If it was added afterwards, the content was posted without restriction.
Except that IA says they'll let you use robots.txt to retroactively revoke access to archived web pages. They probably made a best effort to comply with this, and likely were unable to retrieve a current robots.txt file from a busy site on some occasions leading them to provide the pages as requested.
If robots.txt were a true Access Control Mechnism, then it would need to act something like this:
Spider: Hi, I'm an Internet Spider, may I access this page?
RT: No, no, one thousand and twenty-four times NO! I will not give this page to a spider.
Spider: Okay. How about this other page?
If this were the case, then the only way of bypassing this mechnism -- and one that would violate the sprirt (IMHO), if not the letter (IANAL), of the DCMA would be for your Spider to not identify itself as a spider. Then it would be trying to trick an Access Control Mechnism.
BTW, it's my on opinion that once you publish a page on the Internet for public viewing, you cannot complain if they've Time-Shifted that viewing to a later point by recording -- ur, saving -- it on recordable media. Seems to me that the plantifs are totally wrong, got caught at it by their own web-postings, and are now trying to kill the messenger.
I think it is time for people to get off Intel's case and propose a new instruction set and so forth
They did. It's called AMD64, and Intel copied it.
Besides, your argument fails because once upon a time AMD and Intel signed a broad cross-licensing agreement to provide for a second source, which was once necessary to sucessfully sell in this industry. That agreement entitled each of them to the other's intellectual property. So the question of who came up with x86 chips is moot once you know the history.
AMD just raised its prices recently on its top processors.
I don't believe AMD raised the price on any existing processors, as your statement implies.
Instead I believe they brought out new, faster, and dual-core processors at higher prices than the already-on-the-market existing processor's prices. That is not "raising prices".
As I said in another thread that was not as sharply focused on this issue as this one: I would like to see Intel decleared -- and punished -- as a monopoly.
Why? Because I think it would result in lower prices to me. While regulated monopolies (phone, electric, gas, etc.) may be necessary in order to only build a single service infrastructure, I have yet to see a market monopoly declare: Now that we've eliminated the competition, let's lower prices and improve our service!
Different code being generated. Did they really think someone wouldn't figure this out?
The stores that got them late lost out on a lot of sales, and stores that got them early quickly sold out.
And the store that got them late sold them to the people who didn't get them from the store that sold out early. Those people still wanted to buy the book.
Don't you just love people who feel it's their God-given right to control your life to every extent possible? You are NOT allowed to purchase or read this book until we say so -- so there!
I do hope someone puts page scans of the entire book out there ASAP. It would serve them right.
And I wouldn't have felt this way at all if the books had just been put on sale when they arrived at the stories. Maybe I just don't like being teased as in: We have the book, but you can't have it yet.
I guess this is all appropriate for a "children's book" since the publishers are acting like children here!
Interesting how quickly this got clear to the Supreme Court. Glad to know they weren't busy with any important business.
I would like to see Intel decleared -- and punished -- as a monopoly.
Why? Because I think it would result in lower prices to me. While regulated monopolies (phone, electric, gas, etc.) may be necessary in order to only build a single service infrastructure, I have yet to see a market monopoly declare: Now that we've eliminated the competition, let's lower prices and improve our service!
Intel is clearly taking lessons from Microsoft. A couple modest examples:
1: Both are monopolies (Intel case is being proven now).
2: Both want to continue acting as if they not monopolies.
3: Both are taking until Version 3 to get it mostly right.
Price drops have already had some effect. In 2002, a two-processor Itanium server cost about $18,000 (£9,859). With the new chips, a similarly configured system can sell for less than $8,000, while basic one-processor Itanium servers will go for just more than $2,000.
Boy, that second processor for only $6000 over the single-processor system is a real killer. Definitely a Beowolf cluster of single-processor boxes is the way to go.
On giving this a calm reading some things jump out:
I am not affiliated with the Itanium or the top500 list in any way.
Sounds like PR Bilge to me. And if only FP performance mattered, then the Cell processor would Rule Them All.
As in recent years the Itanium does well, easily beating x86 processors even at its low clockspeed (1.4Ghz).
See note above about FP performance not being the be and end all of what many of us use our processors for.
We'll be paying for x86 compatibility indefinitely.
Don't know about you, but I think we'll pretty much all be running under the quite-a-bit-nicer AMD64 a lot sooner than indefinitely. Even holdout Apple has now blessed the Intel ISA future roadmap.
So it's statements like the above leading me to call it Bilge.
Having an affordable chip one step above a Xeon or Opteron in floating-point performance would not be such a bad thing for gaming enthusiasts (or 3D artists).
Why this chip is not for me are two reasons:
1: I'm not buying one before the software is ported to it -- and at a comparable price to its PC equivalent!
2: It may be a step above an Opteron for floating point, but is it still that step about a dual processor Opteron that I can buy today for less money than a mono-processor Itantium?
As for the "Itanic" jokes (all of which are way off-base, since heat output of any H.M.S. Itanic would melt any iceberg long before it could do any damage), blame The Register. I saw them use the term long before anyone else.
This case should not set a precident. If he hadn't been using them for malware, or violating Google's trademark, he should have been allowed to keep them IMHO.
I would use the patented, trademarked Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field, declare Mount Fuji to be IBM, that empty field next to it to be Intel, and the mountain would move itself.
Slashdot Mirror
Except that IA says they'll let you use robots.txt to retroactively revoke access to archived web pages. They probably made a best effort to comply with this, and likely were unable to retrieve a current robots.txt file from a busy site on some occasions leading them to provide the pages as requested.
And since every new standard sans OGG tries to include the latest & greatest DRM, none of them will uncrown MP3 as long as players remain available.
Spider: Hi, I'm an Internet Spider, may I access this page?
RT: No, no, one thousand and twenty-four times NO! I will not give this page to a spider.
Spider: Okay. How about this other page?
If this were the case, then the only way of bypassing this mechnism -- and one that would violate the sprirt (IMHO), if not the letter (IANAL), of the DCMA would be for your Spider to not identify itself as a spider. Then it would be trying to trick an Access Control Mechnism.
BTW, it's my on opinion that once you publish a page on the Internet for public viewing, you cannot complain if they've Time-Shifted that viewing to a later point by recording -- ur, saving -- it on recordable media. Seems to me that the plantifs are totally wrong, got caught at it by their own web-postings, and are now trying to kill the messenger.
They did. It's called AMD64, and Intel copied it.
Besides, your argument fails because once upon a time AMD and Intel signed a broad cross-licensing agreement to provide for a second source, which was once necessary to sucessfully sell in this industry. That agreement entitled each of them to the other's intellectual property. So the question of who came up with x86 chips is moot once you know the history.
I don't believe AMD raised the price on any existing processors, as your statement implies.
Instead I believe they brought out new, faster, and dual-core processors at higher prices than the already-on-the-market existing processor's prices. That is not "raising prices".
Why? Because I think it would result in lower prices to me. While regulated monopolies (phone, electric, gas, etc.) may be necessary in order to only build a single service infrastructure, I have yet to see a market monopoly declare: Now that we've eliminated the competition, let's lower prices and improve our service!
Different code being generated. Did they really think someone wouldn't figure this out?
And the store that got them late sold them to the people who didn't get them from the store that sold out early. Those people still wanted to buy the book.
I do hope someone puts page scans of the entire book out there ASAP. It would serve them right.
And I wouldn't have felt this way at all if the books had just been put on sale when they arrived at the stories. Maybe I just don't like being teased as in: We have the book, but you can't have it yet.
I guess this is all appropriate for a "children's book" since the publishers are acting like children here!
Interesting how quickly this got clear to the Supreme Court. Glad to know they weren't busy with any important business.
Why? Because I think it would result in lower prices to me. While regulated monopolies (phone, electric, gas, etc.) may be necessary in order to only build a single service infrastructure, I have yet to see a market monopoly declare: Now that we've eliminated the competition, let's lower prices and improve our service!
1: Both are monopolies (Intel case is being proven now).
2: Both want to continue acting as if they not monopolies.
3: Both are taking until Version 3 to get it mostly right.
Case closed.
Boy, that second processor for only $6000 over the single-processor system is a real killer. Definitely a Beowolf cluster of single-processor boxes is the way to go.
I am not affiliated with the Itanium or the top500 list in any way.
Sounds like PR Bilge to me. And if only FP performance mattered, then the Cell processor would Rule Them All.
As in recent years the Itanium does well, easily beating x86 processors even at its low clockspeed (1.4Ghz).
See note above about FP performance not being the be and end all of what many of us use our processors for.
We'll be paying for x86 compatibility indefinitely.
Don't know about you, but I think we'll pretty much all be running under the quite-a-bit-nicer AMD64 a lot sooner than indefinitely. Even holdout Apple has now blessed the Intel ISA future roadmap.
So it's statements like the above leading me to call it Bilge.
Melt?
(Aiming for the PITHY +1 Moderation)
Why this chip is not for me are two reasons:
1: I'm not buying one before the software is ported to it -- and at a comparable price to its PC equivalent!
2: It may be a step above an Opteron for floating point, but is it still that step about a dual processor Opteron that I can buy today for less money than a mono-processor Itantium?
As for the "Itanic" jokes (all of which are way off-base, since heat output of any H.M.S. Itanic would melt any iceberg long before it could do any damage), blame The Register. I saw them use the term long before anyone else.
Let me give you a hint.
NO!
So if they're going to make any statement about it at all, this is the one it will be. Anybody having trouble understanding this?
Will Apple now announce/leak out that each post-Tiger OS is also compiled in the lab for PPC platforms?
This case should not set a precident. If he hadn't been using them for malware, or violating Google's trademark, he should have been allowed to keep them IMHO.
You're right, I was. Britney was on the thoughts because of the fallout of her reported trist with Fred Durst, and as a result I mixed up my bimbos.
Until somebody gets Britney's Spears' calling list. That would be just about as good as her directory was.
And I'm sure that P2P users can't barely wait.
Why did they even bother with this farce?
Sorkin clearly pissed someone off who keeps putting him on the Microsoft interview list.
Where can I find this person, and what does it take to really piss him off?
I would use the patented, trademarked Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field, declare Mount Fuji to be IBM, that empty field next to it to be Intel, and the mountain would move itself.
7. PROFIT! 8. PRICELESS! 9. PROFIT witout PRICE is WORTHLESS!
Talk about a misspelling!
Maybe he's hoping not be modded FLAMEBAIT -1.