ou live in an apartment complex where 50% of the residence are known to be infected. That means you must quarantine the remaining 50% of the healthy and hope they too won't get infected???
No, it means you shoot anyone who comes out just long enough to evacuate the surrounding areas... and if it's highly virulent, you drop napalm and call it a day. Something like Ebola would dictate this response.
On the other hand, if it's not as contagious... maybe a 1 in 8 chance of death... then you have two options: On-site treatment, or you secure the area, and evacuate the person one by one to a treatment facility if they show symptoms. If they don't show symptoms, isolate them from everyone else and wait out the incubation period.
Either way, isolation is the answer. And as far as shooting someone... that wouldn't happen in a worst-case scenario. The moment containment was broken, everyone would be incinerated. He wouldn't die by bullet... that would be too kind. He will die painfully -- burned alive. Unless a sniper happened to take pity on him before fleeing the soon to be rather large blast radius.
"The first priority of DOD support in the event of a PI is [REDACTED]".
They're the military. It's redacted because it's not politically fashionable to say what they'd have to do, but put yourself in their shoes and it's obvious: Protect key government officials by evacuating them in secret while reassuring the public everything is fine and they haven't been disappeared and are now in a secret bunker somewhere.
Military thinking on this is obvious to the point of being painful: You have to coordinate your response to the crisis, and that means first securing your chain of command, then securing communications, then securing your chain of supplies, and then finally deploying resources into the field to secure key assets.
That's the response plan because that's what the situation dictates. You don't need a security clearance to figure this out... but confirming that's what they would do could complicate those efforts by a panic'd populace. And that's why it's classified. It's not because they're "up to something", it's because sometimes a little knowledge is a bad thing.
It's like the Joker said; "You know... You know what I've noticed? Nobody panics when things go 'according to plan.' Even if the plan is horrifying! If, tomorrow, I tell the press that, like, a gang banger will get shot, or a truckload of soldiers will be blown up, nobody panics, because it's all 'part of the plan'. But when I say that one little old mayor will die, well then everyone loses their minds!"
Chew on that awhile when you're wondering next time why the government classifies so many things; It's not because they're up to no good... it's because people are fucking stupid, and they panic at nothing. The whole point of the government during a crisis is to keep people separated and not in large groups where panic and hysteria can take over. Any crisis. It just so happens, it's a particularly good idea during a pandemic.
I'd say 18-24 months for a vaccine, and 12%-14% population loss due to a real influenza pandemic.
And your credentials, sir? Internet pundit. Okay, how about a citation? Don't have one of those either. Okay. Well thanks, but I think I'll go with the formerly classified document released by actual experts over your knee-jerk "I think it's optimistic, and here's some numbers I think are more realistic!" post.
Purely for shits and giggles, I went and looked up what unclassified documents had to say about the likely timeline. Those numbers look similar to what's been revealed in this document. They, uhh, don't look like your numbers. According to WHO, it would take 5-6 months to produce a vaccine. Not nearly two years. If you were right, we would never have a flu vaccine available, yet every year like clockwork they show up at hospitals and clinics with those reminders to get vaccinated before the season starts. So I'm going to go with the DoD, CDC, and WHO's assessment on that timeframe, thanks.
However, it's just re-arranging deck chairs on the titanic either way. Our vaccine production, whether optimistic, or pessimistic, won't matter; From start to finish, the entire pandemic would last from 6-8 to perhaps 12 weeks. That's about as long as it takes the vaccine to take effect. In other words, even if we developed a vaccine the same day as patient zero showed up, and completely eliminated the production side of the equation and assumed limitless vaccines available to everyone, and that somehow, by magical fairy dust, everyone got the vaccine that same day... over a third of the population would still get infected and still suffer whatever the casualty rate is. Knock that timetable out by a month and it's everyone. Vaccine is useless.
In other words, the strategy outlined by the DoD -- containment and isolation, remains the only effective strategy. A vaccine being put in development would be there to prevent secondary infection and to have confidence that it is safe to end quarantine procedure. That's all a vaccine buys you; Some after-action security. Vaccination is not a priority. Even under super-optimal conditions, it's of limited value to us. We could throw billions at the problem trying to create a rapid response infrastructure and it would amount to exactly dick at a huge cost.
Now as far as your population loss numbers... There's just no way to predict that with confidence. The numbers they quoted are based on a historical evaluation of data over the last 50 years... which seems reasonable from a statistical standpoint... but the Pandemic of 1918 killed over 90% of the population. It was on par with the Black Death. That's pretty much the worst-case scenario -- the average case is much, much more mild. But we do know it can happen... and it's just a gamble as to when.
So I'm with the CDC and DoD on this; Containment. Isolation. Quarantine. That's our strategy, and given our current level of technology... it's the only viable one.
I don't find this scary at all. It's the reality of the world we live in. What would be scary is if the people in charge of managing such a crisis didn't have a plan, and instead choose to stick their fingers in their ears and sing "glory glory halleluja" while the country died. Literally. Why do people always seem to think things like this are "scary"? That kind of attitude is what creates truly scary situations: The kind nobody was prepared for and is now ravaging the population unchecked. That is scary. A plan... that's reassuring.
Or maybe I'm just from some bizarro alternate universe where being prepared is frightening and living in ignorance is bliss.
You're missing the point. Spending taxpayer dollars for a fancy NOC that is not even supposed to exist is just shitting on the citizens. His motto is "Collect it All". He ran an "all-out, barely-legal drive to build the ultimate spy machine" (quotes from the article)
Then the person who wrote the article is a moron. It's legal because they say it's legal. They're the authority on what's legal or not. The word you're looking for is moral.
. But having a single chair positioned to look at the 22 foot projector is ridiculous.
And what purpose is that other than to satisfy the delusions of grandeur of the people running the place and the people holding the purse strings?
I don't know; What are command centers for again? The NSA deals with more information passing through its networks than, say, AT&T. I wonder what AT&T's NOC looks like, and if it costs as much as a recreation of the Enterprise bridge. I bet it does.
That might be tolerable in a corporate environment, but not a government one. This is pure, unadulterated waste. "Selling" isn't part of the mission.
Heh. How naive. The NSA is a support organization; They exist solely to 'sell' their services to the FBI, DHS, and CIA. They are, as it were, the outsourced IT of the government. If they aren't making the news, proving their worth, what they do will just be absorbed by one of them. Or do you think "the government" is just one big happy family and people don't have cross-jurisdictional issues, turf wars, competing objectives... ? Yes, the NSA very much does need to sell itself to Congress. Especially when idiots like you are busy foaming at the mouth about privacy, civil rights, etc., apparently blithingly unaware that the NSA is simply the service provider. They aren't making these decisions... and they're quite happy to have everyone believing they're the ones calling the shots... It's just another deception. And all warfare is deception... keep your detractors distracted so the real players can move freely.
Well, I'll be down-modded again for this, but the bridge of the Enterprise has been modelled for use in many types of command centers; NOCs, military headquarters, etc. As it turns out, the layout of the bridge actually has a functional effect. Submarines as well borrow elements of the Enterprise layout -- our nuclear submarines, for example. As it turns out, science fiction often leads to realworld advancements. Tricorders. Comm badges. Phasers. All of these were science fiction, and now they're science fact. Why should the bridge layout somehow be a cry for "accountability" ?
The bridge serves a real purpose for the NSA, but even if it didn't, there's plenty of data centers that have fancy-looking NOCs that are only there to look fancy for the big wigs. The 'real' NOC is usually on the other side of the wall, and it's just a room with some tables and cubes along the sides... and maybe a ping pong table in the corner. But showing them the geeks instead of the sexy but non-functional "bridge" of their data center doesn't sell as well.
Why would the government be in any way immune to these things? Why do we scream "accountability" when they do the exact same thing private companies do? Oh, your taxpayer dollars, blah blah? That's your argument? Before you bitch about the NSA's star trek bridge to show off to congressional dignitaries... think about how much more you're paying for patent lawsuits clogging up the courts, or overzealous police officers writing tickets, or about ten thousand items above it that are costing more of your precious taxpayer tears, er, I mean, dollars...
Let the NSA geek feel like he's Captain Picard. You know you would too if given the chance.
"Writer and activist Cory Doctorow says competition keeps Google behaving ethically because...
Because the paid shill has conveniently omitted the possibility of collusion and/or conspiracy. And there have been plenty of examples where corporations in this industry have colluded with each other to price fix. In fact, during the analog to digital TV transition, the prices were over double what they should have been. The government is, you know, thinking about, maybe, possibly, getting around to investigating that, you know, someday. Don't hold your breath.
I don't think you'll find very many people here that believe that the government and large corporations aren't in bed with each other. Money talks. So, I gotta ask, Mr. Doctorow... how much did they pay you to talk about how Google can't possibly be evil, when the evidence for your position is so pathetically underwelming? Perhaps Google is a special little snowflake that somehow wouldn't engage in the kinds of unethical behavior that almost every other Fortune 500 company did? Perhaps you believe that mass-collusion between corporations and the government isn't possible... and there's another explanation for the current global recession?
Because if you can, step forward and collect your Nobel prize on economics. Otherwise, the door is on your left. Don't let your paid-off ass hit it on the way out.
No offense, but you need to sit down with a good book on general relativity. (I like Sean Carroll's Spacetime and Geometry. YMMV.)
Hawking proved... No, he did not.
Unless of course, He did. The physics checks out; We've recreated the conditions in the lab. A direct observation is rather difficult because of the aforementioned alignment issue with blackholes -- in fact, every theory of black holes suffers the same problem of a lack of observation being, well, you know... black holes. Hawking's theories are the best-fit model to date, and until and unless better evidence comes along, that's what most physicists are going with... as you, yourself, pointed out.
Highly charged particles are emitted at the poles of a black hole... No, they are not.
the black hole itself is also rotating at the speed of light... No, it is not.
You get one or the other. Any theory you care to pick; You don't get both. If it's not rotating at the speed of light, then the particles do not 'think' better of it and shoot out the poles... where would they get the energy to escape from the accretion disk then? You can't escape gravity without energy to counter-act it. I'd love to hear your ideas about how those jets are blasting out particles without some kind of gravitational force pushing them back out -- the kind of gravitational force that, near an event horizon, can only come by something capable of vectoring it away at near the speed of light.. like, I don't know, something rotating at the speed of light with the gravitational force of, say, a black hole.
The area around an accreting black hole is perhaps the most violent spot imaginable in the universe; it should be no surprise whatsoever that once something has gone around the accretion disc a few million times it would have enough kinetic energy to go like hell off in another direction as soon as it collides with another particle.
Well thank you. And how, exactly, do you propose that two objects interact with each other's gravity, and yet only one of them accelerates? Everywhere else in physics, when an object in space passes at a right angle to another, they affect each other's orbits -- and, wait for it -- their spin too. Now if this is happening constantly around a black hole, how exactly do you conclude that it's... not rotating?
Allow me to clear up your confusion on this matter, as although I haven't read your pet book, I do understand something more basic: There are many types of black holes.
The physics I outlined above is accurate for a rotating black hole. However, here's the glitch that you missed: Non-rotating black holes also emit energy. See that first blurb about Hawking radiation I posted above -- whether it's rotating or not, it emits radiation. The only thing rotation does is concentrate the emissions at the poles... the accretion disk does cause a lot more matter to be ejected at the poles as spacetime is locally deformed there and they can pickup enough energy to bounce off... but not all black holes have an accretion disk, and hawking radiation doesn't depend on rotation; It depends on phenomena that happens at the event horizon where virtual particle pairs are pulled apart...
The reason it can't be observed is because this radiation occurs in such a small quantity over such a long period of time, and at such low energy levels... that we haven't yet found a black hole close enough that current technology could directly observe it.
But to just handwave and say "no, no, no..." to one of the most interesting problems in physics is stupid. Science isn't about absolute proof, it's about the best fit model. And what I've stated... th
It's not really the same because anything that collides with a black hole will cease to exist. There is no way for anyone with any sort of conceivable detector to observe what no longer exists. Even if the collapsed star's gravity did not stop the photons from exiting it would effectively vanish out of existence.
This is not true. Hawkings proved this already; Look up Hawking radiation. Black holes will eventually evaporate if it cannot attract enough matter to sustain its size. Highly charged particles are emitted at the poles of a black hole, and it's also been proven that not only does matter in the accretion disc accelerate to the speed of light before crossing the horizon, but that the black hole itself is also rotating at the speed of light creating relativistic frame dragging.
All of this would not be occurring if it "vanished out of existance", and thus violated the laws of thermodynamics. In fact, whether a 3D or 4D universe, matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed. The information, that is the quantum state, of mass and energy that is eaten by a blackhole is later ejected as what could be termed high energy 'noise'; x-rays and gamma rays. Black holes, it would seem, convert matter into energy, which is then re-emitted; They accelerate entropy locally, but they do not, in any way, "vanish" things. What goes into a black hole does eventually come back out... but what comes out, to the best of our knowledge, is a smear of particles which are emitted along a gaussian distribution with regard to energy state.
It should also be noted that the standard model is known to be flawed in that it cannot accurately predict extremely high energy states -- this is one of the reasons why black holes are so interesting to astrophysicists; They are currently the only observable phenomenon where such high energy levels are. Unfortunately, because we are not directly aligned with the poles of very many black holes, which seem to align themselves to the galactic gravity plane for reasons not yet fully understood, there simply isn't enough observational data to say with confidence what the properties of such high energy particles would be.
Answering these questions is essential if we are to successfully create a grand unified theory. The standard model has already been proven to fall short of that; And quantum mechanics still can't even explain gravity... the Year of the Proven Quantum Gravity Particle comes about as often as the Year of the Linux Desktop... which is to say, we're still waiting.
You can protest that your music is a finely-prepared steak cooked by sheer genius, and be quite correct in this, and you have trouble paying for your kitchen, your restaurant, your cow."
Well, I'm not buying it. Until I start hearing something from the people who actually make the tech, I'm going to say it'll probably keep going.
"This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us." -- Western Union internal memo, 1876.
"Radio has no future. Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible. X-rays will prove to be a hoax." -- William Thomson, Lord Kelvin, British scientist, 1899.
"There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will." -- Albert Einstein, 1932.
"The bomb will never go off. I speak as an expert in explosives." -- Admiral William Leahy, U.S. Atomic Bomb Project.
"Where a calculator on the ENIAC is equipped with 18,000 vacuum tubes and weighs 30 tons, computers in the future may have only 1,000 vacuum tubes and weigh only 1.5 tons." -- Popular Mechanics, 1949
"IBM had developed a paper plan for such a machine and took this paper plan across the country to some 20 concerns that we thought could use such a machine. I would like to tell you that the machine rents for between $12,000 and $18,000 a month, so it was not the type of thing that could be sold from place to place. But, as a result of our trip, on which we expected to get orders for five machines, we came home with orders for 18." -- Thomas J. Watson, Jr. IBM CEO, 28 Apr 1953, at the annual stockholder's meeting.
"Nuclear-powered vacuum cleaners will probably be a reality within ten years." -- Alex Lewyt, president of Lewyt vacuum company, 1955
"But what...is it good for?" -- Engineer at the Advanced Computing Systems Division of IBM, 1968, commenting on the microchip
"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home." -- Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977.
We will never make a 32-bit operating system. -- Bill Gates, 1989
"Almost all of the many predictions now being made about 1996 hinge on the Internet's continuing exponential growth. But I predict the Internet will soon go spectacularly supernova and in 1996 catastrophically collapse." -- Robert Metcalfe, founder of 3Com, 1995
"Apple is already dead." -- Nathan Myhrvold, former Microsoft CTO, 1997
"Two years from now, spam will be solved." -- Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft, 2004
Now, about those "people who actually make the tech"...
Not the sort of prediction that you can really counter by exhuming Sci-Fi writers for quotable quotes.
When they replaced Battlestar Galactica with Mansquito, I'm pretty sure they jumped the shark. No need to exhume corpses, unless it's to burn them to make sure they don't come back to suck the life out of another beloved classic.
The end of Windows 7 extended support is January 14, 2020. Microsoft is not going to make the same mistake of indefinitely extending this date by continuing sales indefinitely.
They tried to kill XP. Repeatedly. They extended the deadline many times. They're going to do it again with Windows 7, because 8 is a steaming three coiled turd. Nobody asks when corporations are upgrading to Vista... because nobody is. How many corporations are looking at Windows 8? Next to none. Go ahead... find a job for a "Windows 7 to Windows 8 migration expert" on a job site for a Fortune 500 company. We'd all love to see the three positions in the entire world that are available for that job. -_-
Please. Microsoft can try shoving stuff down their customer's throats... but all they'll do is get another XBone out of the deal. How's that working out for you, by the way, Ballmer? Polishing up the old resume I hear.
Why don't you find out how this is handled by people who actually have hundreds of drives to deal with. If you let them fail before servicing them you are doing it wrong.
Yeah, well... I just finished a gig where I was responsible for hundreds of thousands of drives. And while scanning the SMART data is a nice start... you aren't going to get an e-mail when a branch office's first floor is under five feet of water. You'll just be checking a report on a deployment when a half dozen servers stop responding, then the router goes. You send out an e-mail saying one of your sites is down, but it isn't until two days later when the manager of the site phones in for an RMA on a bunch of dead equipment that you find out what really happened. This happens about once a month. I run into SMART failures about as often... which is to say, it's as likely that drives fail due to old age as they do due to 'environmental-other'.
But regardless, my point was that "mechanical drives make a noise before they fail, therefore they're better than SSDs!" is a reeeeally stupid thing to say stands. Were you... disagreeing with this? Or did you just want to throw up your cred about managing a few hundred workstations because you're underappreciated at work? I can relate, by the way, but it's a bit off topic.
English is a difficult task for me. Would you like to continue in french ?
If you feel more comfortable with it, sure. But alas, english is the apparent default language of the internet, at least everywhere but China... which is weird because more people speak Mandarin than english, but I digress...
My first concern was a new stable machine, not the price. If the price was a high concern I will have not even buy the i5-4670K in the first place.
I suppose after all these exchanges, now is a bad time to point out that the 'K' at the end signifies it is meant for overclocking and, I'm wondering if maybe you tried this and the system became unstable, and so you concluded that Intel was shit at processors... rather than the rather more accurate conclusion that overclocking is really hit or miss, and running it over spec is a gamble... maybe you lost with Intel and won with AMD, and all this is, is a spot of gambler's fallacy.
In contrast, my X would make things go haywire. Whenever she went out shopping, her friends would always get in another checkout line or make her last since they knew something would go wrong with the register once she got near it.
And for the record, this is a classic example of observational selection bias. Get a new car? Suddenly you notice that same car everywhere. Everyone bought the same car you did! Except they totally didn't, it just seems that way. How about one a little closer to home -- ever had that friend that claimed they could turn off street lights? Or that the traffic signals "have it in for you"? More observational selection bias. Humans have this tendancy to see patterns where none exist -- like seeing faces in clouds. There's a good evolutionary reason for this too -- see something move in the bushes and ZOMFG IT'S A BEAR!... 99 times out of 100, it isn't a bear... but over a few hundred generations... guess what: Those few times it really was a bear has an impact on a person's ability to reproduce. Funny, isn't it; Seeing things that (usually) aren't there has an evolutionary benefit.
So there you have it. SSSSSSCCCCCIENCE! (cape swish) (flies away)
I have found that in damned near every case, not all but most, will give you PLENTY of warning before it goes completely tits up whereas the SSD?
Yeah, sure, okay. If you're sitting next to your computer, then yeah, maybe you notice. How about the hundreds of millions of drives that are sitting in a rack somewhere, and will only see a human being twice: Once when it gets installed in the rack, and then only when it stops working for whatever reason and a tech is sent out to replace it.
The "it made a funny noise first" line item is a joke either way. This is like saying "Well, I prefer diesel engines because they make more noise when they die." Hookay. Yeah.
I may be just a little country shop guy but when my gamer customers have all experienced multiple failures when it comes to SSDs, and these guys don't go cheap, sorry but ATM I still don't trust it.
I may just be a Ferrari repair shop owner, but when my car owners have all experienced multiple failures when it comes to ceramic brakes and high end engine components, and these guys don't go cheap, sorry but ATM I still don't trust it.
Now do you see how utterly ridiculous that sounds? High performance almost always means less robust. That graphics card you just plunked over $200 on? It's operating temperature is so high from the current being pumped through it that it's literally cooking itself at the molecular level from the moment you plug it in -- it's called electromigration, and in three to five depending on how often you use it, it's going to shit itself. But that's okay... because in two years, you'll be spending even more on a new one.
Ironic that they talk about how supposedly high HDD failure rates are when I cleaned out a how drawer of them before moving into the new place, we are talking drives going back to Quantum Fireballs in the 200Mb size, yes Mb not Gb, and they all fired up. granted some of them were noisy as hell but I could still get files off of them while not a single one of my gamer customers have their first SSD, they are all dead.
Yeah, and? How many gamers are still using their 200Mb Quantum Fireballs in an actual computer? I know it's a common geek past time to see what kind of antiquidated hardware you can pull out with your friends... that old parallel port Zip drive, or floppies the size of your head... and yeah, it's fun to talk about to show you had IT chops before the person you're talking to was even a glint in daddy's eye... but that's the only value they have.
Nobody's coming up to me and asking for an AT command initialization string for their modem -- AT&F&C1&D2S95=55 in case you were wondering -- because it's not a technology very many use anymore. Yeah, I can dig out an old 2400 baud modem and get it working... but that doesn't mean 2400 baud modems are superior to cable modems that "have a higher failure rate".. and so, you know... I don't know if I trust such 'new' technology.
Reminds me of the studies that show how some people's presence can make machines work properly, while other's makes them malfunction.
This might stop joy riding, but it won't stop professional car thieves. It goes a little like this... carefully remove the head lamp cover, remove the lamp, stuff a bunch of tin foil in it. Then kick the bumper. *HONKKkk--zrrrrcccch....* Now pull up the short truck, hook the wench up, drag it up the ramp and into the back, hop out, close the door, drive off. With slight modification to the inside, it forms a perfect Faraday cage for the car's electronics... then drive it to the chop shop... also in a nice big metal cage, chop everything up... remove any tracking devices such as OnStar that weren't disabled when you shorted the battery. Total time from capture to parted out: 2 hours. Which is right about the time you finish filling out that nice long form at the police station about how you had your fancy car parked out front for "only a minute" while you ran inside.
Guys... I don't know how much clearer I can make this; Criminals already just don't fuck with car alarms or ignition interlocks... they just load the car up wholesale into another vehicle. It's only the gang-bangers and joy riders that mess with that.
This technology will slow down a car thief for exactly... zero seconds. They don't even need to get in the vehicle to steal it. It doesn't happen like in Grand Theft Auto or like those crime dramas that seem to be clogging prime time TV. In the real world, a team of six professional car thieves can move a dozen cars in a night.
Oh, I know what you're thinking -- you'll just canvas the local junk yards or ebay and find someone selling your car parts. Yeah, no. Your parts are loaded into large crates, and shipped overseas. Your car is sitting in a dozen different shipping containers a few days after it's stolen. No serial numbers on the parts; Those are just discarded. Don't worry though, when they come back into the country 4--6 months from now, it'll be from a salvage title with new VINs and engine serial numbers. Next time you see a hurricane or a major flood somewhere in the world, think of all those delicious salvage titles being sold off for a few bucks each. Their only value is a new set of serial numbers for a stolen car that was nowhere near the disaster area.
Money laundering is hard, but laundering car parts? Dead simple. It's a multi-billion dollar industry. But if wearing a silly cap with electrodes in it is what it takes for you to feel like car theft is something that only happens to the other guy because you've got the latest car alarm or interlock system, well, okay.
But the thieves don't care. Chances are, your car will be in a hundred pieces before someone asks... "Hey... what do we do with this stupid-looking cap?"... and it winds up in a dumpster somewhere a few hours later, having performed its only real function: Making you feel better.
Every single apartment complex I've lived in/visited would say otherwise.
Yes, but you may recall that a few days ago Google said it was accelerating its VPN and encryption rollout to frustrate the NSA. The NSA made a phone call to the DOJ. They're one big happy family you know. So now Google will be punished in a roundabout fashion for daring to piss in the NSA's cheerios.
I have made a bad experience with Intel, no with you, so why are you so emotive ? My expectation was perfectly realist: the A10-6800K meet the goal very well for a lower price. That's so simple.
Your english needs work, bud. That said... if low price is your only concern, AMD might be fine. That is, afterall, the market they're going for. But if you want performance, especially for games, or for running VMs, etc, forget it. And as far as this "HDMI not stable, blah blah blah"... that's not a hardware problem, that's a software problem. Stop blaming the platform for shitty drivers. It works fine on Windows.
If you want to say Intel isn't providing the specs or reference implimentations necessary for Debian to produce a good driver, you may have an argument, but saying the hardware is shit because Debian produced a shit driver... is the height of ignorance.
I just sold my almost new i5-4670K to replace it by a A10-6800K. With the i5, it's simply impossible to get a working machine by using the new Debian Wheezy: no audio, no accelerated 3D, no fluid video, screen instability on the HDMI output, and high price. On the contrary, the A10 work perfectly well: audio, accelerated 3D, glitch free 1080p full screen video, rock stable HDMI output, and half of the i5 price.
So let me get this straight: Because you can't get a working computer running with your operating system of choice, that's the fault of the hardware? This seems like a case of misplaced blame. Especially when another operating system handles these things just fine. Now, if you want to make the argument that the necessary documentation of the hardware isn't available to the developers of your operating system of choice, or restricted by patents, etc., is what is the real problem here, I will grant that you may have an argument. But blaming the hardware because of the inadequacies of the software is not a very good argument.
And for the record, I have a similar cpu - the i5-3570K. Same architecture. I wouldn't go with AMD if you gave it to me at a third the price, because I can't just glue three computers together and get the same performance as the one I have now. AMD screwed the pooch when they opted for short-term gain at the expense of long-term growth. They depleted their cash reserves paying out dividends instead of investing in a new chip foundry, and they've cut their engineering staff. And this is such a highly specialized field, there's only a very small number of people who can design CPUs... and now that they're working for Intel, the only way to get them back is to pay more.
AMD management will never do that. They're just sucking the life out of a dying company now... selling it off piece by piece, maximizing profits... they've committed themselves to obscurity for the sake of lining their own pockets now. And in a few more years, Intel will start jacking up the prices for everyone... and there will be nobody with the ability to compete with them.
This isn't just AMD that fucked itself... it fucked the entire consumer PC market in the process.
Installing backdoors would be too easily detected, eventually. But if I were running a secretive national spy agency, I'd have the border patrol grab any certificate files, credentials or VPN keys as a matter of routine to go into the big database. Never know when they might come in handy.
Why think so small? The blueprints for motherboard, peripherals, memory sticks, etc., all are available to any government. Not just ours. All they have to do is seize an engineer, or a laptop here and there, or intercept communications... oh, and there's always the courts too.
If you lose physical access to your device, don't trust it again. Don't decrypt the data. It's gone. Even if you're holding it in your hands, the only thing for you to do is scrub it as best you can and put it up on eBay. It's not yours anymore.
So basically, AMD has given up going for top of the line, and has decided to focus on commodity hardware because it just can't upgrade it's fab plant because earlier management decided profit was more important than investment... and now they're going to lose out on both. And this is just a consolidation move in that direction... downward.
Enjoy your slow fade to obscurity, AMD. If I could just open up a chasm and drop your fab plants and senior management into the center of the Earth, I would give serious consideration to doing this. Stupidity like this should be a criminal offense.
The chance of getting caught pirating anything is statistically insignificant.
Well, that's why they're going for automated systems, alerts, etc., crammed down the ISPs throats with the promise of reducing business costs by lowering the amount of bandwidth. Comcast, Time Warner, etc., in the US fell in line, and their counterparts in Europe are doing the same. They can only prosecute a tiny fraction; Which is why they have to rely on fear. If you're caught, $100,000 fines, years in prison, etc. -- overkill so massive it'll scare the population into quitting.
Unfortunately for them, this tactic isn't working very well. And the technology is not really effective either. For example, I regularly download the newest movies, which are well-known to be the most watched and hit by automated systems. The only thing I've done to defeat this... is to enable encryption.
There will always be a way around it. They'll keep upping the odds. Soon it'll be one strike. Then it'll be no strike. Then it'll be just talking about piracy.
Slashdot Mirror
ou live in an apartment complex where 50% of the residence are known to be infected. That means you must quarantine the remaining 50% of the healthy and hope they too won't get infected???
No, it means you shoot anyone who comes out just long enough to evacuate the surrounding areas... and if it's highly virulent, you drop napalm and call it a day. Something like Ebola would dictate this response.
On the other hand, if it's not as contagious... maybe a 1 in 8 chance of death... then you have two options: On-site treatment, or you secure the area, and evacuate the person one by one to a treatment facility if they show symptoms. If they don't show symptoms, isolate them from everyone else and wait out the incubation period.
Either way, isolation is the answer. And as far as shooting someone... that wouldn't happen in a worst-case scenario. The moment containment was broken, everyone would be incinerated. He wouldn't die by bullet... that would be too kind. He will die painfully -- burned alive. Unless a sniper happened to take pity on him before fleeing the soon to be rather large blast radius.
"The first priority of DOD support in the event of a PI is [REDACTED]".
They're the military. It's redacted because it's not politically fashionable to say what they'd have to do, but put yourself in their shoes and it's obvious: Protect key government officials by evacuating them in secret while reassuring the public everything is fine and they haven't been disappeared and are now in a secret bunker somewhere.
Military thinking on this is obvious to the point of being painful: You have to coordinate your response to the crisis, and that means first securing your chain of command, then securing communications, then securing your chain of supplies, and then finally deploying resources into the field to secure key assets.
That's the response plan because that's what the situation dictates. You don't need a security clearance to figure this out... but confirming that's what they would do could complicate those efforts by a panic'd populace. And that's why it's classified. It's not because they're "up to something", it's because sometimes a little knowledge is a bad thing.
It's like the Joker said; "You know... You know what I've noticed? Nobody panics when things go 'according to plan.' Even if the plan is horrifying! If, tomorrow, I tell the press that, like, a gang banger will get shot, or a truckload of soldiers will be blown up, nobody panics, because it's all 'part of the plan'. But when I say that one little old mayor will die, well then everyone loses their minds!"
Chew on that awhile when you're wondering next time why the government classifies so many things; It's not because they're up to no good... it's because people are fucking stupid, and they panic at nothing. The whole point of the government during a crisis is to keep people separated and not in large groups where panic and hysteria can take over. Any crisis. It just so happens, it's a particularly good idea during a pandemic.
I'd say 18-24 months for a vaccine, and 12%-14% population loss due to a real influenza pandemic.
And your credentials, sir? Internet pundit. Okay, how about a citation? Don't have one of those either. Okay. Well thanks, but I think I'll go with the formerly classified document released by actual experts over your knee-jerk "I think it's optimistic, and here's some numbers I think are more realistic!" post.
Purely for shits and giggles, I went and looked up what unclassified documents had to say about the likely timeline. Those numbers look similar to what's been revealed in this document. They, uhh, don't look like your numbers. According to WHO, it would take 5-6 months to produce a vaccine. Not nearly two years. If you were right, we would never have a flu vaccine available, yet every year like clockwork they show up at hospitals and clinics with those reminders to get vaccinated before the season starts. So I'm going to go with the DoD, CDC, and WHO's assessment on that timeframe, thanks.
However, it's just re-arranging deck chairs on the titanic either way. Our vaccine production, whether optimistic, or pessimistic, won't matter; From start to finish, the entire pandemic would last from 6-8 to perhaps 12 weeks. That's about as long as it takes the vaccine to take effect. In other words, even if we developed a vaccine the same day as patient zero showed up, and completely eliminated the production side of the equation and assumed limitless vaccines available to everyone, and that somehow, by magical fairy dust, everyone got the vaccine that same day... over a third of the population would still get infected and still suffer whatever the casualty rate is. Knock that timetable out by a month and it's everyone. Vaccine is useless.
In other words, the strategy outlined by the DoD -- containment and isolation, remains the only effective strategy. A vaccine being put in development would be there to prevent secondary infection and to have confidence that it is safe to end quarantine procedure. That's all a vaccine buys you; Some after-action security. Vaccination is not a priority. Even under super-optimal conditions, it's of limited value to us. We could throw billions at the problem trying to create a rapid response infrastructure and it would amount to exactly dick at a huge cost.
Now as far as your population loss numbers... There's just no way to predict that with confidence. The numbers they quoted are based on a historical evaluation of data over the last 50 years... which seems reasonable from a statistical standpoint... but the Pandemic of 1918 killed over 90% of the population. It was on par with the Black Death. That's pretty much the worst-case scenario -- the average case is much, much more mild. But we do know it can happen... and it's just a gamble as to when.
So I'm with the CDC and DoD on this; Containment. Isolation. Quarantine. That's our strategy, and given our current level of technology... it's the only viable one.
I don't find this scary at all. It's the reality of the world we live in. What would be scary is if the people in charge of managing such a crisis didn't have a plan, and instead choose to stick their fingers in their ears and sing "glory glory halleluja" while the country died. Literally. Why do people always seem to think things like this are "scary"? That kind of attitude is what creates truly scary situations: The kind nobody was prepared for and is now ravaging the population unchecked. That is scary. A plan... that's reassuring.
Or maybe I'm just from some bizarro alternate universe where being prepared is frightening and living in ignorance is bliss.
You're missing the point. Spending taxpayer dollars for a fancy NOC that is not even supposed to exist is just shitting on the citizens. His motto is "Collect it All". He ran an "all-out, barely-legal drive to build the ultimate spy machine" (quotes from the article)
Then the person who wrote the article is a moron. It's legal because they say it's legal. They're the authority on what's legal or not. The word you're looking for is moral.
. But having a single chair positioned to look at the 22 foot projector is ridiculous.
Why? Because a chair costs that much?
And what purpose is that other than to satisfy the delusions of grandeur of the people running the place and the people holding the purse strings?
I don't know; What are command centers for again? The NSA deals with more information passing through its networks than, say, AT&T. I wonder what AT&T's NOC looks like, and if it costs as much as a recreation of the Enterprise bridge. I bet it does.
That might be tolerable in a corporate environment, but not a government one. This is pure, unadulterated waste. "Selling" isn't part of the mission.
Heh. How naive. The NSA is a support organization; They exist solely to 'sell' their services to the FBI, DHS, and CIA. They are, as it were, the outsourced IT of the government. If they aren't making the news, proving their worth, what they do will just be absorbed by one of them. Or do you think "the government" is just one big happy family and people don't have cross-jurisdictional issues, turf wars, competing objectives... ? Yes, the NSA very much does need to sell itself to Congress. Especially when idiots like you are busy foaming at the mouth about privacy, civil rights, etc., apparently blithingly unaware that the NSA is simply the service provider. They aren't making these decisions... and they're quite happy to have everyone believing they're the ones calling the shots... It's just another deception. And all warfare is deception... keep your detractors distracted so the real players can move freely.
Engage!
Well, I'll be down-modded again for this, but the bridge of the Enterprise has been modelled for use in many types of command centers; NOCs, military headquarters, etc. As it turns out, the layout of the bridge actually has a functional effect. Submarines as well borrow elements of the Enterprise layout -- our nuclear submarines, for example. As it turns out, science fiction often leads to realworld advancements. Tricorders. Comm badges. Phasers. All of these were science fiction, and now they're science fact. Why should the bridge layout somehow be a cry for "accountability" ?
The bridge serves a real purpose for the NSA, but even if it didn't, there's plenty of data centers that have fancy-looking NOCs that are only there to look fancy for the big wigs. The 'real' NOC is usually on the other side of the wall, and it's just a room with some tables and cubes along the sides... and maybe a ping pong table in the corner. But showing them the geeks instead of the sexy but non-functional "bridge" of their data center doesn't sell as well.
Why would the government be in any way immune to these things? Why do we scream "accountability" when they do the exact same thing private companies do? Oh, your taxpayer dollars, blah blah? That's your argument? Before you bitch about the NSA's star trek bridge to show off to congressional dignitaries... think about how much more you're paying for patent lawsuits clogging up the courts, or overzealous police officers writing tickets, or about ten thousand items above it that are costing more of your precious taxpayer tears, er, I mean, dollars...
Let the NSA geek feel like he's Captain Picard. You know you would too if given the chance.
"Writer and activist Cory Doctorow says competition keeps Google behaving ethically because...
Because the paid shill has conveniently omitted the possibility of collusion and/or conspiracy. And there have been plenty of examples where corporations in this industry have colluded with each other to price fix. In fact, during the analog to digital TV transition, the prices were over double what they should have been. The government is, you know, thinking about, maybe, possibly, getting around to investigating that, you know, someday. Don't hold your breath.
I don't think you'll find very many people here that believe that the government and large corporations aren't in bed with each other. Money talks. So, I gotta ask, Mr. Doctorow... how much did they pay you to talk about how Google can't possibly be evil, when the evidence for your position is so pathetically underwelming? Perhaps Google is a special little snowflake that somehow wouldn't engage in the kinds of unethical behavior that almost every other Fortune 500 company did? Perhaps you believe that mass-collusion between corporations and the government isn't possible... and there's another explanation for the current global recession?
Because if you can, step forward and collect your Nobel prize on economics. Otherwise, the door is on your left. Don't let your paid-off ass hit it on the way out.
No offense, but you need to sit down with a good book on general relativity. (I like Sean Carroll's Spacetime and Geometry. YMMV.)
Hawking proved... No, he did not.
Unless of course, He did. The physics checks out; We've recreated the conditions in the lab. A direct observation is rather difficult because of the aforementioned alignment issue with blackholes -- in fact, every theory of black holes suffers the same problem of a lack of observation being, well, you know... black holes. Hawking's theories are the best-fit model to date, and until and unless better evidence comes along, that's what most physicists are going with... as you, yourself, pointed out.
Highly charged particles are emitted at the poles of a black hole... No, they are not.
the black hole itself is also rotating at the speed of light... No, it is not.
You get one or the other. Any theory you care to pick; You don't get both. If it's not rotating at the speed of light, then the particles do not 'think' better of it and shoot out the poles... where would they get the energy to escape from the accretion disk then? You can't escape gravity without energy to counter-act it. I'd love to hear your ideas about how those jets are blasting out particles without some kind of gravitational force pushing them back out -- the kind of gravitational force that, near an event horizon, can only come by something capable of vectoring it away at near the speed of light .. like, I don't know, something rotating at the speed of light with the gravitational force of, say, a black hole.
The area around an accreting black hole is perhaps the most violent spot imaginable in the universe; it should be no surprise whatsoever that once something has gone around the accretion disc a few million times it would have enough kinetic energy to go like hell off in another direction as soon as it collides with another particle.
Well thank you. And how, exactly, do you propose that two objects interact with each other's gravity, and yet only one of them accelerates? Everywhere else in physics, when an object in space passes at a right angle to another, they affect each other's orbits -- and, wait for it -- their spin too. Now if this is happening constantly around a black hole, how exactly do you conclude that it's ... not rotating?
Allow me to clear up your confusion on this matter, as although I haven't read your pet book, I do understand something more basic: There are many types of black holes.
The physics I outlined above is accurate for a rotating black hole. However, here's the glitch that you missed: Non-rotating black holes also emit energy. See that first blurb about Hawking radiation I posted above -- whether it's rotating or not, it emits radiation. The only thing rotation does is concentrate the emissions at the poles... the accretion disk does cause a lot more matter to be ejected at the poles as spacetime is locally deformed there and they can pickup enough energy to bounce off... but not all black holes have an accretion disk, and hawking radiation doesn't depend on rotation; It depends on phenomena that happens at the event horizon where virtual particle pairs are pulled apart...
The reason it can't be observed is because this radiation occurs in such a small quantity over such a long period of time, and at such low energy levels... that we haven't yet found a black hole close enough that current technology could directly observe it.
But to just handwave and say "no, no, no..." to one of the most interesting problems in physics is stupid. Science isn't about absolute proof, it's about the best fit model. And what I've stated... th
It's not really the same because anything that collides with a black hole will cease to exist. There is no way for anyone with any sort of conceivable detector to observe what no longer exists. Even if the collapsed star's gravity did not stop the photons from exiting it would effectively vanish out of existence.
This is not true. Hawkings proved this already; Look up Hawking radiation. Black holes will eventually evaporate if it cannot attract enough matter to sustain its size. Highly charged particles are emitted at the poles of a black hole, and it's also been proven that not only does matter in the accretion disc accelerate to the speed of light before crossing the horizon, but that the black hole itself is also rotating at the speed of light creating relativistic frame dragging.
All of this would not be occurring if it "vanished out of existance", and thus violated the laws of thermodynamics. In fact, whether a 3D or 4D universe, matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed. The information, that is the quantum state, of mass and energy that is eaten by a blackhole is later ejected as what could be termed high energy 'noise'; x-rays and gamma rays. Black holes, it would seem, convert matter into energy, which is then re-emitted; They accelerate entropy locally, but they do not, in any way, "vanish" things. What goes into a black hole does eventually come back out... but what comes out, to the best of our knowledge, is a smear of particles which are emitted along a gaussian distribution with regard to energy state.
It should also be noted that the standard model is known to be flawed in that it cannot accurately predict extremely high energy states -- this is one of the reasons why black holes are so interesting to astrophysicists; They are currently the only observable phenomenon where such high energy levels are. Unfortunately, because we are not directly aligned with the poles of very many black holes, which seem to align themselves to the galactic gravity plane for reasons not yet fully understood, there simply isn't enough observational data to say with confidence what the properties of such high energy particles would be.
Answering these questions is essential if we are to successfully create a grand unified theory. The standard model has already been proven to fall short of that; And quantum mechanics still can't even explain gravity... the Year of the Proven Quantum Gravity Particle comes about as often as the Year of the Linux Desktop... which is to say, we're still waiting.
You can protest that your music is a finely-prepared steak cooked by sheer genius, and be quite correct in this, and you have trouble paying for your kitchen, your restaurant, your cow."
Sacred cows make the best hamburgers.
Well, I'm not buying it. Until I start hearing something from the people who actually make the tech, I'm going to say it'll probably keep going.
"This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us."
-- Western Union internal memo, 1876.
"Radio has no future. Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible. X-rays will prove to be a hoax."
-- William Thomson, Lord Kelvin, British scientist, 1899.
"There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will."
-- Albert Einstein, 1932.
"The bomb will never go off. I speak as an expert in explosives." -- Admiral William Leahy, U.S. Atomic Bomb Project.
"Where a calculator on the ENIAC is equipped with 18,000 vacuum tubes and weighs 30 tons, computers in the future may have only 1,000 vacuum tubes and weigh only 1.5 tons."
-- Popular Mechanics, 1949
"IBM had developed a paper plan for such a machine and took this paper plan across the country to some 20 concerns that we thought could use such a machine. I would like to tell you that the machine rents for between $12,000 and $18,000 a month, so it was not the type of thing that could be sold from place to place. But, as a result of our trip, on which we expected to get orders for five machines, we came home with orders for 18."
-- Thomas J. Watson, Jr. IBM CEO, 28 Apr 1953, at the annual stockholder's meeting.
"Nuclear-powered vacuum cleaners will probably be a reality within ten years."
-- Alex Lewyt, president of Lewyt vacuum company, 1955
"But what...is it good for?"
-- Engineer at the Advanced Computing Systems Division of IBM, 1968, commenting on the microchip
"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home."
-- Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977.
We will never make a 32-bit operating system.
-- Bill Gates, 1989
"Almost all of the many predictions now being made about 1996 hinge on the Internet's continuing exponential growth. But I predict the Internet will soon go spectacularly supernova and in 1996 catastrophically collapse."
-- Robert Metcalfe, founder of 3Com, 1995
"Apple is already dead."
-- Nathan Myhrvold, former Microsoft CTO, 1997
"Two years from now, spam will be solved."
-- Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft, 2004
Now, about those "people who actually make the tech"...
Not the sort of prediction that you can really counter by exhuming Sci-Fi writers for quotable quotes.
When they replaced Battlestar Galactica with Mansquito, I'm pretty sure they jumped the shark. No need to exhume corpses, unless it's to burn them to make sure they don't come back to suck the life out of another beloved classic.
The end of Windows 7 extended support is January 14, 2020. Microsoft is not going to make the same mistake of indefinitely extending this date by continuing sales indefinitely.
They tried to kill XP. Repeatedly. They extended the deadline many times. They're going to do it again with Windows 7, because 8 is a steaming three coiled turd. Nobody asks when corporations are upgrading to Vista... because nobody is. How many corporations are looking at Windows 8? Next to none. Go ahead... find a job for a "Windows 7 to Windows 8 migration expert" on a job site for a Fortune 500 company. We'd all love to see the three positions in the entire world that are available for that job. -_-
Please. Microsoft can try shoving stuff down their customer's throats... but all they'll do is get another XBone out of the deal. How's that working out for you, by the way, Ballmer? Polishing up the old resume I hear.
Why don't you find out how this is handled by people who actually have hundreds of drives to deal with.
If you let them fail before servicing them you are doing it wrong.
Yeah, well... I just finished a gig where I was responsible for hundreds of thousands of drives. And while scanning the SMART data is a nice start... you aren't going to get an e-mail when a branch office's first floor is under five feet of water. You'll just be checking a report on a deployment when a half dozen servers stop responding, then the router goes. You send out an e-mail saying one of your sites is down, but it isn't until two days later when the manager of the site phones in for an RMA on a bunch of dead equipment that you find out what really happened. This happens about once a month. I run into SMART failures about as often... which is to say, it's as likely that drives fail due to old age as they do due to 'environmental-other'.
But regardless, my point was that "mechanical drives make a noise before they fail, therefore they're better than SSDs!" is a reeeeally stupid thing to say stands. Were you... disagreeing with this? Or did you just want to throw up your cred about managing a few hundred workstations because you're underappreciated at work? I can relate, by the way, but it's a bit off topic.
English is a difficult task for me. Would you like to continue in french ?
If you feel more comfortable with it, sure. But alas, english is the apparent default language of the internet, at least everywhere but China... which is weird because more people speak Mandarin than english, but I digress...
My first concern was a new stable machine, not the price. If the price was a high concern I will have not even buy the i5-4670K in the first place.
I suppose after all these exchanges, now is a bad time to point out that the 'K' at the end signifies it is meant for overclocking and, I'm wondering if maybe you tried this and the system became unstable, and so you concluded that Intel was shit at processors... rather than the rather more accurate conclusion that overclocking is really hit or miss, and running it over spec is a gamble... maybe you lost with Intel and won with AMD, and all this is, is a spot of gambler's fallacy.
In contrast, my X would make things go haywire. Whenever she went out shopping, her friends would always get in another checkout line or make her last since they knew something would go wrong with the register once she got near it.
And for the record, this is a classic example of observational selection bias. Get a new car? Suddenly you notice that same car everywhere. Everyone bought the same car you did! Except they totally didn't, it just seems that way. How about one a little closer to home -- ever had that friend that claimed they could turn off street lights? Or that the traffic signals "have it in for you"? More observational selection bias. Humans have this tendancy to see patterns where none exist -- like seeing faces in clouds. There's a good evolutionary reason for this too -- see something move in the bushes and ZOMFG IT'S A BEAR! ... 99 times out of 100, it isn't a bear... but over a few hundred generations... guess what: Those few times it really was a bear has an impact on a person's ability to reproduce. Funny, isn't it; Seeing things that (usually) aren't there has an evolutionary benefit.
So there you have it. SSSSSSCCCCCIENCE! (cape swish) (flies away)
I have found that in damned near every case, not all but most, will give you PLENTY of warning before it goes completely tits up whereas the SSD?
Yeah, sure, okay. If you're sitting next to your computer, then yeah, maybe you notice. How about the hundreds of millions of drives that are sitting in a rack somewhere, and will only see a human being twice: Once when it gets installed in the rack, and then only when it stops working for whatever reason and a tech is sent out to replace it.
The "it made a funny noise first" line item is a joke either way. This is like saying "Well, I prefer diesel engines because they make more noise when they die." Hookay. Yeah.
I may be just a little country shop guy but when my gamer customers have all experienced multiple failures when it comes to SSDs, and these guys don't go cheap, sorry but ATM I still don't trust it.
I may just be a Ferrari repair shop owner, but when my car owners have all experienced multiple failures when it comes to ceramic brakes and high end engine components, and these guys don't go cheap, sorry but ATM I still don't trust it.
Now do you see how utterly ridiculous that sounds? High performance almost always means less robust. That graphics card you just plunked over $200 on? It's operating temperature is so high from the current being pumped through it that it's literally cooking itself at the molecular level from the moment you plug it in -- it's called electromigration, and in three to five depending on how often you use it, it's going to shit itself. But that's okay... because in two years, you'll be spending even more on a new one.
Ironic that they talk about how supposedly high HDD failure rates are when I cleaned out a how drawer of them before moving into the new place, we are talking drives going back to Quantum Fireballs in the 200Mb size, yes Mb not Gb, and they all fired up. granted some of them were noisy as hell but I could still get files off of them while not a single one of my gamer customers have their first SSD, they are all dead.
Yeah, and? How many gamers are still using their 200Mb Quantum Fireballs in an actual computer? I know it's a common geek past time to see what kind of antiquidated hardware you can pull out with your friends... that old parallel port Zip drive, or floppies the size of your head... and yeah, it's fun to talk about to show you had IT chops before the person you're talking to was even a glint in daddy's eye... but that's the only value they have.
Nobody's coming up to me and asking for an AT command initialization string for their modem -- AT&F&C1&D2S95=55 in case you were wondering -- because it's not a technology very many use anymore. Yeah, I can dig out an old 2400 baud modem and get it working... but that doesn't mean 2400 baud modems are superior to cable modems that "have a higher failure rate".. and so, you know... I don't know if I trust such 'new' technology.
Now, get off my lawn.
Reminds me of the studies that show how some people's presence can make machines work properly, while other's makes them malfunction.
This might stop joy riding, but it won't stop professional car thieves. It goes a little like this... carefully remove the head lamp cover, remove the lamp, stuff a bunch of tin foil in it. Then kick the bumper. *HONKKkk--zrrrrcccch....* Now pull up the short truck, hook the wench up, drag it up the ramp and into the back, hop out, close the door, drive off. With slight modification to the inside, it forms a perfect Faraday cage for the car's electronics... then drive it to the chop shop... also in a nice big metal cage, chop everything up... remove any tracking devices such as OnStar that weren't disabled when you shorted the battery. Total time from capture to parted out: 2 hours. Which is right about the time you finish filling out that nice long form at the police station about how you had your fancy car parked out front for "only a minute" while you ran inside.
Guys... I don't know how much clearer I can make this; Criminals already just don't fuck with car alarms or ignition interlocks... they just load the car up wholesale into another vehicle. It's only the gang-bangers and joy riders that mess with that.
This technology will slow down a car thief for exactly... zero seconds. They don't even need to get in the vehicle to steal it. It doesn't happen like in Grand Theft Auto or like those crime dramas that seem to be clogging prime time TV. In the real world, a team of six professional car thieves can move a dozen cars in a night.
Oh, I know what you're thinking -- you'll just canvas the local junk yards or ebay and find someone selling your car parts. Yeah, no. Your parts are loaded into large crates, and shipped overseas. Your car is sitting in a dozen different shipping containers a few days after it's stolen. No serial numbers on the parts; Those are just discarded. Don't worry though, when they come back into the country 4--6 months from now, it'll be from a salvage title with new VINs and engine serial numbers. Next time you see a hurricane or a major flood somewhere in the world, think of all those delicious salvage titles being sold off for a few bucks each. Their only value is a new set of serial numbers for a stolen car that was nowhere near the disaster area.
Money laundering is hard, but laundering car parts? Dead simple. It's a multi-billion dollar industry. But if wearing a silly cap with electrodes in it is what it takes for you to feel like car theft is something that only happens to the other guy because you've got the latest car alarm or interlock system, well, okay.
But the thieves don't care. Chances are, your car will be in a hundred pieces before someone asks... "Hey... what do we do with this stupid-looking cap?" ... and it winds up in a dumpster somewhere a few hours later, having performed its only real function: Making you feel better.
Every single apartment complex I've lived in/visited would say otherwise.
Yes, but you may recall that a few days ago Google said it was accelerating its VPN and encryption rollout to frustrate the NSA. The NSA made a phone call to the DOJ. They're one big happy family you know. So now Google will be punished in a roundabout fashion for daring to piss in the NSA's cheerios.
I have made a bad experience with Intel, no with you, so why are you so emotive ? My expectation was perfectly realist: the A10-6800K meet the goal very well for a lower price. That's so simple.
Your english needs work, bud. That said... if low price is your only concern, AMD might be fine. That is, afterall, the market they're going for. But if you want performance, especially for games, or for running VMs, etc, forget it. And as far as this "HDMI not stable, blah blah blah"... that's not a hardware problem, that's a software problem. Stop blaming the platform for shitty drivers. It works fine on Windows.
If you want to say Intel isn't providing the specs or reference implimentations necessary for Debian to produce a good driver, you may have an argument, but saying the hardware is shit because Debian produced a shit driver... is the height of ignorance.
I just sold my almost new i5-4670K to replace it by a A10-6800K. With the i5, it's simply impossible to get a working machine by using the new Debian Wheezy: no audio, no accelerated 3D, no fluid video, screen instability on the HDMI output, and high price. On the contrary, the A10 work perfectly well: audio, accelerated 3D, glitch free 1080p full screen video, rock stable HDMI output, and half of the i5 price.
So let me get this straight: Because you can't get a working computer running with your operating system of choice, that's the fault of the hardware? This seems like a case of misplaced blame. Especially when another operating system handles these things just fine. Now, if you want to make the argument that the necessary documentation of the hardware isn't available to the developers of your operating system of choice, or restricted by patents, etc., is what is the real problem here, I will grant that you may have an argument. But blaming the hardware because of the inadequacies of the software is not a very good argument.
And for the record, I have a similar cpu - the i5-3570K. Same architecture. I wouldn't go with AMD if you gave it to me at a third the price, because I can't just glue three computers together and get the same performance as the one I have now. AMD screwed the pooch when they opted for short-term gain at the expense of long-term growth. They depleted their cash reserves paying out dividends instead of investing in a new chip foundry, and they've cut their engineering staff. And this is such a highly specialized field, there's only a very small number of people who can design CPUs... and now that they're working for Intel, the only way to get them back is to pay more.
AMD management will never do that. They're just sucking the life out of a dying company now... selling it off piece by piece, maximizing profits... they've committed themselves to obscurity for the sake of lining their own pockets now. And in a few more years, Intel will start jacking up the prices for everyone... and there will be nobody with the ability to compete with them.
This isn't just AMD that fucked itself... it fucked the entire consumer PC market in the process.
Installing backdoors would be too easily detected, eventually. But if I were running a secretive national spy agency, I'd have the border patrol grab any certificate files, credentials or VPN keys as a matter of routine to go into the big database. Never know when they might come in handy.
Why think so small? The blueprints for motherboard, peripherals, memory sticks, etc., all are available to any government. Not just ours. All they have to do is seize an engineer, or a laptop here and there, or intercept communications... oh, and there's always the courts too.
If you lose physical access to your device, don't trust it again. Don't decrypt the data. It's gone. Even if you're holding it in your hands, the only thing for you to do is scrub it as best you can and put it up on eBay. It's not yours anymore.
So basically, AMD has given up going for top of the line, and has decided to focus on commodity hardware because it just can't upgrade it's fab plant because earlier management decided profit was more important than investment... and now they're going to lose out on both. And this is just a consolidation move in that direction... downward.
Enjoy your slow fade to obscurity, AMD. If I could just open up a chasm and drop your fab plants and senior management into the center of the Earth, I would give serious consideration to doing this. Stupidity like this should be a criminal offense.
The chance of getting caught pirating anything is statistically insignificant.
Well, that's why they're going for automated systems, alerts, etc., crammed down the ISPs throats with the promise of reducing business costs by lowering the amount of bandwidth. Comcast, Time Warner, etc., in the US fell in line, and their counterparts in Europe are doing the same. They can only prosecute a tiny fraction; Which is why they have to rely on fear. If you're caught, $100,000 fines, years in prison, etc. -- overkill so massive it'll scare the population into quitting.
Unfortunately for them, this tactic isn't working very well. And the technology is not really effective either. For example, I regularly download the newest movies, which are well-known to be the most watched and hit by automated systems. The only thing I've done to defeat this... is to enable encryption.
There will always be a way around it. They'll keep upping the odds. Soon it'll be one strike. Then it'll be no strike. Then it'll be just talking about piracy.