There was a period during the 90's when the market got flooded with cheap Trinitrons. The tubes were fine but the drive circuitry sucked. Perhaps that what you had.
My Trinitrons are all still going strong. I VASTLY prefer them to LCDs despite their humongous bulk. This picture is a good reason. Look at it on an LCD and a good Trinitron and the difference is night and day. Contrast levels on the Trinitron show details that are completely lost on LCDs.
It is the inability of "the little guy" to license patents in a way that doesn't cripple him, or make him subject to the whims of the patent holders.
Sorry, but that's plain bullshit. Patents exist for two reasons - lawyers and patent clerks make money off of them and large corporations use them as cudgels to beat off small competitors who will completely overturn the corporation's revenue stream.
Back when software patents were first being discussed by the PTO, it was clear that "the little guy" wasn't part of the issue at all. The San Jose Mercury was reporting on the hearings as they were held around the country "to solicit public input..." When the road show came to Silicon Valley, developer after developer after developer got up and spoke against them. Corporate lawyer after corporate lawyer after corporate lawyer spoke in favor. Well there was one exception - a developer who had written a piece of software that would show you what you looked like with different hair cuts. Even back then there was already prior art on that "invention." Somebody had written a mug shot package for the Mac that police departments used to help identify perps.
Towards the end of the hearing, a developer got up and pointed out how almost all the developers had spoken against the proposal and the lawyers had spoken for it. Bruce Lehman, the Patent Commissioner at the time and who was running that particular hearing, agreed with a smirk - he was a lawyer. You see who won out.
I've heard a very few good developers speak in favor of patents. Bill Atkinson comes to mind but he was speaking more in the abstract vs the reality. Most of the developers whom I've heard favor patents weren't very good as developers and therefore didn't realize that patents strike at the very core of what we do which is improvise on pre-existing ideas. The best software out there isn't the software with some unique, and hence patentable, feature. It's the software that melds the features into a coherent, consistent package that works intuitively. Doing that well is so damn hard that having to fight patent trolls and hack developers who claim feature "x" is their invention adds nothing.
Some questions are expensive to answer. For example, how much is it worth to teleport materials at the speed of light?
If you want to teleport something, you have to take the source material apart, atom by atom and rebuild it elsewhere, atom by atom. Can we do that? No, because we don't know how to tear something apart atom by atom, identify the atoms we've just torn off the source, transmit the x,y,z coordinates along with the atom type and put the same kind of atom at the translated x,y,z coordinates yet. We're on the way though.
Initially, it'll be inanimate objects. UPS is currently capitalized at $75 Billion so there's a little bit of money to be made moving stuff around. Of course, why move stuff instead of just fab as needed? Once you've torn something apart, you know what you need to make as many copies as you want.
If we ever get to the point where we can disassemble a person and rebuild people quickly enough then you're talking several orders of magnitude of value more. Take snapshots of yourself when you're especially healthy and use those as restore points for yourself. Add some patching software that merges your experiences which are stored as atom arrangements in your brain since your last snapshot and you have immortality. How much is that worth? Don't like your nose? There'll be body shops that use the photoshop equivalent to touch up your features. How much is that worth? Want a bigger cock? Not a problem. Whatever you can imagine, and then some could be possible.
Will any of the above ever happen? Who knows? What we do know is it won't happen if we aren't willing to pay to answer the 'little' questions. Like how much force is needed to move an atom.
Reading the article (gasp!) left me with the impression that the Judge was ticked off because of the attorney's behavior and method of prosecuting their case and not that the Judge thought the patents were bogus. It's as if the plaintiff is getting nailed because it hired a pair of SOB's to press its case.
I think there are three reasons they're spending $60 M to destroy the satellite. They are
They don't want a repeat of Skylab where parts landed in Australia and made us look bad.
If it comes down in Russia (Russia spans 11 time zones so that's not too unlikely) they don't want the Russians to be able to figure out much from the debris.
They want a chance to test their anti-satellite weaponry on a real target that isn't saying "Over here! I'm over here! Here I am! Yoo Hoo!"
There's actually a 4th reason - blowing stuff up is fun but they would never cop to it.
Feynman used to visit his sister in neighboring Palo Alto. He dropped by SLAC one day, "just to snoop around" and by chance, was shown a graph that no one quite knew what to make of. It was somewhat bell-shaped but the parameters that had gone into its construction were obscure - the only one who had a good handle on it was Bjorken and few were smart enough to understand what he was saying. Besides, he was just a grad student speaking in terms of current algebra, a language few understood at the time. The experimenters were hoping Feynman could explain the graph's significance.
Feynman looked at the curve, went back to his motel for the night and came back the next day thoroughly excited because he'd deciphered the curve. The curve was showing the momentum transfer that occurred when the electrons coming out of the accelerator slammed into the quarks at the atom's core. He described the point-like quarks as looking like slow moving pancakes due to the electron's relativistic speed.
That accidental encounter broke a mental logjam at SLAC and enabled them to get a handle on what their new machine was producing - evidence that the quark was real. Up until that point, most of them had been in Murray Gellman's thrall. Gellman had insisted that quarks were mathematical scaffolding that didn't have any physical counterparts. Feynman's insight at SLAC proved otherwise and gave the experimenters mental hooks that enabled them to figure out what was going on with their machine.
Feynman later said the Bjorken and he were saying the same thing - he had just chosen different words to express the idea.
Therein lies your solution - tell your boss "graphic design isn't one of my strengths" and that if he wants someone to "punch it up," he'll be happier if he brings in a graphic artist/web designer. The person can be a consulting designer and not a permanent hire. Phrases like "punch it up" is a warning flag that your boss doesn't know what s/he wants. Web page design-by-boss can quickly suck up all your time and then some when he wonders why email quit working.
I once worked on a project that required working for a project manager who issued very vague directives about the software interface. After four or five tries, I ended up writing him a little tool that let him tweak all the parameters himself. It satisfied him and relieved me of chasing my tail. You can't do that with a web page so let him interact with someone whose strength is graphic design and all three of you will be happier.
The last time they pulled this PR stunt, they ended up ending naming the scope after a NASA bureaucrat, James Webb. Granted, he played a major role in NASA but unlike all the previous scopes, it was the first science instrument named after a political operative.
They really didn't care what the public suggested - they just wanted cover for what they were going to do. I guess, in a way, they were just being honest in admitting that NASA has devolved to primarily being about justifying its own existence.
>Saddam's government was in no way connected to Al Qaeda or any similar terrorist organization.
You're flat out wrong on that. Saddam was harboring Abu Nidel until we invaded at which point Saddam's security forces murdered Nidal.
Colin Powell's speech to the UN mentioned camps in the northern part of Iraq that we cleared out within a few weeks after Baghdad fell. And Gee Whiz, they even found traces of chemical weapons at one of the camps.
On 9/12, in his speech before Congress, Bush made it clear he was going after any country that harbored terrorists. Iraq harbored terrorists and Bush followed through. It made no difference whether they were connected to Al Queda and 9/11 - Bush's point was that if we let countries harbor terrorists, we'll eventually end up paying the price for it.
It's either the sharks have decided that cables are tasty or it's the copycat cable cutters.
This article says:
. "About 60-80 per cent of damages to undersea cable are due to external factors and only 10 per cent on an average can be classified as component failure," If those numbers are real, then cables break all the time for a variety of reasons. As the cable population increases, the probability that some cable somewhere will break approaches certainty.
McCain was one of the Keating 5 which, unless Clinton is the democratic nominee, is sufficient reason for me to vote against him.
Charles Keating bribed 5 Senators (aka The Keating 5) to carry legislation for him that relaxed rules on the Savings and Loan industry. The ensuing S&L meltdown in 91 was partially due to that legislation. The Senators kept their jobs while Keating went to jail. In my book, all of them should have gone to jail.
To make amends, McCain teamed up with Feingold to "keep money out of politics." Together, they crafted the McCain-Feingold act which didn't do a thing to keep folks like Norman Hsu and Tony Rezko from bundling huge amounts of money for favored politicians. What McCain-Feingold did do was muzzle advertising critical of incumbents which comes as little surprise as it was written by two long-time incumbents.
McCain might be able to beat Clinton but Obama would thrash him.
Are there any actual properly controlled studies on this?
Seymour Benzer's group at Caltech demonstrated that male homosexual fruitflys (must ignore obvious pun...) have genetically different brains from male heterosexual flys. Benzer's group isolated the key difference down to some six cells in the portion of the fly's brain that is responsible for sexual attraction. They found that in the case of the homosexual fly, the cells had inherited two x chromosomes in lieu of the ordinary x-y pair. They attributed the difference to an error in cell mitosis when the fly's brain was initially developing.
People who think humans aren't causing global warming
People who think humans are causing global warming but the extra carbon footprint the sealed-in battery exchange costs is ok because, well..., just because.
Both types of people won't think twice about the aggravation of either forgetting to format their hard drive before sending in the computer for the new battery or the aggravation of having to format their drive just to exchange a battery. Neither type will care that they'll be without a computer for a few days while the laptop is winging its way to Apple and back.
I find myself wanting to be one of the above kind of people...it's an awfully nice looking piece of hardware.
Set aside the liability issues for a moment and consider a car that could communicate with its neighbors. The cars pass road conditions, speed, and destination information back and forth and then self-assemble into small trains of cars. The advantages aside from the drivers not having to drive are that only the first car has to push aside the air - the rest of the cars move in the hole created by the lead car. That portends a huge savings in fuel efficiency as most of the fuel spent moving a car at speed is spent just moving air out of the way. The cars could mimic geese and every so often swap lead car so the fuel savings are shared equally by all cars or optionally, a car could claim lead spot for the view and pay the efficiency penalty.
The trains would be dynamic and so when a car needed to take an upcoming exit, it would signal the other cars it was peeling off and the remaining cars would move aside and as the car moved out, close ranks to eliminate the gap.
The fuel savings, combined with computer control, would enable much higher speeds for a given traffic volume since you don't have to leave braking distances between cars. A human takes a little under a second to respond to the car in front slowing down whereas a computer can respond in milliseconds. Eliminating the gap increases the number of cars a freeway could handle.
To make it work, the cars would have to undergo periodic checkups. Skip a checkup and your car would automatically disable its ability to join a train so you wouldn't be a hazard to a car drafting your rear bumper by 2 inches. There'd still be accidents but heck, we kill 50,000 people a year with the current setup.
Higher speeds, lower fatality rates, better fuel economy, less highway congestion, better use of commute time - what's not to like?
Your question is currently the question on the Minor Planet Mailing List. This morning's post by Alan Harris summarizes the situation quite well:
the problem we see is the error model, or put slightly different, data weighting. The specific problem with the 2007 WD5 orbit is that the block of six positions reported by Spacewatch II on December 4-5 are isolated by a week or two before and after from any other observations. Of the six, three have residuals exceeding 1 arcsecond (two of the three by 2 arcsec), leaving some uncertainty as to which three are the bad observations. Spacewatch II has RMS fit residuals on all reported positions of about 0.5 arcsec, according to Andrea's NEODyS site, so two of the observations, the ones discarded in Aldo's solution, deviate by 4 times the average dispersion of Spacewatch II observations. Chesley did something similar when he "up-weighted some of the low noise astrometry", but how does one know? And does this imply that Spacewatch II astrometry, with RMS errors of 0.5 arcsec, is not "low noise astrometry"? In this instance, decrying the "lack of a rigorous statistical error model" seems like trying to sew a silk purse from a sow's ear -- what we really have here is simply some bad observations. Even more useful that trying to beg 8-m time to take a few more images of 2007 WD5 would be for the Spacewatch folks to go back and look at their December 4-5 observations and try to find the problems with them, and if possible correct the errors or at least identify which ones are bad (e.g., due to image confusion). That's not going to tell us definitively whether it will hit Mars (although it could tell us definitively that it won't), but it would go a long way toward showing that impact probability estimates can be done better than an order of magnitude uncertainty (0.3 vs. 3% impact probability) if one only takes the time to make sensible (even if not optimum) uncertainty evaluations.
I think it's worth noting that if it's this hard to predict whether a rock is going to hit a planet when there's confidence in the computational model but uncertainty in the observations, then it's absurd to talk about the climate in 2030-2100 when we have neither certainty that our models are accurate nor do we have very good data.
I didn't even bother with a 1080p capable unit because the sources just aren't there yet.
Funny, I'm not bothering to look at anything but 1080p because the only source of TV I currently watch is DVD. Both HD-DVD and Blu-Ray source 1080p. I can't stand broadcast TV because I don't have the patience to sit through 1 minute of advertising for 2 minutes of show or listen to laugh tracks.
It's currently a 24th magnitude object which means it's extremely faint and can only be viewed from earth by very large scopes on dark nights. The moon's illumination makes observation that much harder.
The Nasa neo page for this object has more info about the asteroid.
Some older CPUs and apparently, Via's C7 and some AMD chips, had True Random Number Generators built into the chip.
Why were the circuits dropped? It's not as if there was no demand for the feature. If nothing else, Internet shopping relies on solid crypto which as the article illustrates, crypto relies on good random number sources.
I hate to sound paranoid but (sounding paranoid) I'm wondering if the NSA got the chip companies to remove the functionality.
Slashdot Mirror
There was a period during the 90's when the market got flooded with cheap Trinitrons. The tubes were fine but the drive circuitry sucked. Perhaps that what you had.
My Trinitrons are all still going strong. I VASTLY prefer them to LCDs despite their humongous bulk. This picture is a good reason. Look at it on an LCD and a good Trinitron and the difference is night and day. Contrast levels on the Trinitron show details that are completely lost on LCDs.
It is the inability of "the little guy" to license patents in a way that doesn't cripple him, or make him subject to the whims of the patent holders.
Sorry, but that's plain bullshit. Patents exist for two reasons - lawyers and patent clerks make money off of them and large corporations use them as cudgels to beat off small competitors who will completely overturn the corporation's revenue stream.
Back when software patents were first being discussed by the PTO, it was clear that "the little guy" wasn't part of the issue at all. The San Jose Mercury was reporting on the hearings as they were held around the country "to solicit public input..." When the road show came to Silicon Valley, developer after developer after developer got up and spoke against them. Corporate lawyer after corporate lawyer after corporate lawyer spoke in favor. Well there was one exception - a developer who had written a piece of software that would show you what you looked like with different hair cuts. Even back then there was already prior art on that "invention." Somebody had written a mug shot package for the Mac that police departments used to help identify perps.
Towards the end of the hearing, a developer got up and pointed out how almost all the developers had spoken against the proposal and the lawyers had spoken for it. Bruce Lehman, the Patent Commissioner at the time and who was running that particular hearing, agreed with a smirk - he was a lawyer. You see who won out.
I've heard a very few good developers speak in favor of patents. Bill Atkinson comes to mind but he was speaking more in the abstract vs the reality. Most of the developers whom I've heard favor patents weren't very good as developers and therefore didn't realize that patents strike at the very core of what we do which is improvise on pre-existing ideas. The best software out there isn't the software with some unique, and hence patentable, feature. It's the software that melds the features into a coherent, consistent package that works intuitively. Doing that well is so damn hard that having to fight patent trolls and hack developers who claim feature "x" is their invention adds nothing.
Some questions are expensive to answer. For example, how much is it worth to teleport materials at the speed of light?
If you want to teleport something, you have to take the source material apart, atom by atom and rebuild it elsewhere, atom by atom. Can we do that? No, because we don't know how to tear something apart atom by atom, identify the atoms we've just torn off the source, transmit the x,y,z coordinates along with the atom type and put the same kind of atom at the translated x,y,z coordinates yet. We're on the way though.
Initially, it'll be inanimate objects. UPS is currently capitalized at $75 Billion so there's a little bit of money to be made moving stuff around. Of course, why move stuff instead of just fab as needed? Once you've torn something apart, you know what you need to make as many copies as you want.
If we ever get to the point where we can disassemble a person and rebuild people quickly enough then you're talking several orders of magnitude of value more. Take snapshots of yourself when you're especially healthy and use those as restore points for yourself. Add some patching software that merges your experiences which are stored as atom arrangements in your brain since your last snapshot and you have immortality. How much is that worth? Don't like your nose? There'll be body shops that use the photoshop equivalent to touch up your features. How much is that worth? Want a bigger cock? Not a problem. Whatever you can imagine, and then some could be possible.
Will any of the above ever happen? Who knows? What we do know is it won't happen if we aren't willing to pay to answer the 'little' questions. Like how much force is needed to move an atom.
Please say there's film
I'm not sure if it's the same 'expert' but this guy turned up.
Reading the article (gasp!) left me with the impression that the Judge was ticked off because of the attorney's behavior and method of prosecuting their case and not that the Judge thought the patents were bogus. It's as if the plaintiff is getting nailed because it hired a pair of SOB's to press its case.
Perhaps there's a clearer report out there?
- They don't want a repeat of Skylab where parts landed in Australia and made us look bad.
- If it comes down in Russia (Russia spans 11 time zones so that's not too unlikely) they don't want the Russians to be able to figure out much from the debris.
- They want a chance to test their anti-satellite weaponry on a real target that isn't saying "Over here! I'm over here! Here I am! Yoo Hoo!"
There's actually a 4th reason - blowing stuff up is fun but they would never cop to it.Feynman used to visit his sister in neighboring Palo Alto. He dropped by SLAC one day, "just to snoop around" and by chance, was shown a graph that no one quite knew what to make of. It was somewhat bell-shaped but the parameters that had gone into its construction were obscure - the only one who had a good handle on it was Bjorken and few were smart enough to understand what he was saying. Besides, he was just a grad student speaking in terms of current algebra, a language few understood at the time. The experimenters were hoping Feynman could explain the graph's significance.
Feynman looked at the curve, went back to his motel for the night and came back the next day thoroughly excited because he'd deciphered the curve. The curve was showing the momentum transfer that occurred when the electrons coming out of the accelerator slammed into the quarks at the atom's core. He described the point-like quarks as looking like slow moving pancakes due to the electron's relativistic speed.
That accidental encounter broke a mental logjam at SLAC and enabled them to get a handle on what their new machine was producing - evidence that the quark was real. Up until that point, most of them had been in Murray Gellman's thrall. Gellman had insisted that quarks were mathematical scaffolding that didn't have any physical counterparts. Feynman's insight at SLAC proved otherwise and gave the experimenters mental hooks that enabled them to figure out what was going on with their machine.
Feynman later said the Bjorken and he were saying the same thing - he had just chosen different words to express the idea.
Therein lies your solution - tell your boss "graphic design isn't one of my strengths" and that if he wants someone to "punch it up," he'll be happier if he brings in a graphic artist/web designer. The person can be a consulting designer and not a permanent hire. Phrases like "punch it up" is a warning flag that your boss doesn't know what s/he wants. Web page design-by-boss can quickly suck up all your time and then some when he wonders why email quit working.
I once worked on a project that required working for a project manager who issued very vague directives about the software interface. After four or five tries, I ended up writing him a little tool that let him tweak all the parameters himself. It satisfied him and relieved me of chasing my tail. You can't do that with a web page so let him interact with someone whose strength is graphic design and all three of you will be happier.
The last time they pulled this PR stunt, they ended up ending naming the scope after a NASA bureaucrat, James Webb. Granted, he played a major role in NASA but unlike all the previous scopes, it was the first science instrument named after a political operative.
They really didn't care what the public suggested - they just wanted cover for what they were going to do. I guess, in a way, they were just being honest in admitting that NASA has devolved to primarily being about justifying its own existence.
If' they're dropping cooling components due to lower heat output, I wonder if that means this picture is for real.
>Saddam's government was in no way connected to Al Qaeda or any similar terrorist organization.
You're flat out wrong on that. Saddam was harboring Abu Nidel until we invaded at which point Saddam's security forces murdered Nidal.
Colin Powell's speech to the UN mentioned camps in the northern part of Iraq that we cleared out within a few weeks after Baghdad fell. And Gee Whiz, they even found traces of chemical weapons at one of the camps.
On 9/12, in his speech before Congress, Bush made it clear he was going after any country that harbored terrorists. Iraq harbored terrorists and Bush followed through. It made no difference whether they were connected to Al Queda and 9/11 - Bush's point was that if we let countries harbor terrorists, we'll eventually end up paying the price for it.
This article says: . "About 60-80 per cent of damages to undersea cable are due to external factors and only 10 per cent on an average can be classified as component failure," If those numbers are real, then cables break all the time for a variety of reasons. As the cable population increases, the probability that some cable somewhere will break approaches certainty.
McCain was one of the Keating 5 which, unless Clinton is the democratic nominee, is sufficient reason for me to vote against him.
Charles Keating bribed 5 Senators (aka The Keating 5) to carry legislation for him that relaxed rules on the Savings and Loan industry. The ensuing S&L meltdown in 91 was partially due to that legislation. The Senators kept their jobs while Keating went to jail. In my book, all of them should have gone to jail.
To make amends, McCain teamed up with Feingold to "keep money out of politics." Together, they crafted the McCain-Feingold act which didn't do a thing to keep folks like Norman Hsu and Tony Rezko from bundling huge amounts of money for favored politicians. What McCain-Feingold did do was muzzle advertising critical of incumbents which comes as little surprise as it was written by two long-time incumbents.
McCain might be able to beat Clinton but Obama would thrash him.
Seymour Benzer's group at Caltech demonstrated that male homosexual fruitflys (must ignore obvious pun...) have genetically different brains from male heterosexual flys. Benzer's group isolated the key difference down to some six cells in the portion of the fly's brain that is responsible for sexual attraction. They found that in the case of the homosexual fly, the cells had inherited two x chromosomes in lieu of the ordinary x-y pair. They attributed the difference to an error in cell mitosis when the fly's brain was initially developing.
Benzer's group did some amazing work. For more details, read Love, Time Memory: A Great Biologist and His Quest for the Origins of Behavior by Jonathan Weiner. The book should be required reading for any high school biology student - it's excellent.
- People who think humans aren't causing global warming
- People who think humans are causing global warming but the extra carbon footprint the sealed-in battery exchange costs is ok because, well..., just because.
Both types of people won't think twice about the aggravation of either forgetting to format their hard drive before sending in the computer for the new battery or the aggravation of having to format their drive just to exchange a battery. Neither type will care that they'll be without a computer for a few days while the laptop is winging its way to Apple and back.I find myself wanting to be one of the above kind of people...it's an awfully nice looking piece of hardware.
They're both examples of obstruction of justice.
There are even huge bribes involving both parties - i.e., Marc Rich's $1 million 'gift' to Bill Clinton in exchange for a pardon.
Corruption is corruption regardless of which party is practicing it.
Gosh! I'm glad they finally got that spec'ed right. The fluid landers were just piss down the drain.
Set aside the liability issues for a moment and consider a car that could communicate with its neighbors. The cars pass road conditions, speed, and destination information back and forth and then self-assemble into small trains of cars. The advantages aside from the drivers not having to drive are that only the first car has to push aside the air - the rest of the cars move in the hole created by the lead car. That portends a huge savings in fuel efficiency as most of the fuel spent moving a car at speed is spent just moving air out of the way. The cars could mimic geese and every so often swap lead car so the fuel savings are shared equally by all cars or optionally, a car could claim lead spot for the view and pay the efficiency penalty.
The trains would be dynamic and so when a car needed to take an upcoming exit, it would signal the other cars it was peeling off and the remaining cars would move aside and as the car moved out, close ranks to eliminate the gap.
The fuel savings, combined with computer control, would enable much higher speeds for a given traffic volume since you don't have to leave braking distances between cars. A human takes a little under a second to respond to the car in front slowing down whereas a computer can respond in milliseconds. Eliminating the gap increases the number of cars a freeway could handle.
To make it work, the cars would have to undergo periodic checkups. Skip a checkup and your car would automatically disable its ability to join a train so you wouldn't be a hazard to a car drafting your rear bumper by 2 inches. There'd still be accidents but heck, we kill 50,000 people a year with the current setup.
Higher speeds, lower fatality rates, better fuel economy, less highway congestion, better use of commute time - what's not to like?
I think it's worth noting that if it's this hard to predict whether a rock is going to hit a planet when there's confidence in the computational model but uncertainty in the observations, then it's absurd to talk about the climate in 2030-2100 when we have neither certainty that our models are accurate nor do we have very good data.
Why would anyone voluntarily let a Sony product near their computer after the rootkit fiasco? Burn me once...
I didn't even bother with a 1080p capable unit because the sources just aren't there yet.
Funny, I'm not bothering to look at anything but 1080p because the only source of TV I currently watch is DVD. Both HD-DVD and Blu-Ray source 1080p. I can't stand broadcast TV because I don't have the patience to sit through 1 minute of advertising for 2 minutes of show or listen to laugh tracks.
It's currently a 24th magnitude object which means it's extremely faint and can only be viewed from earth by very large scopes on dark nights. The moon's illumination makes observation that much harder.
The Nasa neo page for this object has more info about the asteroid.
What part of the Bill is unenforceable?
The bill requires Starbucks to spy on you as you use their hot spot. Is that really a good idea?
It's bad law and the bum's rush it got implies somebody paid the Democratic and Republican leaderships some serious money to pass it quickly.
I think it's time for a new congress and new political parties. The existing ones are both corrupt to the core.
Some older CPUs and apparently, Via's C7 and some AMD chips, had True Random Number Generators built into the chip.
Why were the circuits dropped? It's not as if there was no demand for the feature. If nothing else, Internet shopping relies on solid crypto which as the article illustrates, crypto relies on good random number sources.
I hate to sound paranoid but (sounding paranoid) I'm wondering if the NSA got the chip companies to remove the functionality.
365.25? How Julian of you!