Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:41:04 09/25/03
Go up one level in this thread
On September 24, 2003 at 18:40:13, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On September 24, 2003 at 12:03:16, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On September 23, 2003 at 08:10:45, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >>>On September 22, 2003 at 20:52:54, Dan Andersson wrote: >>> >>>> Looking forward to the FX51 results of DIEP. It looks like one big iron single >>>>CPU. >>>> >>>>MvH Dan Andersson >>> >>>I just heart that AMD again is dead slow on this and that the NDA is till 6 PM >>>CET. So nearly 4 hours to go. >>> >>>I've extensively compiled at the opteron and diep been tested extensively at the >>>A64 2.2ghz fx51. >>> >>>Though i didn't sign any NDA i feel i would do something illegal when presenting >>>results before 6 PM. >>> >>>What a stupid time to lift the NDA. >>> >>>Typical AMD. Never busy with a world wide view. >>> >>>Best regards, >>>Vincent >> >> >>Aren't you the _same_ person that used to rag Eugene all the time saying >>"I would never sign any NDA with any company" when Eugene said that he could >>not release specific details due to an NDA with company X??? >> >>that's what I thought... >> >>Here today. There tomorrow. >> >>No consistency. > >I even wrote down here that i did NOT sign any NDA at all. >You're not reading what i wrote even. >>>I just heart that AMD again is dead slow on this and that the NDA is till 6 PM >>>CET. So nearly 4 hours to go. > If you didn't sign it, why do you say "the NDA is till 6PM"? More of your twisted and insane logic? It can't be in force if you didn't sign it. So don't say "I am over the line here". You either can't write or don't know what you _are_ writing. One or the other. >You are really *over* the line again. > >Old, dumb stubborn. Not reading what was written down etc. See above. Then figure out who is "old, dumb, stubborn". I can't read your mind. I can only read what you write. When you say an NDA is in force until 6pm that implies you have an NDA that is in force until 6pm. If you didn't sign one, it isn't in force. If you did sign it, it is. You can't have it both ways, no matter how bad you want to. > >So fuck off Bob. Nice, original, well-thought-out argument. typical. > >But i was given results which influence markets and reactions publicly so >bigtime that i could not possibly say a word on it. No, you said there was an NDA preventing you from giving results. That is _exactly_ what you said. What you meant is something else and I really don't care about that at all. > >50% faster than a P4 simply when using 1 process. I'm sure I'll trust a number pulled out of _your_ hat...
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.