This is not my machine. This is a cpuinfo trap from Alan Cox's diary pages, hence the URL (follow it). This machine is running, this is not a bootup log captured via serial console. This machine works. Things run. Things run fast.
Straight from http://194.117.157.10/diary/dec-1998.shtml, December 8th, "Dave Miller has been pushing forward the boundaries of Linux SMP. He posted this wonderful bootup log to the kernel list."
Face it, it's damn easy to track you. Intel just made a way to make it even easier and everybody got pissed at them.
Wow, I think you answered the question you almost asked. Now you know why people don't like the ID.
I'm supprised people aren't complaning that its' too easy to track people via IP address. It's no different the the serial number, and you can't dissable it.
That's just false. Find another ISP. The difference between an IP and Intel's new serial number is what it's supposed to represent. The IP represents a node on a network (your computer). Anyone using an IP to track any specific person is a fool; hundreds or thousands of people could be logged on to any computer at any given time. Intel's ID is proposed as a unique ID per personal computer, mainly for license enforcement purposes. Pick any standard commercial proprietary software license and read it... get to the part about how it's licensed for use by one (1) person on one (1) computer. You can make one (1) backup copy. Note again the part about one (1) person.
And the worest part, the serial number makes it much easier to stop pirating. When you install a priece of software, it can bind itself to your chip's serial number. Then no matter how many times you reinstall, it will still work.
Here's the second most important reason I really don't care about this ID: I don't care about pirating. I don't depend on, care to use, or purchase any proprietary software.
And if you're wondering, here's the most important reason I could care less what crap Intel packs into their chips: I don't ever plan on buying an Intel chip again. Buy an Alpha and be happy.
An excellent rebuttal, but you're only preaching to the converted if you don't find a way to get this read. Submit this to Computer suggesting that Ted Lewis needs to defend his previous statements, else Computer magazine itself might be held liable (at least in its readership's eyes) for the inaccuracies, deceptions, and borderline slander in an article they published.
This seems like plain old advertising to me. A client who wants prime exposure pays for prime space; it's Yahoo's site to sell. It seems like it's only when banner ads leave an ugly mark on an otherwise useful and valuable presentation that these things get a strong negative reaction.
Now, if Yahoo were representing placement as a "customer satisfaction index" rating, for example, but simply selling off slots, then there might be something fraudulent happening behind the scenes.
If you have a fast net connection, or you could burn a CD off one, you could make your own Alpha Debian set. I'm working off the slink tree of about a month ago, and I've had no problems so far (running kernel 2.2.1 and the TGA X server).
Hm... funny thing that I don't see your name in the bug database, or even a bug similar to what you describe. As I look through the development list archives, I don't see a single comment from you. Now, could you explain which version was giving you this problem, and which GTK library you had when you compiled it?
The only definition for "intellectual property" that comes close to reality is one encompassing actual brain matter and personal ownership of said material. Such is both "intellectual" in that it controls thought, and "property" in that it is owned. That's not what you, I, or governments of this world define that phrase to be; we're all "wrong" in that sense. Such common use of an incorrect phrase edges it to oxymoron land under analysis.
If you wish to make such a concept more abstract (for the sake of allowing the government to regulate the extent to which one is allowed to do, copy, or make something someone else has already done), then you're talking ruling based on someone's mental representation of something. The "property" these laws seek to protect are the ideas (not specific implementations) of a product or method. They do not protect, say, John Thompson's Tappan gas range and oven. They protect the idea of the design of a _class_ of ovens. If John Thompson's gas range and oven were taken by force, without his notice (insert a conditional, prepositional phrase from your local legal definition of "theft" as it applies to real property), then it is theft. He no longer has the item; he is sad, and he calls the police.
Now, I hear your little voice saying, "just because nothing is lost doesn't mean it's not theft." Well, that's for the courts to decide. I don't have volumes 22-57 of the United States of America's Federal Guidelines on and About Intellectual Property and the Technicalities of Enforcement of Ownership (or any such encyclopediatic work). I do know that on an atomic level, "copying" electrons is in no way stealing them from their original creator. In fact, even if every electron in transit was accounted for, and since the transaction is voluntary (between the person who has in his possession the software and the person who wishes to copy the software) they are simply sharing electrons. If they're using magnetic media, they're sharing a pattern of electrons indirectly through settings in a floppy disk, a hard drive, etc. There is no loss of actual, concrete property. People do not sue over a loss of electrons from an unauthorized copying of an electronic work.
So without any actual property exchanging hands, we're down to ideas again. Why should someone have the right to reserve an idea? "I thought of this, did this, or created this first. I have a record of it, stamped with the date and time. I do not permit you to do a similar work under any circumstances under THREAT OF IMPRISONMENT." Who thought of this concept? What was he smoking?
"There is a valid, legal definition for intellectual property." I dispute its validity, but notice that I don't advocate an entire, complete and sudden disregard for intellectual property as its recognized by world governments. Humans are scared little herding animals, easily frightened, and they don't deal with sudden change that well. But it took a long time for humans to recognize that some people (because of the color of their skin) have a simple right to speak in public without permission from master.
Confusing Words and Phrases that are Worth Avoiding - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation (FSF): Intellect ual Property.
If you don't have the time to fill out a form, read an automated response, and click "login" just once (ever), you don't have the time to speak.
On the other hand, I don't care if Rob lets the Anonymous Idiots of the word have their try at trolling, inciting, or baiting his readership. I can simply ignore them, right? Through an easy-to-use scoring threshold, right?
Wrong.
It doesn't work... or certain administrators are marking up replies from specific Anonymous Idiots. Often these replies will appear with a score of 1, resting between replies from the legitimate contributors (those who have already learned how to operate a web browser and an e-mail client). And it's not like these promoted posts are anything other than the average anonymous content (flame bait or senseless garbage). These are no gems of insight.
Rob, if you want to keep the Anonymous Idiots around, fix the filtering system. And it'd be great if I didn't have to click "up one" every time I viewed a new article (the top-level page rendering completely disregards the threshold setting in my user preferences for all articles).
I've seen this phrased used several times in response to this article: "stealing intellectual property." If that isn't an oxymoron, I don't know what is.
Go ahead. Try to "steal" my thoughts. Come on! Do it! I dare you! I won't let you have them; they are my property and you are not permitted to _think_ the same thoughts I've already thought. I will sue you!
This is the second time this has happened in a week. Contributions from Anonymous Idiots should a score of "0". I set my threshold to "1" so I can avoid noise like this comment. Who's going around and marking up the dumbest of the dumb to clutter my display?
Is it? Perhaps I'm not one to judge these days, since I'm quite well acquainted with the innards and interfaces of most of the software on my machines, but I imagine using a computer thinking "this will be the hardest thing I've ever done" can't do much for one's success. Have some confidence in yourself and your problem solving abilities; the human brain can solve some incredible problems with a little persistence.
Now, don't rush into the job blissfully ignorant with plans to remain that way; don't fear every little thing. Computer hardware is quite literally dumb. It really doesn't know what it's doing. It only knows how to do it. Of course, this is at a most basic level, you say, but once one understands that an entire machine is just the sum of its parts in working order, and that every mystery to its workings can be solved by gradual awareness of how each of its parts work, the task doesn't seem so herculean.
I understand that "pee cee" hardware is odd. A better part of it is downright crap, really, and it's a shame one has to be ever so careful about what to buy and what to avoid (because of proprietary interfaces to open hardware). If you're from a Macintosh world, but you're set on exploring new architecures and you have the cash, I would suggest buying Alpha hardware, or maybe PowerPC hardware, or even an old Sun or SGI. The hardware design at these levels is something you won't approach in PC design. Of course, the software availability is proportionally lower these days.
My advice for operating system installation? Stick to the guide unless you know better. But as you catch yourself thinking you might just do something your own way, size up the changes your actions might effect. Turn back then if you wish; there's no shame in playing it safe when you can always change it later.
Trust your instincts, because your computer won't.
i have actually been seeing alot of buggy poorly suported software showing up for linux.
Well, then, you should write a letter to the publisher of the software and cancel the terms of your licensing agreement and request a full refund of the purchase price.
Slashdot Mirror
For those antsy to see pictures of the party, check them out here , where AbiSource has some coverage of th event.
This is not my machine. This is a cpuinfo trap from Alan Cox's diary pages, hence the URL (follow it). This machine is running, this is not a bootup log captured via serial console. This machine works. Things run. Things run fast.
Straight from http://194.117.157.10/diary/dec-1998.shtml, December 8th,
"Dave Miller has been pushing forward the boundaries of Linux SMP. He posted this wonderful bootup log to the kernel list."
Yeah, Linux will never get anywhere near big hardware.
/proc/cpuinfo ... ENABLED
http://www.linux.org.uk/diary/yow.html
bash# cat
cpu : TI UltraSparc II (BlackBird)
fpu : UltraSparc II integrated FPU
promlib : Version 3 Revision 2
prom : 3.2.16
type : sun4u
ncpus probed : 14
ncpus active : 14
Cpu0Bogo : 494.79
Cpu1Bogo : 494.79
Cpu4Bogo : 494.79
Cpu5Bogo : 494.79
Cpu6Bogo : 494.79
Cpu7Bogo : 494.79
Cpu8Bogo : 494.79
Cpu9Bogo : 494.79
Cpu10Bogo : 494.79
Cpu11Bogo : 494.79
Cpu12Bogo : 494.79
Cpu13Bogo : 494.79
Cpu14Bogo : 494.79
Cpu15Bogo : 494.79
MMU Type : Spitfire
State:
CPU0: online
CPU1: online
CPU4: online
CPU5: online
CPU6: online
CPU7: online
CPU8: online
CPU9: online
CPU10: online
CPU11: online
CPU12: online
CPU13: online
CPU14: online
CPU15: online
bash# dmesg
PROMLIB: Sun IEEE Boot Prom 3.2.16 1998/06/08 16:58
Linux version 2.1.130 (root@ultrapenguin) (gcc driver version 2.7.2 snapshot 970621 executing gcc version 2.7.2) #3 SMP Mon Dec 7 21:58:03 PST 1998
ARCH: SUN4U
Ethernet address: 08:00:20:9a:71:d5
Found CPU 0 (node=f006f708,mid=0)
Found CPU 1 (node=f006fac8,mid=1)
Found CPU 2 (node=f014f6e4,mid=4)
Found CPU 3 (node=f014faa4,mid=5)
Found CPU 4 (node=f01bf6e4,mid=6)
Found CPU 5 (node=f01bfaa4,mid=7)
Found CPU 6 (node=f022f6e4,mid=8)
Found CPU 7 (node=f022faa4,mid=9)
Found CPU 8 (node=f029f6e4,mid=10)
Found CPU 9 (node=f029faa4,mid=11)
Found CPU 10 (node=f030f6e4,mid=12)
Found CPU 11 (node=f030faa4,mid=13)
Found CPU 12 (node=f037f6e4,mid=14)
Found CPU 13 (node=f037faa4,mid=15)
Found 14 CPU prom device tree node(s).
CENTRAL: Detected 8 slot Enterprise system. cfreg[9e]
FHC(board 0): Version[1] PartID[fa0] Manuf[3e] (CENTRAL)
FHC(board 0): Version[1] PartID[fa0] Manuf[3e] (JTAG Master)
FHC(board 2): Version[1] PartID[fa0] Manuf[3e]
FHC(board 3): Version[1] PartID[fa0] Manuf[3e]
FHC(board 4): Version[1] PartID[fa0] Manuf[3e]
FHC(board 5): Version[1] PartID[fa0] Manuf[3e]
FHC(board 6): Version[1] PartID[fa0] Manuf[3e]
FHC(board 7): Version[1] PartID[fa0] Manuf[3e]
FHC(board 1): Version[1] PartID[fa0] Manuf[3e]
Calibrating delay loop... 494.80 BogoMIPS
Memory: 2059720k available (1600k kernel code, 23528k data, 184k init) [fffff80000000000,fffff8007fd1c000]
POSIX conformance testing by UNIFIX
Entering UltraSMPenguin Mode...
Calibrating delay loop... 494.80 BogoMIPS
Calibrating delay loop... 494.80 BogoMIPS
Calibrating delay loop... 494.80 BogoMIPS
Calibrating delay loop... 494.80 BogoMIPS
Calibrating delay loop... 494.80 BogoMIPS
Calibrating delay loop... 494.80 BogoMIPS
Calibrating delay loop... 494.80 BogoMIPS
Calibrating delay loop... 494.80 BogoMIPS
Calibrating delay loop... 494.80 BogoMIPS
Calibrating delay loop... 494.80 BogoMIPS
Calibrating delay loop... 494.80 BogoMIPS
Calibrating delay loop... 494.80 BogoMIPS
Calibrating delay loop... 494.80 BogoMIPS
Total of 14 processors activated (6927.16 BogoMIPS).
PCI: Probing for controllers.
PCI: No PCI bus detected
IOMMU(SBUS): IMPL[0] VERS[0] SYSIO mapped at fffff9c600000000
IOMMU: Streaming Buffer IMPL[0] REV[0]
sbus0: Clock 25.0 MHz
dma0: HME DVMA gate array=20
Linux NET4.0 for Linux 2.1
Based upon Swansea University Computer Society NET3.039
NET4: Unix domain sockets 1.0 for Linux NET4.0.
NET4: Linux TCP/IP 1.0 for NET4.0
IP Protocols: ICMP, UDP, TCP
Starting kswapd v 1.5=20
Sparc Zilog8530 serial driver version 1.34
tty00 at 0xf0902004 (irq = 12,339) is a Zilog8530
tty01 at 0xf0902000 (irq = 12,339) is a Zilog8530
tty02 at 0xf0904004 (irq = 12,339) is a Zilog8530
tty03 at 0xf0904000 (irq = 12,339) is a Zilog8530
keyboard: not present
Console: ttyS0 (Zilog8530)
Sun Mouse-Systems mouse driver version 1.00
RAM disk driver initialized: 16 RAM disks of 4096K size
esp0: IRQ 7,db SCSI ID 7 Clk 40MHz CCF=8 TOut 167 NCR53C9XF(espfast)
ESP: Total of 1 ESP hosts found, 1 actually in use.
qpti0: IRQ 7,d3 SCSI ID 7 (Firmware 1.25 96/10/15) [Ultra Wide, using single ended interface]
QPTI: Total of 1 PTI Qlogic/ISP hosts found, 1 actually in use.
scsi0 : Sparc ESP366-HME
scsi1 : PTI Qlogic,ISP SBUS SCSI irq 7,d3 regs at fffff9c720010000
scsi : 2 hosts.
Vendor: EXABYTE Model: EXB-8505SMBANSH2 Rev: 0098
Type: Sequential-Access ANSI SCSI revision: 02
Detected scsi tape st0 at scsi0, channel 0, id 5, lun 0
Vendor: TOSHIBA Model: XM5701TASUN12XCD Rev: 2395
Type: CD-ROM ANSI SCSI revision: 02
Detected scsi CD-ROM sr0 at scsi0, channel 0, id 6, lun 0
Vendor: SEAGATE Model: ST34501WCSUN4.2G Rev: 0558
Type: Direct-Access ANSI SCSI revision: 02
Detected scsi disk sda at scsi1, channel 0, id 0, lun 0
Vendor: SEAGATE Model: ST34501WCSUN4.2G Rev: 0558
Type: Direct-Access ANSI SCSI revision: 02
Detected scsi disk sdb at scsi1, channel 0, id 1, lun 0
Vendor: SEAGATE Model: ST34501WCSUN4.2G Rev: 0558
Type: Direct-Access ANSI SCSI revision: 02
Detected scsi disk sdc at scsi1, channel 0, id 2, lun 0
Vendor: SEAGATE Model: ST34501WCSUN4.2G Rev: 0558
Type: Direct-Access ANSI SCSI revision: 02
Detected scsi disk sdd at scsi1, channel 0, id 3, lun 0
Vendor: SEAGATE Model: ST34501WCSUN4.2G Rev: 0558
Type: Direct-Access ANSI SCSI revision: 02
Detected scsi disk sde at scsi1, channel 0, id 8, lun 0
Vendor: SEAGATE Model: ST34501WCSUN4.2G Rev: 0558
Type: Direct-Access ANSI SCSI revision: 02
Detected scsi disk sdf at scsi1, channel 0, id 9, lun 0
Vendor: SEAGATE Model: ST34501WCSUN4.2G Rev: 0558
Type: Direct-Access ANSI SCSI revision: 02
Detected scsi disk sdg at scsi1, channel 0, id 10, lun 0
Vendor: SEAGATE Model: ST34501WCSUN4.2G Rev: 0558
Type: Direct-Access ANSI SCSI revision: 02
Detected scsi disk sdh at scsi1, channel 0, id 11, lun 0
scsi : detected 1 SCSI tape 1 SCSI cdrom 8 SCSI disks total.
esp0: target 6 asynchronous
Uniform CDROM driver Revision: 2.50
SCSI device sda: hdwr sector= 512 bytes. Sectors= 8385121 [4094 MB] [4.1 GB]
SCSI device sdb: hdwr sector= 512 bytes. Sectors= 8385121 [4094 MB] [4.1 GB]
SCSI device sdc: hdwr sector= 512 bytes. Sectors= 8385121 [4094 MB] [4.1 GB]
SCSI device sdd: hdwr sector= 512 bytes. Sectors= 8385121 [4094 MB] [4.1 GB]
SCSI device sde: hdwr sector= 512 bytes. Sectors= 8385121 [4094 MB] [4.1 GB]
SCSI device sdf: hdwr sector= 512 bytes. Sectors= 8385121 [4094 MB] [4.1 GB]
SCSI device sdg: hdwr sector= 512 bytes. Sectors= 8385121 [4094 MB] [4.1 GB]
SCSI device sdh: hdwr sector= 512 bytes. Sectors= 8385121 [4094 MB] [4.1 GB]
sunhme.c:v1.2 10/Oct/96 David S. Miller (davem@caipfs.rutgers.edu)
eth0: HAPPY MEAL (SBUS) 10/100baseT Ethernet 08:00:20:9a:71:d5=20
Partition check:
sda: sda1 sda2 sda3
sdb: sdb1 sdb3 sdb4 sdb5 sdb6 sdb7 sdb8
sdc: sdc1 sdc3 sdc4 sdc5 sdc6 sdc7 sdc8
sdd: sdd1 sdd2 sdd3 sdd7
sde: sde1 sde3 sde4 sde5 sde6 sde7 sde8
sdf: sdf1 sdf3 sdf4 sdf5 sdf6 sdf7 sdf8
sdg: sdg1 sdg3 sdg4 sdg5 sdg6 sdg7 sdg8
sdh: sdh1 sdh2 sdh3 sdh7
VFS: Mounted root (ext2 filesystem) readonly.
And if you're wondering, here's the most important reason I could care less what crap Intel packs into their chips: I don't ever plan on buying an Intel chip again. Buy an Alpha and be happy.
XEmacs and GDB are my two best friends. :)
Don't use Enlightenment, but use a functional, fast window manager like Window Maker.
An excellent rebuttal, but you're only preaching to the converted if you don't find a way to get this read. Submit this to Computer suggesting that Ted Lewis needs to defend his previous statements, else Computer magazine itself might be held liable (at least in its readership's eyes) for the inaccuracies, deceptions, and borderline slander in an article they published.
Sounds like a neat toy to have, if I ever rebooted for anything.
This seems like plain old advertising to me. A client who wants prime exposure pays for prime space; it's Yahoo's site to sell. It seems like it's only when banner ads leave an ugly mark on an otherwise useful and valuable presentation that these things get a strong negative reaction.
Now, if Yahoo were representing placement as a "customer satisfaction index" rating, for example, but simply selling off slots, then there might be something fraudulent happening behind the scenes.
Rob, you have an extra apostrophe in the title of this article. "Tiler's" should not be possessive.
But Emacs can be a web browser (and a reasonable one at that).
If you have a fast net connection, or you could burn a CD off one, you could make your own Alpha Debian set. I'm working off the slink tree of about a month ago, and I've had no problems so far (running kernel 2.2.1 and the TGA X server).
Hm... funny thing that I don't see your name in the bug database, or even a bug similar to what you describe. As I look through the development list archives, I don't see a single comment from you. Now, could you explain which version was giving you this problem, and which GTK library you had when you compiled it?
Buy an Alpha.
If you wish to make such a concept more abstract (for the sake of allowing the government to regulate the extent to which one is allowed to do, copy, or make something someone else has already done), then you're talking ruling based on someone's mental representation of something. The "property" these laws seek to protect are the ideas (not specific implementations) of a product or method. They do not protect, say, John Thompson's Tappan gas range and oven. They protect the idea of the design of a _class_ of ovens. If John Thompson's gas range and oven were taken by force, without his notice (insert a conditional, prepositional phrase from your local legal definition of "theft" as it applies to real property), then it is theft. He no longer has the item; he is sad, and he calls the police.
Now, I hear your little voice saying, "just because nothing is lost doesn't mean it's not theft." Well, that's for the courts to decide. I don't have volumes 22-57 of the United States of America's Federal Guidelines on and About Intellectual Property and the Technicalities of Enforcement of Ownership (or any such encyclopediatic work). I do know that on an atomic level, "copying" electrons is in no way stealing them from their original creator. In fact, even if every electron in transit was accounted for, and since the transaction is voluntary (between the person who has in his possession the software and the person who wishes to copy the software) they are simply sharing electrons. If they're using magnetic media, they're sharing a pattern of electrons indirectly through settings in a floppy disk, a hard drive, etc. There is no loss of actual, concrete property. People do not sue over a loss of electrons from an unauthorized copying of an electronic work.
So without any actual property exchanging hands, we're down to ideas again. Why should someone have the right to reserve an idea? "I thought of this, did this, or created this first. I have a record of it, stamped with the date and time. I do not permit you to do a similar work under any circumstances under THREAT OF IMPRISONMENT." Who thought of this concept? What was he smoking?
"There is a valid, legal definition for intellectual property." I dispute its validity, but notice that I don't advocate an entire, complete and sudden disregard for intellectual property as its recognized by world governments. Humans are scared little herding animals, easily frightened, and they don't deal with sudden change that well. But it took a long time for humans to recognize that some people (because of the color of their skin) have a simple right to speak in public without permission from master.
Confusing Words and Phrases that are Worth Avoiding - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation (FSF): Intellect ual Property.
If you don't have the time to fill out a form, read an automated response, and click "login" just once (ever), you don't have the time to speak.
On the other hand, I don't care if Rob lets the Anonymous Idiots of the word have their try at trolling, inciting, or baiting his readership. I can simply ignore them, right? Through an easy-to-use scoring threshold, right?
Wrong.
It doesn't work... or certain administrators are marking up replies from specific Anonymous Idiots. Often these replies will appear with a score of 1, resting between replies from the legitimate contributors (those who have already learned how to operate a web browser and an e-mail client). And it's not like these promoted posts are anything other than the average anonymous content (flame bait or senseless garbage). These are no gems of insight.
Rob, if you want to keep the Anonymous Idiots around, fix the filtering system. And it'd be great if I didn't have to click "up one" every time I viewed a new article (the top-level page rendering completely disregards the threshold setting in my user preferences for all articles).
I've seen this phrased used several times in response to this article: "stealing intellectual property." If that isn't an oxymoron, I don't know what is.
Go ahead. Try to "steal" my thoughts. Come on! Do it! I dare you! I won't let you have them; they are my property and you are not permitted to _think_ the same thoughts I've already thought. I will sue you!
This is the second time this has happened in a week. Contributions from Anonymous Idiots should a score of "0". I set my threshold to "1" so I can avoid noise like this comment. Who's going around and marking up the dumbest of the dumb to clutter my display?
Is it? Perhaps I'm not one to judge these days, since I'm quite well acquainted with the innards and interfaces of most of the software on my machines, but I imagine using a computer thinking "this will be the hardest thing I've ever done" can't do much for one's success. Have some confidence in yourself and your problem solving abilities; the human brain can solve some incredible problems with a little persistence.
Now, don't rush into the job blissfully ignorant with plans to remain that way; don't fear every little thing. Computer hardware is quite literally dumb. It really doesn't know what it's doing. It only knows how to do it. Of course, this is at a most basic level, you say, but once one understands that an entire machine is just the sum of its parts in working order, and that every mystery to its workings can be solved by gradual awareness of how each of its parts work, the task doesn't seem so herculean.
I understand that "pee cee" hardware is odd. A better part of it is downright crap, really, and it's a shame one has to be ever so careful about what to buy and what to avoid (because of proprietary interfaces to open hardware). If you're from a Macintosh world, but you're set on exploring new architecures and you have the cash, I would suggest buying Alpha hardware, or maybe PowerPC hardware, or even an old Sun or SGI. The hardware design at these levels is something you won't approach in PC design. Of course, the software availability is proportionally lower these days.
My advice for operating system installation? Stick to the guide unless you know better. But as you catch yourself thinking you might just do something your own way, size up the changes your actions might effect. Turn back then if you wish; there's no shame in playing it safe when you can always change it later.
Trust your instincts, because your computer won't.
What kind of MIPS machine do you have?
I want one.
They use that phrase at least 3 times (I stopped reading when I read it the third time). How blatantly incorrect.
Well, then, you should write a letter to the publisher of the software and cancel the terms of your licensing agreement and request a full refund of the purchase price.