Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 3rd Jan 2010 20:32 UTC
General Development Here's something you probably don't know, but really should - especially if you're a programmer, and especially especially if you're using Intel's compiler. It's a fact that's not widely known, but Intel's compiler deliberately and knowingly cripples performance for non-Intel (AMD/VIA) processors.
Permalink for comment 402485
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

Sorry by some glitches in the text but was very late and the edit window is very small. Being unable to edit after posting, glitches become permanent.

Naturally your point is clear, from the legal point.
However (and this was not clear) when using the word "crime", a strong word with a broad range, the meaning was the original. Not the interpretation that is becoming current. I refer to confusing crime with something that is illegal.

Everyone knows that crimes existed BEFORE laws. Maybe do not notice that crime is an ethical evaluation. Legalities only come very late. That is why the connection is very loose and some "laws" allow crimes and some forbid (or "criminalize" what is no crime at all).

The perspectives stated, also depend on another concept. The one of passive crime as complement to the the usually active that anyone understands. I believe its called "crime by omission"... or something like that. An example: Seeing somebody dying and just walk away when one could have saved a life.

This was an extreme example, but shows the obligations any citizen has towards to society. The same is applied to economics as the only justification for a corporation to exist (and profit from society) is to be useful to society. Nothing less, in the ethical point of view that should be the base for laws and it's enforcement.

A corporation is a virtual citizen, not a king.
And only while it is useful to accept it as such. Not by right... but by allowance. Even if that is forgotten, it is still true... and to be reminded.

Anyway, la enforcement has a double problem, and bigger one is that law is quite linear in a world that is not linear, but complex. Where perspective is more important that justifications.

Take ecology for example. And that applies to every situation in society. Laws cannot, EVER, command every possible situation. And that is the genesis of trouble when the wordings become more important than the reasons for laws to exist.

You where very clear and precise in your comment, unlike mine. I thank you for that.

It was also missing the mention to the common practice of ACTIVELY forbid developers to do what they are doing, or could do very naturally. And even worse. We have seen many "internal memos" proving that is a common practice.

That gives a long range of opportunities when a compiler chooses what routines to use depending from what CPU is present. If it a PASSIVE way to get a "result" or an ACTIVE one... The common practice gives us a clue of what is more likely.

Anyway, laws become a maze were justice is lost.
So fairness is more important than ever.
And I guess that you feel the same.

What really chocks me is the respect a compiler has for it's knowledge of hidden internals... and then that respect and confidence being (actively or passively) used to get unfair results.

To me, it does not matter if it passes bellow the legal sieve. The reasons for laws to exist are more important. And that were fairness lies. Specially when a tool is respected, used... and present in libraries used by third parties... with confidence... and unexpected implications on others.

It's all a question of perspective. Not words, justifications or laws. Laws should follow their goals, not the reverse. That is what they are for... or should.

And thanks, again, for pinpointing the more practical side. Regards.

P.S. - Sorry to have been a bit long. And hope not to have any glitches this time.
As, again, it is late, and need to rest.

Reply Parent Score: 1