You should mean the M series, because there is a lot more to it than PM and variable clock, something the regular Pentium line has had for years.
Read this article and you'll realize just how much went into it.
I think what he is saying is that most exploits are done using known vulnerabilities for which a patch has been released.
The action of releasing a patch is usually the same as announcing the vulnerability. If the vulnerability exists, and there is no patch for it, it can go unnoticed, and hence unexploited.
Once a patch exists, the vulnerability can be exploited on systems that aren't patched. Since historically patching has been lax, announcing a patch and the vulnerability it prevents can be dangerous.
We're over budget and behind schedule because of the Russianas. It isn't a good jumping off point because of the Russians. We can't get up there right now because guess who doesn't have their own Shuttle? The Russians. Who wants us to prioritize the ISS over other space endeavors? That's right...the Russians.
I've been keeping up on this mission and checking the news and pictures and anything else that floats my way, but I'm starting to realize something:
Mars is boring.
It's about as interesting as the moon, just twice the diameter and with a little bit of atmosphere as a result. Even if we do find bacteria or the remains thereof, so what?
Anyone that isn't a religious nut can come to the conclusion pretty easily that life in some form is out there in all probability.
I came up with the idea of a portable, wireless terminal that transmitted the KVM signals to and from your desktop PC about ten years ago for an 8th grade science project...
I got a 'C'.
What? Not dead int he least, just young.
on
Is Bluetooth Dead?
·
· Score: 1
How long did USB take to pick up? How long did you have those useless connectors on your system, with nothing to plug into them?
802.11 is a poor substitue for Bluetooth, because of its much higher power requirements. Bluetooth was designed for what it does: provide low speed, low power, peripheral linking.
Just because the author doesn't see a use for wireless gizmos doesn't mean they aren't going to pick up. I like the idea of a standard protocol that can allow my phone to talk to my PDA, to my computer, allow presence detection by the environment to control automated devices, etc. The sues of Bluetooth are many, and if the author doesn't see it, he's missing the train.
Give it another year, maybe two. Then you'll see Bluetooth with its foot in the door and flexing its muscle. We won't see its value until then.
Where do you people work that you have users that have time to reinstall the OS on their desktop machines?
Where I work there are a few factors preventing this sort of thing. First, people have actual work to do, and don't have time to be reinstalling their software. Second, we have a lot of custom apps that require Windows. I'm sure you might argue that there are functional equivalents, but you'd be wrong. Call Center software, cellular radio equipment, mapping software... None of it has anything similar on Linux. Finally, most of the users here have difficulty plugging in a keyboard. I wish they had the savvy to understand what an OS is, even the ones that are fond of telling us they "know a lot about computers".
I don't really need to worry though: the desktops for regular users don't have CD-ROMs.
Personally I am looking forward to the release of this system from here. It doesn't have full specs, but it does include a power supply that monitors the input signals from the car and can perform power management functions.
I have been looking into this for a while, and the one linked does seem nice, and the same company makes some higher end models in case 266MHz isn't enough.
I agree that our understanding of gravity may be flawed, but bearing in mind that I am not a physicist, I suggest another possiblity:
What if there are objects with mass at very-near-light speeds?
Relativity tells us that as an object approaches the speed of light, its mass increases. As mass increases, so must gravity. A collection of these objects in orbit of one another at the center of a galaxy might be enough to explain the missing mass, because the objects are tiny and due to their intense gravity do not reflect light (like a black hole)
Actual physicists, I would be interested to know if this theory is basically flawed or theoretically possible.
Having read the article, I feel insulted. I'm an "IT person" and the fact of the matter is that the end users are not some kind of "extroverted and intuitive" person that I just need to listen to more. If they were extroverted and intuitive then maybe their explanations of what they did to their computer would make sense.
I pride myself on being a good listener and handholding users through change that they are often ill-equipped to handle, but the author of the article implies that I need to become more proficient at understanding things like "when I clicked on it it wouldn't do anything, and then all my icons were gone, ever since you replaced my screen". I may be analytical but I'm not a mind reader.
It is true that computers started up faster twenty years ago, but I have never met a user that wasn't happy to get a new computer ("It's so much faster!"). I also meet many users wondering when we'll be upgrading to this that or the other thing because new software does more. There isn't some vast majority of users saying "bring back DOS, take away my mouse, why do I have to use IE5.5 rather than Netscape Navigator Gold?".
These brilliant journalists that are reduced to babbling because they don't understand software most likely also cannot program a VCR, set presets on their radio, or master even the most basic of computer concepts like single-click versus double-click versus right-click. The computer would have to be HAL-9000 to be able to figure out what they wanted it to do.
Here's a quick history lesson:
Netscape: King among browsers for any operating system.
Then Microsoft comes out with a good browser that is free.
Netscape is forced to make their $30 product a $0 product to "compete" despite the fact they do not profit from OS sales.
Netscape is eaten by a company that can afford a $0 product, but development is stagnant for years because there is no profit model.
Microsoft wins the browser war. It takes five years for a new version of Netscape and it was made by people working for free.
The free software community better start working on a video codec now, because unless something prevents history from repeating itself, MPEG isn't looking so good about now.
Here's the final kicker: if Free Software doesn't incorporate DRM into their product, content producers won't use it. There's some irony for you.
We still have a number of NT4 servers. Whine as might about Windows security and stability, our servers run fine.
Microsoft needs to push this off so they can actually come up with a compelling reason for anyone to want to upgrade. When their licensing is set up so you pay thousands of dollars for the software and thousands more for the seats, coming up with a reason to buy should be somewhere on their priority list.
If what I read is true, they're planning on building a database filesystem off of the SQL engine. That's something that might be useful, as opposed to.WHOTHEHELLCARES
"...but are stuck with AGP 4X and ATA/100 support."
Stuck with? AGP 8x and ATA/133 are very marginal improvements in most situations. Stuck with would have been having AGP 8x, ATA/133, and DDR266.
Most of the other IT Workers in my department aren't geeks, so there isn't much we have in common. Also, I'm a great deal younger than them, and so again, there is a social divide there. We've done after work things as a department, but those were more teambuilding events than genuine social activities.
If there were a fellow geek I had stuff in common with, I'd hang out with them. The closest thing to that in my department is at another location sixty miles away.
Heh, yeah I used to work for UPS at a hub, loading trucks.
First of all, you have no idea that volume and rate at which these things get loaded. They expectation is that the package will arrive at the belt, get scanned by the loaded and then carefully placed into a 'tier' in the truck. A tier is a structured stack of boxes. You go through a training process called "cornerstone" that teaches you how to do it.
Unfortunately, there is simply way more boxes at a timethan can be tiered properly. I was one of the better loaders, but most employees are hired based on meeting the beating heartbeat requirements. UPS has incredible churn and will hire anyone. The work is extremely hard.
The end result is that boxes are thrown, stepped on, dropped, squeezed into two small spaces, kicked, and beaten. A computer should have a solid five or six inches of foam around it to survive, and the cardboard should be very thick. Look at the boxes that the manufacturers use. They don't use them because they are paranoid, they use them because that is the cheapest box that will get it there safely, and those boxes aren't cheap.
Writing fragile on the side is going to do nothing at all for your box. On a slow day it may get unusual treatment (good or bad) but normally there just isn't time. When there's an avalanche of packages coming down the chute, and you're expected to scan them all before stacking them, everything else is unimportant.
If you look at both videos, the thing to notice is that Tom's tests were done using VIA chipsets, whereas AMD's tests were done with AMD chipsets. There is NO discrepency here. VIA's chipset is to blame because it doesn't shut down the system!
Go back and watch again. I think this makes far more sense. AMD would not publish a video that was outright forged, they would be silent on the matter. Tom would not gain anything by publishing misleading data.
Slashdot Mirror
You will pay the price for your lack of vision.
You should mean the M series, because there is a lot more to it than PM and variable clock, something the regular Pentium line has had for years. Read this article and you'll realize just how much went into it.
I think what he is saying is that most exploits are done using known vulnerabilities for which a patch has been released.
The action of releasing a patch is usually the same as announcing the vulnerability. If the vulnerability exists, and there is no patch for it, it can go unnoticed, and hence unexploited.
Once a patch exists, the vulnerability can be exploited on systems that aren't patched. Since historically patching has been lax, announcing a patch and the vulnerability it prevents can be dangerous.
We're over budget and behind schedule because of the Russianas. It isn't a good jumping off point because of the Russians. We can't get up there right now because guess who doesn't have their own Shuttle? The Russians. Who wants us to prioritize the ISS over other space endeavors? That's right...the Russians.
Looks like even then they were outsourcing technical writing to non-native English speakers.
I've been keeping up on this mission and checking the news and pictures and anything else that floats my way, but I'm starting to realize something:
Mars is boring.
It's about as interesting as the moon, just twice the diameter and with a little bit of atmosphere as a result. Even if we do find bacteria or the remains thereof, so what?
Anyone that isn't a religious nut can come to the conclusion pretty easily that life in some form is out there in all probability.
I came up with the idea of a portable, wireless terminal that transmitted the KVM signals to and from your desktop PC about ten years ago for an 8th grade science project...
I got a 'C'.
How long did USB take to pick up? How long did you have those useless connectors on your system, with nothing to plug into them?
802.11 is a poor substitue for Bluetooth, because of its much higher power requirements. Bluetooth was designed for what it does: provide low speed, low power, peripheral linking.
Just because the author doesn't see a use for wireless gizmos doesn't mean they aren't going to pick up. I like the idea of a standard protocol that can allow my phone to talk to my PDA, to my computer, allow presence detection by the environment to control automated devices, etc. The sues of Bluetooth are many, and if the author doesn't see it, he's missing the train.
Give it another year, maybe two. Then you'll see Bluetooth with its foot in the door and flexing its muscle. We won't see its value until then.
Where do you people work that you have users that have time to reinstall the OS on their desktop machines?
Where I work there are a few factors preventing this sort of thing. First, people have actual work to do, and don't have time to be reinstalling their software. Second, we have a lot of custom apps that require Windows. I'm sure you might argue that there are functional equivalents, but you'd be wrong. Call Center software, cellular radio equipment, mapping software... None of it has anything similar on Linux. Finally, most of the users here have difficulty plugging in a keyboard. I wish they had the savvy to understand what an OS is, even the ones that are fond of telling us they "know a lot about computers".
I don't really need to worry though: the desktops for regular users don't have CD-ROMs.
Personally I am looking forward to the release of this system from here. It doesn't have full specs, but it does include a power supply that monitors the input signals from the car and can perform power management functions.
I have been looking into this for a while, and the one linked does seem nice, and the same company makes some higher end models in case 266MHz isn't enough.
I agree that our understanding of gravity may be flawed, but bearing in mind that I am not a physicist, I suggest another possiblity:
What if there are objects with mass at very-near-light speeds?
Relativity tells us that as an object approaches the speed of light, its mass increases. As mass increases, so must gravity. A collection of these objects in orbit of one another at the center of a galaxy might be enough to explain the missing mass, because the objects are tiny and due to their intense gravity do not reflect light (like a black hole)
Actual physicists, I would be interested to know if this theory is basically flawed or theoretically possible.
Anyone remember Penny's computer book?
I wonder if this one can unlock doors, remotely drive cars, and perform facial recognition to reveal MAD agents?
"This is a Unix system ... I know this!"
(girl from Jurassic Park)
Having read the article, I feel insulted. I'm an "IT person" and the fact of the matter is that the end users are not some kind of "extroverted and intuitive" person that I just need to listen to more. If they were extroverted and intuitive then maybe their explanations of what they did to their computer would make sense.
I pride myself on being a good listener and handholding users through change that they are often ill-equipped to handle, but the author of the article implies that I need to become more proficient at understanding things like "when I clicked on it it wouldn't do anything, and then all my icons were gone, ever since you replaced my screen". I may be analytical but I'm not a mind reader.
It is true that computers started up faster twenty years ago, but I have never met a user that wasn't happy to get a new computer ("It's so much faster!"). I also meet many users wondering when we'll be upgrading to this that or the other thing because new software does more. There isn't some vast majority of users saying "bring back DOS, take away my mouse, why do I have to use IE5.5 rather than Netscape Navigator Gold?".
These brilliant journalists that are reduced to babbling because they don't understand software most likely also cannot program a VCR, set presets on their radio, or master even the most basic of computer concepts like single-click versus double-click versus right-click. The computer would have to be HAL-9000 to be able to figure out what they wanted it to do.
Here's a quick history lesson: Netscape: King among browsers for any operating system. Then Microsoft comes out with a good browser that is free. Netscape is forced to make their $30 product a $0 product to "compete" despite the fact they do not profit from OS sales. Netscape is eaten by a company that can afford a $0 product, but development is stagnant for years because there is no profit model. Microsoft wins the browser war. It takes five years for a new version of Netscape and it was made by people working for free. The free software community better start working on a video codec now, because unless something prevents history from repeating itself, MPEG isn't looking so good about now. Here's the final kicker: if Free Software doesn't incorporate DRM into their product, content producers won't use it. There's some irony for you.
We still have a number of NT4 servers. Whine as might about Windows security and stability, our servers run fine. Microsoft needs to push this off so they can actually come up with a compelling reason for anyone to want to upgrade. When their licensing is set up so you pay thousands of dollars for the software and thousands more for the seats, coming up with a reason to buy should be somewhere on their priority list. If what I read is true, they're planning on building a database filesystem off of the SQL engine. That's something that might be useful, as opposed to .WHOTHEHELLCARES
"...but are stuck with AGP 4X and ATA/100 support." Stuck with? AGP 8x and ATA/133 are very marginal improvements in most situations. Stuck with would have been having AGP 8x, ATA/133, and DDR266.
Unix may have been around for 30 years, but I still consider it more modern than OS 9. I mean how modern can an OS be if it doesn't even have ping?
Hey! Why is this modded down? This is accurate, not Piers Xanth-ony. How about we mod down the guy that's wrong?!
I found it ammusing that a case could be made that Jar Jar is responsible for the fall of the entire Republic.
Milwaukee has had its 'Domes' for many years.
There are three linked domes each containing a different ecosystem and open to the public for touring.
It is called the Mitchell Park Horticultural Conservatory, and they began construction in 1959.
Link
All those folks wanting a new G4 or G5 tower will have to wait. The iLamp is almost as fast and costs less.
Most of the other IT Workers in my department aren't geeks, so there isn't much we have in common. Also, I'm a great deal younger than them, and so again, there is a social divide there. We've done after work things as a department, but those were more teambuilding events than genuine social activities.
If there were a fellow geek I had stuff in common with, I'd hang out with them. The closest thing to that in my department is at another location sixty miles away.
Heh, yeah I used to work for UPS at a hub, loading trucks.
First of all, you have no idea that volume and rate at which these things get loaded. They expectation is that the package will arrive at the belt, get scanned by the loaded and then carefully placed into a 'tier' in the truck. A tier is a structured stack of boxes. You go through a training process called "cornerstone" that teaches you how to do it.
Unfortunately, there is simply way more boxes at a timethan can be tiered properly. I was one of the better loaders, but most employees are hired based on meeting the beating heartbeat requirements. UPS has incredible churn and will hire anyone. The work is extremely hard.
The end result is that boxes are thrown, stepped on, dropped, squeezed into two small spaces, kicked, and beaten. A computer should have a solid five or six inches of foam around it to survive, and the cardboard should be very thick. Look at the boxes that the manufacturers use. They don't use them because they are paranoid, they use them because that is the cheapest box that will get it there safely, and those boxes aren't cheap.
Writing fragile on the side is going to do nothing at all for your box. On a slow day it may get unusual treatment (good or bad) but normally there just isn't time. When there's an avalanche of packages coming down the chute, and you're expected to scan them all before stacking them, everything else is unimportant.
If you look at both videos, the thing to notice is that Tom's tests were done using VIA chipsets, whereas AMD's tests were done with AMD chipsets. There is NO discrepency here. VIA's chipset is to blame because it doesn't shut down the system!
Go back and watch again. I think this makes far more sense. AMD would not publish a video that was outright forged, they would be silent on the matter. Tom would not gain anything by publishing misleading data.
THE PROBLEM IS THE DIFFERENT CHIPSETS USED.