Why Intel is adding instructions to speed up non-volatile memory

Re:Why Intel is adding instructions to speed up non-volatile... by 6cxs2hd6 on Thursday November 06, 2014 @09:30AM (#8567112)

I'm downvoting your comment because

- that seems to be copy and pasted (i.e. plagiarized) from the original blog post http://danluu.com/clwb-pcommit/

- your submission history suggests you are associated with improgrammer.net

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why Intel is adding instructions to speed up non-volatile... by acqq on Thursday November 06, 2014 @09:52AM (#8567201)

Yes, it is 100% plagiarized. The last sentence in the original text:

"It doesn’t directly address the OS overhead issue, but that can, to a large extent, be worked around without extra hardware."

Their modification:

"It doesn’t directly address the OS overhead issue, but that can, to an astronomically immense extent, be worked around without extra hardware."

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why Intel is adding instructions to speed up non-volatile... by 8957a7e86 on Thursday November 06, 2014 @12:22PM (#8568172)

It looks like the original text was automatically processed by replacing various words by their synonyms from a thesaurus, leading to hilariously non-idiomatic prose.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why Intel is adding instructions to speed up non-volatile... by rbanffy on Thursday November 06, 2014 @03:10PM (#8569448)

Artificial Awkwardness. It was bound to happen.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why Intel is adding instructions to speed up non-volatile... by dang on Thursday November 06, 2014 @02:57PM (#8569381)

Ouch, that's bad. Also, plagiarizing luu doesn't sit well around these parts. That's the home team!

[ Parent | on HN ]