Yes it is. CPUs run at 100% usage all of the time, even if a process or processes aren't using all of the CPU. Checkout the System Idle Process in the Windows NT task manager.
This isn't entirely true, atleast not for laptops. I don't know what kind of systems these people were using (desktops or laptops, or a mix) but newer Pentium III based laptops DO in fact have a low-power consumption mode that switches the processor to a lower clock speed to save energy. Desktop Pentium III's don't have this feature AFAIK though, so you're right there. FYI: Intel refers to this clock-speed changing energy saving crap as "SpeedStep" technology.
Plus, atleast in the case of Windows 2000, and systems setup to support it, SETI@Home may not allow the system to enter a hibernation state or 'sleep' after X hours of idle use. (Not sure about this, in any event I think you can setup certain apps or processes to be ignored for this task.)
The only problem I can see is that I can't find these CD's (atleast not sold online). I searched for the catalog number for both the spindle of 50 (I'd prefer this) and the pack of 20 + Jewel Cases (probably okay, but for whatever reason CD manufacturers inflate jewel case prices well beyond their actual cost), and came up with nothing but a *few* stores in foreign (non-US) countries that don't ship internationally.
If anyone does know where these are sold, I'm curious enough to order a spindle to see how well they behave and try committing some of my more important data to them for long-term storage.
This means keeping up with the latest methods, being productive and keeping yourself just within radar range every once in a while to get noticed.
Which doesn't really matter when you start hitting your late 40's and early 50's and the company is tired of paying you $80-100,000 a year when they can pay a grad fresh from college half that..
And a techie union would be different from other kinds of unions, it would be ran by a group of geeks.. how bad can it be? There are plenty of other 'professional' unions (pilots, for example) that don't appear to have many problems at all, and usually get their demands AND have secure jobs. Why should we rob ourselves of these protections just because a few unions turn sour?
microcode, that changes often helps you understanding how asm work
Microcode does change QUITE frequently, sure, understanding a single instance of it might be useful to get the idea of the how's and why's the microprocessor does what it does, but there's no way to really teach every variation of microcode throughout every Intel and AMD processor (that's just x86 too, nevermind 6502 or Motorola-based processors).
There's a point where the effort expended has diminishing returns, and I think that point is when you start teaching extensivly on micro-code (not to shortchange the future CS students, clearly it should be talked about, but not at great length, and only as a backgrounder on how a microprocessor works). I think the last great topic worth covering before going over the previous year(s) work is assembly language (any architecture, but preferably x86 since that's what the students will likely experience most out in the workplace).. again, going in my suggested order of BASIC -> Pascal -> C / C++ -> Assembly Language. Assembly gives them the most insight into how the processor works, instruction ordering, and what kind of constructions in a higher level language will produce the worst/best code.
Which kind of leads into an off-topic but recent issue on Slashdot of unions in IT-- if we had a union representing developers, that union could negotiate retirement plans, and methods to keep older employees from being, as you colorfully stated, "kicked in the proverbial nuts and sent on their way".
Mind you, I'm not 100% pro-union, I can see the problems involved with them, but not all unions have to be the same, and certainly an IT union wouldn't because of the vastly different employment environment. =)
Understanding microcode though, is UTTERLY POINTLESS. The microcode inside Intel and AMD processors are different, and change from core design to core design (which means about every year or so). The benefits of learning assembly language though mean that the student will understand the difference between a 32-bit integer and 16-bit integer, why it is that on a 32-bit processor 16-bit arithmetic tends to be slower, and how best to sequence instructions to take advantage of the processor in the system, amongst a whole host of other reasons. Whereas understanding microcode provides very little, if any, gains in performance or understanding, and mainly serves as a backdrop for assembly language.
Starting on the psychological end of the spectrum doesn't really fit into the definition I have for 'Computer Science'-- sure, understanding the interactions between humans and computers is nice, but these topics could just as easily be covered AFTER the class has dipped their feet into some code in a 'Human Interface Primer' type lecture/course. But IMHO, these topics are deserving of their own seperate class, since interface design and development is a large task and involves a lot of psychology (a topic that's totally unrelated to CompSci).
Finally, I don't think the poster was suggesting that the answer was "automatically one below what the other guy suggested", I think he was using experience and knowledge to state his idea/opinion. And anyone who's ever learned assembly language knows that the knowledge gained is invaluable in writing better code in the higher languages (C/C++, BASIC, etc-- anything that doesn't compile to an intepreted bytecode ala Java or C#).
I've never taken CS, so I'm not too sure what kind of introductory classes a person needs to take before taking this course, but I'd think the best order would be--
BASIC (be it QuickBasic, GW Basic, Visual Basic, whatever) -> Pascal -> C / C++ -> x86 Assembler.
The reason I suggest this route is because the idea of assembly language REALLY comes into focus when you've had your hand in a number of other languages, and this also easily melds into compiler design and development (which really, when you're working with assembly language, is a natural topic).
Assembly language also has different uses in different high-level languages. In Pascal, some compilers (notably Borland Pascal and Delphi) have 'asm' keywords for using assembly inline, while *some* C and C++ compilers have __asm or other such keywords, or the less friendly __emit() calls. In BASIC, AFAIK, there still isn't a way to include inline assembler, only after compilation but before linking (not even sure about that either).
Plus, teaching students inside of an already learned language (again, Pascal or C/C++) lets them see the benefits with very little effort. A prime example is writing a complex looping statement in C or C++, then re-writing that same code in inline assembler-- the students IMMEDIATLY see the fruits of their labor, and will instantly recognize that, USED PROPERLY, assembly language can boost the speed of their programs substantially.
The other reason for the BASIC -> Pascal -> C / C++ -> Assembly route is simply that ASM is complicated and involves a lot of effort to get things done. (An example is a 'Hello, World' app, which in C or C++ would be a handful of lines, but in assembly (not using BIOS calls or library functions) would be a WHEEE bit longer.)
Again though, I don't know the state of mind an entry-level CS student will be in, or what knowledge they may already have. I do agree 100% though that assembly language should be required learning, because as you said, understanding HOW the system works gives insight into how to write code well, and knowing x86 Asm has served me invaluably.
It is just the Slashdot effect-- I went to the link for donating right when this story was first posted and the last few donations went back a month in time (I believe), with the last one viewable being for $1000 from an Anonymous donation (since it's automatic, I assume this was manually entered into the donations listing).
There had been no donations today (June 11th). It's really great to see so many people donating though (myself included), and it'll hopefully help them if/when they get into any legal troubles. Plus, they might get to add more developers if things keep going the way they have. =)
The problem with that is then you have each character in a text file being represented by a 64-bit value. A text file that's only 1,500 bytes in size under ASCII standards or UTF-8 suddenly turns into a 12,000 byte file. Strings inside executables would be updated to use these new characters and the size of applications would increase as a result. Really, the Unicode standard does fine, it works, and the idiot that posted the first story should be shot for wasting everyones time with this crap when it's clear the standard is proving itself fine in the real world.
This story is a response to the first one that said it wouldn't. This one, IMHO, appears far more credible than the former, and seems to contain a more accurate view of Unicode overall than the previous story.
Main Entry: fraud
Pronunciation: 'frod
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English fraude, from Middle French, from Latin fraud-, fraus
Date: 14th century
1 a : DECEIT, TRICKERY; specifically : intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right b : an act of deceiving or misrepresenting : TRICK
2 a : a person who is not what he or she pretends to be : IMPOSTOR; also : one who defrauds : CHEAT b : one that is not what it seems or is represented to be
synonym see DECEPTION, IMPOSTURE
Now, reading the link in the story (the ruling), it appears this guy was putting false return addresses (this falls under the definition of "fraud"), listing false subject lines in his messages (also "fraud"), and when he DID list valid e-mail addresses, they were usually shut down within 1-2 days because the hoster realized it was a spam account.. he knew this happened, and he never checked the accounts or removed people from his listing (since I'm assuming he made some offer to remove people, that would be "fraud" too).
Maybe your version of "fraud" is different from mine, but I wouldn't say it's an awfully strong word for the situation.
Mass unsolicited e-mail is one thing, but sending single anonymous e-mails is quite another. I imagine the laws on this probably involve repeat offenders (which this guy was) and whether or not they're trying to sell someone something (eg: you can still look-up that cute girl from high-school a few years later on the 'net, find her homepage and e-mail her anonymously without being sued in Washington state (atleast not unless you become a stalker or something)).
You're jumping to conclusions that aren't even remotely based on facts.
Not really, you're missing the whole point of the law. Unsolicited e-mail ISN'T illegal under Washington State law (I live in Washington, have almost my entire life). What's illegal is to misrepresent yourself as someone else, and to make it impossible to "opt-out" of mailings the same way you can "opt-out" of telemarketing crap.
Free speech is still free, you just have to respect people's privacy and right to a peacful existance (this is really no different than city ordinances on noise at night or after certain hours-- you can cry free speech, but these laws are still in effect and upheld time and again).
I hope though, for the sake of laws like this passed in other states, that the Federal government takes a stab at a REAL anti-spam law like this Washington one.
Yeah but were it not for government funding and DoD involvement (it's a joke really in the US that billions of dollars are blown away on military "dreams", but I'm sure the internet was just such a dream back when development began on it), TCP/IP and the other protocols and standards that have made the internet what it is may never have existed.
The US shouldn't control the internet, I agree completely with that, but there's no other governing body that's ready or able to govern it PROPERLY (hey, let's not forgot that this whole topic is about a submitters disdain with ICANN!).
The solution? Let the DoC retain the type of control it has and experiment with organizations that want to control or govern the internet. Maybe it'll ultimately turn to a task for the United Nations to deal with, or maybe an ICANN look-a-like will come forward and do it the right way (eg: democratic, with little red tape to keep things from moving forward).
Yeah, thanks. I noticed. Of course I also just confirmed the guys question-- the DoC is the best place to get things relating to ICANN done, since the DoC has control over them (again, as far as I know this is their relationship).
I believe it was the Department of Commerce that assigned the task to ICANN, and ICANN is accountable to the DoC (in other words, if ICANN does something, the DoC can reprimand ICANN, etc). This was part of the transition (correct me if I'm wrong) from Department of Defense control of the internet to privatized control of the internet (as far as domain names went, anyways).
So, you'd want to petition the DoC if you had a complaint regarding ICANN-- atleast that'd be a good place to start. =)
This is what's known as 'Judicial Review'. Courts can overturn and invalidate laws if they overstretch the bounds Congress is held within (namely, the constitution, or previous laws that contradict the newer law). Lower courts don't do this, but the appeals courts and the Supreme Court DOES do this.
I think writing your Senator or Representative is a good step, but since this is already law, the most appropriate thing to do is watch the courts deal with it.
Re:yes the instruction set is what they own
on
BoyCott Advance
·
· Score: 1
AMD pay intel roylties
You sure about that? You're the first and only person to suggest to me that AMD pays fees to Intel to use their instruction set(s). As far as I've ever known, AMD reverse engineered their processor and made a compatible one from scratch. Which explains in part why early AMD processors were less than compatible with early x86 processors (didn't execute instructions the same, etc). If AMD paid Intel, why would there be a compatibility problem?
Shrug, maybe this should be a lesson to Slashdot not to flame a news-site in a story when the error can or will be fixed. The "story" wasn't CNN messing up on a few minor technical facts, the story was AMD becoming an ally of Transmeta.
Re:nitendo use GCC and GDB for dev taget=arm-elf
on
BoyCott Advance
·
· Score: 1
I might be misunderstanding you, but if you're saying they've copyrighted and IP'd their instruction set, then that won't hold up. AMD (AFAIK) reverse engineered the x86 instruction set to write 386/486 compatible CPU's, and really writing an emulator is about the same way (reverse engineering). It doesn't help that there's tons of documentation on the ARM instruction set and what bytecodes to emit for which instructions. (Which, if you reverse the logic, lets you see what you need to do to emulate these instructions.)
Emulation really has to be legal (note that I'm not condoning ripping off ROMs, just the emulation of a system) since if it weren't, there wouldn't be a good way to compete with other companies (enter the IBM BIOS). To me, this is open and shut.
Taco thought it'd be swell to only quote PART of the reporters sentence, the REAL story says this (click on the link to confirm it yourself)
The industry has been gradually moving toward a 64-bit architecture, which multiplies the amount of data the processor can access by four billion.
As you can see, the reporter understood what the implications of a switch from a 32-bit to 64-bit memory addressing scheme was (in fact, in the paragraph previous to the one I quoted, he discusses the issues of memory access and how accessing memory 32-bits at a time is a limiting factor in current CPU tech).
Next time folks should read the article before flaming CNN.
I think this case is horribly unfortunate. This is the ammo M$ has been waiting on to PROVE once and for all that the GPL is a horrible viral lisence, and here we go, feeding the FUD machine.
Well, if everyone (which appears to be the majority in these posts so far) agrees that what this company has done is wrong, then it would appear to be a viral license-- such that it's not possible to write software for profit ever again (atleast not in a world taken over by Linux as the OS of choice).
And the real fact here is, the GPL *IS* a viral license.. saying it's not is a lie.
Slashdot Mirror
It is, it's from the official Star Wars website, not a fan-site or rumor site.
This isn't entirely true, atleast not for laptops. I don't know what kind of systems these people were using (desktops or laptops, or a mix) but newer Pentium III based laptops DO in fact have a low-power consumption mode that switches the processor to a lower clock speed to save energy. Desktop Pentium III's don't have this feature AFAIK though, so you're right there. FYI: Intel refers to this clock-speed changing energy saving crap as "SpeedStep" technology.
Plus, atleast in the case of Windows 2000, and systems setup to support it, SETI@Home may not allow the system to enter a hibernation state or 'sleep' after X hours of idle use. (Not sure about this, in any event I think you can setup certain apps or processes to be ignored for this task.)
The only problem I can see is that I can't find these CD's (atleast not sold online). I searched for the catalog number for both the spindle of 50 (I'd prefer this) and the pack of 20 + Jewel Cases (probably okay, but for whatever reason CD manufacturers inflate jewel case prices well beyond their actual cost), and came up with nothing but a *few* stores in foreign (non-US) countries that don't ship internationally.
If anyone does know where these are sold, I'm curious enough to order a spindle to see how well they behave and try committing some of my more important data to them for long-term storage.
Which doesn't really matter when you start hitting your late 40's and early 50's and the company is tired of paying you $80-100,000 a year when they can pay a grad fresh from college half that..
And a techie union would be different from other kinds of unions, it would be ran by a group of geeks.. how bad can it be? There are plenty of other 'professional' unions (pilots, for example) that don't appear to have many problems at all, and usually get their demands AND have secure jobs. Why should we rob ourselves of these protections just because a few unions turn sour?
You answered your own arguement though--
Microcode does change QUITE frequently, sure, understanding a single instance of it might be useful to get the idea of the how's and why's the microprocessor does what it does, but there's no way to really teach every variation of microcode throughout every Intel and AMD processor (that's just x86 too, nevermind 6502 or Motorola-based processors).
There's a point where the effort expended has diminishing returns, and I think that point is when you start teaching extensivly on micro-code (not to shortchange the future CS students, clearly it should be talked about, but not at great length, and only as a backgrounder on how a microprocessor works). I think the last great topic worth covering before going over the previous year(s) work is assembly language (any architecture, but preferably x86 since that's what the students will likely experience most out in the workplace).. again, going in my suggested order of BASIC -> Pascal -> C / C++ -> Assembly Language. Assembly gives them the most insight into how the processor works, instruction ordering, and what kind of constructions in a higher level language will produce the worst/best code.
Which kind of leads into an off-topic but recent issue on Slashdot of unions in IT-- if we had a union representing developers, that union could negotiate retirement plans, and methods to keep older employees from being, as you colorfully stated, "kicked in the proverbial nuts and sent on their way".
Mind you, I'm not 100% pro-union, I can see the problems involved with them, but not all unions have to be the same, and certainly an IT union wouldn't because of the vastly different employment environment. =)
Understanding microcode though, is UTTERLY POINTLESS. The microcode inside Intel and AMD processors are different, and change from core design to core design (which means about every year or so). The benefits of learning assembly language though mean that the student will understand the difference between a 32-bit integer and 16-bit integer, why it is that on a 32-bit processor 16-bit arithmetic tends to be slower, and how best to sequence instructions to take advantage of the processor in the system, amongst a whole host of other reasons. Whereas understanding microcode provides very little, if any, gains in performance or understanding, and mainly serves as a backdrop for assembly language.
Starting on the psychological end of the spectrum doesn't really fit into the definition I have for 'Computer Science'-- sure, understanding the interactions between humans and computers is nice, but these topics could just as easily be covered AFTER the class has dipped their feet into some code in a 'Human Interface Primer' type lecture/course. But IMHO, these topics are deserving of their own seperate class, since interface design and development is a large task and involves a lot of psychology (a topic that's totally unrelated to CompSci).
Finally, I don't think the poster was suggesting that the answer was "automatically one below what the other guy suggested", I think he was using experience and knowledge to state his idea/opinion. And anyone who's ever learned assembly language knows that the knowledge gained is invaluable in writing better code in the higher languages (C/C++, BASIC, etc-- anything that doesn't compile to an intepreted bytecode ala Java or C#).
I've never taken CS, so I'm not too sure what kind of introductory classes a person needs to take before taking this course, but I'd think the best order would be--
BASIC (be it QuickBasic, GW Basic, Visual Basic, whatever) -> Pascal -> C / C++ -> x86 Assembler.
The reason I suggest this route is because the idea of assembly language REALLY comes into focus when you've had your hand in a number of other languages, and this also easily melds into compiler design and development (which really, when you're working with assembly language, is a natural topic).
Assembly language also has different uses in different high-level languages. In Pascal, some compilers (notably Borland Pascal and Delphi) have 'asm' keywords for using assembly inline, while *some* C and C++ compilers have __asm or other such keywords, or the less friendly __emit() calls. In BASIC, AFAIK, there still isn't a way to include inline assembler, only after compilation but before linking (not even sure about that either).
Plus, teaching students inside of an already learned language (again, Pascal or C/C++) lets them see the benefits with very little effort. A prime example is writing a complex looping statement in C or C++, then re-writing that same code in inline assembler-- the students IMMEDIATLY see the fruits of their labor, and will instantly recognize that, USED PROPERLY, assembly language can boost the speed of their programs substantially.
The other reason for the BASIC -> Pascal -> C / C++ -> Assembly route is simply that ASM is complicated and involves a lot of effort to get things done. (An example is a 'Hello, World' app, which in C or C++ would be a handful of lines, but in assembly (not using BIOS calls or library functions) would be a WHEEE bit longer.)
Again though, I don't know the state of mind an entry-level CS student will be in, or what knowledge they may already have. I do agree 100% though that assembly language should be required learning, because as you said, understanding HOW the system works gives insight into how to write code well, and knowing x86 Asm has served me invaluably.
It is just the Slashdot effect-- I went to the link for donating right when this story was first posted and the last few donations went back a month in time (I believe), with the last one viewable being for $1000 from an Anonymous donation (since it's automatic, I assume this was manually entered into the donations listing).
There had been no donations today (June 11th). It's really great to see so many people donating though (myself included), and it'll hopefully help them if/when they get into any legal troubles. Plus, they might get to add more developers if things keep going the way they have. =)
The problem with that is then you have each character in a text file being represented by a 64-bit value. A text file that's only 1,500 bytes in size under ASCII standards or UTF-8 suddenly turns into a 12,000 byte file. Strings inside executables would be updated to use these new characters and the size of applications would increase as a result. Really, the Unicode standard does fine, it works, and the idiot that posted the first story should be shot for wasting everyones time with this crap when it's clear the standard is proving itself fine in the real world.
This story is a response to the first one that said it wouldn't. This one, IMHO, appears far more credible than the former, and seems to contain a more accurate view of Unicode overall than the previous story.
Nice, good to see someone doesn't know how to moderate.
Merriam-Webster defines fraud as this--
Main Entry: fraud
Pronunciation: 'frod
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English fraude, from Middle French, from Latin fraud-, fraus Date: 14th century
1 a : DECEIT, TRICKERY; specifically : intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right b : an act of deceiving or misrepresenting : TRICK
2 a : a person who is not what he or she pretends to be : IMPOSTOR; also : one who defrauds : CHEAT b : one that is not what it seems or is represented to be
synonym see DECEPTION, IMPOSTURE
Now, reading the link in the story (the ruling), it appears this guy was putting false return addresses (this falls under the definition of "fraud"), listing false subject lines in his messages (also "fraud"), and when he DID list valid e-mail addresses, they were usually shut down within 1-2 days because the hoster realized it was a spam account.. he knew this happened, and he never checked the accounts or removed people from his listing (since I'm assuming he made some offer to remove people, that would be "fraud" too).
Maybe your version of "fraud" is different from mine, but I wouldn't say it's an awfully strong word for the situation.
Mass unsolicited e-mail is one thing, but sending single anonymous e-mails is quite another. I imagine the laws on this probably involve repeat offenders (which this guy was) and whether or not they're trying to sell someone something (eg: you can still look-up that cute girl from high-school a few years later on the 'net, find her homepage and e-mail her anonymously without being sued in Washington state (atleast not unless you become a stalker or something)).
You're jumping to conclusions that aren't even remotely based on facts.
Not really, you're missing the whole point of the law. Unsolicited e-mail ISN'T illegal under Washington State law (I live in Washington, have almost my entire life). What's illegal is to misrepresent yourself as someone else, and to make it impossible to "opt-out" of mailings the same way you can "opt-out" of telemarketing crap.
Free speech is still free, you just have to respect people's privacy and right to a peacful existance (this is really no different than city ordinances on noise at night or after certain hours-- you can cry free speech, but these laws are still in effect and upheld time and again).
I hope though, for the sake of laws like this passed in other states, that the Federal government takes a stab at a REAL anti-spam law like this Washington one.
Yeah but were it not for government funding and DoD involvement (it's a joke really in the US that billions of dollars are blown away on military "dreams", but I'm sure the internet was just such a dream back when development began on it), TCP/IP and the other protocols and standards that have made the internet what it is may never have existed.
The US shouldn't control the internet, I agree completely with that, but there's no other governing body that's ready or able to govern it PROPERLY (hey, let's not forgot that this whole topic is about a submitters disdain with ICANN!).
The solution? Let the DoC retain the type of control it has and experiment with organizations that want to control or govern the internet. Maybe it'll ultimately turn to a task for the United Nations to deal with, or maybe an ICANN look-a-like will come forward and do it the right way (eg: democratic, with little red tape to keep things from moving forward).
You got me, I thought it was a perfectly honest question.. too bad my mod points expired yesterday or I'd have modded it back up to interesting.
Hopefully whoever did it gets meta-modded down.
Yeah, thanks. I noticed. Of course I also just confirmed the guys question-- the DoC is the best place to get things relating to ICANN done, since the DoC has control over them (again, as far as I know this is their relationship).
I believe it was the Department of Commerce that assigned the task to ICANN, and ICANN is accountable to the DoC (in other words, if ICANN does something, the DoC can reprimand ICANN, etc). This was part of the transition (correct me if I'm wrong) from Department of Defense control of the internet to privatized control of the internet (as far as domain names went, anyways).
So, you'd want to petition the DoC if you had a complaint regarding ICANN-- atleast that'd be a good place to start. =)
This is what's known as 'Judicial Review'. Courts can overturn and invalidate laws if they overstretch the bounds Congress is held within (namely, the constitution, or previous laws that contradict the newer law). Lower courts don't do this, but the appeals courts and the Supreme Court DOES do this.
I think writing your Senator or Representative is a good step, but since this is already law, the most appropriate thing to do is watch the courts deal with it.
You sure about that? You're the first and only person to suggest to me that AMD pays fees to Intel to use their instruction set(s). As far as I've ever known, AMD reverse engineered their processor and made a compatible one from scratch. Which explains in part why early AMD processors were less than compatible with early x86 processors (didn't execute instructions the same, etc). If AMD paid Intel, why would there be a compatibility problem?
Shrug, maybe this should be a lesson to Slashdot not to flame a news-site in a story when the error can or will be fixed. The "story" wasn't CNN messing up on a few minor technical facts, the story was AMD becoming an ally of Transmeta.
I might be misunderstanding you, but if you're saying they've copyrighted and IP'd their instruction set, then that won't hold up. AMD (AFAIK) reverse engineered the x86 instruction set to write 386/486 compatible CPU's, and really writing an emulator is about the same way (reverse engineering). It doesn't help that there's tons of documentation on the ARM instruction set and what bytecodes to emit for which instructions. (Which, if you reverse the logic, lets you see what you need to do to emulate these instructions.)
Emulation really has to be legal (note that I'm not condoning ripping off ROMs, just the emulation of a system) since if it weren't, there wouldn't be a good way to compete with other companies (enter the IBM BIOS). To me, this is open and shut.
Taco thought it'd be swell to only quote PART of the reporters sentence, the REAL story says this (click on the link to confirm it yourself)
As you can see, the reporter understood what the implications of a switch from a 32-bit to 64-bit memory addressing scheme was (in fact, in the paragraph previous to the one I quoted, he discusses the issues of memory access and how accessing memory 32-bits at a time is a limiting factor in current CPU tech).
Next time folks should read the article before flaming CNN.
Well, if everyone (which appears to be the majority in these posts so far) agrees that what this company has done is wrong, then it would appear to be a viral license-- such that it's not possible to write software for profit ever again (atleast not in a world taken over by Linux as the OS of choice).
And the real fact here is, the GPL *IS* a viral license.. saying it's not is a lie.