It was in Qualcomm's interest to pay Apple billions because it obviously served to discourage the development of a competing designs by Qualcomm's competitors.
But it also served Apple's interests because getting such good terms meant they would get a parts-cost advantage vs all their smartphone competitors while at the same time assuring those competitors would not have a lower-cost alternative available to them from a Qualcomm competitor.
They've gone out of their way to say that 90% of systems with recent Intel processors have been patched. With this announcement from Dell and HP they'll have to lower that percentage. Considering how much Intel likes to spin I suspect they'll say it's now 89% of systems patched.
i don't believe that's the case in 2017. the market is completely different in 2017 vs 2013 yet a naive reading of this post may infer conclusions are being drawn about 2017/18.
The daily volume for bitcoin is less than $150M, so the market is still exceedingly vulnerable to price manipulation from a few large holders trading back and forth.
They're a textbook example of a one-trick product pony, the type of company whose IPO you never want to invest in other than to flip it to the next greater fool.
Ok, so instead of one software engineer who's not a CPU designer making claims about what represents good CPU design you're quoting two software engineers who are not CPU designers. That gives a lot more weight to your argument.
To quote Linus "A *competent* CPU engineer would fix this by making sure speculation doesn't happen across protection domains." It's pretty bleeding obvious that either the Intel engineers are completely incompetent, or they were instructed to look the other way.
Oh, Linus said it so that means he's an expert at CPU design. That's like saying competent engineers don't work at failed CPU companies yet Linus worked at Transmeta, so go figure.
Lisa Nowak, a NASA astronaut, drove two days and 900 miles in a space diaper to confront a woman dating her ex-boyfriend. Why would anyone not do the same?
The worst part of this exploit is all the people exploiting it to gain attention for themselves, like with ridiculous comments such as this. As if engineers were actually told to ignore risk. What a crock of shit.
C never went anywhere. Its mindshare was just continually eclipsed by whatever bullshit venture-captial-seeking-paradigm-of-the-month was en vogue for that month.
This LICENSE will automatically terminate if Customer fails to comply with any of the terms and conditions hereof. In such event, Customer must destroy all copies of the SOFTWARE and all of its component parts.
No Warranties.To the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, the software is provided "As is" and nvidia and its suppliers disclaim all warranties of any kind or nature, whether express, implied, or statutory, relating to or arising from the software, including, but not limited to, implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title, and non-infringement.
Governing Law. This LICENSE shall be deemed to have been made in, and shall be construed pursuant to, the laws of the State of Delaware, without regard to or application of its conflict of laws rules or principles. The United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods is specifically disclaimed.
Agreed, but what does matter is designing CPUs to be fast and efficient, which involves many different disciplines and skillsets, some of which are highly proprietary on the manufacturing side of the equation. That's what's hard.
Being open source doesn't magically prevent bugs from reaching the silicon stage of a chip's design, nor does it make it any easier to fix bugs baked into a completed design. There are only so many people in the world smart enough to even fully understand modern superscalar designs let alone contribute usefully to it.
I agree Intel's spin is ridiculous, including trying to claim AMD's CPUs are just as vulnerable. But in typical, Linus hissy-fit fashion he pivots to tangential claims, like how Intel will "sell shit forever" and "never fix anything".
Which was good for us because his need for approbation brought us Linux. The only downside is that we have to suffer through ridiculous, attention seeking comments like "Or is Intel basically saying 'we are committed to selling you shit forever and ever, and never fixing anything'? How exactly does he think Intel can fix this issue short of recalling every CPU made for the past 10 years? And if Linus is so good at CPU design why doesn't he resurrect Transmeta and show everyone how he can design CPUs with zero defects.
Yes, white noise is Gaussian. But if you copy a white noise track created by someone else then that copy is no longer Gaussian relative to the original track - it's instead identical.
Slashdot Mirror
It was in Qualcomm's interest to pay Apple billions because it obviously served to discourage the development of a competing designs by Qualcomm's competitors.
But it also served Apple's interests because getting such good terms meant they would get a parts-cost advantage vs all their smartphone competitors while at the same time assuring those competitors would not have a lower-cost alternative available to them from a Qualcomm competitor.
Monopolistic synergy.
They've gone out of their way to say that 90% of systems with recent Intel processors have been patched. With this announcement from Dell and HP they'll have to lower that percentage. Considering how much Intel likes to spin I suspect they'll say it's now 89% of systems patched.
Local news outlets transmit over the air (TV and radio), plus they have their own online presence as well.
Why would he rely exclusively on Twitter when there's an entire industry whose job it is to disseminate information?
When you're sitting on the couch in your underwear playing video games 10 hours a day.
Planet Immortal Senk i 5 - it's right next to Uranus.
Whereas eating a healthy diet and exercising regularly causes fewer than expected deaths.
I updated my machine and haven't had a single r
The pizza that is.
Quote: https://www.gdax.com/trade/BTC-USD
i don't believe that's the case in 2017. the market is completely different in 2017 vs 2013 yet a naive reading of this post may infer conclusions are being drawn about 2017/18.
The daily volume for bitcoin is less than $150M, so the market is still exceedingly vulnerable to price manipulation from a few large holders trading back and forth.
They're a textbook example of a one-trick product pony, the type of company whose IPO you never want to invest in other than to flip it to the next greater fool.
Ok, so instead of one software engineer who's not a CPU designer making claims about what represents good CPU design you're quoting two software engineers who are not CPU designers. That gives a lot more weight to your argument.
To quote Linus "A *competent* CPU engineer would fix this by making sure speculation doesn't happen across protection domains." It's pretty bleeding obvious that either the Intel engineers are completely incompetent, or they were instructed to look the other way.
Oh, Linus said it so that means he's an expert at CPU design. That's like saying competent engineers don't work at failed CPU companies yet Linus worked at Transmeta, so go figure.
Lisa Nowak, a NASA astronaut, drove two days and 900 miles in a space diaper to confront a woman dating her ex-boyfriend. Why would anyone not do the same?
The worst part of this exploit is all the people exploiting it to gain attention for themselves, like with ridiculous comments such as this. As if engineers were actually told to ignore risk. What a crock of shit.
C never went anywhere. Its mindshare was just continually eclipsed by whatever bullshit venture-captial-seeking-paradigm-of-the-month was en vogue for that month.
This LICENSE will automatically terminate if Customer fails to comply with any of the terms and conditions hereof. In such event, Customer must destroy all copies of the SOFTWARE and all of its component parts.
No Warranties.To the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, the software is provided "As is" and nvidia and its suppliers disclaim all warranties of any kind or nature, whether express, implied, or statutory, relating to or arising from the software, including, but not limited to, implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title, and non-infringement.
Governing Law. This LICENSE shall be deemed to have been made in, and shall be construed pursuant to, the laws of the State of Delaware, without regard to or application of its conflict of laws rules or principles. The United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods is specifically disclaimed.
Agreed, but what does matter is designing CPUs to be fast and efficient, which involves many different disciplines and skillsets, some of which are highly proprietary on the manufacturing side of the equation. That's what's hard.
Being open source doesn't magically prevent bugs from reaching the silicon stage of a chip's design, nor does it make it any easier to fix bugs baked into a completed design. There are only so many people in the world smart enough to even fully understand modern superscalar designs let alone contribute usefully to it.
Sure, if you think copying a book whose pages are all empty is the same as copying a book whose pages are filled.
I agree Intel's spin is ridiculous, including trying to claim AMD's CPUs are just as vulnerable. But in typical, Linus hissy-fit fashion he pivots to tangential claims, like how Intel will "sell shit forever" and "never fix anything".
Which was good for us because his need for approbation brought us Linux. The only downside is that we have to suffer through ridiculous, attention seeking comments like "Or is Intel basically saying 'we are committed to selling you shit forever and ever, and never fixing anything'? How exactly does he think Intel can fix this issue short of recalling every CPU made for the past 10 years? And if Linus is so good at CPU design why doesn't he resurrect Transmeta and show everyone how he can design CPUs with zero defects.
Yes, white noise is Gaussian. But if you copy a white noise track created by someone else then that copy is no longer Gaussian relative to the original track - it's instead identical.
Except there are an infinite number of permutations of Gaussian white noise, while there is only one for the word "and".