AMD still the one...

Re:Sadly, I don't see an "out" for AMD (Score:5, Insightful)

by hairyfeet (841228) <bassbeast1968@[ ]il.com ['gma' in gap]> on Friday April 17, 2015 @06:41AM (#49491993) Journal

If you are like sadly many others going by the benchmarks please note that even Intel admits they rigged the benchmarks [youtube.com] and when you use actual programs instead of the rigged benchmarks? You'll find that AMD chips are trading blows with chips that cost 3 times as much [youtube.com] while the actual power they use is low enough it would take 18 years [youtube.com] for you to come out ahead on power savings. Sorry for two of the links being from one site but Tek Syndicate is one of the few hardware sites that isn't getting the majority of their ad revenue from Intel.

If anybody still doubts that the US DoJ is nothing but a toothless joke? Intel should be all the proof you need. Here you have a company that admits flat out they are rigging the tests every major website uses to judge performance, was allowed to pay off its rival after several CEOs got on the stand and admitted Intel was bribing their companies, used their leverage in one market (CPUs) to wipe out a competitor in another market (chipsets) while memo were leaked talking about how they were gonna "cut their throats" and they STILL didn't get fucking busted? If the MSFT antitrust were to happen today I have no doubt Gates could walk right into the deposition room and take a big dump on the table as his response and the DoJ would be lining up to offer him TP!

So don't buy the bullshit, or "tests" done by sites where the majority of their advertising budget is filled by Intel, get an AMD and see for yourself. Here in the shop I've had just about every Intel and AMD chip come through the door and on everything but the over $600 chips? You are seeing MAYBE mid single digits difference, with everything under $400 a chip trading blows back and forth....except of course on price, where it will cost on average double to trade blows with the AMD chip. Sadly the rigging doesn't just extend to benches though, you go to sites like Tom's and Anand's and you'll see writer admit that most of the new games coming down the pipe require quad cores to even play....and then push an Intel Pentium dual core over even a hexacore in the same price bracket. Of course when you turn off adblock you'll see why, as the page is covered with ads for Intel boards and chips. Never in all my years in computing have I ever seen one company be so damned blatant in their market manipulation and not even get so much as a slap on the wrist for it, I only hope the EU investigation has more teeth and hits them with enough fines that Intel will finally have to play on a level field which they have not done since the day the P4 was released!

Only...indoor militias...

Christopher J Hoffmanin reply to Chips OTooleApr 5th, 17:50

The US Supreme Court undertook an exhausting historical and linguistic investigation in the 2008 landmark case: Heller versus DC. The country's best historians and linguistics experts found that the prefatory phrase of the Second Amendment: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, … " was in no way a limitation on the operative phrase: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". The first clause merely announces a purpose, not every purpose, just a purpose. The second clause mirrors language found in other amendments where the rights are unquestionably individual rights. The court found the strained contention of anti-gun-rights proponents that the Second Amendment conferred only a collective right to arm militias to be nonsense. Those same anti-gun groups now contend the right is limited to the home. Combined with their previous arguments I suppose the Second Amendment would only protect the right to collectively arm indoor militias.

Congrats, You fit the profile!

MaggotyApr 5th, 17:54

In your last line you admit fear is meant to smother rational debate.
Congratulations, you fit the profile, you are part of the problem you set out to attack in your article. The answer to your last question how can so many Americans be behind both more guns and more background checks is simple. We know guns are dangerous, we don't want to get rid of them but we would like to make sure they're staying out of the hands of people who again and again we find out should never have had access.
You cannot open a rational debate with a school massacre of small children by an outsider, conflate every school shooting with that level of violence, and then say "but I'm the rational one." 99% of school shootings are an extension of violence in already happening in the neighborhood. They are crime related. That's not to say we should write them off, but the way to handle them is entirely different from the way we should handle things like Newtown. One is about someone who has gone off their rocker, and should have been in a mental institution and the other is about day to day policing and efforts to keep our youth from participating in crime at all.
Not happy there you blithely sensationalize the green tip 5.56 round the ATF wanted to ban under a handgun law. The problem here is no rational person would call it a handgun round. It is a rifle round with a few very expensive custom made pistols for it. It really isn't anything more than a regular 22 caliber round with more oomph in the cartridge. The same caliber as the popular plinking round kids learn on. It has no special armor piercing properties other than its speed. That would be the black tip round which is both rare and already restricted to military use only. Furthermore under this argument you'd have to ban all rifles and all rifle ammunition as they all have the same or better characteristics where body armor is involved. To make this even more insane, body armor has advanced since the bill was passed in the 1980's and can now stop rounds like the 5.56 green tip.
I know it all seems like low hanging fruit, but one of the perks of having so many bad black rifle thingys floating around your society is that the society tends to understand how they work much better.
As to talking to stupid people about what women need for protection, why not try talking to the survivors, while they aren't all together on whether they should carry, I am sure they will object to being called "young, hot little girls" and I am just as sure you could have found a less sensational quote that didn't paint every gun owner as a mental loon.
You know who else won't rest no matter how far they go with guns the Brady Campaign, they won't rest until guns are outright banned or legislated so badly that they are effectively banned. Interestingly enough you have pretty much stolen their arguments and printed them as your own.