I'm sure AMDZone is never biased towards AMD processors.:-)
Re:What's up with AMD's model names lately?
on
Athlon 64 Debuts
·
· Score: 1
I sure hope so!;)
Anyway, my point wasn't that the Athlon FX doesn't use the infamous Processor Rating, but how AMD seemingly tie their model names to currently popular brands from other manufacturers, riding their wave of success.
Yeah, it's sad to see that the Athlon 64 isn't even compatible with something as basic as Contiki.;)
What's up with AMD's model names lately?
on
Athlon 64 Debuts
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
We saw Athlon XP get released when Windows XP was still "hot" and aggressively marketed by Microsoft.
We now see Athlon FX get released when the GeForce FX graphics card series is the state-of-the-art among hardcore gamers, along with ATI's Radeon series. Hardcore gamers are also coincidentally a target group for AMD's processors since they're known to look for the latest and greatest processor-wise.
I wonder if this is just coincidental, or if AMD is actually using the popularity of other brands to market their own? Are they even using dirty tacticts to try to fool people into thinking "Ooh, this Athlon XP should work especially well together with this newly released Windows XP then, right?" and "Oooh, great, I must have the Athlon FX for my latest video card!"
But perhaps they just happen to choose the same abbreviation as other popular brands at the time for the second time in a row. However, I still can't say AMD's Athlon marketing smell good to me at least.
Wow! Since not even a quantum computer has broken anything more than a 4 bit crypto, I think I'll use a 6 bit value for my future encryptions! Ha! Hmm, I wonder if those have export restrictions on them though.
Yes, this is to let users be able to protect sensitive data on their Windows 2003 server that should only be viewable by selected users, also when the document has been e-mailed to other users.
This is not my opinion, but I'm sure many corporations will think this is a great idea, and a reason to not choose something like Red Hat Linux for example.
You need this installed to view protected documents even if you DO have Office 2003 installed....
I think that's because Office 2003 doesn't come with this feature. It supports it, but the client isn't installed with the package. At least it wasn't for me. I could neither view, nor create protected documents with a standard install of Office 2003. It popped up a dialog requesting me to download this client when I tried to.
Doesn't WM9 also allow sites to uniquely identify you by default?
Yes, if you choose enable the "let us generate statistics of WMP users" option or whatever it was called. I didn't.:-) It's a separate option not connected to DRM, so this statement:
Taken from the MSDRM info: None of the information collected or generated as part of machine activation is personally identifiable.... should be true since nothing collected by the MSDRM feature should make you personally identifiable.
Strange enough, Office 2003 does NOT have DRM built-in. When you click a related menu option, you get a dialog asking to download the DRM client, which is the one that was made available now, I suppose.
I'd say Longhorn. There was a real alpha screenshot of Longhorn once showing a dialog touching the subject by mentioning digital rights, that came from the OS itself. Can't remember the URL though, it's news several months old and no bookmark.:P
Well, it *is* required to set rights regarding who can open Office 2003 documents, mails, etc. in order to protect sensitive documents. So "rights" isn't a bad choice of word at all IMHO.
And when he takes it back to where he bought it, complains that it doesn't work, exchanges it for another copy and finds that it still doesn't work, he's going to be really pissed.
At least in Sweden, at this point, the store would patch the region limited player. They openly say that "ahem... we can't sell region free players, but it's an easy job to fix it, just send us the player whenever you wish".
In case you hadn't noticed, "the masses" don't tend to throw parts together and configure Linux installs.
Neither do the masses buy and setup dedicated file servers to backup, share and remotely access their data. At most, they burn the data to CD's or something. Or just complain when their unbackuped HDD finally dies.
That's about it. How many Windows users do you know who have actually gone so far as to use WindowBlinds or even LightStep?
Some of us like having RAM available for apps.
... and those use Visual Styles.;-) No overhead neither when it comes to CPU nor memory usage, since the themes are using Windows own theme engine. Works perfectly!
- Bandwidth... Which ISP would like to pay for the rush to someone who upload a bunch of popular mp3's? - PR... Which ISP wish to get known for hosting users' mp3 files?
You'd probably need to get your own web server. But the bandwidth problem would remain even then. Decentralized networks are much easier to spread files on since there aren't thousands of users trying to access your web site.
Web servers seems much less efficient to me and more like a last desperate way to distribute copyright infringing mp3's on.
Regarding the "quick taste" linked to in this article:
"Fall of the Republic mini-FAQ" version 1.0, January 1995.
by David Hines, dzhines@midway.uchicago.edu
Questions answered in this FAQ:
1. "Hey, everybody! I've got this thing called "Fall of the Republic -" 2. "Why are you guys screaming like that?" 3. "What's a FAQ, and why does FotR need one?" 4. "Okay, so what's the deal with FotR?" 5. "What do you mean, it's not real?" 6. "Yeah, what's this about the third episode? Wasn't that Return of the Jedi?" 7. "Okay. FotR is a fake, but where did it come from?" 8. "Where is FotR available on the Internet?" 9. "Okay, I've got FotR. How do I convert it into something I can read?" 10. "I don't have ftp access. What do I do?"
1. "Hey, everybody! I've got this thing called "Fall of the Republic -"
AAAAAAAAAIIIIIIIIEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!
2. "Why are you guys screaming like that?"
Well, you see, some topics get rehashed quite a bit on this newsgroup. That's understandable, since more people come on to usenet every day. Even if, as is recommended, you lurk in a new newsgroup [lurk: read without posting] for a whole week before you make your first post, you'll miss some of the discussion that's gone before. Some topics get endlessly rehashed. Topics like bloopers and Mark Hamill's car accident have been brought up over and over, until most people are heartily sick of them. "Fall of the Republic" [hereafter FotR] is one of those topics. People keep bringing it up when they join the newsgroup. Recently, there has been a huge surge of folks pointing out the existence of FotR. As a result, this mini-FAQ was composed.
3. "What's a FAQ, and why does FotR need one?"
FAQ stands for Frequently Asked Questions. A FAQ lists the questions and their answers. FotR needs a FAQ because so many people have questions about it.
4. "Okay, so what's the deal with FotR?"
It's not real.
5. "What do you mean, it's not real?"
Well, it is real, if by "real" you mean that it really exists, and has been written by somebody. However, FotR is not "real" in the sense that it is not a real story treatment for the third episode of the Star Wars saga.
6. "Yeah, what's this about the third episode? Wasn't that Return of the Jedi?"
No, that was the sixth episode. RotJ was, however, the third film to be released. Basically, the Trilogy we know is composed of episodes four through six. Lucas is now working on the scripts for episodes one through three. The films are due out in 1998; for more information, see the New Movies FAQ, kept by Aditya Sood.
7. "Okay. FotR is a fake, but where did it come from?"
Good question. "John L. Flynn" is listed as the author, but no one really knows who wrote it, except perhaps the author himself. Before it was made available on the Internet, most people picked it up at conventions. Dealers sold it at their tables; as far as we know, the story treatment (it's too brief to be a script) made its debut around 1983 or so. It may have been around earlier. The earliest possible date for it is 1979, which is when "Star Wars" was rereleased with the subtitle "Episode IV: A New Hope." Before then, "Star Wars" was just "Star Wars;" no one could have known about Episode III being a prequel. Most reports, however (I'm using hearsay, admittedly, from reports of people on the group who remember FotR from *way* back) place it at about 1983.
8. "Where is FotR available on the Internet?"
It's at wpi.wpi.edu, in the directory starwars/stories. Log in with "anonymous" as your username and your email address as your password.
9. "Okay, I've got FotR. How do I convert it into something I can read?"
To quote the wpi server itself:
250- All ascii text files are compressed (.Z suffix) to save on room. On 250- Unix systems just type - uncompress file.Z - to uncompress it. 250- MAC user can use the program maccompress-32.hqx - It
Although denied by ILM, here is a quick taste of what the story for episode III might be like (either taken from Lucas' journal in 1983, or just a fake from an insider way back then).
NOOO! That link is FAKE FAKE FAKE. Excuse me if I get worked up about it, but it's mentioned basically everywhere you look for Star Wars scripts. Gets annoying after a while.
It's the most well-known fake script in the Star Wars trilogies.
*sigh*
A quick look in Google Groups would have helped to sort that out before you had to confuse others with a totally, 100%, bogus script.:-P
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I obviously meant native. :-)
Hmm, didn't know about Contiki for PC DOS. That's interesting, hehe.
Now, I just wonder what was so trollish about my post I used smiley to further show that it wasn't a grain of seriousness in it. Oh well...
Another great web site from VeriSign? :P
I'm sure AMDZone is never biased towards AMD processors.
I sure hope so! ;)
Anyway, my point wasn't that the Athlon FX doesn't use the infamous Processor Rating, but how AMD seemingly tie their model names to currently popular brands from other manufacturers, riding their wave of success.
Yeah, it's sad to see that the Athlon 64 isn't even compatible with something as basic as Contiki. ;)
We saw Athlon XP get released when Windows XP was still "hot" and aggressively marketed by Microsoft.
We now see Athlon FX get released when the GeForce FX graphics card series is the state-of-the-art among hardcore gamers, along with ATI's Radeon series. Hardcore gamers are also coincidentally a target group for AMD's processors since they're known to look for the latest and greatest processor-wise.
I wonder if this is just coincidental, or if AMD is actually using the popularity of other brands to market their own? Are they even using dirty tacticts to try to fool people into thinking "Ooh, this Athlon XP should work especially well together with this newly released Windows XP then, right?" and "Oooh, great, I must have the Athlon FX for my latest video card!"
But perhaps they just happen to choose the same abbreviation as other popular brands at the time for the second time in a row. However, I still can't say AMD's Athlon marketing smell good to me at least.
It is based on the US, is it not ? Just like ICANN is US-centric. Isn't that the way things always are ?
:)
No!
Aah, finally found a place to post that web server based in antarctica. What a relief!
I was actually confused by the "Kms" notation. Never seen that before... Kilometers shouldn't be "Kms", just like meters shouldn't be "ms"...
... unless he is occupied with playing Duke Nukem Forever all the time.
Wow! Since not even a quantum computer has broken anything more than a 4 bit crypto, I think I'll use a 6 bit value for my future encryptions! Ha! Hmm, I wonder if those have export restrictions on them though.
Yes, this is to let users be able to protect sensitive data on their Windows 2003 server that should only be viewable by selected users, also when the document has been e-mailed to other users.
This is not my opinion, but I'm sure many corporations will think this is a great idea, and a reason to not choose something like Red Hat Linux for example.
You need this installed to view protected documents even if you DO have Office 2003 installed....
I think that's because Office 2003 doesn't come with this feature. It supports it, but the client isn't installed with the package. At least it wasn't for me. I could neither view, nor create protected documents with a standard install of Office 2003. It popped up a dialog requesting me to download this client when I tried to.
Doesn't WM9 also allow sites to uniquely identify you by default?
:-) It's a separate option not connected to DRM, so this statement:
... should be true since nothing collected by the MSDRM feature should make you personally identifiable.
Yes, if you choose enable the "let us generate statistics of WMP users" option or whatever it was called. I didn't.
Taken from the MSDRM info: None of the information collected or generated as part of machine activation is personally identifiable.
Strange enough, Office 2003 does NOT have DRM built-in. When you click a related menu option, you get a dialog asking to download the DRM client, which is the one that was made available now, I suppose.
I'd say Longhorn. There was a real alpha screenshot of Longhorn once showing a dialog touching the subject by mentioning digital rights, that came from the OS itself. Can't remember the URL though, it's news several months old and no bookmark. :P
Well, it *is* required to set rights regarding who can open Office 2003 documents, mails, etc. in order to protect sensitive documents. So "rights" isn't a bad choice of word at all IMHO.
And when he takes it back to where he bought it, complains that it doesn't work, exchanges it for another copy and finds that it still doesn't work, he's going to be really pissed.
At least in Sweden, at this point, the store would patch the region limited player. They openly say that "ahem... we can't sell region free players, but it's an easy job to fix it, just send us the player whenever you wish".
In case you hadn't noticed, "the masses" don't tend to throw parts together and configure Linux installs.
Neither do the masses buy and setup dedicated file servers to backup, share and remotely access their data. At most, they burn the data to CD's or something. Or just complain when their unbackuped HDD finally dies.
First Post
:-)
-snip- You guys are going soft.
Umm... Same goes for you?
As long as it's from a text app to another text app... :-P Text is just one form of information the clipboard should support.
- Bandwidth... Which ISP would like to pay for the rush to someone who upload a bunch of popular mp3's?
- PR... Which ISP wish to get known for hosting users' mp3 files?
You'd probably need to get your own web server. But the bandwidth problem would remain even then. Decentralized networks are much easier to spread files on since there aren't thousands of users trying to access your web site.
Web servers seems much less efficient to me and more like a last desperate way to distribute copyright infringing mp3's on.
Regarding the "quick taste" linked to in this article:
"Fall of the Republic mini-FAQ" version 1.0, January 1995.
by David Hines, dzhines@midway.uchicago.edu
Questions answered in this FAQ:
1. "Hey, everybody! I've got this thing called "Fall of the Republic -"
2. "Why are you guys screaming like that?"
3. "What's a FAQ, and why does FotR need one?"
4. "Okay, so what's the deal with FotR?"
5. "What do you mean, it's not real?"
6. "Yeah, what's this about the third episode? Wasn't that Return of the Jedi?"
7. "Okay. FotR is a fake, but where did it come from?"
8. "Where is FotR available on the Internet?"
9. "Okay, I've got FotR. How do I convert it into something I can read?"
10. "I don't have ftp access. What do I do?"
1. "Hey, everybody! I've got this thing called "Fall of the Republic -"
AAAAAAAAAIIIIIIIIEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!
2. "Why are you guys screaming like that?"
Well, you see, some topics get rehashed quite a bit on this newsgroup. That's understandable, since more people come on to usenet every day. Even if, as is recommended, you lurk in a new newsgroup [lurk: read without posting] for a whole week before you make your first post, you'll miss some of the discussion that's gone before.
Some topics get endlessly rehashed. Topics like bloopers and Mark Hamill's car accident have been brought up over and over, until most people are heartily sick of them.
"Fall of the Republic" [hereafter FotR] is one of those topics. People keep bringing it up when they join the newsgroup. Recently, there has been a huge surge of folks pointing out the existence of FotR. As a result, this mini-FAQ was composed.
3. "What's a FAQ, and why does FotR need one?"
FAQ stands for Frequently Asked Questions. A FAQ lists the questions and their answers. FotR needs a FAQ because so many people have questions about it.
4. "Okay, so what's the deal with FotR?"
It's not real.
5. "What do you mean, it's not real?"
Well, it is real, if by "real" you mean that it really exists, and has been written by somebody.
However, FotR is not "real" in the sense that it is not a real story treatment for the third episode of the Star Wars saga.
6. "Yeah, what's this about the third episode? Wasn't that Return of the Jedi?"
No, that was the sixth episode. RotJ was, however, the third film to be released. Basically, the Trilogy we know is composed of episodes four through six. Lucas is now working on the scripts for episodes one through three. The films are due out in 1998; for more information, see the New Movies FAQ, kept by Aditya Sood.
7. "Okay. FotR is a fake, but where did it come from?"
Good question. "John L. Flynn" is listed as the author, but no one really knows who wrote it, except perhaps the author himself.
Before it was made available on the Internet, most people picked it up at conventions. Dealers sold it at their tables; as far as we know, the story treatment (it's too brief to be a script) made its debut around 1983 or so. It may have been around earlier.
The earliest possible date for it is 1979, which is when "Star Wars" was rereleased with the subtitle "Episode IV: A New Hope." Before then, "Star Wars" was just "Star Wars;" no one could have known about Episode III being a prequel. Most reports, however (I'm using hearsay, admittedly, from reports of people on the group who remember FotR from *way* back) place it at about 1983.
8. "Where is FotR available on the Internet?"
It's at wpi.wpi.edu, in the directory starwars/stories. Log in with "anonymous" as your username and your email address as your password.
9. "Okay, I've got FotR. How do I convert it into something I can read?"
To quote the wpi server itself:
250- All ascii text files are compressed (.Z suffix) to save on room. On
250- Unix systems just type - uncompress file.Z - to uncompress it.
250- MAC user can use the program maccompress-32.hqx - It
Although denied by ILM, here is a quick taste of what the story for episode III might be like (either taken from Lucas' journal in 1983, or just a fake from an insider way back then).
:-P
NOOO! That link is FAKE FAKE FAKE. Excuse me if I get worked up about it, but it's mentioned basically everywhere you look for Star Wars scripts. Gets annoying after a while.
It's the most well-known fake script in the Star Wars trilogies.
*sigh*
A quick look in Google Groups would have helped to sort that out before you had to confuse others with a totally, 100%, bogus script.