Like many other administration chores, the key management needs almost an expert system to deal with the daily operations for the non-caring, lazy, or just "regular" people.
And the "expert" system most choose is simply having an account - everyting from e-mail accounts to forum accounts to social media accounts. The users keep their password safe - that's securing the endpoints - and then you trust the system to deliver the email to the recipient and not anybody else. Because if you're handing over the keys to a third party, you might as well hand over the communication too.
Crypto is hard to get right. It's hard for the average person to know what ciphers or tools to use and which are just snake oil. It's hard to implement correctly so that it is secure. New ciphers are written by people who have a lot of experience in breaking the old ones. As the old guard ages out, I don't see the same depth of interest in the next generation. With crypto, there's no quick fix, and the new hotness doesn't come overnight.
Crypto is easy. Ciphers are easy. Here's a key you can use it to sign and verify messages, open and seal envelopes.
Using crypto is hard. People lose keys, forget passwords, don't transmit keys in a secure way, don't store keys in a secure way, revoking keys, checking for revocation, using third party services like webmail and so on. Strong crypto is like losing your house key and being told that sucks, but since it's an impenetrable bunker with an unpickable lock there's nothing you can do but start from scratch.
People want recovery options. If my house burns down to the ground and I escape with no passport, no driver's license, no identification of any kind the government will get me a new one. Work will find a way to get me a new access badge and key fob. That's why all those ways to recover your account exist, they're not necessary per se and you don't have to answer the security questions seriously. But when you have fucked up big and the answer is just gibberish you're pretty screwed. That's why people answer those with actual facts.
The rest of the world don't want products with official US backdoors though. So you'll have a very hard time selling anything US made abroad and you'd have to ban foreign imports that don't comply with your backdoor policy. Probably also all second hand private imports like eBay. And open source. If the NSA didn't cost the US enough money already, it will after that. I remember a time when you had to fight to get non-crippled crypto out of the US, only 40 bits for us schmucks. I guess now you'll have to fight to get non-crippled crypto back in...
PewDiePie is #1 in subscribers on YouTube with 35 million and played a major role as himself in two episodes on South Park, that you've never heard of him probably means your interests don't overlap much. Just like I'm sure there's some big Bollywood celebrities that I have no idea who is, no idea who the other guy is though or if he's got any claim to fame outside his game but PewDiePie certainly qualifies, he's not a superstar but I know many celebrities with less claim to fame.
Enforcement doesn't have to be perfect to be worthwhile. If you look at things like land mines and cluster bombs they have become politically very difficult for developed nations to use, and seen as a sign that the user is evil. I'm sure in the future there will be more killer robots, but you probably won't see most countries creating squads of them or using them too openly.
Doubtful, the reason they've become politically very difficult is not their use during war it's that they last well beyond the war. That there's collateral damage might not be popular, but between enemies using civilians as human shields, bad intel, accidents, misunderstandings and simply being caught in the line of fire it happens but nobody quits, just like you don't end the justice system after putting an innocent man in jail. It's a bit harder to excuse why a 5yo playing out in a field got blown to bits 10 years after the war ended. As long as the killer robots stand down when the war is over, I don't think they'll suffer the same backlash.
My understanding of those robot turrets is that they can identify human shaped targets and lock on, but they can't tell friend or foe so their default operating mode is to wait for an operator to give a fire order by feeding the video stream back to a console. They can be left in full auto mode in case of all out attack but in that mode they a just an area denial weapon, more technology than a land mine but no less indiscriminate.
So although they are a robotic weapon system with the ability to decide whether or not to fire by itself, it's not what most people think about when they talk about a fully autonomous weapon system in which a system can make strategic decisions about how to complete an arbitrary objective.
Until you implement some kind of IFF, for example it sends a directed encrypted radio ping that you'd better send a pong back. Or you implement sensors so it will sound warnings, don't shoot you if you put your hands in the air - it works on consoles. Dynamic kill zones by remote control is also a lot more than a land mine, you can for example put it in ambush mode where you let them get close before you open fire and they'll have a helluva problem getting out of range.
Of course it still wouldn't discriminate between civilians and foes, but if you're not with us... Then you miniturize it and put it on top of one of those robot dogs. Then you put in a pack and teach it the basics of covering fire, flanking and such. Sounds to me like you soon have the basics of a robotic assult troop. You just designate a position on the map as enemy territory, accept the risks of collateral and they'll cease it and subdue any resistance for you.
The second part is the important one. Neurones in the human brain have an average of 7,000 connections to other neurones. That's basically impossible to do on a silicon die, where you only have two dimensions to play with and paths can't cross - you end up needing to build very complex networks-on-chip to get anywhere close.
We can implement that with a fairly simple grid with pass-through, say you have a grid (x,y) and (1,3) wants to pass it to (4,7), we can just pass it right to (2,3). It can do a simple compare(x=2, y=3) not for us, if x > 2 pass right else if if y > 3 pass down until we hit the right grid node. What's hairy is understanding how to program it into doing anything useful.
No, but you're doing real-time 3D vision and context-sensitive pattern recognition with an amazing degree of parallelism any time you got your eyes open. Cue the "I'm blind, you insensitive clod" jokes. Do you know what the processing speed of a neuron is? Roughly 0.2 kHz, give or take a little depending on type. The Apple I from 1976 runs circles around a neuron with a 1 MHz processing speed. The difference? We have a *lot* of neurons with a *lot* of connections.
The brain proves we can do a lot more of extremely low power massively parallel processing, we've only gotten started with GPUs. They have thousands of shaders, the brain got 100 billion neurons. And yes, a tiiiiiny processing unit is a better analogy than a transistor, they're much more than that. Individually they're not much, but we make up for them in volume.
And you really can't see any difference between a light snicker at a Japanese called Fok Yoo and the facepalm of Honda introducing the new Honda Fokyoo for sale in the US? Another reason nerds won't be taking over the world, I guess...
If the funders are really serious about creating a Reality TV experience about volunteers taking a one way trip to Mars then this is the only way they can do it at this time: (...) At some point, as each person dies for some reason, the truth will be revealed to each one and we will have the Drama of them having their 'Second Chance' at life.
So what you're saying is ditch the space tech, invent resurrection tech? Because if you die on reality TV you're dead. Or have you got it confused with fake scripted "reality" shows played by actors pretending to be ordinary people?
abandoned it's plans to build a vehicle and are now building a giant horeshoe magnet to pull the planet closer to earth so that they can board it with wooden planks..
Wow that should double their change of success. Probably even triple it too. At the same time.
There are two problems with making Greece and example: they did not spend irresponsibly, they became insolvent only after Germany forced them to shrink their economy
LOL you must be from Greece, their debt-to-GDP ratio was poor to begin with increasing every year through budget deficits. They went insolvent because the market understood they had no chance of paying their debts and interest rates skyrocketed. It's rather hilarous to blame Germany and the EU for the terms of the loans when the market would sooner lend money to a drunken hobo than to Greece, it was either that or bankruptcy.
You can of course argue that they're now trapped in an evil circle where the austerity measures are killing the economy and they should default sooner rather than later, but they're just where everyone deep in credit card debt are - they spend what little income they have paying interest and don't have any surplus to improve their situation. What you're blaming Germany for is doing just enough to keep the Greek economy from dying, but not enough to cure it. That's right, you rich uncle isn't going to come in and solve all your problems. From all the gratitude they're getting I'm guessing that the next time they'd rather not bail anybody out at all.
If Greece implodes, it could take the entire Eurozone with it by causing domino defaults, because Greece owes a lot of money to other nations that are already in dire fiscal straights
Two years ago maybe, when the whole euro-zone was in a depression and there weren't plans in place but now they've prepared and the Greek economy is only about 2% of the total. Germany has been very ready to play hardball and let Greece fall on their sword if they don't stick to the rescue plan. You have to remember that once you've made sure the other dominos won't fall many want to make Greece an example of what happens when you spend irresponsibly. So does their new PM really want to go "all in" and find out if they'll really get kicked out of the-euro zone? That's some real high stakes poker there if he gets called they tell him to get out.
When the public sector want to achieve a goal, it has to spend the money necessary to achieve that goal. If the private sector does so, it has to achieve the secondary goal of turning a profit.
See this is where you're wrong, it's not the public sector that wants it. The politicians want it, so they write a check for the FBI or IRS or EPA and give them tasks like "prevent crime", "collect taxes" or "protect the environment". Nobody wants to downsize their own job, that's true both in the private and public sector. But in the public sector your boss and his boss typically isn't looking to downsize your job either, why would anyone from the smallest branch office manager all the way to the head of the FBI work to increase efficiency and reduce headcount? Just work at a pace that tells your seniors that every man is needed, don't overachieve and you'll have a comfy budget and content employees. All that happens if you push for efficiency is that you get a smaller budget and less happy employees.
And this is where the incentive model fail. If you want the FBI do to more, give them more funding. If you fund them less, they'll do less. If you want them to do more with less, well there's really no good way to do that. They're counting on the public backlash "You're not doing enough to fight crime" that the politicians will have no choice but to increase the budget again, if they actually improved their value per dollar that'd prove they were inefficient before and it's not in the interest of the bureaucracy to do that. So you can be sure that when you cut funding, you will see a proportional cut in services delivered no matter how much pork was in the budget to begin with.
The profit motive in the private industry on the other hand tends to follow the chain of command down. Each product line, each service, each manager feels the push from the level above them to be profitable. Be efficient. Be cost effective. If you're not performing, you're a problem. The whole corporate structure is geared towards lowering costs to create the most profit. Granted it has its shortcomings as they're generally overly concerned with short term profit and their bonus rather than the long term viability of the company, but the private sector's goals align far better with the stockholders than the public sector's goals align with the politicians.
At $281 for 1K tray pricing, they're not exactly delivering the most bang for the buck. Intel's basically setting their own prices now and has had record quarters lately.
This isn't a car where it is well understood that top speed and maximum fuel efficiency don't (sic) happen at the same time. This is an unusual situation for a graphics card that substantially degrades it's (sic) performance, and so, it's (sic) value.
Legally, that might make all the difference in the world as a false claim by nVidia would be entirely different from a false assumption by the consumer. For example, for the CPU it's common that I have more RAM than I can access at any one time at top speed. Just because that's been commonly the case with GPUs - though in the aftermath of this several instances of non-uniform memory has been proven - it doesn't make it a defect that it's not. Unless you have some kind of generic fitness for purpose clause, but I don't think it fails that.
...and I say that as an owner of 2x970s. Every benchmark you see is as advertised. It actually has 4GB of RAM that can be reached at the advertised speed, just not all 4GB of it simultaneously. Nobody's come up with a "smoking gun" benchmark where framerates tank for gaming. The 780 Ti with 3GB RAM beats it in pretty much benchmarks - even at 3840x2160 in SLI - so it seems that the last 512MB don't make much of a difference at all, at least not in today's games. They'd better find some compelling examples of actual harm, because I still haven't seen it. I might be biased though, since I'm kinda hoping there won't be.
What is certain though is that nVidia screwed up big, because this really would have been a footnote if they'd just informed about it. It would have been known as a 4GB card that's really 3.5GB-ish. When I bought it I thought it had the same memory subsystem as the GTX980, like two GTX970 in SLI with 2x13 = 26/16ths the shaders will always perform better. Now that might not be true in a 3.5-4GB scenario but it's a maybe kinda thing. I've long since learned that you buy computers for what you want today, tomorrow.... maybe something entirely new comes around and you want to replace it anyway. Not that I see these two being out of date for a while, seriously kicking ass at 2x145W GPU + 88W CPU it's ~500W ass-kicking system.
By the time something becomes "core infrastructure", it's usually not in a condition where a rewrite is at all advisable. You have an existing code base that's seen lots of real world usage and presumably works well most of the time, what you need is testing, cleanup, sanity-checking, error handling and formal verification that it performs as intended. And it's particularly important that you review obscure functionality like the heartbeat TLS extension that lead to the heartbleed bug, that you put many eyes were few have wandered before.
Of course if you find that something's genuinely missing, like a layer to prevent SQL injection and just depending on every piece of code doing the "right thing" that might be a reason to re-architect, but I think your advice is far more applicable to new development than the projects were talking about here. For example there's nothing wrong with the heartbeat spec, it's fine. It's the implementation that was fatally flawed and the only way you can catch that is reviewing the code.
Doesn't that just about say it all? More eyes don't solve complexity issues, only more brains and better architecture.
I think that if you do some research - at least if you limit yourself to human subjects - you will find there's a strong correlation between number of eyes and number of brains so "more eyes" implies "more brains". And if you can settle the age-old discussing of whether encapsulation, abstractions and design patterns reduce or increase complexity you should the IT Peace Prize.
Technology can only make you aware of the law, rules of evidence and relevant precedents and possibly coming up with some convincing illustrations / presentations / simulations to aid your case. It can't fix the letter of the law or how the legal process works, particular not where you're dealing with statutory damages, mandatory sentencing guidelines and so on, it can't help you get expert witnesses, it can't cross-examine witnesses, honestly the legal process is mostly a person-to-person thing. In the legal system, tech doesn't do you much good. Unless you're talking about using tech to evade the legal system, but I assume that's an entirely different question.
Consider your post is the clueless ones and mods have sent it from 0 to +3, well...
Engine Block heaters, heat the engine block, they do not heat the interior of the car. When you have an eletric car, they heat the seats, not the air. It uses less power.
All heaters help, which is why I said block/interior. Even a block heater will help the usual warming system deliver warmer air much faster, interior heaters warm the entire interior and there's the "full package" that does both. And the last car I saw without electric heating in the seats was in the 90s, still doesn't change that windows fog up, your hands get cold and so on. This "seat only" warming is a power saving measure since using power for heating steals range. How comfy do you really think it is to have one hot side - your backside - and one cold side?
ICE (Internal Combustion Engine) vehicles rely on the engine running, even if it's electric HVAC. Electric cars, especially late model ones have entirely eletric HVAC.
*facepalm* Take a look at DEFA warmup, ZeroStart or any other of a ton of integrated or not so integrated solutions to do what you say they don't. Do you live in California or something? The exact same kind of pre-heating solutions have existed for decades.
But in the end, it's never about heating the car, it's about how inefficient it is to maintain a stable temperature. If you can start the car and not turn the heat/cooling on you get better milage... even in a ICE vehicle.
At -20C, the use of a block heater can improve overall fuel economy by as much as 10 percent. In a test program conducted by Environment Canada, a vehicle sitting at -25C was warmed using a block heater and then driven over a simulated urban driving cycle. This resulted in a 25 percent reduction in fuel consumption compared to cold-starting the vehicle and driving it over the same route
For the metric and Google-impaired, -20C and -25C is -4F and -13F respectively.
However because of the heat generated by the engine being added to the heat generated by driving and the ambient heat, electric cars will perform poorer in hot environments because the parts get hotter and can't be cooled as effectively.In a ICE, the thermal limit is higher, but even regular ICE vehicles will suffer in a desert.
Deserts are kinda the opposite end of the scale here. In cold weather, ICE cars perform weak and electrics worse. And yes, electrics like Nissan Leaf use an electric heater to heat the battery when it's too cold. Tesla doesn't, which makes it sluggish the first minutes in the cold. And heating the interior will use electric power that could have been used for range in both. In ICE cars it'll just sap a little of the battery that'll recharge as you drive, in EVs it's a real drain.
Linux would certainly rise the entry level for malware writers, which would make malware writing a less promising market.
Today's Linux, maybe. The Linux that's been rewritten so 90%+ of the population will use it... doubtful. You'd probably have to make sudo escalation as easy as UAC escalation and once you run as administrator/root it's pretty much game over no matter what system you're on.
pre-heating is the greatest thing since sliced bread
Well electric block/interior heaters is hardly exclusive to EVs and diesel cars can generally do this without a grid connection using its own fuel. But yes it does come "free" by having to plug in the car to charge anyway and you have to if you want the advertised range. From what I gather if you're at a cabin with no/solar power and can't plug your EV in it'll use a lot of power just to get started in the cold.
Slashdot Mirror
Like many other administration chores, the key management needs almost an expert system to deal with the daily operations for the non-caring, lazy, or just "regular" people.
And the "expert" system most choose is simply having an account - everyting from e-mail accounts to forum accounts to social media accounts. The users keep their password safe - that's securing the endpoints - and then you trust the system to deliver the email to the recipient and not anybody else. Because if you're handing over the keys to a third party, you might as well hand over the communication too.
Crypto is hard to get right. It's hard for the average person to know what ciphers or tools to use and which are just snake oil. It's hard to implement correctly so that it is secure. New ciphers are written by people who have a lot of experience in breaking the old ones. As the old guard ages out, I don't see the same depth of interest in the next generation. With crypto, there's no quick fix, and the new hotness doesn't come overnight.
Crypto is easy. Ciphers are easy. Here's a key you can use it to sign and verify messages, open and seal envelopes.
Using crypto is hard. People lose keys, forget passwords, don't transmit keys in a secure way, don't store keys in a secure way, revoking keys, checking for revocation, using third party services like webmail and so on. Strong crypto is like losing your house key and being told that sucks, but since it's an impenetrable bunker with an unpickable lock there's nothing you can do but start from scratch.
People want recovery options. If my house burns down to the ground and I escape with no passport, no driver's license, no identification of any kind the government will get me a new one. Work will find a way to get me a new access badge and key fob. That's why all those ways to recover your account exist, they're not necessary per se and you don't have to answer the security questions seriously. But when you have fucked up big and the answer is just gibberish you're pretty screwed. That's why people answer those with actual facts.
It would probably look something like this with the tagline "Encryption? I'll break right through that defence."
The rest of the world don't want products with official US backdoors though. So you'll have a very hard time selling anything US made abroad and you'd have to ban foreign imports that don't comply with your backdoor policy. Probably also all second hand private imports like eBay. And open source. If the NSA didn't cost the US enough money already, it will after that. I remember a time when you had to fight to get non-crippled crypto out of the US, only 40 bits for us schmucks. I guess now you'll have to fight to get non-crippled crypto back in...
PewDiePie is #1 in subscribers on YouTube with 35 million and played a major role as himself in two episodes on South Park, that you've never heard of him probably means your interests don't overlap much. Just like I'm sure there's some big Bollywood celebrities that I have no idea who is, no idea who the other guy is though or if he's got any claim to fame outside his game but PewDiePie certainly qualifies, he's not a superstar but I know many celebrities with less claim to fame.
Enforcement doesn't have to be perfect to be worthwhile. If you look at things like land mines and cluster bombs they have become politically very difficult for developed nations to use, and seen as a sign that the user is evil. I'm sure in the future there will be more killer robots, but you probably won't see most countries creating squads of them or using them too openly.
Doubtful, the reason they've become politically very difficult is not their use during war it's that they last well beyond the war. That there's collateral damage might not be popular, but between enemies using civilians as human shields, bad intel, accidents, misunderstandings and simply being caught in the line of fire it happens but nobody quits, just like you don't end the justice system after putting an innocent man in jail. It's a bit harder to excuse why a 5yo playing out in a field got blown to bits 10 years after the war ended. As long as the killer robots stand down when the war is over, I don't think they'll suffer the same backlash.
My understanding of those robot turrets is that they can identify human shaped targets and lock on, but they can't tell friend or foe so their default operating mode is to wait for an operator to give a fire order by feeding the video stream back to a console. They can be left in full auto mode in case of all out attack but in that mode they a just an area denial weapon, more technology than a land mine but no less indiscriminate.
So although they are a robotic weapon system with the ability to decide whether or not to fire by itself, it's not what most people think about when they talk about a fully autonomous weapon system in which a system can make strategic decisions about how to complete an arbitrary objective.
Until you implement some kind of IFF, for example it sends a directed encrypted radio ping that you'd better send a pong back. Or you implement sensors so it will sound warnings, don't shoot you if you put your hands in the air - it works on consoles. Dynamic kill zones by remote control is also a lot more than a land mine, you can for example put it in ambush mode where you let them get close before you open fire and they'll have a helluva problem getting out of range.
Of course it still wouldn't discriminate between civilians and foes, but if you're not with us... Then you miniturize it and put it on top of one of those robot dogs. Then you put in a pack and teach it the basics of covering fire, flanking and such. Sounds to me like you soon have the basics of a robotic assult troop. You just designate a position on the map as enemy territory, accept the risks of collateral and they'll cease it and subdue any resistance for you.
The second part is the important one. Neurones in the human brain have an average of 7,000 connections to other neurones. That's basically impossible to do on a silicon die, where you only have two dimensions to play with and paths can't cross - you end up needing to build very complex networks-on-chip to get anywhere close.
We can implement that with a fairly simple grid with pass-through, say you have a grid (x,y) and (1,3) wants to pass it to (4,7), we can just pass it right to (2,3). It can do a simple compare(x=2, y=3) not for us, if x > 2 pass right else if if y > 3 pass down until we hit the right grid node. What's hairy is understanding how to program it into doing anything useful.
No, but you're doing real-time 3D vision and context-sensitive pattern recognition with an amazing degree of parallelism any time you got your eyes open. Cue the "I'm blind, you insensitive clod" jokes. Do you know what the processing speed of a neuron is? Roughly 0.2 kHz, give or take a little depending on type. The Apple I from 1976 runs circles around a neuron with a 1 MHz processing speed. The difference? We have a *lot* of neurons with a *lot* of connections.
The brain proves we can do a lot more of extremely low power massively parallel processing, we've only gotten started with GPUs. They have thousands of shaders, the brain got 100 billion neurons. And yes, a tiiiiiny processing unit is a better analogy than a transistor, they're much more than that. Individually they're not much, but we make up for them in volume.
And you really can't see any difference between a light snicker at a Japanese called Fok Yoo and the facepalm of Honda introducing the new Honda Fokyoo for sale in the US? Another reason nerds won't be taking over the world, I guess...
If the funders are really serious about creating a Reality TV experience about volunteers taking a one way trip to Mars then this is the only way they can do it at this time: (...) At some point, as each person dies for some reason, the truth will be revealed to each one and we will have the Drama of them having their 'Second Chance' at life.
So what you're saying is ditch the space tech, invent resurrection tech? Because if you die on reality TV you're dead. Or have you got it confused with fake scripted "reality" shows played by actors pretending to be ordinary people?
abandoned it's plans to build a vehicle and are now building a giant horeshoe magnet to pull the planet closer to earth so that they can board it with wooden planks ..
Wow that should double their change of success. Probably even triple it too. At the same time.
There are two problems with making Greece and example: they did not spend irresponsibly, they became insolvent only after Germany forced them to shrink their economy
LOL you must be from Greece, their debt-to-GDP ratio was poor to begin with increasing every year through budget deficits. They went insolvent because the market understood they had no chance of paying their debts and interest rates skyrocketed. It's rather hilarous to blame Germany and the EU for the terms of the loans when the market would sooner lend money to a drunken hobo than to Greece, it was either that or bankruptcy.
You can of course argue that they're now trapped in an evil circle where the austerity measures are killing the economy and they should default sooner rather than later, but they're just where everyone deep in credit card debt are - they spend what little income they have paying interest and don't have any surplus to improve their situation. What you're blaming Germany for is doing just enough to keep the Greek economy from dying, but not enough to cure it. That's right, you rich uncle isn't going to come in and solve all your problems. From all the gratitude they're getting I'm guessing that the next time they'd rather not bail anybody out at all.
If Greece implodes, it could take the entire Eurozone with it by causing domino defaults, because Greece owes a lot of money to other nations that are already in dire fiscal straights
Two years ago maybe, when the whole euro-zone was in a depression and there weren't plans in place but now they've prepared and the Greek economy is only about 2% of the total. Germany has been very ready to play hardball and let Greece fall on their sword if they don't stick to the rescue plan. You have to remember that once you've made sure the other dominos won't fall many want to make Greece an example of what happens when you spend irresponsibly. So does their new PM really want to go "all in" and find out if they'll really get kicked out of the-euro zone? That's some real high stakes poker there if he gets called they tell him to get out.
When the public sector want to achieve a goal, it has to spend the money necessary to achieve that goal. If the private sector does so, it has to achieve the secondary goal of turning a profit.
See this is where you're wrong, it's not the public sector that wants it. The politicians want it, so they write a check for the FBI or IRS or EPA and give them tasks like "prevent crime", "collect taxes" or "protect the environment". Nobody wants to downsize their own job, that's true both in the private and public sector. But in the public sector your boss and his boss typically isn't looking to downsize your job either, why would anyone from the smallest branch office manager all the way to the head of the FBI work to increase efficiency and reduce headcount? Just work at a pace that tells your seniors that every man is needed, don't overachieve and you'll have a comfy budget and content employees. All that happens if you push for efficiency is that you get a smaller budget and less happy employees.
And this is where the incentive model fail. If you want the FBI do to more, give them more funding. If you fund them less, they'll do less. If you want them to do more with less, well there's really no good way to do that. They're counting on the public backlash "You're not doing enough to fight crime" that the politicians will have no choice but to increase the budget again, if they actually improved their value per dollar that'd prove they were inefficient before and it's not in the interest of the bureaucracy to do that. So you can be sure that when you cut funding, you will see a proportional cut in services delivered no matter how much pork was in the budget to begin with.
The profit motive in the private industry on the other hand tends to follow the chain of command down. Each product line, each service, each manager feels the push from the level above them to be profitable. Be efficient. Be cost effective. If you're not performing, you're a problem. The whole corporate structure is geared towards lowering costs to create the most profit. Granted it has its shortcomings as they're generally overly concerned with short term profit and their bonus rather than the long term viability of the company, but the private sector's goals align far better with the stockholders than the public sector's goals align with the politicians.
At $281 for 1K tray pricing, they're not exactly delivering the most bang for the buck. Intel's basically setting their own prices now and has had record quarters lately.
This isn't a car where it is well understood that top speed and maximum fuel efficiency don't (sic) happen at the same time. This is an unusual situation for a graphics card that substantially degrades it's (sic) performance, and so, it's (sic) value.
Legally, that might make all the difference in the world as a false claim by nVidia would be entirely different from a false assumption by the consumer. For example, for the CPU it's common that I have more RAM than I can access at any one time at top speed. Just because that's been commonly the case with GPUs - though in the aftermath of this several instances of non-uniform memory has been proven - it doesn't make it a defect that it's not. Unless you have some kind of generic fitness for purpose clause, but I don't think it fails that.
...and I say that as an owner of 2x970s. Every benchmark you see is as advertised. It actually has 4GB of RAM that can be reached at the advertised speed, just not all 4GB of it simultaneously. Nobody's come up with a "smoking gun" benchmark where framerates tank for gaming. The 780 Ti with 3GB RAM beats it in pretty much benchmarks - even at 3840x2160 in SLI - so it seems that the last 512MB don't make much of a difference at all, at least not in today's games. They'd better find some compelling examples of actual harm, because I still haven't seen it. I might be biased though, since I'm kinda hoping there won't be.
What is certain though is that nVidia screwed up big, because this really would have been a footnote if they'd just informed about it. It would have been known as a 4GB card that's really 3.5GB-ish. When I bought it I thought it had the same memory subsystem as the GTX980, like two GTX970 in SLI with 2x13 = 26/16ths the shaders will always perform better. Now that might not be true in a 3.5-4GB scenario but it's a maybe kinda thing. I've long since learned that you buy computers for what you want today, tomorrow.... maybe something entirely new comes around and you want to replace it anyway. Not that I see these two being out of date for a while, seriously kicking ass at 2x145W GPU + 88W CPU it's ~500W ass-kicking system.
By the time something becomes "core infrastructure", it's usually not in a condition where a rewrite is at all advisable. You have an existing code base that's seen lots of real world usage and presumably works well most of the time, what you need is testing, cleanup, sanity-checking, error handling and formal verification that it performs as intended. And it's particularly important that you review obscure functionality like the heartbeat TLS extension that lead to the heartbleed bug, that you put many eyes were few have wandered before.
Of course if you find that something's genuinely missing, like a layer to prevent SQL injection and just depending on every piece of code doing the "right thing" that might be a reason to re-architect, but I think your advice is far more applicable to new development than the projects were talking about here. For example there's nothing wrong with the heartbeat spec, it's fine. It's the implementation that was fatally flawed and the only way you can catch that is reviewing the code.
Doesn't that just about say it all? More eyes don't solve complexity issues, only more brains and better architecture.
I think that if you do some research - at least if you limit yourself to human subjects - you will find there's a strong correlation between number of eyes and number of brains so "more eyes" implies "more brains". And if you can settle the age-old discussing of whether encapsulation, abstractions and design patterns reduce or increase complexity you should the IT Peace Prize.
Technology can only make you aware of the law, rules of evidence and relevant precedents and possibly coming up with some convincing illustrations / presentations / simulations to aid your case. It can't fix the letter of the law or how the legal process works, particular not where you're dealing with statutory damages, mandatory sentencing guidelines and so on, it can't help you get expert witnesses, it can't cross-examine witnesses, honestly the legal process is mostly a person-to-person thing. In the legal system, tech doesn't do you much good. Unless you're talking about using tech to evade the legal system, but I assume that's an entirely different question.
Maybe Linus isn't cursing at the developers with enough frequency or intensity?
It seems the kernel is rarely the problem, so I'd say the amount of cursing is just right. The problem is Linus doesn't run all these other projects.
Way to misunderstand it.
Consider your post is the clueless ones and mods have sent it from 0 to +3, well...
Engine Block heaters, heat the engine block, they do not heat the interior of the car. When you have an eletric car, they heat the seats, not the air. It uses less power.
All heaters help, which is why I said block/interior. Even a block heater will help the usual warming system deliver warmer air much faster, interior heaters warm the entire interior and there's the "full package" that does both. And the last car I saw without electric heating in the seats was in the 90s, still doesn't change that windows fog up, your hands get cold and so on. This "seat only" warming is a power saving measure since using power for heating steals range. How comfy do you really think it is to have one hot side - your backside - and one cold side?
ICE (Internal Combustion Engine) vehicles rely on the engine running, even if it's electric HVAC. Electric cars, especially late model ones have entirely eletric HVAC.
*facepalm* Take a look at DEFA warmup, ZeroStart or any other of a ton of integrated or not so integrated solutions to do what you say they don't. Do you live in California or something? The exact same kind of pre-heating solutions have existed for decades.
But in the end, it's never about heating the car, it's about how inefficient it is to maintain a stable temperature. If you can start the car and not turn the heat/cooling on you get better milage... even in a ICE vehicle.
That is blatantly false:
At -20C, the use of a block heater can improve overall fuel economy by as much as 10 percent. In a test program conducted by Environment Canada, a vehicle sitting at -25C was warmed using a block heater and then driven over a simulated urban driving cycle. This resulted in a 25 percent reduction in fuel consumption compared to cold-starting the vehicle and driving it over the same route
For the metric and Google-impaired, -20C and -25C is -4F and -13F respectively.
However because of the heat generated by the engine being added to the heat generated by driving and the ambient heat, electric cars will perform poorer in hot environments because the parts get hotter and can't be cooled as effectively.In a ICE, the thermal limit is higher, but even regular ICE vehicles will suffer in a desert.
Deserts are kinda the opposite end of the scale here. In cold weather, ICE cars perform weak and electrics worse. And yes, electrics like Nissan Leaf use an electric heater to heat the battery when it's too cold. Tesla doesn't, which makes it sluggish the first minutes in the cold. And heating the interior will use electric power that could have been used for range in both. In ICE cars it'll just sap a little of the battery that'll recharge as you drive, in EVs it's a real drain.
Linux would certainly rise the entry level for malware writers, which would make malware writing a less promising market.
Today's Linux, maybe. The Linux that's been rewritten so 90%+ of the population will use it... doubtful. You'd probably have to make sudo escalation as easy as UAC escalation and once you run as administrator/root it's pretty much game over no matter what system you're on.
pre-heating is the greatest thing since sliced bread
Well electric block/interior heaters is hardly exclusive to EVs and diesel cars can generally do this without a grid connection using its own fuel. But yes it does come "free" by having to plug in the car to charge anyway and you have to if you want the advertised range. From what I gather if you're at a cabin with no/solar power and can't plug your EV in it'll use a lot of power just to get started in the cold.