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?
"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!!!
The optimum committee has no members. -- Norman Augustine
