Tomsen

Well, I know the arguing isn't going away without mod interference, and that really wasn't my "big dream" with a news-reposting bot. I can't read 2/3 of the news articles here. Everyone just copy paste without removing formating, which cause black font color and black background color.

Really? Why aren't we seeing it around then?

Right, anything on a computer is a piece of software, albeit anything on a computer is adware. Thanks for clearing it up. If you are going to be so pedantic about it, lets specify it to application software. Are you saying that shortcuts are adware? Is that the point you are trying to get through? How did you arrive to that conclusion from my comment? I never wrote such a thing. I have multiple times now said that, yes, it is indeed an ad. Yeah, but it isn't very good analogies. Thats the issue. They are nothing like our topic and would rather be categorized as malware. It is like saying: "Do you support gender equality?" - "yes" - "What if women turned out to be a creature spawned by the red devil himself conspiring to kill all men?" It literally makes zero sense to the discussion. (See I can also make extreme stupid what ifs examples). And no, it would not require additional software. It would just need a simple script. A wise man once told me: Is a shortcut not a piece of software? Therefore a script must also be a piece of software. I remember you saying: Did it monitor website visits? Yes Can a shortcut monitor website visits? My definition of adware still holds. You are talking about malware, not adware. I already pointed out you can have malicious adware (malware). I don't make any excuses, I simply dismiss your stupid arguments. You think you can make the case that since it was a shortcut it is adware? So what is your case? If the driver kept putting shortcuts on the desktop to ads, then yes, I would agree you could make the case that the driver contains adware. That is not what the driver did. It simply placed it there doing the initial install, and forgot about it. It didn't run it or anything, didn't put it back if you removed it, didn't do shit. First of all, of course the part of TOS gets invalidated if it contains illegal things like "break into your house at night and steal things". That is once again not the case. There is NOTHING illegal about putting a desktop shortcut without your explicit consent. (where would you put the line, what folders would it need explicit consent?) It really seems like you have a mis-screwed idea about how the legal system and TOS works and complement each other. People can read the damn TOS if they want. It is all legal speak, and hard to read (made so on purpose). A judge would throw you out of court if you dared to try challenge AMD on this specific issue. AMD has all the legal rights behind them. You don't know their intentions do you? Do you know every single intention behind every action their driver installer takes? No, of course not. You don't have to give consent (implicit nor explicit) to have your life saved anywhere in the western world. The doctors will try to save your life without your consent. "Implicit consent" is acceptable in order to do neutral or beneficial things Either that is your opinion or that is made up statement. which I think putting ads on a user's computer is Any ad you see using your computer is being put on your computer. All ads you see while surfing the internet is being stored locally for that session. Well, the help page was also a very innocent example. Why did you ignore the statement right next to it? (a folder full of ads hidden away in installation folder). Yeah, but sorry to break this to you: You are terrible at analogies (at least in our conversation in this thread). Non of your analogies was even close to our discussion. Every single of your analogies had extreme malicious functionality (to the point that you would call it malware). Changing desktop background could result in the previous image been deleted (if no other backup is present). That isn't the case here. Also your example was about changing the background image into a dick. Which would be illegal.

How do you navigate to a website? By a URL. It was a desktop shortcut URL. You don't magically end up to a website.. "What if" "What if" "what if". That is a whole bunch of what if to establish your point. Entirely changing the intention from innocent to extremely invasive. Entirely change the scenario, and yet you ask if I keep to my definitions. I do, as long as the scenario resembles it. That would after all require some additional software to make sure you can't delete them (or just replaces them). So is the ad the shortcut or the website? Before it was the website, now it is the shortcut? Again, you are making an extreme example that doesn't represent our topic at hand, and ask if I still keep my definitions. I do. Is it an ad? Sure. Does that mean that all ads is adware? No. I thought the shortcut was the ad now? Can you decide? Yeah, but there is a difference between an ad and actual adware. Can you comprehend that? Nobody is claiming it isn't an ad. (I am not at least). Again, your examples doesn't represent our discussion at hand. You can't draw lines between them like you are attempting to do in order to validate your argument. Implicit consent as in you accept the TOS (which I would bet would allow desktop shortcut (doesn't have to be explicit about folder location)). No, you are pulling my leg. Your last 3 or so examples has been pure insanity. Never said it could do whatever it wants. Well, users in general aren't guaranteed to be aware what they downloaded will do as they want (that is simple the nature of downloading from a external source). Do users know all that happens in the installation folder? In the registry database? etc, etc, etc. No of course not. You can certainly give consent to something you aren't 100% aware of. Don't fool yourself. Help page was an innocent example. Could be shortcuts to ads displayed by the adware (would be a huge security flaw tho). The help page can have ads. Even third party ads! 3) Yeah of course. But that is not the scenario we are having. Making your point utterly irrelevant. Yes, lets list your "examples"... ---- What if you could not delete the shortcut because it came back? What if it was not 1 shortcut but 100? If I hacked into Google's servers and modified the Google Chrome installer to place a script that generated 100 popups for Viagra as soon as you started your computer, would you not say that was adware? So if I started spreading a Trojan horse then the victims would have "provided implicit consent"? "You gave implicit consent to having sex because you drank the drink I put roofie in". Do you not agree that a program changing your background to a picture of a massive cock would be more serious than it putting the same picture inside a hidden folder buried deep in your folder structure? ---- Do I stand by my definitions? Yes, indeed I do. You have yet to make an actual argument relevant to the discussion. Your bring utterly extreme, perverted and irrelevant examples to challenge my definition. Are you going to keep doing that? Spare me if thats the case.

You would classify a URL as adware? That is absolute nonsense. Ask any software engineer, adware is a piece of software (adware is short for advertising-supported software) bundled with a program to display ads when said programs runs. There is also malicious adware with the intend to inject ads into other programs. Was there any software bundled to their program to display said ad? No. Did the program monitor website visits? No. Did it serve an ad to the user? No, you had to click it yourself. Did users receive a clear notice about it? No. (well, it wasn't hidden away in installation folders) Did it provide adequate consent? It doesn't need to. You are providing implicit consent by downloading it. Did it generate revenue for the author? No. So, since the FTC can't give a "strict definition", you simply start stretching the definition so it fits it? By your own definition, any programs which doing its installation puts a URL in their installation folder/whereever (perhaps to a help page or whatever), is classified as adware. Do you stand by your own definition?

Yet, we have the same user who keeps making "opinion based facts" in nearly every topic regarding AMD (without consequences). The statement aren't laid out as opinions, they are laid out as ultimatums. Making the statement that AMD drivers install adware or malware is BS, not an opinion in any fashion. He has every right to say he didn't like AMD putting a link on the desktop, that is after all his opinion. He can think it is shady or unethical. I don't have a problem with that. Yeah, it is indeed getting tiring seeing the same fucking BS from the same user in every damn AMD thread. The guy is intentionally doing it, saying otherwise is just pure ignorance at this point. One cannot be that stupid. But hey, he spams a bunch of news, so mods probably let him do it. I should make a bot that just repost news from other tech sites. Avoid all this personal BS agendas from certain LTT members.

Yeah everyone have a right to their opinion. Just not when it isn't opinion based. Calling everything an "opinion" (and therefore allow people to spew absolute BS, like AMD installing malware) is damaging to the discussion.

That is probably because of the fascist regime implemented. It draws lines from both the left and the right (that why nazi regime wasn't far right). Hitler himself said that the nazism was neither left nor right (aka centric). Yet, when going over the policies implemented, you see a slightly more "right" policies than "left" policies. But, we I think we have a very clear understanding of Hitlers political leanings. He was after all the dictator of nazi germany that started WW2, and not just some random dude.

Is the democratic people's republic of Korea also a democratic nation? EDIT: You are dead wrong. The nazi was NOT globalist. They were NATIONALIST. "deutschland über alles" (meaning Germany over everyone else).

This might come off as a little offensive, but who are these scholars that argue that Hitlers political leaning isn't really known? Are we serious here, we don't know Hitler political leanings??? And yes, I was talking about nazi germany, and not neo-nazism. The nazi regime was only socialist by name. Hitler for example, really hated the democratic socialist party (he hated socialism in general, thought of it as a curse to the german people). I know fascism isn't either left or right, that is why I clarified the position (center right [AKA just right to the center]). Nazi's fascism regime was right leaning. Hitler made unions illegal, and germany's social welfare programs are revolved around unions. No, Hitler didn't do that. Hitler only centralized the means of military production. Everything else was left in a "free market". (When Hitler became chancellor he introduced economic policies that privatized the states industry). What exactly do you mean with something as arbitrary as "controlled centralization"? Centric policies is relative to the right and left policies. Right want no regulation. Yes, most western countries today are left leaning, that is that is true. No, Hitlers economic policies was also right wing. Hitlers policies resembled nothing of the "left" policies (social democratic), but was much similar to the right wing (at the time) policies in economics and social policies.

Nazi's were leftist? Really? Nazism is a center-right fascism.

The GPU tech was simply an extension from their 2004 license agreement. Nvidia would probably also be forced to license Intel IP just to continue development on Denver. Nvidia had the upper hand in that negotiations, because of some of the shady practices Intel took in use (trying to take nvidia out of the chipset business). Yeah, history repeats itself, and morons repeats their misunderstanding of the market. Really worrying that this is actually blowing up as it is, and people foolish falling for pseudo intelligent statements with no real world practicality.

That lawsuit was more about chipsets rather than iGPU's.

Lets hope it doesn't turn out to be EPIC. Get it?

The idea clearly didn't work out well. The whole issue, as you also pointed out, is that it isn't easy to optimize for. For most workloads it will naturally fall behind x86/ARM, that is because itanium relies heavily upon the compiler to properly align the instruction works in such a fashion that it doesn't conflict with the applications actual intend. In my opinion, it is smarter to have the processor itself to abstract such things with out-of-order execution engine, than having to explicitly be optimized by the software running. In many ways it is similar to bulldozer (and other failed microarchitectures), it excels it special cases (software that complements the hardware), but have major performance draw backs in general cases. It simply isn't as reliable in its performance throughput for a wide range of applications. DX12 and Vulkan doesn't just magically solved game developers game code. It makes it easier for certain parts (much better multi-threaded rendering engine, etc), but you can still have "DX11 efficiency" with DX12 implementation. We saw that with some of the early DX12 titles after all. Both AMD and Nvidia (nvidia more so) invest much resources into development houses to optimize titles.