Slashdot Mirror


Does A Pentium 4 Need A Weapons License?

WindBourne writes "It appears to be that the U.S. house of Reps. want to classify Pentium 4 and above CPUs as weapons. This would mean that all these will require export licenses. Apparently, they have not heard about that the far east has developed large CPUs as well that are used in beowulf clusters." According to the article, this clause is unlikely to appear in the final version -- but stranger things have happened.

31 of 766 comments (clear)

  1. Donno about Pentium 4 but Athlon is a weapon by Donny+Smith · · Score: 5, Funny

    Athlon is definitively a dangerous weapon - it can cause 3rd degree skin burns

    1. Re:Donno about Pentium 4 but Athlon is a weapon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      So that makes my G5 a... what? Weapon of Mass Computation?

  2. Air travel by eggoeater · · Score: 5, Funny

    So can I still fly with my "weapon"?

    1. Re:Air travel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      not with the 478 sharp objects attached to it...

    2. Re:Air travel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, fellow idiot, schools instituted "no tolerance" rules to keep students from using those bad illegal drugs, and guess what?!?!? Now students are being expelled for bringing over-the-counter drugs to school. We have a case here where an honor student was seen taking a Motrin tablet for her PMS cramps and the school officials want to send her to an alternative school. They also had the option of expelling her.

      Anytime a law or rule is made, you have to think about the EXTREME application of it because the people enforcing it tend to be idiots like you.

    3. Re:Air travel by duffel · · Score: 5, Funny

      No, because you might put the pilots to sleep by solving complex differential equations at them with your weapon.

      Do not underestimate the soporific power of indiscriminate maths!

    4. Re:Air travel by shadowcabbit · · Score: 5, Funny

      Do not underestimate the soporific power of indiscriminate maths!

      I'd be more worried about the indiscriminate use of weapons of math destruction.

      --
      "Why Subscribe?" Good question...
    5. Re:Air travel by GigsVT · · Score: 5, Insightful

      From the article:

      "You cannot control anything that is made by the millions and which you can put in your pocket."

      -Seymore Goodman, professor of International Affairs and Computing at the Georgia Institute of Technology

      It's too bad more people don't realize this, we could end this silly "war on drugs".

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
  3. How would this help? by AKAImBatman · · Score: 5, Informative

    Foreigners could simply obtain SPARC or MIPS specs and fab a multi-GHz version of those. Since these chips are better designed for multi-processing, foreign powers could scale them just as high as a PIV cluster, and run their nuclear simulations. Time to worry more about refined Uranium-235 and Plutonium-239.

  4. uh oh by ak3ldama · · Score: 5, Funny

    being in a large room full of developers sitting unhappily at cubicles is bad enough, but no we are all armed with weapons, ahhhh!!!

    --
    "but money is the God of Algiers & Mahomet their prophet." - Rich. O'Bryen June 8th 1786
  5. Re:fp by CrudPuppy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I guess what I find amusing about this is that very few of the CPUs nowadays are manufactured in the USA. Taiwan, Germany, etc.

    So we bring them here when complete and then decide they can't leave the country?? heh.

    --
    A year spent in artificial intelligence is enough to make one believe in God.
  6. beowulf cluster by stang7423 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Can you imagine a beowulf cluster of congressman...

    It would be the only cluster in the world to slow down as you add nodes.

  7. Thanks for the info. now go to jail. by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now we're going to have to arrest you for disseminating this information.

    Sincerely,

    The Feds

    --

    ___
    It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
  8. Re:It's about time they catch up by goMac2500 · · Score: 5, Informative

    It was actually the G4 because it was the first processor that could pull a gigaflop.

  9. A weapon? Heh! by Anonym1ty · · Score: 5, Funny

    The use of a Pentium 4 or better as a weapon can easily be avoided by running any Windows variant on it.

  10. I knew it! by sirgoran · · Score: 5, Funny

    Right before the election Dubya will announce that he's found the missing Weapons of Mass Destruction.

    They're sitting in boxes at the Bagdad CompUSA store marked "Intel inside"!

    Nice work!

    -Goran

    --
    Carpe Scrotum - The only way to deal with your competition.
  11. Re:I tought... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If the final packaging of the raw chips into usable format is done in a 3rd world country with cheap labor, then people who want to 'smuggle' them will just do it from there rather than the US. The only people who will lose from this kind of export control would be US companies that assemble computers. And that is even assuming you can enforce this sort of thing in the US, which won't work very well. The gov't can't keep billions of dollars worth of illegal products from coming into the US, how will they keep things from going out?

  12. What about: Gaming consoles, pda, cell phones by marnargulus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "That level is currently set to the equivalent of a computer using a Pentium 3 processor running at 650MHz, state of the art in 1999 but considered feeble today. " That will also mean any of the current generation of gaming devices as well wouldn't it? If I recall the xbox has 800 or 850 mHz, and the gamecube and ps2 aren't far behind. I imagine PDA's would also fall in this area, and some of the newer generation of cell phones?

  13. Re:Typical technical ignorance by tsg · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Is it ignorance, or it is fear?

    It's fear based on ignorance.

    --
    People's desire to believe they are right is much stronger than their desire to be right.
  14. Tech required for building a nuke by TamMan2000 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Q: What did it take for the US to build it's first nuclear weapon?

    A: Several brilliant people and a hell of a lot less computing power than a single P4 (you could run all the programs they ran on a palm pilot in under a day).

    It would take even fewer brilliant people now, since it has been done before... Trying to keep the computing power to build a nuke out of the wrong hands is futile at best.

    --
    "I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
    1. Re:Tech required for building a nuke by AKAImBatman · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Generally there are two barriers to building a nuke:

      1. Obtaining the materials. Uranium is very difficult and expensive to refine. The US has done their best to keep their process for refining out of foreign hands, but someone with a large enough industrial infrastructure could figure it out. One reason why third world countries have to steal U235 is because they lack the necessary infrastructure.

      2. The only way to know if a bomb will fission properly (i.e. it will blow up and not just very hot) is to test it. This tends to show up on lots of spy satellites, seismic detection equipment, and radiation monitors. Thus enemies are generally prevented from completing any bomb they might be developing. The only known shortcut to this procedure is to use a computer to simulate the bomb. If the simulator results look good, they know they have a good chance that their bomb would work correctly during a live conflict.

      Remember, the biggest trick for third world and terrorists parties is to keep the weapon secret. It's somewhat difficult to stop after you've used it, but if people hear of it ahead of time you're program (and possibly you) is dead.

    2. Re:Tech required for building a nuke by TamMan2000 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      number 1 is the only real problem for a terrorist group.

      for number 2 they just do the test, at a target... If it fails, it is still a dirty bomb, if it suceeds, well then they blew up a city...

      Knowing that it will fission it not necisarry for using the weapon. If fact, a failed nuclear detonation on US soil would inspire extraordinary amounts of fear, a long the lines of "what if it works next time...?".

      For a 3rd world nation, a sucessful test is exactly what they want, a big sign that says "don't fuck with us, we got the bomb". They don't want secrecy, they want publicity.

      --
      "I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
    3. Re:Tech required for building a nuke by confused+one · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Yes, but there's a flaw in that logic. If a third world country sponsors terrorist who "test" a nuclear weapon in a US city... even if it doesn't work (dirty bomb)... we might be tempted to show them how a real one works.

      I'm not saying I condone this; that it's politically or morally correct. You have to admit it's a real possibility.

    4. Re:Tech required for building a nuke by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 5, Funny

      Read Tom Clancy for the answers to all this...and while you're at it, marvel at his ability to predict the Bush presidency...

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
  15. Re:Get it right... by mopomi · · Score: 5, Informative
    From the article:

    The dramatic tightening of export regulations is included in the National Defense Authorization Act, an annual military funding bill that has already passed the U.S. House of Representatives. Though the proposed rules are only a tiny portion of the 630-page bill, they could have a devastating impact on the computer industry.

    Emphasis mine. It's already left the house.

  16. No by Sloppy · · Score: 5, Funny
    I don't think you should need a license, provided that you carry your Pentium 4 openly where everyone can see it. A society with everone walking around displaying their Pentium 4, would be a polite society, and sane people would think twice before starting any shit.

    I would be more worried about people with concealed Athlons. You're minding you're own business, and then some nut with an overclocked Athlon without so much as a fan or heatsink, suddenly produces it in his asbestos mitten, brandishing it at you. You feel the heat coming off it, looking down at death itself. You think of reaching for the P4 holstered at your side, but he's got the drop on you. That would suck.

    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
  17. Re:I tought... by confused+one · · Score: 5, Informative

    Yes it does. "Fab 30" and "Fab 36" are in Dresden. They make the Athlons at "Fab 30". I'm not sure if "Fab 36" makes Athlons or Opterons.

  18. Re:I tought... by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 5, Funny

    How do you say "Beowulf" in Mandarin?

    Genghis Khan?

    --
    "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
  19. Wrong generation by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    weapons of math destruction

    That would be those ancient Pentiums with the FDIV bug.

  20. it's a flaw in the constitution by zogger · · Score: 5, Insightful

    well, a few flaws, but the two main ones are, we have no top end cut off point for new laws. They are under mandate to always create new laws, that's ALL they are supposed to do, so that's what they do, year in and year out. There's no automatic provision for removing old laws, so they add up. I sincerely doubt now there is a single "legal" human inside the US, everyone is guilty of something now, and it will keep getting worse. Even little babies are born into guilt, before they have done much of anything they "owe" a buncha rich guys a lot of money. How they racked up that debt is beyond me, but it's supposedly the "law" someplace.

    The second one is we should have made it completely illegal for a lawyer to be elected to congress, it's a clear cut case of conflict of interest. They have *no* incentive to make government simpler, cheaper, less complex. They have *every* incentive to create as many and as convulted and complex laws as possible.

    here's every campaign speech boiled down, any party addressing any demographic.

    "vote for me, I will help to make government more complex and expensive, except for YOU though, because YOU are special and we need to make the other guys pay for whatever YOU want"

    So that is what happens, and people keep voting for them.

  21. oh well..... by zogger · · Score: 5, Insightful

    there aren't that many sunshine provisions on the really important laws. Just a few. Easy to prove. How many laws on the books in 1904, compared to now? Were we freer then, or are we freer now? Did government run with balanced books then, do we now? What was the individual income tax rate in 1904? What is it now?

    I could go on, but I think the point is made.

    And it's still a conflict of interest. The lawyers lobby & guild LOVES laws, oodles and bunches and boatloads, as complex, wordy, involved, complex, obscure and arcane as possible, to cover every bit of human minutiae they can think of. We even have a noun for it, called "legalese" a sarcastic noun, meant to ridicule how atrociously wordy and..stupid it is. This gig of letting them create new laws by the thousands every term makes them MONEY. It makes them wealthy and powerful. It KEEPS them wealthy and powerful. It's job security, job #1, "if you are in the law business,make new laws". And government, being an accumulation of law writers, administrators and enforcers, LOVES laws, well beyond what is truly necessary, because then they get to expand and expand and expand to administer and enforce all the new laws. So then they can say "wow, look at all these laws, well, guess we need bigger government then, we toldyaso. Umm, well, it *will* cost a few more dollars, or we can always put YOU in debt for it"

    This is just so obvious.

    Anyway, if he was around, you could argufy with this guy,himself one of the guild, you might have heard of him, Thomas Jefferson:

    "It is the trade of lawyers to question everything, yield nothing, and to talk by the hour. "

    "Whenever a man has cast a longing eye on offices, a rottenness begins in his conduct. "

    "That government is best which governs least, because its people discipline themselves."

    "And to preserve their independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude."

    "Whenever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force."

    ""Unless the mass retains sufficient control over those entrusted with the powers of their government, these will be perverted totheir own oppression, and to the perpetuation of wealth and power in the individuals and their families selected for the trust.

    Whether our Constitution has hit on the exact degree of control necessary, is yet under experiment."

    --I think he nailed it. It was an experiment, with a lot of good qualities to it. Some bad though. The constitution was a good attempt, but has become corrupted by weak and greedy men over the years. Now, look at the demographics of who is in congress, what is the number one profession? Look at the corrupt judges, who wouldn't know a constitution if it bit them on the ass, what were they before? How about presidents? Look at the government, is it really working? Or has it betrayed the trust, has it gotten to the point that "these will be perverted to their own oppression, and to the perpetuation of wealth and power in the individuals and their families selected for the trust."?

    I'd say that is a "roger" on that last one.

    He nailed it. It's human nature. Power corrupts. It gets out of hand. It got out of hand because of a simple conflict of interest basically. Yes we need people who can *understand* the law to write laws, but we don't need professional lawyers who *profit* from those laws to write them. Two entirely completely different things there. It started out OK, as an experiment, it has gone steadily downhill to the point we have it today, which is basically a two class technofuedalistic society, those above the law, the aristocracy, although they won't admit to it, and those who are subservient to it, and to the dictates of the aristocracy, although they won't admit to it either. Not readily anyway.

    last quote for this subject

    "I love to see honest and honorable men at the helm, men who will not bend their politics to their purses nor pursue measures by which they may profit and then profit by their measures."