How carefully did you read the patent? Your description doesn't match Claim 1. sendmail+NIS aliases does match claim 1 exactly. The server does the forwarding, not the client.
I said nothing of the sort. I have tried many debuggers, and the reason that I debug with print statements is that it works. I do a lot of parallel and distributed programming; I don't make a lot of elementary mistakes when I program.
It's a US-vs-GB thing, just like theta and beta and zed/zee. The use of Giga with a hard G in science predates consumer use of the term by quite a while...
CWRU has a history of installing advanced networks for no particular reason, to sit mostly unused for years, until they install the next advanced network. They already pulled all that fiber a while ago, back when ATM was going to rule the universe.
I don't know about high tech campouts, but there certainly are large LOW tech campouts, like the Pennsic War: 10,000+ people camping a bit north of Pittsburgh, reacreating the fun parts of the Middle Ages. Porta-potties, tents, Renaissance dance every night...
Why, thank you for your constructive comments. You're 100% right: I'm actually an agent of the International Conspiracy to Suppress Cold Fusion Experiments, and now I've been unmasked. All those conspiracy theories about why the overall science community rejects cold fusion as unproven are true; we're all just trying to protect our grant money, and we know that we are so powerful that we can suppress the truth by simply arguing against it. Oh damn, now the cat is out of the bag, and tomorrow Cold Fusion Generators will go on sale at Wal-Mart.
It is common to claim that people who disagree with you have not read enough. Please stop being such a child. Arguing on Slashdot is no replacement for peer reviewed scientific publications, and no, the scientific community doesn't agree with you that the evidence is clear.
I am not on the couch. The evidence is not there. If you have nothing to contribute but ranting, then please let those who have something useful to say speak before you do.
If you could stop your ranting for long enough to provide a good proof of the science, all the ranting would be unnecessary.
The history of science is filled with extroadinary claims which were mistakes. Prove you aren't one of those, and you're golden. Whine, and you won't get anywhere.
Actually, there have been multiple dual-bank SDRAM chipsets. While SDRAM and DDR do use more pins than RDRAM, that isn't necessarily a huge cost, especially since they're lower speed pins than RDRAM, which turned out (in practice) to be a pain in the neck.
Intel had 2 reasons to bring out SDRAM based boxes:
1) Cost. Most consumers and business desktops don't care about speed, and RDRAM costs too much extra.
2) Speed. RDRAM looked fast because it was implemented with multiple banks. You can do the same thing with SDRAM, if you like. And that would give an apples to apples comparison.
Just because it's possible to fix the hole doesn't make it "Normal slashdot staff overreacting again." Not only does the original report contain the information for how you can turn off the ID, it makes some good arguments for why that isn't good enough.
There's nothing in the Register article that gives any evidence that SGI "transferred" the patents to Microsoft. The Register is not a credible source, and engages in fuzzy reporting at best.
There's nothing in the Register article that gives any proof that MS purchased anything other than a license for the patents, not the patents themselves.
So, as is often the case, this is probably much ado about nothing.
Clever businesses transferred their 9-track archives to Exabyte about a decade ago. The problem is people with only a few tapes, not clueful people with lots of them.
As an example, the VLA (Very Large Array, a radio telescope in New Mexico) had its entire archive on 9 track. When Exabytes finally became cheap, they just copied their entire data archive (everything observed since it started taking data in 1978, thousands of tapes) to Exabyte tapes. The expense wasn't that large compared to their overall operations expense.
Slashdot Mirror
Which word in "TCP Stack" do you not understand?
User level programs are not the TCP stack.
I've seen that said, and denied by MS. Are you sure you aren't repeating bogus info? Certainly the MS TCP/IP stack had many bugs not in the BSD stack.
CF is really slow. If you actually use your laptop for anything but surfing pr0n, you probably don't want a CF solid state drive.
How carefully did you read the patent? Your description doesn't match Claim 1. sendmail+NIS aliases does match claim 1 exactly. The server does the forwarding, not the client.
Claim 1 is exactly how the NIS aliases map + sendmail behaves...
Compare what rms wrote with what you wrote, and tell us who is better at presentation?
I said nothing of the sort. I have tried many debuggers, and the reason that I debug with print statements is that it works. I do a lot of parallel and distributed programming; I don't make a lot of elementary mistakes when I program.
Please stop jumping to conclusions so quickly.
Wrong kind of plutonium.
It's a US-vs-GB thing, just like theta and beta and zed/zee. The use of Giga with a hard G in science predates consumer use of the term by quite a while...
I am neither trolling nor stupid, and I don't find Purify that useful. I am also not as insulting to people who don't agree with me.
In the 60's, we programmed in Fortran, and debugged with PRINT statements.
In the 70's, we programmed in Pascal, and debugged with WRITE statements.
In the 80's, we programmed in C, and debugged with printf statements.
In the 90's, we programmed in C++, and debugged with >>.
"pulled that fibre" means that they installed that fibre, not that they removed it.
CWRU has a history of installing advanced networks for no particular reason, to sit mostly unused for years, until they install the next advanced network. They already pulled all that fiber a while ago, back when ATM was going to rule the universe.
I don't know about high tech campouts, but there certainly are large LOW tech campouts, like the Pennsic War: 10,000+ people camping a bit north of Pittsburgh, reacreating the fun parts of the Middle Ages. Porta-potties, tents, Renaissance dance every night...
Sorry, that's a bad example. Pixar's existing compute farm doesn't need much networking.
Why, thank you for your constructive comments. You're 100% right: I'm actually an agent of the International Conspiracy to Suppress Cold Fusion Experiments, and now I've been unmasked. All those conspiracy theories about why the overall science community rejects cold fusion as unproven are true; we're all just trying to protect our grant money, and we know that we are so powerful that we can suppress the truth by simply arguing against it. Oh damn, now the cat is out of the bag, and tomorrow Cold Fusion Generators will go on sale at Wal-Mart.
It is common to claim that people who disagree with you have not read enough. Please stop being such a child. Arguing on Slashdot is no replacement for peer reviewed scientific publications, and no, the scientific community doesn't agree with you that the evidence is clear.
I am not on the couch. The evidence is not there. If you have nothing to contribute but ranting, then please let those who have something useful to say speak before you do.
If you could stop your ranting for long enough to provide a good proof of the science, all the ranting would be unnecessary.
The history of science is filled with extroadinary claims which were mistakes. Prove you aren't one of those, and you're golden. Whine, and you won't get anywhere.
Actually, there have been multiple dual-bank SDRAM chipsets. While SDRAM and DDR do use more pins than RDRAM, that isn't necessarily a huge cost, especially since they're lower speed pins than RDRAM, which turned out (in practice) to be a pain in the neck.
Intel had 2 reasons to bring out SDRAM based boxes:
1) Cost. Most consumers and business desktops don't care about speed, and RDRAM costs too much extra.
2) Speed. RDRAM looked fast because it was implemented with multiple banks. You can do the same thing with SDRAM, if you like. And that would give an apples to apples comparison.
Just because it's possible to fix the hole doesn't make it "Normal slashdot staff overreacting again." Not only does the original report contain the information for how you can turn off the ID, it makes some good arguments for why that isn't good enough.
So no, not an overreaction at all.
There's nothing in the Register article that gives any evidence that SGI "transferred" the patents to Microsoft. The Register is not a credible source, and engages in fuzzy reporting at best.
There's nothing in the Register article that gives any proof that MS purchased anything other than a license for the patents, not the patents themselves.
So, as is often the case, this is probably much ado about nothing.
Clever businesses transferred their 9-track archives to Exabyte about a decade ago. The problem is people with only a few tapes, not clueful people with lots of them.
As an example, the VLA (Very Large Array, a radio telescope in New Mexico) had its entire archive on 9 track. When Exabytes finally became cheap, they just copied their entire data archive (everything observed since it started taking data in 1978, thousands of tapes) to Exabyte tapes. The expense wasn't that large compared to their overall operations expense.
According to reputable media, this issue of Time is on newsstands in New York City:
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-8388611.ht