Actually, it'd be wise to check the _math_ first. 733 x 7.5 = 997.5
Hardly 1000mHz, and not nearly the 1002.3mHz that they're claiming to have.
And, for the record, they state very plainly that they used a PIII Coppermine 733. Unless it got lost in the translation somewhere, I don't see any reference to "engineering sample" anywhere in there.
Either it's just a plain fabrication (likely) or they did actually overclock _something_. What, if anything, they actually overclocked, and what it actually overclocked to, we may never know....
Now, since the multipliers are locked on Coppermine processors, there's no way that these people could get a 7.5 multipler. The highest is a "7" with a front-side bus of 100 mhz.
Note that they also make absolutely no mention of any method of cooling this thing. The only thing presented are the benchmarks, all of which are directly proportionate to the increase in mHz rating. Coincidence? I doubt it. There's no mention _at all_ of the hardware this was tested on, except for one screenshot that mentions an ABIT BX6 (Rev. 2) motherboard.
Before you go expounding on the wonders of 1ghz Coppermines, it'd be wise to check the facts first.
If I understand this correctly, what this means is: They have an 'appratus' that can temporarily and/or permanently store the results of a translation from one instruction to another.
Imagine this: A new instruction set comes out. You fire up your Transmeta processor, download some sort of 'data table' for the new instruction set, and let the processor *learn how to decode it*.
This patent would allow Transmeta to build such a instruction set translator into the processor itself, and then have this 'apparatus' that they've received the patent for decode new instruction sets and store the results of how to do it.
Really, though, I think perhaps what people should be worrying the most about is what Corel is claiming their "product" is in the license. Are they referring to the distribution as a collection of packages, or are they also including the packages that they're using in the "product" term?
If they're referring to _only_ the bundled-together collection of packages that they're distributing, then they're not really violating the GPL for their beta release. You simply can't re- distribute copies of "Corel Linux" to others. You can still hand out the packages and various software components that are GPL'd, without a problem.
If they're referring to the packages themselves as their "product", _then_ they're violating the GPL and the law by claiming that they own and are distributing software they control, when, in fact, they do not. That type of stuff, if I'm not mistaken, is illegal, regardless of whether it's "internal" or not.
Keep in mind that I am by no means a lawyer, but it looks to me the issue is more along the lines of what Corel defines as its "product", not whether it's an internal or external release.
I've loved this game. Ever since a friend told me about it after I finished reading the Illuminatus trilogy (which is what the game is based on. It's by Robert Anton Wilson and Robert Shea, and is as wacky and mind-blowing as the game's cards would imply...)
I bought the original edition of the CCG and had a blast with it, if nothing else for the hilarity involved when performing takeovers with various cards. "I'm going to use the Republican National Committee to control the Women's Liberation Front..."
The original tabletop game is a blast, especially with a bunch of people clustered around the playing area, trying to control everything they can.
Remember, the Illuminati are out there, watching you...;)
Internet-accessible bank accounts have always given me pause for thought. What happens if you _need_ the money in the account, and their server is down due to a crash or a DoS attack, or some hardware failure? What happens if security is breeched?
More importantly, though, what's to stop a small country willing to devote a relatively (for a country) small amount of money to building a distributed computing facility (or a Beowulf cluster, for that matter) and simply smashing away at whatever encryption method the bank is using? Wasn't the 64-bit DES key just brute-forced not too long ago by distributed.net?
If you look at it, the potential gains for a country to have hacked the secruity protocols for the transaction server would far outweigh the initial cost. Throw two or three million dollars into a cluster of PIIIs, and just let them work. It doesn't have to happen in a day. They could take a year before they finally break the key. But when they finally do it, they could drain your account dry. And does anyone know what type of insurance policy Swiss banks use...? I'm sure they're not backed by _our_ government...
I've long heard tales of how stable and secure the various BSD distributions are, and I'd be interested in trying one of them out, except...
I have no idea where to start finding info on them.
Anybody have a good resource to get started on *BSD with? I'm a "competent" Linux user, but from what I've been able to tell, *BSD just doesn't have the same type of huge 'fan-base' that Linux does.
First they produce copyright restrictions in whois queries that people cannot opt out of. Then they fight tooth and nail with government regulators over divvying up their monopoly. Now this?
What's next, my bank creating an email account for me and assigning it the password 123456, like everyone else's?
Just imagine the possibilities of such a monumental foul-up:
-) Email Masquerading: "Hi InterNic Tech Support, this is so-and-so, I'd like my contact information changed to... No, I'm really so-and-so. You can tell because I'm emailing you from so-and-so's account..."
-) Spam, Spam, Spam, Spamitty-Spam: "You've got mail! Oh joy, so-and-so@internic is spamming me. Lets get them blacklisted and ban their server."
-) Misrepresentation via Email: With this, and some of the information available from a standard whois query, you easily order products and have them shipped to someone COD. And of course, it's authentic because it was shipped from your internic account....
Someone stop the madness before it continues to spread!
"What is with" people is the fact that while BO 2K is a program that must be installed, it does _not_ require Administrator-level access to do so. There are numerous unpatched security holes in Windows 95, 98, and NT that allow unpriviledged users to act as fully priviledged Administrators.
The analogy here is that every NT box has a walking 'root' attack built into it...
Now, would you want a security hole like this in a multi-user system? All it takes is _one_ downloaded email program and your entire network is compromised.
Let's think about this a moment: BO 2k (and the original BO) is designed so that it can install invisibly after being attached to another program that _executes normally_. This means that Script Kiddie A can attach BO 2k to, say, a copy of the latest version of WinZip. He then sends that copy of WinZip out in a nicely drafted email to several people at an office. The insant one of those people downloads that email and installs the new version of WinZip (which works fine, and is in all ways a 'normal' version of WinZip), they have just infected the entire network with BO2k.
Now tell me this is a 'remote administration' feature and not security vulnerability.
The very nature of remote administration implies that you must have privledged access to the machine in order to administer it. BO2k allow _unprivledged_ users to both install and administer it.
While I disapprove of the cDc's choice of methods, I can at least say that if they had to make this program, they are at least distributing it properly. Making it publicly available and open-source means that nothing is 'hidden' and there are no surprises waiting in store. Patches could conceivably be easily produced by Microsoft, and programs to detect, counteract, and remove it should be easily developed as well.
This IS a security threat people. Take it lightly and I'm sure you'll rapidly change your tune after your network is taken over by Script Kiddie A exploiting known Microsoft security vulnerabilities.
>Lets not mix 'geek' and 'outcast' even those >terms are considered similar in conventional >wisdom.
In conventional wisdom, the terms are identical. 'Geek' and 'nerd' ared used in the hallways of schools every day as put-downs, and are often the very tools used to ostracize and outcast people that are viewed as different or strange.
>In 1 generation, every kid will be using the >internet, programming, etc., and it will be quite >common. Instead of working at GM you work at >Microsoft or whatever, so the internet and >omputers are not the issue here.
You're right. In 1 generation, every kid will be on the internet, and the internet as an issue in this will be a moot point. But the point you're trying to make isn't accurate. Sure in a generation everyone will be on the internet. If you've been watching the tech industry during the current generation, by the time the next one rolls around we're going to have some amazing technology. Full VR gear is just around the corner... And when the next generation rolls around, it will still have its 'geeks' and its 'nerds' unless we take the time and effor to do something about it _now_.
Things are not going to better simply because you say it will. The only way things are going to get better is if _you_ take the time _now_ to change the way things work. Putting change off to the next generation has been typical of the 20th century mindset, and as we've seen, it only damages our children and their children. The tragedy in Colorodo is at least partially a product of this, perhaps moreso than anything else.
You say we should take solace in the fact that using computers will be the norm in the future. If we could transport ourselves forward, that would be fine. But the use of computers isn't the only thing that outcasts people today, and new reasons to hate and dislike are always cropping up. Just because one of the most prominent reasons will slowly disappear over the course of the next generation doesn't mean another won't replace it. What needs to change is the way of thinking that causes this.
Being different isn't _any_ grounds for hate or derogatory remarks. The law has defined what happens to our children when their in school as harassment, assault, and battery. Yet what happens to the people (yes, children are people too) that commit these acts? They're cheered on by the rest of the students, and the administrators do very little to discourage it from happening again. If an adult were to do the things that our children do, they'd be arrested, convicted, and then sued for physical and emotional damage.
This has nothing to do with how bright and intelligent our children are. It's about how we as a society treat our children, and how we treat each other. That has to change, more than anything else.
Slashdot Mirror
Err, yes, and checking with the God of Typos would help too. That should be _133_, not _733_ x7.5 :)
Actually, it'd be wise to check the _math_ first.
733 x 7.5 = 997.5
Hardly 1000mHz, and not nearly the 1002.3mHz that they're claiming to have.
And, for the record, they state very plainly that they used a PIII Coppermine 733. Unless it got lost in the translation somewhere, I don't see any reference to "engineering sample" anywhere in there.
Either it's just a plain fabrication (likely) or they did actually overclock _something_. What, if anything, they actually overclocked, and what it actually overclocked to, we may never know....
The simple facts (from Tom's Hardware)
Coppermine processors:
Rated Speed Bus Speed Multiplier
733 133 5.5
700 100 7
667 133 5
650 100 6.5
600 EB 133 4.5
600 E 100 6
533 EB 133 4
550 E (PPGA) 100 5.5
500 E (PPGA) 100 5
Now, since the multipliers are locked on Coppermine processors, there's no way that these people could get a 7.5 multipler. The highest is a "7" with a front-side bus of 100 mhz.
Note that they also make absolutely no mention of any method of cooling this thing. The only thing presented are the benchmarks, all of which are directly proportionate to the increase in mHz rating. Coincidence? I doubt it. There's no mention _at all_ of the hardware this was tested on, except for one screenshot that mentions an ABIT BX6 (Rev. 2) motherboard.
Before you go expounding on the wonders of 1ghz Coppermines, it'd be wise to check the facts first.
If I understand this correctly, what this means is:
They have an 'appratus' that can temporarily and/or permanently store the results of a translation from one instruction to another.
Imagine this: A new instruction set comes out. You fire up your Transmeta processor, download some sort of 'data table' for the new instruction set, and let the processor *learn how to decode it*.
This patent would allow Transmeta to build such a instruction set translator into the processor itself, and then have this 'apparatus' that they've received the patent for decode new instruction sets and store the results of how to do it.
Cool. Very Cool!
Really, though, I think perhaps what people should be worrying the most about is what Corel is claiming their "product" is in the license. Are they referring to the distribution as a collection of packages, or are they also including the packages that they're using in the "product" term?
If they're referring to _only_ the bundled-together collection of packages that they're distributing, then they're not really violating the GPL for their beta release. You simply can't re- distribute copies of "Corel Linux" to others. You can still hand out the packages and various software components that are GPL'd, without a problem.
If they're referring to the packages themselves as their "product", _then_ they're violating the GPL and the law by claiming that they own and are distributing software they control, when, in fact, they do not. That type of stuff, if I'm not mistaken, is illegal, regardless of whether it's "internal" or not.
Keep in mind that I am by no means a lawyer, but it looks to me the issue is more along the lines of what Corel defines as its "product", not whether it's an internal or external release.
I've loved this game. Ever since a friend told me about it after I finished reading the Illuminatus trilogy (which is what the game is based on. It's by Robert Anton Wilson and Robert Shea, and is as wacky and mind-blowing as the game's cards would imply...)
;)
I bought the original edition of the CCG and had a blast with it, if nothing else for the hilarity involved when performing takeovers with various cards.
"I'm going to use the Republican National Committee to control the Women's Liberation Front..."
The original tabletop game is a blast, especially with a bunch of people clustered around the playing area, trying to control everything they can.
Remember, the Illuminati are out there, watching you...
Internet-accessible bank accounts have always given me pause for thought. What happens if you _need_ the money in the account, and their server is down due to a crash or a DoS attack, or some hardware failure? What happens if security is breeched?
More importantly, though, what's to stop a small country willing to devote a relatively (for a country) small amount of money to building a distributed computing facility (or a Beowulf cluster, for that matter) and simply smashing away at whatever encryption method the bank is using? Wasn't the 64-bit DES key just brute-forced not too long ago by distributed.net?
If you look at it, the potential gains for a country to have hacked the secruity protocols for the transaction server would far outweigh the initial cost. Throw two or three million dollars into a cluster of PIIIs, and just let them work. It doesn't have to happen in a day. They could take a year before they finally break the key. But when they finally do it, they could drain your account dry. And does anyone know what type of insurance policy Swiss banks use...? I'm sure they're not backed by _our_ government...
I realize it's a long way off yet, but as a profound cat-lover and techno-geek, I'd kill to get one of these.
:)
"A cute little robotic pet that's fun to be with!"
And it mimics a real-life kitten? As long as they make it unbelievably cute, I'm hooked.
It's always nice to see a new release for *BSD.
I've long heard tales of how stable and secure the various BSD distributions are, and I'd be interested in trying one of them out, except...
I have no idea where to start finding info on them.
Anybody have a good resource to get started on *BSD with? I'm a "competent" Linux user, but from what I've been able to tell, *BSD just doesn't have the same type of huge 'fan-base' that Linux does.
First they produce copyright restrictions in whois queries that people cannot opt out of. Then they fight tooth and nail with government regulators over divvying up their monopoly. Now this?
What's next, my bank creating an email account for me and assigning it the password 123456, like everyone else's?
Just imagine the possibilities of such a monumental foul-up:
-) Email Masquerading:
"Hi InterNic Tech Support, this is so-and-so, I'd like my contact information changed to... No, I'm really so-and-so. You can tell because I'm emailing you from so-and-so's account..."
-) Spam, Spam, Spam, Spamitty-Spam:
"You've got mail! Oh joy, so-and-so@internic is spamming me. Lets get them blacklisted and ban their server."
-) Misrepresentation via Email:
With this, and some of the information available from a standard whois query, you easily order products and have them shipped to someone COD. And of course, it's authentic because it was shipped from your internic account....
Someone stop the madness before it continues to spread!
"What is with" people is the fact that while BO 2K is a program that must be installed, it does _not_ require Administrator-level access to do so. There are numerous unpatched security holes in Windows 95, 98, and NT that allow unpriviledged users to act as fully priviledged Administrators.
The analogy here is that every NT box has a walking 'root' attack built into it...
Now, would you want a security hole like this in a multi-user system? All it takes is _one_ downloaded email program and your entire network is compromised.
Let's think about this a moment:
BO 2k (and the original BO) is designed so that it can install invisibly after being attached to another program that _executes normally_. This means that Script Kiddie A can attach BO 2k to, say, a copy of the latest version of WinZip. He then sends that copy of WinZip out in a nicely drafted email to several people at an office. The insant one of those people downloads that email and installs the new version of WinZip (which works fine, and is in all ways a 'normal' version of WinZip), they have just infected the entire network with BO2k.
Now tell me this is a 'remote administration' feature and not security vulnerability.
The very nature of remote administration implies that you must have privledged access to the machine in order to administer it. BO2k allow _unprivledged_ users to both install and administer it.
While I disapprove of the cDc's choice of methods, I can at least say that if they had to make this program, they are at least distributing it properly. Making it publicly available and open-source means that nothing is 'hidden' and there are no surprises waiting in store. Patches could conceivably be easily produced by Microsoft, and programs to detect, counteract, and remove it should be easily developed as well.
This IS a security threat people. Take it lightly and I'm sure you'll rapidly change your tune after your network is taken over by Script Kiddie A exploiting known Microsoft security vulnerabilities.
>Lets not mix 'geek' and 'outcast' even those >terms are considered similar in conventional >wisdom.
In conventional wisdom, the terms are identical. 'Geek' and 'nerd' ared used in the hallways of schools every day as put-downs, and are often the very tools used to ostracize and outcast people that are viewed as different or strange.
>In 1 generation, every kid will be using the >internet, programming, etc., and it will be quite >common. Instead of working at GM you work at >Microsoft or whatever, so the internet and >omputers are not the issue here.
You're right. In 1 generation, every kid will be on the internet, and the internet as an issue in this will be a moot point. But the point you're trying to make isn't accurate. Sure in a generation everyone will be on the internet. If you've been watching the tech industry during the current generation, by the time the next one rolls around we're going to have some amazing technology. Full VR gear is just around the corner... And when the next generation rolls around, it will still have its 'geeks' and its 'nerds' unless we take the time and effor to do something about it _now_.
Things are not going to better simply because you say it will. The only way things are going to get better is if _you_ take the time _now_ to change the way things work. Putting change off to the next generation has been typical of the 20th century mindset, and as we've seen, it only damages our children and their children. The tragedy in Colorodo is at least partially a product of this, perhaps moreso than anything else.
You say we should take solace in the fact that using computers will be the norm in the future. If we could transport ourselves forward, that would be fine. But the use of computers isn't the only thing that outcasts people today, and new reasons to hate and dislike are always cropping up. Just because one of the most prominent reasons will slowly disappear over the course of the next generation doesn't mean another won't replace it.
What needs to change is the way of thinking that causes this.
Being different isn't _any_ grounds for hate or derogatory remarks. The law has defined what happens to our children when their in school as harassment, assault, and battery. Yet what happens to the people (yes, children are people too) that commit these acts? They're cheered on by the rest of the students, and the administrators do very little to discourage it from happening again. If an adult were to do the things that our children do, they'd be arrested, convicted, and then sued for physical and emotional damage.
This has nothing to do with how bright and intelligent our children are. It's about how we as a society treat our children, and how we treat each other. That has to change, more than anything else.