This is Microsoft's doing. They laid down the law and said there would be only ONE 64-bit version of Windows XP, and since AMD's 64-bit instruction set was out first that's the one they used.
Intel had no choice but to use AMD's instructions if they wanted their chips to be Windows-compatible.
OMFG - so MSFT is the _good guy_ for once? Did hell just freeze over?
Waitaminute. Isn't this a naked exercise of monopoly power?
Being a trailblazer may get you bragging rights, but you risk fragmenting the industry and the market you feed. For the longest time in the 90's AMD and Cyrix went on a follow-quest, and breached the low-cost PC market. Not only did they enhance choice and lower prices, they kept the number of standards down to a minimum. Just imagine what would occur if AMD, in the 1990's, came up with something completely different, but can run exactly the same thing Intel chips can at the same price: the market gets fragmented, prices remain high and stagnant, and no one is the winner until one of the two gets clobbered, eliminating competition in the market and raising prices even further.
It would be hard for AMD or Cyrix to charge the same prices as Intel because they represent the off brand. The market would not fragment, most likely AMD and Cyrix would lose out. Why go with the cloners at the same price? Lower prices at the low end is the only way to get a foothold in the market, especially with Intel pushing a billion dollar consumer branding campaign to differentiate themselves from the competition.
If AMD comes out with "something completely different" (Monty Python Processor - MPP?) that runs exactly the same thing Intel chips can, would anything be changed? If the functionality of the processors is the same, the end-user doesn't know or care about the underlying technology. In fact, AMD got into the game by buying a company that had a RISC based Pentium clone (NexGen?) which was significantly different from the Intel. There are in fact real functional differences with the AMDNow! and SSE instruction sets but the market has been able to adjust. Intel is the nominal leader of x86 technology, but AMD has taken the actual lead in 64bit x86 technology. Had Intel not followed AMD's lead in x86-64 technology, there is a real risk of fragmentation to the extent that OS developers refuse to support both AMD and Intel implementations.
No, you have got it wrong. It should be:
Hey Windows users, you owe me $99.95 a year for some top-secret things I invented last year. Since they are top secret, I can't tell you what they are.
It's funny because McBride successfully sued Microsoft for $250 million for copyright infringement regarding DOS (I'm guessing it was something to do with DR-DOS, which eventually was acquired by Novell).
We do cold and dry much better than hot and caustic. And Mars has all the potential for life evidence (or so we think) so it gets a lot of focus. I think Venus still takes a back seat to the moons of Jupiter. That's where the future action is going to be.
Plus the Martian lobbyists are better funded and better organized than their Venusian counterparts. It's like the NY Yankees (Road Runner) to the Boston Red Sox (Wile E. Coyote).
The whole Linux license fee is a ploy anyway. It's purpose is sowing FUD to existing and prospective Linux users to pressure IBM. License fees are chump change compared to getting IBM to buy them out to make the lawsuit go away.
Just think about the facts of the lawsuit. SCO no longer claims line by line copying of millions of lines of Unix code into Linux, but that IBM's contribution of AIX and Dynix code developed in-house is a violation of SCO's IP, whose ownership is being contested by Novell. SCO's claim is the ultimate in chutzpah.
Nah, Linux, Mac OS X, *BSD, and other *nix users have/dev/null as a trash can.
Trash can? More like a neutron star, 'cause anything you put in it is totally and absolutely gone.
I love that word. Cabal. You see it so rarely in everyday life. I'm going to start using it more.
I love that word too. My favorite usage of the word was in the opening sequence to the original Unreal Tournament game. I try to use cabal as often as possible: "Enron's executive suite is a cabal of thieves", "Slashdot is a cabal or nerds and assorted malcontents", "Today's salad is a cabal beans and lettuce."
I am wondering how comprehensive dshield's database is and how they gather data about infected systems. Once on their database, always on it? If your server has been compromised and reported to dsheild will you bear the stigma forever?
Why assume that China would be on our asses? Even before anyone gets to the brink of war with North Korea, it would be on the North Korean asses. China is trying to pull its standard of living up by engaging with the developed countries. If North Korea tests a nuke, the Japanese and the Taiwanese, who definitely have the ability to build nukes, may feel obligated to embark on a nuclear weapons program. That would be a nightmare scenario for China. It has as much or more to lose from a bellicose North Korea than the United States.
It's the North Koreans who are trying to shake down the US for money with nuclear blackmail. The mental midget who runs N. Korea thinks he can get away with a game of nuclear chicken. I doubt he understands the gravity of his statements or actions.
That's a nice way to insult someone between the lines when you don't know anything about them. My hats off to you.
Thanks, but that was a true story. So much for your sense of humor.
Radar doesn't enter the picture -- thus no "radar lock". Where did I say "dumb-fire" weapon?
I never said "radar lock." You seem to think missile = radar. I gonna tell you and you'll just have to believe it or don't: missile != radar, radar = radar, missile = missile. Hell, I put in a modest discourse about the the variablity of time to acquire a target with IR systems. How on earth could anyone (except you) think I was talking about radar? And regarding your understanding of radar....
Why do you keep coming out with your arrogant "physics-defying technologies" statements?
Why do you insist on making completely idiotic statements about how radar works? It's fairly obvious you are clueless in this area by the way you ascribe to it properties akin to black magic. Then there is the delusional rationale requiring military hardware souped up to Roddenberryesque specifications and cobbled onto the F117A to bolster a flawed premise.
Like you've been pulling your attitude out of your ass?
It seeps from every pore of my body. My pores beat your ass. j/k
I maintained a civil discussion without resorting to name calling or insults.
When posting to an Internet board, one must infer the tone of the poster. When you started by calling me an idiot, I was too narrow minded (as opposed to simple minded) to realize you were engaging in civil discussion. Of course, as your persistent claims about technical capabilities became ever more bizarro, I was being a bit sporty.
I'll close it out by saying that according to some friends of mine it was seriously discussed within the Air Force back in the 80s. It was apparently dismissed as an idea because of the speed limitations of the F-117 and the fact that it would probably have been a suicide mission -- they would probably have made it to the target and shot it down but afterwards they would have been pounced on by dozens of fighters using radar and IR sensors. Escape would have been very hard indeed. It wasn't dismissed as an idea because of a lack of an ability to track the target down or because of an inability to carry AIM-9. Indeed when I asked them if the F-117 could carry Sidewinders they refused to answer yes or no. That's answer enough for me.
I'm assuming this discussion took place after my initial posting that the F117A was not an ideal platform for the AIM-9. Because it sure sounds a helluva lot like what I've been saying, and if you accepted it from your friends, then there was no need to transform an F117A into a Rube Goldberg device.
I don't know what I did to warrant being on the receiving end of your attitude and insults but I'm through with you.
But I'm just warming up.
Re:And where there's brine...
on
Brine on Mars?
·
· Score: 1
So it's like Spam, the meat product in a tin, not the unwanted email.
You have a serious "I know everything" attitude problem. Whereas I've admitted to cases where I've been in the wrong you still refuse to do any such thing. About what I'd expect on/. but still disappointing.
You have a serious "know nothing" problem. Ceasing to promulgate the more fantastic claims after its complete debunking seems a rather pale admission of error.
You still refuse to understand the technology or admit that it's in everyday use. Why is it so hard to understand? It's only a minor step above a fucking radar detector for crying out loud. Are radar detectors Star Trek technology too? Maybe the next time I get pulled over I'll just phaser the bastard when he asks what that little black box on my dash is.
Yeah, you've cited technology that is is in everyday use on ships, submarines and AWACS, which is vastly different from the F117A (I can't believe this needs to be pointed out). You still seem to think that these systems don't need sensor arrays or antenna to pick up radar waves which, in your bizarre world, penetrate the skin of the F117A as if they are gamma rays, get reflected off the internal structures of the F117A only to be trapped by this chicken wire mesh underneath the skin (must work like a roach motel, lets radar/gamma waves check in but not check out). To cope with radar waves that strong, I guess pilots must don lead-lined flight suits with double thickness at the crotch to protect the unborn. Also, the single seater F117A can't carry a radio operator to do the tracking and sychronization of information from the other F117A's as they triangulate the enemy position. No matter, the computer on the Starship Enterprise can talk, a vui, voice-operated user interface. I am a bit concerned that one of the cited systems uses Windows NT, probably running bogus voice recognition software. There's nothing more unfortunate than closing in for the kill and getting the infamous BSOD.
I actually served in the US Coast Guard to put myself through college.
That explains your preference for bolting marine based systems onto the F117A. My grandfather served in the US Coast Guard during WWII. He worked in the kitchen and spent most of his time peeling spuds for the war effort; radar was pretty crude in those days and Harpoon didn't even exist so his services as a cook were more valuable than his mad skills as a radar operator or master theater strategist (talent on loan from Halsey). Had Nimitz spent more time below deck, I'm sure he'd have recognized the brilliance of this humble tater grater. My family's military history could really have been illustrious.
With IR missiles (the type they would have been using in a dogfight btw -- not Sparrows) you wouldn't even hear a radar lock -- it's a growl.
You still think the AIM-9 is a dumb fire weapon. Just pathetic.
Your other Top Gun comment was about promiscuous flight instructors that sleep with hot looking pilots like Tom Cruise. Had you actually been busy reading my replies you would have noted my humor at this -- trying to keep the debate civil.
Believe me, I was laughing. Probably more than intended.
If you had bothered to research the technology behind ESM you would have found airborne versions -- apparently I need to finger-feed you and point you in the right direction.
Hmmm, this "research" is desperate attempt to shore up a discredited argument by Googling for websites. Never mind that these were marine-based or special purpose aircraft based systems. Never mind that these systems require sensor arrays or antenna. Never mind that the F117A is unsuited for the air-to-air role.
I'm done debating this with you.
Promises, promises.
You'll never budge from your position. That said it was an interesting argument -- until you went an
Some people don't understand radar. And some never will.
My point was that a radar return off the F-117 (or B-2) is more likely then not going to be bounced off the internal structure of the aircraft -- since the external structure either absorbs radar signals or reflects them back away from the intended receiver. My other point being that an RWS system could work in theory without external sensors by picking up the transmissions that weren't absorbed by the external structure -- since transmissions that were absorbed (or reflected elsewhere) are no threat.
Convoluted and wrong. The faceting deflects the radar signal away from the source antenna. The RAM is a coating (like paint). Think of a mirror reflecting light (that could be like a normal airplane) and think of a mirror that is tilted from the light source and coated with a varnish dulling its reflective surface (that's what would be the stealth aircraft). It is not entirely invisible but it's got a low profile. The radar signal does not get absorbed through the skin of the aircraft only to be reflected off by the internal structure. Hell, the radar signal can't penetrate crap. This is a total misunderstanding about radar and stealth technology.
None of this is "fantastic capability" or 24th century technology. None of this implies mystical powers on the part of the F-117 (or any other modern aircraft or ship).
It is fantasy if you think that the shipboard and submarine based equipment you've cited can be fitted on an F117A and to further expect it to work without a antenna arrays or any other sensor device for picking up signals.
Now, unlike you, I don't pretend to be a know all expert on modern military technology. But I also don't pretend that just because I don't understand something or haven't heard about it that it must be magical Star Trek technology clearly beyond our current means.
Pretending is all you've been doing. Pulling these pie-in-sky systems out of your ass and bolting them on an F117A outfitted with AIM-9's to hunt AWACS is borderline delusional. I am debunking this masturbatory military fantasy and you are still desperately clinging to your Star Trek technology. Citing shipboard and submarine based systems as support for your arguments is really pathetic.
Harpoon is an all encompassing sea-air battle simulation coined by Larry Bond that is played on paper rules or with PC software. If your interested (it's really quite good) I suggest you check it out [harpoon3.com]. Exocets and F-14s got into the mix because you made the asinine comment about how realistic Top Gun was -- I was blowing this argument out of the water. Talk to any real Naval aviator (or Air Force for that matter) -- they think it's one of the funniest movies ever made. Though they would probably agree with you about the flight instructor sleeping with Tom Cruise part;)
I knew it. A gameboi. Learned everything he knows about military tactics from the God's eye view of a computerbased battlesim. Not bored with the game yet means you haven't figured out the algorithm. As for my Top Gun comments, you'll have to get an adult to read them and break it down into tiny little easily digestible bits for you.
No disagreement. You just don't seem to have an understanding of what modern technology is capable of. Read up on ESM/RWS technology sometime -- I think you'll be surprised at what it's capable of -- and it's hardly new -- it's been around (albeit in more primitive form) since WW2.
Kinda funny that you mentioned WWII. I had a physics professor who worked on radar research during WWII. He actually knew Albert Einstein and related a story about his time at Cal Berkeley in the 1930's where he held in the palm of his hand one of the first ever cyclotrons. Now, that's fantasy stuff, only it's real.
This line of absurdity began when I responded to a posting that the F117A can be fitted with sidewinders. I, too, have heard this but I opined that the F117A far from an ideal platform for the AIM-9 and stated my reasons. That posting spurred a reply about how ideal of a platform the F117A would be for hunting down AWACS and other high-value airborne targets. Now, I think that is an inconceivably bad pairing of aircraft abilities to task. I have no idea how playing Harpoon (whatever that is), Exocets and F-14's got into the mix. Basing the capabilities of the F117A on an flightsim game (assuming that's what Harpoon is) is not a credible argument. Not understanding the fundamental idea that radar works by reflecting back from, not penetrating, the subject aircraft, does not lend weight to an argument. Neither does ascribing fantastic capability to RWS (or is it ESM? How about BVR - Beyond Vague Ranging system?).
Now, one can always harp on what is theoretically possible no matter how improbable or how bad an idea. But I am trying to keep things rooted in the world as it exists now and away from the pie-in-the-sky Star Trek technology which does not exist. Modern warfare is not the same as skirmishing with Klingon battle cruisers. Modern weapons systems are limited by existing technology and the laws of physics, not magic not mysticism. I think I've addressed all pertinent arguments but there is still persistence on the mystical powers of the F117A to track and shoot down airborne targets while still maintaining a low radar profile.
Last year, Hitachi replaced my 60GXP, which failed after a year, with an identical model 60GXP. I've only used the replacement to back up and transfer some data from one drive to another. I will be building a spare box with this drive. Believe me, no critical data will be on this box.
Did you know you can fertilize your lawn with used motor oil?
At a local golf course, I observed a ring of dead tan colored grass surrounding some of the greens. I speculated that they were crop circles. Turns out that they were caused by mowers that were leaking oil.
Slashdot Mirror
That might invite restraint-of-trade lawsuits from virus writers, anti-virus product companies and the women who love them.
It's not necessarily his choice only.
Waitaminute. Isn't this a naked exercise of monopoly power?
How about me2-64? At least, there is some acknowledgement.
It would be hard for AMD or Cyrix to charge the same prices as Intel because they represent the off brand. The market would not fragment, most likely AMD and Cyrix would lose out. Why go with the cloners at the same price? Lower prices at the low end is the only way to get a foothold in the market, especially with Intel pushing a billion dollar consumer branding campaign to differentiate themselves from the competition.
If AMD comes out with "something completely different" (Monty Python Processor - MPP?) that runs exactly the same thing Intel chips can, would anything be changed? If the functionality of the processors is the same, the end-user doesn't know or care about the underlying technology. In fact, AMD got into the game by buying a company that had a RISC based Pentium clone (NexGen?) which was significantly different from the Intel. There are in fact real functional differences with the AMDNow! and SSE instruction sets but the market has been able to adjust. Intel is the nominal leader of x86 technology, but AMD has taken the actual lead in 64bit x86 technology. Had Intel not followed AMD's lead in x86-64 technology, there is a real risk of fragmentation to the extent that OS developers refuse to support both AMD and Intel implementations.
It's funny because McBride successfully sued Microsoft for $250 million for copyright infringement regarding DOS (I'm guessing it was something to do with DR-DOS, which eventually was acquired by Novell).
Great, a pissing match over who registered first.
Plus the Martian lobbyists are better funded and better organized than their Venusian counterparts. It's like the NY Yankees (Road Runner) to the Boston Red Sox (Wile E. Coyote).
Just think about the facts of the lawsuit. SCO no longer claims line by line copying of millions of lines of Unix code into Linux, but that IBM's contribution of AIX and Dynix code developed in-house is a violation of SCO's IP, whose ownership is being contested by Novell. SCO's claim is the ultimate in chutzpah.
Since Microsoft and Sun already have Unix rights, did they get discounts on their Linux licenses?
Nah, Linux, Mac OS X, *BSD, and other *nix users have /dev/null as a trash can.
Trash can? More like a neutron star, 'cause anything you put in it is totally and absolutely gone.
ttl=64
I realize that Mars is a long way away, but how many routers do you think exist between here and there?
That article was too short. They should have included a "HOWTO" in case I forget my password. Oh wait, it's "password". Nevermind.
I am wondering how comprehensive dshield's database is and how they gather data about infected systems. Once on their database, always on it? If your server has been compromised and reported to dsheild will you bear the stigma forever?
It's the North Koreans who are trying to shake down the US for money with nuclear blackmail. The mental midget who runs N. Korea thinks he can get away with a game of nuclear chicken. I doubt he understands the gravity of his statements or actions.
I can't find tin foil at the supermarket. will aluminum foil do?
Thanks, but that was a true story. So much for your sense of humor.
I never said "radar lock." You seem to think missile = radar. I gonna tell you and you'll just have to believe it or don't: missile != radar, radar = radar, missile = missile. Hell, I put in a modest discourse about the the variablity of time to acquire a target with IR systems. How on earth could anyone (except you) think I was talking about radar? And regarding your understanding of radar....
Why do you insist on making completely idiotic statements about how radar works? It's fairly obvious you are clueless in this area by the way you ascribe to it properties akin to black magic. Then there is the delusional rationale requiring military hardware souped up to Roddenberryesque specifications and cobbled onto the F117A to bolster a flawed premise.
It seeps from every pore of my body. My pores beat your ass. j/k
When posting to an Internet board, one must infer the tone of the poster. When you started by calling me an idiot, I was too narrow minded (as opposed to simple minded) to realize you were engaging in civil discussion. Of course, as your persistent claims about technical capabilities became ever more bizarro, I was being a bit sporty.
I'm assuming this discussion took place after my initial posting that the F117A was not an ideal platform for the AIM-9. Because it sure sounds a helluva lot like what I've been saying, and if you accepted it from your friends, then there was no need to transform an F117A into a Rube Goldberg device.
But I'm just warming up.
So it's like Spam, the meat product in a tin, not the unwanted email.
You have a serious "know nothing" problem. Ceasing to promulgate the more fantastic claims after its complete debunking seems a rather pale admission of error.
Yeah, you've cited technology that is is in everyday use on ships, submarines and AWACS, which is vastly different from the F117A (I can't believe this needs to be pointed out). You still seem to think that these systems don't need sensor arrays or antenna to pick up radar waves which, in your bizarre world, penetrate the skin of the F117A as if they are gamma rays, get reflected off the internal structures of the F117A only to be trapped by this chicken wire mesh underneath the skin (must work like a roach motel, lets radar/gamma waves check in but not check out). To cope with radar waves that strong, I guess pilots must don lead-lined flight suits with double thickness at the crotch to protect the unborn. Also, the single seater F117A can't carry a radio operator to do the tracking and sychronization of information from the other F117A's as they triangulate the enemy position. No matter, the computer on the Starship Enterprise can talk, a vui, voice-operated user interface. I am a bit concerned that one of the cited systems uses Windows NT, probably running bogus voice recognition software. There's nothing more unfortunate than closing in for the kill and getting the infamous BSOD.
That explains your preference for bolting marine based systems onto the F117A. My grandfather served in the US Coast Guard during WWII. He worked in the kitchen and spent most of his time peeling spuds for the war effort; radar was pretty crude in those days and Harpoon didn't even exist so his services as a cook were more valuable than his mad skills as a radar operator or master theater strategist (talent on loan from Halsey). Had Nimitz spent more time below deck, I'm sure he'd have recognized the brilliance of this humble tater grater. My family's military history could really have been illustrious.
You still think the AIM-9 is a dumb fire weapon. Just pathetic.
Believe me, I was laughing. Probably more than intended.
Hmmm, this "research" is desperate attempt to shore up a discredited argument by Googling for websites. Never mind that these were marine-based or special purpose aircraft based systems. Never mind that these systems require sensor arrays or antenna. Never mind that the F117A is unsuited for the air-to-air role.
I'm done debating this with you.
Promises, promises.
You'll never budge from your position. That said it was an interesting argument -- until you went an
Convoluted and wrong. The faceting deflects the radar signal away from the source antenna. The RAM is a coating (like paint). Think of a mirror reflecting light (that could be like a normal airplane) and think of a mirror that is tilted from the light source and coated with a varnish dulling its reflective surface (that's what would be the stealth aircraft). It is not entirely invisible but it's got a low profile. The radar signal does not get absorbed through the skin of the aircraft only to be reflected off by the internal structure. Hell, the radar signal can't penetrate crap. This is a total misunderstanding about radar and stealth technology.
It is fantasy if you think that the shipboard and submarine based equipment you've cited can be fitted on an F117A and to further expect it to work without a antenna arrays or any other sensor device for picking up signals.
Pretending is all you've been doing. Pulling these pie-in-sky systems out of your ass and bolting them on an F117A outfitted with AIM-9's to hunt AWACS is borderline delusional. I am debunking this masturbatory military fantasy and you are still desperately clinging to your Star Trek technology. Citing shipboard and submarine based systems as support for your arguments is really pathetic.
I knew it. A gameboi. Learned everything he knows about military tactics from the God's eye view of a computerbased battlesim. Not bored with the game yet means you haven't figured out the algorithm. As for my Top Gun comments, you'll have to get an adult to read them and break it down into tiny little easily digestible bits for you.
Kinda funny that you mentioned WWII. I had a physics professor who worked on radar research during WWII. He actually knew Albert Einstein and related a story about his time at Cal Berkeley in the 1930's where he held in the palm of his hand one of the first ever cyclotrons. Now, that's fantasy stuff, only it's real.
Now, one can always harp on what is theoretically possible no matter how improbable or how bad an idea. But I am trying to keep things rooted in the world as it exists now and away from the pie-in-the-sky Star Trek technology which does not exist. Modern warfare is not the same as skirmishing with Klingon battle cruisers. Modern weapons systems are limited by existing technology and the laws of physics, not magic not mysticism. I think I've addressed all pertinent arguments but there is still persistence on the mystical powers of the F117A to track and shoot down airborne targets while still maintaining a low radar profile.
Last year, Hitachi replaced my 60GXP, which failed after a year, with an identical model 60GXP. I've only used the replacement to back up and transfer some data from one drive to another. I will be building a spare box with this drive. Believe me, no critical data will be on this box.
What happened to Chewbacca?
Did you know you can fertilize your lawn with used motor oil? At a local golf course, I observed a ring of dead tan colored grass surrounding some of the greens. I speculated that they were crop circles. Turns out that they were caused by mowers that were leaking oil.