Ouch! Seriously bad. Worse than the Pentium FPU bug (and that's bad). What good is a computer if you can't rely on the data being committed back to disk because of corruption mid-flight in RAM?!
It apparently only happens if you read the same bytes from RAM 139,000 times in 64 milliseconds. If your program is doing that, you probably have a lot more to worry about than disk corruption.
If this was actually happening in the real world, computers would probably be crashing every few minutes.
No. These are standard instructions that many apps require to function correctly when using multiple threads.
Can you explain when you'd need to flush the cache when using multiple threads? You'd have to flush the cache back to RAM (isn't that a privileged instruction?), invalidate it, then read the data back from RAM. That's surely insanely slow compared to just using the CPU's internal cache coherency mechanisms?
Economic inequality is just getting back to its historical levels.
If I remember correctly, the historical norm is that 20% of people have about 80% of the wealth. It's worse than that today because the government steal so much money from the middle class (or just print it) to give to the rich.
But, hey, elect more Liberals, they'll sort it out. Ha-ha.
Liberals tend to believe that one of the government's jobs is to make things better for the jobless, the disenfranchised, the dispossessed, the poor, the hungry, and the downtrodden, so he's pushed programs that aim to help such folks.
You're funny. If Liberal policies really stopped those folks being disenfranchised, dispossessed, poor, hungry and downtrodden... they'd stop voting Liberal. That's why the real-world policies are designed to entrap those foilks into dependency on the Glorious Liberal State, so they'll keep voting for the politicians who are supposedly 'helping' them.
I watched the reboots, but I honestly don't remember anything about them, except there was some time travel stuff and that guy from Shaun Of The Dead. And I think there was lens flare. But I may be imaginging that.
Everything else was just Generic Hollywood Movie Of The Weekend.
The free market gives people what they want. If there was money to be made selling pre-censored Internet, the service would exist.
But, no, you and Dave say, since the service doesn't exist, companies must be forced to create it, and the vast majority who don't want Davenet must be forced to pay for the few who do.
Why do you want to remove the choice from those 4%?
Those people are free to install filters on their PC or router, or find an ISP that will filter the Internet for them. You're the one forcing your 'choice' on the other 96%, and making them pay for other peoples' choices.
And we know how this goes. We've seen it all before. When it turns out that almost no-one has switched from the Internet to Davenet, you and Dave will announce that 'The Internet is not safe for CHILDRUN!' and now the filter will have to be compulsory. Right?
Which is pretty clear proof that pretty much no-one wants their Internet pre-censored.
David Cameron pushed the market into providing such a service.
And, last I read, something like 4% of people had chosen to have their Internet censored. They're probably the ones who clicked 'Yes' by mistake, thinking it meant 'Yes, I want the Internet, not Davenet'.
Ah well, good thing you've elected people who know what's best for your intellectually inferior populace.
Britain has three parties with insignificant differences. So at least voters have slightly more choice than America, where there are two parties with insignificant differences.
Both Tories and Labour are censorious asshats. No-one knows whether the Lib Dems are the same, because they change policies as soon as they get any power.
Oh so suddenly government inefficiencies are OK when they shovel money your way?
Are you saying the government would be more efficient if they set up the National Courier Agency to deliver their parcels, instead of paying a few bucks to Fedex each time? Or that Fedex becomes less efficient if it gets business from the government?
If NASA is going to operate ISS, it should do so at the lowest cost to taxpayers. Which comes from buying the cheapest launch services on the open market, not from building a rocket of their own that flies once or twice a year.
So are you actually claiming that governments didn't block Concorde by banning supersonic overflights, or what?
Hint: that's REALITY. Who paid for those supersonic aircraft is irrelevant, when you're claiming that we can't go into space because we don't have supersonic airline flights. We don't have supersonic airline flights because governments banned them on many of the most profitable routes.
I think you meant to say 'Governments have managed to brainwash people into doing and believing things that are against their self-interest, for the greater glory of the governments.'
After all, it's government that gets to keep every kid in a multi-billion dollar brainwashing industry for most of the first twenty years of their life.
Maybe, just maybe, if the USPS wasn't required to prepay the retirement benefits for employees who haven't even been born yet (and their children who may become postal workers), they'd be able to make a profit.
Not when those payments account for a fraction of their losses.
The same old left-wing talking points get so tiresome after a while.
And I'm pretty sure there's already plenty of material at hand with which to make clubs and shivs with minimal effort.
Rather pointless to worry about, since the Russians have a gun in every Soyuz. A Soyuz launch abort is likely to end up dumping you in a forest full of wolves and bears, not a beach in the Bahamas.
We don't even have supersonic passenger flight right here on Earth, and that engineering was solved 40 years ago.
Well, duh. That's because governments banned supersonic overflights of their territory, and left few financially-viable routes that could be flown at high speed.
Supersonic airliners aren't an engineering problem, they're a political problem.
They do when they're forced to pay for pensions for people not even born yet!
Pre-funding pensions and benefits only accounted for about a third of the losses, last I checked. They'd still be losing billions a year, regardless.
And the continual losses kind of reinforce the fact that it should be pre-funding pensions so the money will be there to fund them after it goes out of business.
The thread is populated by leftists, whose entire ideology is based around the industrial revolution. They can't even conceive of a post-industrial world, because it would put them out of business.
And, yes, the transition to digital and home manufacturing will make the cost of living implode. If I don't need piles of DVDs and books, because it's all just bits on a hard drive, I don't need rooms to store them. If I can build most of the things I need on a 3D printer when I need them, I don't need to keep many things at all around when I'm not using them. I may not even need a house at all.
But, no, rather than deal with reality, the leftists fantasize about the GLORIOUS WORKERS RISING UP TO SEIZE THE ROBOT FACTORIES FROM THE EVIL 1%!
Which is why anyone of clue should just laugh at them. Who needs the Glorious People's Resource Allocation Committee telling them what to do when they have a 3D printer in their garage?
The real story here is automation putting leftists out of a job.
Slashdot Mirror
Ouch! Seriously bad. Worse than the Pentium FPU bug (and that's bad). What good is a computer if you can't rely on the data being committed back to disk because of corruption mid-flight in RAM?!
It apparently only happens if you read the same bytes from RAM 139,000 times in 64 milliseconds. If your program is doing that, you probably have a lot more to worry about than disk corruption.
If this was actually happening in the real world, computers would probably be crashing every few minutes.
No. These are standard instructions that many apps require to function correctly when using multiple threads.
Can you explain when you'd need to flush the cache when using multiple threads? You'd have to flush the cache back to RAM (isn't that a privileged instruction?), invalidate it, then read the data back from RAM. That's surely insanely slow compared to just using the CPU's internal cache coherency mechanisms?
This gives you a way to affect RAM outside of a sandbox.
Only if the sandbox lets you repeatedly access memory and flush the cache between accesses, and you happen to know where your data is in physical RAM.
Economic inequality is just getting back to its historical levels.
If I remember correctly, the historical norm is that 20% of people have about 80% of the wealth. It's worse than that today because the government steal so much money from the middle class (or just print it) to give to the rich.
But, hey, elect more Liberals, they'll sort it out. Ha-ha.
Liberals tend to believe that one of the government's jobs is to make things better for the jobless, the disenfranchised, the dispossessed, the poor, the hungry, and the downtrodden, so he's pushed programs that aim to help such folks.
You're funny. If Liberal policies really stopped those folks being disenfranchised, dispossessed, poor, hungry and downtrodden... they'd stop voting Liberal. That's why the real-world policies are designed to entrap those foilks into dependency on the Glorious Liberal State, so they'll keep voting for the politicians who are supposedly 'helping' them.
But in the Star Trek world, what would human bad guys do? Steal stuff? Why? Just replicate whatever you want - There's no money.
So Kirk didn't have to steal the Enterprise in... whatever movie that was.. he could just have replicated it?
Why use the "Star Trek" name if you aren't going to use the Star Trek universe or anything along the themes it carried for decades?
$$$$$$$$$$$$$ (I would have put more, but Slashdot believes the dollar sign is a 'junk character')
'Star Trek' on the poster sells better than 'Generic Sci-Fi Action Movie #57'
I anxiously await the Michael Bay version of "Hamlet" or the Justin Lin version of "Macbeth".
I would actually pay to see those.
Just not very much.
I watched the reboots, but I honestly don't remember anything about them, except there was some time travel stuff and that guy from Shaun Of The Dead. And I think there was lens flare. But I may be imaginging that.
Everything else was just Generic Hollywood Movie Of The Weekend.
Only if the free market works perfectly.
The free market gives people what they want. If there was money to be made selling pre-censored Internet, the service would exist.
But, no, you and Dave say, since the service doesn't exist, companies must be forced to create it, and the vast majority who don't want Davenet must be forced to pay for the few who do.
Why do you want to remove the choice from those 4%?
Those people are free to install filters on their PC or router, or find an ISP that will filter the Internet for them. You're the one forcing your 'choice' on the other 96%, and making them pay for other peoples' choices.
And we know how this goes. We've seen it all before. When it turns out that almost no-one has switched from the Internet to Davenet, you and Dave will announce that 'The Internet is not safe for CHILDRUN!' and now the filter will have to be compulsory. Right?
We tried. No suitable product became available.
Which is pretty clear proof that pretty much no-one wants their Internet pre-censored.
David Cameron pushed the market into providing such a service.
And, last I read, something like 4% of people had chosen to have their Internet censored. They're probably the ones who clicked 'Yes' by mistake, thinking it meant 'Yes, I want the Internet, not Davenet'.
Ah well, good thing you've elected people who know what's best for your intellectually inferior populace.
Britain has three parties with insignificant differences. So at least voters have slightly more choice than America, where there are two parties with insignificant differences.
Both Tories and Labour are censorious asshats. No-one knows whether the Lib Dems are the same, because they change policies as soon as they get any power.
It turns out the author used the minus sign instead of the hyphen.
Hint: probably 99% of all ebooks on Amazon use a minus sign instead of a hyphen, because the hyphen doesn't exist on most (all?) keyboards.
Oh so suddenly government inefficiencies are OK when they shovel money your way?
Are you saying the government would be more efficient if they set up the National Courier Agency to deliver their parcels, instead of paying a few bucks to Fedex each time? Or that Fedex becomes less efficient if it gets business from the government?
If NASA is going to operate ISS, it should do so at the lowest cost to taxpayers. Which comes from buying the cheapest launch services on the open market, not from building a rocket of their own that flies once or twice a year.
Really? Are they expected to walk home, or does their abort not include the capsule?
After the one actual Soyuz launch abort, rescuers took nearly a day to locate and reach the crew.
So are you actually claiming that governments didn't block Concorde by banning supersonic overflights, or what?
Hint: that's REALITY. Who paid for those supersonic aircraft is irrelevant, when you're claiming that we can't go into space because we don't have supersonic airline flights. We don't have supersonic airline flights because governments banned them on many of the most profitable routes.
I think you meant to say 'Governments have managed to brainwash people into doing and believing things that are against their self-interest, for the greater glory of the governments.'
After all, it's government that gets to keep every kid in a multi-billion dollar brainwashing industry for most of the first twenty years of their life.
Oh, sorry, is this the Anti-Space Nutter Nutter again? I didn't realize you were also the Anti-Supersonic AIrliner Nutter.
Maybe, just maybe, if the USPS wasn't required to prepay the retirement benefits for employees who haven't even been born yet (and their children who may become postal workers), they'd be able to make a profit.
Not when those payments account for a fraction of their losses.
The same old left-wing talking points get so tiresome after a while.
And I'm pretty sure there's already plenty of material at hand with which to make clubs and shivs with minimal effort.
Rather pointless to worry about, since the Russians have a gun in every Soyuz. A Soyuz launch abort is likely to end up dumping you in a forest full of wolves and bears, not a beach in the Bahamas.
NASA also does a bunch of good stuff with Earth observing satellites.
And JWST is now more than a decade late, and several hundred percent overbudget, sucking up most of the money in the unmanned spaceflight budget.
We don't even have supersonic passenger flight right here on Earth, and that engineering was solved 40 years ago.
Well, duh. That's because governments banned supersonic overflights of their territory, and left few financially-viable routes that could be flown at high speed.
Supersonic airliners aren't an engineering problem, they're a political problem.
Tax money DOES go to SpaceX. 1.6 Billion for 12 flights to the ISS.
Yeah, and? I'm guessing the government pays Fedex and/or UPS to deliver stuff on Earth, too.
Last I looked, most of SpaceX's upcoming business was from private organizations, not governments.
They do when they're forced to pay for pensions for people not even born yet!
Pre-funding pensions and benefits only accounted for about a third of the losses, last I checked. They'd still be losing billions a year, regardless.
And the continual losses kind of reinforce the fact that it should be pre-funding pensions so the money will be there to fund them after it goes out of business.
The thread is populated by leftists, whose entire ideology is based around the industrial revolution. They can't even conceive of a post-industrial world, because it would put them out of business.
And, yes, the transition to digital and home manufacturing will make the cost of living implode. If I don't need piles of DVDs and books, because it's all just bits on a hard drive, I don't need rooms to store them. If I can build most of the things I need on a 3D printer when I need them, I don't need to keep many things at all around when I'm not using them. I may not even need a house at all.
But, no, rather than deal with reality, the leftists fantasize about the GLORIOUS WORKERS RISING UP TO SEIZE THE ROBOT FACTORIES FROM THE EVIL 1%!
Which is why anyone of clue should just laugh at them. Who needs the Glorious People's Resource Allocation Committee telling them what to do when they have a 3D printer in their garage?
The real story here is automation putting leftists out of a job.