VOTE? Yes. To refer it to committee. Usually a voice vote that takes about 30 seconds to complete as morning business. I doubt this will be different. Maybe you can have a quorum call in there so the C-SPAN viewers won't blink and miss the whole thing? If you think the majority leader will let this go to a roll call vote you can use to bash his members with, you are sadly mistaken. Without a roll call, all you have is a bill that dies in committee. Good luck!
LOL... You better hope it's a roll call vote, because that's the only way you get "on record" votes to bash folks with. The ONLY motion being debated will be to send the bill to committee, for at most 2 hours. No amendments, no way to change committees, just send it or not. It will be sent to committee.
My guess is that your "vote" will be after about 30 seconds of debate and will consist of a voice vote called by the chair to send it to committee to die. You might want to ready that quorum call to drag this out so the folks watching C-SPAN don't miss it.
Harsh reality, but this is dead, with nothing to show for it and no recorded votes to use as ammo.
But, I'm going to tell you... NN isn't a good issue to run on anyway, it's not going to drive a campaign from loosing to winning.. Yea it may whip up your base some, but it's not going to help you in the middle where contested elections are won and lost. You won't change any votes... You need something else, but with the economy going gang busters, people getting that tax cut in February they will actually see in their paychecks, you guys are in trouble.
Of course, we have the looming government shutdown, immigration, DACA, border wall scramble starting to turn into an out right mud ball fight, so I'm guessing you will have other things that *might* just work better for you than NN, but by all means, waste your time on this.. LOL
You don't understand Senate procedure, that much is obvious.
There will be no open debate or roll call vote.. Senate procedure allows this to be referred to committee, which will be done in about 30 seconds, likely with a voice vote called by the chair, where it sits until the next congress, at which point it dies in January 2019. There won't be any roll call vote to bash Senators with, it will hit the committee during the election season, when NOTHING happens that absolutely doesn't have to, especially partisan actions brought by the party out of power.
Keep dreaming... You won't be able to tell who voted what way, all you will have is the chair saying that the voice vote was successful and the bill heads to a committee to die. You won't have what you are thinking here, just a wasted bit of time on the Senate floor for any number of a thousand bills that meet the same fate for similar reasons. The only hope you have is if the Majority leader wants to waste time and do the roll call, and I don't think he's in the mood for that.
All that's going to happen here is the bill will be referred to committee and die there. The majority will make sure of it and it doesn't require a vote, just follow standard procedure and volia, the thing dies a quiet death free of political cost. Trust me, I've watched many bills die in the Senate exactly the same way.
All this does is put a fund raising feather in the bill's supporters caps.. Nobody is going to run on this issue.
Right, this isn't going to succeed, it's only an attempt to make an election issue out of this for 2018... This is the silly season for 2018's midterms, when all the political clowns run around the two ring circus looking to get on the clown car that they think will get them noticed the most while throwing cream pies at the others.
Personally, I don't think we will be discussing NN at all in about a month anyway. We have a show down on immigration reform with a government shutdown threat looming before the moth is over. NN will be a distant memory once all those other clown cars load up with clowns and whip cream.
This is dead folks.... Until the number of supporters allows a cloture vote to pass, this is dead. The Republicans, who currently control the Senate majority, cannot make things happen there, how would a democrat make it happen along partisan lines? This is dead, no way it manages cloture.
So getting it to the floor isn't going to make anything happen here. Why bother with this? Why to map out a campaign issue of course... Nothing more... It's like the House passing an Obamacare repeal 20+ times, full knowing the Senate wouldn't take it up and Obama wouldn't sign it, then when it actually would be passed and signed they wiffed it. It was for show, not for substance, just like this NN thing.
It's 2018.... Get ready for silliness in politics where weird things are done in an effort to get donations and get elected..
I contend that you need the "audit trail" but it need not always be hard copy (i.e. on paper). There are perfectly secure ways to provide electronic audit trails which can be validated and secure from tampering. Paper ballots have their own set of limitations and risks of tampering with the vote counts, many of these tampering methods could not be detected by a manual review.
I would recommend that at least TWO independent audit trails be produced using different methods to secure them. As I pointed out in previous posts, such electronic systems exist, where the transaction log of each ballot cast is both electronic (for easy and fast counting) and in hard copy for manual or electronic review and confirmation.
But my real point has been in this whole thread that the issue is security procedures, not how votes are collected and counted. Just using paper ballots does not mean the system is secure, as using electronic systems doesn't mean the system is not secure.
Well, people had a choice of insurance companies, so they could change companies if they didn't like their policy's coverage. If it's the government where this board exists, you have to change countries wouldn't you...
Obamacare put the decisions about minimum acceptable care and what insurance must cover squarely in the governments control. So now, even though I'm not possibly going need it, I must pay for prenatal care coverage.....
Both.. This is a political tool, used to varying degrees on both sides.
However, I'd like to point out that "Death Panels" was really about rationing healthcare using the left's language. The fact was (and is) that in socialized medicine, one has to decide at what point you have to let specific people go without specific levels of care because you simply cannot afford to give everybody everything possible. At some point, you have to draw a line and say "we will not pay for that" because it is too expensive for the benefits gained. In many cases this will determine who lives and who dies. Thus "Death Panels" was a valid description of the group of bureaucrats who where going to decide what got covered by Obamcare and what didn't, though it was inflammatory in it's choice of words..
So you are advocating we make food more expensive then? Give up on the efficiency gains we've made in the production of food...
Testing makes food more expensive. We do that, because the alternative is outbreaks of deadly diseases.
Can I assume you work in technology? I'll try an example from your world. QA makes code more expensive. But we do it anyway, because the alternative is sometimes things fail. The question is how much testing is enough?
Like testing raw milk for the presence of antibiotics? (Which costs pennies per test and takes about 2 min worth of labor?) Tests like that?
I think you WAY over estimate the costs of "food chain testing" in most cases. Yes, we have a lot of safety controls and pathogen testing, but I dare say it's pretty cheap considering and it's more about handling processes being safe and verifying that nothing has crossed various barriers with your surveillance testing. Yes, I grew up on a farm and also have worked in food processing, both types of jobs are crappy and drove me towards college to make sure I didn't have to do them all my life. I'm not an expert in food safety, but I do understand the concepts and costs involved.
Why not just admit that you want people to die of starvation... Because that's what fixing your perceived "problem" is going to accomplish in the long run.
The long run is exactly the problem. Monocultures are great in the short run. In the long term they're susceptible to catastrophic collapse. AKA famine. Food that's a little more expensive doesn't kill nearly as many people as when there's no food at all.
Oh, and by the way... telling someone "you want people to die" is a childish way to try to get a rise out of them and win a point via attrition.
I'm not arguing the risks associated with these operations, I'm only saying that without the efficiencies of modern farming, synthetic fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides people are going to starve. What would you have us do? Kill people right away though higher food costs or run the risk of killing them later should we have some serious problem with some new pathogen growing say corn in Iowa?
Yea, maybe I'm being a bit alarmist here talking about death and starvation... After all, it won't be you or me who dies should the worst befall the world and wipes out corn production in Iowa... We are not the poor people who have no other options or sources of nutrition, we will survive just fine thank you!
But you have to admit, this alarmist view is often used to win arguments... Used by climate change zealots advocating things like carbon emission caps, used by politicians to justify their social program of the day ("Don't kill Grandma!", "Oh the children will starve without this help!"). Why is it invalid here and not there?
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.
The problem with this comparison with VW's emission hack is that Intel isn't guilty of falsifying the results of some government mandated test. They just released a product with a security flaw, which was only recently discovered. It's like somebody figured out that a blank uncut key would open any VW car door. Yea, the customers are going to be upset, but it's not like it's going to affect your safety driving down the road and no laws where broken in the process.
We have HUGE monocultures in our farming operations and it's part of what makes that trip to the grocery store possible because we have efficient, large scale, farming processes to create the cheap and abundant supply of food.
Yes, and I'm saying that's the problem.
So you are advocating we make food more expensive then? Give up on the efficiency gains we've made in the production of food...
Why not just admit that you want people to die of starvation... Because that's what fixing your perceived "problem" is going to accomplish in the long run.
Ah, like the paper system doesn't have multiple "attack surfaces" as well, many which are not immediately obvious to the casual observer... It's all about the security surrounding the process. Paper is only as secure as the process makes it. Electronic systems are no different. Yes, they have attack surfaces, but these surfaces can be mitigated and controlled with the proper design and security procedures, especially if you are designing these safeguards into the system from the start of the design process..
You do know that there are electronic systems that produce a hard copy audit trail as the voting progresses right? I've even seen systems that can provide a hard copy of a person's recorded votes if they want it too. Seems to me that having multiple audit trails, including a hard copy and a cryptographically secured electronic one can be more secure than just a box of paper ballots. (Two independent audit trails are better than one because it's harder to alter two different audits over just one.)
Then there is the whole, how long does it take to count votes issue..... Paper ballots are hard to count by hand, so they will be counted on tabulation machines, machines which are electronic and have all those same issues you decry in electronic voting machines..... Are you getting my point yet?
Good, you agree that both require adequate security practices and procedures. Without such attention to security, it doesn't matter what method you use.
I don't agree that we cannot know and deal with the necessary attack surfaces of electronic systems successfully. I also think that the "attack surfaces" of paper ballots are widely down played and not fully understood.
Also, I'd like to point out that there are electronic systems that produce an ongoing hard copy paper trail, where the machine prints out a running record of votes cast, ballot by ballot. I think that intelligent system design, playing careful attention to traceability and security can produce voting systems that have all the same traceability of your paper system, the security and convenience of electronic systems. So I contend that we can make electronic systems that are at least as secure and likely more secure than paper ballot systems....
We are a nation of laws.... That's why I put that in all caps.. I'm making a point with you. You don't like the law, I get it. There are laws I don't like, but I don't go out claiming elections are unfair because the laws are not to my liking.
So on to the discussion... I only made the claim that MOST of the processes used to draw maps where tacitly bi-partisan and that the courts are able to correct any partisan efforts to gerrymander.
Usually the district maps are drawn by bi-partisan groups and are routinely tested in the courts to make sure they are fair.
So you are not exactly quoting me fairly. I'm saying that the process, beginning to end, including court review when issues are brought up by either party is at last tacitly fair. I'm saying it's a fair process, you say it's not... I say that's how the laws are written and you don't disagree, but say the law is not fair.
So, I go back to my original question:
What kind of rules do you think we need here that we don't already have?
So? Answer that question so we can actually discuss something important, otherwise we go around the bush again.
This is ridiculous conclusion here. I don't see anybody actually involved in the decision saying this was to stop leaking, but for security... Besides, the leaking was largely from now fired Bannon. Things have calmed down a LOT on the leak front since he got the boot. Bannon was and is about getting attention for himself, as the last few days clearly show.
It's also OLD news.... I heard this weeks ago and I'm almost positive we discussed the banning of privately owned devices from the West Wing on Slashdot back then.
So, read the fine article and realize that this move is not designed to stop leaks by staff.... It couldn't do that anyway. It's designed to provide security and ensure that privileged communications don't happen in ways that can be intercepted or monitored by people who should not be privy to such information.
I seriously doubt the 68000 series has this issue.... Security was designed in from the start on these processors, even if it wasn't actually implemented until later. Between the 68000 and the 68030 there wasn't any need to change anything to run your program and only ONE instruction had to be modified (it had a different set of flags returned where one bit now was variable, instead of fixed).
The security architecture of Intel's solution was implemented after the fact. It had to pay homage to legacy instruction sets and suffers from all the same problems of other things where security implementations where not part of the original design. OOPS, how do we make this secure now? is never a good question to ask after the thing goes into production. Intel did this, but nobody expected the X86 architecture to be 16 bits way back then, and now we are at 64 bits...
We don't know that AMD doesn't have it's own issues which are just as bad...
However, AMD Kind of has Intel on the ropes in the performance space with that Rizen line. Intel's answer has been to drop more cores into the unit and then having to force them to lower clock rates due to heat. Intel is still turning huge profits, but AMD has started to recapture market share....
SO.... I point all this out to say the following. AMD now has a huge hole in Intel's armor to drive their marketing trucks though and I sure expect them to try, in so far as their marketing budgets allow. I expect AMD to exploit this unforced error by Intel.
I'm guessing that the 747 will be in use for decades to come both for freight and passenger service. Last time I looked at the order stack, Boeing was still building the things though the orders on the books had fallen to less than a dozen so production was going to wrap up really soon. Old passenger configurations are fairly easy to convert to freight service, so I'm betting these will be flying freight for decades.
The 747 is a pack mule with HUGE payloads into and out of standard airports and reasonable economy if you don't try to go too fast. The aircraft is *cheap* for it's capacity and there are parts all over the place so it's inexpensive to maintain for freight service.
Slashdot Mirror
VOTE? Yes. To refer it to committee. Usually a voice vote that takes about 30 seconds to complete as morning business. I doubt this will be different. Maybe you can have a quorum call in there so the C-SPAN viewers won't blink and miss the whole thing? If you think the majority leader will let this go to a roll call vote you can use to bash his members with, you are sadly mistaken. Without a roll call, all you have is a bill that dies in committee. Good luck!
LOL... You better hope it's a roll call vote, because that's the only way you get "on record" votes to bash folks with. The ONLY motion being debated will be to send the bill to committee, for at most 2 hours. No amendments, no way to change committees, just send it or not. It will be sent to committee.
My guess is that your "vote" will be after about 30 seconds of debate and will consist of a voice vote called by the chair to send it to committee to die. You might want to ready that quorum call to drag this out so the folks watching C-SPAN don't miss it.
Harsh reality, but this is dead, with nothing to show for it and no recorded votes to use as ammo.
But, I'm going to tell you... NN isn't a good issue to run on anyway, it's not going to drive a campaign from loosing to winning.. Yea it may whip up your base some, but it's not going to help you in the middle where contested elections are won and lost. You won't change any votes... You need something else, but with the economy going gang busters, people getting that tax cut in February they will actually see in their paychecks, you guys are in trouble.
Of course, we have the looming government shutdown, immigration, DACA, border wall scramble starting to turn into an out right mud ball fight, so I'm guessing you will have other things that *might* just work better for you than NN, but by all means, waste your time on this.. LOL
You don't understand Senate procedure, that much is obvious.
There will be no open debate or roll call vote.. Senate procedure allows this to be referred to committee, which will be done in about 30 seconds, likely with a voice vote called by the chair, where it sits until the next congress, at which point it dies in January 2019. There won't be any roll call vote to bash Senators with, it will hit the committee during the election season, when NOTHING happens that absolutely doesn't have to, especially partisan actions brought by the party out of power.
Keep dreaming... You won't be able to tell who voted what way, all you will have is the chair saying that the voice vote was successful and the bill heads to a committee to die. You won't have what you are thinking here, just a wasted bit of time on the Senate floor for any number of a thousand bills that meet the same fate for similar reasons. The only hope you have is if the Majority leader wants to waste time and do the roll call, and I don't think he's in the mood for that.
All that's going to happen here is the bill will be referred to committee and die there. The majority will make sure of it and it doesn't require a vote, just follow standard procedure and volia, the thing dies a quiet death free of political cost. Trust me, I've watched many bills die in the Senate exactly the same way.
All this does is put a fund raising feather in the bill's supporters caps.. Nobody is going to run on this issue.
Um, guy, there's two new Senators. Think before you type.
LOL, so much promise, yet not a clue about how the Senate works.. NN is dead in this congress.
Cloture requires 60 votes. Democrats only have 49, plus any republicans they can get. If you don't have 11 republicans, it isn't going to happen...
Unless the point is to just get everybody to vote so you can claim a campaign issue this is pointless....
Right, this isn't going to succeed, it's only an attempt to make an election issue out of this for 2018... This is the silly season for 2018's midterms, when all the political clowns run around the two ring circus looking to get on the clown car that they think will get them noticed the most while throwing cream pies at the others.
Personally, I don't think we will be discussing NN at all in about a month anyway. We have a show down on immigration reform with a government shutdown threat looming before the moth is over. NN will be a distant memory once all those other clown cars load up with clowns and whip cream.
This is dead folks.... Until the number of supporters allows a cloture vote to pass, this is dead. The Republicans, who currently control the Senate majority, cannot make things happen there, how would a democrat make it happen along partisan lines? This is dead, no way it manages cloture.
So getting it to the floor isn't going to make anything happen here. Why bother with this? Why to map out a campaign issue of course... Nothing more... It's like the House passing an Obamacare repeal 20+ times, full knowing the Senate wouldn't take it up and Obama wouldn't sign it, then when it actually would be passed and signed they wiffed it. It was for show, not for substance, just like this NN thing.
It's 2018.... Get ready for silliness in politics where weird things are done in an effort to get donations and get elected..
I contend that you need the "audit trail" but it need not always be hard copy (i.e. on paper). There are perfectly secure ways to provide electronic audit trails which can be validated and secure from tampering. Paper ballots have their own set of limitations and risks of tampering with the vote counts, many of these tampering methods could not be detected by a manual review.
I would recommend that at least TWO independent audit trails be produced using different methods to secure them. As I pointed out in previous posts, such electronic systems exist, where the transaction log of each ballot cast is both electronic (for easy and fast counting) and in hard copy for manual or electronic review and confirmation.
But my real point has been in this whole thread that the issue is security procedures, not how votes are collected and counted. Just using paper ballots does not mean the system is secure, as using electronic systems doesn't mean the system is not secure.
What changed? LOL..
Well, people had a choice of insurance companies, so they could change companies if they didn't like their policy's coverage. If it's the government where this board exists, you have to change countries wouldn't you...
Obamacare put the decisions about minimum acceptable care and what insurance must cover squarely in the governments control. So now, even though I'm not possibly going need it, I must pay for prenatal care coverage.....
Both.. This is a political tool, used to varying degrees on both sides.
However, I'd like to point out that "Death Panels" was really about rationing healthcare using the left's language. The fact was (and is) that in socialized medicine, one has to decide at what point you have to let specific people go without specific levels of care because you simply cannot afford to give everybody everything possible. At some point, you have to draw a line and say "we will not pay for that" because it is too expensive for the benefits gained. In many cases this will determine who lives and who dies. Thus "Death Panels" was a valid description of the group of bureaucrats who where going to decide what got covered by Obamcare and what didn't, though it was inflammatory in it's choice of words..
Nothing can possibly go wrong with this. It has everything: NSA, hacking, white supremacists, reddit, AI. Definitely worth funding.
I hope this was sarcasm!
So you are advocating we make food more expensive then? Give up on the efficiency gains we've made in the production of food...
Testing makes food more expensive. We do that, because the alternative is outbreaks of deadly diseases.
Can I assume you work in technology? I'll try an example from your world. QA makes code more expensive. But we do it anyway, because the alternative is sometimes things fail. The question is how much testing is enough?
Like testing raw milk for the presence of antibiotics? (Which costs pennies per test and takes about 2 min worth of labor?) Tests like that?
I think you WAY over estimate the costs of "food chain testing" in most cases. Yes, we have a lot of safety controls and pathogen testing, but I dare say it's pretty cheap considering and it's more about handling processes being safe and verifying that nothing has crossed various barriers with your surveillance testing. Yes, I grew up on a farm and also have worked in food processing, both types of jobs are crappy and drove me towards college to make sure I didn't have to do them all my life. I'm not an expert in food safety, but I do understand the concepts and costs involved.
Why not just admit that you want people to die of starvation... Because that's what fixing your perceived "problem" is going to accomplish in the long run.
The long run is exactly the problem. Monocultures are great in the short run. In the long term they're susceptible to catastrophic collapse. AKA famine. Food that's a little more expensive doesn't kill nearly as many people as when there's no food at all.
Oh, and by the way ... telling someone "you want people to die" is a childish way to try to get a rise out of them and win a point via attrition.
I'm not arguing the risks associated with these operations, I'm only saying that without the efficiencies of modern farming, synthetic fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides people are going to starve. What would you have us do? Kill people right away though higher food costs or run the risk of killing them later should we have some serious problem with some new pathogen growing say corn in Iowa?
Yea, maybe I'm being a bit alarmist here talking about death and starvation... After all, it won't be you or me who dies should the worst befall the world and wipes out corn production in Iowa... We are not the poor people who have no other options or sources of nutrition, we will survive just fine thank you!
But you have to admit, this alarmist view is often used to win arguments... Used by climate change zealots advocating things like carbon emission caps, used by politicians to justify their social program of the day ("Don't kill Grandma!", "Oh the children will starve without this help!"). Why is it invalid here and not there?
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.
The problem with this comparison with VW's emission hack is that Intel isn't guilty of falsifying the results of some government mandated test. They just released a product with a security flaw, which was only recently discovered. It's like somebody figured out that a blank uncut key would open any VW car door. Yea, the customers are going to be upset, but it's not like it's going to affect your safety driving down the road and no laws where broken in the process.
We have HUGE monocultures in our farming operations and it's part of what makes that trip to the grocery store possible because we have efficient, large scale, farming processes to create the cheap and abundant supply of food.
Yes, and I'm saying that's the problem.
So you are advocating we make food more expensive then? Give up on the efficiency gains we've made in the production of food...
Why not just admit that you want people to die of starvation... Because that's what fixing your perceived "problem" is going to accomplish in the long run.
Ah, like the paper system doesn't have multiple "attack surfaces" as well, many which are not immediately obvious to the casual observer... It's all about the security surrounding the process. Paper is only as secure as the process makes it. Electronic systems are no different. Yes, they have attack surfaces, but these surfaces can be mitigated and controlled with the proper design and security procedures, especially if you are designing these safeguards into the system from the start of the design process..
You do know that there are electronic systems that produce a hard copy audit trail as the voting progresses right? I've even seen systems that can provide a hard copy of a person's recorded votes if they want it too. Seems to me that having multiple audit trails, including a hard copy and a cryptographically secured electronic one can be more secure than just a box of paper ballots. (Two independent audit trails are better than one because it's harder to alter two different audits over just one.)
Then there is the whole, how long does it take to count votes issue..... Paper ballots are hard to count by hand, so they will be counted on tabulation machines, machines which are electronic and have all those same issues you decry in electronic voting machines..... Are you getting my point yet?
Good, you agree that both require adequate security practices and procedures. Without such attention to security, it doesn't matter what method you use.
I don't agree that we cannot know and deal with the necessary attack surfaces of electronic systems successfully. I also think that the "attack surfaces" of paper ballots are widely down played and not fully understood.
Also, I'd like to point out that there are electronic systems that produce an ongoing hard copy paper trail, where the machine prints out a running record of votes cast, ballot by ballot. I think that intelligent system design, playing careful attention to traceability and security can produce voting systems that have all the same traceability of your paper system, the security and convenience of electronic systems. So I contend that we can make electronic systems that are at least as secure and likely more secure than paper ballot systems....
We are a nation of laws.... That's why I put that in all caps.. I'm making a point with you. You don't like the law, I get it. There are laws I don't like, but I don't go out claiming elections are unfair because the laws are not to my liking.
So on to the discussion... I only made the claim that MOST of the processes used to draw maps where tacitly bi-partisan and that the courts are able to correct any partisan efforts to gerrymander.
Usually the district maps are drawn by bi-partisan groups and are routinely tested in the courts to make sure they are fair.
So you are not exactly quoting me fairly. I'm saying that the process, beginning to end, including court review when issues are brought up by either party is at last tacitly fair. I'm saying it's a fair process, you say it's not... I say that's how the laws are written and you don't disagree, but say the law is not fair.
So, I go back to my original question:
What kind of rules do you think we need here that we don't already have?
So? Answer that question so we can actually discuss something important, otherwise we go around the bush again.
This is ridiculous conclusion here. I don't see anybody actually involved in the decision saying this was to stop leaking, but for security... Besides, the leaking was largely from now fired Bannon. Things have calmed down a LOT on the leak front since he got the boot. Bannon was and is about getting attention for himself, as the last few days clearly show.
It's also OLD news.... I heard this weeks ago and I'm almost positive we discussed the banning of privately owned devices from the West Wing on Slashdot back then.
So, read the fine article and realize that this move is not designed to stop leaks by staff.... It couldn't do that anyway. It's designed to provide security and ensure that privileged communications don't happen in ways that can be intercepted or monitored by people who should not be privy to such information.
SO you are figuring that the President is in the west wing Tweeting at 3:00 AM then?
Does this guy ever stop working and sleep? Seriously...
How can you sit back and enjoy your popcorn when TRUMP IS KILLING EVERYONE EVERY SINGLE DAY???
Just remember... Corn is what they feed animals to fatten them up for slaughter. Let him eat that popcorn so he's ready when Trump gets to him!
Security? How about that personal iPhone Trump runs around tweeting with. Take that away too.
How do you know it's not an Android?
They should ban them from the par 4 hole 8 so we don't get all those Tweets.
Dang, Tweeting wile golfing at 3AM? What does this guy not do except sleep?
I seriously doubt the 68000 series has this issue.... Security was designed in from the start on these processors, even if it wasn't actually implemented until later. Between the 68000 and the 68030 there wasn't any need to change anything to run your program and only ONE instruction had to be modified (it had a different set of flags returned where one bit now was variable, instead of fixed).
The security architecture of Intel's solution was implemented after the fact. It had to pay homage to legacy instruction sets and suffers from all the same problems of other things where security implementations where not part of the original design. OOPS, how do we make this secure now? is never a good question to ask after the thing goes into production. Intel did this, but nobody expected the X86 architecture to be 16 bits way back then, and now we are at 64 bits...
We don't know that AMD doesn't have it's own issues which are just as bad...
However, AMD Kind of has Intel on the ropes in the performance space with that Rizen line. Intel's answer has been to drop more cores into the unit and then having to force them to lower clock rates due to heat. Intel is still turning huge profits, but AMD has started to recapture market share....
SO.... I point all this out to say the following. AMD now has a huge hole in Intel's armor to drive their marketing trucks though and I sure expect them to try, in so far as their marketing budgets allow. I expect AMD to exploit this unforced error by Intel.
I'm guessing that the 747 will be in use for decades to come both for freight and passenger service. Last time I looked at the order stack, Boeing was still building the things though the orders on the books had fallen to less than a dozen so production was going to wrap up really soon. Old passenger configurations are fairly easy to convert to freight service, so I'm betting these will be flying freight for decades.
The 747 is a pack mule with HUGE payloads into and out of standard airports and reasonable economy if you don't try to go too fast. The aircraft is *cheap* for it's capacity and there are parts all over the place so it's inexpensive to maintain for freight service.