No one was angered by the child with a learning disability. They were angered by the implications of the marketing that Apple's toy somehow replaced a computer for doing work.
There's no need to remember to avoid anything. You are right now posting using a chip that was sold using the exact same methods. This isn't exclusive to AMD, or even the microchip industry. Part binning and feature disabling has been commonplace for the best part of 40 years. We can largely thank it for low cost devices. Even your high end parts are likely binned in this way unless you bought the absolute top of the line.
Both Intel and AMD have done the exact same thing for years. This is news because?
I don't know, you tell me. As far as I can see it's news because you made it news. TFA and TFS are about a new OEM only part and a comparison of this part to it's retail cousins, and not about the standard practice across many industries you for some reason are talking about in your post.
No. Dear AMD please do exactly what Intel and everyone else does across many industries. Please ensure that the expensive products continue to subsidise the cheap and than you keep your production costs as low as possible as a result.
Again if it's not connected to the internet then you don't have a problem. If you are connected to the internet then it would be cheaper to upend your business than have it upended for you by an unsupported system open to the elements.
If the manufacturers and developers had been honest with prescribers, making it clear to the prescribers
Implying that a) it was known, and b) that the outcome is any different.
We have a whole world of pharmaceuticals even relatively new ones where the addictive effects are known and that hasn't changed the fact that addiction is happening and that a black market has also been developed for them.
Opiates are a powerful tool but have important downsides which ${evil_actor_with_catchy_name} worked diligently and to a large extent, successfully, to hide.
Another 2 things. For my own interest: source? And secondly to what extent would the outcome have been any different? We know drugs are addictive and yet successfully get more and more people addicted, often helped by the very people they trust to make medical assessments and prescribe medication.
If algorithms are known to be weak, why are they included in new standards? Are they expensive or are there compatibility reasons why we don't implement the "best" in the newest standards?
I know nothing about this, but the way the summary was written would imply only the registration of the devices is weak, does that mean the actual authentication uses a strong algorithm?
2013 with the Play Station 4. Though some would argue 2000 since the Playstation 2 represented the peak of quality products. But then some others would argue game consoles don't count at which you're back to the 90s with Minidisc before they missed the MP3 train.
It's great when we can have ${evil_actor_with_catchy_name} to blame. But rather remember that each of those banned substances represented some of the best medication available to us at the time. Medicine abuse isn't the fault of ${evil_actor_with_catchy_name} but rather a long list of groups within the Medical Industrial Complex.
If this is theater then buy me another ticket. Lift would be quite a bit worse without "big pharma".
I suggest next time running the update on a laptop instead of a potato. Even MS's full updates don't take my 6 year old laptop more than 30min to apply.
If Microsoft doesn't do this it can deal with people using Windows 7 and even XP into the late 2020s.
Where's the threat? For Microsoft they have two scenarios: 1) No effect at all since they will no longer support those people. 2) Additional monthly income they didn't have before.
Because you have some crappy bit of unsupported proprietary software that doesn't run on windows 10 and will cost a bucket load to replace.
Yes but you're outside of the statistics then. Your PC with some crappy unsupported proprietary display driver isn't the one browsing the internet and leaving your footprints in server logs for the statisticians to spit out is it?
If it is... You are going to have a more expensive problem on your hands when support ends.
It must be localised. I have a standard pro account. I have onedrive installed. I don't use onedrive but I've never seen this add anywhere other than in screenshots. Likewise with Candy Crush or the popup that says Edge is better than Chrome. They must be controlled by a setting somewhere or maybe they are limited to the USA only.
They are there if you want to look at them, edit them, or copy them, no change there, they are just not displayed in their full gory detail all the time.
No they are not regardless of what the summary says. Editing them and copying them are broken in the current release and the next beta.
If your server really does give different responses for `foobar.com` and `www.foobar.com`, then 1) WTF were you thinking, and 2) do you really think your *users* will be able to figure that out?
Yes, because we use redirectors to get people to the right server if they type the wrong one. I'm not sure about you, but I prefer the wrong server not to suddenly have to deal with a huge extra load because Google does a stupid.
If the URL is necessary for your users to navigate your site, please learn to design web sites.
How did you get here? Floated in on the wind? I bet you typed the www in front of slashdot.org too. Or maybe someone copied and pasted the link to you, in which case you may have gotten a different link (slashdot.org) than what that person saw (www.slashdot.org) You are just lucky that in *this* case it was the same server.
I don't feel I'm getting valuable information from my current URL containing "/story/18/09/08/0437229/google-slammed....." over just knowing the top-level domain and page title.
You may not, but I for one am getting formation that it's a story posted on 08/09/18 and the title of it. I also now have the tools at hand to share this directly with someone rather than saying "go to this page and find that story". But if you disagree with this then feel free to send me a typed letter of complaint. You can address it to: Attn: thegarbz, Somewhere in Europe
Most people don't understand URLs at all
Most people don't understand how gravity works either. That doesn't mean we should just ignore it or that people can float away.
The point is not where *you* want to go, but rather where the network administrators want you to go. DNS entries allow these to point to different servers and with good reason.
In my own case domain.com redirects to www.domain.com. However www.domain.com is not the host of any content, it's a front end transparent proxy to another server on the network. If I want to access this data: ftp://www.domain.com would put me in the wrong place which is why my dns entry for ftp://ftp.domain.com has a different IP address.
Your google example is a bit off for two reasons. Firstly they have an entirely different TLD for that: gmail.com, and secondly pop.gmail.com points to a different server than www.gmail.com. If you attempt to access your email with the latter you'll get a connection error.
If however you were talking about actually sending an email to example@google.com and pointing out that you don't need to differentiate, that's because DNS has a special entry for that case. Instead of an A record or an AA record, emails go via the MX record. That MX entry forwards your email to aspmx.l.google.com which will handle the email request.
Playing Devil's advocate for a moment, we already have ports to separate out different services.
Just give users queue cards then when they need to access services.
But the point of these was not to split services but to split servers. ftp.domain.com serving up a different website on port 80? That means going to ftp://domain.com/ will not give you the content you were hoping for.
Slashdot Mirror
No one was angered by the child with a learning disability. They were angered by the implications of the marketing that Apple's toy somehow replaced a computer for doing work.
What's a computer?
A sign of an educational problem affecting children who appear in Apple adverts.
If only there were a small device that only took pictures and could then transfer them to the laptop.
A Nintendo Gameboy? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
There's no need to remember to avoid anything. You are right now posting using a chip that was sold using the exact same methods. This isn't exclusive to AMD, or even the microchip industry. Part binning and feature disabling has been commonplace for the best part of 40 years. We can largely thank it for low cost devices. Even your high end parts are likely binned in this way unless you bought the absolute top of the line.
Both Intel and AMD have done the exact same thing for years. This is news because?
I don't know, you tell me. As far as I can see it's news because you made it news. TFA and TFS are about a new OEM only part and a comparison of this part to it's retail cousins, and not about the standard practice across many industries you for some reason are talking about in your post.
Dear AMD. Please don't do an Intel.
No. Dear AMD please do exactly what Intel and everyone else does across many industries. Please ensure that the expensive products continue to subsidise the cheap and than you keep your production costs as low as possible as a result.
Set your important passwords to it.
Passwords... plural. You just failed security 101.
This may not really help with cleanup but we can at least agree that developed nations are 100% responsible for this plastic mess.
Those developed nations where you were sending your first world garbage? Is that the developed nations you're talking about?
I've used Apple products for close on 20 years and they have never given me a hard time over repairs and manufacturing defects.
That's because you were holding it wrong.
Again if it's not connected to the internet then you don't have a problem. If you are connected to the internet then it would be cheaper to upend your business than have it upended for you by an unsupported system open to the elements.
If the manufacturers and developers had been honest with prescribers, making it clear to the prescribers
Implying that a) it was known, and b) that the outcome is any different.
We have a whole world of pharmaceuticals even relatively new ones where the addictive effects are known and that hasn't changed the fact that addiction is happening and that a black market has also been developed for them.
Opiates are a powerful tool but have important downsides which ${evil_actor_with_catchy_name} worked diligently and to a large extent, successfully, to hide.
Another 2 things. For my own interest: source? And secondly to what extent would the outcome have been any different? We know drugs are addictive and yet successfully get more and more people addicted, often helped by the very people they trust to make medical assessments and prescribe medication.
If algorithms are known to be weak, why are they included in new standards? Are they expensive or are there compatibility reasons why we don't implement the "best" in the newest standards?
I know nothing about this, but the way the summary was written would imply only the registration of the devices is weak, does that mean the actual authentication uses a strong algorithm?
2013 with the Play Station 4.
Though some would argue 2000 since the Playstation 2 represented the peak of quality products.
But then some others would argue game consoles don't count at which you're back to the 90s with Minidisc before they missed the MP3 train.
It's great when we can have ${evil_actor_with_catchy_name} to blame. But rather remember that each of those banned substances represented some of the best medication available to us at the time. Medicine abuse isn't the fault of ${evil_actor_with_catchy_name} but rather a long list of groups within the Medical Industrial Complex.
If this is theater then buy me another ticket. Lift would be quite a bit worse without "big pharma".
It's a tariff not a tax.
Sincerely,
Sarah Huckerby Sanders
It boggles your mind that there is software and drivers support that is dependent on an OS? Are you new to this whole "computer" thing?
Instead of firing them, they just put them to work on Win 7 and let nature take its course.
Given the clusterfuck of the ever changing Windows 10 UI that sounds like a promotion to me.
I wasted SIX HOURS updating a laptop yesterday.
I suggest next time running the update on a laptop instead of a potato. Even MS's full updates don't take my 6 year old laptop more than 30min to apply.
If Microsoft doesn't do this it can deal with people using Windows 7 and even XP into the late 2020s.
Where's the threat? For Microsoft they have two scenarios: 1) No effect at all since they will no longer support those people. 2) Additional monthly income they didn't have before.
Because you have some crappy bit of unsupported proprietary software that doesn't run on windows 10 and will cost a bucket load to replace.
Yes but you're outside of the statistics then. Your PC with some crappy unsupported proprietary display driver isn't the one browsing the internet and leaving your footprints in server logs for the statisticians to spit out is it?
If it is... You are going to have a more expensive problem on your hands when support ends.
It must be localised. I have a standard pro account. I have onedrive installed. I don't use onedrive but I've never seen this add anywhere other than in screenshots. Likewise with Candy Crush or the popup that says Edge is better than Chrome. They must be controlled by a setting somewhere or maybe they are limited to the USA only.
Sure, but these days www.domain.com is probably a cache in front of a bunch of virtual servers on a CDN somewhere.
A practice which makes differentiating the sub domain all the more important.
That's the entrance fee. They also actively contribute time and effort to contribute.
They are there if you want to look at them, edit them, or copy them, no change there, they are just not displayed in their full gory detail all the time.
No they are not regardless of what the summary says. Editing them and copying them are broken in the current release and the next beta.
If your server really does give different responses for `foobar.com` and `www.foobar.com`, then 1) WTF were you thinking, and 2) do you really think your *users* will be able to figure that out?
Yes, because we use redirectors to get people to the right server if they type the wrong one. I'm not sure about you, but I prefer the wrong server not to suddenly have to deal with a huge extra load because Google does a stupid.
If the URL is necessary for your users to navigate your site, please learn to design web sites.
How did you get here? Floated in on the wind? I bet you typed the www in front of slashdot.org too. Or maybe someone copied and pasted the link to you, in which case you may have gotten a different link (slashdot.org) than what that person saw (www.slashdot.org) You are just lucky that in *this* case it was the same server.
I don't feel I'm getting valuable information from my current URL containing "/story/18/09/08/0437229/google-slammed....." over just knowing the top-level domain and page title.
You may not, but I for one am getting formation that it's a story posted on 08/09/18 and the title of it. I also now have the tools at hand to share this directly with someone rather than saying "go to this page and find that story". But if you disagree with this then feel free to send me a typed letter of complaint. You can address it to:
Attn: thegarbz,
Somewhere in Europe
Most people don't understand URLs at all
Most people don't understand how gravity works either. That doesn't mean we should just ignore it or that people can float away.
The point is not where *you* want to go, but rather where the network administrators want you to go. DNS entries allow these to point to different servers and with good reason.
In my own case domain.com redirects to www.domain.com. However www.domain.com is not the host of any content, it's a front end transparent proxy to another server on the network. If I want to access this data: ftp://www.domain.com would put me in the wrong place which is why my dns entry for ftp://ftp.domain.com has a different IP address.
Your google example is a bit off for two reasons. Firstly they have an entirely different TLD for that: gmail.com, and secondly pop.gmail.com points to a different server than www.gmail.com. If you attempt to access your email with the latter you'll get a connection error.
If however you were talking about actually sending an email to example@google.com and pointing out that you don't need to differentiate, that's because DNS has a special entry for that case. Instead of an A record or an AA record, emails go via the MX record. That MX entry forwards your email to aspmx.l.google.com which will handle the email request.
Playing Devil's advocate for a moment, we already have ports to separate out different services.
Just give users queue cards then when they need to access services.
But the point of these was not to split services but to split servers. ftp.domain.com serving up a different website on port 80? That means going to ftp://domain.com/ will not give you the content you were hoping for.