Ive been looking at the Xeon E3s, and Intel's knowledgebase seems to indicate they lack the hardware gpu features.
For instance, look at the E3 1270 (link). Under "Graphics specs", it says "no" to all of the graphics features, including "processor graphics".
Ive been looking at these closely for the last few weeks, and it seems you specifically need a separate gpu chipset on the motherboard to handle the graphics, as the CPU will not do it.
Flash is also not installed by default on Windows, nor is Java (though your OEM vendor may slip it in on you). That doesnt matter; the first time the user visits youtube, they will get Flash, and that will likely be the version of Flash they have for the next umpteen months until their local friendly geek updates them. (does Mac system update cover java?)
exe files arent materially different than Linux / Mac bin files-- if you can tell the OS to execute arbitrary code, the extension is hardly meaningful.
Regardless, thats not how those exploits work. Machine-code is somehow slipped through the plugin's security measures, and is executed (buffer overflow, etc). That code then downloads the actual exe and dll files that are set up as the permanent infection, and will often attempt privilege escalation at the same time (and if successful, will often overwrite the MBR with an infected copy). But it isnt like Oracle simply forgot to remove the "System.runWindowsOnlyExeFile" command, or the "system.IO.writeInfectedMasterBootRecord" command (really, who comes up with these names?)
If you doubt me, reviewing the attack methods of the past 4-5 years of Pwn2Own would be informative.
One might wonder how you ever manage to read headlines if you cant grasp the concept of implied words. Its not exactly uncommon for a headline to drop words, nouns and verbs alike.
Why, Msn.com has the headline "Dust storms, Bear attacks, more". Oh noes! Theres no verb in those sentences! WHAT are the dust storms doing? Or perhaps the dust is currently storming, and its the object of the attacks and storms that we are missing? However will we decode this headline? And what is the bear attacking?
Really folks, if you cant get this, slashdot is probably not the site for you.
Yes, people who actually deal with such issues for a living have known this for some time. The difference between browsers is rapidly becoming moot-- the market share of any one browser is too diluted to be worth targetting when compared with the widespread adoption of Flash, Java, Acrobat, and Quicktime.
There are some cases where it is conceivable that IE would be more secure than firefox, given the huge leaps made between IE6 and IE9 over the last 4 years.
I didnt have trouble parsing that; possibly if you turned the brainpower spent making snarky responses to reading comprehension you wouldnt have had the issue either.
Which is why Chrome is such a boon-- auto-blocks Java if its too old, auto-updates Flash, auto-updates its PDF reader (which notably isnt Acrobat based).
Even if you disregard marketing blurbs about Chrome's security, the auto-update alone makes it a huge security plus.
Even more salient is that only 13% of the successful infections relied on software that was Windows only (10% were IE exploits, 3% were Windows Help exploits).
All you folks encourgaging your friends and families to buy Macs for the specific reason of their security are in for a world of hurt in a few years when Mac hits ~30+% market share. Kits are already starting to appear.
When they do mistakes listeners notify them and they make a public correction notifying listeners of the mistake which is more then most news stations ever bother to do (a lot just bury it on their website).
Yes, I know about this and think it is one of their better aspects. NPR has several redeeming aspects, including their civil discussions. The issues I take are when they state mistruths-- see my post above for examples.
The position I hear from them (excluding libertarians, who I think have the right basic instinct but take it to an untenable extreme) is that the market ISNT perfect, but that, yes, regulation is "bad". And I would agree-- regulations tend to never go away, never quite accomplish what they were meant to, and always carry baggage with them.
The best scenario is to carefully balance free market with sufficient regulation to check its worst tendencies. But I believe that means substantially less regulation than is usually arrived at.
The problem is that government tends to like to grow, and this is true no matter who is in power. Could you, given the role of president, deny the impulse to try to improve the world by getting more power with wish to enact your vision? Possibly you could, but there are precious few who do so, either now or historically. I think the right approach is to recognize the immense danger of an expansive government, and limit regulation to places where it is necessary to prevent competition from being driven out-- that is, to grease the cogs that drive a free market.
See, corporations can be evil for a short time; but (at least historically speaking) they inevitably lose power, and often enough disappear entirely. The government doesnt, until a violent upheaval occurs-- it and any of its regulations are with us for the long haul, good or bad. THIS is why regulations are "evil".
The one I can remember most clearly (not having a list at the ready) had to do with the economy, and how it was a super horrible economy under Bush (with the implication that he is directly to blame for that). The issue with that is, whatever the economy was, it wasnt terrible-- unemployment seemed to hover between 4-6%, dropping towards the second half (until the subprime mortgage crisis, which really cant be put on one persons shoulders). It also reeks a bit that you can hear them go on about how bad it was under bush, and completely leave out of the discussion any mention of Obama or his promises; one would expect that fair coverage of the topic would cover both presidencies, as both are relevant.
I also believe (not 100% sure this was NPR) I heard them claim that Bush started two wars without congresional approval-- which is an out and out lie. Afghanistan was authorized about a week after 9/11 with about the biggest landslide vote Ive ever heard of (~520 "yea" votes, several abstentions, and I think one "nay"), and Iraq was authorized shortly before the war began. It was also incredibly disingenous that they would accuse Bush of that, given Obama's harsh words about the two wars followed by his OWN unauthorized military action-- and yet NPR has never raised THAT issue. If the firing of Juan Williams didnt spoil the rosy view of NPR as a fact centered (rather than political ideology centered) organization, one would hope THIS would.
If you want a more concrete example of "not coming out clean" (though it isnt quite lies, and it isnt specific to NPR), the press handling of Fukushima / the Japanese earthquake disaster was an absolute travesty. Im sure you could probably find some conservative stations that did it as well, and I dont deny that. The only way I manage to get my news is by flipping between stations (and music), because too much of either side's radio just makes me angry. I think NPR does a good job a lot of the time, but their faults are just different than conservative stations, not less.
Er, that wasnt a slippery slope fallacy, nor was it a dichotomy. I stated a challenge ("come up with something better"), and made an observation (the key word being impulse).
The only statement I made was about a tendency, which is perfectly valid. You may want to re-acquaint yourself with what the fallacies actually are, and brush up on your reading skills if you think I offered only two choices up.
Today's conservatives' unwavering faith in The Market doesn't come from their observation of its empirical validity, but from a gut-feeling belief in the Unseen Hand of the market as the demiurge of God.
Its been said about a zillion times before: If you think theres something better than a reasonably (or perhaps "subtly" is better) regulated free market, youre welcome to suggest it.
I would only remark that the past 100 years have shown that the impulse is for the government to go way past "reasonable", and end up as some third world center of genocide or human rights violations.
Sorry, but for the last ten year or so they haven't been comparable. Yes, neither party is perfect, but only one party has taken a conscious ideological (as opposed to strategic) hard tack away from the facts.
When the President goes on and on about how we need to stick it to the Fat Cats, and then mentions that he plans on raising a billion for his campaign, my WTF meter goes off the charts. Seriously, in what world do you live in where dems arent being as unfactual as republicans? Have you been even listening to the news recently? Republican radio is unbearable in many ways (mostly because of the shouting), but stations like NPR just drives me up the wall with all the things they say that are quite literally untrue (as in, 5 minutes on wikipedia or google would clearly demonstrate them false).
NEITHER side comes out clean when the battle lines get as entrenched as they are today.
Slashdot is refreshing in its trollishness. You can always count on someone to shoehorn irrelevant statements into a discussion merely because they have some axe to grind.
Go you, keep up that record of on-topicness that slashdot is so famous for.
Well, its good to see that you can still make a comment on slashdot bashing a political conservatism and be modded up for it.
Honestly, Im not clear where your issue is. We base policies on science, not sentiment, we insist on people being accountable for their actions, and we maintain that markets, not mandates, are the path to prosperity. (emphasis mine-- and for the record, I read it as the bold text being an example of basing policies on science, not sentiment)
So are you taking issue with people being accountable for their actions? Or do you believe that mandates really can bring prosperity, despite Reaganomics having worked, and the last 3 years of government expansion having not worked? "Shovel ready", "green jobs", "save-or-create umpteen zillion jobs", yea, all wonderful successes.
Do you really have an angle to your post other than "lets bash conservatives because Karma is oh so delicioius"?
Get rid of your addons, clear your profile, and then check. 95% of your issues with memory are likely caused by a poorly developed addon. I didnt believe this till I actually followed the dev advice, and the memory problems went away. Think this was back in 2006.
In all my years of using firefox (basically, since 0.9), I have never run into the types of issues people complain about except when running certain addons (tab-related addons, RSS readers, etc)
...Except the updates dont randomly fail and stick you with version 4.0 till your local tech geek notices and fixes it, nor does it demand admin credentials every few weeks, nor does it utterly break when deployed with the (third party) MSI installers.
Chrome autoupdate actually works 99% of the time, and has for the last 1-2 years (ever since the MSI / google pack installers came out).
Because it was such a close race that its less misleading to actually have folks read the article.
I was kind of suprised they measured Flash performance, and proceeded to ding both Firefox and Chrome for their poorer performance-- which was likely caused by the more stable / secure architecture of separating the plugins out into a separate process. How do you measure stability and security in such a benchmark, again?
I was also suprised by their memory management prize going to Firefox over IE and Chrome, when those two released memory quicker.
Finally, it would have been nice to test them on Linux (IE can run in Wine, serves it right for not being cross-platform:D ). IE gets an obvious advantage in most respects by running on Windows, and Safari likewise on OSX; Surely opera, firefox, and Chrome deserve bonus points for being cross platform?
Where in my post do you see clues as to what I believe? I was attacking a poor rational argument, not commenting on the truth or falsity of his conclusion.
Slashdot Mirror
:\ one would have hoped they would have started moving towards "best of Windows and Linux", not "we're putting more things on the user's plate".
Seriously, why cant MS and Apple get on the "update repository for desktops" bandwagon?
Reading fail. You are right, the Xeon E3 xxx5 processors do have HD graphics. Thanks for the tip.
Ive been looking at the Xeon E3s, and Intel's knowledgebase seems to indicate they lack the hardware gpu features.
For instance, look at the E3 1270 (link). Under "Graphics specs", it says "no" to all of the graphics features, including "processor graphics".
Ive been looking at these closely for the last few weeks, and it seems you specifically need a separate gpu chipset on the motherboard to handle the graphics, as the CPU will not do it.
Flash is also not installed by default on Windows, nor is Java (though your OEM vendor may slip it in on you). That doesnt matter; the first time the user visits youtube, they will get Flash, and that will likely be the version of Flash they have for the next umpteen months until their local friendly geek updates them. (does Mac system update cover java?)
exe files arent materially different than Linux / Mac bin files-- if you can tell the OS to execute arbitrary code, the extension is hardly meaningful.
Regardless, thats not how those exploits work. Machine-code is somehow slipped through the plugin's security measures, and is executed (buffer overflow, etc). That code then downloads the actual exe and dll files that are set up as the permanent infection, and will often attempt privilege escalation at the same time (and if successful, will often overwrite the MBR with an infected copy). But it isnt like Oracle simply forgot to remove the "System.runWindowsOnlyExeFile" command, or the "system.IO.writeInfectedMasterBootRecord" command (really, who comes up with these names?)
If you doubt me, reviewing the attack methods of the past 4-5 years of Pwn2Own would be informative.
One might wonder how you ever manage to read headlines if you cant grasp the concept of implied words. Its not exactly uncommon for a headline to drop words, nouns and verbs alike.
Why, Msn.com has the headline "Dust storms, Bear attacks, more". Oh noes! Theres no verb in those sentences! WHAT are the dust storms doing? Or perhaps the dust is currently storming, and its the object of the attacks and storms that we are missing? However will we decode this headline? And what is the bear attacking?
Really folks, if you cant get this, slashdot is probably not the site for you.
There were multiple Windows machines being discussed. "Gets" is only appropriate for the singular case, so the usage of the plural "get" was correct.
Pedantic fail.
Yes, people who actually deal with such issues for a living have known this for some time. The difference between browsers is rapidly becoming moot-- the market share of any one browser is too diluted to be worth targetting when compared with the widespread adoption of Flash, Java, Acrobat, and Quicktime.
There are some cases where it is conceivable that IE would be more secure than firefox, given the huge leaps made between IE6 and IE9 over the last 4 years.
How Windows [machines] get infected.
I didnt have trouble parsing that; possibly if you turned the brainpower spent making snarky responses to reading comprehension you wouldnt have had the issue either.
Which is why Chrome is such a boon-- auto-blocks Java if its too old, auto-updates Flash, auto-updates its PDF reader (which notably isnt Acrobat based).
Even if you disregard marketing blurbs about Chrome's security, the auto-update alone makes it a huge security plus.
Even more salient is that only 13% of the successful infections relied on software that was Windows only (10% were IE exploits, 3% were Windows Help exploits).
All you folks encourgaging your friends and families to buy Macs for the specific reason of their security are in for a world of hurt in a few years when Mac hits ~30+% market share. Kits are already starting to appear.
The xeons dont have the high performance Sandy Bridge GPU, so thats not terribly suprising. Only the desktop chips have the new intel GPU.
When they do mistakes listeners notify them and they make a public correction notifying listeners of the mistake which is more then most news stations ever bother to do (a lot just bury it on their website).
Yes, I know about this and think it is one of their better aspects. NPR has several redeeming aspects, including their civil discussions. The issues I take are when they state mistruths-- see my post above for examples.
The position I hear from them (excluding libertarians, who I think have the right basic instinct but take it to an untenable extreme) is that the market ISNT perfect, but that, yes, regulation is "bad". And I would agree-- regulations tend to never go away, never quite accomplish what they were meant to, and always carry baggage with them.
The best scenario is to carefully balance free market with sufficient regulation to check its worst tendencies. But I believe that means substantially less regulation than is usually arrived at.
The problem is that government tends to like to grow, and this is true no matter who is in power. Could you, given the role of president, deny the impulse to try to improve the world by getting more power with wish to enact your vision? Possibly you could, but there are precious few who do so, either now or historically. I think the right approach is to recognize the immense danger of an expansive government, and limit regulation to places where it is necessary to prevent competition from being driven out-- that is, to grease the cogs that drive a free market.
See, corporations can be evil for a short time; but (at least historically speaking) they inevitably lose power, and often enough disappear entirely. The government doesnt, until a violent upheaval occurs-- it and any of its regulations are with us for the long haul, good or bad. THIS is why regulations are "evil".
The one I can remember most clearly (not having a list at the ready) had to do with the economy, and how it was a super horrible economy under Bush (with the implication that he is directly to blame for that). The issue with that is, whatever the economy was, it wasnt terrible-- unemployment seemed to hover between 4-6%, dropping towards the second half (until the subprime mortgage crisis, which really cant be put on one persons shoulders). It also reeks a bit that you can hear them go on about how bad it was under bush, and completely leave out of the discussion any mention of Obama or his promises; one would expect that fair coverage of the topic would cover both presidencies, as both are relevant.
I also believe (not 100% sure this was NPR) I heard them claim that Bush started two wars without congresional approval-- which is an out and out lie. Afghanistan was authorized about a week after 9/11 with about the biggest landslide vote Ive ever heard of (~520 "yea" votes, several abstentions, and I think one "nay"), and Iraq was authorized shortly before the war began. It was also incredibly disingenous that they would accuse Bush of that, given Obama's harsh words about the two wars followed by his OWN unauthorized military action-- and yet NPR has never raised THAT issue. If the firing of Juan Williams didnt spoil the rosy view of NPR as a fact centered (rather than political ideology centered) organization, one would hope THIS would.
If you want a more concrete example of "not coming out clean" (though it isnt quite lies, and it isnt specific to NPR), the press handling of Fukushima / the Japanese earthquake disaster was an absolute travesty. Im sure you could probably find some conservative stations that did it as well, and I dont deny that. The only way I manage to get my news is by flipping between stations (and music), because too much of either side's radio just makes me angry. I think NPR does a good job a lot of the time, but their faults are just different than conservative stations, not less.
Er, that wasnt a slippery slope fallacy, nor was it a dichotomy. I stated a challenge ("come up with something better"), and made an observation (the key word being impulse).
The only statement I made was about a tendency, which is perfectly valid. You may want to re-acquaint yourself with what the fallacies actually are, and brush up on your reading skills if you think I offered only two choices up.
Today's conservatives' unwavering faith in The Market doesn't come from their observation of its empirical validity, but from a gut-feeling belief in the Unseen Hand of the market as the demiurge of God.
Its been said about a zillion times before: If you think theres something better than a reasonably (or perhaps "subtly" is better) regulated free market, youre welcome to suggest it.
I would only remark that the past 100 years have shown that the impulse is for the government to go way past "reasonable", and end up as some third world center of genocide or human rights violations.
Sorry, but for the last ten year or so they haven't been comparable. Yes, neither party is perfect, but only one party has taken a conscious ideological (as opposed to strategic) hard tack away from the facts.
When the President goes on and on about how we need to stick it to the Fat Cats, and then mentions that he plans on raising a billion for his campaign, my WTF meter goes off the charts. Seriously, in what world do you live in where dems arent being as unfactual as republicans? Have you been even listening to the news recently? Republican radio is unbearable in many ways (mostly because of the shouting), but stations like NPR just drives me up the wall with all the things they say that are quite literally untrue (as in, 5 minutes on wikipedia or google would clearly demonstrate them false).
NEITHER side comes out clean when the battle lines get as entrenched as they are today.
Racism and bigotry are tolerated in America because at least one popular party uses it as a way to attract some voters.
Im almost afraid to ask which party you think that is, but I think the humor of it would be worth it. Care to enlighten us?
Slashdot is refreshing in its trollishness. You can always count on someone to shoehorn irrelevant statements into a discussion merely because they have some axe to grind.
Go you, keep up that record of on-topicness that slashdot is so famous for.
Well, its good to see that you can still make a comment on slashdot bashing a political conservatism and be modded up for it.
Honestly, Im not clear where your issue is.
We base policies on science, not sentiment, we insist on people being accountable for their actions, and we maintain that markets, not mandates, are the path to prosperity. (emphasis mine-- and for the record, I read it as the bold text being an example of basing policies on science, not sentiment)
So are you taking issue with people being accountable for their actions? Or do you believe that mandates really can bring prosperity, despite Reaganomics having worked, and the last 3 years of government expansion having not worked? "Shovel ready", "green jobs", "save-or-create umpteen zillion jobs", yea, all wonderful successes.
Do you really have an angle to your post other than "lets bash conservatives because Karma is oh so delicioius"?
Its been said a million times before.
Get rid of your addons, clear your profile, and then check. 95% of your issues with memory are likely caused by a poorly developed addon. I didnt believe this till I actually followed the dev advice, and the memory problems went away. Think this was back in 2006.
In all my years of using firefox (basically, since 0.9), I have never run into the types of issues people complain about except when running certain addons (tab-related addons, RSS readers, etc)
...Except the updates dont randomly fail and stick you with version 4.0 till your local tech geek notices and fixes it, nor does it demand admin credentials every few weeks, nor does it utterly break when deployed with the (third party) MSI installers.
Chrome autoupdate actually works 99% of the time, and has for the last 1-2 years (ever since the MSI / google pack installers came out).
Because it was such a close race that its less misleading to actually have folks read the article.
I was kind of suprised they measured Flash performance, and proceeded to ding both Firefox and Chrome for their poorer performance-- which was likely caused by the more stable / secure architecture of separating the plugins out into a separate process. How do you measure stability and security in such a benchmark, again?
I was also suprised by their memory management prize going to Firefox over IE and Chrome, when those two released memory quicker.
Finally, it would have been nice to test them on Linux (IE can run in Wine, serves it right for not being cross-platform :D ). IE gets an obvious advantage in most respects by running on Windows, and Safari likewise on OSX; Surely opera, firefox, and Chrome deserve bonus points for being cross platform?
Where in my post do you see clues as to what I believe? I was attacking a poor rational argument, not commenting on the truth or falsity of his conclusion.