Want to know how they are achieving that low forward PE? Buying companies with low PE using their high PE stock. Thus dropping their High PE towards the company they purchased.
Anyone noticed that AVGO (broadcom stock symbol) has a PE ratio of 225-275 while Qualcom is near 20-30.
It's not that the offer isn't right, and based on qualcoms stock history it's about right, its that if they pay in stock instead of cash it's trading bad shares for good.
I'm assuming these things happen because the USB device drivers load microcode from the USB device? If so why can't these things be sandboxed-- no reason to give them file access or network access or even much memory. If it's a matter of top line speed then let the user decide-- sandbox by default and let the user have a switched labeled "open your mouth and close your eyes-- give me a tiny bit more speede in return for butt neckid security."
oooh good tip on the socket. That would take some of the sting out of buying this just to try it out.
I see that SSDs come in two flavors one comes in a box package like a hard drive and top out at 500MB/sec and then there's ones in a M.2 format that go 2000Mb/sec and look like they fit in a small slot. these aren't more expensive either. So I wonder why they arent's preferred (smaller and faster at the smae price-- duh?). What's the catch.
the other thing I'm pondering is heatsinks. I'm not sure how one decides what heat sink to get. It seems like there should be only two kinds. One which can keep the processor at full blast below 90C and ones that can't and therefore require the processor to take wait states. It's a fine point to worry if ten degrees cooler might be better or if you want to experimewnt with overclocking. I want neither of those. I just want something that runs in spec and full speed. But I don't see cooling heat sinks that just plain state "will handle the cooling needs of a Ryzen 1700 at full speed in most standard ITX cases" they just have a list of prices from 9 to $6o and then some really expensive ones beyond that.
Actually I'd love to hear your thoughts. I'm in the process of buying my first new desktop in years. Since I stopped configuring my own clusters I've mainly used laptops at home and whatever was on the purchase approved list at work. Now I'm buying a workstation class computer for home and don't know the best thing to do.
not sure what the difference is between an i7-7thGen and an i7-x99
I'm not averse to building my own up from a mini itx format but I am scared about not knowing the part comaptibility. the MagicMicro site seems to offer well configured systems close to the parts cost so I'm thinking it might be the way to go. I can't tell if the ali-express one is a deal or disaster. (the thing that's a warning sign about the ali-express model is the name of the GPU card. it's got the model number of an Invidia or AMD, but the brand name is "colorful" which sounds like it's a knockoff. )
well actually D) which is like C). I don't want got get into a situation where I have to carefully study all the archane nuances to get the best results. My time has value so I don't want to have to become an achitecture wizard just to do the rest of my job. I don't have my own IT dept.
Asking slashdot: Should I care at the software perfromance level if I have an AMD or an Intel.
it's been over a decade since I bought a big AMD cluster. I regretted that because I found that at that time in history while some code did run equally well on these that in general the software libraries for AMD just weren't tuned as well for these chips. Many optimizations not taken.
the main issue was that make files were just defaulting to x386 (this was pre ia64) and not special instructions. SIMD support wasn't there. And many libraries I had to use were pre-compiled to generic specs rather than optimized.
Likewise the compliers I used were faster with intel.
So I regreted that choice. I made it after carefully considering the benchmarks and raw perfromance stats. But later I understood that these benchmarking programs are the ones that got the attention for tuning and my own code would not achieve that.
Now it's a couple decades later. DOes this matter at all. SHould I not care if I have intel or AMD at the software level and just buy the computer that fits my current use patterns.
these days I'm not doing cluster work or writing much code but instead mainly blender and python and lots and lots of animation renders.
what does slashdot advise: if I see a cost difference should I risk AMD?
For years I would only buy Apple Wifi Hubs (air ports). THe rationale was simple: there was a built in mechanism to update the firmware. Your Mac computer would detect the firmware update was available and let you know. then you okayed the download and provisioning. While I might have paid $40 extra got get the airport over a cheaper alternative without that, I knew I was getting a great service and peace of mind. It also meant i didn't have to learn any new archane processes for monitoring every different router or worry the company would stop supplying updates for the "cheap" router I bought. Indeed you can never even tell if a cheap router is even upgradable.
Thus like the XKCD cartoon points out trying to unify standards is a temporary bussiness. But conversely it's a bussiness opportunity for companies that do provide peace of mind.
AMP is google dabbling in the microsoft originated corruption process known as Embrace and Extend. You take a standard and fully implement it, then add a few new features. You create huge incentives to use those features such as an IDE that doesn't distinguish between standard and non-standard HTML, and a browser that gets better performance when you use the new features. Pretty soon everyone inadvertently uses the features and all the other parts of the web break except for those using the google browser and google news feeds and google search. The competition and the general standard withers on the vine. You then keep introducing new features, and especially insidious ones, that gather information from users or are introduced ahead of their adequate documentation to stay one step ahead of other implementers. Finally you tie it to features only available on your system, such as the Microsoft OS, or to logged in google users.
We should try to create something like the internet superhighway but for cars:-)
Autonomous cars will be more successful if they can be partitioned away from the pesky human controlled cars. Creating special separted lanes for them would be a reasonable thing to do if we can assume that the flux in these lanes will rise or other benefits ensue (fewer accidents, more personal productivity leading to willingness to pay toll fees benefitting the highway system for everytone in return for not having to drive). If so then everyone, not just the elite early adopters of expensive self driving cars, will benefit from the special treatment of these vehicles in their own high bandwidth lanes.
later on, as these cars dominate, we can move toward integrated systems outside the highway sandboxes.
On the one hand I think this is foolish because somethings can be built more compactly and less robustly if the manufacturer knows they wont' have to insure against some fumble fingered tech breaking their gear trying to repair it. Some items arenaturally better when built that way (cell phones) but some are not (tractors). So a blanket restriction on the use of DRM or lack of parts sourcing to lock in repairs in some case is logical and some cases underhanded.
On the other hand they might embrace it if there were toothy laws that prohibited any import that was not backed by documentation and parts sourcing to reapir it.
all of a sudden only major manufacturers could sustain that burden at a minimal change in the cost of the product. This would disavantage the small run fly by night cell phone makers for example.
But they'd only do it if it was backed by import laws with force.
And in the end prices would have to go up probably more than you saved on repairs for disposable items.
OSX has had this feature for over a decade. It's not used a lot but you can use it. it's fairly simple to use too if you are computer savy.
It's called the sandbox. and it allows you to run an app such that there's a list of files, folders, network address, CPU levels, and all sorts of things it can or can't access.
you create a file in the sandbox direcory that might look like this
(allow file-write* file-read-data file-read-metadata
(regex "^/Users/user_name/[Directories it requires to write and read from]")
(regex "^/Applications/MyApp.app")
(regex "^(/private)?/tmp/"))
name that file something like ""myapp-sandbox-conf "
WHich is why Google is making its browser combat it.
I would love to be able to use this to pay websites if that meant either better content or less adverts. If my computer is a 100 watt computer then even going full blast for 10 hours it would be worth ten cents of electricity. (And since I heat my home with electricity actually no cost at all in winter).
While it's a horribly inefficient way to make a micropayment to a wed site, all micropayment systems tend to be very inefficient. So it's just one possible way to do micropayments.
And if I find it's tying up my computer then I just leave the web site.
The thing that might turn out nice here is that perhaps it will become a true stepping stone to a micropayment based low-advertising low-tracking world. Right now everyone avoids pay sites cause there's free stuff out there somewhere. But the real reason is I don't really want to limit my self to a few sites, so I can't just subscribe. One could imagine that there might be a way for sites to band together in the millions as collectives. I then pay $100 a year to the collective. The sites then get micropayments from the collective as their use meters. That I'd do.
But to get there we need to get the idea that you are always paying for the site. whther it's ads, tracking, selling your data, patreon, or subscriptions. you pay. We just need a better micropayment system to make it all homogeneous.
I read through the analysis. I was surprised to find that the server and client are both sharing the same password. Since the authentication is always assymetric (the client is authenticating to the server) it seems like the rational way to do this would be for the server to send the one time code encrypted in the client's public key. The client decodes it with a private key and then puts those numbers on the screen for the user to type into the web site wanting the authorization code.
the problem with that would be it would not work for SMS directly. But if the server is sending the message to an app it should work fine.
this way there is no database of private keys to steal.
think of them as a mutable biometric. it's biometric because its stored in your brain. It's mutable because you can change it. it can't actually be stolen from you if you don't give it up or write it down.
it's only when you go to transmit it that the problem occurs.
When you look at this this way, then you see that things like finger prints or retina have the same problems and worse. they are not mutable, they can be taken from you without you knowing it, and the transmission layer is still vulnerable
Nearly always, your first solution to a problem is the best one. Not always of course or there would be no need to research and study. But people have been using passwords for milennia because they are an effective tool that works from giving something to the sentry, to logging into google.
Slashdot Mirror
The Quantum is the smallest possible increment. Always remember that when someone tells you it's a quantum leap in performance.
If you never make a profit the bottom turtle collapses.
Want to know how they are achieving that low forward PE? Buying companies with low PE using their high PE stock. Thus dropping their High PE towards the company they purchased.
You can also create fake finger prints if you can get a good model print.
Anyone noticed that AVGO (broadcom stock symbol) has a PE ratio of 225-275 while Qualcom is near 20-30.
It's not that the offer isn't right, and based on qualcoms stock history it's about right, its that if they pay in stock instead of cash it's trading bad shares for good.
Seriously, and no joke, chromebooks disable the ME after boot.
I'm assuming these things happen because the USB device drivers load microcode from the USB device? If so why can't these things be sandboxed-- no reason to give them file access or network access or even much memory. If it's a matter of top line speed then let the user decide-- sandbox by default and let the user have a switched labeled "open your mouth and close your eyes-- give me a tiny bit more speede in return for butt neckid security."
Thanks again !
oooh good tip on the socket. That would take some of the sting out of buying this just to try it out.
I see that SSDs come in two flavors one comes in a box package like a hard drive and top out at 500MB/sec and then there's ones in a M.2 format that go 2000Mb/sec and look like they fit in a small slot. these aren't more expensive either. So I wonder why they arent's preferred (smaller and faster at the smae price-- duh?). What's the catch.
the other thing I'm pondering is heatsinks. I'm not sure how one decides what heat sink to get. It seems like there should be only two kinds. One which can keep the processor at full blast below 90C and ones that can't and therefore require the processor to take wait states. It's a fine point to worry if ten degrees cooler might be better or if you want to experimewnt with overclocking. I want neither of those. I just want something that runs in spec and full speed. But I don't see cooling heat sinks that just plain state "will handle the cooling needs of a Ryzen 1700 at full speed in most standard ITX cases" they just have a list of prices from 9 to $6o and then some really expensive ones beyond that.
Actually I'd love to hear your thoughts. I'm in the process of buying my first new desktop in years. Since I stopped configuring my own clusters I've mainly used laptops at home and whatever was on the purchase approved list at work. Now I'm buying a workstation class computer for home and don't know the best thing to do.
On my list are ryszen 7 and 5, and intel i7s.
here's an example of a couple I'm considering:
https://www.aliexpress.com/ite...
http://www.magicmicro.com/smor...
https://www.magicmicro.com/pri...
not sure what the difference is between an i7-7thGen and an i7-x99
I'm not averse to building my own up from a mini itx format but I am scared about not knowing the part comaptibility. the MagicMicro site seems to offer well configured systems close to the parts cost so I'm thinking it might be the way to go. I can't tell if the ali-express one is a deal or disaster. (the thing that's a warning sign about the ali-express model is the name of the GPU card. it's got the model number of an Invidia or AMD, but the brand name is "colorful" which sounds like it's a knockoff. )
well actually D) which is like C). I don't want got get into a situation where I have to carefully study all the archane nuances to get the best results. My time has value so I don't want to have to become an achitecture wizard just to do the rest of my job. I don't have my own IT dept.
Asking slashdot: Should I care at the software perfromance level if I have an AMD or an Intel.
it's been over a decade since I bought a big AMD cluster. I regretted that because I found that at that time in history while some code did run equally well on these that in general the software libraries for AMD just weren't tuned as well for these chips. Many optimizations not taken.
the main issue was that make files were just defaulting to x386 (this was pre ia64) and not special instructions. SIMD support wasn't there. And many libraries I had to use were pre-compiled to generic specs rather than optimized.
Likewise the compliers I used were faster with intel.
So I regreted that choice. I made it after carefully considering the benchmarks and raw perfromance stats. But later I understood that these benchmarking programs are the ones that got the attention for tuning and my own code would not achieve that.
Now it's a couple decades later. DOes this matter at all. SHould I not care if I have intel or AMD at the software level and just buy the computer that fits my current use patterns.
these days I'm not doing cluster work or writing much code but instead mainly blender and python and lots and lots of animation renders.
what does slashdot advise: if I see a cost difference should I risk AMD?
No he took it all out in Amazon Gift cards. Who needs bit coin as an alt-currency when you can print your own if you are jeff bezos.
Since Sierra my computer started replacing all double spaces with a period. Gahhhh!!!
turns out this is a checkbox option in the Preferences>keyboard>text setting in OSX.
why would that be an important optimization. It's not even fewer keystrokes and almost never ever something you would want to rely on. ever.
Anyhow that same preference pane tab is where you turn off smart quotes and keep slashdot from changing your apostrophes to catastrophes.
For years I would only buy Apple Wifi Hubs (air ports). THe rationale was simple: there was a built in mechanism to update the firmware. Your Mac computer would detect the firmware update was available and let you know. then you okayed the download and provisioning. While I might have paid $40 extra got get the airport over a cheaper alternative without that, I knew I was getting a great service and peace of mind. It also meant i didn't have to learn any new archane processes for monitoring every different router or worry the company would stop supplying updates for the "cheap" router I bought. Indeed you can never even tell if a cheap router is even upgradable.
Thus like the XKCD cartoon points out trying to unify standards is a temporary bussiness. But conversely it's a bussiness opportunity for companies that do provide peace of mind.
AMP is google dabbling in the microsoft originated corruption process known as Embrace and Extend. You take a standard and fully implement it, then add a few new features. You create huge incentives to use those features such as an IDE that doesn't distinguish between standard and non-standard HTML, and a browser that gets better performance when you use the new features. Pretty soon everyone inadvertently uses the features and all the other parts of the web break except for those using the google browser and google news feeds and google search. The competition and the general standard withers on the vine. You then keep introducing new features, and especially insidious ones, that gather information from users or are introduced ahead of their adequate documentation to stay one step ahead of other implementers. Finally you tie it to features only available on your system, such as the Microsoft OS, or to logged in google users.
2. profit.
there is no ??? step in embrace and extend.
Does this also mean they can "unlock" the soft-locked downgrades on the cheaper processor series to make them full strength?
So if the management engine isn't actually necessary what actually does it provide?
Is this new one open source? or have we met the new boss, same as the old boss?
What country is Purism based in or owned by?
We should try to create something like the internet superhighway but for cars :-)
Autonomous cars will be more successful if they can be partitioned away from the pesky human controlled cars. Creating special separted lanes for them would be a reasonable thing to do if we can assume that the flux in these lanes will rise or other benefits ensue (fewer accidents, more personal productivity leading to willingness to pay toll fees benefitting the highway system for everytone in return for not having to drive). If so then everyone, not just the elite early adopters of expensive self driving cars, will benefit from the special treatment of these vehicles in their own high bandwidth lanes.
later on, as these cars dominate, we can move toward integrated systems outside the highway sandboxes.
On the one hand I think this is foolish because somethings can be built more compactly and less robustly if the manufacturer knows they wont' have to insure against some fumble fingered tech breaking their gear trying to repair it. Some items arenaturally better when built that way (cell phones) but some are not (tractors). So a blanket restriction on the use of DRM or lack of parts sourcing to lock in repairs in some case is logical and some cases underhanded.
On the other hand they might embrace it if there were toothy laws that prohibited any import that was not backed by documentation and parts sourcing to reapir it.
all of a sudden only major manufacturers could sustain that burden at a minimal change in the cost of the product. This would disavantage the small run fly by night cell phone makers for example.
But they'd only do it if it was backed by import laws with force.
And in the end prices would have to go up probably more than you saved on repairs for disposable items.
One coin to rule them all.
OSX has had this feature for over a decade. It's not used a lot but you can use it. it's fairly simple to use too if you are computer savy.
It's called the sandbox. and it allows you to run an app such that there's a list of files, folders, network address, CPU levels, and all sorts of things it can or can't access.
you create a file in the sandbox direcory that might look like this
(allow file-write* file-read-data file-read-metadata
(regex "^/Users/user_name/[Directories it requires to write and read from]")
(regex "^/Applications/MyApp.app")
(regex "^(/private)?/tmp/"))
name that file something like ""myapp-sandbox-conf "
then launch any app with that wrapper like this:
sandbox-exec -f myapp-sandbox-conf /Applications/MyApp.app/Contents/MacOS/MyApp-bin
WHich is why Google is making its browser combat it.
I would love to be able to use this to pay websites if that meant either better content or less adverts. If my computer is a 100 watt computer then even going full blast for 10 hours it would be worth ten cents of electricity. (And since I heat my home with electricity actually no cost at all in winter).
While it's a horribly inefficient way to make a micropayment to a wed site, all micropayment systems tend to be very inefficient. So it's just one possible way to do micropayments.
And if I find it's tying up my computer then I just leave the web site.
The thing that might turn out nice here is that perhaps it will become a true stepping stone to a micropayment based low-advertising low-tracking world. Right now everyone avoids pay sites cause there's free stuff out there somewhere. But the real reason is I don't really want to limit my self to a few sites, so I can't just subscribe. One could imagine that there might be a way for sites to band together in the millions as collectives. I then pay $100 a year to the collective. The sites then get micropayments from the collective as their use meters. That I'd do.
But to get there we need to get the idea that you are always paying for the site. whther it's ads, tracking, selling your data, patreon, or subscriptions. you pay. We just need a better micropayment system to make it all homogeneous.
this might be a step in that direction.
google should be afraid.
I read through the analysis. I was surprised to find that the server and client are both sharing the same password. Since the authentication is always assymetric (the client is authenticating to the server) it seems like the rational way to do this would be for the server to send the one time code encrypted in the client's public key. The client decodes it with a private key and then puts those numbers on the screen for the user to type into the web site wanting the authorization code.
the problem with that would be it would not work for SMS directly. But if the server is sending the message to an app it should work fine.
this way there is no database of private keys to steal.
why don't they do it that way?
people who post to slashdot from iphones and such get all of their apostrophes turned into å(TM)t â(TM)t
THis is 2017, it's possible to parse plain text and unicode correctly now I have read.
think of them as a mutable biometric. it's biometric because its stored in your brain. It's mutable because you can change it. it can't actually be stolen from you if you don't give it up or write it down.
it's only when you go to transmit it that the problem occurs.
When you look at this this way, then you see that things like finger prints or retina have the same problems and worse. they are not mutable, they can be taken from you without you knowing it, and the transmission layer is still vulnerable
Nearly always, your first solution to a problem is the best one. Not always of course or there would be no need to research and study. But people have been using passwords for milennia because they are an effective tool that works from giving something to the sentry, to logging into google.