When I was on vacation in Europe a few years back, I was unable to withdraw money from several ATMs one day (all of the ATMs gave error messages about not being able to verify the transaction or something). Finally, we found an ATM that worked, and we went on our merry way. When we got home, there were 3 ATM withdrawls that day for the same amount when only 1 of the transactions actually finished.
We wrote a letter to the bank, explained the situation, and a few days later they gave us a provisional credit for the extra transactions. About 2 months later we got a letter confirming that "errors" had occurred, and the provisional credit would stand.
Total time spent- 15 minutes. Total money spent- 1 postage stamp. Luckily we didn't bounce any checks because of it- that simplified the process.
The WD drive is just a PATA drive with SATA front end put on it also. In fact, the first SATA release of every major drive manufacturer (IBM/Hitachi,WD,Maxtor,Samsung,Seagate,Fujitsu) is just a PATA drive with a SATA front end.
The Seagate drives out there are actually the closest to a pure SATA implementation available. Everybody else used a transceiver (phy) part from Marvell, but Seagate actually did their own SATA logic with a phy from LSI.
Q. Did you ever say, as has been widely circulated on the Internet, "640K [of RAM] ought to be enough for anybody?" No! That makes me so mad I can't believe it! Do you realize the pain the industry went through while the IBM PC was limited to 640K? The machine was going to be 512K at one point, and we kept pushing it up. I never said that statement-I said the opposite of that.
QUESTION: I read in a newspaper that in 1981 you said, ``640K of memory should be enough for anybody.'' What did you mean when you said this?
ANSWER: I've said some stupid things and some wrong things, but not that. No one involved in computers would ever say that a certain amount of memory is enough for all time.
Actually, memory stick devices are made by dozens of companies (companies like Kenwood, Pioneer, Mitsubishi, Sharp, Acer, Fujitsu, Samsung, HP, and Lexmark).
And I doubt the $4 is the licensing fee. According to memorystick.org, the licensing fees to develop a memory stick product are 500,000 Yen/year (about $4,000) with no running royalty.
No it isn't. The 4 MB is the size of the flash ROM. I don't think I have ever seen a memory stick smaller than 8 MB anyway. This PDA uses a standard memory stick slot.
Just because they delayed release of their Clawhammer products doesn't mean they're having problems.
Yes it does. They have delayed the release many times, and that is almost always because of unforeseen problems. Most industry analysts believe it is because of manufacturing problems with SOI, and AMD has pretty much admitted this is the case. With the current yields, they probably won't be able to clock the chips higher than 1.8 GHz, and that might not even be fast enough to beat the fastest Barton chips (with 32 bit code).
You might notice that before the recording starts, there are those 3 tones. That is what the telezapper sends, and that is what tells the telemarketer's computer that the number is disconnected.
Many large ISPs (Earthlink comes to mind) block outgoing requests to port 25 to deter SPAM, but that effectivly limits most customers to only be able to use the ISP's own SMTP server. With your solution, that would mean that Earthlink customers would only be able to use @earthlink.net addresses- not an ideal solution.
getting people to the point where they don't buy or use anyone else's stuff.
Are you high? Take a step back and look at the THOUSANDS of profitable companies that make software for Windows. Take a look in your local CompUSA sometime to see how much non-Microsoft software is available for Windows. Look at the most popular downloads at download.com and see that there are MILLIONS of non MS software applications for Windows downloaded every week (only 1 thing from Microsoft in the top 25).
It's trying to control all aspects of the market
Its trying to increase shareholder value, which is true of every single other corporation in the world.
Wrong. I don't know who this Greg Palast is but I highly doubt he is an objective researcher if he concluded that only five people on the list for wrong reasons. If that was an actual fact Florida would not have settled.
He isn't an objective researcher- he is a partisan reporter devoted to attacking Bush, and he still couldn't come up with anything more substantial than that.
Wrong. They were in charge, you can't be in charge and then pass the buck on to your underlings. If that's their line they are really foul people. Give people orders and then when shit hits the fan point to them and say "it wasn't my fault", how slimy can you get.
Actually, you are wrong. A quick look at the 1998 Florida Statute shows that by law the individual county election supervisors were responsible for verifying the names on the list, and not the Governor or Secretary of State or anybody else. Take a look at section 98.0975(4):
(4) Upon receiving the list from the division, the supervisor must attempt to verify the information provided. If the supervisor does not determine that the information provided by the division is incorrect, the supervisor must remove from the registration books by the next subsequent election the name of any person who is deceased, convicted of a felony, or adjudicated mentally incapacitated with respect to voting.
If somebody was incorrectly on the list and they were prevented from voting, by law it is the county supervisors fault. Also, the private firm that made the list (DBT) was contracted in 1998 by the Florida Division of Elections Director Ethel Baxter, and she is a Democrat. Katherine Harris wasn't even Secretary of State then.
It was an effort to put obstacles in front of black people to discourage and prevent people from voting.
No, it was an effort to prevent a repeat of the widespread fraud in the 1997 elections where several dead people and convicted felons somehow ended up voting. Remember that the NAACP isn't even claiming discrimination.
I said it before but apparently you did not even bother reading my last post. You can not prevent people from voting unless they jump through your hoops
And apparently you didn't bother reading my last post where I agreed that it wasn't fair. Guess what? Florida agreed too because they changed the process. The 2000 election was the first election after the 1998 law was passed, so they had no way of knowing it would fail so bad. But in spite of the failures, NOBODY has been able to find a single person that actually was prevented from voting (and several reporters have tried). Mr. Palast found these 5 names that were wrong on the original list, and a Democrat Florida congresswoman claimed that she saw "2 or 3" black men told they were convicted felons and turned away at a precinct, but she refused to give any more details when reporters questioned her about it.
Jeb Bush set the clock back to Jim Crow with this one.
Jeb Bush was responsible for this? That's funny, I thought the legislature writes and passes laws, not the Governor...
Republicanazi response number two. "Anybody who disagrees with me is a commie, socialist, pinko fag, atheist, tree hugging feminst facist". I have heard it many times from dittoheads like you.
That was so riddled with hypocrisy I don't think I need to respond to it.
The fact that the American media has not followed this story tells me that the media is overwhlmingly republican. Liberals have no voice.
If you truly believe that, then you probably think that Karl Marx would have been a Republican too.
Do you need for me to say that again? You keep insisting that these people were felons and they were not. They were tagged as felons in order to prevent them from voting.
Well, it seems like you and some partisan reporter from the BBC that is trying to make a name for himself are the only ones claiming this. Lets look again at some of the facts of this story:
There were about 100,000 names on the list, and after all of the research Greg Palast did, he was only able to identify 5 people that were incorrectly put on the list
Gov Bush and Catherine Harris did not stop anybody from voting- the list was sent to the individual counties as a guide to help them enforce the laws, and many counties completely ignored the list anyway. The counties made the final call about who would be affected
Everybody that was removed from the voter registration was given notice months before the election, and they were given a procedure to dispute the decision
It probably was not fair that some innocent people had to jump through these hoops to vote (thats what the NAACP lawsuit was about, and that has been corrected), but if an innocent person didn't follow the dispute process, they share the blame for not being able to vote
You might notice that aside from some socialist at the BBC that clearly dislikes Bush, no other media outlets have picked up on this story. That should tell you something.
Is that why Florida Democrats organized an effort to have absentee ballots from military personnel thrown out?
The Florida law that prohibits convicted felons from voting has been in the books for YEARS. This was not some last minute crackpot scheme to help Bush. What Katherine Harris et. al. did was not illegal- on the contrary it was enforcing existing laws. The NAACP lawsuit (a civil suit, btw) was only to change the somewhat sloppy implementation of the convicted felon list, and the NAACP concedes that most of the changes that they requested were made before the suit was even filed. If you are upset that Florida doesn't let convicted felons vote, then why aren't you complaining about the 13 other states with similar laws? In fact, 46 states have laws that somehow restrict the voting rights of convicted felons. Florida is not alone in this.
I think its funny that you are still claiming that this some sort of conspiracy against the minority Florida voters when the very group that represented these minorities was very explicit that they were not alleging discrimination or fraud.
Yeah, I can't do that because of the PPPoA (the PPP connection sits directly on the ATM device). I have a few DSL modems sitting in my drawer that are useless now, and my old router that I used with my previous DSL connections now sits behind the new router they sent to me and I had to turn almost everything off on it (my old router is basically just a 7 port switch with a print server now).
Thats ok because the new router has a better firewall, and almost all of the features that my old router used to have (I kind of miss the DMZ feature, though- quick and dirty way to get something running).
My DSL provider sent me a DSL modem with a built in NAT router, so I guess they are ok with it. Its a good thing they did, though, because they use PPPoA instead of PPPoE, so that rules out a majority of the broadband routers on the market.
The router they sent also has a SPI firewall- not bad considering it was free.
for example, I hooked up my brother's machine to my monitor to install; when they brought it home and hooked it up to their monitor (way crappier than mine) it didn't work. It took me about 2 hours to convince Win98 to work with that monitor (which BTW is a standard VGA monitor)
And manually entering in the horizontal and vertical refresh rates of your monitor to configure X (which can cause serious damage if you get them wrong) is sooooooo much more user friendly.
With the emphasis on speed speed speed, MHz is everything, Intel spent all of its money on clock-cycles and lost sight of efficiency.
Intel's emphasis for the P4 was on performance, and one way to increase performance is to increase the pipeline depth. This approach is just as valid as AMD's strategy, and judging by AMD's troubles increasing clock speed and manufacturing problems, perhaps Intel is on to something.
If you are looking for efficiency from Intel, take a look at the P4M or centrino lines.
You won't see an Itanium 2 in a laptop, but you might see a PPC 970
Intel would cringe to see an Itanium in a laptop- it wasn't even designed for desktop use. Itanium is competing against the Ultra Sparq's of the world for huge $20k+ MP servers.
Lousy I/O? Care to be a bit more specific? Are you talking about FSB or memory bandwidth? Bandwidth between northbridge and southbridge (v-link, i-link, etc)? I/O to integrated HDD or USB controllers? PCI? Super IO? LPC?
There are dozens of types of I/O on an x86 system- some of them are great, some of them are "lousy", and many of them don't require anything faster than they already have (like keyboard). But as is, your comment doesnt make very much sense.
Yes- I'm well aware of how the XP numbering system is supposed to work. I haven't seen any benchmarks yet- maybe the Barton core does help that much, but those numbers look pretty optimistic IMO.
BTW- I guess you haven't looked at many benchmarks. Here are some for your reference. The XP 2800 is pretty close to the P4 2.8 Ghz with a slight edge to the P4, but the 3.06 P4 beats the Athlon pretty soundly.
Slashdot Mirror
AMD's delay of Athlon64 has little to do with Microsoft, and is more about AMD's problems with SOI and inability to scale the clock speed.
When I was on vacation in Europe a few years back, I was unable to withdraw money from several ATMs one day (all of the ATMs gave error messages about not being able to verify the transaction or something). Finally, we found an ATM that worked, and we went on our merry way. When we got home, there were 3 ATM withdrawls that day for the same amount when only 1 of the transactions actually finished.
We wrote a letter to the bank, explained the situation, and a few days later they gave us a provisional credit for the extra transactions. About 2 months later we got a letter confirming that "errors" had occurred, and the provisional credit would stand.
Total time spent- 15 minutes. Total money spent- 1 postage stamp. Luckily we didn't bounce any checks because of it- that simplified the process.
The WD drive is just a PATA drive with SATA front end put on it also. In fact, the first SATA release of every major drive manufacturer (IBM/Hitachi,WD,Maxtor,Samsung,Seagate,Fujitsu) is just a PATA drive with a SATA front end.
The Seagate drives out there are actually the closest to a pure SATA implementation available. Everybody else used a transceiver (phy) part from Marvell, but Seagate actually did their own SATA logic with a phy from LSI.
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/biztech/gatesivu.htm
http://www.urbanlegends.com/celebrities/bill.gate
Actually, memory stick devices are made by dozens of companies (companies like Kenwood, Pioneer, Mitsubishi, Sharp, Acer, Fujitsu, Samsung, HP, and Lexmark).
And I doubt the $4 is the licensing fee. According to memorystick.org, the licensing fees to develop a memory stick product are 500,000 Yen/year (about $4,000) with no running royalty.
The stick mentioned is 4 mb.
No it isn't. The 4 MB is the size of the flash ROM. I don't think I have ever seen a memory stick smaller than 8 MB anyway. This PDA uses a standard memory stick slot.
Just because they delayed release of their Clawhammer products doesn't mean they're having problems.
Yes it does. They have delayed the release many times, and that is almost always because of unforeseen problems. Most industry analysts believe it is because of manufacturing problems with SOI, and AMD has pretty much admitted this is the case. With the current yields, they probably won't be able to clock the chips higher than 1.8 GHz, and that might not even be fast enough to beat the fastest Barton chips (with 32 bit code).
http://www.tech-report.com/onearticle.x/4685
Also, I would bet that Microsoft will wait until there is a 64 bit consumer chip before it releases a 64 bit consumer OS.
So Borland Delphi and 6 other applications wont run without admin rights, and somehow that is Microsoft's fault? Why not blame Borland?
You might notice that before the recording starts, there are those 3 tones. That is what the telezapper sends, and that is what tells the telemarketer's computer that the number is disconnected.
Many large ISPs (Earthlink comes to mind) block outgoing requests to port 25 to deter SPAM, but that effectivly limits most customers to only be able to use the ISP's own SMTP server. With your solution, that would mean that Earthlink customers would only be able to use @earthlink.net addresses- not an ideal solution.
getting people to the point where they don't buy or use anyone else's stuff.
Are you high? Take a step back and look at the THOUSANDS of profitable companies that make software for Windows. Take a look in your local CompUSA sometime to see how much non-Microsoft software is available for Windows. Look at the most popular downloads at download.com and see that there are MILLIONS of non MS software applications for Windows downloaded every week (only 1 thing from Microsoft in the top 25).
It's trying to control all aspects of the market
Its trying to increase shareholder value, which is true of every single other corporation in the world.
Here is a summary for the people that don't want to read this entire rant:
ShatteredDream is not going to vote to re-elect Congressman Goodlatte.
Hope this helps.
2 decades? You mean he started all this corporatization stuff and repealing laws when he was 19?
He isn't an objective researcher- he is a partisan reporter devoted to attacking Bush, and he still couldn't come up with anything more substantial than that.
Wrong. They were in charge, you can't be in charge and then pass the buck on to your underlings. If that's their line they are really foul people. Give people orders and then when shit hits the fan point to them and say "it wasn't my fault", how slimy can you get.
Actually, you are wrong. A quick look at the 1998 Florida Statute shows that by law the individual county election supervisors were responsible for verifying the names on the list, and not the Governor or Secretary of State or anybody else. Take a look at section 98.0975(4):
If somebody was incorrectly on the list and they were prevented from voting, by law it is the county supervisors fault. Also, the private firm that made the list (DBT) was contracted in 1998 by the Florida Division of Elections Director Ethel Baxter, and she is a Democrat. Katherine Harris wasn't even Secretary of State then.
It was an effort to put obstacles in front of black people to discourage and prevent people from voting.
No, it was an effort to prevent a repeat of the widespread fraud in the 1997 elections where several dead people and convicted felons somehow ended up voting. Remember that the NAACP isn't even claiming discrimination.
I said it before but apparently you did not even bother reading my last post. You can not prevent people from voting unless they jump through your hoops
And apparently you didn't bother reading my last post where I agreed that it wasn't fair. Guess what? Florida agreed too because they changed the process. The 2000 election was the first election after the 1998 law was passed, so they had no way of knowing it would fail so bad. But in spite of the failures, NOBODY has been able to find a single person that actually was prevented from voting (and several reporters have tried). Mr. Palast found these 5 names that were wrong on the original list, and a Democrat Florida congresswoman claimed that she saw "2 or 3" black men told they were convicted felons and turned away at a precinct, but she refused to give any more details when reporters questioned her about it.
Jeb Bush set the clock back to Jim Crow with this one.
Jeb Bush was responsible for this? That's funny, I thought the legislature writes and passes laws, not the Governor...
Republicanazi response number two. "Anybody who disagrees with me is a commie, socialist, pinko fag, atheist, tree hugging feminst facist". I have heard it many times from dittoheads like you.
That was so riddled with hypocrisy I don't think I need to respond to it.
The fact that the American media has not followed this story tells me that the media is overwhlmingly republican. Liberals have no voice.
If you truly believe that, then you probably think that Karl Marx would have been a Republican too.
Well, it seems like you and some partisan reporter from the BBC that is trying to make a name for himself are the only ones claiming this. Lets look again at some of the facts of this story:
There were about 100,000 names on the list, and after all of the research Greg Palast did, he was only able to identify 5 people that were incorrectly put on the list
Gov Bush and Catherine Harris did not stop anybody from voting- the list was sent to the individual counties as a guide to help them enforce the laws, and many counties completely ignored the list anyway. The counties made the final call about who would be affected
Everybody that was removed from the voter registration was given notice months before the election, and they were given a procedure to dispute the decision
It probably was not fair that some innocent people had to jump through these hoops to vote (thats what the NAACP lawsuit was about, and that has been corrected), but if an innocent person didn't follow the dispute process, they share the blame for not being able to vote
You might notice that aside from some socialist at the BBC that clearly dislikes Bush, no other media outlets have picked up on this story. That should tell you something.
In a close election every vote counts.
Is that why Florida Democrats organized an effort to have absentee ballots from military personnel thrown out?
The Florida law that prohibits convicted felons from voting has been in the books for YEARS. This was not some last minute crackpot scheme to help Bush. What Katherine Harris et. al. did was not illegal- on the contrary it was enforcing existing laws. The NAACP lawsuit (a civil suit, btw) was only to change the somewhat sloppy implementation of the convicted felon list, and the NAACP concedes that most of the changes that they requested were made before the suit was even filed. If you are upset that Florida doesn't let convicted felons vote, then why aren't you complaining about the 13 other states with similar laws? In fact, 46 states have laws that somehow restrict the voting rights of convicted felons. Florida is not alone in this.
I think its funny that you are still claiming that this some sort of conspiracy against the minority Florida voters when the very group that represented these minorities was very explicit that they were not alleging discrimination or fraud.
The top 1% of the wage earners in the US account for 20.81% of all income, but they contribute 37.42% of all income tax collected
The 80-20 rule DOES apply here: the richest 25% account for 84.01% of all income taxes collected
The top 50% of the wage earners in the US account for over 96% of all tax revenue
The upper 5% SHOULD be paying that much because they make that much more.
The upper 5% earn 35.30% of the income, and they account for 56.47% of all income taxes. They are paying way more than their share.
Education? I thought it was indoctrination.
Yeah, I can't do that because of the PPPoA (the PPP connection sits directly on the ATM device). I have a few DSL modems sitting in my drawer that are useless now, and my old router that I used with my previous DSL connections now sits behind the new router they sent to me and I had to turn almost everything off on it (my old router is basically just a 7 port switch with a print server now).
Thats ok because the new router has a better firewall, and almost all of the features that my old router used to have (I kind of miss the DMZ feature, though- quick and dirty way to get something running).
My DSL provider sent me a DSL modem with a built in NAT router, so I guess they are ok with it. Its a good thing they did, though, because they use PPPoA instead of PPPoE, so that rules out a majority of the broadband routers on the market.
The router they sent also has a SPI firewall- not bad considering it was free.
for example, I hooked up my brother's machine to my monitor to install; when they brought it home and hooked it up to their monitor (way crappier than mine) it didn't work. It took me about 2 hours to convince Win98 to work with that monitor (which BTW is a standard VGA monitor)
And manually entering in the horizontal and vertical refresh rates of your monitor to configure X (which can cause serious damage if you get them wrong) is sooooooo much more user friendly.
Give me a break.
With the emphasis on speed speed speed, MHz is everything, Intel spent all of its money on clock-cycles and lost sight of efficiency.
Intel's emphasis for the P4 was on performance, and one way to increase performance is to increase the pipeline depth. This approach is just as valid as AMD's strategy, and judging by AMD's troubles increasing clock speed and manufacturing problems, perhaps Intel is on to something.
If you are looking for efficiency from Intel, take a look at the P4M or centrino lines.
You won't see an Itanium 2 in a laptop, but you might see a PPC 970
Intel would cringe to see an Itanium in a laptop- it wasn't even designed for desktop use. Itanium is competing against the Ultra Sparq's of the world for huge $20k+ MP servers.
Lousy I/O? Care to be a bit more specific? Are you talking about FSB or memory bandwidth? Bandwidth between northbridge and southbridge (v-link, i-link, etc)? I/O to integrated HDD or USB controllers? PCI? Super IO? LPC?
There are dozens of types of I/O on an x86 system- some of them are great, some of them are "lousy", and many of them don't require anything faster than they already have (like keyboard). But as is, your comment doesnt make very much sense.
Who cares? This is a great proof-of-concept. Once it has been implemented using DES, it is pretty trivial to switch to another block cipher like AES.
Yes- I'm well aware of how the XP numbering system is supposed to work. I haven't seen any benchmarks yet- maybe the Barton core does help that much, but those numbers look pretty optimistic IMO.
BTW- I guess you haven't looked at many benchmarks. Here are some for your reference. The XP 2800 is pretty close to the P4 2.8 Ghz with a slight edge to the P4, but the 3.06 P4 beats the Athlon pretty soundly.