There are 2 companies that I am aware of, who's name temporarily escapes me ( perhaps I'll search and find them ) who are using FPGAs with hardwired hypertransport interfaces that plug directly into an Opteron mobo socket. Some of Crays recent models use the same approach.
This gives the co-processor direct access to the entire system bus, memory, and the Opteron CPU installed in the primary socket.
Last I read they were about $5k each. Perhaps the price has come down since.
I'm all over reconfigurable computing as a technology. I didn't intend to imply the technology isn't cool, or even that JP morgan is evil. I've been personally advocating the performance enhancements and power improvements attainable via reconfigurable fabrics or hardware assisted acceleration for awhile now. Most people start lecturing me about bus contention when I mention it, which makes me cry.;(
The people working on these things could be brilliant physicists or engineers
You think the people implementing fast calculations for financial firms, can't and aren't using the knowledge and source code for projects in other areas ?
Nope. OpenCL 1.2 was released recently. That's news.
But it's certainly popular to blame banks with computers for everything. It's been happening for as long as I can remember.
As a boy being forced to attend church, I remember sermons on the evil computer somewhere in a room, nicknamed "The Beast," calculating everything everyone did. Boy were those people wrong. Turns out the computer was named google.;)
Let's start there, make it more difficult to get your license and keep it.
And here you have struck on a sane compromise between "no cell phone" and "responsible cell phone" usage.
Approximately 1 month ago, I was ass ended by a 20 something female while turning a corner, who was distracted by her "smart" phone while driving. She didn't even slow down. After totaling her car, and messing up the back of my truck badly, she got out and the first thing she claimed is "OMG My brakes just went out." I won't go far as to say its impossible for brakes to go out, but they worked fine 6 blocks back, so I put the odds of this being truth so close to 0% I'm calling it bullshit.
As it turns out, the distracted driver had no insurance, and I'm the second person within 1 year she has run into, been ticketed for, and had no insurance.
Even tho this happened to me, I think the total cell phone ban is a bad idea, because there are many people who can safely operate a cell phone, in hands free mode or otherwise, while driving. There is a compromise that can be had, similar to many states handgun laws. Make people who want to use a cell phone while driving take an additional driver safety course.
Now, I know there are implementation details here, like linking a license plate / drivers license to the extra safety class, so that the police can verify you have taken the class if they see you using the cell phone, and it's these implementation details that are why we often get recommendations to outright ban everything under the sun. The outright ban is easier for the authorities to implement and punish, which frankly, is a piss poor way to manage a supposedly free people with rights.
If someone is found at fault in a vehicle accident, after taking the cell phone safety class, they could have their personal cell phone use suspended for a year, or until they take a more advanced class. This is just another possibility, as opposed to, an outright ban.
Anyway, as a recent victim of cell phone driver stupidity, this is my 2 cents.
However, what happens if you are defrauded, and your bank balance is reduced to near zero, which causes your mortgage check to bounce, and your car payment to bounce, and the bank levies bounced check fees against you, and reports you to Chex Systems, which places negative records in your credit report, and it is impossible to talk to a human at Chex Systems ?
In other words, the resulting fallout isn't isolated to the banks funds, and cleaning it up can be significantly more complicated than simply filling out a form ( in the credit cards case ).
Well, I attempted to address any gaping holes concerning implementation details, when I said
A technology based solution like the one above
using the word "like" to imply, similar, but not exactly as described.
A secure implementation of a system *like* the one I described would take careful design and study, and I don't expect every detail to be resolved in the slashdot comment system.
Yes. The same comment stuck out after I had re-read it myself. However, it wasn't my intention to imply that laws should be selectively applied to classes of victims, so much as it was to imply, in the big picture grand scheme of things, it was just an entertainment related website, not a defense contractor, the pentagon, the white house, a nuclear power facility, etc.
In other words, the attacker didn't bring down a nuclear power facility which would have caused far reaching and widespread damages across multiple sectors of the economy. He got angry at Mr Simmons, and lashed out in a manner that was ultimately, not very destructive.
Certainly Mr Simmons is entitled to whatever actual monetary damages were caused under the current law, regardless of his chosen profession. When the math is added up, and all is said and done, I would be surprised if the damages really amounted to that much, and that is what I meant by "some stupid bands website," even tho I admittedly worded it very poorly.
It wouldn't be "denial of service" on the website operators part, so much as it would be "exercising the right to refuse service."
If you walk into a brick and mortar store, and interfere with store operations or the experience of other customers, you will be asked, and then forced to leave, because the business has a right to eject you, ban you, obtain a restraining order from a judge, etc.. Same principle.
I have thought about it quite a bit, and if you have a better solution that more closely approaches 0 cost to society please post it, as this is currently an open ended problem with the internet.
Makes perfect sense. For party A to admit party B is full of shit, party A has to also admit they are full of shit too, and that's just too painful and must be avoided at all costs.
I don't at all disagree with you on the "security currently sucks" aspect of it. I just can't fix that problem. I can only personally swerve around it.
That $60k number was pulled out of thin air on my part for illustrative purposes.
Any resemblance to a number in the real world is purely co-incidental.
What I was really referring to, was all the slick marketing universities do in the form of student guides, pamphlets, tours, etc. The # was just there to illustrate "the good life promised" has a cost, same as the "good life promised" by Oracle had a cost.
I think the grandparent's point was that you should pay off your credit card every month and just use it as you would use a debit card (but with better buyer protection), rather than borrow money on it.
Certainly, but any given specific transaction and customer, may be using the 15% interest rate, to acquire say, tools for a construction job, and be making 30% on the use of the money. In other words, there are business cases for actually paying the high interest rate. Not that the average consumer buying crap they don't need is behaving that way, just that, whether or not one pays the bill at the end of the month or not, depends on ones specific circumstance.
Right. Just like how the universities tell everyone how much better their lives will be, if we all just go $60,000 in debt and sign up for classes.
I find it ironic that the institutions that aggressively market themselves, seem to be highly susceptible to the marketing of like institutions.
That said, if Oracle did indeed promise, under contract, to complete project X for Y amount of money, and it's not complete, then good for Montclair. Get the funds back, or make Oracle finish the job. Otherwise, it'll be the students or the taxpayers paying for it, at some point, after the risk transfer process trickles down.
If you're using your credit card as a source of credit (instead of as a debit card), you're doing it wrong.
Credit cards are no so much a "source" of credit, as they are an access method to a line of credit. Personally, I don't use a debit card, ever, except to occasionally make the ATM machine function. Using a debit card for transactions in a brick-and-mortar store, or on the internet, exposes your funds on deposit to significant risk should it get skimmed, or a website where you used it gets compromised. Good luck getting your cash back after that happens.
With a credit card, you can simply dispute the charges, and the risk is entirely on the merchant and/or the bank. Stores would prefer people to use debit cards, because the fees on their end are lower, due to the transfer of risk to the debit card holder.
( Applies to US... other countries, maybe, maybe not )
Slashdot Mirror
The government official said the company was "attacked."
The company spokesperson said the company was "not breached."
Perhaps the government official let some inside info slip.
There was some commenter controversy over whether the statements conflicted with each other.
At this point it's difficult to claim a statement conflict exists.
Thanks for the IMDB summary.
Ah, so JP Morgan is labotamizing them upon termination. Now that is evil !
DRC is one. http://www.drccomputer.com/index.html
There are 2 companies that I am aware of, who's name temporarily escapes me ( perhaps I'll search and find them ) who are using FPGAs with hardwired hypertransport interfaces that plug directly into an Opteron mobo socket. Some of Crays recent models use the same approach.
This gives the co-processor direct access to the entire system bus, memory, and the Opteron CPU installed in the primary socket.
Last I read they were about $5k each. Perhaps the price has come down since.
I'm all over reconfigurable computing as a technology. I didn't intend to imply the technology isn't cool, or even that JP morgan is evil. I've been personally advocating the performance enhancements and power improvements attainable via reconfigurable fabrics or hardware assisted acceleration for awhile now. Most people start lecturing me about bus contention when I mention it, which makes me cry. ;(
The people working on these things could be brilliant physicists or engineers
You think the people implementing fast calculations for financial firms, can't and aren't using the knowledge and source code for projects in other areas ?
equivalent to more than 12,000 conventional x86 cores, providing 128 Teraflops of performance.
128 Tflops / 5 Tflops = 25.6 AMD dual gpu video cards.
25.6 x $700+/- = $17,920
I wonder what they paid for it.
This is not really news.
Nope. OpenCL 1.2 was released recently. That's news.
;)
But it's certainly popular to blame banks with computers for everything. It's been happening for as long as I can remember.
As a boy being forced to attend church, I remember sermons on the evil computer somewhere in a room, nicknamed "The Beast," calculating everything everyone did. Boy were those people wrong. Turns out the computer was named google.
Let's hope the federal government regulators are paying attention this time.
It would suck for them to be confused by the cool new computer and unable to seperate systemic or institutional risk from faster calculating devices.
Let's start there, make it more difficult to get your license and keep it.
And here you have struck on a sane compromise between "no cell phone" and "responsible cell phone" usage.
Approximately 1 month ago, I was ass ended by a 20 something female while turning a corner, who was distracted by her "smart" phone while driving. She didn't even slow down. After totaling her car, and messing up the back of my truck badly, she got out and the first thing she claimed is "OMG My brakes just went out." I won't go far as to say its impossible for brakes to go out, but they worked fine 6 blocks back, so I put the odds of this being truth so close to 0% I'm calling it bullshit.
As it turns out, the distracted driver had no insurance, and I'm the second person within 1 year she has run into, been ticketed for, and had no insurance.
Even tho this happened to me, I think the total cell phone ban is a bad idea, because there are many people who can safely operate a cell phone, in hands free mode or otherwise, while driving. There is a compromise that can be had, similar to many states handgun laws. Make people who want to use a cell phone while driving take an additional driver safety course.
Now, I know there are implementation details here, like linking a license plate / drivers license to the extra safety class, so that the police can verify you have taken the class if they see you using the cell phone, and it's these implementation details that are why we often get recommendations to outright ban everything under the sun. The outright ban is easier for the authorities to implement and punish, which frankly, is a piss poor way to manage a supposedly free people with rights.
If someone is found at fault in a vehicle accident, after taking the cell phone safety class, they could have their personal cell phone use suspended for a year, or until they take a more advanced class. This is just another possibility, as opposed to, an outright ban.
Anyway, as a recent victim of cell phone driver stupidity, this is my 2 cents.
Well, that's good to know.
However, what happens if you are defrauded, and your bank balance is reduced to near zero, which causes your mortgage check to bounce, and your car payment to bounce, and the bank levies bounced check fees against you, and reports you to Chex Systems, which places negative records in your credit report, and it is impossible to talk to a human at Chex Systems ?
In other words, the resulting fallout isn't isolated to the banks funds, and cleaning it up can be significantly more complicated than simply filling out a form ( in the credit cards case ).
Your attempt to draw similarities here and tar both parties with the same brush is laughably weak.
It was not my intention to imply as you have inferred. My apologies if you have inferred my intentions incorrectly.
... Clip this coupon and take it to the blacksmith shop on the corner of Walk and Don't Walk for a 10% discount on axe grinding services.]
You can read my explanation of the post, and response to the resulting controversy, at the following link:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2575828&cid=38383388
Have a great day.
[Coupon
A technology based solution like the one above
using the word "like" to imply, similar, but not exactly as described.
A secure implementation of a system *like* the one I described would take careful design and study, and I don't expect every detail to be resolved in the slashdot comment system.
Is being "attacked" by {hacker group x} the same as being "breached" by {hacker group x} ?
I think one can be attacked, and not be breached, if the attack was repelled successfully by whatever security measures were in place.
Yes. The same comment stuck out after I had re-read it myself. However, it wasn't my intention to imply that laws should be selectively applied to classes of victims, so much as it was to imply, in the big picture grand scheme of things, it was just an entertainment related website, not a defense contractor, the pentagon, the white house, a nuclear power facility, etc.
In other words, the attacker didn't bring down a nuclear power facility which would have caused far reaching and widespread damages across multiple sectors of the economy. He got angry at Mr Simmons, and lashed out in a manner that was ultimately, not very destructive.
Certainly Mr Simmons is entitled to whatever actual monetary damages were caused under the current law, regardless of his chosen profession. When the math is added up, and all is said and done, I would be surprised if the damages really amounted to that much, and that is what I meant by "some stupid bands website," even tho I admittedly worded it very poorly.
Don't think of it as him spending his money.
;)
Think of it as him spending your personal information and search history.
It wouldn't be "denial of service" on the website operators part, so much as it would be "exercising the right to refuse service."
If you walk into a brick and mortar store, and interfere with store operations or the experience of other customers, you will be asked, and then forced to leave, because the business has a right to eject you, ban you, obtain a restraining order from a judge, etc.. Same principle.
I have thought about it quite a bit, and if you have a better solution that more closely approaches 0 cost to society please post it, as this is currently an open ended problem with the internet.
Makes perfect sense. For party A to admit party B is full of shit, party A has to also admit they are full of shit too, and that's just too painful and must be avoided at all costs.
Lets do a mental jig and dance that demon away.
No argument there. The higher interest rate of a credit card is due to it's convenient packaging, use, and marketing.
There are much better ways to finance a business. Having worked construction, I can tell you, most construction workers aren't aware of them.
I don't at all disagree with you on the "security currently sucks" aspect of it. I just can't fix that problem. I can only personally swerve around it.
Wow.
Hey guys, I didn't mean to spark a controversy.
That $60k number was pulled out of thin air on my part for illustrative purposes.
Any resemblance to a number in the real world is purely co-incidental.
What I was really referring to, was all the slick marketing universities do in the form of student guides, pamphlets, tours, etc. The # was just there to illustrate "the good life promised" has a cost, same as the "good life promised" by Oracle had a cost.
I think the grandparent's point was that you should pay off your credit card every month and just use it as you would use a debit card (but with better buyer protection), rather than borrow money on it.
Certainly, but any given specific transaction and customer, may be using the 15% interest rate, to acquire say, tools for a construction job, and be making 30% on the use of the money. In other words, there are business cases for actually paying the high interest rate. Not that the average consumer buying crap they don't need is behaving that way, just that, whether or not one pays the bill at the end of the month or not, depends on ones specific circumstance.
It's not lying, it's marketing and/or sales.
Right. Just like how the universities tell everyone how much better their lives will be, if we all just go $60,000 in debt and sign up for classes.
I find it ironic that the institutions that aggressively market themselves, seem to be highly susceptible to the marketing of like institutions.
That said, if Oracle did indeed promise, under contract, to complete project X for Y amount of money, and it's not complete, then good for Montclair. Get the funds back, or make Oracle finish the job. Otherwise, it'll be the students or the taxpayers paying for it, at some point, after the risk transfer process trickles down.
If you're using your credit card as a source of credit (instead of as a debit card), you're doing it wrong.
Credit cards are no so much a "source" of credit, as they are an access method to a line of credit. Personally, I don't use a debit card, ever, except to occasionally make the ATM machine function. Using a debit card for transactions in a brick-and-mortar store, or on the internet, exposes your funds on deposit to significant risk should it get skimmed, or a website where you used it gets compromised. Good luck getting your cash back after that happens.
... other countries, maybe, maybe not )
With a credit card, you can simply dispute the charges, and the risk is entirely on the merchant and/or the bank. Stores would prefer people to use debit cards, because the fees on their end are lower, due to the transfer of risk to the debit card holder.
( Applies to US