riiigghht. This is a leak of a part sampling next quarter. And AMD announced, and made a lot of noise, about the clawhammer when, exactly? Can you remember how long/.ers have been posting messages like "I'm holding off on buying a new processor until that Clawhammer comes out". Nobody here told them they were "generating FUD to keep people their side of the fence". Why so different here?
not so. The P4 EE doesn't have ECC. Not that good for a server...
And I very much doubt that the multi CPU support will go away that fast. Spinning a chip and getting it validated takes a very long time indeed. ECC can be disabled with a bond-out change (not that big a deal - doesn't need a silicon spin) but multi CPU support probably can't be disabled in the same way
Irrelevant. The fact is, that is the terms they set for their license. It is up to them, as the copyright holders, to set those terms. Just as authors who choose to license their copyrighted works under the GPL choose terms which some find unfathomable or unnecessary.
If you are the author, it's up to you. If you're not, you can either accept their terms or not read the article or use the software.
If you don't like it, write your own damn articles or your own damn software. Just don't think you can ignore their terms because you don't like them
Wow.. your ability to mix concepts is truly frightening.
Ford sells cars. You must pay Ford to purchase a car. To take a car and deny Ford the compensation is a crime.
NYT sells newspapers. You can either purchase a paper for 25 cents (or whatever their daily costs) in order to personally dispose of your copy, or you can read a shared copy of it in a library for free. NEITHER of these mediums require a registration, nor should they. The library is not guilty of stealing (or conversion) by making a copy of the newspaper available for all readers.
If you take the NYT article and pass it off as your own work, *THAT* is stealing. Re-posting is not (think library). No one has the right to demand your personal information as recompense for a service or product.
bullshit. They have the right to ask whatever they want in return for your being able to read that which they produce at a non-zero cost.
You have the right to refuse to accept their terms, should you so choose.
You absolutely, positively, definitely, do not have the right to refuse their terms but think it is ok to read it anyway
But a lot of Linux people really DONT have any respect for copyrights.
I think it depends who you class as "Linux people". There are, for sure, two classes of people here, and one of them doesn't respect copyrights. I don't think that includes any of the contributors, and it certainly doesn't include me. It just makes me really mad when anybody does this.
If the NYT chooses to ask for a signup in return for permission to view their copyrighted material, you have two choices:
1. Sign up
2. Don't read the damn article
It isn't remotely ok to decide that you want to read what they wrote and not respect what they ask you for in return. If you don't like it, don't read it. You have no excuse for crap like this, ever.
can somebody please explain to me why this was modded down? The post makes a perfectly correct, and fair point. I don't see any redundancy in pointing it out *each* and *every* time somebody pulls this crap.
Please, people, you're giving us a bad name. I wince every time I hear somebody say something like "Linux people don't respect copyrights". I do. Please don't give anybody reasons to think otherwise. Posting copyrighted material here just because "registrations suck" is utterly, completely, inexcusable, and you should be ashamed of yourself if you think it's ok
Krill
Re:are all the reviews by idiots?
on
Athlon 64 Debuts
·
· Score: 1
You can't say that having a larger bus of 64-bits in comparison with 32-bits is not going to transfer data faster at equivalent clock speeds
Yes, that's true - but the width of internal (or external) buses has nothing to do with the 32 or 64 bitness of the ISA. The internal buses between the cache and execution units has been much wider than 32 bits for some time, and the FSB of a P4 is much wider than that also.
...digital camera makers sued for advetizing 1280x1024 cameras as being "1.3 megapixels" when they're really only 1.3 million pixels.
Ethernet manufacturers sued for selling "100 megabit per second adapters" that are really only 100 million bits per second.
FM radio manufacturers sued for selling radios that claim to work over a band of "88 to 108 megahertz" when really they actually work over a frequency band of only 88 to 108 million hertz.
when will this insanity stop?
Krill
Sony will also be named in the lawsuit because GTA was exclusive to their console.
No, they won't. Sony will be named in the lawsuit because they have deeper pockets than any other possible litigation targets.
I'm just completely sick of the "everybody's fault but mine" culture that's growing unchecked here. Video games have been named in lawsuits before, so, apparently goes the logic, there must be something in it. Bullshit. It's an excuse.
yes, it is in addition. There's a report at Anandtech that writes up some of the details
What is new is a 2MB L3 cache. It's made clear that this is in addition to the existing 512kB L2 cache on current P4s, making a total cache size of 2.5MB
ok, so you probably don't want one of these. Not everybody will, and aren't expected to. Intel have stated that this is not supposed to be "mainstream" ever. I have my doubts about that last bit, though...
no, the XT stood for "extended technology" and it used an 8086 (as opposed to the 8088 in the base PC).
The AT ("advanced technology") was the first IBM machine to use an 80286
Some of the code in question was released under a BSD license, and that has been stated as meaning that it is completely kosher. But I'm not entirely sure
The BSD license does, of course, permit copying and redistribution - but my understanding is that the license is conditional on maintaining the attribution, that is, stating that it is BSD licensed and noting the copyright owner. The code in Limux does not contain that original attribution.
Did I miss something here? Honest question... no flames please:-)
then that would make SCO guilty of massive and willful copyright infringement for commercial purposes. After all, they state themselves that they believe, on advice of counsel, that the GPL is invalid. That being the case, they have no license to distribute Samba (or gcc, for that matter), which is clearly labelled as copyrighted and not belonging to them. That is not only plainly infringement (for which they are charging lots of money) but clearly willful.
I disagree. I think they've read it correctly. Specifically:
However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.
In other words, the fact that SCO may have (allegedly) violated the terms of the GPL, and therefore have their rights terminated, in no way affects Lycoris.
problem is, if you read their license terms, if they agree to take your Monopoly(TM) money for a license, they automatically gain the right to enter your home at any time in order to perform an audit. (yes, that's right. read the license). Any business that signs up for this license must be out of their minds.
wow. This is pretty bizarre. ok, I don't know about the Australian, but I do know there are several brits held there, over which there has been significant discussion (it's a big deal in the British press). There have been repeated requests for them to be repatriated, and tried in the UK, but this won't happen. Rather embarrassingly, if that were to happen, the case against them would be thrown out - there just isn't any evidence against them worth a damn.
You actually think that they're being held in Guantanmo "in case they escape"? No. It's so that the rules can be made up as they go along.
Slashdot Mirror
Krill
And I very much doubt that the multi CPU support will go away that fast. Spinning a chip and getting it validated takes a very long time indeed. ECC can be disabled with a bond-out change (not that big a deal - doesn't need a silicon spin) but multi CPU support probably can't be disabled in the same way
Krill
The reason they ask for registration is to provide statistics for advertisers, which is how they pay their costs.
Krill
If you are the author, it's up to you. If you're not, you can either accept their terms or not read the article or use the software.
If you don't like it, write your own damn articles or your own damn software. Just don't think you can ignore their terms because you don't like them
Krill
bullshit. They have the right to ask whatever they want in return for your being able to read that which they produce at a non-zero cost.
You have the right to refuse to accept their terms, should you so choose.
You absolutely, positively, definitely, do not have the right to refuse their terms but think it is ok to read it anyway
Krill
I think it depends who you class as "Linux people". There are, for sure, two classes of people here, and one of them doesn't respect copyrights. I don't think that includes any of the contributors, and it certainly doesn't include me. It just makes me really mad when anybody does this.
Krill
If the NYT chooses to ask for a signup in return for permission to view their copyrighted material, you have two choices:
1. Sign up
2. Don't read the damn article
It isn't remotely ok to decide that you want to read what they wrote and not respect what they ask you for in return. If you don't like it, don't read it. You have no excuse for crap like this, ever.
Krill
Please, people, you're giving us a bad name. I wince every time I hear somebody say something like "Linux people don't respect copyrights". I do. Please don't give anybody reasons to think otherwise. Posting copyrighted material here just because "registrations suck" is utterly, completely, inexcusable, and you should be ashamed of yourself if you think it's ok
Krill
Yes, that's true - but the width of internal (or external) buses has nothing to do with the 32 or 64 bitness of the ISA. The internal buses between the cache and execution units has been much wider than 32 bits for some time, and the FSB of a P4 is much wider than that also.
Krill
...digital camera makers sued for advetizing 1280x1024 cameras as being "1.3 megapixels" when they're really only 1.3 million pixels. Ethernet manufacturers sued for selling "100 megabit per second adapters" that are really only 100 million bits per second. FM radio manufacturers sued for selling radios that claim to work over a band of "88 to 108 megahertz" when really they actually work over a frequency band of only 88 to 108 million hertz. when will this insanity stop? Krill
No, they won't. Sony will be named in the lawsuit because they have deeper pockets than any other possible litigation targets.
I'm just completely sick of the "everybody's fault but mine" culture that's growing unchecked here. Video games have been named in lawsuits before, so, apparently goes the logic, there must be something in it. Bullshit. It's an excuse.
Krill
What is new is a 2MB L3 cache. It's made clear that this is in addition to the existing 512kB L2 cache on current P4s, making a total cache size of 2.5MB
ok, so you probably don't want one of these. Not everybody will, and aren't expected to. Intel have stated that this is not supposed to be "mainstream" ever. I have my doubts about that last bit, though...
no, the XT stood for "extended technology" and it used an 8086 (as opposed to the 8088 in the base PC). The AT ("advanced technology") was the first IBM machine to use an 80286
...and in Hartlepool, England, a monkey was found guilty of being a French spy and hanged (really - go and look it up)
Close your eyes and try to imaging Kermit saying "resistance is futile! You will be assimilated!"
We really do all hate you.
Some of the code in question was released under a BSD license, and that has been stated as meaning that it is completely kosher. But I'm not entirely sure
The BSD license does, of course, permit copying and redistribution - but my understanding is that the license is conditional on maintaining the attribution, that is, stating that it is BSD licensed and noting the copyright owner. The code in Limux does not contain that original attribution.
Did I miss something here? Honest question... no flames please :-)
Krill
I alledge that SCO is full of it
Succinct, and right on point
Krill
then that would make SCO guilty of massive and willful copyright infringement for commercial purposes. After all, they state themselves that they believe, on advice of counsel, that the GPL is invalid. That being the case, they have no license to distribute Samba (or gcc, for that matter), which is clearly labelled as copyrighted and not belonging to them. That is not only plainly infringement (for which they are charging lots of money) but clearly willful.
However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.
In other words, the fact that SCO may have (allegedly) violated the terms of the GPL, and therefore have their rights terminated, in no way affects Lycoris.
I think that is what they were trying to say
Krill
Krill
You actually think that they're being held in Guantanmo "in case they escape"? No. It's so that the rules can be made up as they go along.
LOL. Wish I had mod points... +1e4 Funny