The Pope is threatening violence if people say bad things about his religion. He is adopting exactly the same position as the scum who attacked Charlie Hebdo.
Ok he tries to weasel out of it, but what the hell does he mean by:
One cannot react violently, but if (someone) says something bad about my mother, he can expect a punch. It’s to be expected
but historically only available on IBM systems that leased for the GDP of a small nation state...
Apart from virtualisation not much has been pioneered by IBM.
And we used to joke back in the day that the reason IBM were so keen on virtualisation was that they couldn't write a multi-user operating system, so they worked out how to let each user run his own copy of a single user operating system.
The author states right at the beginning of the article that he's focusing on x86.
That's what makes the article absurd. The original question, to which the article is a response was:
My mental model of CPUs is stuck in the 1980s: basically boxes that do arithmetic, logic, bit twiddling and shifting, and loading and storing things in memory. I’m vaguely aware of various newer developments like vector instructions (SIMD) and the idea that newer CPUs have support for virtualization (though I have no idea what that means in practice).
What cool developments have I been missing? What can today’s CPU do that last year’s CPU couldn’t? How about a CPU from two years ago, five years ago, or ten years ago?
So the moron then proceeds to blather on about Intel x86, quoting as "cool developments" stuff that has been around for forty odd years.
I've just stopped reading the fucking article at this point:
For one thing, chips have wider registers and can address more memory. In the 80s, you might have used an 8-bit CPU, but now you almost certainly have a 64-bit CPU in your machine.
WTF?
In 1977 I was using a 24 bit machine, some guys down the road from me wre using a 32 bit machine, and I knew some others using a 60 bit machine.
(ICL1900, IBM 370, CDC 7600).
Other things that you’re very likely to be using that were introduced to x86 since the early 80s include paging / virtual memory, pipelining, and floating point.
The 1900 and the 370 had virtual memory, all of them had floating point, the CDC was pipelined.
The first large scale availability of virtualisation was with the IBM 370 series, dating from June 30, 1970, but it had been available on some other machines in the 1960's.
So the idea that "newer machines have support for virtualisation" is a bit old.
I still don't see what the carrier has to do with updates -- I don't use android so maybe I'm missing something.
With any phone I've ever had (Symbian, Maemo, Meego, Sailfish) the manufacturer sticks the update on their site, the phone downloads it via TCP/IP, all is happy.
They have full access to the machine already, they can send them from the persons OWN email account.
With the same text and wording that gets other spam messages bounced. The point is the user sending a real message makes the message unique in a way that will get past more spam filters, and more important to the reader sounds like it's really from their friend (which it is).
They could just look in your outbound messages folder and resend a message from there with "sorry, forgot the attachment" prepended.
Slashdot Mirror
The Pope is threatening violence if people say bad things about his religion. He is adopting exactly the same position as the scum who attacked Charlie Hebdo.
Ok he tries to weasel out of it, but what the hell does he mean by:
One cannot react violently, but if (someone) says something bad about my mother, he can expect a punch. It’s to be expected
"One cannot react violently but I will"
Fuck him for an appologist for murder.
Why? Because you can't stand to see someone telling the truth about climate change?
And fuck you too.
And, amusingly, that is about the best argument against systemd that most haters can come up with.
Your old rat's nest mainframe did not run at over 1GHz with a million or however many transistors dedicated to OoOE and branches you dumbfuck.
The CDC 6600, around 1964, had partial out of order execution. The IBM 360/91, 1966, had out of order execution.
Twat.
Look! A squirrel!
System architecture being independant of machine implementation
Except that System 360 didn't really do that (see IBM System/360 Model 20 for example)
And other systems, for example the ICT 1900 range, did.
Standard IO connections
What? No connector conspiracy?
IBM weren't alone in standardising connectors, see ICT standard interface for example.
It is true that System 360 was a huge wake up call for the industry, and it's effects stil linger today.
but historically only available on IBM systems that leased for the GDP of a small nation state...
Apart from virtualisation not much has been pioneered by IBM.
And we used to joke back in the day that the reason IBM were so keen on virtualisation was that they couldn't write a multi-user operating system, so they worked out how to let each user run his own copy of a single user operating system.
The author states right at the beginning of the article that he's focusing on x86.
That's what makes the article absurd. The original question, to which the article is a response was:
So the moron then proceeds to blather on about Intel x86, quoting as "cool developments" stuff that has been around for forty odd years.
I've just stopped reading the fucking article at this point:
WTF?
In 1977 I was using a 24 bit machine, some guys down the road from me wre using a 32 bit machine, and I knew some others using a 60 bit machine.
(ICL1900, IBM 370, CDC 7600).
The 1900 and the 370 had virtual memory, all of them had floating point, the CDC was pipelined.
Not worth reading any more of this trash.
The first large scale availability of virtualisation was with the IBM 370 series, dating from June 30, 1970, but it had been available on some other machines in the 1960's.
So the idea that "newer machines have support for virtualisation" is a bit old.
I still don't see what the carrier has to do with updates -- I don't use android so maybe I'm missing something.
With any phone I've ever had (Symbian, Maemo, Meego, Sailfish) the manufacturer sticks the update on their site, the phone downloads it via TCP/IP, all is happy.
No need for carrier involvement at all.
You need to prefix your whole post by "in America" because it doesn't work like that everywhere.
I don't understand. What do carriers have to do with it?
I'd expect a fix from the company that made the phone, or maybe the company that sold me it
Citation needed
This would be the case, except that ICL VME runs under Windows on a standard Intel server now.
Just port your application to the cloud and your problem is solved.
That was, presumably, a joke.
But it's true as well.
Why do you want to development on your laptop? Why not do all the compile/test/run on some fucking huge, well cooled, server?
So you don't know what a phage is. Clever of you to point it out.
Islamophages? Viruses that kill Islam?
Best typo so far.
Absolutely, killing wonen and children unrelated to seleka in any way other than religion is the best way to fight them.
You have become your enemy. Congratulations.
When diagnosing problems that affect more than one machine its very useful if the times in the log files match.
They have full access to the machine already, they can send them from the persons OWN email account.
With the same text and wording that gets other spam messages bounced. The point is the user sending a real message makes the message unique in a way that will get past more spam filters, and more important to the reader sounds like it's really from their friend (which it is).
They could just look in your outbound messages folder and resend a message from there with "sorry, forgot the attachment" prepended.
the odd error was the malware *trying* (and failing) to encrypt files on an ext4 filesystem.
Sounds like you need a newer version of Wine, I think they've fixed this bug now.
If the NSA could decrypt this shit then we'd be fucked -- the bad guys are using pretty high-grade encryption.
The French - they mainly just seem to pay up, and walk away with their hostages unharmed.
Untrue. The French government never pays ransom.
They have people for that.
(How it works -- One of France's many "friends" in Africa pays the ransom, he reimnburses himself from the petty change).