Except that making the default for the switch be âoeonâ and therefore always on, since it would not generally be possible to switch it off under cpu control isnâ(TM)t really the right solution either. It is a kludge that tries to just hide the real problem, without making it go away at a hardware level. This can be cumulatively expensive for the end user in terms of overall power usage, even if the switch were put into the âoeonâ position by default, Requiring the OS to turn the switch on at boot, or preferably the motherboard bios to turn the switch on upon startup, does not make the problem go away either, but at least has the merit in that it does still just as effectively prevent a catastrophe, and has neglible cost compared to making the default be âoeonâ, while leaving a sufficient incentive to actually fix the issue as soon as they can
.
I expect that the reason Intel is calling the kludge a permanent fix is because they don't know how, for the forseeable future, to actually make a proper fix, and so cannot promise that future CPU's will not have the same problem... not necessarily because they must want the problem to continue indefinitely, but because they don't know how, or even *if* they will be able to fix it properly in any CPU they have yet started to design (even before it ever sees the light of day as silicon).
Is the "switch" merely a short-term kludge for existing CPUs, including those designed-but-not-yet-released CPUs until new silicon without the bug can be made?
I got the impression that the switch, or kludge, is for all currently designed CPU's by Intel, including ones that have not yet been released... but I expect it may be possible to fix it in CPU's that have not yet been designed.
That's not to say that they won't eventually figure out how... in fact, I think they *will* eventually come up with a solution... but I think it will take time... I suspect even more than a entire CPU generation, but that's still going to necessitate that the company continue to exist for that long. They're doing whatever it takes to survive, and I think you can't really fault them for trying.
The fact that this person was a former Jeopardy champion, or the fact that she may have been recognized as an elder of some church is entirely irrelevant except insomuch as it might make some people who wouldn't otherwise give two shits about what this person did to instead click on the link to read about it.
I agree, as I said, that it's not terribly invasive, and certainly not inconveniently so, but by definition, poking a hole in the skin to get blood is an invasive procedure.
Invasive means that some foreign thing has to enter, ie "invade", the body. In the case of a blood sample, this thing is the needle.
An example of wholly non-invasive procedure is something like a urine sample.
While I'll agree that it's not very invasive, I can't see how anyone can actually claim it is non-invasive unless they have a way of getting your blood without actually having to penetrate your skin.
Presumably, it's either a community, district, or suburb of San Francisco.... although I was only able to piece together that much by reading the article.
The economic espionage act requires that the misappropriated trade secrets would or could reasonly be used to benefit a foreign power... the scope for which it can apply is generally limited to confidential material maintained by the government itself.
.... it's hardly surprising that company can sue employees who violate an NDA.... at several places that I worked, all material distributed within the office was implicitly considered confidential, including memos, emails, and notices, unless there was an explicit disclaimer to the effect that it was not.
Of course, such an NDA would not apply to anything which might have broken any actual laws... but that situation had never come up.in my experience.
Other than spouting an empty threat about people who break their NDA going to jail, there's nothing new here. The guy should be cuffed upside the head for saying shit he clearly knows nothing about, but beyond that... no real news.
I think it's a pretty safe bet that this stuff is never going to be commonly available... or at least never available so long as we have the kind of society that we do now. If for no other reason than that the powers that be would not permit the selling of devices that can produce arbitrary drugs to invididuals, but only to reputable health and/or drug organizations.
For fuck's sake.... you can't even get a decent chemistry set anymore because of the paranoia about what people will do with them. You think they'd ever let a device that can produce *arbitrary* substances into people's private homes?
Apparently, you don't know what the "A" in AI stands for... or else you would realize that any notion of "natural selection" and AI are by definition mutually exclusive.
Slackware, which has been a Linux distro for only a handful of months less time than there have been Linux distributions at all, is often informally referred to as Slack as well.
There was a software engineering textbook that was published by Microsoft, I can't remember the name of it off the top of my head... but it actually had some pretty solid software design principles in it.
Just saying.... not everything that they make is inherently shit. Sure, it might give justification to be skeptical, but they've produced the occasional real gem as well... at least when it comes to book publishing, in my experience.
Probably not, no... a permanent ban of the player from the community should also solve the problem. If they can't figure out who to ban, then they wouldn't be able to figure out who to send the police after either.
That's a reasonable estimate on the percentage that received the message... but not necessarily what percentage actually happened to see the message before the retraction notice was made.
My phone is on all the time too, but unless I'm actually doing something with my phone at the time that it arrives, I often I don't see text messages for 20 to 30 minutes or sometimes even longer.
Slashdot Mirror
Except that making the default for the switch be âoeonâ and therefore always on, since it would not generally be possible to switch it off under cpu control isnâ(TM)t really the right solution either. It is a kludge that tries to just hide the real problem, without making it go away at a hardware level. This can be cumulatively expensive for the end user in terms of overall power usage, even if the switch were put into the âoeonâ position by default, Requiring the OS to turn the switch on at boot, or preferably the motherboard bios to turn the switch on upon startup, does not make the problem go away either, but at least has the merit in that it does still just as effectively prevent a catastrophe, and has neglible cost compared to making the default be âoeonâ, while leaving a sufficient incentive to actually fix the issue as soon as they can .
I expect that the reason Intel is calling the kludge a permanent fix is because they don't know how, for the forseeable future, to actually make a proper fix, and so cannot promise that future CPU's will not have the same problem... not necessarily because they must want the problem to continue indefinitely, but because they don't know how, or even *if* they will be able to fix it properly in any CPU they have yet started to design (even before it ever sees the light of day as silicon).
I got the impression that the switch, or kludge, is for all currently designed CPU's by Intel, including ones that have not yet been released... but I expect it may be possible to fix it in CPU's that have not yet been designed.
More likely, I think, is that they don't really know *how* to do a proper fix with their current CPU architecture.
Hanlon's razor
That's not to say that they won't eventually figure out how... in fact, I think they *will* eventually come up with a solution... but I think it will take time... I suspect even more than a entire CPU generation, but that's still going to necessitate that the company continue to exist for that long. They're doing whatever it takes to survive, and I think you can't really fault them for trying.
The fact that this person was a former Jeopardy champion, or the fact that she may have been recognized as an elder of some church is entirely irrelevant except insomuch as it might make some people who wouldn't otherwise give two shits about what this person did to instead click on the link to read about it.
Guess accurately? That could be interesting...
How cool would it be to literally have an emoji be part of your password, where the emoji is your literal face, and not some predefined unicode value?
Especially if they are flying from Australia to southern Chile or Argenta, or vice versa.
One only has to compare the distances on a globe to the distance required if the earth were flat to realize how infeasible it is.
I agree, as I said, that it's not terribly invasive, and certainly not inconveniently so, but by definition, poking a hole in the skin to get blood is an invasive procedure.
Invasive means that some foreign thing has to enter, ie "invade", the body. In the case of a blood sample, this thing is the needle.
An example of wholly non-invasive procedure is something like a urine sample.
While I'll agree that it's not very invasive, I can't see how anyone can actually claim it is non-invasive unless they have a way of getting your blood without actually having to penetrate your skin.
Presumably, it's either a community, district, or suburb of San Francisco.... although I was only able to piece together that much by reading the article.
Well played, Slashdot.... well played.
The economic espionage act requires that the misappropriated trade secrets would or could reasonly be used to benefit a foreign power... the scope for which it can apply is generally limited to confidential material maintained by the government itself.
Of course, such an NDA would not apply to anything which might have broken any actual laws... but that situation had never come up.in my experience.
Other than spouting an empty threat about people who break their NDA going to jail, there's nothing new here. The guy should be cuffed upside the head for saying shit he clearly knows nothing about, but beyond that... no real news.
I think it's a pretty safe bet that this stuff is never going to be commonly available... or at least never available so long as we have the kind of society that we do now. If for no other reason than that the powers that be would not permit the selling of devices that can produce arbitrary drugs to invididuals, but only to reputable health and/or drug organizations.
For fuck's sake.... you can't even get a decent chemistry set anymore because of the paranoia about what people will do with them. You think they'd ever let a device that can produce *arbitrary* substances into people's private homes?
Apparently, you don't know what the "A" in AI stands for... or else you would realize that any notion of "natural selection" and AI are by definition mutually exclusive.
I'd say that wine is no more of an emulator than freedos is a dos emulator, or cygwin is a unix emulator.
At about 60 to 65% of the speed of light, perhaps...
It's right there in the name.
It's called "global warming", not "global sometimes-hot-sometimes-not".
Slackware, which has been a Linux distro for only a handful of months less time than there have been Linux distributions at all, is often informally referred to as Slack as well.
There was a software engineering textbook that was published by Microsoft, I can't remember the name of it off the top of my head... but it actually had some pretty solid software design principles in it.
Just saying.... not everything that they make is inherently shit. Sure, it might give justification to be skeptical, but they've produced the occasional real gem as well... at least when it comes to book publishing, in my experience.
link
Probably not, no... a permanent ban of the player from the community should also solve the problem. If they can't figure out who to ban, then they wouldn't be able to figure out who to send the police after either.
That's a reasonable estimate on the percentage that received the message... but not necessarily what percentage actually happened to see the message before the retraction notice was made.
My phone is on all the time too, but unless I'm actually doing something with my phone at the time that it arrives, I often I don't see text messages for 20 to 30 minutes or sometimes even longer.
Perhaps... but that doesn't change the fact that it's still cheating.
This. exactly.
Probably true... but that doesn't mean it's not cheating if the client is doing something that breaks the implicit contract of being an honest player.