Read the license. It does not restrict the publication of benchmarks. It restricts the OS vendors from publishing benchmarks directly. Not cool on Intel's part. But no where does the license prevent anyone from running benchmarks. That would be impossible to control and completely impossible to enforce.
Since you cannot run the benchmark (in this case due to legal restrictions) just write FAIL* next to it. Then put the actual values for AMD, VIA and DMP CPUs. Once a few dozen articles get published where even DMP beats Intel's most expensive chips, they will wake up.
* FAIL means that the chip was unable to complete the benchmark due to faulty engineering or legal restrictions.
The license does not say you cannot run benchmarks. It says that the OS vendors cannot publish benchmarks. Period. Other people can benchmark and publish. The OS vendor can benchmark and decide whether or not to even accept the update, as Debian has done. I don't think it's right. Intel should not try to restrict this. They should request that the OS vendors publish a caveat that performance degradation depends on the way the system is being used and leave it at that. This was pretty stupid. But you are making sound worse than it actually is.
The slashdot editor munged the link to the license text. It's here.
The license agreement says that they cannot publish benchmarks, as in those who redistribute the microcode cannot publish benchmarks. It does not (and could not) restrict anyone using the microcode update to publish benchmarks. Intel has been asking all of the companies involved in this process for benchmarks since the beginning. Every single microcode update. I'm not saying Intel is doing the right thing here at all, but it's not as bad as it seems. My guess is that the reason for this change is that the performance decrease is based on the type of work being performed. The microcode that Intel sends for inclusion in firmware is different than the microcode they send to OS vendors. The firmware version of microcode has all of these mitigations disabled and they must be enabled. My understanding is that these microcode updates through OS are supposed to be optional for those who need the mitigations enabled (cloud providers, for instance). But I don't know Intel's exact reasoning behind this with any sort of certainty. And since an OS push of microcode has to be loaded every single boot, it is easy enough to downgrade if necessary.
No, it's a messed up dictatorship run by a former bus driver who is way out of his depth.
When I lived in Venezuela, the bus drivers (who owned their own buses) were upper middle class. Some of them made over US$100 a day. My apartment at the time cost me US$10 per month. I usually spent about US$5 a week on groceries. Most of them were not well educated, but their children often were. However, most of them were pretty smart people. They just lacked the opportunity to learn more. I'm not trying to say anything about Maduro. He's obviously a tool. But the kinds of people who had the time and money to run for public office there were the upper middle class. The truly rich people were too busy exploiting everyone else to actually wield power directly themselves. I expect most of them have left the country by now.
*they're not "undocumented" - that's a flat-out lie; "undocumented" implies that they just don't happen to have their papers, or that such papers actually exist - they're illegal immigrants and farcical games with language only makes it clearer to some that there's a collusive effort to hide that.
Eh? Did you just pull that out of your ass? How could undocumented mean that they just don't happen to have their papers or that papers do actually exist? If papers actually existed, they would be documented. You see, documents are papers. So undocumented means that they are without papers. It just seems more polite than to call someone illegal. They aren't illegal. They are breaking the law but there is nothing illegal about their existence. They have just as much legal right to existence as you do. They just don't have the legal right to live and work where they are living and working. Though admittedly I usually refer to them as illegal aliens myself, many people call them straight "illegals" which does sound pretty harsh.
Tuition can be wickedly expensive in the school of hard knocks.
Speaking of tuition, I read somewhere that a lot of college kids were taking out cash advances on credit cards to try and make money off of bitcoin. To the point where credit card companies revised their cash advance policies to specifically forbid such a practice (not that they can stop it from a practical perspective). So there were a lot of dumb kids who probably already had crushing student loan debt who now have crushing credit card debt as well.
Sure, AT&T might provide horrible security, so their mobiles are not a good 2nd factor.
But isn't as much blame to put on whoever maintained the first factor? The article doesn't tell us how and why that factor failed...
Probably had password recovery to his phone. Since they had control of his phone, he didn't even get messages telling him that a password reset was requested for his email account
I do not recall seeing this many security problems cropping up over the last 30 years when it came to processors. Is this new or is Intel now having to deal with all the corners they have been cutting to gain an advantage?
Most likely a combination of the two. With cloud computing being all the rage and with more sophisticated OS security (at least for mainstream desktop use) researchers and government agencies have started to focus more on exploiting issues in hardware, whether it be with the physical design of the hardware or the firmware that runs directly from flash.
I generally wear clothes to prevent traumatizing those around me more than to cover up things I am trying to hide. So sure, I’ll walk around naked but don’t blame me if it causes a lot of PTSD.
Except there aren't any, and that would be an expensive thing to build. Did you know that STEEL case of a warhead serves the purpose of confining the explosive so it can build up a higher pressure so it's a high order explosion instead of a low order explosion?
Wrong. There are many kinds of bombs and not all of them use a steel casing. Please see Jane’s Weapon Systems.
. (I'm not sure if the weight of an empty warhead casing is public info or not, so I'm not going to bring up specifics like that)
Again, please see Jane’s Weapon Systems or Wikipedia or any other countless places that contain all of that information.
It is a much cheaper version of what exists on Intel. But the Intel one requires hardware access, and it is disabled in hardware by grounding the appropriate pins used to access the feature in every non-development motherboard.
Or so it was. It is now possible to access it through USB nowadays (cheaper than wiring a development board), if the vendor screwed it up in the firmware... That said, it is not something a program in the host cpu can access, it *STILL* requires the appropriate hardware. So, it is not nearly as dangerous as the VIA one.
Mind you, disabling the VIA god mode by default is a three-instruction patch we can add to every OS kernel, now that it is clear there would be a benefit from it. But you can *still* enable it if you get root and that damn/dev/msr security-hole-from-hell-device is present -- but then, we can also patch it to forbid that braindamage. You can always enable it from the kernel/ring 0, but at that point, you no longer need to, anyway.
Are you referring to Intel DCI? That does not require a CCA or anything like that in newer hardware. You just need a motherboard that hasn't used one of the many ways to disable to functionality and a USB 3 A-A cable that does not have the power lines connected. If DCI is disabled in hardware at the End of Manufacturing (like it is supposed to be), then you cannot enable it even with a CCA.
Delaying a release for a better fix is not what Mr Beer is complaining about. Basically he is saying Apple releases a bug fix (assuming they agree it is important enough) and then just moves on. They don't do a process or infrastructure review to see if other similar bugs exist or if future similar bugs will be created.
Few bugs actually need infrastructure changes. But many bugs hint at process problems that could have been prevented and could still be prevented.
This ignorance is generally true of most companies. However, Apple really takes it to a new level.
Now add to this the fact that Apple typically fails to merge fixes from master into dev and you have an issue where the team working on the next year’s release pushes out an OS that contains a lot of the security issues and other bugs that existed in the previous iteration and the new master branch takes a month or two to eventually get the fix from what was the previous version of the OS.
The vote ID, the vote and the signatures are printed as a paper receipts for the voter and for the vote handling organization, to ensure there is a paper trail that
What you've described is pretty close to what most people actually have now, just the reverse (i.e., now people take a scan-tron and pass it into a scanner, rather than filing out a screen and printing a receipt). The main difference is that your system has the additional possibility of verifying the result of your own vote after the fact. But there's still a lot of paper, and it assumes most people still have to physically show up at a polling station. That's not the "all-electronic" voting that people are decrying.
In many areas it is illegal to take a picture of your ballot and other things that might be used to prove that you voted a specific way. The point being that it is pointless to try and buy votes when you have no way of verifying that the vote you paid for was actually cast the way you want it. This sounds exactly like a system that would allow buying / selling votes quite easily.
Apple can go ape themselves with faceid. It's a step back from touchid
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to educate others.
I find what you say to absolutely to be not the case, having had the iPhoneX since launch. How long have you owned or used a FaceID device? My guess is never.
In fact I was planning on buying a newer iPad, but held off my purchase until iPads include FaceID also, I like it so much more.
I find it VASTLY better than touchID. I like how it authenticates without thought, for many uses the device works just like the old days when people did not have passcodes, and of course FaceID is also much more secure than TouchID (by 20x or more).
This is entirely a personal preference. Face ID is not going to recognize me with a motorcycle helmet on. And yes, I have pulled over on my motorcycle to answer an urgent text before. I also find your comment that it authenticates without thought to be disingenuous. So does Touch Id. Only I can have my phone unlocked before it even comes out of my pocket or bag and you have to wait until you look at your phone to have it start to unlock.
Anybody who could afford a drone has already left, and the first world nations don't care enough about South America to bother to assassinate him. Therefore: Probable hoax. He'll use this as a pretext to consolidate power and steal all the rest of the money.
That is, unfortunately, not true. I have a good friend whose parents refuse to leave because they support Maduro even though things get worse and worse. The kids have all left the country, and the parents are getting by just fine, but the country is getting more and more dangerous as time goes on
But that isn't why they are doing it. They don't appear to be doing it to protect the workers but rather an attempt to removed the walled communities within a city. If they want to protect the workers then they need to get rid of the exempt status and require time and a half for anything over 40. Personally myself, I don't take a lunch break because I would rather have that extra hour at the end of the day. I work 8 hours and go home versus having to spend 9 hours away from home. Most techs on these campuses are likely spending even longer than 9 hours on campus.
You and I are in the same boat. But yes, they are doing something that could be beneficial to workers but entirely for the wrong reason. So part of me supports the law but most of me thinks its a mistake on the city’s part. But I do not believe the city of SF can change the exemption status of employees since state and federal laws set those guidelines.
I was working at a tech company when they closed their cafeteria to do some renovation. Even though we had flex hours and could easily have left campus to eat, to my knowledge practically no one did. The company let a vendor come in and sell boxed lunches, a few people would order delivery but mostly people just brought their lunches. Unless the campuses are extremely small and there are nearby restaurants within an easy 5-10 minute walk, no one is going to leave for lunch. The onsite cafeterias are a convenience and that is it.
I’m not sure that I agree with you completely on this particular issue. The point is that these companies try to suck you into their corporate culture and never let you escape by doing everything they can to entice you into staying ever longer and longer in the office. This is why they do everything they can to make it as convenient as possible to stay in at lunch. And while I am not sure that the practice ought to be made illegal, I do think that is prevalence ought to be discouraged. It is unhealthy to sit at your desk all day and far into the night. I do not like to take a lunch break, but I try not to stay at work much longer than about 8:15 minutes per day. Then I take a walk, eat food, and, if necessary, remote into work to wrap up something urgent. I have mixed feelings about this law because I actually think it is beneficial to the tech workers (though not financially beneficial). However, I do think this is a bit of a reach on the part of the city of SF. It really is a beautiful area. If I worked in SF, I would probably take a lunch time stroll and stay later at work just to enjoy the sights of the bay. These tech workers should be outside enjoying the world around them and not cloistered in the buildings working long and unreasonable hours.
As the transit system collapses from maintenance issues, and walk/ride options become more dangerous due to crime, that people are turning to alternatives?
The results of this study don’t surprise me at all. I live in a very walk friendly urban environment and I have seen people order an Uber or Lyft to go 2 blocks because it’s hot outside and only costs $2 so why not? I’ve even had a friend order an uber for a place that was literally around the corner. None of us knew it was around the corner when she ordered it, but someone would have looked at the walking distance had uber not been an option. That was less than 200 feet.
I know it's trendy for half the country to force their views on the other half but this is a local decision. If the local population wants to close the libraries that's their choice since they are the ones paying for them.
I agree. And I want my money back from social security. Oh yeah and I don’t have any children in schools so I want that money back. I walk everywhere I go and therefore interstates don’t benefit me directly so I want that money back as well. I have never had to call the police on anyone, so let’s stop paying for that. I’ve never had to deal with the fire department either, let’s defund that. I mean, you’re forcing your views on what a community needs on me and that’s not fair, right?
All the content is available on the Internet,
What in the hell does this mean? Do you know that libraries contain *books* that anybody can read and check out for free? The only books available on the Internet are a handful of 100+ year old out-of-copyright books.
Those aren’t the only books on the internet that are free. Those are the only books that are legally available for free in all jurisdictions. Some countries don’t care if you steal books or other IP from people who do not live and pay taxes in that country.
When you register your key, you print out some temporary codes and keep that paper in a safe place. Then if you lose your key, you would use one of the temporary codes to log in.
And if my house burns down with my key and my paper and I can no longer access a machine that, for whatever reason, is not consumed in the inferno?
The performance would be EVEN better if you did a lot of things. Building a laptop is all about compromise. The author has no clue about what that takes and just assumes everything can always be "better".
Perhaps laptop vendors think it's a better idea to put in a throttled fast processor than a full-speed slower processor.
Throwing a hissy-fit over a single datapoint without any realistic discussion of what the options are is, as I said, drivel.
My understanding is that the underclocking of a faster CPU gives you better power and heat efficiency. So you spend more on a better component in order to drive it at a lower voltage than a less powerful processor of the same family. Lower voltage means less power and less heat.
Slashdot Mirror
If you have an idea how to make a production line better than current silicon technologies in only 5 years, you'll be a billionaire.
But you don't. You're just pulling numbers out of your ass.
He's making room for his foundry.
Phoronix seems to have disregarded that part and published some benchmarks anyway. https://www.phoronix.com/scan....
Read the license. It does not restrict the publication of benchmarks. It restricts the OS vendors from publishing benchmarks directly. Not cool on Intel's part. But no where does the license prevent anyone from running benchmarks. That would be impossible to control and completely impossible to enforce.
Since you cannot run the benchmark (in this case due to legal restrictions) just write FAIL* next to it. Then put the actual values for AMD, VIA and DMP CPUs. Once a few dozen articles get published where even DMP beats Intel's most expensive chips, they will wake up. * FAIL means that the chip was unable to complete the benchmark due to faulty engineering or legal restrictions.
The license does not say you cannot run benchmarks. It says that the OS vendors cannot publish benchmarks. Period. Other people can benchmark and publish. The OS vendor can benchmark and decide whether or not to even accept the update, as Debian has done. I don't think it's right. Intel should not try to restrict this. They should request that the OS vendors publish a caveat that performance degradation depends on the way the system is being used and leave it at that. This was pretty stupid. But you are making sound worse than it actually is.
The slashdot editor munged the link to the license text. It's here.
The license agreement says that they cannot publish benchmarks, as in those who redistribute the microcode cannot publish benchmarks. It does not (and could not) restrict anyone using the microcode update to publish benchmarks. Intel has been asking all of the companies involved in this process for benchmarks since the beginning. Every single microcode update. I'm not saying Intel is doing the right thing here at all, but it's not as bad as it seems. My guess is that the reason for this change is that the performance decrease is based on the type of work being performed. The microcode that Intel sends for inclusion in firmware is different than the microcode they send to OS vendors. The firmware version of microcode has all of these mitigations disabled and they must be enabled. My understanding is that these microcode updates through OS are supposed to be optional for those who need the mitigations enabled (cloud providers, for instance). But I don't know Intel's exact reasoning behind this with any sort of certainty. And since an OS push of microcode has to be loaded every single boot, it is easy enough to downgrade if necessary.
No, it's a messed up dictatorship run by a former bus driver who is way out of his depth.
When I lived in Venezuela, the bus drivers (who owned their own buses) were upper middle class. Some of them made over US$100 a day. My apartment at the time cost me US$10 per month. I usually spent about US$5 a week on groceries. Most of them were not well educated, but their children often were. However, most of them were pretty smart people. They just lacked the opportunity to learn more. I'm not trying to say anything about Maduro. He's obviously a tool. But the kinds of people who had the time and money to run for public office there were the upper middle class. The truly rich people were too busy exploiting everyone else to actually wield power directly themselves. I expect most of them have left the country by now.
*they're not "undocumented" - that's a flat-out lie; "undocumented" implies that they just don't happen to have their papers, or that such papers actually exist - they're illegal immigrants and farcical games with language only makes it clearer to some that there's a collusive effort to hide that.
Eh? Did you just pull that out of your ass? How could undocumented mean that they just don't happen to have their papers or that papers do actually exist? If papers actually existed, they would be documented. You see, documents are papers. So undocumented means that they are without papers. It just seems more polite than to call someone illegal. They aren't illegal. They are breaking the law but there is nothing illegal about their existence. They have just as much legal right to existence as you do. They just don't have the legal right to live and work where they are living and working. Though admittedly I usually refer to them as illegal aliens myself, many people call them straight "illegals" which does sound pretty harsh.
Tuition can be wickedly expensive in the school of hard knocks.
Speaking of tuition, I read somewhere that a lot of college kids were taking out cash advances on credit cards to try and make money off of bitcoin. To the point where credit card companies revised their cash advance policies to specifically forbid such a practice (not that they can stop it from a practical perspective). So there were a lot of dumb kids who probably already had crushing student loan debt who now have crushing credit card debt as well.
Sure, AT&T might provide horrible security, so their mobiles are not a good 2nd factor. But isn't as much blame to put on whoever maintained the first factor? The article doesn't tell us how and why that factor failed...
Probably had password recovery to his phone. Since they had control of his phone, he didn't even get messages telling him that a password reset was requested for his email account
I do not recall seeing this many security problems cropping up over the last 30 years when it came to processors. Is this new or is Intel now having to deal with all the corners they have been cutting to gain an advantage?
Most likely a combination of the two. With cloud computing being all the rage and with more sophisticated OS security (at least for mainstream desktop use) researchers and government agencies have started to focus more on exploiting issues in hardware, whether it be with the physical design of the hardware or the firmware that runs directly from flash.
I had a tankless / on-demand water heater. It sucked.
Good thing you didn’t mention the brand or model or you’d be in hot water!
why can't we see you nekkid?
I generally wear clothes to prevent traumatizing those around me more than to cover up things I am trying to hide. So sure, I’ll walk around naked but don’t blame me if it causes a lot of PTSD.
Except there aren't any, and that would be an expensive thing to build. Did you know that STEEL case of a warhead serves the purpose of confining the explosive so it can build up a higher pressure so it's a high order explosion instead of a low order explosion?
Wrong. There are many kinds of bombs and not all of them use a steel casing. Please see Jane’s Weapon Systems.
. (I'm not sure if the weight of an empty warhead casing is public info or not, so I'm not going to bring up specifics like that)
Again, please see Jane’s Weapon Systems or Wikipedia or any other countless places that contain all of that information.
It is a much cheaper version of what exists on Intel. But the Intel one requires hardware access, and it is disabled in hardware by grounding the appropriate pins used to access the feature in every non-development motherboard.
Or so it was. It is now possible to access it through USB nowadays (cheaper than wiring a development board), if the vendor screwed it up in the firmware... That said, it is not something a program in the host cpu can access, it *STILL* requires the appropriate hardware. So, it is not nearly as dangerous as the VIA one.
Mind you, disabling the VIA god mode by default is a three-instruction patch we can add to every OS kernel, now that it is clear there would be a benefit from it. But you can *still* enable it if you get root and that damn /dev/msr security-hole-from-hell-device is present -- but then, we can also patch it to forbid that braindamage. You can always enable it from the kernel/ring 0, but at that point, you no longer need to, anyway.
Are you referring to Intel DCI? That does not require a CCA or anything like that in newer hardware. You just need a motherboard that hasn't used one of the many ways to disable to functionality and a USB 3 A-A cable that does not have the power lines connected. If DCI is disabled in hardware at the End of Manufacturing (like it is supposed to be), then you cannot enable it even with a CCA.
Delaying a release for a better fix is not what Mr Beer is complaining about. Basically he is saying Apple releases a bug fix (assuming they agree it is important enough) and then just moves on. They don't do a process or infrastructure review to see if other similar bugs exist or if future similar bugs will be created.
Few bugs actually need infrastructure changes. But many bugs hint at process problems that could have been prevented and could still be prevented.
This ignorance is generally true of most companies. However, Apple really takes it to a new level.
Now add to this the fact that Apple typically fails to merge fixes from master into dev and you have an issue where the team working on the next year’s release pushes out an OS that contains a lot of the security issues and other bugs that existed in the previous iteration and the new master branch takes a month or two to eventually get the fix from what was the previous version of the OS.
What you've described is pretty close to what most people actually have now, just the reverse (i.e., now people take a scan-tron and pass it into a scanner, rather than filing out a screen and printing a receipt). The main difference is that your system has the additional possibility of verifying the result of your own vote after the fact. But there's still a lot of paper, and it assumes most people still have to physically show up at a polling station. That's not the "all-electronic" voting that people are decrying.
In many areas it is illegal to take a picture of your ballot and other things that might be used to prove that you voted a specific way. The point being that it is pointless to try and buy votes when you have no way of verifying that the vote you paid for was actually cast the way you want it. This sounds exactly like a system that would allow buying / selling votes quite easily.
Apple can go ape themselves with faceid. It's a step back from touchid
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to educate others.
I find what you say to absolutely to be not the case, having had the iPhoneX since launch. How long have you owned or used a FaceID device? My guess is never.
In fact I was planning on buying a newer iPad, but held off my purchase until iPads include FaceID also, I like it so much more.
I find it VASTLY better than touchID. I like how it authenticates without thought, for many uses the device works just like the old days when people did not have passcodes, and of course FaceID is also much more secure than TouchID (by 20x or more).
This is entirely a personal preference. Face ID is not going to recognize me with a motorcycle helmet on. And yes, I have pulled over on my motorcycle to answer an urgent text before. I also find your comment that it authenticates without thought to be disingenuous. So does Touch Id. Only I can have my phone unlocked before it even comes out of my pocket or bag and you have to wait until you look at your phone to have it start to unlock.
Anybody who could afford a drone has already left, and the first world nations don't care enough about South America to bother to assassinate him. Therefore: Probable hoax. He'll use this as a pretext to consolidate power and steal all the rest of the money.
That is, unfortunately, not true. I have a good friend whose parents refuse to leave because they support Maduro even though things get worse and worse. The kids have all left the country, and the parents are getting by just fine, but the country is getting more and more dangerous as time goes on
But that isn't why they are doing it. They don't appear to be doing it to protect the workers but rather an attempt to removed the walled communities within a city. If they want to protect the workers then they need to get rid of the exempt status and require time and a half for anything over 40. Personally myself, I don't take a lunch break because I would rather have that extra hour at the end of the day. I work 8 hours and go home versus having to spend 9 hours away from home. Most techs on these campuses are likely spending even longer than 9 hours on campus.
You and I are in the same boat. But yes, they are doing something that could be beneficial to workers but entirely for the wrong reason. So part of me supports the law but most of me thinks its a mistake on the city’s part. But I do not believe the city of SF can change the exemption status of employees since state and federal laws set those guidelines.
I was working at a tech company when they closed their cafeteria to do some renovation. Even though we had flex hours and could easily have left campus to eat, to my knowledge practically no one did. The company let a vendor come in and sell boxed lunches, a few people would order delivery but mostly people just brought their lunches. Unless the campuses are extremely small and there are nearby restaurants within an easy 5-10 minute walk, no one is going to leave for lunch. The onsite cafeterias are a convenience and that is it.
I’m not sure that I agree with you completely on this particular issue. The point is that these companies try to suck you into their corporate culture and never let you escape by doing everything they can to entice you into staying ever longer and longer in the office. This is why they do everything they can to make it as convenient as possible to stay in at lunch. And while I am not sure that the practice ought to be made illegal, I do think that is prevalence ought to be discouraged. It is unhealthy to sit at your desk all day and far into the night. I do not like to take a lunch break, but I try not to stay at work much longer than about 8:15 minutes per day. Then I take a walk, eat food, and, if necessary, remote into work to wrap up something urgent. I have mixed feelings about this law because I actually think it is beneficial to the tech workers (though not financially beneficial). However, I do think this is a bit of a reach on the part of the city of SF. It really is a beautiful area. If I worked in SF, I would probably take a lunch time stroll and stay later at work just to enjoy the sights of the bay. These tech workers should be outside enjoying the world around them and not cloistered in the buildings working long and unreasonable hours.
They promised me (when I was first hired) more programming and less report writing/technical support etc. They continued to ignore me, so I moved on.
Oh Broken Promises! That was the name of a corporate softball team I used to play on. Maybe we were coworkers once?
As the transit system collapses from maintenance issues, and walk/ride options become more dangerous due to crime, that people are turning to alternatives?
The results of this study don’t surprise me at all. I live in a very walk friendly urban environment and I have seen people order an Uber or Lyft to go 2 blocks because it’s hot outside and only costs $2 so why not? I’ve even had a friend order an uber for a place that was literally around the corner. None of us knew it was around the corner when she ordered it, but someone would have looked at the walking distance had uber not been an option. That was less than 200 feet.
I know it's trendy for half the country to force their views on the other half but this is a local decision. If the local population wants to close the libraries that's their choice since they are the ones paying for them.
I agree. And I want my money back from social security. Oh yeah and I don’t have any children in schools so I want that money back. I walk everywhere I go and therefore interstates don’t benefit me directly so I want that money back as well. I have never had to call the police on anyone, so let’s stop paying for that. I’ve never had to deal with the fire department either, let’s defund that. I mean, you’re forcing your views on what a community needs on me and that’s not fair, right?
All the content is available on the Internet, What in the hell does this mean? Do you know that libraries contain *books* that anybody can read and check out for free? The only books available on the Internet are a handful of 100+ year old out-of-copyright books.
Those aren’t the only books on the internet that are free. Those are the only books that are legally available for free in all jurisdictions. Some countries don’t care if you steal books or other IP from people who do not live and pay taxes in that country.
When you register your key, you print out some temporary codes and keep that paper in a safe place. Then if you lose your key, you would use one of the temporary codes to log in.
And if my house burns down with my key and my paper and I can no longer access a machine that, for whatever reason, is not consumed in the inferno?
The performance would be EVEN better if you did a lot of things. Building a laptop is all about compromise. The author has no clue about what that takes and just assumes everything can always be "better".
Perhaps laptop vendors think it's a better idea to put in a throttled fast processor than a full-speed slower processor.
Throwing a hissy-fit over a single datapoint without any realistic discussion of what the options are is, as I said, drivel.
My understanding is that the underclocking of a faster CPU gives you better power and heat efficiency. So you spend more on a better component in order to drive it at a lower voltage than a less powerful processor of the same family. Lower voltage means less power and less heat.