Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Buy Low Sell Hi who wrote (39542)	11/7/1997 11:56:00 PM
From: Ali Chen	Respond to of 186894

BLSH: <..Collins, what he has done is irresponsible.> This is a misinterpretation. According to Collins, he new about this "months ago" but did not publish a word trying to communicate with Intel, without a success though. The bug was posted by someone from University of Texas at Austin, yesterday. That made it public, not Collins. See Usenet group comp.sys.intel. Some excerpts may be found in exchange2000.com Ali.

To: Buy Low Sell Hi who wrote (39542)	11/8/1997 12:42:00 AM
From: Paul Engel	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 186894

BLSH - Pentium BS BUG Any processor can easily be crashed. If a program intentionally places a bogus memory address on the stack, and then pops that value into the Code Segment Register, the processor will crash - attempting to execute code from some bogus location. Force feeding a known illegal opcode into the processor is just that - forcing an intentional crash. Processors are machines - not bullet proof automatons. You try and screw them up and you'll screw them up. Paul