Read the instructions, loop optimize, branch optimize etc. rinse repeat. It's not novel, I mean we've had JIT optimization and others for a few years now. It does nothing with "code" but with the binaries generated from code.
I do ignore them because GF isn't going to build something without a market or orders standing out the door waiting to be filled. I can see this as a boon to mobile first, so yes maybe Samsung but they're no slouches either and may just do their on 7nm process. The bet for IBM is that they can get somebody to license it and turn it into hard bottom line profit. Either that or in year Ginny will axe the chip R&D group because they're not "profitable"
True, yeah it was pretty much "here, take it. just take it away" but now they come up with new technology and they'll either have to partner or license to get it to market. It's worked out so well for AMD after all.
Yeah because IBM sold their FAB so they don't know when anybody will produce chips based on this 7nm technology. They'll be happy to license it to chip manufacturers, they just won't produce it themselves.
Is it just me or does Adobe's software have the worst engineering practices practices in the industry. Every other fucking week there's an Adobe vulnerability. Scratch your ass, Adobe Vulnerability. Sneeze? Adobe Vulnerability. Walk your dog? Adobe Vulnerability.
This company needs to just be banned from producing any software, period, unless they provide the source code as well.
depending on where you live, the laws vary but the law is the law. It just so happens that Finland doesn't consider them with the same severity as the US. I do agree with you that the CFAA is an abusive blanket that a federal prosecutor can cover and beat you with. It's too broad, too vague and the penalties too severe. It also doesn't consider fair use doctrine. If I could I'd wipe it off the map and use existing laws such as breaking and entering which in terms of tangible vs. virtual assets there's really no difference.
There's lots of gray areas in the CFAA and some court rulings have expanded the original meaning of the CFAA. For example, you're authorized to access a system but you then republish copyrighted material. You're not only violating copyright but the content owners right to publication. That means you've not only violated the law criminally but are potentially subject to civil prosecution for damages.
The EFF has quite a bit of information on the CFAA, I suggest reading it here.
you've obviously never been the victim of identity theft nor it sounds like you have never had 100s of IP addresses in China, Eastern Europe or the Middle East trying every known vulnerability to access your server on the Internet. There are cyber criminals out there that deserve the full enforcement of law for attempts and illegal access. Copying information that would be normally publicly available or already paid for isn't a crime. There is a difference.
No, it's not. Locking somebody up or threatening them with hard jail time because the accessed data in an inconsistent manner that the distributor intended, even though available, is perverse. Guys who hack systems, stealing credit cards or other data that isn't considered fair use, is punishable.
Blame the CFAA for the difference in draconian treatment of computer system abusers in the US; therefore blame congress and the administration for not updating the legislation or deferring prosecution. Sure, there are cyber criminals who deserve to be punished but there's also an increasing number of examples where the CFAA has been applied on incidents that don't even belong in court. If you give prosecutors tools like the CFAA, you can sure bet that they'll leverage them to get the maximum conviction possible.
They've already announced the newer form factors for m.pcie m2 sdds which will leverage this. I can't wait till we get above 256GB for this. As for the 2.5" form factor, cracking open any SSDs now shows a lot of empty space, so this lastest announcement is evolutionary, not revolutionary. aka Tock
Yeah I'm sure we'd all like a little place on the French Rivera. Good luck with that while you're stuck in the same room you've been in for the past few years. It's kind of like prison, oh wait it is prison.
If you're automatically taking code from a more secure application and injecting it into a "stable" application, that' alters the stable application and invalidates any testing that's been performed. Sure, the intention is fixing a "bug" or a vulnerability but you're changing application behavior potentially and creating a bigger set of problems. From a purely academic sense it's definitely intriguing but I don't think I'd want anything I'm supposed to be supporting leveraging this as a catch-all.
It's a business asset and as such can be transferred and despite the terms of service and policies set forth, a bankruptcy judge can pretty much throw that away if it means getting revenue for creditors and bond holders. In a lot of cases, the value of customer data can be considered significant, why do you think WhatsApp was so valuable to Facetard?
It's also boggling that people still think that terms and conditions actually protect them in any way, shape or form. They don't, they describe your "permitted access" and protect the provider; if you had good legal council they'd probably say "don't agree."
On-access scanning of something already scanned is redundant but A/V cant really do that because the mechanics of ensuring that a file hasn't been modified, i.e., infected since last scan is difficult. Despite that it's not that big of a deal and with faster storage and I/O handling in general it's becoming less of an issue.
Yes most western cities do have regulations about this and it's focused on two main issues. One, is that rents in urban areas is on the increase, places that are purchased and available for temporary rentals create over speculation and drive up demand, punishing residents with lower availability and higher prices for living accommodations. Two, as you indicated, they skirt local taxation laws which are draconian in nature but generate revenue just from a tourist being there. Most cities have a daily room rate and sales taxes imposed on a hotel room. This can be over 20%, for example, Baltimore 24% ( 9% + 15% ) on a daily room price just for being in the city. How one differentiates a local resident trying to make a buck or a speculator buying up places to let out to temporary tourists is at the heart of the matter, therefore a city just bans the activity altogether and then comes after those who provide the service, the tenants. Airbnb can of course obviate themselves from the matter because they just connect potential travelers with those who are willing to let them stay at their place for awhile. Legal entanglements can be sticky, but Airbnb essentially can walk taking it's money with them leaving the sub contractors to twist in the wind.
“The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.” - Oscar Wilde
It's supposed to be intrinsic knowledge when speaking of companies that really don't produce anything and introduce a business model based upon others taking the risk while they reap a profit. Uber and Lyft are examples of these kinds of companies. They're viewed as perfect investment models and have insane valuations based on hype rather than substance. Welcome to the new economic reality.
Slashdot Mirror
Did you forget who owns Slashdot now?
Read the instructions, loop optimize, branch optimize etc. rinse repeat. It's not novel, I mean we've had JIT optimization and others for a few years now. It does nothing with "code" but with the binaries generated from code.
I do ignore them because GF isn't going to build something without a market or orders standing out the door waiting to be filled. I can see this as a boon to mobile first, so yes maybe Samsung but they're no slouches either and may just do their on 7nm process. The bet for IBM is that they can get somebody to license it and turn it into hard bottom line profit. Either that or in year Ginny will axe the chip R&D group because they're not "profitable"
True, yeah it was pretty much "here, take it. just take it away" but now they come up with new technology and they'll either have to partner or license to get it to market. It's worked out so well for AMD after all.
Yeah because IBM sold their FAB so they don't know when anybody will produce chips based on this 7nm technology. They'll be happy to license it to chip manufacturers, they just won't produce it themselves.
Is it just me or does Adobe's software have the worst engineering practices practices in the industry. Every other fucking week there's an Adobe vulnerability. Scratch your ass, Adobe Vulnerability. Sneeze? Adobe Vulnerability. Walk your dog? Adobe Vulnerability.
This company needs to just be banned from producing any software, period, unless they provide the source code as well.
depending on where you live, the laws vary but the law is the law. It just so happens that Finland doesn't consider them with the same severity as the US. I do agree with you that the CFAA is an abusive blanket that a federal prosecutor can cover and beat you with. It's too broad, too vague and the penalties too severe. It also doesn't consider fair use doctrine. If I could I'd wipe it off the map and use existing laws such as breaking and entering which in terms of tangible vs. virtual assets there's really no difference.
There's lots of gray areas in the CFAA and some court rulings have expanded the original meaning of the CFAA. For example, you're authorized to access a system but you then republish copyrighted material. You're not only violating copyright but the content owners right to publication. That means you've not only violated the law criminally but are potentially subject to civil prosecution for damages.
The EFF has quite a bit of information on the CFAA, I suggest reading it here.
you've obviously never been the victim of identity theft nor it sounds like you have never had 100s of IP addresses in China, Eastern Europe or the Middle East trying every known vulnerability to access your server on the Internet. There are cyber criminals out there that deserve the full enforcement of law for attempts and illegal access. Copying information that would be normally publicly available or already paid for isn't a crime. There is a difference.
No, it's not. Locking somebody up or threatening them with hard jail time because the accessed data in an inconsistent manner that the distributor intended, even though available, is perverse. Guys who hack systems, stealing credit cards or other data that isn't considered fair use, is punishable.
Blame the CFAA for the difference in draconian treatment of computer system abusers in the US; therefore blame congress and the administration for not updating the legislation or deferring prosecution. Sure, there are cyber criminals who deserve to be punished but there's also an increasing number of examples where the CFAA has been applied on incidents that don't even belong in court. If you give prosecutors tools like the CFAA, you can sure bet that they'll leverage them to get the maximum conviction possible.
They've already announced the newer form factors for m.pcie m2 sdds which will leverage this. I can't wait till we get above 256GB for this. As for the 2.5" form factor, cracking open any SSDs now shows a lot of empty space, so this lastest announcement is evolutionary, not revolutionary. aka Tock
That men receive 75% fewer ads for women's fashion and makeup products while searching in Google.
We have a lot of wind farms already in North Texas, West of Fort Worth it's high plains and prairie making it ideal for that purpose.
This is in North Texas, there's always wind.
Yeah I'm sure we'd all like a little place on the French Rivera. Good luck with that while you're stuck in the same room you've been in for the past few years. It's kind of like prison, oh wait it is prison.
Was 160 characters.
The only winners are the lawyers.
"It's never to late to procrastinate." - Unknown
If you're automatically taking code from a more secure application and injecting it into a "stable" application, that' alters the stable application and invalidates any testing that's been performed. Sure, the intention is fixing a "bug" or a vulnerability but you're changing application behavior potentially and creating a bigger set of problems. From a purely academic sense it's definitely intriguing but I don't think I'd want anything I'm supposed to be supporting leveraging this as a catch-all.
It's a business asset and as such can be transferred and despite the terms of service and policies set forth, a bankruptcy judge can pretty much throw that away if it means getting revenue for creditors and bond holders. In a lot of cases, the value of customer data can be considered significant, why do you think WhatsApp was so valuable to Facetard?
It's also boggling that people still think that terms and conditions actually protect them in any way, shape or form. They don't, they describe your "permitted access" and protect the provider; if you had good legal council they'd probably say "don't agree."
Not without maintaining metadata about the files outside the file system. Your assuming malware providers don't cover their tracks.
On-access scanning of something already scanned is redundant but A/V cant really do that because the mechanics of ensuring that a file hasn't been modified, i.e., infected since last scan is difficult. Despite that it's not that big of a deal and with faster storage and I/O handling in general it's becoming less of an issue.
Yes most western cities do have regulations about this and it's focused on two main issues. One, is that rents in urban areas is on the increase, places that are purchased and available for temporary rentals create over speculation and drive up demand, punishing residents with lower availability and higher prices for living accommodations. Two, as you indicated, they skirt local taxation laws which are draconian in nature but generate revenue just from a tourist being there. Most cities have a daily room rate and sales taxes imposed on a hotel room. This can be over 20%, for example, Baltimore 24% ( 9% + 15% ) on a daily room price just for being in the city. How one differentiates a local resident trying to make a buck or a speculator buying up places to let out to temporary tourists is at the heart of the matter, therefore a city just bans the activity altogether and then comes after those who provide the service, the tenants. Airbnb can of course obviate themselves from the matter because they just connect potential travelers with those who are willing to let them stay at their place for awhile. Legal entanglements can be sticky, but Airbnb essentially can walk taking it's money with them leaving the sub contractors to twist in the wind.
“The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.” - Oscar Wilde
It's supposed to be intrinsic knowledge when speaking of companies that really don't produce anything and introduce a business model based upon others taking the risk while they reap a profit. Uber and Lyft are examples of these kinds of companies. They're viewed as perfect investment models and have insane valuations based on hype rather than substance. Welcome to the new economic reality.