Feds regulate inter-state commerce. Official timekeeping is related to that.
Interstate commerce as used in the Constitution is *commerce*. Unless hours of time are being moved back and forth across state lines, it is not commerce.
The Federal government (and especially the courts) lost legitimacy with Wickard versus Filburnand the state governments lost legitimacy by not opposing it.
Who knew interstate means the same thing as intrastate? I guess when the word interstate was included, it had no meaning. What other words should be selectively removed from the Constitution? Eventually they will get down to one you care about.
Drives like this always make me think something along the lines of "hey I know you're so disconnected and ill informed that you didn't know today was voting day so please go out and make an ill informed decision"... Still, maybe in aggregate it these things are for the best.
I'm too well informed; I know my voting is a waste of time.
Unfortunately I've been called a few times but dismissed during voir dire every time except once, when the defendant did not show up.
I got bumped during noir dire as well - prosecutor didn't like that I said I couldn't convict someone if I thought the particular law under which a person was charged was morally unjust (which was not applicable to the case we were on, and I went to lengths to make it clear that I wasn't referring to it).
After my last experience as a juror, I'm simply not going to take the affirmation because I will not agree to follow the judge's instructions.
Why are people so against jury duty? Yes, it's inconvenient but so what? We need more intelligent people willing to participate.
People are against it because it is a waste of their time. The courts do not *want* intelligent people; they want stooges to lend credibility to their proceedings and rubber stamp decisions already made.
In that case, register Democrat and make sure your voice is heard in the primaries. Still better than doing nothing.
It is not better than doing nothing because it is a waste of time. As the Democrats aptly demonstrated in their last presidential primary by allowing their internal emails to leak, the result of the primary election is determined beforehand.
The primary function of government is to protect its citizens
No, that's false. Politicians say that all the time, but it's NOT true. No public office holder (in the US), nor military person or Federal law enforcement officer, ever makes such a promise. Instead, the oath they are required to make is to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." The Constitution that includes the 4th Amendment, which forbids unreasonable search and seizure.
It doesn't matter what they think they should be doing to "protect" the citizens. Their first obligation, which they swore to as a condition of serving, is to defend the Constitution. Full Stop.
Further, the courts have repeated ruled that absent a statute saying otherwise, the government has no obligation to protect citizens or people under its jurisdiction. And there is no obligation even if that same government places them in peril.
If the NSA, CIA or whoever approaches these companies and forces them to backdoor their encryption, that would be satisfying because it would at least make rational sense.
But if it's incompetence behind it Every. Single. Time. that would just be seriously depressing.
It would be a great exercise in rent seeking. Extract money from the company by shorting its stock once it is known that the exploit will be revealed. The company would be ruined.
I'm just waiting for the other shoe to drop and the AES-NI instruction set to be revealed to store decryption keys in some non-volatile and retrievable part of Intel CPUs. And/or something similar for other CPU families. I'd put money on there at the very least being special batches of CPUs already in circulation that do this.
That would be quite a trick. If Intel's high performance CPU process had non-volatile memory available, they would have been using it long ago. The various non-volatile memory types are incompatible with the highest performance logic processes.
But what you suggest could be done without non-volatile memory by for instance storing the key in a secret register to be accessed with a secret instruction sequence. They would only get caught once unless the exploit was masked as a deniable engineering oversight...
Not that much performance penalty? DMA offloading does not work if the CPU has to get involved. 114MiB/s(1Gb/s link) over SMB is using less than 0.5% CPU right now. Just the simple math of 114MiB/s divided by 3GiB/s/core, which is near what AES-NI can do, is about 1% cpu on a quad core.
Often the CPU is involved doing memory copies to align and coalesce buffers anyway. In theory this should not be required with a good DMA agent but in practice, especially with network cards, it is but CPUs are really good at this.
So long as it utilizes the AES-NI instruction set in modern processors, then yeah.
This shouldn't be this hard. The problem with AES-NI is you burn processor cycles for a task you could have used DMA reads on before. Your processor is busy enough. I suppose you could buy a couple more cores, but it is still not ideal.
Processor cores are cheap enough and can be repurposed to other tasks when AES is not required. They are also really fast and closely coupled with memory so performance is better. So the increased security of using a processor core for AES comes at a small cost and AES has other uses besides storage so it will be present anyway.
Integrating AES into the CPU is just another turn of the Wheel of Reincarnation.
Who thought encryption support on the mass storage device would be as secure as on the CPU?
Also, software encryption by default tends to encrypt the whole disk, which destroys SSD write speeds.
Why would whole disk encryption matter for SSD write speed unless deduplication or compression is relied on? As I recall, SandForce does this to decrease write amplification but I always thought it was a false economy like TRIM.
Controlling the standards committee to create the overly complex and flawed IPSEC standard is exactly what the NSA did so I expect the same thing happened here.
I suspect he is testing the economics due to construction time and operating cost. He needs people with direct experience in making the tunnel and how the equipment operates so the procedures and equipment can be improved to make it more economical.
AVX512, and even AVX2, are not everything one would hope for. Intel CPUs have to downclock the core when executing AVX512 and some AVX2 instructions which affects everything executing on that core so there are many cases where AVX and a limited selection of AVX2 instructions are faster.
Actually, chooses a specially optimized path for GenuineIntel parts, and falls back to a standard path for non.
Now I don't disagree with you that this sucks. However, I also think you're a disingenuous shit for wording it the way you did. Hurrah for the death of intellectual honesty.
Luthair was more accurate than you. Intel's compiler disables the use of features advertised by the processor in the feature flags like instruction set extensions if the CPUID is not GenuineIntel. The "standard path" is to ignore the processor features.
After Intel lost the lawsuit over this, the court required them to advertise this fact which they did by posting a non-searchable graphics image with the text as a fuck you to the judge.
The nature of the AMD link is that is could add a co-processor to it's design easily. That's one of the reasons both Intel and AMD are going this way is because it makes it easier to adjust to the market.
The reason is that there are three ways to follow Moore's law of decreasing the cost per transistor; increased transistor density, increased area, and denser packaging. The first two have largely reached their limit so it is time to turn the packaging crank.
Synthetic benchmark completely rigged to give Intel's kit an advantage does indeed give it an advantage, news at 11.
Hey, if AMD wanted better results then they should have used their own compiler on Intel's benchmark. It is not Intel's fault that Intel's compiler selects what processor features to use based on CPUID rather than capability.
Operation Chokepoint and it's constant expansion for instance.
You might have a point if not for the fact that Operation Choke Point was ended in August 2017 and had absolutely nothing to do with any kind of speech and everything to do with fraud.
Operation Chokepoint was used to go after legal but politically incorrect businesses. In practice, it never stopped.
Slashdot Mirror
Feds regulate inter-state commerce. Official timekeeping is related to that.
Interstate commerce as used in the Constitution is *commerce*. Unless hours of time are being moved back and forth across state lines, it is not commerce.
The Federal government (and especially the courts) lost legitimacy with Wickard versus Filburnand the state governments lost legitimacy by not opposing it.
Who knew interstate means the same thing as intrastate? I guess when the word interstate was included, it had no meaning. What other words should be selectively removed from the Constitution? Eventually they will get down to one you care about.
I wonder what kind of sleazy tricks Intel will come up with this time now that AMD seems to be getting ahead.
They still use their old sleazy tricks.
Drives like this always make me think something along the lines of "hey I know you're so disconnected and ill informed that you didn't know today was voting day so please go out and make an ill informed decision"... Still, maybe in aggregate it these things are for the best.
I'm too well informed; I know my voting is a waste of time.
Unfortunately I've been called a few times but dismissed during voir dire every time except once, when the defendant did not show up.
I got bumped during noir dire as well - prosecutor didn't like that I said I couldn't convict someone if I thought the particular law under which a person was charged was morally unjust (which was not applicable to the case we were on, and I went to lengths to make it clear that I wasn't referring to it).
After my last experience as a juror, I'm simply not going to take the affirmation because I will not agree to follow the judge's instructions.
Why are people so against jury duty? Yes, it's inconvenient but so what? We need more intelligent people willing to participate.
People are against it because it is a waste of their time. The courts do not *want* intelligent people; they want stooges to lend credibility to their proceedings and rubber stamp decisions already made.
Please back candidates that support ranked choice voting. It's the only easy to get out of the closed loop we are in.
I would say approval voting but it is irrelevant because neither party supports an alternative to plurality.
In that case, register Democrat and make sure your voice is heard in the primaries. Still better than doing nothing.
It is not better than doing nothing because it is a waste of time. As the Democrats aptly demonstrated in their last presidential primary by allowing their internal emails to leak, the result of the primary election is determined beforehand.
Depends on where you live. Here, there's no point in voting because the Democrat will win, every single time, by more than +30%.
It's thinking like that which gave us Brexit.
Then fix it. But do it without voting because both parties want it the way it is.
Not voting is the equivalent of endorsing the status quo. So you just voted straight Republican. Hope you're okay with that!
Voting is the equivalent of endorsing the status quo.
The primary function of government is to protect its citizens
No, that's false. Politicians say that all the time, but it's NOT true. No public office holder (in the US), nor military person or Federal law enforcement officer, ever makes such a promise. Instead, the oath they are required to make is to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." The Constitution that includes the 4th Amendment, which forbids unreasonable search and seizure.
It doesn't matter what they think they should be doing to "protect" the citizens. Their first obligation, which they swore to as a condition of serving, is to defend the Constitution. Full Stop.
Further, the courts have repeated ruled that absent a statute saying otherwise, the government has no obligation to protect citizens or people under its jurisdiction. And there is no obligation even if that same government places them in peril.
If the NSA, CIA or whoever approaches these companies and forces them to backdoor their encryption, that would be satisfying because it would at least make rational sense.
But if it's incompetence behind it Every. Single. Time. that would just be seriously depressing.
It would be a great exercise in rent seeking. Extract money from the company by shorting its stock once it is known that the exploit will be revealed. The company would be ruined.
I'm just waiting for the other shoe to drop and the AES-NI instruction set to be revealed to store decryption keys in some non-volatile and retrievable part of Intel CPUs. And/or something similar for other CPU families. I'd put money on there at the very least being special batches of CPUs already in circulation that do this.
That would be quite a trick. If Intel's high performance CPU process had non-volatile memory available, they would have been using it long ago. The various non-volatile memory types are incompatible with the highest performance logic processes.
But what you suggest could be done without non-volatile memory by for instance storing the key in a secret register to be accessed with a secret instruction sequence. They would only get caught once unless the exploit was masked as a deniable engineering oversight ...
Not that much performance penalty? DMA offloading does not work if the CPU has to get involved. 114MiB/s(1Gb/s link) over SMB is using less than 0.5% CPU right now. Just the simple math of 114MiB/s divided by 3GiB/s/core, which is near what AES-NI can do, is about 1% cpu on a quad core.
Often the CPU is involved doing memory copies to align and coalesce buffers anyway. In theory this should not be required with a good DMA agent but in practice, especially with network cards, it is but CPUs are really good at this.
So long as it utilizes the AES-NI instruction set in modern processors, then yeah.
This shouldn't be this hard. The problem with AES-NI is you burn processor cycles for a task you could have used DMA reads on before. Your processor is busy enough. I suppose you could buy a couple more cores, but it is still not ideal.
Processor cores are cheap enough and can be repurposed to other tasks when AES is not required. They are also really fast and closely coupled with memory so performance is better. So the increased security of using a processor core for AES comes at a small cost and AES has other uses besides storage so it will be present anyway.
Integrating AES into the CPU is just another turn of the Wheel of Reincarnation.
Who thought encryption support on the mass storage device would be as secure as on the CPU?
Also, software encryption by default tends to encrypt the whole disk, which destroys SSD write speeds.
Why would whole disk encryption matter for SSD write speed unless deduplication or compression is relied on? As I recall, SandForce does this to decrease write amplification but I always thought it was a false economy like TRIM.
Controlling the standards committee to create the overly complex and flawed IPSEC standard is exactly what the NSA did so I expect the same thing happened here.
I suspect he is testing the economics due to construction time and operating cost. He needs people with direct experience in making the tunnel and how the equipment operates so the procedures and equipment can be improved to make it more economical.
Rent seeking is a code-word for a coercive business transaction. I don't think it fits Apple's situation.
Indeed. What is described in TFA is not "rent-seeking".
Does it become rent seeking if a contract of adhesion is involved?
An excellent example. Car manufacturers are subject to a whole plethora of regulations for safety. Gun manufacturers, none.
None? So the BATFE and various state laws which apply to gun manufacturers and gun sellers and gun owners are a myth?
I have always said that the California and Massachusetts approved firearms rosters are not about safety. Can I quote you?
Yea, no safety laws at all.
AVX512, and even AVX2, are not everything one would hope for. Intel CPUs have to downclock the core when executing AVX512 and some AVX2 instructions which affects everything executing on that core so there are many cases where AVX and a limited selection of AVX2 instructions are faster.
Actually, chooses a specially optimized path for GenuineIntel parts, and falls back to a standard path for non.
Now I don't disagree with you that this sucks. However, I also think you're a disingenuous shit for wording it the way you did. Hurrah for the death of intellectual honesty.
Luthair was more accurate than you. Intel's compiler disables the use of features advertised by the processor in the feature flags like instruction set extensions if the CPUID is not GenuineIntel. The "standard path" is to ignore the processor features.
After Intel lost the lawsuit over this, the court required them to advertise this fact which they did by posting a non-searchable graphics image with the text as a fuck you to the judge.
how many pci-e lanes in 1 Socket and 2 socket?
With AMD you have 128 with one or 2
None, but they made it thinner, removed the analog headphone jack, and added a notch.
The nature of the AMD link is that is could add a co-processor to it's design easily. That's one of the reasons both Intel and AMD are going this way is because it makes it easier to adjust to the market.
The reason is that there are three ways to follow Moore's law of decreasing the cost per transistor; increased transistor density, increased area, and denser packaging. The first two have largely reached their limit so it is time to turn the packaging crank.
Synthetic benchmark completely rigged to give Intel's kit an advantage does indeed give it an advantage, news at 11.
Hey, if AMD wanted better results then they should have used their own compiler on Intel's benchmark. It is not Intel's fault that Intel's compiler selects what processor features to use based on CPUID rather than capability.
Operation Chokepoint and it's constant expansion for instance.
You might have a point if not for the fact that Operation Choke Point was ended in August 2017 and had absolutely nothing to do with any kind of speech and everything to do with fraud.
Operation Chokepoint was used to go after legal but politically incorrect businesses. In practice, it never stopped.
https://www.nysun.com/new-york...
it would be pretty bad if banks started booting customers who said things they didn't like.
That may be where we are headed.
I thought it was a standard operating procedure.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://www.nysun.com/new-york...