Slashdot Mirror
Intel Says Chips To Become Slower But More Energy Efficient (thestack.com)
An anonymous reader writes: William Holt, Executive Vice President and General Manager of Intel's Technology and Manufacturing Group, has said at a conference that chips will become slower after industry re-tools for new technologies such as spintronics and tunneling transistors. "The best pure technology improvements we can make will bring improvements in power consumption but will reduce speed." If true, it's not just the end of Moore's Law, but a rolling back of the progress it made over the last fifty years.
Intel's so far ahead of AMD, they have to roll back the clocks in order to stay competitive. >.>
Have you ever fallen asleep at the keybhanusdiog?
And more Buggy?
So the plan to make transistors tolerate higher clock speeds by using better materials is not going to happen?
Hopefully if this does happen they will keep making the existing products, at least until they *do* manage performance improvements that catch up / exceed older stuff. Where I work we have lots of customers that *need* more processing power, and efficiency be damned.
William George
Looks like I'm going to have to have that conversation with my colleagues again about 'software bloat' :)
I can't imagine that there will simply be zero demand for fast, or faster, chips, regardless of the power efficiency. Some applications just demand it. If Intel won't do it, then someone else will, whether that's AMD or some new competitor in China or wherever.
On the other hand, there's certainly a market for more efficiency, especially in mobile devices, so I can certainly see lines of chips designed for that heading in the way described.
Why the Moore's law concern? I didn't get the impression that chips in general will get slower, just they're going to make more slow but efficient chips for specialized stuff while the chips WE use continue to, you know, get faster and eat more power.
How will I ever keep up with the newest versions of bloatware now?
If I can't spend $2k to run the latest norton antivirus and adaware, I'll be sad. Might even have to move to Linux.
3D printing and like private space mining? Computers got better so everything will! Forever! And ever!
Optical
:T:R:A:N:S:
A flight from London to New York takes as long today as it did about 50 years ago. But the current planes achieve that more efficiently, with slightly larger windows, and some more pressure and humidity in the cabin. How depressing to think that the computing world might be about to enter a similarly dismal stage as well.
They haven't managed to do anything terribly meaningful in *raw core speed* in years. Throwing more cores at it only helps in certain kinds of problems, and making it more energy efficient is meaningless in a home PC. Why is Intel trying to suck so much?
There are processors that work in the Terahertz range and its complete bullshit that these processes cannot be scaled up. Why is Intel pushing to arrest processor speeds??? Have classified systems hit a wall??? Can the gap no longer be maintained?
Lots of ways to get "speed."
I'm confused - don't Atom and Arm processors and the like already fill this need?
Or is this about significant reductions in power usage, with only minimal reductions in speed?
Gotta say, it would be nice if cutting edge, decently powerful processors no longer required active cooling though...
"Government is like fire; a handy servant, but a dangerous master." -- George Washington
"...If true, it's not just the end of Moore's Law, but a rolling back of the progress it made over the last fifty years."
While Moore's Law was fun to watch and experience while it lasted, this is a bit of a slap in the face when defining progress.
It's kind of like trying to define the transition from the gas-guzzling muscle car era to the fuel-efficient compact car era as rolling back progress.
Regardless of the finite resource, there's plenty of good reasons for humans to be consuming less of it.
Consider if aliens who were technologically advanced to around where we were in the 1970s. At what point during recent history would the operation of our semiconductors become so mysterious it would be beyond their ability to comprehend? If Intel gets around to integrating these new technologies (tunneling, spintronics, optical, quantum annealing), what decade would we be leaving in the dust?
the elitists who control every facet of your existence realized that if computing got too powerful, the everyday ordinary guy could do things do subvert their parasitic control of your reality.
there would need to be some kind of revolution in consciousness for the mind control to end.
As long as performance / watt increase can't one just use more of the slower chips?
About the optimal number of transistors in a SoC vs using many discrete components.
https://www.cs.utexas.edu/~fussell/courses/cs352h/papers/moore.pdf
see in particular the "bathtub graphs"
*** Suerte a todos y Feliz dia!
With AMD out of the way Intel can F*** us.
First they cut the pci-e lanes down on a $300-$350+ chip forcing you to pay upped to $350-$400 but then you need jump to $500-$600 to get the same as last gen + a small clock speed boost. This on the server / high workstation side.
On the desktop side they are still on DMI (Now at pci-e 3.0) + 16 PCI-e 3.0 why no QPI to chip set like AMD's HTX?
Computer salesperson: "Hey, it's time to replace your old machines."
Gov buyer: "Fuck off, they work just fine."
Computer salesperson: "But these shiny new Intel models SAVE ENERGY."
Gov buyer: "On second though we've got plenty of taxpayer money to blow on 'energy efficiency' projects. Why don't ya' put us down for half million new laptops and two million of those tablet thingies so people can plug them in next to their desktops - I mean 'replace their energy-sucking desktops' - and see if you can't find a new boat for 'my nephew' and a trip to the Caribbean for 'my travel agent' while you're at it."
They are so efficient, they actually generate power!
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Only for embarrassingly parallel workloads.
Raw Clock speed has been meaningless for the last few chip generations. And actually dropped a few gens ago. All for the sake of efficiency. The as speed goes up power consumption goes up exponentially. But the same works in reverse, by lowering speed a little bit you get a huge savings in power, which allows you to do stuff like add additional cores. So while raw speed goes down total computing power goes up. This just seems like more of the same.
Efficiency is good, no doubt. But the electricity to run your computer, tablet, or phone, vs. the rest of your house, is comparatively very little. It's almost trivial even... except for those mobiles devices that are dependent on a battery. And the sloth and complacency of the battery manufacturers vs. the tech industry is what's holding us back. If they were investing into the R&D to keep up with Intel and Moore's law... doubling their capacity every 18 months as well... performance compromises like this would be unnecessary. Every laptop would be useful for a full business day, not just MacBook Airs and Chromebooks; and our iPhones and Androids would last 2 weeks to the charge like our old-school Nokias did.
Imagine all the people...
No, a lot of applications don't scale well across multiple cores / CPUs.
William George
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Server 2016 is going per core licencing which means less cores overclocked
http://saveie6.com/
the software side has been storing up efficiency improvements for a long time. Just get rid of the extras, like bloatware, and hastily programmed apps, and nobody will notice.
I don't see the biggest benefit of reduced power consumption being in the home - have you ever been inside a datacentre? You can barely hear the dude standing next to you because of all the fans and A/C. You can't hear your phone ring. You can't hear PC speaker warning beeps. Now granted, not all of that comes from processor usage, but reducing the power required to run processors would make a massive difference in the cost to run a datacntre.
Not only does the chip consume power, it then requires a fan to move the heat away from the heatsink. The case then usually has more fans to move the heat out of the case. You then need to move the heat to a central cooling system, and then possibly to a cooling tower to be dumped to the atmosphere. For every joule of energy you use on a processor, you need to move 3 or 4 joules of energy around to sustain it. This is likely why, in my experience, power alone accounts for 75% of the cost of a datacentre, once you include the power required to cool the space as well. This could have huge benefits, but true, not really in the home.
"Government is like fire; a handy servant, but a dangerous master." -- George Washington
Since every new OS and program update is laden with crapware we need faster chips. I use both OSX and Win and both OS's are ridiculously slow considering the hardware available. Throw in IOS and you have a recipe for mediocrity across the whole IT industry.
And the sloth and complacency of the battery manufacturers vs. the tech industry is what's holding us back. If they were investing into the R&D to keep up with Intel and Moore's law...
And how many trillions would this cost? There's actually massive investments into battery technology. We've come a long ways in the last 20 years. But consider, they're figuring out that we had batteries way back in BC times. The Greeks had them, sort of, they think they were used for electroplating stuff.
But they started entering common use in the 19th century. We've put a huge amount of development work into them. But batteries, it turns out, run into physical laws much quicker than the 'completely new' field of semi-conductor technology. But we're running into the physical laws with semi-conductors now, which is why we haven't seen clock speeds increasing like they used to, and why parallel operations are far more important than they used to be, why we're seeing quad core and even octa-core processors in consumer machines today.
I don't read AC A human right
slower speed is slower speeds, it doesn't matter how many cores you have. It's still the frequency rating that counts. Talk to AMD. Bottom line unless program take advantage or multiple cores - and they don't - you want faster frequencies not more cores.
" but a rolling back of the progress it made over the last fifty years. "
Or, as stated, an improvement in power consumption which could have obvious correlations with:
1: Better thermal management/properties
2: Increased stability at higher speed due to 1
3: Longer battery life across the board due to less power consumption
I'd love to see a slight drop in speed (which I pretty much won't notice in a gamer oriented system) for better power consumption (which I absolutely will notice, since I have a laptop due to needing mobility), and better thermals (fans won't have to be quite so loud, bottom won't get quite so warm).
This should have a nice impact on server rooms too (datacenters, w/e), since cooling needs would be reduced. If the offset is a slight reduction in processor speed, in a platform that has a few Xeon processors, nobody's gonna notice that except perhaps when dealing with heavy needs, such as databases.
Sometimes a refinement means a slight step backward in one area to allow massive steps forward in another. Analogy: rock climbing. Got back one or two toe/finger holds, and then re-approach and get even farther.
Educate yourself on battery technology then post. Long lasting batteries have been the holy grail for just about every application. Research takes time.
Whatever, Intel
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
What I don't understand is why are last generation parts not dropping in price? For the longest time, whenever new stuff came out, the prices of older stuff dropped. But that doesn't seem to happen anymore.
What's up with that?
Actually, there are some fascinating advances in biological circuitry, which may make transistors redundant.
Real "wetware".
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Where I work we have lots of customers that *need* more processing power, and efficiency be damned.
I assume most customers who need extreme processing power have learned over the past 10 years that faster individual processors are not coming. Algorithm design plus parallel processors is going to be the source of perhaps all performance increases in the foreseeable future. Until we move away from silicon that is.
Are there even supercomputers out there which have faster processors than the fastest Xeon processors out there? I may be wrong, but I believe there really hasn't been any non-parallel based performance increases for a long time.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
This is a great example of waste through improper design. Datacenters (until recently) basically tried to move around the notion of the complete computing center as an interconnected system. This is evident via the use of air cooling, separate cases, independent power supplies, etc. for every computer within and the problems that arise (like noise) are the result.
The parts of a computer that do the actual work are the CPU and the parts that must be close to it due to frequency / data throughput limitations, such as memory, coprocessors (including graphics in many cases), and interfaces that go from these short range requirements to longer range resource access. Things like electricity, thermal regulation, non-frequency tied (asymmetric) data, can be agglomerated for efficiency. Plug and play liquid cooling, 5/3.3/12V on a multi-rack scale (I think Google does something similar) would not just increase power efficiency but also volumetric efficiency (FLOPS per m^3). Your only real limiting requirement is mean time to repair, which requires leaving void spaces for maintenance purposes.
So why don't those things exist? Because no one is willing to invest in developing them. As long as you treasure commodity hardware over minimal operating cost, you don't have anything to complain about when leaked energy comes out in undesirable forms (sound, heat, etc.).
Look at the average car. It has had so much crap bolted to it in options that it now has 2 hydraulic systems (continuous for power steering, actuated for antilock brakes and power brakes in some diesels), many, many vacuum powered systems, many electrical systems, and multiple thermal systems (engine liquid, engine oil, transmission oil, A/C compress refrigerant, voltage controller, and sometimes other electrical items.) and almost every sensor is an independent voltage signal on an independent wire which makes wiring harnesses horribly expensive, complex, and custom for every model with a specific engine / transmission / fuel / cabin combination. It's just screaming for optimization.
Moore's law is that transistor count doubles every eighteen months.
It has nothing to do with clock speeds.
Contrary to popular belief, Moore's Law doesn't say that processors will double in speed every 18~24 months. It says that the number of transistors that can economically be put on a single chip will double every 18~24 months. Up until recently, that has translated into a doubling of speed for two reasons: 1) more transistors can be used to optimize the processing of instructions through a variety of techniques and 2) the distances signals have to travel is lessened as the transistors shrink. More transistors contribute not only to power consumption but also more heat, which is another problem with high performance processors. This was partially dealt with by putting multiple cores on a die running at less than max clock rates, thereby distributing the heat and making it easier to deal with. It still may be economical to put more and more transistors on a die, but maybe we don't want to. More transistors consume more power. What's your priority, raw speed or power consumption. Maybe you can't optimize for both at the same time.
Having defeated their upstart competition, they can get back to slacking off. Soo much for "Get ready for thousands of cores!"
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
and I was like, when did Intel start making ships?
The problem is that programmers have gotten lazy (excuse me: "man-power efficient") off of the free speed we've been adding over all of these years. Layers upon layers of abstraction from machine code have made it possible to code in languages which are far removed from the actual code the runs on machines. There may now come a time when efficiency of programming matters to everyone, not just the embedded folks.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
The cortex-A series of chips appears to be catching Intel CISC in some of the raw compute numbers on a per-core basis. Will this possibly rekindle the RISC vs CISC battles of the 90s?
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
It's not AMD. Ever since multi-core started, all Intel had to do was toss in more cores after optimizing a single core for a given process. Since none of the commonly used applications are even adequately parallel (most may at best make good use of 2 cores), Intel is unable to DISPLACE recent Core CPUs at their customers. On the software side of things, Microsoft can force people to Windows 10, but Intel can't force people to, say, go from i3 to i5.
This speed drop is fine if it increases battery life: performance hits are unlikely to be noticeable. The main bottlenecks are download speeds and the loading of videos online, so as long as those don't suffer, Intel will be just fine.
I want a desk warmer that's blisteringly fast. I hope they keep the high end of the bargain too.
The purpose of existence is to make money.
Umm, that's not rolling back. It's a tradeoff.
If Intel sticks to what they've done in the last few product generations, they'll still have higher-wattage higher-performance chips at the upper end for servers and workstations. But the ULV parts have been staying at basically the same performance now for a few years, with drastically reduced energy use. I think the current parts are under 4 watts for the same performance you used to have to spend 18 watts to get.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
No, a lot of applications don't scale well across multiple cores / CPUs.
In 2016 they don't. But as chips evolve the applications will as well.
Even on single-threaded workloads, there is a potentially substantial gain to be had with something like the Mill Architecture. Beyond that, conventional architectures also prevent efficient light-weight threading. Intel's ruthless pursuit of process technologies to keep x86 competitive, has also postponed serious efforts at improving architecture and exploiting parallelism. Some headway has been made on specific workloads amenable to GPUs, but there still remains great potential and a lot of work to be done on progressing languages and scalable architectures. Seen in this way, the physical process limits may actually encourage real progress.
I can't imagine that there will simply be zero demand for fast, or faster, chips, regardless of the power efficiency. Some applications just demand it. If Intel won't do it, then someone else will, whether that's AMD or some new competitor in China or wherever.
On the other hand, there's certainly a market for more efficiency, especially in mobile devices, so I can certainly see lines of chips designed for that heading in the way described.
Intel is big enough to make big fast chips, small power efficient chips and large power efficient chips.
This is the wrong attitude. You don't need more per-CPU power; you need per-operation efficiency and parallel algorithms.
Where I work we have lots of customers that *need* more processing power, and efficiency be damned.
I assume most customers who need extreme processing power have learned over the past 10 years that faster individual processors are not coming. Algorithm design plus parallel processors is going to be the source of perhaps all performance increases in the foreseeable future. Until we move away from silicon that is.
Are there even supercomputers out there which have faster processors than the fastest Xeon processors out there? I may be wrong, but I believe there really hasn't been any non-parallel based performance increases for a long time.
Yes there has, but more through architectural changes - new instructions, new modes, bigger better caches, improved offload models, task specific hardware (like crypto, packet moving etc.). This has been enabled by the increasing number of transistors on die and is driven by the mobile and server markets, which have evolving and quite different needs. Xeons today do more work per second than Xeons in the past and the scaling is greater than the scaling of the individual CPU core performance.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
Er, no I'm afraid they won't.
There are entire classes of problems that do not scale.
Consider, as a thought experiment, any task where the outcome of the first "step" determines the parameters for the next.
There is no way to complete this overall task in parallel, since the other cores are left waiting for the results of the first step.
Yes, there are many tasks that do parallelize well, and these have been well studied for many years. But do not think we can overcome these problems with "progress". We'll be living on Mars first :)
As far as I can tell what they are saying is that during the transition period to new technologies there will be a situation where new technologies will not improve and will fall back a little in the area of performance.... which is to be expected. As that new technology improves it will again march reverse and performance will improve. In other words - if power consumption is important to you you will make the leap to the new technology first. If performance is important you will stay with existing technology in the interim. Performance improvements for existing technology is reaching its max, so there will be a stall or slowing down of improvements. That of course was not as interesting so they just spun it to get more readership.
What about people that care more about performance (per thread) than power consumption? Will we be stuck on old technology?
If I can cram more cores in a tighter space with less heat and power consumption then I'll call that a performance boost. Bring on the 24 core i5s :)
300 MHz is the new 4GHz?
No, a lot of applications don't scale well across multiple cores / CPUs.
In 2016 they don't. But as chips evolve the applications will as well.
There is a limit to parallelism.
No, a lot of applications don't scale well across multiple cores / CPUs.
In 2016 they don't. But as chips evolve the applications will as well.
That's what they said in 2006, when CPU clock speeds essentially hit the wall.
Mainstream CPUs started going multi-core back then. Some things parallelize quite well, and the tools are making it easier for them to do so today, but there's still a lot of sequential crunching to do for a lot of jobs. We're not likely to see a 1000 core 200MHz chip out-performing a 2 core 2GHz chip for "average desktop applications" anytime soon.
Here's the thing though. Even if chips remain equally powerful or 10% slower... if they could fit a 40 core Xeon into a 10watt atom power profile that would be a MASSIVE performance increase in mobiles. I'm relatively satisfied with CPU performance these days with a dual Xeon. If it meant I could get a current workstation in a mobile form, great! However I'm assuming that GPUs do keep improving and we finally see openings for specialized chips for physics and raytracing--the last two areas that would really benefit from dedicated hardware. Neither have ever caught on because Intel keeps improving quickly enough that a small specialized chip market can't get to market before Intel outpaces them.
My dream is to some day have my computer waiting on me. Unlike today where I am constantly waiting on my computer... even with the fastest CPU, video card, SSDs in RAID, 16 gigs of RAM, a RAM disk for the swap file... I still find myself waiting.
SLOWER TRAFFIC KEEP RIGHT
> consider, as a thought experiment, any task where the outcome of the first "step" determines the parameters for the next.
> There is no way to complete this overall task in parallel
In fact it's sometimes trivial. Consider this code, in which 'the outcome of the first step determines the parameters for the next':
HasPMI = IsMoreThan80()
PaymentAmount = CalculatePayment (Balance, HasPMI)
If you have 1024 cores, you can easily run CalculatePayment() in parallel with the line before it. You run it for both the true and false case simultaneously with IsMoreThan80. Then when the three threads complete, HasPMI tells you which of the two results to use.
That can also be EVERY IF STATEMENT, every switch-case, etc. On any branch, go ahead and precompute the value for the branch while deciding which branch you'll take. As things move in this direction, functional programming and similar disciplines start to become more valueable, so they will be used more.
A lot of things that wouldn't make sense to run parallel on two cores or four cores suddenly make sense of you have hundreds or thousands of cores laying around. With 4096 otherwise idle cores, it can make sense to calculate 1,000 possible scenarios in parallel and then ignore the 999 options you didn't need. Our way of thinking about problems will change, as will the tools we use to take advantage of the strengths of new systems.
Of course, the fundamental problem this presents is that it does *not* automatically result in improved performance.
Architectural changes require that performance code be tuned or re-tuned, which means every at-scale application has to be somewhere between rejiggered and given a huge dedicated rewrite effort (The DOE's upcoming 300 petaflop GPU machine will have exactly ten applications that can run at full scale, each of which will have an entire dedicated team rewriting it to do so). And, of course, Amdahl's Law puts an ironclad limit on the effect that more parallel hardware can have on performance, and some problems simply cannot be parallelized no matter how much we wish otherwise.
Contrast with the effect of improving the serial performance of hardware: All else being equal, double the CPU and memory clock rates and absolutely every program will run twice as fast, full stop. That was the desktop miracle from 1990 to 2003 or so - the same exact code screamed twice as fast every year.
But as processors trend towards slower and wider, everything becomes an exercise in parallel programming. OpenMP parallel, MPI parallel, SSE simd instructions, GPU simd parallel... It's harder to do at all, and harder yet to do *right*, and historically the average programmer has enough trouble working with a runtime that's sequentially consistent.
Rant aside though, I agree you're right - until we move to diamond substrates & heatsinks, we've hit the thermal brick wall (actually we hit it circa 2003) and there will not be any further increases in serial processing speed. Plus, AFAICT, there's a similar brick wall with access rates to DRAM and the fact that it requires a microwave-frequency bus with literally hundreds of pins extending for entire centimeters... so forget that too.
Coke Says Bottles To Become Smaller But Hold Less Soda
Ford Says Engines To Become Smaller But Cars Will Go Slower
O Brave New World, That Has Such Wonders In It!
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
they're just warning us that the next gen processors from them will be just as lackluster as the last 3-4+ iterations from amd.....
at least this will give amd some time to make up some ground, then.
" The Greeks had them, sort of, they think they were used for electroplating stuff."
There's no solid evidence for this. There are some artifacts that look like they might have been batteries, but were more likely just very well-constructed storage jars for archiving documents. The lack of any documents referring to the process or of any electroplated artifacts puts the electroplate theory on very shaky ground indeed. Very few archaeologists consider it even plausible.
This certainly doesn't represent "a rolling back of the progress it made over the last fifty years". For the vast, vast majority of people performance/kw is more important than raw performance in a single core. If my process gets a core to itself instead of sharing one that's 10% faster, that's progress.
I'm sure there are applications out there that must be single threaded, but I'd be surprised if Intel stopped making hot, high performance cores for people in that boat. It's just going to be a niche market.
Or more exactly how many crunches (2 bit NAND operations per j/s)*? If that number is growing at an average rate (over 5 years) similar to what Moore predicted the details of the technologies used do not matter.
*Yeah I made that up, got a better metric than the crunch?
You can have strong AI in ~20W, because that's what our brain uses. Each neuron is really, really slow like 100Hz and below, but when you have absurdly many it works. The problem is understanding the programming model, because it's nothing like our one list of instructions.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
At this point power consumption matters a heck of a lot more for ubiquity than pure performance gains.
I'm sure the fire-breathing dragster edition of current silicon technology (with a pin count to match) will continue to exist at an upscale price for those willing to pay for it.
That uncomfortable rush in your stomach? It's from clinging to yesterday.
is "new technology" isn't guaranteed to be adopted. I'm sure a lot of people would like better battery life. But for desktops,small server installs (or ones dominated by massive per core licensing), or just plain people that don't give a crap they want more power: they don't have to go for the new tech. It could happen Intel converts a fab or two over to the new tech and people keep buying the old model for years forcing them back (or a competitor) to the old tech. Everyone is different but if I get > 3hrs battery on anything I'm good to go. All but say two flights a year I'm not further than that from plugging my junk back in. Would it be good to not have to bring my cords around? Sure. But if the system gets significantly slower to do that it is a trade off I don't want to make. waiting for a compile is bad enough already.
No, progress won't be rolled back fifty years. Even if performance is rolled back 50%, that's only one or two years of progress "rolled back."
"it's not just the end of Moore's Law, but a rolling back of the progress it made over the last fifty years."
How about if it's giving the consumer what they want? I don't need more powerful chips. I need more battery life! (and less wasteful software, but that's a different issue)
Both intel and AMD have spyware built into the chipset.
Intel calls their version Intel Management Engine, vPro, and some other labels.
Amd's is called Asomething Managemtn Engine.
They're cryptographically signed (can't use any other firmware) and can upload the contents of your ram.
Intel's also includes an on chip VNC server that pulls from frame buffer.
This is so the governments can maintain their global feminist police state:
GIRLS NOT BRIDES.
>In the United States, as late as the 1880s most States set the minimum age at 10-12, (in Delaware it was 7 in 1895).[8] Inspired by the "Maiden Tribute" female reformers in the US initiated their own campaign[9] which petitioned legislators to raise the legal minimum age to at least 16, with the ultimate goal to raise the age to 18. The campaign was successful, with almost all states raising the minimum age to 16-18 years by 1920.
>Also: see: Deuteronomy chapter 22 verses 28-29, hebrew allows men to rape girl children and keep them: thus man + girl is obviously fine. Feminists are commanded to be killed as anyone enticing others to follow another ruler/judge/god is to be killed as-per Deuteronomy. It is wonderful when this happens from time to time: celebrate)
All the extra die space is going into spyware onchip
(vpro, AMT, etc)
Perhaps you should look at the research of Peter Bailis. You seem to think most problems can't be solved without algorithms where "the outcome of the first step determines the parameters for the next". This is not true, we can overcome these problems with "progress".
For his research Peter Bailis looked at github source code and found that 85% of the non-parallelizable algorithms used there could be replaced with a parallelizable equivalent. That is a lot. One of the things that is unintuitively parallelizable is ACID compliant databases, this fact amazes me.
I suspect most of the remaining 15% could also be replaced with alternatives that have slightly different requirements, but are equally as useful for the user.
If they were investing into the R&D to keep up with Intel and Moore's law... doubling their capacity every 18 months as well...
Li-technology batteries hold about 25% of the energy of a similar mass of TNT explosive at the moment. If the manufacturers kept up with Moore's Law as you would like then within three years or so they'd be equivalent to TNT in energy density. Wouldn't that be fun?
A lot of tasks intrinsically don't scale, or scale only up to some limit. Some people are running into this already in the HPC world, were we have big parallel machines that they can't take full advantage of. Their simulations simply don't scale above a certain number of cores.
This problem is becoming steadily worse, since people want to make models with more detail (that tends to not parallelize well), and simulate much longer timeframes than before. If you're simulating protein interactions over one millisecond, then it might not matter if it takes an hour or two. But if you want to use that to understand LTP in neurons and simulate a second or two, then it becomes a very major problem if your model can't parallelize further and the per-core speed stays put.
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
John Cook (put his blog in your RSS feed if you don't already have it) made a very good point recently: The speed gains from Moore's Law are dwarfed by the speed gains from algorithmic improvements. And unlike Moore's Law, we're not yet seeing a limit approaching for better ways to solve stuff. The post in question: http://www.johndcook.com/blog/...
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
You bring up two important points. First, you said "we" want power efficiency. The article says Intel is going to provide efficient CPUs. It does not say that everyone will always prioritize efficiency over speed for all tasks. "We" (many people) will continue to want many tasks to run quickly. In many cases, speed will be more important than efficiency, and that's what this sub-thread is about. We're talking about what to do when you want speed.
Secondly, it just so happens that in the vast majority of cases, over 90% of CPU time is spent in a very small section of code called the "inner loop", which is the little chunk that runs many times.
Suppose you're adjusting a video in some way, maybe resizing it or changing the brightness. The video is a bunch of frames, each frame is a bunch of pixels, and each pixel is three color values, red green blue. There are 256 possible values for each of R, G, and B. The code looks like this:
for each of 200,000 frames
for each of 800,000 pixels
pixel.red=CalculatePixel(pixel.red)
pixel.green=CalculatePixel(pixel.green)
Pixel.blue=CalculatePixel(pixel.blue)
CalculatePixel() gets called 320,000,000,000 times. (320 billion times). Each time, it's passed a value from 0-255 and returns a value from 0-255. Which means that the value for CalculatePixel(0) gets recalculated about a million times. Compare this code:
For x in 0-255
Answer[x] = CalculatePixel(x)
for each of 200,000 frames
for each of 800,000 pixels
pixel.red = Answer[pixel.red]
pixel.green = Answer[pixel.green]
pixel.blue = Answer[pixel.blue]
If you're in the habit of speeding it up by calculating all possible values for your inner loop, you code to take advantage of that fact. Here we can see that it's much more efficient to do the calculation 256 times rather than 320 billion times. This concept is generally true for most programs- the bulk of the CPU time is spent doing whatever the program does repeatedly. I routinely make other people's software faster amd more efficient using this type of approach.
A recent case was a security scanner, which did this:
For each IP 192.168.1.1 - 192.168.1.255
For each port
For each vulnerability
CheckPortForVulnerablity()
You can see that CheckPortForVulnerablity() was called over a billion times.
When someone bitches out like this you know they don't have an iota of innovation left in themselves and don't believe in their workforce either
Take your tree-hugging chips and jump in the lake, maybe you'll float.
60 different CPUs, it's worse than Ben and Jerries, or Star Bucks.
Give me a fast, high core count, CPU. For a real Man's Computer.
Probably plan on AMD going out of business.
AMD also managed 64-bit architecture that was backwards-compatible with 32-bit, while Intel was trying to say it wasn't doable and pushing pure 64-bit
Performance/watt also has this tendency to be missing another factor. Performance at WHAT (or rather what measure of performance)? Some examples from history include
* iops
* flops
And stuff that may account for above but also has optimizations for:
* triangles/sec
* physics
* fluid dynamics
* lighting models
* etc
That's why we still have PC with fast CPU's that would suck donkey-balls for games without additionally fast GPU's, and why we also have things that are a hybrid (APU) as well as a bunch of edge-cases, optimizations, etc
So yeah, you might have the biggest, baddest spreadsheet processor around, and still have a machine that overall performs more like a Ford Fiesta than a Ferrari when it comes to certain types of media or computations.
The big draw of ARM is performance/price per watt which is exactly what Intel is shooting for.
I'm too lazy to Google my citations but I remember reading somewhere that Intel CPUs and SOCs actually perform competitively if not better per watt when compared with the better ARM implementations. But that's when the CPU or SOC is actually doing what computers are supposed to be doing, computing. The problem is that the typical Intel desktop CPUs, which the Intel mobile SOCs are still partly based on, are quite poor at doing nothing. In the desktop, there's a clear distinction between a CPU in "sleep" mode and a CPU in active operation. ARM SOCs don't have a distinct sleep mode. They just greatly reduce power consumption when the screen of your smartphone or tablet goes dark. This area is where Intel needs to catch up to, not in terms of raw processing performance.
WHY do we want to save ENERGY at the expense of TIME? They went wacko schizophrenic.
"the secretary at MalwareBytes took a look at his source code and said it looked all good to them" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday November 18, 2015
My code went thru verification by Mr. Steven Burn of Malwarebytes' hpHosts
hpHosts Site Admin Mr. Steven Burn quoted:
"I've been asked to further clarify so for the record yes I've seen the code, and yes, it is safe."
FROM http://forum.hosts-file.net/vi...
(On my latest 9.0++ code engine above & from past versions -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... )
A competent coder & BEST security researcher I know of FROM THE BEST ANTIMALWARE THERE IS http://www.av-test.org/en/news...
NOT a secretary!
I don't give away work to be stolen OR misused like GOOGLE CHROME http://it.slashdot.org/story/1...
---
"won't demonstrate security of his product be exposing the source" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday November 18, 2015
Bullshit: 62 reputable sources + /. users say different:
Safe by 57 antivirus programs in 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
+
the 32-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
&
Per VirScan (installer too)-> http://f.virscan.org/APKHostsF...
MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...
APK
P.S.=> Eat your words, scumbag:
Tell us about AD + DNS too while you're @ it & how you said I said not to run DNS when I use it myself & said to NOT use external to network DNS with AD http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
OR
About how my program NEEDS admin privelege to update too (& it doesn't http://slashdot.org/comments.p... )
LOL... fool - 'eat your words' on ALL those accounts chump!
... apk
"You are terrified someone will steal your software if you publish the source code." - by Coren22 (1625475)
WTF? You KNOW a respected other in the field of security who is a competent coder himself has SEEN it!
I don't give it away to everyone & W/ GOOD REASON (Google's mistake with CHROME = a prime example) -> http://it.slashdot.org/story/1...
"you are stealing other people's work in your code" - by Coren22 (1625475)
I don't "steal" anything (projecting YOU DO)!
---
"You have yet to address the issue of name resolution performance of anything not found in your hosts file. This is a serious issue when the hosts file is so large" - by Coren22 (1625475)
By placing users FAVORITE SITES where they spend 95++% of their time online @ the TOP of hosts files cached in RAM, I get them to sites FASTER & MORE RELIABLY than a more-than-potentially REDIRECT POISONED DNS SERVER (99.999% of ISP DNS aren't patched vs. the kaminsky flaw, stupid).
---
"DNS outperforms your hosts file solution several fold" - by Coren22 (1625475)
No it doesn't (see using hardcoded favorites above) - & DNS outperforms hosts in GOING DOWN (does a lot) OR poisoning users via redirect poisonings!
"so why not just run your own DNS server? Oh, resources eh?" - by Coren22 (1625475)
Yes, more resource consumption + moving parts complexity AND POWER USE doesn't = a GOOD solution vs. hosts by using redirect poisoning exploitable DNS locally w/ only a few systems @ home.
"But you have no problem running 100k copies of the hosts file in a domain" - by Coren22 (1625475)
It works easily migrated by central admins via scripts or chronjobs/scheduled tasks with less moving parts complexity, room for exploit & breakdown, OR power usage.
"You have yet to submit to a code review from anyone but your friend. No, I don't trust that he has thoroughly assessed your software." - by Coren22 (1625475)
Yes I have to a seasoned security pro AND coder himself.
APK
P.S.=> You FAIL, MENIAL.. apk
"You are terrified someone will steal your software if you publish the source code." - by Coren22 (1625475)
WTF? A respected other in security & competent coder has OK'd it as clean/safe!
I don't give it away to everyone W/ GOOD REASON (Google's mistake w/ CHROME = prime example) -> http://it.slashdot.org/story/1...
---
"You have yet to address the issue of name resolution performance of anything not found in your hosts file. This is a serious issue when the hosts file is so large" - by Coren22 (1625475)
By placing users FAVORITE SITES where they spend 95++% of their time online @ TOP of hosts files cached in RAM gets them to sites FASTER & MORE RELIABLY than a more-than-potentially REDIRECT POISONED DNS SERVER (99.999% of ISP DNS aren't patched vs. the kaminsky flaw, stupid).
---
"DNS outperforms your hosts file solution several fold" - by Coren22 (1625475)
No it doesn't (see using hardcoded favorites above) - & DNS outperforms hosts in GOING DOWN (does a lot) OR poisoning users via redirect poisonings (DNS amp attacks is another).
---
"so why not just run your own DNS server? Oh, resources eh?" - by Coren22 (1625475)
More resource consumption + moving parts complexity + POWER USE doesn't = a GOOD solution vs. hosts by using redirect poisoning/DNS amp attack exploitable DNS w/ only a few systems @ home.
---
"But you have no problem running 100k copies of the hosts file in a domain" - by Coren22 (1625475)
It works easily migrated by central admins via scripts or chronjobs/scheduled tasks with less moving parts complexity, room for exploit & breakdown, OR power usage.
---
"You have yet to submit to a code review from anyone but your friend. No, I don't trust that he has thoroughly assessed your software." - by Coren22 (1625475)
I have to a seasoned security pro AND competent coder himself (unlike you).
---
"you are stealing other people's work in your code" - by Coren22 (1625475)
I don't "steal" (you project YOU DO)!
APK
P.S.=> You FAIL, MENIAL.. apk
"the secretary at MalwareBytes took a look at his source code and said it looked all good to them" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday November 18, 2015
My code went thru verification by Mr. Steven Burn of Malwarebytes' hpHosts
hpHosts Site Admin Mr. Steven Burn quoted:
"I've been asked to further clarify so for the record yes I've seen the code, and yes, it is safe."
FROM http://forum.hosts-file.net/vi...
(On my latest 9.0++ code engine above & from past versions -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... )
A competent coder & BEST security researcher I know of FROM THE BEST ANTIMALWARE THERE IS http://www.av-test.org/en/news...
NOT a secretary!
I don't give away work to be stolen OR misused like GOOGLE CHROME http://it.slashdot.org/story/1...
---
"won't demonstrate security of his product be exposing the source" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday November 18, 2015
Bullshit: 62 reputable sources + /. users say different:
Safe by 57 antivirus programs in 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
+
the 32-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
&
Per VirScan (installer too)-> http://f.virscan.org/APKHostsF...
MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...
APK
P.S.=> Eat your words, scumbag:
Tell us about AD + DNS too while you're @ it & how you said I said not to run DNS when I use it myself & said to NOT use external to network DNS with AD http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
OR
About how my program NEEDS admin privelege to update too (& it doesn't http://slashdot.org/comments.p... )
LOL... fool - 'eat your words' on ALL those accounts chump!
... apk
Can adblock+ do 16 things hosts do 4 speed, security & reliability:
1.) Protect vs. bad sites (past ads)
2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop C&C talk
3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop C&C talk
4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop C&C talk
5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (4 reliability)
6.) Protect vs. DNS redirect poisoning
7.) Protect vs. trackers
8.) Protect vs. spam
9.) Protect vs. phish
10.) Protect vs. caps
11.) Get past dns blocks
12.) Keep off dns request logs
13.) Speed up surfing (adblock & hardcoded favs)
14.) Works on anything webbound multiplatform.
15.) EZ data control
16.) Block ads better vs. addons more efficiently
* ANSWER ="NO" on ab+ doing it as well or @ ALL + hosts = on devices natively.
APK
P.S.=> Ab+ does less vs. hosts less efficiently - hosts do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN operation (as 1st resolver).
---
Ab+'s a 128-151mb memory hog http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte... (hosts use 3-11mb w/ my program initially). Even FireFox 41 adblock eats 65++mb http://www.ghacks.net/2015/06/...
---
ClarityRay defeats it seeing addons via native browser methods!
---
Ab+'s bribed not to work by default http://www.businessinsider.com... & ABP bought out adblock http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...
---
Ab+ adds complexity in slower usermode (w/ more messagepassing overhead + context switch vs. hosts in kernelmode).
---
AdBlock's SLOWER: http://superuser.com/questions...
---
What's best?
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-4 32/64-bit http://start64.com/index.php?o...
MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee who verified its source is safe http://forum.hosts-file.net/vi... ) hosts & recommends it http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus http://www.av-test.org/en/news...
&
It's safe per 57 antivirus programs in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
+
a 32-bit model too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
& Installer -> http://f.virscan.org/APKHostsF...
"You are terrified someone will steal your software if you publish the source code." - by Coren22 (1625475)
WTF? A respected security man & competent coder has OK'd it clean/safe! I don't give it away W/ GOOD REASON (Google's mistake w/ CHROME = prime example) -> http://it.slashdot.org/story/1...
---
"You have yet to address the issue of name resolution performance of anything not found in your hosts file. This is a serious issue when the hosts file is so large" - by Coren22 (1625475)
By placing users FAVORITE SITES where they spend 95++% of their time online @ TOP of hosts files cached in RAM gets them to sites FASTER & MORE RELIABLY than a more-than-potentially REDIRECT POISONED DNS SERVER (99.999% of ISP DNS aren't patched vs. the kaminsky flaw, stupid).
---
"DNS outperforms your hosts file solution several fold" - by Coren22 (1625475)
No it doesn't (see using hardcoded favorites above) - & DNS outperforms hosts in GOING DOWN (does a lot) OR poisoning users via redirect poisonings (DNS amp attacks is another).
---
"so why not just run your own DNS server? Oh, resources eh?" - by Coren22 (1625475)
More resource consumption + moving parts complexity + POWER USE doesn't = a GOOD solution vs. hosts by using redirect poisoning/DNS amp attack exploitable DNS w/ only a few systems @ home.
---
"But you have no problem running 100k copies of the hosts file in a domain" - by Coren22 (1625475)
It works easily migrated by central admins via scripts or chronjobs/scheduled tasks w/ less moving parts complexity, room for exploit & breakdown, OR power usage.
---
"You have yet to submit to a code review from anyone but your friend. No, I don't trust that he has thoroughly assessed your software." - by Coren22 (1625475)
I have to a seasoned security pro AND competent coder himself (unlike you).
---
"you are stealing other people's work in your code" - by Coren22 (1625475)
I don't steal (you project YOU DO), no need. I write my own.
APK
P.S.=> You FAIL MENIAL.. apk
"the secretary at MalwareBytes took a look at his source code and said it looked all good to them" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday November 18, 2015
My code went thru verification by Mr. Steven Burn of Malwarebytes' hpHosts
hpHosts Site Admin Mr. Steven Burn quoted:
"I've been asked to further clarify so for the record yes I've seen the code, and yes, it is safe."
FROM http://forum.hosts-file.net/vi...
(On my latest 9.0++ code engine above & from past versions -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... )
A competent coder & BEST security researcher I know of FROM THE BEST ANTIMALWARE THERE IS http://www.av-test.org/en/news...
NOT a secretary!
I don't give away work to be stolen OR misused like GOOGLE CHROME http://it.slashdot.org/story/1...
---
"won't demonstrate security of his product be exposing the source" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday November 18, 2015
Bullshit: 62 reputable sources + /. users say different:
Safe by 57 antivirus programs in 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
+
the 32-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
&
Per VirScan (installer too)-> http://f.virscan.org/APKHostsF...
MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...
APK
P.S.=> Eat your words, scumbag:
Tell us about AD + DNS too while you're @ it & how you said I said not to run DNS when I use it myself & said to NOT use external to network DNS with AD http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
OR
About how my program NEEDS admin privelege to update too (& it doesn't http://slashdot.org/comments.p... )
LOL... fool - 'eat your words' on ALL those accounts chump!
... apk
What happened to GOOGLE via Chrome stupid? See here http://it.slashdot.org/story/1... & I certainly will NOT give away my code to be STOLEN & USED by no-talent MENIAL CRETINS such as yourself, extremely LIMITED IN RANGE IN COMPUTING SKILLS either.
FACT:
REMOTE DNS RESOLUTION IS BEATEN BY MY PLACING USERS FAVORITE SITES @ THE TOPMOST PART OF HOSTS CACHED IN RAM LOCALLY FOR SPEED & RELIABILITY + SECURITY!
(It's FAR FASTER than calling out to MORE THAN POTENTIALLY EXPLOITED DNS SERVERS REMOTELY (by far) & yes, there is a Kaminsky redirect poisoning flaw out there (with DNS amp attacks too) that 99.999% of ISP DNS ARE NOT PATCHED AGAINST TO THIS VERY DAY stupid!)
And you CLAIM you're a security guy? No, no way.
APK
P.S.=> Ahem: You ACCUSED ME OF STEALING OTHERS' CODE you pitiful no code loser - not the other way around, but YOU DO PROJECT YOU DO steal others' work (since you don't have the skills to code your own) - I use publicly available hosts data to protect users WHICH IS MORE THAN A LOSER LIKE YOU DOES... apk
FACT: REMOTE DNS RESOLUTION IS BEATEN BY MY PLACING USERS FAVORITE SITES @ THE TOPMOST PART OF HOSTS CACHED IN RAM LOCALLY FOR SPEED & RELIABILITY + SECURITY!
(It's FAR FASTER than calling out to MORE THAN POTENTIALLY EXPLOITED DNS SERVERS REMOTELY (by far) & yes, there is a Kaminsky redirect poisoning flaw out there (with DNS amp attacks too) that 99.999% of ISP DNS ARE NOT PATCHED AGAINST TO THIS VERY DAY stupid!)
And you CLAIM you're a security guy? No, no way.
APK
P.S.=> My code was reviewed by ONE OF THE BEST IN THE BUSINESS who has HIS REPUTATION on it too vouching for it (since mine does more & better for hosts users for more speed, security, reliability, + anonymity online with less) - he can't AFFORD to "play friends" but he surely TOLD IT HOW IT IS, that my code's safe & he'd have KNOWN if I 'stole others code' WHICH YOU FALSELY ACCUSE ME OF you disgusting little reprehensible PIECE OF SHIT!
LOL - you, a FUCKING LIMITED IN RANGE OF SKILLS IN COMPUTING menial, lol (who has no code the protects others & speeds them up online as I do which is HIGHLY RECOMMENDED by notables in the art & science of computing)... apk
See subject: You waste MORE POWER, CPU, & RAM @ home on a few systems that could have hosts migrated to them easily for less power used + less room for exploit or breakdown WITH LESS COMPLEXITY BY FAR in hosts (both in internal rules table setup & moving parts involved)
All from a SINGLE file that's part of the IP stack itself running in more cpu serviced Ring 0/RPL 0/kernelmode (vs. slower less cpu serviced usermode).
APK
P.S.=> Once again, it's been a REAL PLEASURE utterly ANNIHILATING a limited in range of computing skills DOLT in yourself who has nothing better than I do!
(... AND, what I have comes HIGHLY RECOMMENDED & IS PROVEN SAFE by the best in the security industry in their class no less, which IS IDENTIFYING MALWARE you stupid little shit...)!
This (& you just KNOW that I've just GOT to say it, now don't you? Ah, but of COURSE you do)?
This was just "too, Too, TOO EASY - just '2ez'" & it always IS vs. a limited in skills BY ROTE no critical thought regurgitator of what he's read that I EASILY DISPROVED moron in yourself Coren22... lol!
... apk
"You have yet to address the issue of name resolution performance of anything not found in your hosts file. This is a serious issue when the hosts file is so large" - by Coren22 (1625475)
Placing users' FAVORITE SITES where they spend 95++% of their time online @ TOP of hosts files cached in RAM gets them to sites FASTER & MORE RELIABLY than a more-than-potentially REDIRECT POISONED DNS SERVER (99.999% of ISP DNS aren't patched vs. the kaminsky flaw, or DNS amp attacks).
---
"DNS outperforms your hosts file solution several fold" - by Coren22 (1625475)
No it doesn't (see above) - & DNS outperforms hosts in GOING DOWN (does a lot) OR poisoning users via redirect poisonings (DNS amp attacks = another).
---
"You have yet to submit to a code review from anyone but your friend. No, I don't trust that" - by Coren22 (1625475)
A seasoned security pro & competent coder reviewed my work as clean & IT'S WHAT HE DOES (unlike you). He can't "play friends": It's his site & reputation.
---
"you are stealing other people's work in your code" - by Coren22 (1625475)
I don't steal (you project YOU DO). I write my own & use public data to protect + speed up users.
---
"You are terrified someone will steal your software if you publish the source code." - by Coren22 (1625475)
I don't give source away W/ GOOD REASON (Google's mistake w/ CHROME = prime example) -> http://it.slashdot.org/story/1...
---
"so why not just run your own DNS server? Oh, resources eh?" - by Coren22 (1625475)
More resource consumption + moving parts complexity + POWER USE doesn't = a GOOD solution vs. hosts by using redirect poisoning/DNS amp attack exploitable DNS w/ only a few systems @ home.
---
"But you have no problem running 100k copies of the hosts file in a domain" - by Coren22 (1625475)
It works easily migrated by central admins via scripts or chronjobs/scheduled tasks w/ less moving parts complexity, room for exploit & breakdown, OR power usage.
APK
P.S.=> You FAIL menial... apk
"the secretary at MalwareBytes took a look at his source code and said it looked all good to them" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday November 18, 2015
My code went thru verification by Mr. Steven Burn of Malwarebytes' hpHosts
hpHosts Site Admin Mr. Steven Burn quoted:
"I've been asked to further clarify so for the record yes I've seen the code, and yes, it is safe."
FROM http://forum.hosts-file.net/vi...
(On my latest 9.0++ code engine above & from past versions -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... )
A competent coder & BEST security researcher I know of FROM THE BEST ANTIMALWARE THERE IS http://www.av-test.org/en/news...
NOT a secretary!
I don't give away work to be stolen OR misused like GOOGLE CHROME http://it.slashdot.org/story/1...
---
"won't demonstrate security of his product be exposing the source" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday November 18, 2015
Bullshit: 62 reputable sources + /. users say different:
Safe by 57 antivirus programs in 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
+
the 32-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
&
Per VirScan (installer too)-> http://f.virscan.org/APKHostsF...
MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...
APK
P.S.=> Eat your words, scumbag:
Tell us about AD + DNS too while you're @ it & how you said I said not to run DNS when I use it myself & said to NOT use external to network DNS with AD http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
OR
About how my program NEEDS admin privelege to update too (& it doesn't http://slashdot.org/comments.p... )
LOL... fool - 'eat your words' on ALL those accounts chump!
... apk
EASY test: Run a website locally. Query it. Now query it remotely. Which returns faster? LOCAL DOES!
Local data queries are faster, just like with hosts cached in RAM using users FAVORITE SITES @ THE TOP OF HOSTS vs. REMOTE DNS - common sense testing will show you that with ANY data!
(OR - do the math, or is it BEYOND a limited menial such as yourself (yes) - binary search demonstrates it alone - I keep 24 favorite sites @ the TOP of my custom hosts file in RAM locally, that equates out to 2-3++ MILLION indexed seeks)
No matter HOW you cut it? Hosts is FASTER LOCALLY vs. REMOTE EXPLOITABLE DNS SERVERS (of which 99.999% ARE NOT PATCHED vs. the Kaminsky redirect flaw (or DNS amp either iirc)).
* YOU FAIL, limited menial... lol, you fail.
APK
P.S.=> Give up - you're showing us ALL you're a LIMITED by rote menial spitting back crap I can EASILY DESTROY with common-sense tests alone, lol... or math! apk
See subject & my last post (you FAIL due to your limited skills in computing & math) -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
LOCAL DNS? More moving parts for breakdown OR exploit + more LOCAL CPU/RAM use AND ELECTRICAL POWER USE TOO!
You fail, again on ALL levels possible:
FAVORITES @ THE TOP OF HOSTS CACHED IN RAM blow away remote DNS servers for speed of resolution for users - period!
(They also PROTECT users who don't have local DNS wastefulness setup who MOSTLY query remote DNS, which IS Kaminsky redirect poisoning SECURITY FLAW RIDDLED to this VERY day, with 99.999% being unpatched vs. it, AND dns amp attacks too...)
APK
P.S.=> Your LIMITED INTELLIGENCE is what makes it simple for me to DUST your puny ass fool... apk
See subject & SURRENDER since you failed yet AGAIN so miserably http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
* :)
Face facts: You mongoloid cretin defective simian brain cannot compete with me on ANY level - accept it!
APK
P.S.=> How they ever let a chimpanzee like YOU near computers is beyond mere mortal understanding... lol! apk
"you are stealing other people's work in your code" - by Coren22 (1625475)
I don't steal (you project YOU do). I write my own code (you don't) & use public data to protect + speed up users.
---
"You have yet to submit to a code review from anyone but your friend. No, I don't trust that" - by Coren22 (1625475)
A seasoned security pro & competent coder reviewed my work as safe & IT'S WHAT HE DOES (unlike you). He can't "play friends": It's his site & reputation.
---
"You are terrified someone will steal your software if you publish the source code." - by Coren22 (1625475)
I don't give source away W/ GOOD REASON (Google's mistake w/ CHROME) -> http://it.slashdot.org/story/1...
---
"You have yet to address the issue of name resolution performance of anything not found in your hosts file. This is a serious issue when the hosts file is so large" - by Coren22 (1625475)
Placing users' FAVORITE SITES where they spend 95++% of their time online @ TOP of hosts files cached in LOCAL RAM gets them to sites FASTER & MORE RELIABLY than a more-than-potentially REDIRECT POISONED DNS SERVER (99.999% of ISP DNS aren't patched vs. the kaminsky flaw, or DNS amp attacks).
---
"DNS outperforms your hosts file solution several fold" - by Coren22 (1625475)
No it doesn't (see above) - & DNS outperforms hosts in GOING DOWN (does a lot) OR poisoning users via redirect poisonings (DNS amp attacks = another).
---
"so why not just run your own DNS server? Oh, resources eh?" - by Coren22 (1625475)
More resource consumption + moving parts complexity + POWER USE doesn't = a GOOD solution vs. hosts by using redirect poisoning/DNS amp attack exploitable DNS w/ only a few systems @ home.
---
"But you have no problem running 100k copies of the hosts file in a domain" - by Coren22 (1625475)
It works easily migrated by central admins via scripts or chronjobs/scheduled tasks w/ less moving parts complexity, room for exploit & breakdown, OR power usage.
APK
P.S.=> You FAIL menial... apk
"the secretary at MalwareBytes took a look at his source code and said it looked all good to them" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday November 18, 2015
My code went thru verification by Mr. Steven Burn of Malwarebytes' hpHosts
hpHosts Site Admin Mr. Steven Burn quoted:
"I've been asked to further clarify so for the record yes I've seen the code, and yes, it is safe."
FROM http://forum.hosts-file.net/vi...
(On my latest 9.0++ code engine above & from past versions -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... )
A competent coder & BEST security researcher I know of FROM THE BEST ANTIMALWARE THERE IS http://www.av-test.org/en/news...
NOT a secretary!
I don't give away work to be stolen OR misused like GOOGLE CHROME http://it.slashdot.org/story/1...
---
"won't demonstrate security of his product be exposing the source" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday November 18, 2015
Bullshit: 62 reputable sources + /. users say different:
Safe by 57 antivirus programs in 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
+
the 32-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
&
Per VirScan (installer too)-> http://f.virscan.org/APKHostsF...
MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...
APK
P.S.=> Eat your words, scumbag:
Tell us about AD + DNS too while you're @ it & how you said I said not to run DNS when I use it myself & said to NOT use external to network DNS with AD http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
OR
About how my program NEEDS admin privelege to update too (& it doesn't http://slashdot.org/comments.p... )
LOL... fool - 'eat your words' on ALL those accounts chump!
... apk