They are latency-bound so HT just causes two requests to be outstanding simultaneously, effectively hiding the latency of one request behind another request. UltraSparc T2 was an architecture based around exactly this principle with eight threads per core.
In my experience, if software is well-written (e.g., you make sure you're bandwidth or compute bound), hyperthreads will definitely slow things down. How badly will depend on the exact workload. In all cases enabling hyperthreads will cause your system to behave a lot more variably, which is another thing one may care about.
For the above reasons HT off has been my default setting since it came out-- though ideally it's controlled from software: if you know you're gonna be latency-bound, then use hyperthreads-- otherwise only pin one thread to any single core. But that's without considering Spectre et al...
Security professionals and tech enthusiasts should take note of this technique and apply it in reverse: instead of reporting vulnerabilities to the government institutes who caused them, bring those guys to court. Sue them for unsafely handling the information you entrust them with.
Things are not going to get better unless this kind of incompetence can cost someone's head.
Elsevier, the science publisher notorious for maintaining high-priced research journals in a time when web technology can accomplish the same tasks for a fraction of the price,
Because providing access is all a publisher does, right?
No. Top science publishing requires accessibility, good layouts, solid content, and excellent writing. Scientist make mistakes in content so we have peer review. Even more commonly, scientists aren't always excellent writers and this is why you have line editors. Publishers of old have enabled accessibility, peer review, and quality writing. The fact that publishing now has become cheaper, does not mean the latter two are suddenly free as this slashdot article implies.
It's okay that publishing science costs money. Really. As a publishing scientist I do dislike Elsevier, however, but precisely because they're skimping out of good quality line editing and typesetting.
Since years the hacker communities have raced to hack DRMs, and since even before DRM had that name it was that kind of `protection' that harmed the gaming experience of people who do pay for their software. EA should grow up and realise DRM is not harming sales; they are harming their customers. Of course we know EA doesn't care given that they like to harm their game devs as well as their own games as well. Join the boycott of these fools.
Precisely. The eBay thing is a bit exagerrated though; there is buyer's protection that works (I've had to used it myself). It is a rather abitrary process, though: I could take the iPhone, but in a brick, and then start complaining they sent me a brick. It's based on perceived trustworthiness, as should be backing a kickstarter.
From TFA (since the slashdot `summary' does not specify any of the new rules): ``[upon failing,] creators are expected to explain what is happening and how the money was used, giving refunds to any backers who request them.''. Now, if, for example, MyIDkey `burned through' 3.5M$ of backed money, then how would those who backed it get a refund? The money's gone, period. The kind of risk is inherent to these kind of fundraisers.
TFA actually speaks on seven ways passwords may be avoided, with biometrics being but one of them. All seven build on extracting unique identifiers from physique or behaviour. All seven are wrong because of one simple reason: if someone mimics whatever chosen identifier good enough (either by hacks or by actually mimicing me), how can I change my `password'? I can't. Trashcan.
an Israeli from Tel Aviv estimates the success rate at 90%, which is thus high that some civilians actually go out and see the interceptions, instead of going into the shelters. Of course, Tel Aviv is farther away from Gaza and possibly has less rockets fired at them, but the difference in ground reports and what is reported here is staggering. Maybe these scientists need to dial back and first get some more data, instead of just looking at a couple of videos and/or photos.
Why fortunately? Is this a Microsoft press release?
Windows tablets are crap. I've played with one recently, and Windows without a keyboard is indescribably awkward: all use cases I was trying (starting notepad, type something in it, browsing apps, looking for the configuration screens/system info) go forward in snail speed. That's less than turtle. Even the salesperson standing next to me had nothing to say in defense.
Mod parent up.
Still I think the judge an idiot for ruling like he did. The reason for not having a lawyer and just paying whatever fine would apparently be the blogger was scared of any extra costs the lawyer would have brought in face of the non-certainty of winning (which still might have been more expensive than what she paid now if the procedure was lengthier but in the end still not in her favour).
The restaurant owner was trolling, there's just no better word for it. By awarding even this tiny win the judge is inviting his whole judicial system to similar crap (and threats to ordinary citizens).
On the other hand, wasn't there a public lawyer she might have used?
A badly written rant containing ill-informed opinions, even when accounting for the author being no `geek', as she puts it.
The problem is not the `glorification' of hackers (seriously?). The problem is that laws remain outdated to cope with this digital age. The problem is that governments rely on badly protected and badly regulated technologies.
Yep, exactly what parent says. I don't see any problem (what more, I have not encountered problems) with just reserving all rights for yourself (copyright by you, as is (should be) possible with any respectable university), and then distributing it yourself, over the internet. Free and open access, and nobody can legally run off with it or put it on shady websites.
give some thought to data security as well please. If the research done is sensitive, don't use clouds.
On the other hand, costs of self-hosting are indeed underestimated very quickly, which is not a good thing when budget is low.
Also, while manycore machines seem cost-effective, look at the solutions you are using for computation; it is hard to press a 48-core machine to peak performance, much harder than driving more standard distributed-memory supercomputers. But this depends on your application.
Buying time on an existing cluster (local university, or a dedicated HPC company) seems the surest way, and also reasonably secure when done at a trusted institute or company.
Not even with a `left-wing' government dude. I can imagine only one left-mid party who would maybe support it, but both green parties would never support the idea as it is presented in this slashdot article due to privacy.
The article linked to speaks of 'covert actions' to bring about 'democratic reforms', and the slashdot article speaks of a 'social worker'. Site's losing trustworthiness quickly this way. Sad.
Slashdot Mirror
They are latency-bound so HT just causes two requests to be outstanding simultaneously, effectively hiding the latency of one request behind another request. UltraSparc T2 was an architecture based around exactly this principle with eight threads per core.
In my experience, if software is well-written (e.g., you make sure you're bandwidth or compute bound), hyperthreads will definitely slow things down. How badly will depend on the exact workload. In all cases enabling hyperthreads will cause your system to behave a lot more variably, which is another thing one may care about.
For the above reasons HT off has been my default setting since it came out-- though ideally it's controlled from software: if you know you're gonna be latency-bound, then use hyperthreads-- otherwise only pin one thread to any single core. But that's without considering Spectre et al...
Security professionals and tech enthusiasts should take note of this technique and apply it in reverse: instead of reporting vulnerabilities to the government institutes who caused them, bring those guys to court. Sue them for unsafely handling the information you entrust them with. Things are not going to get better unless this kind of incompetence can cost someone's head.
Really? Fucking with your paying customers to prevent some crappy cam version to hit the internet?
When are they going to learn?
Elsevier, the science publisher notorious for maintaining high-priced research journals in a time when web technology can accomplish the same tasks for a fraction of the price,
Because providing access is all a publisher does, right?
No. Top science publishing requires accessibility, good layouts, solid content, and excellent writing. Scientist make mistakes in content so we have peer review. Even more commonly, scientists aren't always excellent writers and this is why you have line editors. Publishers of old have enabled accessibility, peer review, and quality writing. The fact that publishing now has become cheaper, does not mean the latter two are suddenly free as this slashdot article implies.
It's okay that publishing science costs money. Really. As a publishing scientist I do dislike Elsevier, however, but precisely because they're skimping out of good quality line editing and typesetting.
Since years the hacker communities have raced to hack DRMs, and since even before DRM had that name it was that kind of `protection' that harmed the gaming experience of people who do pay for their software. EA should grow up and realise DRM is not harming sales; they are harming their customers. Of course we know EA doesn't care given that they like to harm their game devs as well as their own games as well. Join the boycott of these fools.
Precisely. The eBay thing is a bit exagerrated though; there is buyer's protection that works (I've had to used it myself). It is a rather abitrary process, though: I could take the iPhone, but in a brick, and then start complaining they sent me a brick. It's based on perceived trustworthiness, as should be backing a kickstarter.
From TFA (since the slashdot `summary' does not specify any of the new rules): ``[upon failing,] creators are expected to explain what is happening and how the money was used, giving refunds to any backers who request them.''. Now, if, for example, MyIDkey `burned through' 3.5M$ of backed money, then how would those who backed it get a refund? The money's gone, period. The kind of risk is inherent to these kind of fundraisers.
Electronic mail being equated to how our regular mail was functioning. Will be looking forward to email confidentiality as well!
Hehe, quite possibly!
``Through a Google Summer of Code project this year was work to emulate systemd on OpenBSD.''
What?
``so a student developer has taken to implementing the APIs of important systemd components so that they translate into native systemd calls.''
What?
``systemd-hostnamed, systemd-localed, systemd-timedated, and systemd-logind utilities''
The `d' at the end of each of those stands for `utilities'?
Seriously, please do some editing before posing.
TFA actually speaks on seven ways passwords may be avoided, with biometrics being but one of them. All seven build on extracting unique identifiers from physique or behaviour. All seven are wrong because of one simple reason: if someone mimics whatever chosen identifier good enough (either by hacks or by actually mimicing me), how can I change my `password'? I can't. Trashcan.
It's Science. Accessible through any respectable library.
Privacy, have you heard of it?
an Israeli from Tel Aviv estimates the success rate at 90%, which is thus high that some civilians actually go out and see the interceptions, instead of going into the shelters. Of course, Tel Aviv is farther away from Gaza and possibly has less rockets fired at them, but the difference in ground reports and what is reported here is staggering. Maybe these scientists need to dial back and first get some more data, instead of just looking at a couple of videos and/or photos.
Why fortunately? Is this a Microsoft press release? Windows tablets are crap. I've played with one recently, and Windows without a keyboard is indescribably awkward: all use cases I was trying (starting notepad, type something in it, browsing apps, looking for the configuration screens/system info) go forward in snail speed. That's less than turtle. Even the salesperson standing next to me had nothing to say in defense.
Mod parent up. Still I think the judge an idiot for ruling like he did. The reason for not having a lawyer and just paying whatever fine would apparently be the blogger was scared of any extra costs the lawyer would have brought in face of the non-certainty of winning (which still might have been more expensive than what she paid now if the procedure was lengthier but in the end still not in her favour). The restaurant owner was trolling, there's just no better word for it. By awarding even this tiny win the judge is inviting his whole judicial system to similar crap (and threats to ordinary citizens). On the other hand, wasn't there a public lawyer she might have used?
A badly written rant containing ill-informed opinions, even when accounting for the author being no `geek', as she puts it.
The problem is not the `glorification' of hackers (seriously?). The problem is that laws remain outdated to cope with this digital age. The problem is that governments rely on badly protected and badly regulated technologies.
The problem is not having enough hackers.
It does seem a bit odd to sue in Texas. Did they file a case in Australia as well?
How does the scheme prevent ``play this game or I'll kill your family''?
to get caught, yes.
Yep, exactly what parent says. I don't see any problem (what more, I have not encountered problems) with just reserving all rights for yourself (copyright by you, as is (should be) possible with any respectable university), and then distributing it yourself, over the internet. Free and open access, and nobody can legally run off with it or put it on shady websites.
What the hell kind of news are you watching then?
give some thought to data security as well please. If the research done is sensitive, don't use clouds.
On the other hand, costs of self-hosting are indeed underestimated very quickly, which is not a good thing when budget is low.
Also, while manycore machines seem cost-effective, look at the solutions you are using for computation; it is hard to press a 48-core machine to peak performance, much harder than driving more standard distributed-memory supercomputers. But this depends on your application.
Buying time on an existing cluster (local university, or a dedicated HPC company) seems the surest way, and also reasonably secure when done at a trusted institute or company.
Not even with a `left-wing' government dude. I can imagine only one left-mid party who would maybe support it, but both green parties would never support the idea as it is presented in this slashdot article due to privacy.
The article linked to speaks of 'covert actions' to bring about 'democratic reforms', and the slashdot article speaks of a 'social worker'. Site's losing trustworthiness quickly this way. Sad.