Another interesting question is the risk of bugs in that engine that might infect other applications as well. If the same engine is used in multiple platforms this may mean that malware may be more successful than expected.
Well, since Microsoft ignores hosts for some addresses it may not work in all cases. Some sites shares host when it comes to wanted and unwanted content too.
And the only reason IBM is alive today is that they have the banks and large corporations in their hands through their Cobol systems. Those systems are expensive as heck to run and when the large corporations and banks starts to realize that they are overcharged then they will migrate to other solutions.
Banks are probably going to be the last hold-out for IBM Cobol systems because few people, if anybody, understand the whole system that the banks uses today.
You can't be sure about turning it around - there's no "too big to fail" in the industry. The risk Microsoft runs right now is to swing from one ditch to another. If changes goes too fast then customers won't keep up and if you alienate the IT professionals then you can end up losing corporate support. Especially if there's a breach in their "Office 365" online service solution which is now popular among a large volume of mid-size corporations.
I suspect that the majority of brands do the same thing more or less, so I'm not surprised.
It's back to the drawing board for those that sets up the conditions for tests and the emissions limits to get figures that better reflects reality. And this is not only diesels that are circumventing the regulations, I expect everyone of doing similar regardless of fuel type.
There's no surprise to customers that the fuel consumption figures provided by car manufacturers are almost impossible to achieve in reality, no matter what the gauges in the cars says.
It depends on your application what's best. If you have a solution where you can spread out over multiple cores and multiple processors where each core can run pretty much independently then you may want to look at AMD, and a motherboard like the TYAN S8812.
Just look at the whole life cycle of uranium ore and waste as well as plant decommission as well as the over 100k years the radioactive contamination is a problem and you will realize that nuclear production is actually pretty dirty.
Citation on the mines causing radioactive contamination? Do you have any idea how dirty other mining operations are? None of them are really 'clean'.
As for the energy cost of refining - I suppose you're one of the ones that argues that we shouldn't be using solar panels because making them involves mining and refining materials that creates nasty waste? Just like with solar power, nuclear power quickly becomes energy positive, and while it takes a relatively large amount of refining to get a fuel rod, it produces so much power over it's life, even in a wasteful US once-through system, that the energy costs are negligible, at least compared to the most frequent replacements - coal, natural gas, and such.
... To produce the 25 tonnes or so of uranium fuel needed to keep your average reactor going for a year entails the extraction of half a million tonnes of waste rock and over 100,000 tonnes of mill tailings. These are toxic for hundreds of thousands of years. The conversion plant will generate another 144 tonnes of solid waste and 1343 cubic metres of liquid waste.
Contamination of local water supplies around uranium mines and processing plants has been documented in Brazil, Colorado, Texas, Australia, Namibia and many other sites. To supply even a fraction of the power stations the industry expects to be online worldwide in 2020 would mean generating 50 million tonnes of toxic radioactive residues every single year....
The time factor involved for radioactive material being hazardous is what makes it bad compared to many other alternatives. The amount of energy needed to produce the fuel at a quality needed for the reactors is also pretty high, which easily can be translated to CO2 emissions.
The reason is that after the referendum back around 1980 there was effectively a ban on all nuclear power research in Sweden.
That has effectively caused the situation we have where the upgrades of the reactors have been limited.
That said - the nuclear reactor technology is mostly a dead end because nuclear energy is very dirty - mines contaminating areas with radioactivity for millenia, mining and refining costing a lot of energy - producing CO2 in the process and post usage waste from the fuel and from the reactors when they are torn down.
I was more considering that a new instruction would be added to the CPU to unlock instructions currently available and this unlock instruction is never called on older windows versions and is instead resulting in a BSOD when the OS tries to execute locked instructions.
Take it one step further and build in the encryption features in the CPU to lock the CPU from being used with any other OS than Windows 10+.
Or enforce a blocking of old OS versions on newer processors by convincing Intel to add some trap functionality that makes old versions barf on new hardware.
That's what I'm worried about and maybe the primary target for Microsoft isn't old versions of Windows but alternate operating systems. If the change stops older versions, what's there to say that it won't block anything else as well?
The whole region restricting scheme is just stupid and is much like the prohibition of alcohol in the US in the 20's - it feeds crime.
Add to it that it also discriminates - you can't bring movies with you that's only available in your home country if you live in another country in another region.
Slashdot Mirror
That is a good question.
Another interesting question is the risk of bugs in that engine that might infect other applications as well. If the same engine is used in multiple platforms this may mean that malware may be more successful than expected.
Well, since Microsoft ignores hosts for some addresses it may not work in all cases. Some sites shares host when it comes to wanted and unwanted content too.
And their action shows that they can't take a "No" at the door.
You were in too much of a hurry, the article is up now. Just half an hour after you posted.
And the only reason IBM is alive today is that they have the banks and large corporations in their hands through their Cobol systems. Those systems are expensive as heck to run and when the large corporations and banks starts to realize that they are overcharged then they will migrate to other solutions.
Banks are probably going to be the last hold-out for IBM Cobol systems because few people, if anybody, understand the whole system that the banks uses today.
You can't be sure about turning it around - there's no "too big to fail" in the industry. The risk Microsoft runs right now is to swing from one ditch to another. If changes goes too fast then customers won't keep up and if you alienate the IT professionals then you can end up losing corporate support. Especially if there's a breach in their "Office 365" online service solution which is now popular among a large volume of mid-size corporations.
I suspect that the majority of brands do the same thing more or less, so I'm not surprised.
It's back to the drawing board for those that sets up the conditions for tests and the emissions limits to get figures that better reflects reality. And this is not only diesels that are circumventing the regulations, I expect everyone of doing similar regardless of fuel type.
There's no surprise to customers that the fuel consumption figures provided by car manufacturers are almost impossible to achieve in reality, no matter what the gauges in the cars says.
It depends on your application what's best. If you have a solution where you can spread out over multiple cores and multiple processors where each core can run pretty much independently then you may want to look at AMD, and a motherboard like the TYAN S8812.
Just look at the whole life cycle of uranium ore and waste as well as plant decommission as well as the over 100k years the radioactive contamination is a problem and you will realize that nuclear production is actually pretty dirty.
For further reading see: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/dec/05/nuclear-greenpolitics
No I was not being sarcastic, see post above for further explanation.
Citation on the mines causing radioactive contamination? Do you have any idea how dirty other mining operations are? None of them are really 'clean'.
As for the energy cost of refining - I suppose you're one of the ones that argues that we shouldn't be using solar panels because making them involves mining and refining materials that creates nasty waste? Just like with solar power, nuclear power quickly becomes energy positive, and while it takes a relatively large amount of refining to get a fuel rod, it produces so much power over it's life, even in a wasteful US once-through system, that the energy costs are negligible, at least compared to the most frequent replacements - coal, natural gas, and such.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/dec/05/nuclear-greenpolitics
The time factor involved for radioactive material being hazardous is what makes it bad compared to many other alternatives. The amount of energy needed to produce the fuel at a quality needed for the reactors is also pretty high, which easily can be translated to CO2 emissions.
I can see the time, this article has: "Posted by samzenpus on 2016-01-18 8:05 from the nothing-to-see-here dept."
So what's the problem?
The reason is that after the referendum back around 1980 there was effectively a ban on all nuclear power research in Sweden.
That has effectively caused the situation we have where the upgrades of the reactors have been limited.
That said - the nuclear reactor technology is mostly a dead end because nuclear energy is very dirty - mines contaminating areas with radioactivity for millenia, mining and refining costing a lot of energy - producing CO2 in the process and post usage waste from the fuel and from the reactors when they are torn down.
It's just the power plants themselves that are reasonably clean unless there's an accident (Fukushima, Chernobyl, Kyshtym, Harrisburg, Sellafield)
Nuclear power is useful in special applications, but due to the long term effects of it if there's a problem it's not a good solution.
All the Nazis went to that star and started all over again.
If you exclude all other possible reasons it may be something there.
But what about a cloud obscuring the vision?
Unfortunately when the 4th was written it was at a time when electronic records and similar things didn't exist and electricity was just a curiosity.
I was more considering that a new instruction would be added to the CPU to unlock instructions currently available and this unlock instruction is never called on older windows versions and is instead resulting in a BSOD when the OS tries to execute locked instructions.
Take it one step further and build in the encryption features in the CPU to lock the CPU from being used with any other OS than Windows 10+.
Or enforce a blocking of old OS versions on newer processors by convincing Intel to add some trap functionality that makes old versions barf on new hardware.
What about false positives - like if a document has been mass-mailed or put as a part of a story etc.?
I an imagine that we would end up into a situation of "guilty unless proven innocent".
That's probably right, but Sparc computers aren't cheap and Arm aren't really competing on the desktop yet.
On an OpenVMS box.
How do you know about that?
That's what I'm worried about and maybe the primary target for Microsoft isn't old versions of Windows but alternate operating systems. If the change stops older versions, what's there to say that it won't block anything else as well?
Just realize that this is just a test bench to prepare the hardware to become windows-locked so you won't be able to run any alternative OS.
The whole region restricting scheme is just stupid and is much like the prohibition of alcohol in the US in the 20's - it feeds crime.
Add to it that it also discriminates - you can't bring movies with you that's only available in your home country if you live in another country in another region.