No where did you get the benchmarks from? I've seen plenty of scattered reports ranging from nothing all the way to end of days. But so far the only benchmarks I've seen are Arstechnica who put a test PC through every benchmark they could find before and after and showed little more than an unnoticeable drop in performance.
Then again, there are the famous Airbus incidents where software caused the plane to safely mow through a forest and crash because it knew that the pilot desperately trying to fly it was obviously wrong.
On indeed. No computer is perfect, and no system created by people is perfect. In industry we look at the differences between random failure and systematic failures. Some >80% of failures of systems are systematic and the result of human error in design, operation or maintenance. The remainder can be easily quantified and is widely considered several orders of magnitude better in performance than humans.
The point is, I don't know that I'd take the position that the human is the least reliable ways of doing things, when the humans tried to do the correct thing, but the computers insisted on their way or the highway.
I'm reminded of the usual safety pep talks: No one goes to work with the intent to injure themselves (obviously not true, but true enough). If you consider humans doing the correct thing then they are actually quite reliable. However the key reliability problem is that humans startlingly often don't do the correct thing, often due to no fault of their own. The human brain is incredibly fallible.
TL;DR - Don't be in too big a hurry to declare superior safety. Hubris always attracts Karma
Safety systems were invented for a reason and humans are only ever considered the first line of defence before automatic systems take over. I often like getting asked why I don't perform reliability calculations on emergency stop pushbuttons on critical equipment. The answer typically stops the person asking the question dead in their tracks: "Without doing a calculation I can say the reliability of the pushbutton is approximately 3 orders of magnitude higher than the brain that is tasked with making the decision to push it."
Nope, I'm speaking as a reliability engineer backed up by 50years worth of data and statistics.
But hey I'm sure *you* are different. Reminds me of the 92% of males and 85% of females who believe they are better than average drivers and thus immune to the various researched effects on their driving efficacy.
The "scheduled sale" is a lie. No CEO dumps ALL of his stock.
Sounds like you know a lot about "No CEOs". Good we got that sorted.
The reality is that MOST CEOs dump their stock as soon as they can. The exception being those that started their own companies and still believe in endless growth potential. The vast majority of the CEOs in the world sit at the top of bluechip companies whose stocks are better liquidated and invested elsewhere.
But then if it's a lie then it's a clear case of insider trading, and just like those other clear cases of insider trading that you and many other armchair legal experts on Slashdot called out, each were investigated and resulted in... standard practice for scheduled stock sales.
The underlying pattern is exactly the same as the VW scandal. A manufacturer tries to deliver the promised performance, and in order to do so fakes out an emissions test (VW) or builds in a highly insecure procedure (Intel).
At an even simpler level, it is just the battle between quality and quantity. VW and Intel cheated "a little" to provide the promised performance. We can expect a very great deal more of this.
Wow. So basically your line of thinking is: "Company did something that turned out to be bad. Another company did something that turned out to be bad. Therefore conspiracy!!!!!!"
Please use that grey matter between your ears to maybe read up on the VW scandal and this issue here before you look any more stupid than you already made yourself out to be with this post.
You constantly use the word mitigate as if a patched workaround making the exploit unusable on the OS level isn't every bit the same thing as a hardware fix making the exploit unusable.
And with first benchmarks out of the patched windows machines showing the performance impact for most normal loads lies somewhere between sweet and fuckall this really is every bit as overblown as many people are stating.
Software has provided additional layers of protection over hardware since the DOS days. What makes this "mitigation" so scary to you that you're shorting Intel stock?
What is interesting is that Intel apparently got to CERT and made them change their solution from "replace the hardware" to "apply updates".
"got to CERT"? Tinfoil much? It's CERT's job to recommend solutions to problems. Why would they recommend replacing the hardware when the vendors are able to provide updates that mitigate the attacks? It's not CERT's job to address performance requirements so if you get a 30% hit due to KPTI but are rendered safe in the process, then yes CERT's primary recommendation would be to update the OS to fix the security flaw.
From what I gather it is a combination of a microcode update to fix Spectre, and an OS update to mitigate Meltdown. In either case Intel has had a hand in developing both fixes. Also msmash's mashup of the summary didn't help. Intel isn't issuing anything to customers but rather is providing patches and code to vendors. e.g. Linux's KPTI was mostly written by Intel engineers (which is why AMD got upset when they realised it and issued a patch against KPTI so it doesn't also gimp performance on their hardware.
Uh, why is Intel pretending like THEY are the ones deploying patches
They are not. That's just a combination of your interpretation of what was poorly written by msmash using ambiguous language. The original press release says: "By the end of next week, Intel expects to have issued updates for more than 90 percent of processor products introduced within the past five years." i.e. Intel have patches available with updated microcode to vendors.
or is this Intel taking credit for everyone elses effort to act like they were proactive
Intel ARE proactive. They are not only publishing microcode updates, but also wrote the lionshare of the code for KPTI in the Linux Kernel, and are actively working with OS vendors to provide proper patching (which is kind of how it works when you have a close relationship between hardware and OS vendors).
Description nitpick: A turbofan doesn't use the exhaust gas to push non-exhaust air backwards, but rather the fan is connected via gearbox to the main shaft. It is actively driven by the turbine.
But as you said, basically a turboprop with ducting.
As someone who currently does do only a bit less that many miles a year I greatly preference isle seats. In most plane configurations if you fly economy you end up with a more comfortable leg configuration, especially on smaller planes where the curvature of the fuselage doesn't eat into your leg room. Plus you can get up at any point without having to deal with the people next to you (kind of like the opposite of your benefit).
Intel's CEO dumps a bunch of stock every year, he only ever holds on to the minimum he is required to. Also when he does so the stock price doesn't move since he doesn't have stupidly high volumes like say Jeff Bezos.
Not to mention the fact that Microsoft continually finds new ways to harass or trick me into using Edge. Microsoft is in no position to complain.
Harass? It sounds like you haven't actually explored the Settings in Windows 10 yet. I mean there's only a few obvious ones to set, e.g. turn off suggestion for apps, and tips and tricks, and you should never see any suggestion let alone harassment to use Edge again.
Yeah it seems fishy, except that's precisely how most CEOs operate. Shit I'm not even a CEO and I have an automated yearly sale scheduled for my stock options.
It may seem like a good idea for performance of a company to tie company success to people's efforts, but the people in general don't like their money being tied to the performance of others.
have for adding needless complexityto (what should be) relatively simple, single-purpose devices?
Given there's an industry for mapping your indoor WiFi coverage to help you fix the problems in your house, your word "needless" needs some redefining. Given that this device effectively already has WiFi, already builds maps of the house, already moves around, is technologically anything other than "simple" your entire post actually makes very little sense.
Slashdot Mirror
No where did you get the benchmarks from? I've seen plenty of scattered reports ranging from nothing all the way to end of days. But so far the only benchmarks I've seen are Arstechnica who put a test PC through every benchmark they could find before and after and showed little more than an unnoticeable drop in performance.
Then again, there are the famous Airbus incidents where software caused the plane to safely mow through a forest and crash because it knew that the pilot desperately trying to fly it was obviously wrong.
On indeed. No computer is perfect, and no system created by people is perfect. In industry we look at the differences between random failure and systematic failures. Some >80% of failures of systems are systematic and the result of human error in design, operation or maintenance. The remainder can be easily quantified and is widely considered several orders of magnitude better in performance than humans.
The point is, I don't know that I'd take the position that the human is the least reliable ways of doing things, when the humans tried to do the correct thing, but the computers insisted on their way or the highway.
I'm reminded of the usual safety pep talks: No one goes to work with the intent to injure themselves (obviously not true, but true enough). If you consider humans doing the correct thing then they are actually quite reliable. However the key reliability problem is that humans startlingly often don't do the correct thing, often due to no fault of their own. The human brain is incredibly fallible.
TL;DR - Don't be in too big a hurry to declare superior safety. Hubris always attracts Karma
Safety systems were invented for a reason and humans are only ever considered the first line of defence before automatic systems take over. I often like getting asked why I don't perform reliability calculations on emergency stop pushbuttons on critical equipment. The answer typically stops the person asking the question dead in their tracks: "Without doing a calculation I can say the reliability of the pushbutton is approximately 3 orders of magnitude higher than the brain that is tasked with making the decision to push it."
Nope, I'm speaking as a reliability engineer backed up by 50years worth of data and statistics.
But hey I'm sure *you* are different. Reminds me of the 92% of males and 85% of females who believe they are better than average drivers and thus immune to the various researched effects on their driving efficacy.
So ... there's only one commonality left and I'm talking to him?
The "scheduled sale" is a lie. No CEO dumps ALL of his stock.
Sounds like you know a lot about "No CEOs". Good we got that sorted.
The reality is that MOST CEOs dump their stock as soon as they can. The exception being those that started their own companies and still believe in endless growth potential. The vast majority of the CEOs in the world sit at the top of bluechip companies whose stocks are better liquidated and invested elsewhere.
But then if it's a lie then it's a clear case of insider trading, and just like those other clear cases of insider trading that you and many other armchair legal experts on Slashdot called out, each were investigated and resulted in ... standard practice for scheduled stock sales.
My brothers pissed because this is going to tank performance in the IO heavy strategy games he plays and he bought his i7 specifically to play them.
Where'd you get this from? So far the only benchmarks I've seen show sweet fa difference for any kind of gaming before and after the patches.
The underlying pattern is exactly the same as the VW scandal. A manufacturer tries to deliver the promised performance, and in order to do so fakes out an emissions test (VW) or builds in a highly insecure procedure (Intel).
At an even simpler level, it is just the battle between quality and quantity. VW and Intel cheated "a little" to provide the promised performance. We can expect a very great deal more of this.
Wow. So basically your line of thinking is: "Company did something that turned out to be bad. Another company did something that turned out to be bad. Therefore conspiracy!!!!!!"
Please use that grey matter between your ears to maybe read up on the VW scandal and this issue here before you look any more stupid than you already made yourself out to be with this post.
You constantly use the word mitigate as if a patched workaround making the exploit unusable on the OS level isn't every bit the same thing as a hardware fix making the exploit unusable.
And with first benchmarks out of the patched windows machines showing the performance impact for most normal loads lies somewhere between sweet and fuckall this really is every bit as overblown as many people are stating.
Software has provided additional layers of protection over hardware since the DOS days. What makes this "mitigation" so scary to you that you're shorting Intel stock?
What is interesting is that Intel apparently got to CERT and made them change their solution from "replace the hardware" to "apply updates".
"got to CERT"? Tinfoil much? It's CERT's job to recommend solutions to problems. Why would they recommend replacing the hardware when the vendors are able to provide updates that mitigate the attacks? It's not CERT's job to address performance requirements so if you get a 30% hit due to KPTI but are rendered safe in the process, then yes CERT's primary recommendation would be to update the OS to fix the security flaw.
From what I gather it is a combination of a microcode update to fix Spectre, and an OS update to mitigate Meltdown. In either case Intel has had a hand in developing both fixes. Also msmash's mashup of the summary didn't help. Intel isn't issuing anything to customers but rather is providing patches and code to vendors. e.g. Linux's KPTI was mostly written by Intel engineers (which is why AMD got upset when they realised it and issued a patch against KPTI so it doesn't also gimp performance on their hardware.
Uh, why is Intel pretending like THEY are the ones deploying patches
They are not. That's just a combination of your interpretation of what was poorly written by msmash using ambiguous language. The original press release says: "By the end of next week, Intel expects to have issued updates for more than 90 percent of processor products introduced within the past five years." i.e. Intel have patches available with updated microcode to vendors.
or is this Intel taking credit for everyone elses effort to act like they were proactive
Intel ARE proactive. They are not only publishing microcode updates, but also wrote the lionshare of the code for KPTI in the Linux Kernel, and are actively working with OS vendors to provide proper patching (which is kind of how it works when you have a close relationship between hardware and OS vendors).
Description nitpick: A turbofan doesn't use the exhaust gas to push non-exhaust air backwards, but rather the fan is connected via gearbox to the main shaft. It is actively driven by the turbine.
But as you said, basically a turboprop with ducting.
As someone who currently does do only a bit less that many miles a year I greatly preference isle seats. In most plane configurations if you fly economy you end up with a more comfortable leg configuration, especially on smaller planes where the curvature of the fuselage doesn't eat into your leg room. Plus you can get up at any point without having to deal with the people next to you (kind of like the opposite of your benefit).
Intel's CEO dumps a bunch of stock every year, he only ever holds on to the minimum he is required to. Also when he does so the stock price doesn't move since he doesn't have stupidly high volumes like say Jeff Bezos.
This IS the best long-term decision. ... For the incumbent political party.
Well if your profile is synced between machines then that part is obvious.
You only like it because you don't work in the reliability field. Having a human operator in charge is one of the least reliable ways of doing things.
Practically a daily occurrence when 57 first came out.
Sounds like you have a corrupted profile. Go to the support page for a button to reset it, or nuke it from orbit.
Not to mention the fact that Microsoft continually finds new ways to harass or trick me into using Edge. Microsoft is in no position to complain.
Harass? It sounds like you haven't actually explored the Settings in Windows 10 yet. I mean there's only a few obvious ones to set, e.g. turn off suggestion for apps, and tips and tricks, and you should never see any suggestion let alone harassment to use Edge again.
But a site that depends on JavaScript is in general a pretty crappy site.
You think that's bad you should see the ones that depend on HTML!
The entire internet should revert to Gopher just as God intended.
When has Microsoft ever provided kernel level security bypasses?
Yeah it seems fishy, except that's precisely how most CEOs operate. Shit I'm not even a CEO and I have an automated yearly sale scheduled for my stock options.
It may seem like a good idea for performance of a company to tie company success to people's efforts, but the people in general don't like their money being tied to the performance of others.
Not even Intel's CEO would be stupid enough to hold any more Intel stock than he absolutely had to, especially if that's the way you get paid.
I think their magic excuse 8-ball is broken too
Given the root of the problem is in speculative execution I think magic 8-balls are actually fundamentally not working at Intel at all.
have for adding needless complexityto (what should be) relatively simple, single-purpose devices?
Given there's an industry for mapping your indoor WiFi coverage to help you fix the problems in your house, your word "needless" needs some redefining.
Given that this device effectively already has WiFi, already builds maps of the house, already moves around, is technologically anything other than "simple" your entire post actually makes very little sense.