Exactly. With the RISC-V you just have to fab a more or less orphan design yourself and then invent the entire support infrastructure from top to bottom as you do it. As opposed to buying a universally-supported device for $1 or so (at the performance level of the RISC-V), in units of millions if you really need that many, from any random vendor or supplier you care to name. If you're Microchip (PIC32) or Atmel (AVR32) you can afford to do your own custom architecture (and even those are somewhat niche-market things), but for anything else you need to stick to ARM.
Look, I get that RISC-V is geek cool. It's not, and never will be, a commercially viable product, because it's competing with an entire, vast ecosystem, not just one chip sitting in isolation. Let's not pretend that it's anything other than a cool geek toy, and we can at least have an honest discussion on the topic.
There's not necessarily a business advantage, it's that Apple wants to do everything itself, just like Sony did in its heyday. That's always been the devil's bargain with Apple, you can sell/license your stuff to them at a good rate, but the party only lasts as long as it takes them to move your magic dingus tech in-house. After that, you'd better not be in a position where you've committed 95% of your business to selling to Apple...
In terms of burning your suppliers, Commodore was notorious for doing this. Eventually you run out of suppliers to burn, and then things get tricky.
Any of them. Far too much security software is secure by executive fiat rather than practice. AV software is full of vulns due to the ton of file formats it has to be able to parse, firewalls have hardcoded default passwords and backdoors, IDSes have buffer overflows, etc. It is the way of things.
No, it's actually a brilliant idea. If we take ODOTs rate of 1.5 cents/mile as representative and take, say, Voyager's distance travelled of 1.2 x 10e10 miles as an example, that's 1,800,000,000 dollars just from that one spacecraft. Spread that over all spacecraft and CA could balance its budget in one fell swoop.
Given that the trend in the last 5-10 years has been to discard usability in favour of wannabe hipster wank (examples: Just about any UI ever in that time period that's had a "refresh" or something similar, Win10 probably being the poster child but there are endless other examples), I'm not holding out much hope for what a "UI refresh" will do to Youtube.
The new tech group will give it the most serious and urgent consideration, and insist on a thorough and rigorous examination of all the proposals, allied to a detailed feasibility study and budget analysis before producing a consultative document for consideration by all interested bodies and seeking comments and recommendations to be included in a brief for a series of working parties who will produce individual studies which will provide the background for a more wide-ranging document considering whether or not the proposal should be taken forward to the next stage.
Just like every other time this has been proposed, except this time with Trump running things it'll be even more dysfunctional.
Intel has acknowledged the bug, caused by missing entries in the lookup table used by the NAT circuitry, but claims that the typical user would only experience it once every 27,000 years so they have no plans to fix it. However, the upcoming Puma 6.9999999975 chipset will contain a fix.
Because that was the best, and in fact more or less only, option at the time, and once it's set up there's no incentive to upgrade or replace it because it's an afterthought to the thing it's actually used with. For example there's a... device that costs about $25M each which is managed through a web server running on Widows NT 4. And it's NT 4, and will continue to be NT 4, for exactly the reason given in the first sentence.
I'm sure all the relevant important traffic for these sites was and is at least TLS encrypted, right? Right?
Yep, but it was auth-only TLS because adding confidentiality protection creates too much overhead and banks mostly care about auth/integrity, not confidentiality.
People below the Age of 1 don't get Bankcards or control of their own bank accounts, however.
ESAs require a named "Responsible individual" who is at least 18 years of age
And that was her problem, she's only (1)17. Once her (1)18th birthday comes around, she can get an ESA, and legally have a drink to celebrate it.
Oh, hell no. Universities and computer science departments are not trade schools, and we shouldn't be expecting them to teach any specific technology or language.
They should, OTOH, at least make some sort of attempt to teach some vaguely relevant language rather than going out of their way to teach to must useless academic wank they can come up with. The local Uni has taught, over the years, Apple Pascal, Eiffel, Prolog, Haskell, and other similar ones. It's like going through a catalogue of "languages you'll never be able to use in real life and that you'll never be able to get a job with" and drilling them into students. It's no wonder that a local software company recently complained that they had to interview on average seventy candidates to fill one position, none of them could program worth a shit in any actually-useful language.
Exactly, if there's a demand for it, it'll be fulfilled. The article reads like something written by some recent CS grad, lets throw out this horribly uncool, unhip code that nevertheless can handle three trillion dollars of transactions a day and has been going for forty years and replace it with something that some Indian subcontractors slapped together using Ruby and MongoDB.
In a past life I worked for a bank. They decided to replace their existing Cobol on IBM big iron with Java on... something that wasn't big iron. After several years work and tens of millions of dollars spent and even more than that lost due to problems with the new, modern replacement systems, they threw in the towel and made their modern system screen-scraped 3270s because that shit just works, and keeps on working. It's now all Windows-based at the front end, but everything in the backend is still Cobol on mainframes.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly. With the RISC-V you just have to fab a more or less orphan design yourself and then invent the entire support infrastructure from top to bottom as you do it. As opposed to buying a universally-supported device for $1 or so (at the performance level of the RISC-V), in units of millions if you really need that many, from any random vendor or supplier you care to name. If you're Microchip (PIC32) or Atmel (AVR32) you can afford to do your own custom architecture (and even those are somewhat niche-market things), but for anything else you need to stick to ARM.
Look, I get that RISC-V is geek cool. It's not, and never will be, a commercially viable product, because it's competing with an entire, vast ecosystem, not just one chip sitting in isolation. Let's not pretend that it's anything other than a cool geek toy, and we can at least have an honest discussion on the topic.
"Attempts to AI the Kentucky Derby are Sick and Depraved", Thompson, Hunter S.
They are salty that they are no longer the lingua franca.
Not nearly as salty as the Italians, who don't even own lingua franca any more.
It was written in the D programming language, or le systeme D as it's called in France.
"Microsoft develops secure Edge browser that tries to lock out third-party malware and spyware". Makes sense, they've always hated competition.
"The government does it all the time so it's got to be legal, doesn't it?"
http://www.foxnews.com/science
My brain just melted. Or does Fox mean "alternative science"?
There's not necessarily a business advantage, it's that Apple wants to do everything itself, just like Sony did in its heyday. That's always been the devil's bargain with Apple, you can sell/license your stuff to them at a good rate, but the party only lasts as long as it takes them to move your magic dingus tech in-house. After that, you'd better not be in a position where you've committed 95% of your business to selling to Apple...
In terms of burning your suppliers, Commodore was notorious for doing this. Eventually you run out of suppliers to burn, and then things get tricky.
Any of them. Far too much security software is secure by executive fiat rather than practice. AV software is full of vulns due to the ton of file formats it has to be able to parse, firewalls have hardcoded default passwords and backdoors, IDSes have buffer overflows, etc. It is the way of things.
FTP was never intended to transport files.
Exactly. Everyone knows you use email to move files around. I've just this minute received a file from virusbucket.ru that I'm about to click on.
No, it's actually a brilliant idea. If we take ODOTs rate of 1.5 cents/mile as representative and take, say, Voyager's distance travelled of 1.2 x 10e10 miles as an example, that's 1,800,000,000 dollars just from that one spacecraft. Spread that over all spacecraft and CA could balance its budget in one fell swoop.
According to the summary, the S stands for sexperiment:
As in "Bend over and take Microsoft's Sexperiment up your Back Orifice", I assume.
... "I guess the S stands for Shit"?
Given that the trend in the last 5-10 years has been to discard usability in favour of wannabe hipster wank (examples: Just about any UI ever in that time period that's had a "refresh" or something similar, Win10 probably being the poster child but there are endless other examples), I'm not holding out much hope for what a "UI refresh" will do to Youtube.
The new tech group will give it the most serious and urgent consideration, and insist on a thorough and rigorous examination of all the proposals, allied to a detailed feasibility study and budget analysis before producing a consultative document for consideration by all interested bodies and seeking comments and recommendations to be included in a brief for a series of working parties who will produce individual studies which will provide the background for a more wide-ranging document considering whether or not the proposal should be taken forward to the next stage.
Just like every other time this has been proposed, except this time with Trump running things it'll be even more dysfunctional.
Intel has acknowledged the bug, caused by missing entries in the lookup table used by the NAT circuitry, but claims that the typical user would only experience it once every 27,000 years so they have no plans to fix it. However, the upcoming Puma 6.9999999975 chipset will contain a fix.
Again, it's not the tool, it's the process.
Well, I'd say it's the tool who's using the tool.
They were also the designated surrogate from 20 January 2001 to 20 January 2009, but I guess that predates the current allegations.
That was my thought as well. The market is maturing (who cares about that?), but the way the tech is maturing is the way that casu marzu matures.
Because that was the best, and in fact more or less only, option at the time, and once it's set up there's no incentive to upgrade or replace it because it's an afterthought to the thing it's actually used with. For example there's a... device that costs about $25M each which is managed through a web server running on Widows NT 4. And it's NT 4, and will continue to be NT 4, for exactly the reason given in the first sentence.
I'm sure all the relevant important traffic for these sites was and is at least TLS encrypted, right? Right?
Yep, but it was auth-only TLS because adding confidentiality protection creates too much overhead and banks mostly care about auth/integrity, not confidentiality.
People below the Age of 1 don't get Bankcards or control of their own bank accounts, however. ESAs require a named "Responsible individual" who is at least 18 years of age
And that was her problem, she's only (1)17. Once her (1)18th birthday comes around, she can get an ESA, and legally have a drink to celebrate it.
Oh, hell no. Universities and computer science departments are not trade schools, and we shouldn't be expecting them to teach any specific technology or language.
They should, OTOH, at least make some sort of attempt to teach some vaguely relevant language rather than going out of their way to teach to must useless academic wank they can come up with. The local Uni has taught, over the years, Apple Pascal, Eiffel, Prolog, Haskell, and other similar ones. It's like going through a catalogue of "languages you'll never be able to use in real life and that you'll never be able to get a job with" and drilling them into students. It's no wonder that a local software company recently complained that they had to interview on average seventy candidates to fill one position, none of them could program worth a shit in any actually-useful language.
I was thinking that too. iTunes is what Emacs looks at and thinks "that's just become way too bloated".
Exactly, if there's a demand for it, it'll be fulfilled. The article reads like something written by some recent CS grad, lets throw out this horribly uncool, unhip code that nevertheless can handle three trillion dollars of transactions a day and has been going for forty years and replace it with something that some Indian subcontractors slapped together using Ruby and MongoDB.
In a past life I worked for a bank. They decided to replace their existing Cobol on IBM big iron with Java on... something that wasn't big iron. After several years work and tens of millions of dollars spent and even more than that lost due to problems with the new, modern replacement systems, they threw in the towel and made their modern system screen-scraped 3270s because that shit just works, and keeps on working. It's now all Windows-based at the front end, but everything in the backend is still Cobol on mainframes.