Growing up in high school in the late 90s/early 2000s I was one of "those guys" (if you're reading this, likely you were too) with several used PCs living in their bedroom running various hobbyist tasks, sometimes tinkering with linux etc.
Then in the 2010s I was down to a single "vm lab" server and desktop for games, plus a single laptop for travel. As time has gone on, priorities have changed, I use my laptop more and my desktop is somewhere under a heap of old things in a storage unit an hour from my home. The laptop is my primary machine.
I travel frequently and do not trust hotel WiFi. I actually have an extra machine that i keep running 24/7. It's a low TDP fanless Xeon (ivy bridge) machine that runs VMs. Averages less than 10W of power consumption but can go as high as 35W. Allows me to VPN onto my home network and, if necessary, also provides a RDP option. It runs two host OSes at all times. I also have a desktop for transcoding video and playing games that rarely gets used. Laptop is the primary machine that I use as well. But with VMs you really don't need all that hardware anymore. It is very nice.
solving a problem using common sense and experience is IT, solving the same problem using the most efficient, secure way that's been proved to be as such is CS.
And where exactly do you draw the line, then? Because someone who is a CS should be drawing upon common sense and experience as well. Not to mention that any CS who is worth his salt knows that it's best to solve any problem in a clean and concise manner before worrying about optimization. Sure you can know the O() of a sort function or something like that before hand, but the time complexity of an actual program is much more difficult to analyze. Clean and concise code can easily be optimized in the future as performance problems become apparent.
I have read a couple of astrophysics books and have passed 2 astrophysics courses to get my degree(needed 2 classes from a different subject) but I don't call myself an astrophysicist or a physicist for that matter.
I wouldn't call you an astrophysicist at that point, either. But when exactly would you call someone an astrophysicist? Is it the degree from a university? No. It is the understanding of the theories of astrophysics that makes one an astrophysicist.
Would you consider Alan Turing to be a computer scientist? Because, by every definition you have given me so far, he would not qualify as one in your world. He did not hold a degree in computer science. How did computer science or astrophysics ever come to be? Your definitions imply that there were never any astrophysicists to begin with since there was not a degree for one to obtain in the first place.
You try to make everyone else feel inferior
That's the millennium problem, you make me feel bad, hence you are wrong and I am correct, you are bad and I am good.
I like things the way they are. I'd be happy if I can help somebody who want to learn something from IT, to guide him to the right direction. I don't want to lie to someone, just to make him feel good, temporarily.
Also you are implying that IT is inferior to CS, that's not what I said.
No, what I am referring to has nothing to do with participation trophies or anything like that. It is you, trying to claim false superiority over others because you have a piece of paper. Congratulations. Not everyone has the right mindset to be successful in CS, and that is perfectly okay. What is not okay is your condescension, sexism, and racism. But you just go on being an ass, you're free to live your life as you see fit.
If students want to go back there, then the quality of living must be quite adequate.
I'm not saying quality of life is bad in China - just that it is not on par with the US. At least not in my experience. If you make enough money, then you can live incredibly well there. Going out to eat is dirt cheap in China, for instance. Unless you go to really fancy restaurants all the time. You could probably afford to have some cleaning staff and things like that to compensate for the other areas of life that aren't quite as nice as the US.
Imagine that. A communist country overtaking a capitalist country in terms of innovation and quality of living. This goes against many discussions I have had here.
They do not have us beat in quality of living. Not yet, anyway. And perhaps never will with the number of mouths they have to feed. But they are certainly doing well in the innovation department.
A specific restriction isn't necessary, because the judicial is only empowered to do the things which the constitution and the law states the judiciary is empowered to do. The Judicial branch is ONLY able to make their rulings on what is law and Orders enjoining against furthering harm from violating the law or the constitution based on the dispute before them --- the Legislative and Executive branches have their own agency (Independent judgement), and the Judicials are not superior to the Legislative or the Executive branch in their power or authority: Fundamentally the judiciary IS RESTRICTED and cannot order around other branches, A
Except I said that the court can only rule if someone has standing to bring the issue before the court. And gerrymandering could be brought before the court if someone can show that the legislature intentionally created a district to impair their constitutional right to vote, for instance. So I stand by what I said. There is nothing preventing the court from making a ruling on this matter if the matter can be brought before the court.
Admittedly this is from my mere two semesters of Business Law, but the Courts are limited to ruling on Legal issues...laws.
Redistricting is an administrative thing. The process is not a law, but simply rules of the legislative body...similar to rules on filibuster for instance.
But that is only two semesters of business law.
Historically the supreme court has refused to deal with gerrymandering because it is a "political" problem and not a legal one. However, if one considers that gerrymandering could be used to prevent people from voting, there are avenues that the courts can use to curtail its use. In fact, the supreme court has made rulings on more than one occasion in recent history (last 30-40 years). It all depends on how they are setting up these districts.
A degree in any field depends on knowledge from various other fields, a degree in CS demands knowledge from Math, Physics and Engineering. That's the supplies you get from that "specific" program. A guy working in IT has the knowledge that his job supplies him with.
Ooooh my mistake. I was working under the false assumption that one could go to this place called the library, or search the internet to gain knowledge outside of one's field of formalized study. My mistake. Now I understand where I went completely wrong.
If your IT job is to create cryptographic libraries, then you'll create cryptographic libraries.
If your CS job is to create cryptographic libraries, then you'll create cryptographic libraries with a chosen algorithm, performance and you'll do the proper pen-testing to assure your library is secure.
You're right. Some random IT guy without a CS degree will just start using DES encryption everywhere because that's what he found on SO and not tailor it to the specific circumstances of what he is doing. Give me a break dude. What kind of world do you live in? Computer Science is just like any other field in this world. You get out what you put in. I've worked with a PH.D from UCLA who seemingly barely understood the most basic concepts of computer science. I've worked with a computer engineering graduate who couldn't understand the fact that you have to know how your platform handles bit shifting signed types. A guy who graduated from Georgia Tech who still, to this day, is amazed by things I would have expected someone to learn their very first class. You really have no idea what the real world is like, or what people are like. Nothing you've mentioned whatsoever is a distinguishing factor between a CS person and an "IT" person. Everything you've brought up is the difference between someone who is truly interested in computer science as a field and someone who is just doing a job.
I don't see why you focused on libraries, or cryptography, I just gave an example earlier, that's all.
Finally, I bet there are ppl out there without bachelors that know better some things more than I do, that's a given, but they don't have the wide range of knowledge of ppl with bachelors... but down the bottom this is just comparing each one's working experience.
I focused on those because you used them as ill formed examples of how your computer science degree somehow makes you smarter and better at anything technologically related than someone who has no such degree. Because you think that a music major can't possibly understand things related to security better than you do. You think that somehow your degree gives you a wider breadth of knowledge than someone without a degree? You're absolutely insane. We're not in the 1800's anymore. Anyone can pick up a book on anything and, given the right mental fortitude, prerequisite knowledge, and passion, can learn those things! You are part of the reason that so many people stay away from technology. You try to make everyone else feel inferior. Why? I don't know. But you're completely out of touch with reality.
Strictly speaking, the courts involvement in this at all is unconstitutional. Redistricting is a task left to the Legislature in the Constitution.
Where does the constitution restrict the judicial branch from making a ruling in any matter involving either the legislative or executive branch? If the judicial branch did not have the constitutional authority to put a check on how the legislature creates its districts then there would be no check against the legislative branch in this matter. As long as someone has the standing to raise a civil matter before the court, the court has every right to hear the case and make a ruling.
Until something happens where they need tradesman to survive because you know rich people don't really have a shit ton of skills. In the end, they still need the plebes to raise the crops, feed/slaughter the animals and maintain the infrastructure.
What part of "the rich will be the first to be able to afford and emplace comprehensive automation" did you fail to understand before you wrote that?
What they will need - and what they will have - is automation that can both do the jobs at hand, and produce more automation, and repair the automation in place.
The only relevant observation here is that the poor don't really need the rich; the rich, however, will have automated defenses, and so what the poor need or don't need may not be particularly on point.
And if there are 7 billion starving people outside the gates of their automated defenses? They will run out of ammunition eventually.
People mistake IT and CS.
IT is something mostly gained via experience, that's why it involves things that you get good after years of practice.
OTOH in order to become part of a CS group you have to study.
If your company wants someone from the so called "infosec", then you'd better get someone that has at least a CS background.
To give you a better example I'll describe some of my work experience.
I've designed many libraries for various cryptographic algorithms, I have design a crypto-core (verilog) based on Sponge and Present algorithms, I've designed FEC for ethernet but I have never built something around SSL.
Someone from IT maybe has years of experience with SSL/TLS and other industry standards, in various application; and I bet that he has never heard of Sponge and Present and has no Idea what syndrome, Galois Field e.t.c. are. To make things worse I have used git 5 times in the last 4 years
The fine line between IT and CS exists because programming is a common ground, but not always a given in CS.
Are you suggesting that someone with a math degree could not design a library for cryptographic algorithms? Because I don't believe that is true. In fact, I would not be surprised if there are people without a bachelors degree in anything that understand the internal workings of a CPU better than you. A computer science degree does not mean anything by itself. For all I know, you had someone attend your classes for you and never actually stepped foot in your university once in your life. There are probably people who are inherently better at designing libraries than you are who have never taken a computer science class at a university. I would be surprised if there were not. There is always someone better. Maybe you're the top of the field today, but tomorrow is another day. The degree only means that you went through formalized study of a specific program. The lack of a degree does not preclude someone from having greater knowledge of a subject that someone who has a degree. And none of this takes into consideration a person's natural inclination and talents for a specific field of study. In conclusion, you still look both racist and sexist.
Also, no amount of wishing will put the AES-256 toothpaste back in the tube. Because, math.
Which is exactly why I would like to outlaw specific types of math. Nobody needs anything larger than a 32-bit number for anything, nor a decimal point number. Let's ban floating point math and any number larger than 2^31 (for scientific use) and 2^29 (for economic use). This prevents strong encryption (remember that symmetric encryption can be done in far fewer bits than the FBI would like to allow). Problems solved for everyone.
Equifax is not a credit card company. But regardless, she supposedly had over 20 years of computer security experience despite her music background. There are tons of people in the IT world that do not have a degree in computer science, electrical, or computer engineering. That is not necessarily a problem. The fact that you assume that she got the position because she is a woman, and that Obama was elected because he is black does suggest that there is a problem on your end, however..
You must be new to American healthcare and pharmaceutical industries, you simply don't stop taking something like ibuprofen just because your testosterone levels may become permanently damaged. That would be stupid, but more impotently...
Taking off a glove to get TouchID going is a lot less work than taking off my helmet to get FaceID working.
Counterpoint: Far more people (myself included) benefit from being able to use touch-enabled gloves in winter and being able to unlock the phone without taking them off...
With TouchID, I put my finger on the reader as I pull the phone out of my pocket
I'm really confused as to why it's easier to remove a glove (that you may easily lose) than lifting a visor or raising your helmet (which, again, you should not even have to do).
So you have exactly one use case where FaceID is more convenient than TouchID. But there are plenty of counter examples where it is worse than TouchID, like paying at a credit card terminal, or any time your face may be obscured enough that it can't identify you. And what do you gain from losing the fingerprint sensor and the home button? A notch at the top of the screen. And as the AC who replied earlier said, it's far easier to take a glove off than a motorcycle helmet and if FaceID recognizes you in your helmet then it is no security at all. The helmet covers basically everything but the fringes of your cheek and your eyes. Mine even covers my nose to prevent air from the chin vents from blowing into your eyes.
I have an Android phone without a physical home button and I hate it. You can't tell which way the phone is oriented when you pick it up. You have to look at it. Now with FaceID you can't unlock your phone without having to look at it, either.
I bought the iPhone X and think it's one of the better phone upgrades in some time. Because of FaceID it is the first phone in a while that feels like a real jump from a previous model instead of incremental improvement. For me I prefer generally how FaceID works generally over TouchID, which includes ApplePay... FaceID works without conscious thought, so it feels like you are using a phone with no passcode.
I will agree that the X is slippery, but I still use it without a case in day to day life. However traveling with it I still plan to use a case.
There is no way going forward I would buy a phone that did not have FaceID. I was planning to upgrade an iPad but I'm going to wait until that supports FaceID as well... If they do that they will need to support more than one person though.
I've seen people claiming the sales were lower than expected but I'm pretty sure that will not be the case since the pre-order wait times were really long compared to other phones.
TouchID is great in a lot of scenarios where FaceID is an automatic no-go. I ride motorcycles and sometimes I need to pull over to look at my phone for some reason or another. Taking off a glove to get TouchID going is a lot less work than taking off my helmet to get FaceID working. And typing in the pin code is slower than either one. With TouchID, I put my finger on the reader as I pull the phone out of my pocket and it is already unlocked and ready to go before my face even sees the phone. So I don't see how FaceID is any better than TouchID in any regard.
The open source version of Slashcode has been forked by Soylent News and is fully unicode compliant. It's the proprietary version that's developed in-house by whoever owns Slashdot this week that doesn't.
Well lets see... last week they were owned by Pathway Technologies. This week they merged with E-Tech Management. So I think the new company is called Path-E-Tech Management?
The remote for the Apple TV absolutely sucks. Designers can't seem to get it through their heads that the #1 priority for TV remote is for it to be usable without looking away from the TV. So touchscreens and touchpads are out (except maybe for keyboard entry). You want tactile buttons so people can find the proper button to press without looking away from the screen. (The Logitech Harmonies make this mistake too.)
There are 6 buttons on the Apple TV remote. Are you saying you can't manage 6 buttons without looking down? How do you touch type? With my Roku, I am stuck hitting the navigation buttons like 100 times to navigate anywhere and the navigation is painfully slow. With the Apple TV, I start a swipe and hold it and it keeps scrolling. The Roku is so much better than the Apple TV for a lot of things (like using a proxy to stream blacked out sports games, etc). The UI is not great at all, however.
Yes, and it performs nicely. And they keep getting newer models. Inexpensive, small, and trouble free.
It all depends on the apps, my friend. I pay for a streaming service. Their Roku app is garbage. I cannot watch tv on it. It pauses, stutters, restarts, etc. On Apple TV and Amazon Fire devices, it works perfectly. The Roku is connected by ethernet to a gigabit fiber connection, so it is not a network issue. I find myself using my Roku less since I got the Apple TV for free and everything works better on it. The remote is easier to use than a Roku remote and UIs scroll better. However, the Roku is much more flexible and has a lot more streaming options.
I'd like to see an option to return my CPUs for a free fix. For some people the performance loss is significant.
It won't happen because they don't make CPUs for those old sockets any more, and they aren't going to give me a free motherboard and RAM upgrade.
Are you claiming a real significant performance loss, and not a theoretical one? What workload are we referring to here? I think others would like to reproduce your results.
Because it doesn't make sense: Intel has a KNOWN UNFIXABLE FLAW in Meltdown. It cannot be fixed. You are saying "don't switch to AMD because they might have a major flaw too at some point". Meltdown is a much larger problem than Spectre is.
Except that I read the write-up by the team and it did NOT say that AMD was immune to Meltdown. It actually said that they were able to get AMD processors to execute the pipelines but were unable to read it before the cache was invalidated. They speculated that a more optimized attack may be able to read the cache but they did not know for sure if it was possible. Thus they were not able to use their existing attack against AMD but that does not mean that it is not possible. AMD claimed that those pipelines would never execute and Google's team claims otherwise.
Intel claimed that they would have a patch available for 90% of the processors affected by next week. Whether that means they have found some byte code that mitigates the attack vector, or they meant OS level patches to flush the cache on system calls was not clear in the blurb that I read. Either way, Google is still claiming that their patch has negligible effect on their server farms. They have quite a few systems deployed doing all kinds of things. Odds are good that the patch will be negligible for many or most users.
The summary is incorrect. You can still fly on a 747 in the US, just not on a domestic airline. Just go to SFO and you'll see plenty of 747s parked at the international terminals. They just aren't flying for any US based carrier.
That's exactly what the summary said, you just didn't parse it properly. In order to ride in a 747, you need to travel abroad. As in, leave from the international terminal.
Except that Quantas, for instance, has an LAX->JFK 747 flight.
Depends. May not have a fast enough bus speed to be optimally used on the next processor. So, sure I could slap it in any DDR4 compatible machine, assuming it uses a full sized DIMM. I just don't want the CPU waiting around for RAM. That would be a travesty.
Slashdot Mirror
Growing up in high school in the late 90s/early 2000s I was one of "those guys" (if you're reading this, likely you were too) with several used PCs living in their bedroom running various hobbyist tasks, sometimes tinkering with linux etc. Then in the 2010s I was down to a single "vm lab" server and desktop for games, plus a single laptop for travel. As time has gone on, priorities have changed, I use my laptop more and my desktop is somewhere under a heap of old things in a storage unit an hour from my home. The laptop is my primary machine.
I travel frequently and do not trust hotel WiFi. I actually have an extra machine that i keep running 24/7. It's a low TDP fanless Xeon (ivy bridge) machine that runs VMs. Averages less than 10W of power consumption but can go as high as 35W. Allows me to VPN onto my home network and, if necessary, also provides a RDP option. It runs two host OSes at all times. I also have a desktop for transcoding video and playing games that rarely gets used. Laptop is the primary machine that I use as well. But with VMs you really don't need all that hardware anymore. It is very nice.
solving a problem using common sense and experience is IT, solving the same problem using the most efficient, secure way that's been proved to be as such is CS.
And where exactly do you draw the line, then? Because someone who is a CS should be drawing upon common sense and experience as well. Not to mention that any CS who is worth his salt knows that it's best to solve any problem in a clean and concise manner before worrying about optimization. Sure you can know the O() of a sort function or something like that before hand, but the time complexity of an actual program is much more difficult to analyze. Clean and concise code can easily be optimized in the future as performance problems become apparent.
I have read a couple of astrophysics books and have passed 2 astrophysics courses to get my degree(needed 2 classes from a different subject) but I don't call myself an astrophysicist or a physicist for that matter.
I wouldn't call you an astrophysicist at that point, either. But when exactly would you call someone an astrophysicist? Is it the degree from a university? No. It is the understanding of the theories of astrophysics that makes one an astrophysicist.
Would you consider Alan Turing to be a computer scientist? Because, by every definition you have given me so far, he would not qualify as one in your world. He did not hold a degree in computer science. How did computer science or astrophysics ever come to be? Your definitions imply that there were never any astrophysicists to begin with since there was not a degree for one to obtain in the first place.
You try to make everyone else feel inferior That's the millennium problem, you make me feel bad, hence you are wrong and I am correct, you are bad and I am good. I like things the way they are. I'd be happy if I can help somebody who want to learn something from IT, to guide him to the right direction. I don't want to lie to someone, just to make him feel good, temporarily. Also you are implying that IT is inferior to CS, that's not what I said.
No, what I am referring to has nothing to do with participation trophies or anything like that. It is you, trying to claim false superiority over others because you have a piece of paper. Congratulations. Not everyone has the right mindset to be successful in CS, and that is perfectly okay. What is not okay is your condescension, sexism, and racism. But you just go on being an ass, you're free to live your life as you see fit.
If students want to go back there, then the quality of living must be quite adequate.
I'm not saying quality of life is bad in China - just that it is not on par with the US. At least not in my experience. If you make enough money, then you can live incredibly well there. Going out to eat is dirt cheap in China, for instance. Unless you go to really fancy restaurants all the time. You could probably afford to have some cleaning staff and things like that to compensate for the other areas of life that aren't quite as nice as the US.
Imagine that. A communist country overtaking a capitalist country in terms of innovation and quality of living. This goes against many discussions I have had here.
They do not have us beat in quality of living. Not yet, anyway. And perhaps never will with the number of mouths they have to feed. But they are certainly doing well in the innovation department.
A specific restriction isn't necessary, because the judicial is only empowered to do the things which the constitution and the law states the judiciary is empowered to do. The Judicial branch is ONLY able to make their rulings on what is law and Orders enjoining against furthering harm from violating the law or the constitution based on the dispute before them --- the Legislative and Executive branches have their own agency (Independent judgement), and the Judicials are not superior to the Legislative or the Executive branch in their power or authority: Fundamentally the judiciary IS RESTRICTED and cannot order around other branches, A
Except I said that the court can only rule if someone has standing to bring the issue before the court. And gerrymandering could be brought before the court if someone can show that the legislature intentionally created a district to impair their constitutional right to vote, for instance. So I stand by what I said. There is nothing preventing the court from making a ruling on this matter if the matter can be brought before the court.
Admittedly this is from my mere two semesters of Business Law, but the Courts are limited to ruling on Legal issues...laws.
Redistricting is an administrative thing. The process is not a law, but simply rules of the legislative body...similar to rules on filibuster for instance.
But that is only two semesters of business law.
Historically the supreme court has refused to deal with gerrymandering because it is a "political" problem and not a legal one. However, if one considers that gerrymandering could be used to prevent people from voting, there are avenues that the courts can use to curtail its use. In fact, the supreme court has made rulings on more than one occasion in recent history (last 30-40 years). It all depends on how they are setting up these districts.
A degree in any field depends on knowledge from various other fields, a degree in CS demands knowledge from Math, Physics and Engineering. That's the supplies you get from that "specific" program. A guy working in IT has the knowledge that his job supplies him with.
Ooooh my mistake. I was working under the false assumption that one could go to this place called the library, or search the internet to gain knowledge outside of one's field of formalized study. My mistake. Now I understand where I went completely wrong.
If your IT job is to create cryptographic libraries, then you'll create cryptographic libraries. If your CS job is to create cryptographic libraries, then you'll create cryptographic libraries with a chosen algorithm, performance and you'll do the proper pen-testing to assure your library is secure.
You're right. Some random IT guy without a CS degree will just start using DES encryption everywhere because that's what he found on SO and not tailor it to the specific circumstances of what he is doing. Give me a break dude. What kind of world do you live in? Computer Science is just like any other field in this world. You get out what you put in. I've worked with a PH.D from UCLA who seemingly barely understood the most basic concepts of computer science. I've worked with a computer engineering graduate who couldn't understand the fact that you have to know how your platform handles bit shifting signed types. A guy who graduated from Georgia Tech who still, to this day, is amazed by things I would have expected someone to learn their very first class. You really have no idea what the real world is like, or what people are like. Nothing you've mentioned whatsoever is a distinguishing factor between a CS person and an "IT" person. Everything you've brought up is the difference between someone who is truly interested in computer science as a field and someone who is just doing a job.
I don't see why you focused on libraries, or cryptography, I just gave an example earlier, that's all. Finally, I bet there are ppl out there without bachelors that know better some things more than I do, that's a given, but they don't have the wide range of knowledge of ppl with bachelors... but down the bottom this is just comparing each one's working experience.
I focused on those because you used them as ill formed examples of how your computer science degree somehow makes you smarter and better at anything technologically related than someone who has no such degree. Because you think that a music major can't possibly understand things related to security better than you do. You think that somehow your degree gives you a wider breadth of knowledge than someone without a degree? You're absolutely insane. We're not in the 1800's anymore. Anyone can pick up a book on anything and, given the right mental fortitude, prerequisite knowledge, and passion, can learn those things! You are part of the reason that so many people stay away from technology. You try to make everyone else feel inferior. Why? I don't know. But you're completely out of touch with reality.
Strictly speaking, the courts involvement in this at all is unconstitutional. Redistricting is a task left to the Legislature in the Constitution.
Where does the constitution restrict the judicial branch from making a ruling in any matter involving either the legislative or executive branch? If the judicial branch did not have the constitutional authority to put a check on how the legislature creates its districts then there would be no check against the legislative branch in this matter. As long as someone has the standing to raise a civil matter before the court, the court has every right to hear the case and make a ruling.
If the poor become a serious threat (by which I mean, violent), you simply can't argue that they can create and maintain a serious, widespread threat.
I suppose that the people of Iraq, Afghanistan, and the North Vietnamese never got that memo, did they?
What part of "the rich will be the first to be able to afford and emplace comprehensive automation" did you fail to understand before you wrote that?
What they will need - and what they will have - is automation that can both do the jobs at hand, and produce more automation, and repair the automation in place.
The only relevant observation here is that the poor don't really need the rich; the rich, however, will have automated defenses, and so what the poor need or don't need may not be particularly on point.
And if there are 7 billion starving people outside the gates of their automated defenses? They will run out of ammunition eventually.
But...but....my IPv6 addresses! They're 128 bits! We will run out of internetses numbers! ;)
Worst of all, everyone with more than $536M in their net worth will all of the sudden see a whole lot of zeroes drop off!
People mistake IT and CS. IT is something mostly gained via experience, that's why it involves things that you get good after years of practice. OTOH in order to become part of a CS group you have to study. If your company wants someone from the so called "infosec", then you'd better get someone that has at least a CS background. To give you a better example I'll describe some of my work experience. I've designed many libraries for various cryptographic algorithms, I have design a crypto-core (verilog) based on Sponge and Present algorithms, I've designed FEC for ethernet but I have never built something around SSL. Someone from IT maybe has years of experience with SSL/TLS and other industry standards, in various application; and I bet that he has never heard of Sponge and Present and has no Idea what syndrome, Galois Field e.t.c. are. To make things worse I have used git 5 times in the last 4 years The fine line between IT and CS exists because programming is a common ground, but not always a given in CS.
Are you suggesting that someone with a math degree could not design a library for cryptographic algorithms? Because I don't believe that is true. In fact, I would not be surprised if there are people without a bachelors degree in anything that understand the internal workings of a CPU better than you. A computer science degree does not mean anything by itself. For all I know, you had someone attend your classes for you and never actually stepped foot in your university once in your life. There are probably people who are inherently better at designing libraries than you are who have never taken a computer science class at a university. I would be surprised if there were not. There is always someone better. Maybe you're the top of the field today, but tomorrow is another day. The degree only means that you went through formalized study of a specific program. The lack of a degree does not preclude someone from having greater knowledge of a subject that someone who has a degree. And none of this takes into consideration a person's natural inclination and talents for a specific field of study. In conclusion, you still look both racist and sexist.
Also, no amount of wishing will put the AES-256 toothpaste back in the tube. Because, math.
Which is exactly why I would like to outlaw specific types of math. Nobody needs anything larger than a 32-bit number for anything, nor a decimal point number. Let's ban floating point math and any number larger than 2^31 (for scientific use) and 2^29 (for economic use). This prevents strong encryption (remember that symmetric encryption can be done in far fewer bits than the FBI would like to allow). Problems solved for everyone.
Equifax is not a credit card company. But regardless, she supposedly had over 20 years of computer security experience despite her music background. There are tons of people in the IT world that do not have a degree in computer science, electrical, or computer engineering. That is not necessarily a problem. The fact that you assume that she got the position because she is a woman, and that Obama was elected because he is black does suggest that there is a problem on your end, however..
Now, with this result, are we back to aspirin?
You must be new to American healthcare and pharmaceutical industries, you simply don't stop taking something like ibuprofen just because your testosterone levels may become permanently damaged. That would be stupid, but more impotently...
I see what you did there...
Taking off a glove to get TouchID going is a lot less work than taking off my helmet to get FaceID working.
Counterpoint: Far more people (myself included) benefit from being able to use touch-enabled gloves in winter and being able to unlock the phone without taking them off...
But I don't I understand why you think a helmet would prevent your face from unlocking the phone. If IR light can get through the visor FaceID can read your face even in a full helmet.
With TouchID, I put my finger on the reader as I pull the phone out of my pocket
I'm really confused as to why it's easier to remove a glove (that you may easily lose) than lifting a visor or raising your helmet (which, again, you should not even have to do).
So you have exactly one use case where FaceID is more convenient than TouchID. But there are plenty of counter examples where it is worse than TouchID, like paying at a credit card terminal, or any time your face may be obscured enough that it can't identify you. And what do you gain from losing the fingerprint sensor and the home button? A notch at the top of the screen. And as the AC who replied earlier said, it's far easier to take a glove off than a motorcycle helmet and if FaceID recognizes you in your helmet then it is no security at all. The helmet covers basically everything but the fringes of your cheek and your eyes. Mine even covers my nose to prevent air from the chin vents from blowing into your eyes.
I have an Android phone without a physical home button and I hate it. You can't tell which way the phone is oriented when you pick it up. You have to look at it. Now with FaceID you can't unlock your phone without having to look at it, either.
I bought the iPhone X and think it's one of the better phone upgrades in some time. Because of FaceID it is the first phone in a while that feels like a real jump from a previous model instead of incremental improvement. For me I prefer generally how FaceID works generally over TouchID, which includes ApplePay... FaceID works without conscious thought, so it feels like you are using a phone with no passcode.
I will agree that the X is slippery, but I still use it without a case in day to day life. However traveling with it I still plan to use a case.
There is no way going forward I would buy a phone that did not have FaceID. I was planning to upgrade an iPad but I'm going to wait until that supports FaceID as well... If they do that they will need to support more than one person though.
I've seen people claiming the sales were lower than expected but I'm pretty sure that will not be the case since the pre-order wait times were really long compared to other phones.
TouchID is great in a lot of scenarios where FaceID is an automatic no-go. I ride motorcycles and sometimes I need to pull over to look at my phone for some reason or another. Taking off a glove to get TouchID going is a lot less work than taking off my helmet to get FaceID working. And typing in the pin code is slower than either one. With TouchID, I put my finger on the reader as I pull the phone out of my pocket and it is already unlocked and ready to go before my face even sees the phone. So I don't see how FaceID is any better than TouchID in any regard.
The open source version of Slashcode has been forked by Soylent News and is fully unicode compliant. It's the proprietary version that's developed in-house by whoever owns Slashdot this week that doesn't.
Well lets see... last week they were owned by Pathway Technologies. This week they merged with E-Tech Management. So I think the new company is called Path-E-Tech Management?
The remote for the Apple TV absolutely sucks. Designers can't seem to get it through their heads that the #1 priority for TV remote is for it to be usable without looking away from the TV. So touchscreens and touchpads are out (except maybe for keyboard entry). You want tactile buttons so people can find the proper button to press without looking away from the screen. (The Logitech Harmonies make this mistake too.)
There are 6 buttons on the Apple TV remote. Are you saying you can't manage 6 buttons without looking down? How do you touch type? With my Roku, I am stuck hitting the navigation buttons like 100 times to navigate anywhere and the navigation is painfully slow. With the Apple TV, I start a swipe and hold it and it keeps scrolling. The Roku is so much better than the Apple TV for a lot of things (like using a proxy to stream blacked out sports games, etc). The UI is not great at all, however.
Yes, and it performs nicely. And they keep getting newer models. Inexpensive, small, and trouble free.
It all depends on the apps, my friend. I pay for a streaming service. Their Roku app is garbage. I cannot watch tv on it. It pauses, stutters, restarts, etc. On Apple TV and Amazon Fire devices, it works perfectly. The Roku is connected by ethernet to a gigabit fiber connection, so it is not a network issue. I find myself using my Roku less since I got the Apple TV for free and everything works better on it. The remote is easier to use than a Roku remote and UIs scroll better. However, the Roku is much more flexible and has a lot more streaming options.
I'd like to see an option to return my CPUs for a free fix. For some people the performance loss is significant.
It won't happen because they don't make CPUs for those old sockets any more, and they aren't going to give me a free motherboard and RAM upgrade.
Are you claiming a real significant performance loss, and not a theoretical one? What workload are we referring to here? I think others would like to reproduce your results.
Because it doesn't make sense: Intel has a KNOWN UNFIXABLE FLAW in Meltdown. It cannot be fixed. You are saying "don't switch to AMD because they might have a major flaw too at some point". Meltdown is a much larger problem than Spectre is.
Except that I read the write-up by the team and it did NOT say that AMD was immune to Meltdown. It actually said that they were able to get AMD processors to execute the pipelines but were unable to read it before the cache was invalidated. They speculated that a more optimized attack may be able to read the cache but they did not know for sure if it was possible. Thus they were not able to use their existing attack against AMD but that does not mean that it is not possible. AMD claimed that those pipelines would never execute and Google's team claims otherwise.
Intel claimed that they would have a patch available for 90% of the processors affected by next week. Whether that means they have found some byte code that mitigates the attack vector, or they meant OS level patches to flush the cache on system calls was not clear in the blurb that I read. Either way, Google is still claiming that their patch has negligible effect on their server farms. They have quite a few systems deployed doing all kinds of things. Odds are good that the patch will be negligible for many or most users.
The summary is incorrect. You can still fly on a 747 in the US, just not on a domestic airline. Just go to SFO and you'll see plenty of 747s parked at the international terminals. They just aren't flying for any US based carrier.
That's exactly what the summary said, you just didn't parse it properly. In order to ride in a 747, you need to travel abroad. As in, leave from the international terminal.
Except that Quantas, for instance, has an LAX->JFK 747 flight.
in the next computer you buy?
Depends. May not have a fast enough bus speed to be optimally used on the next processor. So, sure I could slap it in any DDR4 compatible machine, assuming it uses a full sized DIMM. I just don't want the CPU waiting around for RAM. That would be a travesty.
I haven't seen one in Melbourne for years. If I hang out at the airport I might see five B777s for one A380.
I was just at SFO a few weeks ago and saw at least six 747s in use for passenger service. All by Asian airlines.