[107752] in Cypherpunks
Re: CDR: Re: Adieu Privacy: Intel identifiziert Chips
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Petro)
Fri Jan 22 11:43:37 1999
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.3.91.990121150939.7045D-100000@denver>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 10:17:28 -0500
To: cypherpunks@einstein.ssz.com, Lucky Green <shamrock@cypherpunks.to>
From: Petro <petro@playboy.com>
Cc: cypherpunks@einstein.ssz.com
Reply-To: Petro <petro@playboy.com>
At 5:23 PM -0500 1/21/99, Jim Burnes - Denver wrote:
>On Thu, 21 Jan 1999, Lucky Green wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 21 Jan 1999, Jim Burnes - Denver wrote:
>>
>> > Oh...and the obvious followup. Intel is not the only x86
>> > player on the market. AMD is becoming a popular alternative
>> > (especially in the gaming market where piracy is rampant).
>> > Not to mention Cyrix etc etc.
>>
>> Since CPU's lacking the ID features will be unable to run the modern
>> applications of the future, market pressures will force manufacturers of
>> Intel compatible CPU's to add equivalent identifers.
>>
>
>If indeed these "applications of the future" demand these capabilities
>you are correct. Since all my experiences with CPU bound
Maybe not--There is after all a difference between an "ID" and a
"unique id", If the software wants a serial number, give it one, the same
one for every chip.
--
"To sum up: The entire structure of antitrust statutes in this country is a
jumble of economic irrationality and ignorance. It is a product: (a) of a
gross misinterpretation of history, and (b) of rather naïve, and certainly
unrealistic, economic theories." Alan Greenspan, "Anti-trust"
http://www.ecosystems.net/mgering/antitrust.html
Petro::E-Commerce Adminstrator::Playboy Ent. Inc.::petro@playboy.com
