Wired magazine's vaporware awards

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message
news:GdWdnaB5Z6CLg33cRVn-pQ@rogers.com...
> There's some good potshots at Intel for not being able to hit 4Ghz with
> Pentium 4, but the really funny shot goes against Apple/IBM for not
> getting G5 out at 3Ghz.
>
>> Intel's in good company. Nobody hit the chip speeds they promised. In
>> June 2003, Apple CEO Steve Jobs said IBM's G5 chips would be at 3 GHz
>> within 12 months. It's been 18.

AMD is up to 2.6ghz on their 13nm process, you wait until they make their
high performance 90nm chip with SSE3, they should be there before the G5,
that is unless they want to wait for intel to catch up.

>> In response, Justin Evers submitted a "Reading from the Book of Apple,
>> Chapter 4, Verses 16 to 20":
>>
>> "Then did St. Steve raise on high the Holy G5 of Cupertino, saying,
>> 'Bless this, O Lord, that with it thou mayst blow thine Dell enemies to
>> tiny bits, in thy mercy.' And the people did rejoice and did feast upon
>> the renderings of lambs and toads and tree sloths and fruit bats and
>> orangutans and lickable icons.... Now did the Lord say, 'Thou in 12
>> months, thou must count to three. Three shall be the number of the GHz
>> and the number of the GHz shall be three. Four shalt thou not count,
>> neither shalt thou count two-point-five, excepting that thou then
>> proceedeth to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the
>> number of the GHz, be reached, then thine will be great and powerful in
>> my sight, however if thou shall have more than one button on thou mouse,
>> who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuff thine's life.'"
>
> Wired News: Vaporware Phantom Haunts Us All
> http://www.wired.com/news/culture/ [...] page_next1

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Nicholas Buenk wrote:
> "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message
> news:GdWdnaB5Z6CLg33cRVn-pQ@rogers.com...
>
>>There's some good potshots at Intel for not being able to hit 4Ghz with
>>Pentium 4, but the really funny shot goes against Apple/IBM for not
>>getting G5 out at 3Ghz.
>>
>>
>>>Intel's in good company. Nobody hit the chip speeds they promised. In
>>>June 2003, Apple CEO Steve Jobs said IBM's G5 chips would be at 3 GHz
>>>within 12 months. It's been 18.
>
>
> AMD is up to 2.6ghz on their 13nm process, you wait until they make their
> high performance 90nm chip with SSE3, they should be there before the G5,
> that is unless they want to wait for intel to catch up.

That's actually kind of my assumption as well. I think AMD could be at
3.0Ghz now, but there's no point since they are so far ahead of Intel
performance-wise. About the only thing that might cause them to hurry
3.0Ghz along is simply to beat PowerPC to it just for bragging rights
between the two technology partners.

Yousuf Khan

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message
news:zKnEd.3780$TN6.336229@news20.bellglobal.com...
> That's actually kind of my assumption as well. I think AMD could be at
> 3.0Ghz now, but there's no point since they are so far ahead of Intel
> performance-wise. About the only thing that might cause them to hurry
> 3.0Ghz along is simply to beat PowerPC to it just for bragging rights
> between the two technology partners.
>
> Yousuf Khan

I'm not so sure about that, if Intel got smart and released that Pentium-M
that might force AMD to hurry up... I really can't imagin why the hell Intel
keeps trying to peddle P-4's on the Market.

Carlo

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"Carlo Razzeto" <crazzeto@hotmail.com> wrote :

> I really can't
> imagin why the hell Intel keeps trying to peddle P-4's on the
> Market.

Because Intel is not a reasonable person, its a corporation.
Corporations are bad, M'kay?

Pozdrawiam.
--
RusH //
http://randki.o2.pl/profil.php?id_r=352019
Like ninjas, true hackers are shrouded in secrecy and mystery.
You may never know -- UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 11:11:55 +0000, RusH wrote:

> "Carlo Razzeto" <crazzeto@hotmail.com> wrote :
>
>> I really can't
>> imagin why the hell Intel keeps trying to peddle P-4's on the
>> Market.
>
> Because Intel is not a reasonable person, its a corporation.

Intel, like even the "reasonable person" has interests that may be
contrary to yours, and mine.

> Corporations are bad, M'kay?

Nonsense. Corporations are people. By the force of law, they act in the
intrests of those people. Perhaps not well, but the officers first
responsibility is to the owners.

--
Keith

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

keith (krw@att.bizzzz) wrote:
:
: Corporations are people. By the force of law, they act in the
: intrests of those people. Perhaps not well, but the officers first
: responsibility is to the owners.
:


AFAIK, only the U.S. has granted personhood status to corporations,
in an 1886 Supreme Court Decision's head note, written by the court
reporter.

For more on this travesty, see:

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0101-07.htm
Now Corporations Claim The "Right To Lie"


--Jerry Leslie
Note: leslie@jrlvax.houston.rr.com is invalid for email

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips RusH <logistyka1@pf.pl> wrote:
> So what exactly has one to do to put those "people" in
> prison then ? Show me ONE such example and I'll rest my case.

AT&T breakup.

Not too many corporations are "in prison" [under direct court orders],
but many are "out on parole" and have to report to regulators.

-- Robert

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

David Schwartz wrote:

> "RusH" <logistyka1@pf.pl> wrote in message
> news:Xns95DD476259F4ARusHcomputersystems@193.110.122.97...
>
>
>>Corporation is a "person" with all the benefits, but without the
>>obligations.
>
>
> In the same sense that a corporation can't be put in prison, it can't
> break the law. So it cuts both ways.

That would be fine, if our government actually punished the *people* who
break the law while acting on behalf of corporations. And I'm not
talking about Martha Stewart, I'm talking about the ones who rob people
of their life savings and pour pollutants into the rivers, etc.

--
Mike Smith

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 14:03:35 +0000, Robert Redelmeier wrote:

> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips RusH <logistyka1@pf.pl> wrote:
>> So what exactly has one to do to put those "people" in
>> prison then ? Show me ONE such example and I'll rest my case.
>
> AT&T breakup.

Even better: Tobacco

> Not too many corporations are "in prison" [under direct court orders],
> but many are "out on parole" and have to report to regulators.

And pay through the nose in civil penalties. The officers of may
corporations are doing time for illegal activities, as well.

--
Keith

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 07:19:30 +0000, leslie wrote:

> keith (krw@att.bizzzz) wrote:
> :
> : Corporations are people. By the force of law, they act in the
> : intrests of those people. Perhaps not well, but the officers first
> : responsibility is to the owners.
> :
>
>
> AFAIK, only the U.S. has granted personhood status to corporations,
> in an 1886 Supreme Court Decision's head note, written by the court
> reporter.

A corporation is in fact an entity anywhere, whether they want to admit
it or not. It is a method of limiting liability for the owners, since
they don't have control of the day-to-day operation of the corporation.
Thus, the corporation is the entity.

> For more on this travesty, see:
>
> http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0101-07.htm Now Corporations
> Claim The "Right To Lie"

"The requested document does not exist on this server"

A corporation *CANNOT* lie. Only people can lie. You people are nutz!

--
Keith

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
> A corporation (its owners) can be held liable for
> civil damage, but not criminal.

Interestingly, some (Australian?) companies didn't have limited
liability. The owners could be made to pay if the company
went bankrupt. Stocks would trade at negative prices -- the
buyer would be given money to take over the registration of
the shares. Sort of like a "capital call" on Lloyds "names".

-- Robert

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

keith (krw@att.bizzzz) wrote:
: On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 07:19:30 +0000, leslie wrote:
:
: > keith (krw@att.bizzzz) wrote:
: > :
: > : Corporations are people. By the force of law, they act in the
: > : intrests of those people. Perhaps not well, but the officers first
: > : responsibility is to the owners.
: > :
: >
: > AFAIK, only the U.S. has granted personhood status to corporations,
: > in an 1886 Supreme Court Decision's head note, written by the court
: > reporter.
:
: A corporation is in fact an entity anywhere, whether they want to admit
: it or not. It is a method of limiting liability for the owners, since
: they don't have control of the day-to-day operation of the corporation.
: Thus, the corporation is the entity.
:
: > For more on this travesty, see:
: >
: > http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0101-07.htm Now Corporations
: > Claim The "Right To Lie"
:
: "The requested document does not exist on this server"
:
: A corporation *CANNOT* lie. Only people can lie. You people are nutz!
:

The people doing the lying claim that they are protected by their
corporation's First Amendment protection:

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/08/269899.shtml
portland imc - 2003.08.16 - Appellate Court Rules Media Can Legally Lie

"Appellate Court Rules Media Can Legally Lie
author: FYI

On February 14, a Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely
nothing illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by a
major press organization.

Appellate Court Rules Media Can Legally Lie.
By Mike Gaddy
Published 02. 28. 03 at 19:31 Sierra Time

On February 14, a Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely
nothing illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by a
major press organization. The court reversed the $425,000 jury verdict
in favor of journalist Jane Akre who charged she was pressured by Fox
Television management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented
to be false information. The ruling basically declares it is
technically not against any law, rule, or regulation to deliberately
lie or distort the news on a television broadcast.

On August 18, 2000, a six-person jury was unanimous in its conclusion
that Akre was indeed fired for threatening to report the station's
pressure to broadcast what jurors decided was "a false, distorted, or
slanted" story about the widespread use of growth hormone in dairy
cows. The court did not dispute the heart of Akre's claim, that Fox
pressured her to broadcast a false story to protect the broadcaster
from having to defend the truth in court, as well as suffer the ire of
irate advertisers.

Fox argued from the first, and failed on three separate occasions, in
front of three different judges, to have the case tossed out on the
grounds there is no hard, fast, and written rule against deliberate
distortion of the news. The attorneys for Fox, owned by media baron
Rupert Murdock, argued the First Amendment gives broadcasters the
right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public
airwaves.

In its six-page written decision, the Court of Appeals held that the
Federal Communications Commission position against news distortion is
only a "policy," not a promulgated law, rule, or regulation.
Fox aired a report after the ruling saying it was "totally vindicated"
by the verdict."


http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0421-09.htm
Nike Just Doesn't Do It

"...In the past, the Supreme Court has extended all manner of
constitutional protections to corporations. This despite the fact that
the Constitution nowhere mentions the word "corporation." In an
astounding act of legal prestidigitation, the Justices simply decreed
that corporations are "persons" and thus entitled to all the
safeguards of living, breathing humans. There has never been such a
breathtaking fiction in American law since the legal system justified
slavery in the nineteenth century by employing the myth that persons
are property. For the Supreme Court to rule that property - i.e.
corporations - are persons is equally extraordinary.

The true agenda of Nike and the legions of corporations supporting its
Supreme Court case is to use the Constitution, especially the First
Amendment, to subvert any attempts by the people and government to
control corporate behavior. Corporate lawyers have already argued that
the securities laws - the ones that require companies to report
numbers truthfully to investors - also violate corporate First
Amendment rights. Could there be a worse time in American history to
argue that the Constitution protects corporations' ability to deceive
workers, investors and consumers?..."



--Jerry Leslie
Note: leslie@jrlvax.houston.rr.com is invalid for email

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips leslie <LESLIE@jrlvax.houston.rr.com> wrote:
> On February 14, a Florida Appeals court ruled there is
> absolutely nothing illegal about lying, concealing or
> distorting information by a major press organization. The
> court reversed the $425,000 jury verdict in favor of
> journalist Jane Akre who charged she was pressured by
> Fox Television management and lawyers to air what she
> knew and documented to be false information. The ruling
> basically declares it is technically not against any law,
> rule, or regulation to deliberately lie or distort the
> news on a television broadcast.

Correct. She was fired for threatening to expose her
employers secrets.

> In its six-page written decision, the Court of Appeals held
> that the Federal Communications Commission position against
> news distortion is only a "policy," not a promulgated law,
> rule, or regulation. Fox aired a report after the ruling
> saying it was "totally vindicated" by the verdict."

Since those secrets were embarrassing, but not clearly illegal,
she doesn't get Whistleblower protection.

Had the case been filed differently, as someone who had
suffered from intentially misleading information, I expect
the outcome to be very different.

Enforcing employee fidelity is actually part of avoiding
prior restraint. Justice isn't about the good guys winning.
It's about maintaining order/predictability.

-- Robert

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

keith wrote:

> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 14:41:39 -0500, Mike Smith wrote:
>
>
>>David Schwartz wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"RusH" <logistyka1@pf.pl> wrote in message
>>>news:Xns95DD476259F4ARusHcomputersystems@193.110.122.97...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Corporation is a "person" with all the benefits, but without the
>>>>obligations.
>>>
>>>
>>> In the same sense that a corporation can't be put in prison, it can't
>>>break the law. So it cuts both ways.
>>
>>That would be fine, if our government actually punished the *people* who
>>break the law while acting on behalf of corporations.
>
>
> You bloody fool! They *are* going to jail.

All of 'em? You really think that most of the corporate execs who break
the law or harm the public end up in jail?

>>And I'm not
>>talking about Martha Stewart, I'm talking about the ones who rob people
>>of their life savings and pour pollutants into the rivers, etc.
>
>
> If people are vesting all their wealth in one place they deserve what they
> get. The Enron fools were just that. Sure, throw the criminals in
> jail, but stop the pity-party for absolute idiots.

The fact that the victims were idiots (and many of them were) does not
make the guilty parties any less culpable.

--
Mike Smith

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips RusH <logistyka1@pf.pl> wrote:
> 1 not employers, bot the company who pays for commercials

I didn't see any mention that her expose' was of advertisers.
I don't think that would make the station nearly as angry as
an employee who was going to reveal internal secrets (that
they are biased).

> 2 media lie all the time - thats NO secret

The lies themselves are. And most of the media's
lies are rather subtle -- lies of omission (whole
stories or pertinent facts).

> firing because you are going to tell the truth
> about monsano slowly killing milions is ok ?

Had she gone to the USDA, FDA, or the police
she would have been protected. She wanted to
reveal trade secrets to the competition.

-- Robert

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Robert Redelmeier <redelm@ev1.net.invalid> wrote :

> I didn't see any mention that her expose' was of advertisers.
> I don't think that wovld make the station nearly as angry as
> an employee who was going to reveal internal secrets (that
> they are biased).

Monsanto != Fox News

> She wanted to
> reveal trade secrets to the competition.

Somethink that is DOCUMENTED in many Evropean pvblications is by no
means a trade secret, especially if those are scientific research
docvments of regvlatory bodies in Canada, New Zealand, and the Evropean
Union.


Pozdrawiam.
--
RvsH //
http://randki.o2.pl/profil.php?id_r=352019
Like ninjas, trve hackers are shrovded in secrecy and mystery.
Yov may never know -- UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 13:17:40 +0000, leslie wrote:

> keith (krw@att.bizzzz) wrote:
> : On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 13:04:20 +0000, leslie wrote:
> :
> :
> : >
> : > Democracy is a value that the corporation just doesn't understand.
> :
> : Well, duh! If the author is this dumb, the rest of what's written is just
> : as suspect. A *corporation* doesn't have a will, consience, or guilt.
> : Only people have those attributes. As such, a corporation cannnot violate
> : a law, only people can. A corporation (its owners) can be held liable for
> : civil damage, but not criminal.
> :
> : Good grief, we have a world full of nitwits here!
> :
>
> No, you're just in total denial of the existence of corporate personhood.

You simply an excess of unchecked ignorance.

--
Keith

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
> You'll have to show me that one! AFAIK, Austrailian law
> comes from the sample place as ours; English Common Law,
> which certainly does have the concept of limited-liability

Comparatively recently (1811 for NY, 1854 for UK, 1931 for Calif)

http://www.economist.com/diversion [...] _ID=347323
particularly PDF in right sidebar.

I couldn't quickly find a reference to Australia.

> In the dark ages this was true. I challenge you to find
> this in law in the last two hundred years (outside Cicily,
> ...or Chicago .

I believe in NY & WI, shareholders are still liable pro-rata
for unpaid wages.

-- Robert

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 05:45:21 +0000, Robert Redelmeier wrote:

> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
>> You'll have to show me that one! AFAIK, Austrailian law
>> comes from the sample place as ours; English Common Law,
>> which certainly does have the concept of limited-liability
>
> Comparatively recently (1811 for NY, 1854 for UK, 1931 for Calif)
>
> http://www.economist.com/diversion [...] _ID=347323
> particularly PDF in right sidebar.
>
> I couldn't quickly find a reference to Australia.
>
>> In the dark ages this was true. I challenge you to find
>> this in law in the last two hundred years (outside Cicily,
>> ...or Chicago .
>
> I believe in NY & WI, shareholders are still liable pro-rata
> for unpaid wages.

If what you say is true (I'm quire sure it isn't), why in hell would
anyone incorporate in those states? One of the principle purposes of
incorporation is limited liability.

--
Keith

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"Robert Redelmeier" <redelm@ev1.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:%tgGd.2296$2e7.267@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Felger Carbon <fmsfnf@jfoops.net>
wrote:
> > Are you talking about a corporation with (say) a manufacturing
> > plant in one state, incorporated in another state, and a stock
> > owner in a third state (or even a foreign country)? I'd like
> > to hear more, Robert!
>
> Yes. It gets very complicated, but wage-hour liability <ggl>
> isn't that easy to evade and often "pierces the veil" <ggl> to
> put liability on individuals. Most often officers and directors,
> sometimes on shareholders. Wages are a priviliged liability class.

Robert, are you aware that an order by a NY state judge becomes
invalid across the NY state line? NY can't even collect from a New
Jersey-based stockholder.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Felger Carbon <fmsfnf@jfoops.net> wrote:
> Robert, are you aware that an order by a NY state judge
> becomes invalid across the NY state line? NY can't even
> collect from a New Jersey-based stockholder.

Technically, yes. But a good lawyer can take that NY order
to a NJ judge and get it homolgated. Part of the "full faith
and credit" clause in the US Constitution.

-- Robert

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
> I challenge you to show me one case of a publically traded stock where the
> holders were forced to reach in their pockets to pay a paycheck *or*
> taxes. Certainly they may volunteer to get the company out of
> liquidation, but *forced*? You're going to have to show this one.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scri [...] 9/482.html

a bit old (1947), and maybe not publicly-traded, but it came
back quickly on Google

> If there are no assets to go after, you're likewise out of luck.
> The stockholders are *not* liable.

You would think. I would think. But law is very complex.
Shareholders have assets, so why would they not be tempting?

-- Robert

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 17:47:49 +0000, Robert Redelmeier wrote:

> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
>> I challenge you to show me one case of a publically traded stock where the
>> holders were forced to reach in their pockets to pay a paycheck *or*
>> taxes. Certainly they may volunteer to get the company out of
>> liquidation, but *forced*? You're going to have to show this one.
>
> http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scri [...] 9/482.html
>
> a bit old (1947), and maybe not publicly-traded, but it came
> back quickly on Google
>
>> If there are no assets to go after, you're likewise out of luck.
>> The stockholders are *not* liable.
>
> You would think. I would think. But law is very complex.
> Shareholders have assets, so why would they not be tempting?

Tempting, perhaps. The seperation of stockholder and corporation is
rather a high one though. YOu still haven't shown a clear breach of this
*mountain*. I don't think it exists, and for damned good reason.

--
Keith

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
> I don't think so! THe FF&C clause doesn't reach this far into
> one's pocket. Otherwise BE wouldn't have such a great time of it.
>
> You're going to have to reach further down to convince me.

Easily. Supposing a NJ driver gets in an traffic accident
in NYC (happens every day). Of course the judgement can be
domesticated in NJ, and executed against him or his inse.

-- Robert

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
> In this case your driver is not protected by a corporate
> umbrella. He has personally dammaged another person and is
> as such liable for the damages. His insurance is responsible,
> by contract, to protect said driver against financial harm,
> of course up to the limits of the contract. The owners of
> the insurance company are not in harm's way of any litigation
> beyond that contract or their prior investment.

> Wanna try again? ;-)

I thought we were talking about the enforcability of out-of-state
judgements. Nothing to do with piercing-the-veil.

-- Robert