When I think of "functional counterfeit" CPUs, I think of lower performance parts being marked as higher performance parts. This popped into my mind, because I purchased a few Core2 Duo E8500 CPUs last year, that refused to automatically show up as E8500s... Instead, they showed up as a lower end processor (E8200, I think), despite external markings, but showed up as E8500 when I manually set the multiplier and clock in the BIOS.
The fact that such obviously counterfeit parts made through Newegg's supply chain is a little bit unnerving...
I know that Newegg said that these were "Demo Boxes"... but from the video that I had seen, these boxes included badly made tamper-evidence stickers and holograms. This leads me to wonder if "functional counterfeits" of Intel/AMD processors have been sold by Newegg.
I love Asterisk as much as the next guy, but it DOES NOT SOLVE THE PARENT's problem on its own... The original poster wanted a way to sync phonebook directory and view call logs. Asterisk can do the call logs, but VOIP phones and an auto-configuration system is really needed for shared/distributed directory. Unfortunately, that's where the cost starts going up.
PBX In A Flash, combined with an assortment of Aastra or Polycom VOIP stations (cordless also available) gets my vote; there are modules for PBXIAF (FreePBX modules) that allow for phone configuration and centralized directory updates. Yay for free software. Unfortunately, good entry-level SIP VOIP phones are still around $200 a piece, and I doubt that the original poster expected to shell out $800 just to get his phonebook shared between his phones.
Add another $200 if he wants the ability to use his existing landline (entry-level Sangoma card).
Moreover, it's a parody of said trademarked phrase, which I doubt is likely to make the average consumer confuse Apple iPhone App Store with Verizon cell phone service.
Wasn't TCP designed for just this? Guaranteed transmission?
Kind of; it can guarantee transmission via an acknowledgment packet returned to the sender. TCP also includes a CRC checksum that helps weed out bad packets. However, (not 100% sure about this) the checksum is just a 1 bit flag that is checked against the 1's complement of the payload. This means that it's great if there is just a small error in the transmission, but will result in a false-good packet if there are multiple transmission errors.
The better solution would be to use a protocol that works on TCP or UDP, but has a more robust error detection/correction method. Bittorrent, for example, splits files up into chunks, then creates a 160bit hash of each chunk. Each chunk is compared against the hash upon being recieved, and retransmitted if it does not match. This means that the probability of a malformed chunk being accepted by the bittorrent client is very very very low.
Yes, VIA is still around, and they make some decent little 64-bit x86 processors that sell under the name Nano.
The Nano processor actually does a pretty good job of holding its own against the Atom; edging ahead in almost every area, except for power consumption.
We have virtualization now - If I can run a legacy app in a dos box, who cares what the actual hardware is?
Unfortunately most of the software that the general public wants to run is only available in x86 binary form. This means that emulation, as opposed to virtualization, is required when running them on a new architecture.
On the other hand, open source software apparently loves to jump architectures... Firefox on ARM--weeeeeee!:)
If you want to know how much bandwidth you use over the course of a day/week/month, simply install DD-WRT or Tomato (I prefer Tomato) on your router, and look at the bandwidth logs.
Now, my two cents: I don't mind if my ISP throttles my bandwidth or puts a cap on it, as long as that is what I agree to when I sign up. However, if I pay for an unmetered service, it better be unmetered!
When I pay for a 6mbit unmetered connection with a guaranteed downstream of 5mbits, there is no reason for me to find that my connection is being throttled to below 5mbits âoefor the betterment of other users.â If the ISP can't support having 6mbit users, then it shouldn't sell the service, or it should raise the price to afford the infrastructure to support 6mbit users.
Likewise, if I am paying for what is advertised as "unlimited" service, there shouldn't be a cap, period. If ISPs want to cap their internet service, go for it; Iâ(TM)m sure that thereâ(TM)ll always be a competing ISP that will sell unmetered service.
That being said, I am COMPLETELY opposed to any kind of traffic shaping that decreases transfer rates based on content or endpoints. Net neutrality is essential to the usefulness of the Internet.
Next, we should all start dragging that $200bn Telco fiber issue back into congress. Ok, ok, everyone has heard this before. I will stop now;)
What several programmers and computer engineers have been saying is that Intel's compiler intentionally creates binaries that give non-Intel processors very slow and unnecessary instructions (i.e. single byte memory copy instructions).
It is one thing to not help a competitor, but to go out of your way to set them back is unethical. In this case, it appears that Intel programmed its compiler to give a non-Intel chip memcopy instructions that are far below the minimum standard of any chip capable of running current X86 code.
BeOS was originally designed to run on AT&T chips, because they were cheap. They switched to PowerPC, at some point later (some former Apple employees created Be inc.). BeOS later switched to X86 (not to Intel), because there was a wider user base and Motorola/Apple refused to release specs for the PowerPC G3 Arch. Be would have continued support for BeOS on PowerPC if they were allowed to do so.
Be is one of my all time favorite OSs, it literally boots in 10 seconds. When I say literally, I mean literally. It will boot to a fully usable state in 10 seconds on a Pentium 1 w/ 64MB of RAM.
If you want to try it, go to http://www.bebits.com/app/2680 and scroll down to the personal version... it works like a liveboot linux, except that it installs a virtual partition onto your HD. (This is old, so newer hardware won't be supported, ie created before GeForce3)
BeOS would have been a large success as a secondary OS for checking e-mail and web browsing. Be even had contracts with Fujitsu, Sony, NEC, Compaq, and HP to have it preloaded and dualboot it on all of their systems. However, MS ended up telling the OEMs that it would be a violation of their contract, and Be was dumped:(
Not to claim that the majority of Slashdot readers are pirates, but how many of us have had or have pirated software on our computers? Now, how many of those pirated programs would have been bought if they were not illegally available?
Yes, I am sure that this has all been said before, but my guess is that the majority of pirated software would not have been purchased in the first place, making the supposed billions of dollars in losses very misleading.
Likewise, the majority of people who would buy the software have bought the software. Architectural design offices have purchased their copies of Autocad, photo studios have purchased their copies of Photoshop, and the majority of computers out there are running licensed OEM copies of a Microsoft OS that came preinstalled on their computer.
Who's getting hurt then? Most of the software companies citing losses are not having their target markets eaten away at by piracy. Yet, the companies getting hurt by piracy aren't complaining much at all.
Products such as Paintshop Pro is definitely losing sales to pirated copies of Photoshop, and the the OSS community lacks support for certain projects, because pirated commercial alternatives are available.
Crying like like the world's ending won't garner much support. There are many valid arguements to be made against piracy on many levels, but lying to support the fight is just a lawyer's pay bonus.
The challenge is to infect a naked machine connected to the internet. This means to exploit the operating system itself, not require that the user do something in poor practice. This means that a programmer must write a virus that executes code on the target machine. Generally a difficult thing to do on a properly configured Unix/Linux OS. It should be difficult to do on a Microsoft OS, except that MS has relied too heavily on code secrecy to protect the system.
OSS philosophy inherently generates better strongholds. We'll see if this holds true (as OSX is built on BSD Unix).
Slashdot Mirror
When I think of "functional counterfeit" CPUs, I think of lower performance parts being marked as higher performance parts. This popped into my mind, because I purchased a few Core2 Duo E8500 CPUs last year, that refused to automatically show up as E8500s... Instead, they showed up as a lower end processor (E8200, I think), despite external markings, but showed up as E8500 when I manually set the multiplier and clock in the BIOS.
The fact that such obviously counterfeit parts made through Newegg's supply chain is a little bit unnerving... I know that Newegg said that these were "Demo Boxes"... but from the video that I had seen, these boxes included badly made tamper-evidence stickers and holograms. This leads me to wonder if "functional counterfeits" of Intel/AMD processors have been sold by Newegg.
I love Asterisk as much as the next guy, but it DOES NOT SOLVE THE PARENT's problem on its own... The original poster wanted a way to sync phonebook directory and view call logs. Asterisk can do the call logs, but VOIP phones and an auto-configuration system is really needed for shared/distributed directory. Unfortunately, that's where the cost starts going up.
PBX In A Flash, combined with an assortment of Aastra or Polycom VOIP stations (cordless also available) gets my vote; there are modules for PBXIAF (FreePBX modules) that allow for phone configuration and centralized directory updates. Yay for free software. Unfortunately, good entry-level SIP VOIP phones are still around $200 a piece, and I doubt that the original poster expected to shell out $800 just to get his phonebook shared between his phones.
Add another $200 if he wants the ability to use his existing landline (entry-level Sangoma card).
Moreover, it's a parody of said trademarked phrase, which I doubt is likely to make the average consumer confuse Apple iPhone App Store with Verizon cell phone service.
Wasn't TCP designed for just this? Guaranteed transmission?
Kind of; it can guarantee transmission via an acknowledgment packet returned to the sender. TCP also includes a CRC checksum that helps weed out bad packets. However, (not 100% sure about this) the checksum is just a 1 bit flag that is checked against the 1's complement of the payload. This means that it's great if there is just a small error in the transmission, but will result in a false-good packet if there are multiple transmission errors.
The better solution would be to use a protocol that works on TCP or UDP, but has a more robust error detection/correction method. Bittorrent, for example, splits files up into chunks, then creates a 160bit hash of each chunk. Each chunk is compared against the hash upon being recieved, and retransmitted if it does not match. This means that the probability of a malformed chunk being accepted by the bittorrent client is very very very low.
Maybe Freescale or Motorola or IBM?
My money's on TI; OMAP3 is kicking ass and taking names:)
Yes, VIA is still around, and they make some decent little 64-bit x86 processors that sell under the name Nano.
The Nano processor actually does a pretty good job of holding its own against the Atom; edging ahead in almost every area, except for power consumption.
We have virtualization now - If I can run a legacy app in a dos box, who cares what the actual hardware is?
Unfortunately most of the software that the general public wants to run is only available in x86 binary form. This means that emulation, as opposed to virtualization, is required when running them on a new architecture.
On the other hand, open source software apparently loves to jump architectures... Firefox on ARM--weeeeeee!:)
Now, my two cents: I don't mind if my ISP throttles my bandwidth or puts a cap on it, as long as that is what I agree to when I sign up. However, if I pay for an unmetered service, it better be unmetered!
When I pay for a 6mbit unmetered connection with a guaranteed downstream of 5mbits, there is no reason for me to find that my connection is being throttled to below 5mbits âoefor the betterment of other users.â If the ISP can't support having 6mbit users, then it shouldn't sell the service, or it should raise the price to afford the infrastructure to support 6mbit users.
Likewise, if I am paying for what is advertised as "unlimited" service, there shouldn't be a cap, period. If ISPs want to cap their internet service, go for it; Iâ(TM)m sure that thereâ(TM)ll always be a competing ISP that will sell unmetered service.
That being said, I am COMPLETELY opposed to any kind of traffic shaping that decreases transfer rates based on content or endpoints. Net neutrality is essential to the usefulness of the Internet.
Next, we should all start dragging that $200bn Telco fiber issue back into congress. Ok, ok, everyone has heard this before. I will stop now;)
What several programmers and computer engineers have been saying is that Intel's compiler intentionally creates binaries that give non-Intel processors very slow and unnecessary instructions (i.e. single byte memory copy instructions).
It is one thing to not help a competitor, but to go out of your way to set them back is unethical. In this case, it appears that Intel programmed its compiler to give a non-Intel chip memcopy instructions that are far below the minimum standard of any chip capable of running current X86 code.
Ad blockers don't block ads that are privately hosted on the server, they just block syndicated ads.
BeOS was originally designed to run on AT&T chips, because they were cheap. They switched to PowerPC, at some point later (some former Apple employees created Be inc.). BeOS later switched to X86 (not to Intel), because there was a wider user base and Motorola/Apple refused to release specs for the PowerPC G3 Arch. Be would have continued support for BeOS on PowerPC if they were allowed to do so.
Be is one of my all time favorite OSs, it literally boots in 10 seconds. When I say literally, I mean literally. It will boot to a fully usable state in 10 seconds on a Pentium 1 w/ 64MB of RAM.
If you want to try it, go to http://www.bebits.com/app/2680 and scroll down to the personal version... it works like a liveboot linux, except that it installs a virtual partition onto your HD. (This is old, so newer hardware won't be supported, ie created before GeForce3)
BeOS would have been a large success as a secondary OS for checking e-mail and web browsing. Be even had contracts with Fujitsu, Sony, NEC, Compaq, and HP to have it preloaded and dualboot it on all of their systems. However, MS ended up telling the OEMs that it would be a violation of their contract, and Be was dumped:(
I believe that the arguement isn't that the information is being stolen, but that its author's time, effort, and original thinking is being stolen.
Not to claim that the majority of Slashdot readers are pirates, but how many of us have had or have pirated software on our computers? Now, how many of those pirated programs would have been bought if they were not illegally available? Yes, I am sure that this has all been said before, but my guess is that the majority of pirated software would not have been purchased in the first place, making the supposed billions of dollars in losses very misleading. Likewise, the majority of people who would buy the software have bought the software. Architectural design offices have purchased their copies of Autocad, photo studios have purchased their copies of Photoshop, and the majority of computers out there are running licensed OEM copies of a Microsoft OS that came preinstalled on their computer. Who's getting hurt then? Most of the software companies citing losses are not having their target markets eaten away at by piracy. Yet, the companies getting hurt by piracy aren't complaining much at all. Products such as Paintshop Pro is definitely losing sales to pirated copies of Photoshop, and the the OSS community lacks support for certain projects, because pirated commercial alternatives are available. Crying like like the world's ending won't garner much support. There are many valid arguements to be made against piracy on many levels, but lying to support the fight is just a lawyer's pay bonus.
The challenge is to infect a naked machine connected to the internet. This means to exploit the operating system itself, not require that the user do something in poor practice. This means that a programmer must write a virus that executes code on the target machine. Generally a difficult thing to do on a properly configured Unix/Linux OS. It should be difficult to do on a Microsoft OS, except that MS has relied too heavily on code secrecy to protect the system. OSS philosophy inherently generates better strongholds. We'll see if this holds true (as OSX is built on BSD Unix).