The problem is that when you get a cable box from the cable company, you're renting it, you don't own it.
Also, the DMCA doesn't forbid you doing this hardware mod. If it did apply to this (which I'm not sure it does), it would forbid the act of telling other people how to do it. Kinda like a Linux help channel. "I figured out how to do it, but RTFM and figure it out for yourself."
LOL, Informative? I give you props, Mista SupaDuG. That's the funniest post I've read in quite a while....Informative? He sounds like he works for Wired! This is a joke! HAW HAW FUNNY JOKE HE MAKE ME SMILE BCUZ HE IS FUNNIE.:D
I must've been asleep. Hyperlinks to a publicly accessible file are illegal?
Me: "Hey random friend, you should check out this book at the library. It's not in their index, but it's on the shelf so nobody really knows about it. It's really informative."
Librarian: "No, that book isn't in our index yet. It might be on the shelf for public consumption, but you can't tell people it's there before we do. *calls police*"
You, sir, are either a troll or a moron. When you pay taxes to the government, it's because you use their services. I buy maybe 3 CDs per year. Not because I am a pirate, but because I don't like anything that I can buy. Now why should I, a broadband customer and legal owner of my entire playlist, be forced to pay for a service just because I happen to have an internet connection?
Registrant: RIAA (RIAA-DOM)
1330 Connecticut Ave., NW #300
Washington
DC,20036
US
Domain Name: RIAA.COM
Administrative Contact:
McCaffrey, Howard (HM66) hmccaffrey@RIAA.COM
Recording Industry Association of America, Inc.
1330 Connecticut Ave., NW Suite 300
Washington, DC 20036
202-857-9618 (FAX) 202-775-7253
Technical Contact:
Global Network Management Center (VXGTRUVDOO) rm-hostmaster@EMS.ATT.COM
AT&T DNS Service
3324 Hollenberg
Bridgeton, MO 63044
US
314-264-9672
Fax- 314-264-9647
Record expires on 26-Oct-2005.
Record created on 27-Oct-1994.
Database last updated on 18-Jan-2003 16:42:22 EST.
Charge me $10 a month for pirating, and I'm licensed to download what I want. Let's see if *anybody* buys music once it's legal to download it. I can't see how this is going to make them extra money. In fact, I think they'll lose money. Why would -- hey...
Let's let them do it! Would you pay $10 a month for a year if it made the RIAA drown in their own stupidity?
Whooooops.... Now we know I'm not a web developer. That was supposed to read:
I think the closest you'll get is an Antec. Please, prove me wrong somebody. I hate my PC's case.... Perhaps I should use the "Preview" button every once in a while. Mod down to taste.:)
A CPU with hyperthreading enabled will never complete a task faster than two of the same CPUs running parallel with hyperthreading disabled.
Well, of course 2 processors will outperform a single one. Processors have a finite pool of resources. The point of HT is not to perform like dual processor, rather to act like them, increasing the performance of a single CPU at a negligible cost.
Buying 2 processors would cost you twice as much as a single processor, even more when you consider the cost of a motherboard and enough memory to make dual processors a worthwhile investment. You would get roughly double (OK, 1.6x) the performance at double the cost.
Buying a single HT-enabled processor, however, would only cost you 10 or 15% more, and you would be seeing a 20-30% performance increase across the board. I think that's a better deal.
From what I've read, HT doesn't even have a possibility to slow things down. Do you know how multithreading works in an SMP environment?
What HT does is allows this single CPU to pretend to be 2 independent CPUs, effectively splitting it in half (but not necissarily down the middle). The upshot of this is that it can more effectively deal with cache bubbles and all those horrible performance-draining problems Intel chips, with their insanely deep pipelines, are vulnerable to.
Basically, if you only throw a single thread at the processor, only the first virtual processor does the work and the other virtual processor is idle, allowing the entire processing power of the computer to deal with one problem, instead of half of it sitting idle. This is an advantage because HT only requires 5% more transistors, and the net benefit is something like a 20% performance increase. Of course, if you're not doing any work where you actually *use* multithreaded apps, you'll never understand why HT is a big deal.
This post has gone way beyond what I originally intended to say, and instead of rescuing it, I'm just going to kill it now.
Stupid people with money make the decision to buy them.
Intel just needs to realize that they are not, in fact, a high-end manufacturer. They should leave that business to the big boys like IBM and (I never thought I'd say this) Compaq.
So, listen up, Intel - the server market may pay more per chip, but we "mere" home users buy a HELL of a lot more of them
Server chips are sold at an unbelievable markup, though, so they make more profit from them. It's not uncommon to spend a couple grand on a CPU module for a server.
It does. Thanks.
But, I still don't get why IBM is beating Intel in the chip fabbing business. Is IBM that much bigger than Intel? I've thought for a while now that Intel is bigger than IBM. Maybe I should actually research this stuff, it's better than "Days of Our Lives."
(Score:-1, retarded)
The Motorola 85xx chip might be going for use in embedded devices, but I can almost guarantee you that it will *not* be used in a cell phone. A PDA? I doubt it, unless it's compatible with the chips that are already used in PDA's. This chip is more for things like network hardware, cable boxes, cars, and the like. It draws too much power to put it in a cell phone, and it's not quite powerful enough to put in a desktop.
If you're looking for the next generation of PowerPC chips, look to IBM's PPC970.
With a P4 killer on the way from IBM, who already has a 90nm/300mm plant in operation, I've been expecting Intel to announce that they have smaller, more efficient processes already in operation. But, what's this? Intel is *behind* IBM in the chip fabbing technology? This might bode well for my next Apple purchase. (Assuming my jobless, broke ass finds a job by the time Apple moves to this new CPU.)
Obviously, I don't keep up with this part of the computer world. Is IBM normally ahead of the game when it comes to new chip processes? It seems to me like Intel, whose main priority is processor manufacture and distribution, would be ahead of IBM, who have diversified to the point that I don't even know what their primary product is.
(offtopic: The subject of my response is the exact char limit of the input on the reply page. No point, I just found that amusing.)
Apple is just as bad as any other monopoly. They rabidly attack anything they think might steal some thunder. Witness the banning of "rumor mongers" from the keynote speeches at MacWorld. Notice the C&D orders that are sent daily to the biggest fans the company will ever have. As a company, Apple sucks. As a product, the Macintosh is incredible.
Kinda like Volkswagen. Their cars are legendary, as any fanatic will tell you. They'll conveniently forget that VW used slaves provided by the Nazi party to make their legendary car.
I like Apple's product, but I find the company's actions reprehensible. They viciously and consistently attack their best customers. Whatever. I have no loyalty. I use Windows XP and Mac OS X. According to Microsoft and Apple, my desk should implode.
This new "open architecture" area is probably just unfamiliar territory for Apple. I guess they just need to get used to it.
Slashdot Mirror
Just like Microsoft gets fan mail and people agree with Dubya.
Microsoft gets sued and screamed at when it attempts to bundle more...
Microsoft only got sued for forcing Internet Explorer on the world. Oh yeah, and being the most dishonest company on the face of the planet.
Yeah, just like Apple.
The problem is that when you get a cable box from the cable company, you're renting it, you don't own it.
Also, the DMCA doesn't forbid you doing this hardware mod. If it did apply to this (which I'm not sure it does), it would forbid the act of telling other people how to do it. Kinda like a Linux help channel. "I figured out how to do it, but RTFM and figure it out for yourself."
LOL, Informative? I give you props, Mista SupaDuG. That's the funniest post I've read in quite a while. ...Informative? He sounds like he works for Wired! This is a joke! HAW HAW FUNNY JOKE HE MAKE ME SMILE BCUZ HE IS FUNNIE. :D
I must've been asleep. Hyperlinks to a publicly accessible file are illegal?
Me: "Hey random friend, you should check out this book at the library. It's not in their index, but it's on the shelf so nobody really knows about it. It's really informative."
Librarian: "No, that book isn't in our index yet. It might be on the shelf for public consumption, but you can't tell people it's there before we do. *calls police*"
Pete Townsend? Is that you?
You, sir, are either a troll or a moron. When you pay taxes to the government, it's because you use their services. I buy maybe 3 CDs per year. Not because I am a pirate, but because I don't like anything that I can buy. Now why should I, a broadband customer and legal owner of my entire playlist, be forced to pay for a service just because I happen to have an internet connection?
Fuck that.
Registrant:
RIAA (RIAA-DOM)
1330 Connecticut Ave., NW #300
Washington
DC,20036
US
Domain Name: RIAA.COM
Administrative Contact:
McCaffrey, Howard (HM66) hmccaffrey@RIAA.COM
Recording Industry Association of America, Inc.
1330 Connecticut Ave., NW Suite 300
Washington, DC 20036
202-857-9618 (FAX) 202-775-7253
Technical Contact:
Global Network Management Center (VXGTRUVDOO) rm-hostmaster@EMS.ATT.COM
AT&T DNS Service
3324 Hollenberg
Bridgeton, MO 63044
US
314-264-9672
Fax- 314-264-9647
Record expires on 26-Oct-2005.
Record created on 27-Oct-1994.
Database last updated on 18-Jan-2003 16:42:22 EST.
Domain servers in listed order:
DBRU.BR.NS.ELS-GMS.ATT.NET 199.191.128.106
DMTU.MT.NS.ELS-GMS.ATT.NET 12.127.16.70
Charge me $10 a month for pirating, and I'm licensed to download what I want. Let's see if *anybody* buys music once it's legal to download it. I can't see how this is going to make them extra money. In fact, I think they'll lose money. Why would -- hey...
Let's let them do it! Would you pay $10 a month for a year if it made the RIAA drown in their own stupidity?
No mod points left, damn it. +1 funny
Mine says something along the lines of "OS not present." But I have a cheap board. ;-)
Whooooops.... Now we know I'm not a web developer. That was supposed to read: I think the closest you'll get is an Antec. Please, prove me wrong somebody. I hate my PC's case. ... Perhaps I should use the "Preview" button every once in a while. Mod down to taste. :)
I think the closest you'll get is an . I've looked for this too. Please, prove me wrong somebody. I hate my PC's case.
PowerPC is derived from the POWER architecture, but they are not the same. Very similar, though. http://wombat.doc.ic.ac.uk/foldoc/foldoc.cgi?Power PC
A CPU with hyperthreading enabled will never complete a task faster than two of the same CPUs running parallel with hyperthreading disabled.
Well, of course 2 processors will outperform a single one. Processors have a finite pool of resources. The point of HT is not to perform like dual processor, rather to act like them, increasing the performance of a single CPU at a negligible cost.
Buying 2 processors would cost you twice as much as a single processor, even more when you consider the cost of a motherboard and enough memory to make dual processors a worthwhile investment. You would get roughly double (OK, 1.6x) the performance at double the cost.
Buying a single HT-enabled processor, however, would only cost you 10 or 15% more, and you would be seeing a 20-30% performance increase across the board. I think that's a better deal.
From what I've read, HT doesn't even have a possibility to slow things down. Do you know how multithreading works in an SMP environment?
What HT does is allows this single CPU to pretend to be 2 independent CPUs, effectively splitting it in half (but not necissarily down the middle). The upshot of this is that it can more effectively deal with cache bubbles and all those horrible performance-draining problems Intel chips, with their insanely deep pipelines, are vulnerable to.
Basically, if you only throw a single thread at the processor, only the first virtual processor does the work and the other virtual processor is idle, allowing the entire processing power of the computer to deal with one problem, instead of half of it sitting idle. This is an advantage because HT only requires 5% more transistors, and the net benefit is something like a 20% performance increase. Of course, if you're not doing any work where you actually *use* multithreaded apps, you'll never understand why HT is a big deal.
This post has gone way beyond what I originally intended to say, and instead of rescuing it, I'm just going to kill it now.
I guess Gerstner did his job then. ;-)
Stupid people with money make the decision to buy them.
Intel just needs to realize that they are not, in fact, a high-end manufacturer. They should leave that business to the big boys like IBM and (I never thought I'd say this) Compaq.
So, listen up, Intel - the server market may pay more per chip, but we "mere" home users buy a HELL of a lot more of them Server chips are sold at an unbelievable markup, though, so they make more profit from them. It's not uncommon to spend a couple grand on a CPU module for a server.
It does. Thanks. But, I still don't get why IBM is beating Intel in the chip fabbing business. Is IBM that much bigger than Intel? I've thought for a while now that Intel is bigger than IBM. Maybe I should actually research this stuff, it's better than "Days of Our Lives." (Score:-1, retarded)
The Motorola 85xx chip might be going for use in embedded devices, but I can almost guarantee you that it will *not* be used in a cell phone. A PDA? I doubt it, unless it's compatible with the chips that are already used in PDA's. This chip is more for things like network hardware, cable boxes, cars, and the like. It draws too much power to put it in a cell phone, and it's not quite powerful enough to put in a desktop.
If you're looking for the next generation of PowerPC chips, look to IBM's PPC970.
With a P4 killer on the way from IBM, who already has a 90nm/300mm plant in operation, I've been expecting Intel to announce that they have smaller, more efficient processes already in operation. But, what's this? Intel is *behind* IBM in the chip fabbing technology? This might bode well for my next Apple purchase. (Assuming my jobless, broke ass finds a job by the time Apple moves to this new CPU.)
Obviously, I don't keep up with this part of the computer world. Is IBM normally ahead of the game when it comes to new chip processes? It seems to me like Intel, whose main priority is processor manufacture and distribution, would be ahead of IBM, who have diversified to the point that I don't even know what their primary product is.
(offtopic: The subject of my response is the exact char limit of the input on the reply page. No point, I just found that amusing.) Apple is just as bad as any other monopoly. They rabidly attack anything they think might steal some thunder. Witness the banning of "rumor mongers" from the keynote speeches at MacWorld. Notice the C&D orders that are sent daily to the biggest fans the company will ever have. As a company, Apple sucks. As a product, the Macintosh is incredible.
Kinda like Volkswagen. Their cars are legendary, as any fanatic will tell you. They'll conveniently forget that VW used slaves provided by the Nazi party to make their legendary car.
I like Apple's product, but I find the company's actions reprehensible. They viciously and consistently attack their best customers. Whatever. I have no loyalty. I use Windows XP and Mac OS X. According to Microsoft and Apple, my desk should implode.
This new "open architecture" area is probably just unfamiliar territory for Apple. I guess they just need to get used to it.
Heh. I'm only a slashdot reader because I'm bored.
NOTE FOR THE ORNERY GEEKS AMONG US:
Sarcasm does not translate into plain text!
So now we know, without a doubt, that TCPA is either good or bad.