New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Mookster

Maybe you shouldn't use words you don't know the meanings of; it might keep you from having to rewrite the dictionary."Brevity of common parlance" Hah, and you're actually defending it.To that I'll just say this: don't give excuses if you're still not prepared to admit guilt -- procrastinating only makes it worse.God, I really hope you don't do this for a living.
"At the moment, this feature is disabled by default, with users being able to swap between just having the warning box appear or outright banning the installation of Win32 programs."RTFS. It's disabled by default which means it still isn't ready for implementation. I'm not worried about it being impossible to disable, though. I'm worried about a new warning message that can't be disabled. And obviously that comes later.I don't know if any of you have noticed, but all the...
As long as it can be disabled. Which I'm guessing it can't, since that's kind of been the trend with MS lately. "How will we know if it's working if we let people stop using it?" -Microsoft
So what, now you're throwing a tantrum because you can't get everyone to stop talking just because the sources are questionable?Grow up. Just because you're talking about validity, doesn't mean everyone else is talking about validity. Nothing in my post was about validity, it was conjecture with the assumption that the sources are untrue. I took specific caution to ensure that was clear when I wrote that post. So why should I just lay down and take your criticism over...
I know where it came from; that's actually why I didn't check sources. I'd already accepted that it wasn't true. I think you misunderstood my post -- I was clearing up that there were actually two separate accusations; one more true than the other. Then, I went on to give some conjecture on what to make of each of the accusations and concluded that it's not worth debating because it's a situation where the line between legal and illegal is so thin. We can expect Intel to...
Well, to be fair, these are two different things. Contacting reviewers to educate them on the strengths of Intel CPU's in comparison to Zen is pragmatic and fair.The main accusation is: "With some reports claiming that Intel personnel may have even approached some customers with “incentive rebates” and other special promotions to exclusively use Intel chips. In some cases allegedly urging them to make big buying decisions before they could evaluate competing AMD...
Shall we recap?My first response to you, was in objection to your use of the term "half a decade" which was a sad attempt to make "5 years" sound more substantial. You reject that settlements "count" because there's no admission of guilt, while demanding evidence of "this" happening in 2017 despite us being just shy of 60 days into the year. Seraphic provided very good information to correct you and your response was disgustingly petty.After I point that out, you go on to...
Can't wait to talk to people bragging about their sick "level 11GHz" overclock.
Well, I didn't say it's illegal, but it's certainly shady. There may be legal limits on cost or below cost selling when the intent is to suffocate your only competitor, but I have no idea. If they sell below cost, they can probably maintain that for long enough to bankrupt AMD. I think in court you'd just need to prove intent, of that, but again I'm not sure.But like I said, it's most certainly shady. When you consider the net negative impact it would have, you might even...
The positions of yours that I've disagreed with were not incomplete, they were wrong. You didn't go on to elaborate on those positions, you went on to contradict them. You can't contradict your own statements while simultaneously declaring they are correct in light of that contradictory update. Now you're petty fogging your own false-equivalencies. Compound sophism.. Yikes, I hope you don't do this for a living.You don't need two prior legal incidents to establish...
New Posts  All Forums: