That's funny, because the IEEE already standardized 802.11s for mesh networking in 2012. Is this a new amendment for the same thing, or simply a certification process? The article gives no clue.
So we have a nice theoretical paper predicting the date of the End of Universe (with no much accuracy, btw), and the summary only focuses on how large 10^139 is.
The Verge development team is preparing a hard-fork of the entire cryptocurrency code to fix the issue and revert the blockchain to a previous state before the attack to neutralize the hacker's gains.
And to neutralize all the legit (if any) transactions, by the way, creating money out of thin air for those that spent it, and destroying it for those that received it.
Remember this if you are investing real money in Bitcoin, or any other well-known cryptocurrency: Some few people have the power to revert all operations back and make your money vanish, as proven here.
I agree. Besides, there are many people arguing that Moore's law is a psychological law: Each manufacturer knew in advance what was expected from the industry and what would the competition achieve, so they struggle to get to the foretold integration level. This is simply not available in fab labs, where there is no such "competition".
the worker misunderstood a drill as a true emergency. The drill incorrectly included the language "This is not a drill." If "This is not a drill" was included, the worker didn't misunderstand anything. He correctly understood the message and performed as expected. Dont' blame him, blame the person who sent the drill.
we don't expect most users to notice a change because these percentages are reflected in milliseconds.
Most users don't even notice that percentages are dimensionless, so it makes no sense to translate them to milliseconds.Yes, I understand that he pretends to mean that the penalty for each instance of the problem only causes a delay of milliseconds, but still, the performance drop is there and many consecutive penalties aggregate into a noticeable slowdown.
Apart from this joke, this is a good move from MS.
There are three different attacks in the blog post by Google's Security team. The first one, for example, works as follows: it loads from a kernel memory address; this will generate an exception, but before the exception is generated (because the page permission check is delayed to improve performance) the subsequent instructions are executed speculatively. None of the following instructions will ever commit, but they can have a noticeable impact on the processor state, as follows: they speculatively execute a load, based on the contents of the position loaded from the kernel space. The load is issued (but not committed), what caches a given memory location. The specific location is based on one bit of the .
When the first load is detected to be illegal, the instructions in the pipeline are flushed, but (the following is the critical part) the cached address remains in L1. By timing a memory access to the corresponding address, they can infer one bit of the given kernel memory. By repeating this, they can subsequently infer the whole word, one bit at a time.
How can they solve this issue? I can only foresee two alternatives: - Perform permission checks earlier in the pipeline, but this requires modifying the processor microarchitecture. AMD cores are not affected by this attack, so their uarch probably checks permissions before issuing the load. - Completely or partially flush the contents of the cache after a processor miss-speculation. This is probably the solution being implemented in the patches being developed.
Note that miss-speculations are VERY frequent, since most of the execution of Out-of-Order processors is speculative to improve performance. This explains the VERY significant performance penalties caused by the patches.
That's funny, because telegrams are still alive in Spain. They still charge per words.
As mentioned in previous comments, telegrams are still alive in many parts of the world (including the US, despite what's in the article) and they are used for legal reasons, in cases in which registered delivery is required.
So... You can build a cheap cat-5E UTP copper cable with simple tools and it can transmit data at gigabit, but you mean that you require an (relatively) expensive optical link to transmit some few Mbps of high-quality audio? It's bits, dude.
It's been a long time since we used to name standards based on their physical layer (hint: fibre channel). Nowadays it is much more convenient yo use the HDMI cable to send the EXACT same signal you would send using S/PDIF.
The post is quite confusing, since the headline says Double Data Rates Using Existing Cables but the summary specifies double data rates to 20Gbps using new wires.
The explanation is that USB-C connectors (type-C connectors) have two different sets of transmission/reception pairs, two pairs for transmission and two pairs for reception. This differs from previous type-A and type-B connectors, which only have one pair of pins for (bidirectional) data transmission.
All type-C connectors implement the pins for the four pairs, but many cables only populate the wires for two pairs, one for transmission and one for reception (as clearly explained in the Wikipedia link provided). Given the simmetry of the connector, I bet this was designed to support the reversible connection, in a manner in which only one of the pairs works at a time. For this reason, the new USB 3.2 might double the speed, but it would require cables that implement the complete set of wires for such speed. So, in the general case, double speed would actually require new cables with the complete set of wires.
No, 2 GB/sec is 16 Gb/sec, and this typically refers to effective transfer values (discounting overheads) so the speed is roughly double (ermm, sort of).
It seems that the idea is a whitelist rather than a blacklist, and across user-system space. In such case, if no one can modify the contents of a folder (not even using Windows explorer, or any system service), except using the registered binary, this would avoid any changes from scripts or trojans. Seems a nice idea to me.
Very good question, because of the quite bad headline.
At the time of writing his original paper regarding light bending between two stars, Einstein was already sure that the light-bending effect occurs (it had been already observed during a solar eclipse in 1919). However, he assumed that it would never be observable with two stars, one in the background and other in the foreground (different to the sun) because the light of the two stars would merge and not be distinguishable. From his paper (full copy here): Of course, there is no hope of observing this phenomenon directly. First, we shall scarcely ever approach closely enough to such a central line. Second, the angle b will defy the resolving power of our instruments [...]".
The relevant contribution is that current science (Hubble resolution) and appropriate search has managed to observe this effect. In particular, the linked overview clarifies it: Because the foreground star observed by Sahu et al. was about 400 times brighter than the background star, the brightening of their combined light was far too small to be detectable even with Hubble. However, the apparent displacement in the background star’s position, so-called “astrometric lensing,” was measurable. The interesting part is that by measuring the displacement of light, they have been also able to measure the mass of the star, and determine that it is not an exotic "iron core" white dwarf.
Somehow the summary only presents the problems of the current situation (pre-project treble), instead of summarizing the key ideas of the proposal (which is very interesting, by the way). Some excerpts from the link that would help understand:
Project Treble aims to do what CTS [Compatibility Test Suite (CTS), more than a million tests to validate API compatibility] did for apps, for the Android OS framework. The core concept is to separate the vendor implementation — the device-specific, lower-level software written in large part by the silicon manufacturers — from the Android OS Framework.
This is achieved by the introduction of a new vendor interface between the Android OS framework and the vendor implementation. The new vendor interface is validated by a Vendor Test Suite (VTS), analogous to the CTS, to ensure forward compatibility of the vendor implementation.
Slashdot Mirror
Wellcome to 2008!
BTW, the original article has been edited to correct the date yo 1987.
That's funny, because the IEEE already standardized 802.11s for mesh networking in 2012. Is this a new amendment for the same thing, or simply a certification process? The article gives no clue.
Isn't it possible to implement this using a traditional, centralized database, instead of a blockchain?
So we have a nice theoretical paper predicting the date of the End of Universe (with no much accuracy, btw), and the summary only focuses on how large 10^139 is.
So sad about Slashdot...
The Verge development team is preparing a hard-fork of the entire cryptocurrency code to fix the issue and revert the blockchain to a previous state before the attack to neutralize the hacker's gains.
And to neutralize all the legit (if any) transactions, by the way, creating money out of thin air for those that spent it, and destroying it for those that received it.
Remember this if you are investing real money in Bitcoin, or any other well-known cryptocurrency: Some few people have the power to revert all operations back and make your money vanish, as proven here.
They need to switch them on again on IPv6 only! No other country will ever have such opportunity of a flag day.
I almost never visit (legit) sites using unicode characters. I'd love my browser warning me whenever I visit one -- just in case.
I agree. Besides, there are many people arguing that Moore's law is a psychological law: Each manufacturer knew in advance what was expected from the industry and what would the competition achieve, so they struggle to get to the foretold integration level. This is simply not available in fab labs, where there is no such "competition".
Maybe they should train the robot to identify the human controlling the hockey stick, and stop to obey his orders. Just an idea, you know.
Kids!! Remember that ordinary sunglasses are NOT recommended for this eclipse.
the worker misunderstood a drill as a true emergency. The drill incorrectly included the language "This is not a drill."
If "This is not a drill" was included, the worker didn't misunderstand anything. He correctly understood the message and performed as expected. Dont' blame him, blame the person who sent the drill.
Obligatory: https://xkcd.com/927/
we don't expect most users to notice a change because these percentages are reflected in milliseconds.
Most users don't even notice that percentages are dimensionless, so it makes no sense to translate them to milliseconds.Yes, I understand that he pretends to mean that the penalty for each instance of the problem only causes a delay of milliseconds, but still, the performance drop is there and many consecutive penalties aggregate into a noticeable slowdown.
Apart from this joke, this is a good move from MS.
There are three different attacks in the blog post by Google's Security team. The first one, for example, works as follows: it loads from a kernel memory address; this will generate an exception, but before the exception is generated (because the page permission check is delayed to improve performance) the subsequent instructions are executed speculatively. None of the following instructions will ever commit, but they can have a noticeable impact on the processor state, as follows: they speculatively execute a load, based on the contents of the position loaded from the kernel space. The load is issued (but not committed), what caches a given memory location. The specific location is based on one bit of the .
When the first load is detected to be illegal, the instructions in the pipeline are flushed, but (the following is the critical part) the cached address remains in L1. By timing a memory access to the corresponding address, they can infer one bit of the given kernel memory. By repeating this, they can subsequently infer the whole word, one bit at a time.
How can they solve this issue? I can only foresee two alternatives:
- Perform permission checks earlier in the pipeline, but this requires modifying the processor microarchitecture. AMD cores are not affected by this attack, so their uarch probably checks permissions before issuing the load.
- Completely or partially flush the contents of the cache after a processor miss-speculation. This is probably the solution being implemented in the patches being developed.
Note that miss-speculations are VERY frequent, since most of the execution of Out-of-Order processors is speculative to improve performance. This explains the VERY significant performance penalties caused by the patches.
That's funny, because telegrams are still alive in Spain. They still charge per words.
As mentioned in previous comments, telegrams are still alive in many parts of the world (including the US, despite what's in the article) and they are used for legal reasons, in cases in which registered delivery is required.
They only need 1 000 000 people investing $1 000 into bitcoin to cash out.
It is hidden between other thousands of lines of code. Having the source available does not mean it is clear for anyone what it actually does.
So... You can build a cheap cat-5E UTP copper cable with simple tools and it can transmit data at gigabit, but you mean that you require an (relatively) expensive optical link to transmit some few Mbps of high-quality audio? It's bits, dude.
It's been a long time since we used to name standards based on their physical layer (hint: fibre channel). Nowadays it is much more convenient yo use the HDMI cable to send the EXACT same signal you would send using S/PDIF.
The post is quite confusing, since the headline says Double Data Rates Using Existing Cables but the summary specifies double data rates to 20Gbps using new wires.
The explanation is that USB-C connectors (type-C connectors) have two different sets of transmission/reception pairs, two pairs for transmission and two pairs for reception. This differs from previous type-A and type-B connectors, which only have one pair of pins for (bidirectional) data transmission.
All type-C connectors implement the pins for the four pairs, but many cables only populate the wires for two pairs, one for transmission and one for reception (as clearly explained in the Wikipedia link provided). Given the simmetry of the connector, I bet this was designed to support the reversible connection, in a manner in which only one of the pairs works at a time. For this reason, the new USB 3.2 might double the speed, but it would require cables that implement the complete set of wires for such speed. So, in the general case, double speed would actually require new cables with the complete set of wires.
No, 2 GB/sec is 16 Gb/sec, and this typically refers to effective transfer values (discounting overheads) so the speed is roughly double (ermm, sort of).
It seems that the idea is a whitelist rather than a blacklist, and across user-system space. In such case, if no one can modify the contents of a folder (not even using Windows explorer, or any system service), except using the registered binary, this would avoid any changes from scripts or trojans. Seems a nice idea to me.
Galaxy Note Fire Extinguisher
Very good question, because of the quite bad headline.
At the time of writing his original paper regarding light bending between two stars, Einstein was already sure that the light-bending effect occurs (it had been already observed during a solar eclipse in 1919). However, he assumed that it would never be observable with two stars, one in the background and other in the foreground (different to the sun) because the light of the two stars would merge and not be distinguishable. From his paper (full copy here): Of course, there is no hope of observing this phenomenon directly. First, we shall scarcely ever approach closely enough to such a central line. Second, the angle b will defy the resolving power of our instruments [...]".
The relevant contribution is that current science (Hubble resolution) and appropriate search has managed to observe this effect. In particular, the linked overview clarifies it: Because the foreground star observed by Sahu et al. was about 400 times brighter than the background star, the brightening of their combined light was far too small to be detectable even with Hubble. However, the apparent displacement in the background star’s position, so-called “astrometric lensing,” was measurable. The interesting part is that by measuring the displacement of light, they have been also able to measure the mass of the star, and determine that it is not an exotic "iron core" white dwarf.
The link summarizes a paper presented 4 months ago in the HPCA'17 conference in Austin, why is this "news" now?
Somehow the summary only presents the problems of the current situation (pre-project treble), instead of summarizing the key ideas of the proposal (which is very interesting, by the way). Some excerpts from the link that would help understand:
Project Treble aims to do what CTS [Compatibility Test Suite (CTS), more than a million tests to validate API compatibility] did for apps, for the Android OS framework. The core concept is to separate the vendor implementation — the device-specific, lower-level software written in large part by the silicon manufacturers — from the Android OS Framework.
This is achieved by the introduction of a new vendor interface between the Android OS framework and the vendor implementation. The new vendor interface is validated by a Vendor Test Suite (VTS), analogous to the CTS, to ensure forward compatibility of the vendor implementation.