You state 4-CPU computers are currently impossible.
I ask you why you believe this given they already exist.
You waffle on about something 100% unrelated.
So, once again, explain why you believe 4-CPU computers are, in your own words, currently impossible, given that they already exist.
(Somehow I doubt you will give a proper answer, strangely enough)
Go read the article instead of rushing to post early, and you'll notice that this design is not from AMD at all, but from *MICRON*.
You know, the (second?) largest manufacturer of DRAM in the world, and the first company to stand up to RAMBUS's bullying tactics - and now this!
Please tell me exactly why you deem a 4-CPU computer to be "impossible" at this time?
However, before you answer, you may like to ponder the impossibility that is the 64-CPU Sun StarFire, a computer which has 64 CPUs and exists today (indeed, as done for a while), as but one example to prove you wrong.
At the risk of upsetting some people, I'm afraid this isn't a violation of the GPL.
What Sun have is, in effect, a compiler.
They have not used GPL code to create the compiler (have they?), so there is no GPL violation there.
They are not shipping binary-only GPL-based, erm, binaries, so no violation there.
Sun are 100% correct to say that it is up to the people USING the compiler to ensure they don't violtate the GPL (just like it is up to youto ensure you don't violate the GPL when you use gcc or BorlandC++ or...).
I can see the frustration from the p.o.v. of GPL supporters, but as it stands, this ain't a violation.
I have to say that in my experience here in the UK, certainly some PPV sports events are definitly not Macrovisioned.
I know because I video them when they are on at like 1am, then watch them the next evening.
These are ones broadcast on Sky BoxOffice (such as WWF PPV events etc), received via a normal standard Pace Sky Digital stb.
Hmmm. Must try that with SBO films sometime - next time they actually show something good, that is!:)
I've since checked our proxy logs, and I can confirm that at no time did IE (4 or 5) make any attempt to connect to m$.com when I loaded the homepage or when Ifired up IE.
"No, of course it wouldn't. Who said it would? "
Well, since you ask, it was said by null-loop (null-loop@nospam.null-loop.com) on Wednesday September 13, @11:50AM GMT, post #48, in this thread.
He said, and I quote, "
Missed the point a little I think. No matter what your default homepage is (mine is my local intranet server), IE will direct you to your homepage through their website (i.e. http://www.microsoft.com/redir.dll?erwin.projects. com )."
I was pointing out this is incorrect and cannot possibly work under many circumstances - IF what he said were true THEN I could never load my home_page when I fire up IE without being connected to the internet and able to connect to m$.com.
I was pointing out he was wrong, and you have just confirmed that I am correct.
Thanks.
So can you kindly explain how this would work given there is NO connection to the outside world, and hence not even to M$.com, when the PC is behind a firewall?
First of all, there is no GPL violation - if you bother to check the software, they are requiring you to agree to a license for THEIR own software - now, call me old fashioned, but I was under the impression that they were allowed to impose whatever licenses they want on their own software.
There is no GPL code in the code they are shipping.
Point 2, why the fsck did you not even bother to go about this the correct way - namely ASK COMPAQ (assuming you were too incompetant to be able to check the actual source code yourself)?
For crying out loud, when is slashdot going to wake up and stop posting shite like this thread? This is a NONH story, brought about because the submitter was to lazy / stupid to check it out first, and ditto slashdot.
"their avowed lack of security means they can spam you as often as they feel like it and claim "somebody fraudulently opted you in again, sorry". "
Depending upon how far you want to take your paranoia, Mr AC, any company using double-opt-in could easily claim that they got a request and a confirmation - prove you did not send the email.
"Do you want me to opt you in again? "
If it makes you feel Big and Important then do what you like. As I have already pointed out, opting out is exceedingly easy. Og course, you'll need to obtain my email address first. Here, use puppet@dial.pipex.com if you like.
"Just a mo, that means it cannot be opt in , as *****YOU***** would not have opted in! "
Wrong again, Fishy. It is "opt-in" because a request is made toi be added to the list (rather than Harris buying mailing lists and requiring you to specifically opt-out - a request to oipt in has to be made).
What YOU are thinking of is Double-Opt-In where I opt-in and get an email confirming myt request, which I need to acknowledge before I am actually opted-in.
Yes, I agree double-opt-in would be a better approach, but the fact remains Harris is opt-in (albeit single-opt-in).
"Starting to understand yet? "
Good question. Well, are you?
Slashdot Mirror
Nice to see you completely avoiding the question.
You state 4-CPU computers are currently impossible.
I ask you why you believe this given they already exist.
You waffle on about something 100% unrelated.
So, once again, explain why you believe 4-CPU computers are, in your own words, currently impossible, given that they already exist.
(Somehow I doubt you will give a proper answer, strangely enough)
Be careful what you wish for...! :)
Yes, I read your entire post.
You said that a quad-CPU machine is impossible today, and then proceeded to give absolutely no reasons to back up your invalid claim.
Therefore, I ask you again - why do you believe quad-CPU machines are impossible today, given that they already exist?
Good for AMD?
wtf ARE you on?
Go read the article instead of rushing to post early, and you'll notice that this design is not from AMD at all, but from *MICRON*.
You know, the (second?) largest manufacturer of DRAM in the world, and the first company to stand up to RAMBUS's bullying tactics - and now this!
Go Micron!
:)
OK, I'll bite.
Please tell me exactly why you deem a 4-CPU computer to be "impossible" at this time?
However, before you answer, you may like to ponder the impossibility that is the 64-CPU Sun StarFire, a computer which has 64 CPUs and exists today (indeed, as done for a while), as but one example to prove you wrong.
And why SHOULD he pay for webhosting when he can get it for free?
Just because you have money doesn't mean you have to throw it away needlessly. Seriously.
Eh? When did Usenet die?
It was working perfectly when I was using it this morning, so it must have happened sometime within the last 7 hours.
Unless it is just your ISP's Usenet feed that has died - have you reported this to them?
Or are you just trolling, hmm?
Easy.
Given previous releases were called "Mac-oss ate" etc (MacOS 8) thenyou pronounce MacOS X as
"Mac-oss ex"
Or "Mac-oss 10" if you really want I guess.
At the risk of upsetting some people, I'm afraid this isn't a violation of the GPL.
What Sun have is, in effect, a compiler.
They have not used GPL code to create the compiler (have they?), so there is no GPL violation there.
They are not shipping binary-only GPL-based, erm, binaries, so no violation there.
Sun are 100% correct to say that it is up to the people USING the compiler to ensure they don't violtate the GPL (just like it is up to youto ensure you don't violate the GPL when you use gcc or BorlandC++ or...).
I can see the frustration from the p.o.v. of GPL supporters, but as it stands, this ain't a violation.
I have to say that in my experience here in the UK, certainly some PPV sports events are definitly not Macrovisioned.
:)
I know because I video them when they are on at like 1am, then watch them the next evening.
These are ones broadcast on Sky BoxOffice (such as WWF PPV events etc), received via a normal standard Pace Sky Digital stb.
Hmmm. Must try that with SBO films sometime - next time they actually show something good, that is!
Erm, but RAMBUS's patents (the ones in question) are INVALID.
They are patents which RAMBUS tried to claim based on JOINT work carried out by JEDEC.
RAMBUS are breaking the rules and then wonder why some companies (hello Micron!) have the guts to stand up to them and their bullying ways.
Sadly, I fear you are mistaken.
:)
You see, RAMBUS are not only claiming patents on Rambus memory, but they are ALSO claiming patents and royalties on ALL memory - SDRAM, DDR-RAM etc!
So even if no-one buys Rambus RAM, if Rambus get their way they will still received billions in royalties from everyone else.
This truely sucks.
Micron, however, are not bending over (unlike all Far Eastern memory manufacturers) - Go Micron!
It's just a shame that you don't fscking bother to CHECK stories for even a grain of truth before posting them.
I suppose that it too much to ask for, is it?
*sigh*
I've since checked our proxy logs, and I can confirm that at no time did IE (4 or 5) make any attempt to connect to m$.com when I loaded the homepage or when Ifired up IE.
Does this lay the matter to rest?
Heh :) No problem, these things happen.
Well, since you ask, it was said by null-loop (null-loop@nospam.null-loop.com) on Wednesday September 13, @11:50AM GMT, post #48, in this thread. He said, and I quote, " Missed the point a little I think. No matter what your default homepage is (mine is my local intranet server), IE will direct you to your homepage through their website (i.e. http://www.microsoft.com/redir.dll?erwin.projects
I was pointing out this is incorrect and cannot possibly work under many circumstances - IF what he said were true THEN I could never load my home_page when I fire up IE without being connected to the internet and able to connect to m$.com.
I was pointing out he was wrong, and you have just confirmed that I am correct.
Thanks.
Uh-hu.
So can you kindly explain how this would work given there is NO connection to the outside world, and hence not even to M$.com, when the PC is behind a firewall?
Easy answer - it wouldn't work.
Uh-hu.
And you've never heard of intranets behind firewalls with no access beyond the firewall, then, hmmm?
Hint - there is a lot of use for an HTML viewer even without connection to the Internet.
wise-up.
There is no GPL infringement, just Rob being to stupid and lazy to check his facts.
First of all, there is no GPL violation - if you bother to check the software, they are requiring you to agree to a license for THEIR own software - now, call me old fashioned, but I was under the impression that they were allowed to impose whatever licenses they want on their own software.
There is no GPL code in the code they are shipping.
Point 2, why the fsck did you not even bother to go about this the correct way - namely ASK COMPAQ (assuming you were too incompetant to be able to check the actual source code yourself)?
For crying out loud, when is slashdot going to wake up and stop posting shite like this thread? This is a NONH story, brought about because the submitter was to lazy / stupid to check it out first, and ditto slashdot.
*sigh*
Wrong again.
Can you explain to me exactly how it manages to do this when there is NO network connection between my PC and the outside world, please?
Not even the Evil Gates can manage to transfer TCP/IP through several thousand miles of thin air, you know!
Wrong.
A shop can charge whatever they like for any product on a case by case basis.
Otherwise, shops which have some items at a sale price and others of the same item on full price would be prosecuted.
Depending upon how far you want to take your paranoia, Mr AC, any company using double-opt-in could easily claim that they got a request and a confirmation - prove you did not send the email.
See? Isn't paranoia fun!
If it makes you feel Big and Important then do what you like. As I have already pointed out, opting out is exceedingly easy. Og course, you'll need to obtain my email address first. Here, use puppet@dial.pipex.com if you like.
"Just a mo, that means it cannot be opt in , as *****YOU***** would not have opted in! "
Wrong again, Fishy. It is "opt-in" because a request is made toi be added to the list (rather than Harris buying mailing lists and requiring you to specifically opt-out - a request to oipt in has to be made).
What YOU are thinking of is Double-Opt-In where I opt-in and get an email confirming myt request, which I need to acknowledge before I am actually opted-in.
Yes, I agree double-opt-in would be a better approach, but the fact remains Harris is opt-in (albeit single-opt-in).
"Starting to understand yet? "
Good question. Well, are you?
U,,. actually. Harris ARE opt-in.
I never received any email from them unti. I opted in.
Then, a few months later, I decided I didn't wantr anymore, so I opted out via their webpage and I have not received any email from them since.