Maybe you're missing something with the words "Intel Compatible"...
No, I am simply more intelligent than you are. The original poster was claiming that AMD should never add extensions to the Intel base instruction set and should support all Intel instructions -- including those for which Intel has patents, leaving AMD open to legal action.
Intel P4's run the same code a Pentium 60 ran way back when, no recompiling needed, sure you can optimize the compile, but you don't HAVE to.
So are you saying that AMD Athlon's cannot run the code written for a Pentium 60? If so, to what code are you referring?
We have a situation now where we have the AMD Athlon series and the Intel Pentium 4 series. Both have added extensions relative to the original Pentium. Are you claiming that benchmarks should only support Intel's additional instructions? What's your point?
If AMD would stick to making totally Intel compatible chips instead of trying to infuse their own personality, we wouldn't have this problem. Hint: my software shouldn't need to know it's running on an AMD chip.
This is so wrong on so many counts...
1. Intel's chips aren't "totally Intel compatible". The Pentium 4 contains instructions that were not present in the Pentium, P2, and P3. Why should your software have to "know it's running on a" Pentium 4 rather than a P3, P2, or Pentium? Hell, there was even a Pentium and a Pentium MMX (the latter adding the MMX instructions).
2. Intel tries every trick possible to patent their instructions to prevent people from implementing them. They do it with hardware, too. Remember when you could plug a K6-2 in place of an Intel Socket 7 CPU? Starting with Slot 1, intel used patents to prevent others from making compatible CPUs, which is why AMD and Intel motherboards are now incompatible.
3. Why should AMD not provide useful processor extensions that improve on Intel's base instructions? That's what provides useful competition and makes the industry grow.
4. What interest do you have in seeing AMD in a constant catch-up mode? In your scenario, Intel gets an advantage every time they release new instructions -- that will take AMD months to implement in silicon. Do you own Intel stock?
5. Why doesn't Intel just stick to providing processors that are 'totally AMD compatible'?
Wouldn't a better CPU benchmarks be taken by using the chipmakers' own compilers?
It depends on what you want to measure. If you want to measure what the CPU can do for a vendor developing an embedded system around the CPU, where the vendor compiles everything from the OS to the application, then yes, that makes sense.
But if you want to know what the CPU can do in a desktop PC running Windows and off-the-shelf, pre-compiled applications, then you want the benchmark to be compiled using the most commonly used compilers.
So you would trust a benchmark from a webpage that is in the midst of bashing another benchmark? A little biased, aren't we...
"We" aren't, but apparently you are. When a web page takes a critical look at benchmarks and exposes those that are biased, then I would tend to trust that site to choose an appropriate, unbiased benchmark for CPU comparisons.
Nice try, but the link in question reveals a page which does not even have the name AMD anywhere on it. What it says is:
Van's Hardware Journal is a site dedicated to providing honest, accurate, hard-hitting, and thorough reviews and analysis of the latest in computer hardware and related high technology.
You know that notorious black-hat hacker fyodor regularly hacks people whose opinions he disagrees with on slashdot?
So you believe that Slashdot is tracking IP addresses associated with user postings (but only for those users posting under a login) and providing those IP addresses to "notorious black-hat hacker fyodor"?
The reason that there is not an open source alternative to Exchange is because the features provided by exchange are really not that valuable. In fact, for many, it is just one more piece of annoying collaboration software foisted off on them by management as a panacea for all of their project woes. It rarely does anything to improve the project's success and frequently turns into a gigantic time sink -- just like the equivalent features in Lotus Notes do.
Your use of a pseudonym on Slashdot would not allow me to identify you. It would allow me to identify the collection of messages you have posted and the opinions you have expressed. Does knowing that someone logs into Slashdot as "shadow303" really tell you anything private about them?
I have to wonder how many people post anonymously out of a desire to keep from being accountable for things that they said in the past. They can argue in favor of spamming one day and the next they can call for spammers to be hung and no one will be the wiser or call them on their contradictions.
I never claimed that you did not have a right. I just questioned your motivation.
I write anonymously such that I can say things people who karma whore like you don't like and keep you from modbombing things that I think everyone should be able to see.
So you post anonymously to protect your valuable Karma points you've been whoring under your real login name. I understand.
No, I am arguing that, overall, Karma often relates to the value of the posting. But, as you can see from my history, I speak my mind even when it occasionally results in negative Karma points.
You, on the other hand, appear to be hiding behind anonymity rather than taking the blame/credit for what you write. Why is that?
If you could be paid for that, you would be a rich man now.
You're obviously not a troll, based on that stupid posting history of irrelevent BS posted at +1 with no one paying attention, but you aren't a karma whore either, because you never post anything of any relevence.
You don't have great reading comprehension, do you?
Karma: Excellent (mostly affected by moderation done to your comments)
8 Re:This may not be the best idea... posted on Tue Aug 20, '02 11:45 AM (Score:5 Replies: 2)
18 Re:The stock price was up higher shortly thereafte posted on Fri Aug 16, '02 11:33 AM (Score:4 Replies: 1)
23 Re:Easy posted on Fri Aug 16, '02 12:18 AM (Score:4 Replies: 4)
attached to Slashback: Activism, VOIP, Ivies 24 Re:Easy posted on Thu Aug 15, '02 10:38 PM (Score:4 Replies: 1)
You are just another cowardly little person hiding behind your anonymity so that no one can see a history of your "contributions." I have no doubt that it would be amusing.
I don't understand what quoting the ebay page proves.
The intent for the project: A cool toy for people who want to pretend that they are astronauts.
How do you reason that he built it all for himself and got the government to pay for it?
Read his ad: "if you're like me..." As to funding: "In 1991, I received a grant to build a space shuttle simulator at a public school where I was a science teacher. After three years of construction (mostly by me), our simulator became operational." If his primary interest was in seeing it put to good use to inspire students, it would be in another school right now instead of being sold on ebay, wouldn't it?
A project like this is a labour of love no matter how much money is involved. If I ever had the opportunity to do something this cool (and then share it with others) I'd jump at it in a second.
That's very commendable and I'm sure that, if you try, you can find something that you can do in a similar vein.
Granted, I'd never pay $15k for the thing (would much rather enjoy building one myself, actually) and it would be awful nice of him to donate it to another school, but it is well within his right to sell it to someone else who could do something useful with it. It would be a waste of my time to complain about his ethical standards.
The entire process of getting a government grant to build the flight deck for a school and then privately auctioning it off on ebay is questionable, legally and ethically, at best. But perhaps the real lapse was the school's in giving him school property worth $15K (his estimate of its worth).
Don't get me wrong. If this guy had built the thing for his students and then donated it to another school when his school could no longer house it, I'd be recommending him for Teacher of the Year. But that's not what happened. He built it with public funds and the help of his students and is now trying to get $15K (or more) from whatever self-indulgent, rich person is willing to buy it.
Well continue on and we'll see just how good your reading comprehension is.
The auction page quite clearly states that he recieved a grant to build it for a public school that he teaches at. He did not just throw it together in his garage so he could play "make- believe."
Oh yeah? Then read the opening on ebay:
Have you ever dreamed of being an astronaut? If you found this auction, then probably so. But,
if you're like me and the other 99.999% of the population, your chances of flying in the space shuttle are probably zero.
How would you like to do the next best thing?
I am offering a full-size space shuttle flight deck simulator.
Seems to me that the creator of this thing, a public school teacher, set out to influence the lives of his students in a positive way.
Seems like he got a government grant to build a fantasy toy for himself (see quote from ebay) that the students also used and he's now trying to sell it for $15K. I'd be a lot more impressed if he was donating it to another school, but he seems more interested in 'influencing his bank balance in a positive way.'
Or spend lots of money on a computer and internet connection and waste time posting on a website to play "I have a make-believe life". Having a beer with buddies or even sitting with your girlfriend is better than typing some stuff into a pretend community to a bunch of nerds.
I always find it kind of pitiful when someone invests this much time and money building something which is really just a toy cockpit. I'd love to fly on the space shuttle, but its not going to happen and I'm not going to waste my time building expensive sets so that I can play "make-believe." Flying a single-engine Cessna, ultralight, or even a paramotor is a lot better than sitting in a pretend space shuttle cockpit.
You are an illiterate moron. The dictionary defines a censor as:
A person authorized to examine books, films, or other material and to remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable.
Did you see that word "authorized"? Did someone "authorize" the ISP to block the RIAA web site? And what entity could "authorize" the blocking of material that "is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable." Gee, could it be the government, like they do with filtering software at public schools and libraries?
If one ISP blocks the RIAA's web site and it's available on 20 others in your area, it's not censored, is it?
Now I see why you post as an anonymous coward. If I was as stupid as you, I wouldn't sign my name to what I posted, either.
The boundry between news and advertisement gets more porous each year...
What's next? Stories on Slashdot hyping case mods and big, animated, banner ads for ThinkGeek?
I'm shocked, shocked I tell you, that Slashdot would link to a site pretending to provide tech news when it is little more than front to sell merchandise to its readers.
You pose an interesting point and one that I considered long and hard before posting. First, I don't think that an ISP has a monopoly if they there are other choices. If BobCom has 51% of the market because they are the most cost-effective choice, I don't think that BobCom should be federally mandated to open up their routers to every IP address on the face of the earth.
Nor do I want to be involved in a an opinion poll every time I get on the Internet where I cast my vote for which sites to block. I have enough pressure without feeling that I have to vote every day on whether my ISP should block sites like "www.we-spread-viruses.com".
Let's not forget that this article is about an ISP that is blocking the RIAA because of the RIAA's stated intention to, in essence, launch denial of service attacks against P2P networks. It's not like the ISP just decided that the content of the RIAA web site was offensive. They are exercising their right to protect their equipment, bandwidth, and users from malicious attacks.
I want no one and no corp deciding what should be accessed across their backbones/routers/etc.
The highlighting was mine but goes to show that the ISPs own the equipment. Their network is theirs to do as they see fit. Would you want the federal government telling you that you were not allowed to block IP addresses from accessing your network? If you don't like the ISP's policies, use a different ISP.
Your argument reminds me of the spammers who accuse ISPs of censoring them and limiting their free speech.
Censorship is when the government limits what you can see and read. It's not when a private ISP makes a business decision to block IP addresses.
I did not use the blue orb but found the posts on my new fan (cant remember the brand but picked it up from CrazyPC) were a little thinker. It took quite a bit of finesse to get it to work.
There are two pairs of holes, one pair larger diameter than the others. Are you sure that you were using the right holes? I started to make that mistake. You might want to check next time you have the box open.
They also said they were not to be used in commercial distributions FUCKWAD. If this had been your precious little GPL that was violated you'd be singing an entirely different story now wouldn't you.
And poor little Microsoft could not afford the legal costs to defend their license, could they? It's so sad how they are always being bullied by Linux and *BSD users. What a bunch of flaming bullshit. Microsoft could have written a single letter to any entity that packaged the fonts with a commercial distribution and that would have been the end of that.
But you just ignored the important part: Microsoft said that the fonts would be freely downloadable and anyone could use them. They encouraged web page designers to use the fonts in their web pages. Now that the fonts have been used that way, Microsoft is pulling them in order to break other OSs that relied on the ability of their users to download the fonts.
It's stunts like this that make the GPL so appealing. If I release something as GPL, I can't wait until thousands of applications and people rely on my work and then say "I'm taking my ball and going home", which is what Microsoft just tried to do here.
idiot.
I'm happy to see that you've started signing your postings.
unlike all you FUCKING LINUX HIPPIES, i don't get all smug about how cool it is to compile a kernel and how self-reliant i am. therefore, i don't have to prove anything to you.
What the fuck does compiling a kernel have to do with creating a font? I'm a software engineer, not a typographer. How many "linux hippies" claimed that they were totally self-reliant and could create any font that they needed? Would that be, oh, about, say, NONE?!
If you could see further than the dick in your left hand and the copy of Windows in your right, you'd understand that the issue here. Microsoft's own FAQ on the fonts said:
Anyone can download and install these fonts for their own use.
Designers can specify the fonts within their Web pages. Our guide to specifying fonts in Web pages explains how to do this.
So now that they have convinced people to design web pages around them, they want to screw over anyone not running Windows, making their system fail to render the web pages correctly.
oh, and learn to read too, maxxy. asking someone to prove a point they never made is fucking dumb.
Learn to write, fuckwad. It was "fucking dumb" when you demanded that the "linux hippies" be "self-reliant" and make their own fonts when when they never made a point of saying that they could.
By the way, I primarily run Windows. But I'm not an ass-lick (like you) that thinks that Microsoft can do no wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe you're missing something with the words "Intel Compatible"...
No, I am simply more intelligent than you are. The original poster was claiming that AMD should never add extensions to the Intel base instruction set and should support all Intel instructions -- including those for which Intel has patents, leaving AMD open to legal action.
Intel P4's run the same code a Pentium 60 ran way back when, no recompiling needed, sure you can optimize the compile, but you don't HAVE to.
So are you saying that AMD Athlon's cannot run the code written for a Pentium 60? If so, to what code are you referring?
We have a situation now where we have the AMD Athlon series and the Intel Pentium 4 series. Both have added extensions relative to the original Pentium. Are you claiming that benchmarks should only support Intel's additional instructions? What's your point?
If AMD would stick to making totally Intel compatible chips instead of trying to infuse their own personality, we wouldn't have this problem. Hint: my software shouldn't need to know it's running on an AMD chip.
This is so wrong on so many counts...
1. Intel's chips aren't "totally Intel compatible". The Pentium 4 contains instructions that were not present in the Pentium, P2, and P3. Why should your software have to "know it's running on a" Pentium 4 rather than a P3, P2, or Pentium? Hell, there was even a Pentium and a Pentium MMX (the latter adding the MMX instructions).
2. Intel tries every trick possible to patent their instructions to prevent people from implementing them. They do it with hardware, too. Remember when you could plug a K6-2 in place of an Intel Socket 7 CPU? Starting with Slot 1, intel used patents to prevent others from making compatible CPUs, which is why AMD and Intel motherboards are now incompatible.
3. Why should AMD not provide useful processor extensions that improve on Intel's base instructions? That's what provides useful competition and makes the industry grow.
4. What interest do you have in seeing AMD in a constant catch-up mode? In your scenario, Intel gets an advantage every time they release new instructions -- that will take AMD months to implement in silicon. Do you own Intel stock?
5. Why doesn't Intel just stick to providing processors that are 'totally AMD compatible'?
Yes, filtering web access is just like raping and killing children...
Not exactly. There's more screaming when you filter web access.
Wouldn't a better CPU benchmarks be taken by using the chipmakers' own compilers?
It depends on what you want to measure. If you want to measure what the CPU can do for a vendor developing an embedded system around the CPU, where the vendor compiles everything from the OS to the application, then yes, that makes sense.
But if you want to know what the CPU can do in a desktop PC running Windows and off-the-shelf, pre-compiled applications, then you want the benchmark to be compiled using the most commonly used compilers.
So you would trust a benchmark from a webpage that is in the midst of bashing another benchmark? A little biased, aren't we...
"We" aren't, but apparently you are. When a web page takes a critical look at benchmarks and exposes those that are biased, then I would tend to trust that site to choose an appropriate, unbiased benchmark for CPU comparisons.
Nice try, but the link in question reveals a page which does not even have the name AMD anywhere on it. What it says is:
Van's Hardware Journal is a site dedicated to providing honest, accurate, hard-hitting, and thorough reviews and analysis of the latest in computer hardware and related high technology.
You know that notorious black-hat hacker fyodor regularly hacks people whose opinions he disagrees with on slashdot?
So you believe that Slashdot is tracking IP addresses associated with user postings (but only for those users posting under a login) and providing those IP addresses to "notorious black-hat hacker fyodor"?
Have you ever seen the movie "A Beautiful Mind"?
The reason that there is not an open source alternative to Exchange is because the features provided by exchange are really not that valuable. In fact, for many, it is just one more piece of annoying collaboration software foisted off on them by management as a panacea for all of their project woes. It rarely does anything to improve the project's success and frequently turns into a gigantic time sink -- just like the equivalent features in Lotus Notes do.
Your use of a pseudonym on Slashdot would not allow me to identify you. It would allow me to identify the collection of messages you have posted and the opinions you have expressed. Does knowing that someone logs into Slashdot as "shadow303" really tell you anything private about them?
I have to wonder how many people post anonymously out of a desire to keep from being accountable for things that they said in the past. They can argue in favor of spamming one day and the next they can call for spammers to be hung and no one will be the wiser or call them on their contradictions.
Anonymous speech is protected speech.
I never claimed that you did not have a right. I just questioned your motivation.
I write anonymously such that I can say things people who karma whore like you don't like and keep you from modbombing things that I think everyone should be able to see.
So you post anonymously to protect your valuable Karma points you've been whoring under your real login name. I understand.
No, I am arguing that, overall, Karma often relates to the value of the posting. But, as you can see from my history, I speak my mind even when it occasionally results in negative Karma points.
You, on the other hand, appear to be hiding behind anonymity rather than taking the blame/credit for what you write. Why is that?
If you could be paid for that, you would be a rich man now.
You're obviously not a troll, based on that stupid posting history of irrelevent BS posted at +1 with no one paying attention, but you aren't a karma whore either, because you never post anything of any relevence.
You don't have great reading comprehension, do you?
You are just another cowardly little person hiding behind your anonymity so that no one can see a history of your "contributions." I have no doubt that it would be amusing.
I don't understand what quoting the ebay page proves.
The intent for the project: A cool toy for people who want to pretend that they are astronauts.
How do you reason that he built it all for himself and got the government to pay for it?
Read his ad: "if you're like me..." As to funding: "In 1991, I received a grant to build a space shuttle simulator at a public school where I was a science teacher. After three years of construction (mostly by me), our simulator became operational." If his primary interest was in seeing it put to good use to inspire students, it would be in another school right now instead of being sold on ebay, wouldn't it?
A project like this is a labour of love no matter how much money is involved. If I ever had the opportunity to do something this cool (and then share it with others) I'd jump at it in a second.
That's very commendable and I'm sure that, if you try, you can find something that you can do in a similar vein.
Granted, I'd never pay $15k for the thing (would much rather enjoy building one myself, actually) and it would be awful nice of him to donate it to another school, but it is well within his right to sell it to someone else who could do something useful with it. It would be a waste of my time to complain about his ethical standards.
The entire process of getting a government grant to build the flight deck for a school and then privately auctioning it off on ebay is questionable, legally and ethically, at best. But perhaps the real lapse was the school's in giving him school property worth $15K (his estimate of its worth).
Don't get me wrong. If this guy had built the thing for his students and then donated it to another school when his school could no longer house it, I'd be recommending him for Teacher of the Year. But that's not what happened. He built it with public funds and the help of his students and is now trying to get $15K (or more) from whatever self-indulgent, rich person is willing to buy it.
Well continue on and we'll see just how good your reading comprehension is.
The auction page quite clearly states that he recieved a grant to build it for a public school that he teaches at. He did not just throw it together in his garage so he could play "make- believe."
Oh yeah? Then read the opening on ebay:
Seems to me that the creator of this thing, a public school teacher, set out to influence the lives of his students in a positive way.
Seems like he got a government grant to build a fantasy toy for himself (see quote from ebay) that the students also used and he's now trying to sell it for $15K. I'd be a lot more impressed if he was donating it to another school, but he seems more interested in 'influencing his bank balance in a positive way.'
Or spend lots of money on a computer and internet connection and waste time posting on a website to play "I have a make-believe life". Having a beer with buddies or even sitting with your girlfriend is better than typing some stuff into a pretend community to a bunch of nerds.
You sound depressed about your life.
I always find it kind of pitiful when someone invests this much time and money building something which is really just a toy cockpit. I'd love to fly on the space shuttle, but its not going to happen and I'm not going to waste my time building expensive sets so that I can play "make-believe." Flying a single-engine Cessna, ultralight, or even a paramotor is a lot better than sitting in a pretend space shuttle cockpit.
You are an illiterate moron. The dictionary defines a censor as:
A person authorized to examine books, films, or other material and to remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable.
Did you see that word "authorized"? Did someone "authorize" the ISP to block the RIAA web site? And what entity could "authorize" the blocking of material that "is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable." Gee, could it be the government, like they do with filtering software at public schools and libraries?
If one ISP blocks the RIAA's web site and it's available on 20 others in your area, it's not censored, is it?
Now I see why you post as an anonymous coward. If I was as stupid as you, I wouldn't sign my name to what I posted, either.
The boundry between news and advertisement gets more porous each year...
What's next? Stories on Slashdot hyping case mods and big, animated, banner ads for ThinkGeek?
I'm shocked, shocked I tell you, that Slashdot would link to a site pretending to provide tech news when it is little more than front to sell merchandise to its readers.
You pose an interesting point and one that I considered long and hard before posting. First, I don't think that an ISP has a monopoly if they there are other choices. If BobCom has 51% of the market because they are the most cost-effective choice, I don't think that BobCom should be federally mandated to open up their routers to every IP address on the face of the earth.
Nor do I want to be involved in a an opinion poll every time I get on the Internet where I cast my vote for which sites to block. I have enough pressure without feeling that I have to vote every day on whether my ISP should block sites like "www.we-spread-viruses.com".
Let's not forget that this article is about an ISP that is blocking the RIAA because of the RIAA's stated intention to, in essence, launch denial of service attacks against P2P networks. It's not like the ISP just decided that the content of the RIAA web site was offensive. They are exercising their right to protect their equipment, bandwidth, and users from malicious attacks.
I want no one and no corp deciding what should be accessed across their backbones/routers/etc.
The highlighting was mine but goes to show that the ISPs own the equipment. Their network is theirs to do as they see fit. Would you want the federal government telling you that you were not allowed to block IP addresses from accessing your network? If you don't like the ISP's policies, use a different ISP.
Your argument reminds me of the spammers who accuse ISPs of censoring them and limiting their free speech.
Censorship is when the government limits what you can see and read. It's not when a private ISP makes a business decision to block IP addresses.
I did not use the blue orb but found the posts on my new fan (cant remember the brand but picked it up from CrazyPC) were a little thinker. It took quite a bit of finesse to get it to work.
There are two pairs of holes, one pair larger diameter than the others. Are you sure that you were using the right holes? I started to make that mistake. You might want to check next time you have the box open.
its amusing to see how you assume all the ACs responding to you are one and the same person.
I assumed that because I did not realize that there were so many stupid fucks on Slashdot. I had hoped that you were the only one.
Good, this means that 1) I'm not the only one this happened to, and that 2) I bought the right fan this weekend.
Nope. Happened to me, too.
Offtopic: Is it hard to pull the fan off the existing card?
Piece of cake. No problems at all.
They also said they were not to be used in commercial distributions FUCKWAD. If this had been your precious little GPL that was violated you'd be singing an entirely different story now wouldn't you.
And poor little Microsoft could not afford the legal costs to defend their license, could they? It's so sad how they are always being bullied by Linux and *BSD users. What a bunch of flaming bullshit. Microsoft could have written a single letter to any entity that packaged the fonts with a commercial distribution and that would have been the end of that.
But you just ignored the important part: Microsoft said that the fonts would be freely downloadable and anyone could use them. They encouraged web page designers to use the fonts in their web pages. Now that the fonts have been used that way, Microsoft is pulling them in order to break other OSs that relied on the ability of their users to download the fonts.
It's stunts like this that make the GPL so appealing. If I release something as GPL, I can't wait until thousands of applications and people rely on my work and then say "I'm taking my ball and going home", which is what Microsoft just tried to do here.
idiot.
I'm happy to see that you've started signing your postings.
What the fuck does compiling a kernel have to do with creating a font? I'm a software engineer, not a typographer. How many "linux hippies" claimed that they were totally self-reliant and could create any font that they needed? Would that be, oh, about, say, NONE?!
If you could see further than the dick in your left hand and the copy of Windows in your right, you'd understand that the issue here. Microsoft's own FAQ on the fonts said:
So now that they have convinced people to design web pages around them, they want to screw over anyone not running Windows, making their system fail to render the web pages correctly.
oh, and learn to read too, maxxy. asking someone to prove a point they never made is fucking dumb.
Learn to write, fuckwad. It was "fucking dumb" when you demanded that the "linux hippies" be "self-reliant" and make their own fonts when when they never made a point of saying that they could.
By the way, I primarily run Windows. But I'm not an ass-lick (like you) that thinks that Microsoft can do no wrong.