Actually, I've caught Red Hat in a number of legal mistakes where I've had to wake up one of their lawyers to the issue, because the engineer never consulted one. This might be that sort of thing, or whoever read the text didn't consider the implications. The microcode runs for every instruction, and as far as I can tell the prohibition applies to all use of the CPU. Don't ever provide or publish benchmarks, even for your own software, using this CPU to collect them.
The lawyer who wrote the license obviously didn't walk through what the CPU actually does, and that the implication of the language would thus be larger than expected.
why is he not posting spam and dups like the rest of slashdot editors?
Because they've never actually given me inside access to Slashdot. It's their playground. One or two editors look for things I've written, mostly the folks who work on the weekend.
I hope that the part of Intel with some sense will wake up to what that other part of Intel is doing and fix this, quickly. When there is a company that big, it has a multiple personality disorder. Obviously this time somebody didn't think through the implications of their legal language.
Over the past few years, most PBS stations have sold off their broadcast licenses. You read that right, they no longer have a right to broadcast on the air. How are you still seeing them with your antenna? The PBS stations are renting sub-channels from commercial broadcasters. The way HDTV channels work, you can't tell by the channel number. But the result is that they can't broadcast with the bandwidth (resolution) they had before, and they can't broadcast all of the sub-channels they had before.
If you have cable, PBS stations can provide their full bandwidth to the cable head-end. But they no longer own that bandwidth to use over the air.
TV stations sell their licenses to make money. The mind boggles.
Discoverable in court is not the same as discoverable by NSA. In general, they just don't want their conversations to be admitted as evidence in a civil case.
It's ok, you don't have to post these stupid things anymore. They're no longer watching you and your communications, and in any case nobody listens to you for advice on privacy, security, and how to use the internet.
You forgot my protestations against cryptocurrency:-)
I haven't ever taken them seriously enough to do good key management. As hardware tokens become more popular and as they get good hardware (not the case so far) and fully disclosed source code, this problem will be solved for a lot of people.
There's a big difference between digital signature and encryption. Being a public figure, transparency is important. So in general I'd rather sign my name to what I do and publicize it, and putting a digital signature to that wouldn't be bad. It's not the technology of encryption that I object to, just that people who want to hide things are often involved with things that I'd like to stay far away from.
Lawyers do not generally like to put their communications in a discoverable medium. This is even though they are protected by the attorney-client privilege and the federal rules of civil procedure. Anything important will be in a phone call.
Every time I've received an encrypted email, I have regretted reading it. In general, the person who was really paranoid about people reading his email was really paranoid in general. So, years ago I made it my personal policy to reject them.
I have a remote ham station that's 5 hours from my home. 10 acres out in farm country. It's off grid and cellular network only. That sounded good until I realized how much interference the neighbors solar controllers make. Any visit means I sleep there and drive back the next day. Obviously, I want that site to be reliable.,
Well if this case goes forward at all, I'll be using my Pacer account. I think the attorneys might make use of the Unclean Hands Doctrine. But I don't really know that much about it.
In Musk's position, I would want to depose the short-sellers. Especially the ones behind a lot of the artificial bad publicity, and their business partners, etc. And now Musk gets to do that, without actually having to bring any suit against the shorts. At least, not yet. Once he has their depositions, maybe. Watch them attempt to avoid getting on the stand.
So, the big news today is that Tesla lost one employee! One who worked as an executive for four years, and managed the people who really designed the car. For someone like that to hold a job for only four years isn't unusual.
This is met with a lot of totally unsubstantiated "Tesla will crash", "It's a really bad car", "Musk is going to jail". The shorts are still out there, or just trolls.
As far as I can tell, lots of people want their cars, their home solar products, their industrial battery products, etc.
I agree that Musk was probably just teasing the shorts. But Musk can say he's considering any thing he wants. And although it would be the largest stock buy-out ever, on paper, consider that the actual buying out is only for the people who decide to sell - while many would hang on - and he probably is able to line up the financing to handle a reasonable estimate of how many investors would sell out.
Lots of companies go private, public again, and private again. It's more common these days, with more private money in the market. And right now, being public is a distraction for Tesla. Too much energy spent fighting FUD.
The last time I stayed in Manhattan, the Doubletree cost $700/night. The customer paid for that, but it felt wasteful. Since they banned Air B&B and similar, we're not staying in New York city for personal trips. I'd much rather help a local person keep their home than stay in the impersonal people box of some corporation.
In Manhattan, I'll usually take the subway if it's at all possible. But limiting rideshare in the name of the long-obsolete medallion cab system - which promotes cruising around looking for a customer, using up fuel and making pollution for nothing; that can't be a plus.
I've had this dialogue with managers. It usually goes this way: "If I want fulfillment, my home project has flown on the space shuttle. I do my work to get paid so that I can do those other things, so hold the intangibles, sorry, and pass the salary."
Their mission is engineering. They don't get infinite capital for a flag-planting exercise, though. So, engineering for economics is a big part. First-stage recovery was low-hanging fruit - nobody had the incentive to do it before SpaceX came along.
Nothing except the fact that you eat a few mSv a day in a "spaceship"
I have several times walked up to a pile of radioactive material that was actually glowing with Cherenkov radiation bright enough to see in daylight. The reason this wasn't scary? It was in a pool of water perhaps 20 feet deep. Engineering problem solved.
Currently, NORAD collects the data, which means the U.S. and Canadian Air Force. Regulation is by FAA, you don't get to launch if you don't have a de-orbit plan, if you are a danger to a manned mission, or if you're liable to cause the Kessler syndrome. And these days you have to change orbit when directed, too. NOAA regulates imaging systems, you can't image war zones or Israel at high resolution, etc. FCC regulates the civilian radios and won't license them if the other agencies don't approve of the satellite plans. NTIA regulates government radios.
NASA needs to operate more like the FAA, be a regulatory service for keeping everyone safe and managing "air space". (Or, would that be "space space"?)
Do you know who does it now? The FAA. They license launches. They should keep doing so. NASA is a research organization.
President Trump made an announcement to investigate the creation of a military space force, which if created makes many missions from NASA redundant.
Do you know who does military space missions now? The Air Force. Not NASA, NASA is a civilian research organization. Creating a "space wing" takes a department of the Air Force and makes it a separate service. Just as the AAF, the Army Air Force, became the Air Force. Creating a "Space Force" does nothing to or about NASA's mission.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. I didn't write that link. The proper text can be found here.
Actually, I've caught Red Hat in a number of legal mistakes where I've had to wake up one of their lawyers to the issue, because the engineer never consulted one. This might be that sort of thing, or whoever read the text didn't consider the implications. The microcode runs for every instruction, and as far as I can tell the prohibition applies to all use of the CPU. Don't ever provide or publish benchmarks, even for your own software, using this CPU to collect them.
The lawyer who wrote the license obviously didn't walk through what the CPU actually does, and that the implication of the language would thus be larger than expected.
Because they've never actually given me inside access to Slashdot. It's their playground. One or two editors look for things I've written, mostly the folks who work on the weekend.
I screw up as much as anyone else.
The slashdot editor munged the link to the license text. It's here.
The link at "a new license term" is to a license for a different product. I'm sure I didn't write that :-)
I hope that the part of Intel with some sense will wake up to what that other part of Intel is doing and fix this, quickly. When there is a company that big, it has a multiple personality disorder. Obviously this time somebody didn't think through the implications of their legal language.
Over the past few years, most PBS stations have sold off their broadcast licenses. You read that right, they no longer have a right to broadcast on the air. How are you still seeing them with your antenna? The PBS stations are renting sub-channels from commercial broadcasters. The way HDTV channels work, you can't tell by the channel number. But the result is that they can't broadcast with the bandwidth (resolution) they had before, and they can't broadcast all of the sub-channels they had before.
If you have cable, PBS stations can provide their full bandwidth to the cable head-end. But they no longer own that bandwidth to use over the air.
TV stations sell their licenses to make money. The mind boggles.
Discoverable in court is not the same as discoverable by NSA. In general, they just don't want their conversations to be admitted as evidence in a civil case.
You forgot my protestations against cryptocurrency :-)
I haven't ever taken them seriously enough to do good key management. As hardware tokens become more popular and as they get good hardware (not the case so far) and fully disclosed source code, this problem will be solved for a lot of people.
There's a big difference between digital signature and encryption. Being a public figure, transparency is important. So in general I'd rather sign my name to what I do and publicize it, and putting a digital signature to that wouldn't be bad. It's not the technology of encryption that I object to, just that people who want to hide things are often involved with things that I'd like to stay far away from.
Lawyers do not generally like to put their communications in a discoverable medium. This is even though they are protected by the attorney-client privilege and the federal rules of civil procedure. Anything important will be in a phone call.
None of the encrypted emails have come from friends. I have a high profile and sometimes nutcases think I'll be interested.
Every time I've received an encrypted email, I have regretted reading it. In general, the person who was really paranoid about people reading his email was really paranoid in general. So, years ago I made it my personal policy to reject them.
I have a remote ham station that's 5 hours from my home. 10 acres out in farm country. It's off grid and cellular network only. That sounded good until I realized how much interference the neighbors solar controllers make. Any visit means I sleep there and drive back the next day. Obviously, I want that site to be reliable.,
Well if this case goes forward at all, I'll be using my Pacer account. I think the attorneys might make use of the Unclean Hands Doctrine. But I don't really know that much about it.
In Musk's position, I would want to depose the short-sellers. Especially the ones behind a lot of the artificial bad publicity, and their business partners, etc. And now Musk gets to do that, without actually having to bring any suit against the shorts. At least, not yet. Once he has their depositions, maybe. Watch them attempt to avoid getting on the stand.
So, the big news today is that Tesla lost one employee! One who worked as an executive for four years, and managed the people who really designed the car. For someone like that to hold a job for only four years isn't unusual.
This is met with a lot of totally unsubstantiated "Tesla will crash", "It's a really bad car", "Musk is going to jail". The shorts are still out there, or just trolls.
As far as I can tell, lots of people want their cars, their home solar products, their industrial battery products, etc.
I agree that Musk was probably just teasing the shorts. But Musk can say he's considering any thing he wants. And although it would be the largest stock buy-out ever, on paper, consider that the actual buying out is only for the people who decide to sell - while many would hang on - and he probably is able to line up the financing to handle a reasonable estimate of how many investors would sell out.
Lots of companies go private, public again, and private again. It's more common these days, with more private money in the market. And right now, being public is a distraction for Tesla. Too much energy spent fighting FUD.
Yes, I have done the Pensylvania-6-5000 thing before. But not for business. And aren't they owned by some cult?
The last time I stayed in Manhattan, the Doubletree cost $700/night. The customer paid for that, but it felt wasteful. Since they banned Air B&B and similar, we're not staying in New York city for personal trips. I'd much rather help a local person keep their home than stay in the impersonal people box of some corporation.
In Manhattan, I'll usually take the subway if it's at all possible. But limiting rideshare in the name of the long-obsolete medallion cab system - which promotes cruising around looking for a customer, using up fuel and making pollution for nothing; that can't be a plus.
I've had this dialogue with managers. It usually goes this way: "If I want fulfillment, my home project has flown on the space shuttle. I do my work to get paid so that I can do those other things, so hold the intangibles, sorry, and pass the salary."
Their mission is engineering. They don't get infinite capital for a flag-planting exercise, though. So, engineering for economics is a big part. First-stage recovery was low-hanging fruit - nobody had the incentive to do it before SpaceX came along.
I have several times walked up to a pile of radioactive material that was actually glowing with Cherenkov radiation bright enough to see in daylight. The reason this wasn't scary? It was in a pool of water perhaps 20 feet deep. Engineering problem solved.
Because weaponizing space is a really bad idea.
Currently, NORAD collects the data, which means the U.S. and Canadian Air Force. Regulation is by FAA, you don't get to launch if you don't have a de-orbit plan, if you are a danger to a manned mission, or if you're liable to cause the Kessler syndrome. And these days you have to change orbit when directed, too. NOAA regulates imaging systems, you can't image war zones or Israel at high resolution, etc. FCC regulates the civilian radios and won't license them if the other agencies don't approve of the satellite plans. NTIA regulates government radios.
Do you know who does it now? The FAA. They license launches. They should keep doing so. NASA is a research organization.
Do you know who does military space missions now? The Air Force. Not NASA, NASA is a civilian research organization. Creating a "space wing" takes a department of the Air Force and makes it a separate service. Just as the AAF, the Army Air Force, became the Air Force. Creating a "Space Force" does nothing to or about NASA's mission.