Intrinsity Claims 2.2 Ghz Chip

PowerMacDaddy writes "Over at SiliconValley.com there's an article about an Ausin, TX startup named Intrinsity that has unveiled a new chip that utilizes a new logic process with conventional fab processes to acheive a 2.2GHz clock rate. The company is headed by former Texas Instruments and Apple Computer microprocessor developer Paul Nixon. The real question is, is this all FUD, will the real-world performance be part of The Megahertz Myth, or is this thing for real?"

Comments

Hardware vs hacking

[Telastyn]

So the third principle that hackers are uncontrollable can be solved by doing hardware controls eh?

Unfortunately the Article relies on too many myths of it's own:

1. Hardware is difficult to hack.

Sure it is *more* difficult generally, but the internet will still allow distribution of the information about how to do it very easily.

2. Companies will make products people don't want.

Companies make products people don't *need*, but invariably they need people to *want* their products. There is no reason a hard drive or a computer that makes music copying difficult is something people want. People will simply buy the computer that is easy to use. (like apple and winXP support cd burning very easily now)

3. Comanies care about other companies

Microsoft doesn't give two craps about Sony as far as Sony could affect their bottom line. In the end they can make more money selling things to people so that the people can rip Sony off than Sony could give them not to.

Mandatory joke

[proxima]

Can we trust what anyone named Nixon says?

Nothing personal, but it was just sitting there begging to be said.

Reject me, will you?

[Wonko42]

Here are your recent submissions to Slashdot, and their status within the system:

2001-08-13 17:55:05 Intrinsity unveils 2.2GHz processor (articles,tech) (rejected)

Ho hum.

Only human

[Saeger]

Myth #1: The Internet is Too International to Be Controlled:
TechReview's argument: Safe havens typically don't have enough pipe to host Napster volumes of data; and, to deter law-abiding companies in the "goodguy" international community from dealing with these outlaws, you will be punished with asset forfeiture if you so much as look at them.

My counterargument: The first point is invalidated by the eventuality of distributed networks being more efficient with that volume of data anyway (think anonymous, dynamic akamai), and the second only requires that the "outlaws" be self-sufficient. e.g. If/when South Korea cracks down on the physical servers located @ astalavista.box.sk, it would resurface in a nebulous new form.

Myth #2: The Net Is Too Interconnected to Control:
TechReview's argument: Gnutella had to implement supernodes in order to fix its old bottleneck problem. What once was completely distributed now has a bit of hierarchy, and hence, is easier to attack with the help of the mega-ISPs.

My counterargument: There's a big difference between a massive central server being targetted, and hundreds of thousands of potential supernodes, which can also pop into and out of existance with the same ease as regular peers. Also, they mention that ISPs may move from simple port blocking to traffic analysis in order to defeat gnutella, and other 'rogue' packets, by sniffing their signature. That will work, but it also means that they'll NEXT have to blacklist ALL encrypted communication too--fat chance of that happening.

Myth #3: The Net Is Too Filled with Hackers to Control
TechReview's argument: You can restrict free communication most effectively at the hardware level. If consumers won't buy the crippled products, it becomes governments' job to mandate it, "just like [they] insist that cars have certain antipollution methods."

My counterargument: I think people will get off their asses and 'revolt' before their last bastion of freedom be co-opted by the system. Also, as long as ANY communication is still possible, you can hide whatever data you want to communicate within that channel... defeating the orwell network.