because you don't seem terribly interested in real debate, but in that sarcastic teenage crap that adults stop engaging in after they leave high school.
Luckily, I now know that you're that guy who continues slathering his now-proven-irrelevant point all over everything in spite of the fact that his credibility is shot to hell by his well proven willingness to shoot his mouth off with all the facts.
"I do prefer our insanity to 'theirs' but lets not throw stones here."
I'll throw as many stones as I like while they're randomly blowing people up.
And you'll sit there and take it because I'm right and you're wrong.
"These guys are not stupid"
They blow themselves and others up for political/religious ideology.
That is as stupid as it gets.
Virtually all of the discussion here (at the moment 450 comments) regards the US Airlines security response and the various and sundry ways it's stupid.
Which, really, is the least important, least interesting, most overdone subject on Slashdot, but never ceases to be the only thing that occupies Slashdotters minds, as though serious, critical thinking about what happened is beyond you.
Try going here. Next, type the words, "mobile phone" (without the quotes) into the box and click where it says "search". Among the 2200 results are a number of studies on the influence of mobile phones on cells and EEG rhythms.
No sir, YOU made the assertions, now you're trying to avoid supporting them because you know you can't.
Show us these "sheernumbers" of studies, and stop assuming I haven't already done exactly the search you're talking about.
I want youto support your assertions. YOU MADE THEM after all, so pointing at a search engine and running away is a real cop put.
"There probably ought to be a warning"
No there shouldn't and the California debacle you've ignored the discussion of in this thread proves why.
"The evidence is inconclusive at this point, but there are a number of studies that do seem to show that cell phones are capable of causing, at the very least, changes in levels of certain proteins in cells, but potentially damaging neurons and causing cancer."
CITE THEM.
RIGHT NOW. Unless you do so, you will be added to the rolls of those who try to make shit up and presume no on will call themon it.
You've bee called, defend your already debunked assertions or admit you can't.
"I thought these were crazy ideas when they were first raised. "
They are.
"But the sheer number of studies that are coming out "
THAT YOU COMPLETELY FAIL TO CITE OR EVEN DISCUSS BEYOND VAGARIES.
You mean THOSE studies? They don't exist. Prove me wrong.
I made a real point about a dishonest poster, and someone thought is was necessary to attempt to censor me.
Well, when he claimed that "taking someone's education away and forcing them to be blue collar" when preventing student from getting student loans, I have to say I was insulted.
And rightly so I think. My education involved no student loans. I suspect there is a significant amount of the audience that is in the same boat.
So, again, when I saw him claiming something that many of the readers know to be false, and then to see it so highly moderated when his central point is just wrong, I was again insulted.
So, I spoke, and apparently, someone thought it was a "troll". Well, my point was valid, so that's not it. Was it the language?
Well, adults speak here. Sometimes, when confronting others who are engaging in dishonesty, we say things with sharp points on them. Modding someone down for that is a misuse of your points and you should be ashamed.
In short, I said something that is 100% correct, in a tone that expressed my appropriate distaste for a case of misrepresentation, and you felt it was necessary to, what, punish me? Pretend you're my mom and chastise me for naughty language?
HOW DARE YOU?
There's a REAL point here, that your ham handed moderation ignores.
MANY MANY COLLEGE GRADUATES HAVE NEVER HAD A STUDENT LOAN, AND IT IS NEITHER IMPOSSIBLE NOR PARTICULARLY DIFFICULT TO BE ONE OF SAID GRAUDATES.
Which OP presumes is not possible when he incorrectly claims "taking someone's education away and forcing them to be blue collar" is the result of not having student loans.
He was wrong.
And so was your moderation, and your attempt to censor me.
"It's still denying a person the same opportunity based on their personal choices, which in my mind is in the same league as denying a person a student loan on the basis of religion (another personal choice). "
Religion isn't agianst the law.
Seems to me to be a pretty big difference, I suppose for the purpose of making your point, you chose to ignore it.
"People should not be judged by what they choose to do with their own bodies, only actions as they relate to other people."
They chose not to follow the eligibility guidelines.
How is that different than saying "Sorry, you needed 4 Advanced Placement classes for this scholarship, but you only took one. You made a choice not to make yourself eligible".
It's not different, and I don't really think any of your points hold up.
Somehow, Verizon has done the impossible, it has developed a way to sign people up for onerous contracts without their realizing it.
THAT is why this is so serious, it used to be you could just say "No, I'll use a different carrier" and go on about your business. NO LONGER!
Ah, the good old days, when I was responsible for the contracts I signed and the agreements contained within...
GOD DAMN YOU VERIZON! WHY!!!
"Because of course taking someone's education away"
What, it's impossible to go to community college, then pay the rest yourself? What kind of crap is this?
Nobody is taking anyone's education away, why are you using hyperbolic stupidity that borders lying to prove your "point"(which isn't much of a point even if you weren't making shit up).
"More seriously though: they should be listened to because then you can point out the flaws in their position."
My point was that their position is flawed in its face.
You can listen beyond an obviously flawed premise, I'm not diplomatic enough to waste time pretending I give a crap what people who are obviously wrong are arguing about.
I guess I consider my time more valuable than you do yours.
What, that some places are more sensitive to criticism than others?
I doubt anyone was making that argument on the playground.
Or do you mean your perception that he was arguing about the relative merits of one country vs another, a perception which is clearly faulty to anyone with playground level reading comprehension (which you seem to lack).
The saddest part is that the argument your extraordinarily poor reading comprehension caused you to misapply was stolen from an earlier post, verbatim.
"But what it does mean is that we took a land from indigenous people who had it first"
So what? What does having it first have to do with anything,just being on it doesn't convey ownership, the law is pretty clear on that and always has been.
You people always harp on about this crap with the unstated assumption that people who generally didn't recognize ownership and were pretty mobile were the original owners just by virtue of being there, which is just bullshit.
"Sounds like they should have fought back"
Ok, I get it now, you're ignorant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Indian_Wars
Nah, they didn't fight back.
LOL @ U thinking you have valuable input.
http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/880818a.htm
'Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will
obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.'
'The Day of Judgment will not come about until Moslems fight Jews and
kill them. Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the
rocks and trees will cry out: 'O Moslem, there is a Jew hiding behind
me, come and kill him.'
So, what do you have to gain from pretending the charter of Hamas, the party that rules "Palestine" with an iron fist, isn't the defacto constitution of the country?
It must suck for you to win on the letter and TOTALLY GET DESTROYED on the spirit.
Nice burn, with facts no less.
And of course, we'll see no Mea Culpa from the peanut gallery, who only minutes ago was hellbent on ejaculating his opinion everywhere.
"In addition, what if this actually interferes with an emergency call?"
Oh no, what if we get DIRTY!
Seriously, I hate this argument. It really adds nothing to the conversation and smacks of Republican "what about the children" alarmism.
You really polluted your point with that, and I really don't mean to flame, but I chafe when people try to use edge cases like you have for no real purpose whatsoever.
"but I wouldn't be surprised if there is a bit in there that allows AT&T to amend certain parts without negating the whole thing. "
The way I understand it, any substantive changes (this would be one) allow both parties a chance to terminate for a given period of time.
The language of the contract really has no way to overcome this, it's a very important part of contract law.
"Plus, if the consumer terminates early, they'll be hit with a termination fee to cover at least part of the subsidy. "
No, the same law voids the termination fee, as it was part of the contract. You pay nothing.
"If you do leave, where will you go to? You realise other networks are likely to follow suit?"
You're kidding right?
Do you have any idea how much money a company would make if they could use unlimited data as leverage to pry the iPhone away from AT&T?
There's a reason they went to unlimited data in the first place, not too long ago it didn't exist.
I suppose you foresee a future of Compuserve/AOL type per minute billing for the internet too?
I love it. I really do.
And despite the fact that many would argue that any censorship is wrong, the distasteful part of these initiatives, the part that really cannot tolerate debate, is the lack of transparency.
I don't care for censorship, but I'm willing to listen if you say it's necessary. I'll probably tell you to screw, but I'll at least listen.
However, if you don't even bother to solicit opinion, or make yourself accountable to scrutiny, that's unacceptable, in a way that any normal, well adjusted individual would immediately recognize.
So all you get is screw, and no, I really won't listen, thanks, get out.