And you're wondering why people refer to the EU as the EUSSR?
No one wonders that. It is easily explained by the mental condition of those using the term just as much as when you see someone use the term Micro$oft you can instantly see they are 14 years old.
The EU is nothing but an irrelevant
I'm going to stop you there since in 7 words you have effectively said all of the following -I don't know history. -I don't know why the EU was created. -I don't know what the EU does. -I don't know what it has achieved. -I seriously have no fucking idea about international politics.
The EU has achieved its prime goal with great success. Maybe you should look up what that goal was, what life was like pre-EU, and why so many countries want to join.
Not at all. Social Networking should be declared a mental health hazard. What you're doing is akin to saying that banning 9mm bullets will fix gun crime in America.
Can anyone working for the EU convince me that it shouldn't be broken up? that it actually benefits the people of Europe on net?
How many continental scale wars have wiped out a significant percentage of the population of Europe since the formation of the EU?
Remember why the EU was formed, and then cower in shame for comparing your "microagressions" to the atrocities that the formation of the EU was intended to prevent.
I came here to say this... I can't imagine a world where any US company could be broken up by an external union / country.
Just because your parent is incorporated in some place doesn't mean you a free to trade in that form everywhere in the world. Facebook is not a US company. It's a multinational with headquarters all over the world and they have to comply with local regulators on local issues.
E.g. Windows XP N, a version of Windows Americans never saw made by a US company.
That said the premise here is just stupid. Conglomerates don't get monopoly statuses, and if the EU MEP wants to know alternatives of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp he should just ask his daughter who likely uses none of them.
A blunt/honest answer would be: "Because many of your citizens would think you are regulatory douche-bags for cutting them off from a popular global service, and you'll lose elections."
Stupid answer. Breaking up Facebook changes nothing for the citizens. No one would get cut off from anything if Facebook's is broken up into individual businesses,... you know like the individual businesses they were before Facebook bought them.
A better question would be: Since when does an empire of diverse products constitute a monopoly. And then proceed to rattle off the many alternatives to WhatsApp, Instagram, Facebook, and the B2B side of the company that users could freely migrate to if they so wish.
A sure sign of pseudoscience is the post hoc explanation
Sometimes a sure sign of pseudoscience is the experiment which is designed in such a way specifically to prompt post hoc explanation. Quite often you see this in perpetual motion machines, but completely the other way around. "Oh you forgot to unplug your perpetual motion machine from the wall".
The only thing that is "sure" is that existing theoretical physics doesn't account for something which ultimately biases everyone's thinking against it, which is why we will justify something as obvious through any and all means (including attacking someone's credibility for when they offered an explanation) even though it's normally the opposite of what we do.
This isn't some Youtube whackjob at play here. Let the scientists do science.
I remember once the goal of computers was to be able to do anything anywhere regardless of whether it made sense to do so. Complete seamlessness on both an application and content level. It's a logical extension of OLE allowing native editing of spreadsheets embedded in word documents for instance. Not a crap goal by any means, but one that in its generic case may not make a lot of sense for individual specific use cases.
It stands to reason that a content element completely ballsed up from a security point of view would as such introduce security problems in the systems which allow it to be embedded.
so anyone who bought Coffee Lake before the fixes were published is arguably entitled to a full refund
Not really because Intel don't publish performance figures, hence it isn't fraud. Not only that but the processor itself still does exactly what it said on the box. The fact that someone else can use those feature nefariously and that Intel gives you an option for added security at the cost of performance doesn't change what the processor is now and what it will be after the optional fix gets released.
The key part here is that you still have every bit the same device that was advertised and sold to you doing exactly what it says on the box.
It may not be moral, but you will almost certainly fail to prove a fraud case.
We're simply going to block all of the EU, because the consequences for even an inadvertent misstep could be catastrophic.
Why? Do you do business in the EU? Do you advertise to EU customers, or have EU offices?
If you answered yes to any of the above then blocking the EU probably isn't in your interest. If you answered no to all of them, they maybe you learn how the GDPR works and applies.
How are the resident Trump supporters going to explain this away
Hey look over there, it's Hillary's email server, and standing next to it a North Korean dictator. Now I'm sure Trump will address your comments after he finishes fixing the SAD state Obama left the country./Trump supporter.
Don't worry though, eventually you'll all die off. We all do eventually. In the meantime our school textbooks have been updated to stop at Neptune so in a couple of generations people will forget that Pluto was ever a planet and this can be relegated to the encyclopedia of history under a section labelled: Famous petty arguments.
There's basically no cars on the market with undersized breaks. The stopping distance is related to weight, its distribution, suspension, tires, and then software... like ABS and regenerative breaking systems.
Eyeroll. I'm sure you'll be able to make major changes to stopping distance via a software update.
Are you ignorant of just how much software and fine tuning is involved in the ABS systems that you rely on to bring your car to a stop in these incredibly short distances?
If Tesla is getting 133 ft stopping distances in their internal testing, while CR got a 152 ft stopping distance, that would suggest a QA problem at Tesla
Or more likely it would represent variances in testing. Where's your control group?
blatent pandering to the slashdot crowd, deduct 10 points for misappropriation of star trek
Yeah but he doesn't like the FCC so at this point he could see a Kirk vs Picard battle and say his favourite was Skywalker and he'd still be in my good books.
Car engine fails catastrophically after 50k km due to badly designed part? Under EU law you should not be out of pocket.
The car engine didn't fail catastrophically. What did happen is you applied an optional fix to a problem that under a very small set of specific circumstances would cause the car door to unlock and then after you put your car with its optional fix on a dyno you discovered you actually had 10 horsepower less than you thought.
You'll be hard pressed getting that through even an EU regulator.
To be honest I struggle to get upset about this speculative execution business, but then I don't fall into the categories of people who need to worry. For most of these cases the exploit requires a significant chunk of privileged code to already be running. On nearly everyone's PC you have already lost. Your system is at this point no longer yours.
Where this would be scarier is on virtual machines where one OS can break the isolation that the hypervisor provides. A computer where it's function is to give strangers access to running code on your machine.
Frankly I think Intel is right about most of this and so is Microsoft and the Linux kernel devs when they made the various fixes for the various speculative execution bugs optional.
You don't get a sample size of more than one, but you will likely drop your phone more than once. This isn't actually a bad test. They dropped the phones a number of times a number of different ways and assigned a score based on damage.
who actually carries a phone without at least SOME type of case? Nobody I know...
And? What are you testing, the quality of the case or the quality of the phone? The base quality of the phone has a lot to do with how well it will survive after you put a case on it. It may even have an affect on which case you chose to buy. In any case this is a baseline test.
They're not. They are an everything brand. Not every company needs to fit into one category or another.
Ford will happily sell you the fucking awful Ford Ka as they will a Ford GT. Nikon will happily throw out a garbage Coolpix at Walmart as they will sell D5s to professional photographers. Samsung will sell shitty TN panel mini TVs with garbage pictures to hotels, just as they will produce professional IP5X rated panels for continuous operation in mission critical services.
Sony was never an up market brand and never claimed to be. Their sole marketing claim was that of innovation which historically they tied to "It's a Sony", and more recently tied to "make.believe" Where Sony has claimed premium status it has done so predominantly with product line specific marketing. Examples of that include this famous advert: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... It's an advert for Sony's up market TV while at the same time not including the word Sony anywhere other than in small text at the bottom of the display. Another example? https://www.youtube.com/watch?... Count the number of times you see an alpha logo vs the Sony logo. Count the number of times the Sony logo is partially obscured or a fraction of the size of what they are demonstrating. The advert ends with 13 seconds of Alpha logos, the Alpha slogan, and then dedicates less than 2 seconds to the fact it's a Sony product.
I'll say it again, Sony is NOT an up market premium brand and they never built their reputation on it.
Slashdot Mirror
And you're wondering why people refer to the EU as the EUSSR?
No one wonders that. It is easily explained by the mental condition of those using the term just as much as when you see someone use the term Micro$oft you can instantly see they are 14 years old.
The EU is nothing but an irrelevant
I'm going to stop you there since in 7 words you have effectively said all of the following
-I don't know history.
-I don't know why the EU was created.
-I don't know what the EU does.
-I don't know what it has achieved.
-I seriously have no fucking idea about international politics.
The EU has achieved its prime goal with great success. Maybe you should look up what that goal was, what life was like pre-EU, and why so many countries want to join.
Not at all. Social Networking should be declared a mental health hazard. What you're doing is akin to saying that banning 9mm bullets will fix gun crime in America.
Can anyone working for the EU convince me that it shouldn't be broken up? that it actually benefits the people of Europe on net?
How many continental scale wars have wiped out a significant percentage of the population of Europe since the formation of the EU?
Remember why the EU was formed, and then cower in shame for comparing your "microagressions" to the atrocities that the formation of the EU was intended to prevent.
I came here to say this... I can't imagine a world where any US company could be broken up by an external union / country.
Just because your parent is incorporated in some place doesn't mean you a free to trade in that form everywhere in the world. Facebook is not a US company. It's a multinational with headquarters all over the world and they have to comply with local regulators on local issues.
E.g. Windows XP N, a version of Windows Americans never saw made by a US company.
That said the premise here is just stupid. Conglomerates don't get monopoly statuses, and if the EU MEP wants to know alternatives of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp he should just ask his daughter who likely uses none of them.
That would be a fantastic way of preventing Americans from benefiting with the GDPR requirements that Facebook must follow.
A blunt/honest answer would be: "Because many of your citizens would think you are regulatory douche-bags for cutting them off from a popular global service, and you'll lose elections."
Stupid answer. Breaking up Facebook changes nothing for the citizens. No one would get cut off from anything if Facebook's is broken up into individual businesses,... you know like the individual businesses they were before Facebook bought them.
A better question would be: Since when does an empire of diverse products constitute a monopoly. And then proceed to rattle off the many alternatives to WhatsApp, Instagram, Facebook, and the B2B side of the company that users could freely migrate to if they so wish.
back in the 90's. This is not new tech at all
Except this is nothing like theatre in the 90s and has far more in common with Dolby Atmos (theatre in 2013) than with your example.
But don't let not understanding what it does or how it works get in the way of your criticism.
A sure sign of pseudoscience is the post hoc explanation
Sometimes a sure sign of pseudoscience is the experiment which is designed in such a way specifically to prompt post hoc explanation. Quite often you see this in perpetual motion machines, but completely the other way around. "Oh you forgot to unplug your perpetual motion machine from the wall".
The only thing that is "sure" is that existing theoretical physics doesn't account for something which ultimately biases everyone's thinking against it, which is why we will justify something as obvious through any and all means (including attacking someone's credibility for when they offered an explanation) even though it's normally the opposite of what we do.
This isn't some Youtube whackjob at play here. Let the scientists do science.
why did it allow them in the first place
I remember once the goal of computers was to be able to do anything anywhere regardless of whether it made sense to do so. Complete seamlessness on both an application and content level. It's a logical extension of OLE allowing native editing of spreadsheets embedded in word documents for instance. Not a crap goal by any means, but one that in its generic case may not make a lot of sense for individual specific use cases.
It stands to reason that a content element completely ballsed up from a security point of view would as such introduce security problems in the systems which allow it to be embedded.
so anyone who bought Coffee Lake before the fixes were published is arguably entitled to a full refund
Not really because Intel don't publish performance figures, hence it isn't fraud. Not only that but the processor itself still does exactly what it said on the box. The fact that someone else can use those feature nefariously and that Intel gives you an option for added security at the cost of performance doesn't change what the processor is now and what it will be after the optional fix gets released.
The key part here is that you still have every bit the same device that was advertised and sold to you doing exactly what it says on the box.
It may not be moral, but you will almost certainly fail to prove a fraud case.
We're simply going to block all of the EU, because the consequences for even an inadvertent misstep could be catastrophic.
Why? Do you do business in the EU? Do you advertise to EU customers, or have EU offices?
If you answered yes to any of the above then blocking the EU probably isn't in your interest. If you answered no to all of them, they maybe you learn how the GDPR works and applies.
How are the resident Trump supporters going to explain this away
Hey look over there, it's Hillary's email server, and standing next to it a North Korean dictator. Now I'm sure Trump will address your comments after he finishes fixing the SAD state Obama left the country. /Trump supporter.
I need a shower.
Get your shit together, AC. Get it all together and put it in a backpack.
Reminds me of a comedian line: Take your filing cabinet, put it in the toilet, and sort your shit out.
Indeed the Washington post says it's so.
Don't worry though, eventually you'll all die off. We all do eventually. In the meantime our school textbooks have been updated to stop at Neptune so in a couple of generations people will forget that Pluto was ever a planet and this can be relegated to the encyclopedia of history under a section labelled: Famous petty arguments.
Also if the brakes are simply under sized
There's basically no cars on the market with undersized breaks. The stopping distance is related to weight, its distribution, suspension, tires, and then software ... like ABS and regenerative breaking systems.
Eyeroll. I'm sure you'll be able to make major changes to stopping distance via a software update.
Are you ignorant of just how much software and fine tuning is involved in the ABS systems that you rely on to bring your car to a stop in these incredibly short distances?
If Tesla is getting 133 ft stopping distances in their internal testing, while CR got a 152 ft stopping distance, that would suggest a QA problem at Tesla
Or more likely it would represent variances in testing. Where's your control group?
blatent pandering to the slashdot crowd, deduct 10 points for misappropriation of star trek
Yeah but he doesn't like the FCC so at this point he could see a Kirk vs Picard battle and say his favourite was Skywalker and he'd still be in my good books.
Not everyone is a gamer, video editor, etc.
Pfft amateurs. What do they need a decent CPU for. Real men need Real CPUs for Real workloads like running McAfee.
Car engine fails catastrophically after 50k km due to badly designed part? Under EU law you should not be out of pocket.
The car engine didn't fail catastrophically. What did happen is you applied an optional fix to a problem that under a very small set of specific circumstances would cause the car door to unlock and then after you put your car with its optional fix on a dyno you discovered you actually had 10 horsepower less than you thought.
You'll be hard pressed getting that through even an EU regulator.
To be honest I struggle to get upset about this speculative execution business, but then I don't fall into the categories of people who need to worry. For most of these cases the exploit requires a significant chunk of privileged code to already be running. On nearly everyone's PC you have already lost. Your system is at this point no longer yours.
Where this would be scarier is on virtual machines where one OS can break the isolation that the hypervisor provides. A computer where it's function is to give strangers access to running code on your machine.
Frankly I think Intel is right about most of this and so is Microsoft and the Linux kernel devs when they made the various fixes for the various speculative execution bugs optional.
You don't get a sample size of more than one, but you will likely drop your phone more than once. This isn't actually a bad test. They dropped the phones a number of times a number of different ways and assigned a score based on damage.
who actually carries a phone without at least SOME type of case? Nobody I know...
And? What are you testing, the quality of the case or the quality of the phone? The base quality of the phone has a lot to do with how well it will survive after you put a case on it. It may even have an affect on which case you chose to buy. In any case this is a baseline test.
Well fortunately for you they dropped them a number of times in a number of ways.
I know that it is a bit pedantic but I find that more and more people speak and write using phrases that are not appropriate
I could care less what you find.
If you are an up market brand
They're not. They are an everything brand. Not every company needs to fit into one category or another.
Ford will happily sell you the fucking awful Ford Ka as they will a Ford GT. Nikon will happily throw out a garbage Coolpix at Walmart as they will sell D5s to professional photographers. Samsung will sell shitty TN panel mini TVs with garbage pictures to hotels, just as they will produce professional IP5X rated panels for continuous operation in mission critical services.
Sony was never an up market brand and never claimed to be. Their sole marketing claim was that of innovation which historically they tied to "It's a Sony", and more recently tied to "make.believe" Where Sony has claimed premium status it has done so predominantly with product line specific marketing. Examples of that include this famous advert: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... It's an advert for Sony's up market TV while at the same time not including the word Sony anywhere other than in small text at the bottom of the display. Another example? https://www.youtube.com/watch?... Count the number of times you see an alpha logo vs the Sony logo. Count the number of times the Sony logo is partially obscured or a fraction of the size of what they are demonstrating. The advert ends with 13 seconds of Alpha logos, the Alpha slogan, and then dedicates less than 2 seconds to the fact it's a Sony product.
I'll say it again, Sony is NOT an up market premium brand and they never built their reputation on it.