Slashback: Memory, Constancy, Triumph 278
Why not put 'em on Freenet while you're at it ... Imran Ghory writes: "Google has put out an appeal to get NetNews CDs (produced by Sterling Software and CD Publishing Corporation) which archived usenet between 1992 to 1995. Looks like Google is reviving Deja's idea of a total usenet archive."
This sounds like a worthy objective, worth rooting around for -- maybe they'll even give you a credit somewhere.
They know that of which they speak. Hot on the heels of the inexorable GCC project's 3.0.1 release, zealot (and a number of other people) wrote with the news that "Intel will release its latest compilers (the ones that optimize for P4 and can do some auto-vectorization of code) for Linux this Thursday. I'd love to see some performance numbers for compiled code on a P4 if anyone gets their hands on this ... maybe the autovectorization could help some gimp plugins speed up."
You cannot stop the chess updates Álvaro Begué writes: "Junior is the new World Micro Computer Chess Champion, Shredder won in the single processor category (five years in a row) and Goliath won the blitz tournament. Congratulations to all of them. Check out the official website."
Maybe the durned things will stick around forever. In addition to the IBM research on making ultra-slim CRT monitors, an Anonymous Coward points to another article on the future of CRTs: "This is a new technology that can integrate into existing production lines and can halve the depth of a CRT type tube. A TV normally 22 inches deep would be only 11 inches."
Hooray for CRT! (Score:1)
Re:Hooray for CRT! (Score:2, Funny)
LCDs are nice, but you miss out on the flood of radiation pouring out the front.
Re:Hooray for CRT! (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Hooray for CRT! (Score:2)
OT: Ricochet modems still useful.. (Score:2)
Technical Info, Please! (Score:5, Informative)
This is a new technology that can integrate into existing production lines and can halve the depth of a CRT type tube. A TV normally 22 inches deep would be only 11 inches
This is nothing new, but it's an incremental improvement. I'd like some technical info before I can decide whether or not this is just a marketing stunt or other dubious improvement.
When TV sets first came out in the 1940s, their CRTs more resembled oscilloscopes. They were long, and with small screens. Their deflection angles were about 25 degrees.
As the early 1950s dawned, TV sets started to feature electromagnetic deflection. New, horizontal and vertical ouput tubes were suddenly able to support the current requirements of deflecting the beam 45 degrees towards a new big-screen 17" display.
The 1960s saw the beginning of the embrace of color television. As there are three electron beams in color TV sets, the neck was bigger than in monochrome sets. More deflection current was required to drive a 17" color set than a 17" black and white. High-tech new beam power amplifier tubes were developed to deal with the loads - compactron tubes like the 6LU8 and 21GY5 replaced the venerable 6BQ6. The spillover was that the mass-produced new high-power deflection tubes could also be used to make tighter deflection angles on black and white sets; the 19DUP4 was a Philco B&W picture tube released in 1965. It had a whopping 110 degree deflection angle, making for a TV set that had a 19" display but was only a foot deep.
Solid state TV sets using high-power MOSFET transistors have been able to handle the bigger current to drive new tight-deflection 110 degree color tubes. So far, it's been incremental.
But there remains a problem. A TV set's deflection yoke has to be driven with a sawtooth wave. There's a slow ramp up in voltage, then it quickly snaps down to off. Then another slow ramp and another quick snap. This corresponds to the beam sweeping sideways across the screen and then resetting to the left hand side very quickly.
Because the output amplifiers are neither fully on nor fully off, they're running in linear mode. All the energy not actually used to drive the yoke during the ramp is simply wasted as heat. But that energy isn't free... won't these things be meant to deal with Energy Star and other certifications? Tighter deflection means more deflection current means more wasted power in the amplifiers... and if the EPA buckles by defining a new guideline for thin monitors like these will purport to be, they'll be in competition with LCD monitors.
LCD will win.
The CRT will always be with us, but its time in the mainstream is coming to an end. This sounds too much like a marketing ploy, and goes too far against physics to be anything else.
Re:Technical Info, Please! (Score:2)
Suppose we drive the yoke with the filtered output of a d/a converter? Instead of a big honkin MOSFET being driven in linear mode, we use..let's say...a 16 bit sawtooth generator. Now, I can't think of a DAC IC that would be beefy enough to do the job and amplifying it's output puts us in the boat we are trying to avoid. However, 16 somewhat stout transistors could be used to drive the yoke directly through an appropriate LC network. Now 16 transistors sounds bad but maybe it could be done with 8 or 12. Instead of a big hot power waster being driven in linear mode, we have an array of transistors being snapped on and off in digital mode. I don't design CRTS but I can't image why this hasn't occured to real engineers. There might even be power ics for this purpose.
Re:Technical Info, Please! (Score:2)
Instead of a big hot power waster being driven in linear mode, we have an array of transistors being snapped on and off in digital mode
Okay. How do you make the big array of transistors output the linear voltage that you need? A big ladder of resistors...
So, instead of having the cost of one transistor, the manufacturer has that much more to deal with. The price rises and the reliability drops.
Remember, these things are gonna be sold to idiot consumers, who can't understand technical benefits of anything.
Re:Technical Info, Please! (Score:2)
I've looked for power amplifier ICs, but have not found them. I think that an IC package is just not suitable for power dissapation.
One. Power ICs are usually not in DIP packages.
Two. You'll seldom find them at Radio Shack.
Examples of *common* power ICs: LM383 audio amplifier. LM78xx and LM79xx voltage regulators. The big flat-pack voltage regulators you find in lots of VCRs.
Re:Technical Info, Please! (Score:3, Interesting)
This isn't true, at least for horizontal deflection (which requires the most energy). The output amplifier is basically running in switching mode; the sawtooth is generated by the energy stored in and released from the yoke's inductance. The dI/dt energy released can be stored elsewhere for the next cycle (in another inductor or in a capacitor) or just dissipated -- but not in the amplifier.
You're absolutely correct that wider defection angles require more drive energy (for a given beam energy). Unless they've found a way to do more deflection before the beam is fully accelerated (which would reduce deflection energy requirements while making focusing more difficult), these units are going to suck massive amounts of power.
Re:Technical Info, Please! (Score:2)
This isn't true, at least for horizontal deflection (which requires the most energy). The output amplifier is basically running in switching mode; the sawtooth is generated by the energy stored in and released from the yoke's inductance. The dI/dt energy released can be stored elsewhere for the next cycle (in another inductor or in a capacitor) or just dissipated -- but not in the amplifier.
It's nice to finally hear from someone else on Slashdot who apparently has some clue of electronics! :)
But I beg to differ. Maybe not in more modern TV sets and monitors, but on most stuff right up to the mid-80s, you could clearly pull the sawtooth off the plate of the horizontal oscillator or vertical oscillator using an oscilloscope.
Resonance is what keeps the TV set efficient enough to be practical, but it's not what makes the sawtooth. It's far too fundamental to be trusted simply to the resonance of the yoke.
Re:Sweep requirments (Score:2)
then as the field in the yoke decays, the Damper (say a 6AX4) starts conducting to finish the sweep.
Uhhh... The damper works simply to recapture energy that would otherwise cause barkhausen (sp?) oscillations. Pull out the damper, you'll still have full sweep (and maybe flyback, output and yoke damage). There'll be a hell of a ring at the right hand side of the screen, though.
What happens is that as the flux collapses (mostly in the flyback), the output circuit, which is designed to be resonant at 15,750Hz, rings like a bell at a higher harmonic.
During the tube era, if you look at a TV schematic, most of the dampers were even run off a separate winding on the flyback. The separate winding damped the oscillation and provided a nice bonus: the damper rectified the induced voltage, and it was fed to many output stages in the set as something called "B+ Boost".
I've got a fairly comprehensive collection of old TV sets. Of course, almost all the paper and early electrolytic capacitors are shot when you get an antique TV set. In one of them, a 1953 General Electric, I measured the B+ boost as 550V. It was used to drive the vertical and audio output stages. Symptomatically, it's like a modern TV set: if anything is wrong with the horizontal circuit, the set plays dead. Tube filaments with their cheery glow, but nothing else.
Re:Technical Info, Please! (Score:3, Insightful)
anything else.
speaking as someone who almost entirely converted to lcd (I run dual SGI 1600sw lcd's at home in xinerama mode. mmmm - nice!), I have to admit it falls down badly when it comes to photo work. the colors really aren't real and the viewing angle makes monitor calibration all but impossible.
I do all my code devel on lcd's. but when I need to do photo retouching, it will ALWAYS be done [finally] on a crt. sad but true.
Re:Technical Info, Please! (Score:2)
If the sawtooth is a problem, why not drive with a square wave : draw from left to right, drop down a line, then draw back from right to left?
Uhhh... Okay. Very basic here.
A sweep circuit basically turns a given voltage into a beam position.
It does it like an oscilloscope graphs voltages by pulling the vertical sweep up or down based on the voltage applied to the input.
Now, this is oversimplifying for a variety of reasons, but follow me. Let's say you have a yoke that wants from 0-50 volts. 0 volts gives you a beam at the far left of the screen, and 50 volts puts it at the far right of the screen.
Since you want the beam to draw a line (in sync with the TV station's camera, no less) you have to ramp the voltage up from 0 to 50V.
Now, once you've achieved 50V and the beam is at the far right of the screen, you want it to go back to the left hand side of the screen as quickly as possible and do the sweep again. The voltage is dropped from 50V to 0 as quickly as possible. You've just described a sawtooth wave.
Let's say you're feeling creative and want to try a square wave. 0V 50V 0V 50V - the beam would be dragged across the screen far too quickly to draw a useable sweep. Sure, you could slow it down by increasing the inductance of the yoke - then it would take more time for the yoke to respond to the changes in voltage. First problem with that is that it would happen in both directions, even when you want the beam to return to its starting point as quickly as possible. If you plotted the voltage on a scope, you'd get a mushy exponential curve in each direction. And the beam deflection would occur with the same ugly lack of linearity... the beam would actually speed up and slow down during the sweep. Showing a circle on such a TV set would be less than satisfying.
Sure you'd need to buffer the incoming signal but so what?Most TV sets and xVGA computer monitors are still analog, so buffering it and trying to sync the buffer to the sweep would be another level of complexity.
Usenet archives (Score:5, Funny)
"My name is Dave Rhodes. In September 1988 my car was reposessed and the bill collectors were hounding me like you wouldn't believe"....
Yeah, I'm not happy either... (Score:2, Insightful)
I guess I can be accountable for my youth.
Re:Yeah, I'm not happy either... (Score:2)
Re:Usenet archives (Score:1)
Just think of it as a way of proving to newbies that you were on Usenet way before it was cool.
MAKE ENEMIES FAST!!!!
Re:Usenet archives (Score:2)
(P.S. No offense to twin midgets)
Shallower CRTs (Score:1)
"This is a new technology that can integrate into existing production lines and can halve the depth of a CRT type tube. A TV normally 22 inches deep would be only 11 inches."
All thanks to those changing laws of physics! [slashdot.org]
Did they forget the memory? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Did they forget the memory? (Score:2, Informative)
Compiler costs (Score:1, Insightful)
Also, are they doing those mods in compliance with the GPL? Also, someone give me a goddamn reason why GLibc 2.2.4 should not be compiled with GCC 3.0.1. I did and it works without any problem (then again I don't know jack about the real reason).
Re:Compiler costs (Score:1)
GPL has nothing to do with this compiler. And the reason is, it generates faster code.
Re:Compiler costs (Score:1)
And I thought GCC was GPL'd or am I just wrong here?
Re:Compiler costs (Score:1)
You mean you're supposed to PAY for Micros~1 software? Hmmm....Um...BRB
Re:Compiler costs (Score:1)
Re:Compiler costs (Score:1)
Re:Compiler costs (Score:1)
That's not very much at all for a company. Especially if it will optimize enough to give a measurable performance increase. If you get a 10-20% increase for free (ok $500), it's well worth it. Compare this cost to what it would cost you to pay an engineer to optimize his code.
Re:Compiler costs (Score:2)
Compare this cost to what it would cost you to pay an engineer to optimize his code.
The optimizations that an engineer would make would have a much more dramatic effect than tickling some opcodes.
Re:Compiler costs (Score:2)
Of course, the compiler can only work with the C that it's given by the coder. There's things you can do like making structures an even power-of-two size which will speed the code up; this is a trade-off against memory usage which only the coder can make. But after that, it's up to the compiler to make it as efficient as possible. For instance, on some processors a compiler may implement a integer multiply by 9 as "shift-by-3, add original value" which is often faster than a single multiply instruction, and most engineers wouldn't write their C this way.
Grab.
Re:Compiler costs (Score:1)
Re: My bad! (Score:1)
/me slaps himself across the face
Re:Compiler costs (Score:4, Interesting)
Now they want to charge to make their dog chip work right?
and no one else sees this?
Re:Compiler costs (Score:2, Insightful)
Read carefully ... (Score:1)
-1, blasphemous (Score:1, Funny)
Re:Compiler costs (Score:1)
Re:Compiler costs (Score:2)
I wouldn't mind having a Series III to sit in my office now, but they're probably beyond the dumpster phase...off to eBay!
Thanks, MSNBC (Score:1, Interesting)
S-Cubed works by bending beams of electrons in a way that allows the electron gun -- which shoots out the beams -- to be moved closer to the screen.
This, to me is like saying "S-Cubed works by making CRTs smaller." With what, hyperspace? Gee, do you think you could be a little more specific?
Would appreciate it if someone could find a relevant patent application.
Re:Thanks, MSNBC (Score:2, Informative)
Image 7b [uspto.gov] is the most useful; which isn't saying much.
Having never used an Intel compiler.... (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Having never used an Intel compiler.... (Score:2, Informative)
Hence, Intel has compilers of their own that work very well, but why they aren't made public like this Linux one is, I wish I knew, as it could undermine MS-VC in terms of compiled code performance.
Re:Having never used an Intel compiler.... (Score:1)
Re:Having never used an Intel compiler.... (Score:2, Informative)
The standard compiler is great for fucking around but you really want the real one for production systems. At my office the Windows weenies have a MSDN Universal subsrciption so they have all the cool toys anyway. If you aren't familiar with the wacky world of Windows, the MSDN Universal subscription is about $3000 per year and includes monthly (!!) shipments of the latest patched Microsoft OSs (all of them... Win2k Pro and Server, Me, et cetera), Visual Studio Enterprise (which includes VC++, InterDev and a whole bunch of other shit), plus beta releases of upcoming products. If you're a MS shop it's pretty sweet.
It may come with other toys; I'm not really sure, I'm not in the Windows group (I'm in the "web" group, we run AIX) and just use their VC++ install media on my NT workstation.
Come on, NT Server licenses cost $600-800 a piece. You think they're going to practically give away their fast compiler?
Re:Having never used an Intel compiler.... (Score:2)
Do you have evidence of this? I see plenty of SPEC CPU benchmarks using Intel compilers.
Re:Having never used an Intel compiler.... (Score:1)
I dont recall what Pentium chip this happened with or when it happened, all I remember is that it did.
I've also been corrected by others on Intel making Windows compilers available for purchase. They do offer compilers and optimizers for purchase. I am assuming it is these compilers that the SPEC data you are viewing was generated from.
Re:Having never used an Intel compiler.... (Score:2)
Intel probably has a document somewhere that will at least enumerate exactly how you should write your code for the P4 (at the machine level), the Intel compiler just follows that standard.
Re:Having never used an Intel compiler.... (Score:1, Informative)
Have fun =)
Re:Having never used an Intel compiler.... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Having never used an Intel compiler.... (Score:1)
I imagine that Intel's compiler market is rather small. Almost every Windows shop runs either Microsoft's or Borland's compilers, most GNU/Linux shops run GCC, and UNIX shops run either GCC or a vendor's compiler (but most UNIX shops don't run x86 anyway, heh).
GCC vs. Intel (Score:3, Troll)
Would you be surprised if Intels compiler produced faster code than GCC? I believe Linus has stated that GCC is a bit "bloated". I wonder if you can compile the Linux kernel with it (minus assembly of course). That might be interesting, particularly for P4. Linux could get an instant speed boost. And such a radical switch in compiler might expose flaws in the code. Definately a worthwhile excercise if nothing else. And even though the average user isn't going to buy it to compile their kernel, the distro's might for their precomiled kernels (err, wonder how that would work
Wouldn't work (Score:1)
Re:Wouldn't work (Score:2)
Understood. Actually, I just realized the Makefiles would present an insurmountable problem in themselves.
Bloated Compiler? (Score:3, Insightful)
PS: The fact that a post as empty as yours is at +4 is a sure sign that all the good posters have either left Slashdot or no longer actively partcipate. Sad.
Re:Bloated Compiler? (Score:2, Interesting)
Point is, I'm betting that a compiler written for a specific chip and specific language (i.e. Intel's compiler) will perform better (i.e. produce better code) than a "compiler collection" wuth multiple pluggable front- and back-ends, all other things being equal. (Not that all other things necessarily are equal in this case (Go GNU!).)
P.S. I don't think your trolling will help to improve the quality of the posts on Slashdot.
Exactly what is your point? (Score:2)
This is an illogical statement. Apache and IIS support using multiple language to develop apps while my homemade webserver only supports C++. Does this mean my webserver is of higher quality than Apache or IIS? gcc is written a modular manner and the different language compilers are written by different people so talking about compiler bloat (whatever that means) is moot.
The important point is that Intel engineers with access to all sorts of internal Intel resources wrote a compiler that optimizes specifically for Intel chipsets while the gcc folk wrote a compiler that optimizes for x86 as well as other chipsets. The fact that the Intel guys spent 100% of their efforts on Intel chipsets while the gcc guys didn't is more likely to be the reason that Intel's compiler will outperform gcc and not because of any nebulous concept as compiler bloat.
Re:Bloated Compiler? (Score:2)
Oh, puh-leez! Slashdot's not any worse today than it was in 1998, 1999, or 2000.
Re:GCC vs. Intel (Score:5, Interesting)
Not really. As the GCC folks readily admit, GCC is presently suboptimal at generating code for highly superscalar instruction sets. This isn't too much of a problem for P1->P4 (but gets progressivly stickier) which aren't very rich in that regard, but it gets to be a significant issue for LIW and VLIW architectures (including IA64).
This isn't a bad reflection on GCC or its developers, however - writing such a compiler (in particular, an instruction scheduler that keeps the various pipelines efficiently filled) is very hard, and this hitherto hasn't been an issue for the mainstream architectures at which GCC is targeted.
I remember reading somewhere that Philips spent more writing the compiler for its TriMedia VLIW chip (which is 5x5, as I recall) than they did actually designing the chip itself.
Re:GCC vs. Intel (Score:2)
All in all, the gcc folks have made a very good tradeoff. Their portability and generality allow them to quickly move to the latest, greatest architecture, giving them a nontrivial across-the-board performance increase. Compaq's Alpha compiler will become completely useless when there are no more Alphas.
The same goes for Intel's latest tuning of an x86 core. Let's see how good their P4 compiler does on the Athlon or Merced. Not that anything could help Itanic's performance...
-Paul Komarek
Re:GCC vs. Intel (Score:2)
Possibly, but you'd have to ship the compiler with the dist since you would be hard pressed to link dissimilar code together dynamically. I'm no expert on this, but I do remember woes with using a sun compiler on Solarix x86 with the gcc compiler. This failed miserably with Apache / mod_perl and with simple perl + CPAN libraries. We had to go with the Solaris comipler all the way, which was a royal pain, let me tell you.
Unless someone has some info to the contrary, you'd have to forgoe most any precompiled linux binaries, which will definately get into your hair, as I've definately found.
I'm not completely sure, but doesn't gcc extend C with various types of proprietary compiler attributes? I believe it's possible that the configuration stage can nullify them, and it's been a while since I've looked through Linux source, but I do remember those attributes hanging around.
Still, I'm sure it's possible, and I'd be curious to learn of anyone's success..
On the massochistic side, has anyone compiled Linux with a MicroSoft comipler?
-Michael
Re:GCC vs. Intel (Score:1)
Sarnoff (Score:1)
A quick check of Sarnoff's website [sarnoff.com] doesn't reveal much either - their last press release was in late July. Pretty slick company though - nothing wrong with Flexible plastic LCD's [sarnoff.com] (again light on the details). You'd think they'd be a little more forthcomming with details, but I guess in the world of patents you can't risk anything.
Re:Sarnoff (Score:1)
Re:Here's the patent (?) (Score:2, Informative)
Links:
IBM/Delphion [delphion.com]
US Patent Office [uspto.gov]
Re:Here's the patent (?) (Score:2)
The description reads like one of those analog devices that takes way too many alignment adjustments. But some of that can be automated, and components are stable enough now that many of the values can be fixed at the factory.
My guess is that the new scheme has some of the same elements of this one, and involves multiple correction coils to fix the beam distortions introduced when you deflect an electron beam through huge angles.
Free P4 Compiler (Score:1)
Re:Free P4 Compiler (Score:1)
Ask the NSA (Score:1, Informative)
there may also be independently-kept archives
at other agencies.
Of course they do. (Score:1)
Re:Of course they do. (Score:1)
A brief Amiga flashback (Score:1, Funny)
1. Hold Left-Shift, Left-Alt, Right-Shift and right-alt
2. Press any of the F keys and get a message!
3. To get a message toward Commodore, do this
4. Hold down the same as step 1 and hold down an f key
5. Insert a disk and you get the message "We made the amiga..."
6. Take the disk out and you get "And Commodore F**ked it up!'
(OT) quickies? (Score:3, Offtopic)
Re:(OT) quickies? (Score:1)
Re:(OT) quickies? (Score:2)
- Robin
That's one Hell of a S/H charge... (Score:2, Funny)
In this CNET article [cnet.com] about the release of Intel's Linux compilers, they quoted the purchase price as $399 for a download, $499 for a CD. Somebody should tell them that blank CDs are a lot cheaper than they used to be...
(I know, I know. The boxed version probably also comes with some printed documentation, supposedly justifying the higher price. It still seemed funny to me..)
Flattest CRT (Score:4, Interesting)
CRT (Score:5, Insightful)
"I hate this stupid CRT. I wish i had an LCD monitor. Cheapskate boss."
"I can't wait 'till i get this laptop back to the office so i can plug it into a CRT instead of having to squint at a stupid LCD."
USENET ARCHIVES: NOOOOOO (Score:5, Funny)
Too True (Score:2)
Re:USENET ARCHIVES: NOOOOOO (Score:2, Funny)
Cheer up, man. My first posting was entitled "n".
Re:USENET ARCHIVES: NOOOOOO (Score:2, Funny)
Re:USENET ARCHIVES: NOOOOOO (Score:2, Funny)
Why does youth always have to coincide with incredible stupidity?
Maybe Google is going to milk the cash cow of charging for selective deletions. I'd pay $50 for each of certain posts to go away permantly.
Can you really be identified from Slashdot (Score:2)
Slashdot might be keeping our IP addresses. But maybe they are smart enough not to keep this?
KDE C++ question (Score:1, Interesting)
Power draw, Materials resources, Reuse (Score:2, Interesting)
Yes, they cost more, but what are you really paying for?
I'd also be curious about recycle potential. There is much less material in an LCD, how about polution from disposal? How much of that can be reused and recycled? How about compared to a CRT?
Bob-
Re:Power draw, Materials resources, Reuse (Score:2)
Here at work we have a Customer Care command center, with about 20 LCD monitors in one little room. It allows for easily locating and monitoring those departments and individuals that are getting too many customer calls. The LCD's are hung three monitors high on two walls. This room would have to be 2-3 times its current size of 12'x 12' to fit as many CRT monitors (even if they were half the size of current CRT monitors). And this is just for your average customer call center, nothing all that special. I'm sure the savings on running 20 LCD's 24hours a day is much better than trying to cool down what the equivalantly sized room X 20 CRT displays would cost.
IBM *MAY* license slim-CRT technology??? (Score:2, Interesting)
Every freelance graphic designer who has up until now had to surrender a big chunk of their living space to a hulking 19" or 21" CRT (because of finances or because of LCD color issues) will be flinging wads of money at the makers of slim CRT monitors. Not to mention the regular joes who just want a 17" or 18" LCD, but can't justify spending ~$1000 on a display.
Hell, I'd pony up for two of the things, just to replace what I have now and get my desk to stop bowing in the middle from the weight of my old-school 17" and 14".
~Philly
Re:IBM *MAY* license slim-CRT technology??? (Score:2)
Re:IBM *MAY* license slim-CRT technology??? (Score:2)
Athlon (and P3/P4?) cache issues (Score:1)
There are some issues with post 2.95 gcc with newer CPUS, specially with Athlons.
Those are explained here [utk.edu]. Cache handling seems to be the big problem.
Chess (Score:1)
Yes, you can remove your posts (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Yes, you can remove your posts (Score:2)
to nuke, you have to be the 'email owner' and that means they send a confirmation to the from: addr and you reply back saying you agree with the nuke request. you obviously can't do that if you've spamguarded your posts.
another area this doesn't address is when you've nuked your own post, but some "helpful soul" has done a followup and copied the bulk of your text in their reply. in that case, you'd have to go around getting all those other folks to submit nuke requests (good luck...).
in short, just assume that once you post, its "out there" and generally can't be taken back.
Re:Yes, you can remove your posts (Score:2)
The problem being, for example, that email addresses might not still be around. I was using an academic account in the early to mid '90s which either no longer exists, or has been recycled.
People say things on Usenet, as they do on IRC, with the expectation that it will not be around forever. That's one of the reasons both those channels are often used to discuss controversial subjects. If you say something in haste, or play devils advocate, it doesn't matter because it was expected to evaporate.
Now, there is the scope of massive out-of-context abuse of the system, what if you're 30 years old and you don't get that job because the interviewer searched google and found out that as an 18-year-old freshman you were an anarchist?
Google should honor all reasonable requests to delete postings from the archive (here is a list of email addresses I have used, for example). IANAL, but it might be better for them to do so now, rather than waiting for the first lawsuit.
If Google wants the "NetNews CD Series" ... (Score:3, Insightful)
(I'd love to see JMS's preproduction Netnews postings about Babylon 5, myself.)
Intel compiler (Score:5, Funny)
The compiler crashed and burned. Their techical support site (which you get to by clicking on a creepy NDA) didn't contain much information. The links that did look interesting were broken
Eventually I found a document contained a list of known bugs. One of them was " was not included in the distribution. This will be fixed in the next update." Fantastic!
Has anyone out there successfully installed this compiler? My employers are very interested in using it (we want fast code for our intel machines), and I am very interested in trying it out.
Complete and Utter Boredom (Score:2)
You'd think they'd at least have had a foosball or ping pong table or something. If I ever get into something like that, I'll remember to bring a copy of War and Peace [promo.net].
backup of usenet: (Score:2, Insightful)
Test
This is a Test
TEST
Test!
anymore i have left out??
How does Google get away with this? (Score:2)
Yet they are in the black. Meanwhile, ambitious efforts like Infoseek, Lycos, Yahoo, and NBCi are floundering or defunct. Perhaps there is a lesson in that. I certainly hope so.