We all live in the real world, today, and have to operate within those parameters. NYC is trying to do that, and the addition of shifting pension fund money around shows that they realize they are contributing to the problem and are taking steps to change that.
The energy companies, on the other hand, knew about climate change and the role of fossil fuels half a century ago, and what did they do about it? Try to bury the problem.
Same as the tobacco industry did.
Only fair if they face the same consequences. Not for being oil companies, but for intentionally manipulating public opinion in the name of profit, to the detriment of everyone else.
Because a proper risk evaluation should have shown that this risk was too high to be acceptable.
Risk can be accepted, there is nothing special about that. When you drive to work in the morning, you implicitly accept the risk of a traffic accident. When a company does business, they accept a lot of risks, because without taking risks you can't do business.
But you evaluate your risks and rate them and any halfway sane evaluation of this risk would've broken even the most aggressive risk acceptance criteria.
Taking risks is the reason that profits are morally justified.
No, I don't buy this "it would bankrupt us" bullshit. Should've thought about that before you decided to cut corners. When a real person robs a bank or shoots someone "but I have a mortgage to pay" is not a defense that works very well.
I'm with Theo on this one, as unrealistic as it might seem. But hey, 40-hour work weeks seemed complete nonsense 200 years ago. Flying to the moon was SciFi less than a hundred years ago. "Unrealistic" doesn't mean "impossible". It needs a strong will.
At the very least, they should pay everyone who owns an Intel processor the worst-case performance impact as compensation (e.g. 30% of the CPU value).
But, of course, nothing of that kind will happen. Lawyers will tie this up in court until all the executives could sell their stock, then make a settlement for a fraction of that.
Basically he's asking for every processor produced in the last 20 years to be replaced for free. If you think that's realistic I've got a bridge to sell you.
It is not realistic, but it is right. They manufactured a defect product and sold it. There should be a recall and free repair, and if that's expensive or difficult - their problem not mine.
Of course, in the real world their stock price already recovered, sales will be back to normal within a month, and by summer only some obscure computer geeks will talk about it. And maybe a bunch of lawyers trying to get rich on class action lawsuits.
Furthermore to get compensation he will have to show actual harm incurred.
With the patches being applied, your CPU now runs 10-30% slower. How is that not actual harm?
Since this news broke, I've been sitting on one question that bothers me, and I can't figure out the answer:
How much would this kind of global, hard-to-find, not-so-hard-to-exploit-once-you-know-what-to-look-for issue been worth to an interested party in 1995?
You don't like it because when you say you want to buy something, it suggests a particular brand of what you just said you wanted to buy?
No, I don't like it because it makes its selection based on how much someone else bribed it with, not based on my past preferences or a quality-to-price comparison it has run in the background.
You think that stock price needs to be somehow supported by physical assets, but that isn't true and hasn't been for decades.
I buy Tesla stock because I believe that in the future I can sell it for more than I paid for it today. And I believe that because I believe that Tesla will prove that it has the right mission, and more people will want to buy into that. I believe they are doing a lot of things right, not just technologically and by betting on electric cars, but also by cutting out the dealers, which not only in America have a bad reputation.
What, you think any of the tech companies you mention have the physical assets to justify their stock prices? If you sell off all the physical assets of Google or Facebook, you can probably buy a single-digit percentage of their stocks from the profits. They have revenue streams - but Tesla has that as well. Heck, people don't even pre-order iPhones a year in advance!
There's even some questioning if overall the car market will shrink because younger generations have less interest in owning cars.
Yes, it will. I am one of those people, didn't own a car for 10 years (after selling my old one), now owning one again because I moved into the countryside. But you know what? Tesla is on the right track there as well, understanding that electric cars and autonomous driving go together. In the near future, taxis will go the way of the Dodo bird, and will be replaced by autonomous car-sharing vehicles, which you summon to your location by App and when you are done they drive off to the next customer.
Guess who is closer to having a car like that than any other company?
it's really difficult to argue that an EV you can buy and drive home right now is not competitive with a Tesla Model 3 that you have pay $1,000 to reserve the opportunity to buy the entire car in 1-2 years (or longer).
That is true, but here's the thing: I bought a new car late last year. I so much wanted an electric car. So much that I already had a company over to check for installing solar panels on the garage and give me a quote.
I checked the entire market, and in the end bought a BMW again, combustion engine. Yes, there are EVs which I can buy and drive home in 3 months ("right now" is only if you take the exact car that is standing, if you so much as want another color, 2-3 months is the typical wait). But none of them was the car I wanted to buy. The main reason was range, the second reason was that many of them felt like not serious cars, like someone tried and is checking if it falls apart in a road test.
The Model S came the closest to what I wanted in an EV, but honestly speaking my BMW gives me a lot more comfort and better designed small details for half the price. Whenever BMW makes a 5-series EV or Tesla hires someone with car design experience and stops doing the everything-through-the-touchscreen thing (there are reasons for haptics, Tesla!), label me interested. But the next Bolt or Leaf or whatever model? I don't even care.
Stock analysts being about on par with reading from tea leaves has been scientifically proven several times, including the famous studies with the main authors 9 year old daughter and a randomly thrown dart as the control groups.
That said, no, nobody has a Model 3 competitor on the market right now. I was shopping for a new car as recently as last autumn, and I checked all the electric models available over here. While some of them are surprisingly nice (Hyundai Ioniq) and some of them are pathetic excuses for something that wants to be a car when it grows up (Nissan Leaf), they all feel and by technical data are one generation behind Tesla. The BMW i8 might be an exception, didn't check that one as it's outside my price range. But the i3 is the shame of the BMW brand and so are many other electric cars that are very clearly this or that manufacturers attempt to get a foot into the door.
Tesla is in this business and this business only, so it is swim or sink for them. No other manufacturer has yet embraced electric cars seriously, they are all testing the waters and putting their main effort into the next model of the combustion cars. Hyundai might be the most serious with the Ioniq series where they simply build the same car with different engines instead of having a seperate electric model, and that might be one reason why it was such an unexpectedly positive surprise during my test drive, because it's an actual car and not a prototype.
The TSLA stock price reflects that fact. Investors (like me, full disclosure) believe that Tesla is betting on the right horse here and that the all-or-nothing approach will give them a serious advantage over the "I want to play, too" approach of the traditional car manufacturers. This advantage will manifest in the long run, so falling short on short-term production goals is not so very important (unless you are a journalist who needs to hand in a story about Tesla this month) and that's why the stock price barely moves whenever these announcements are made. I and other people who own TSLA stock don't expect the ROI in the next quarter or even the next year. There are other stocks if you enjoy gambling and day-trading.
I don't care. Not what you claim, nor whether or not it is true.
You ruined your reputation through decades of being evil. It won't recover anytime soon, no matter what. Especially not as long as you don't admit to the massive damage you have done to computing. We would be 10 years into the future without you, so for at least that time, suck it up and stop crying.
Aaaaand just like that any and all of my interest in this product has disappeared.
A personal assistant isn't if he serves more than one master. In the real world, we call that treason and cut their heads off. Well, in recent centuries we fire them instead, but same idea.
It would actually be a good idea to rediscover some of the advances of the past that have been lost to history. My domain is information security, and in many areas we are worse than our ancestors in the early days of computing were. Updating some of the academic research that has fallen by the wayside could do wonders for us.
What is absurd about it? Every company ever does account for future expenses. There's a even a term for it (which I don't know in English, only in my native language).
It is not at all absurd to require you to put money aside to ensure that you can fullfill your obligations in the future. On the contrary, not requiring that is what is absurd. It means that you are gambling with the pensions of your employees.
Unlike patents or copyrights, trademarks and brand registrations require the owner to actively defend them. So Birkenstock actually didn't have a choice of going after Amazon or not, and neither would it in going after counterfeiters.
Or Apple could partner with on of its chinese suppliers, who also runs a clothes factory, and produce knock-off products, just a little bit cheaper, until the Italiens run out of money.
Polygamy and open relationships are not the same thing. Most importantly, an open relationship does not prevent another person from marrying. A polygamous relationship, however, does.
Actually yes. A lot of trucks are apparently already pre-ordered. I think you vastly underestimate the size of the trucking industry, and how much it means if even 1% of it is interested in a new truck.
Which, if the claims about TCO are even halfway true, way more than 1% should be.
What happened is that BC is now traded by the financial industry (or parts of it), and thus has turned into the same casino as the financial markets.
I predict that fluctuations will continue as regular folks, who read all those magazine and newspaper articles, are fleeced by the professional traders who already know this game from all their other markets.
I used to work at a broker house for a short time. Here is one life lesson I learnt: Traders make the fastest money on the down. Whenever you see a stock price crashing, someone just made a killing. The media makes it sound like a disaster and a loss - notice how literally every word that journalists use to describe a market going down fast has negative connotations? But for pros, that is a goldmine. They go home rich that day. Going up is boring, going down is where you can earn your new car, or house.
Someone wanted a new car. That's why BC is crashing. It needed to crash to get all that sweet money that normal folks invested in the past days out of the market and into trader pockets. That's how the casino works.
And to all who post that he could shoot up something more valuable, like a university science project - did you read that they usually do these tests with blocks of cement or such? You just never complained about that because it wasn't on/.
A lot of the "best practices" are utter bullshit or outright harmful. In Information Security, we are basically at the end of the middle ages of medicine - a few people have woken up and are thinking stuff like "maybe actually check if this does anything?" but most follow ridiculous rituals because that's what the ISO or OWASP or some random website says.
There is an alarmingly small number of actual studies and evidence to support almost all of the best practices. In fact, even when you start searching for them, good luck. I did a small meta-study by myself (to be published soon) and I'd love to do a large one but I'm not in the academic world anymore, hard to do that when you get paid for applying the best practices and can only work on improving the field as an aside.
But slowly, slowly, us experts are waking up. The NIST password rules change in summer might have been a wakeup call. I sincerely hope so.
Slashdot Mirror
You missed the point.
We all live in the real world, today, and have to operate within those parameters. NYC is trying to do that, and the addition of shifting pension fund money around shows that they realize they are contributing to the problem and are taking steps to change that.
The energy companies, on the other hand, knew about climate change and the role of fossil fuels half a century ago, and what did they do about it? Try to bury the problem.
Same as the tobacco industry did.
Only fair if they face the same consequences. Not for being oil companies, but for intentionally manipulating public opinion in the name of profit, to the detriment of everyone else.
Because a proper risk evaluation should have shown that this risk was too high to be acceptable.
Risk can be accepted, there is nothing special about that. When you drive to work in the morning, you implicitly accept the risk of a traffic accident. When a company does business, they accept a lot of risks, because without taking risks you can't do business.
But you evaluate your risks and rate them and any halfway sane evaluation of this risk would've broken even the most aggressive risk acceptance criteria.
or likely even bankrupt Intel.
That's called a business risk.
Taking risks is the reason that profits are morally justified.
No, I don't buy this "it would bankrupt us" bullshit. Should've thought about that before you decided to cut corners. When a real person robs a bank or shoots someone "but I have a mortgage to pay" is not a defense that works very well.
I'm with Theo on this one, as unrealistic as it might seem. But hey, 40-hour work weeks seemed complete nonsense 200 years ago. Flying to the moon was SciFi less than a hundred years ago. "Unrealistic" doesn't mean "impossible". It needs a strong will.
At the very least, they should pay everyone who owns an Intel processor the worst-case performance impact as compensation (e.g. 30% of the CPU value).
But, of course, nothing of that kind will happen. Lawyers will tie this up in court until all the executives could sell their stock, then make a settlement for a fraction of that.
Basically he's asking for every processor produced in the last 20 years to be replaced for free. If you think that's realistic I've got a bridge to sell you.
It is not realistic, but it is right. They manufactured a defect product and sold it. There should be a recall and free repair, and if that's expensive or difficult - their problem not mine.
Of course, in the real world their stock price already recovered, sales will be back to normal within a month, and by summer only some obscure computer geeks will talk about it. And maybe a bunch of lawyers trying to get rich on class action lawsuits.
Furthermore to get compensation he will have to show actual harm incurred.
With the patches being applied, your CPU now runs 10-30% slower. How is that not actual harm?
You have a link to somewhere where someone (OpenBSD or not) talked about similar things?
Since there are zero cases that we know of where the flaw has been exploited
There, fixed that for you.
Since this news broke, I've been sitting on one question that bothers me, and I can't figure out the answer:
How much would this kind of global, hard-to-find, not-so-hard-to-exploit-once-you-know-what-to-look-for issue been worth to an interested party in 1995?
I have driven the i3 and it is the shame of the BMW brand.
You don't like it because when you say you want to buy something, it suggests a particular brand of what you just said you wanted to buy?
No, I don't like it because it makes its selection based on how much someone else bribed it with, not based on my past preferences or a quality-to-price comparison it has run in the background.
You think that stock price needs to be somehow supported by physical assets, but that isn't true and hasn't been for decades.
I buy Tesla stock because I believe that in the future I can sell it for more than I paid for it today. And I believe that because I believe that Tesla will prove that it has the right mission, and more people will want to buy into that. I believe they are doing a lot of things right, not just technologically and by betting on electric cars, but also by cutting out the dealers, which not only in America have a bad reputation.
What, you think any of the tech companies you mention have the physical assets to justify their stock prices? If you sell off all the physical assets of Google or Facebook, you can probably buy a single-digit percentage of their stocks from the profits. They have revenue streams - but Tesla has that as well. Heck, people don't even pre-order iPhones a year in advance!
There's even some questioning if overall the car market will shrink because younger generations have less interest in owning cars.
Yes, it will. I am one of those people, didn't own a car for 10 years (after selling my old one), now owning one again because I moved into the countryside. But you know what? Tesla is on the right track there as well, understanding that electric cars and autonomous driving go together. In the near future, taxis will go the way of the Dodo bird, and will be replaced by autonomous car-sharing vehicles, which you summon to your location by App and when you are done they drive off to the next customer.
Guess who is closer to having a car like that than any other company?
it's really difficult to argue that an EV you can buy and drive home right now is not competitive with a Tesla Model 3 that you have pay $1,000 to reserve the opportunity to buy the entire car in 1-2 years (or longer).
That is true, but here's the thing: I bought a new car late last year. I so much wanted an electric car. So much that I already had a company over to check for installing solar panels on the garage and give me a quote.
I checked the entire market, and in the end bought a BMW again, combustion engine. Yes, there are EVs which I can buy and drive home in 3 months ("right now" is only if you take the exact car that is standing, if you so much as want another color, 2-3 months is the typical wait). But none of them was the car I wanted to buy. The main reason was range, the second reason was that many of them felt like not serious cars, like someone tried and is checking if it falls apart in a road test.
The Model S came the closest to what I wanted in an EV, but honestly speaking my BMW gives me a lot more comfort and better designed small details for half the price. Whenever BMW makes a 5-series EV or Tesla hires someone with car design experience and stops doing the everything-through-the-touchscreen thing (there are reasons for haptics, Tesla!), label me interested. But the next Bolt or Leaf or whatever model? I don't even care.
Stock analysts being about on par with reading from tea leaves has been scientifically proven several times, including the famous studies with the main authors 9 year old daughter and a randomly thrown dart as the control groups.
That said, no, nobody has a Model 3 competitor on the market right now. I was shopping for a new car as recently as last autumn, and I checked all the electric models available over here. While some of them are surprisingly nice (Hyundai Ioniq) and some of them are pathetic excuses for something that wants to be a car when it grows up (Nissan Leaf), they all feel and by technical data are one generation behind Tesla. The BMW i8 might be an exception, didn't check that one as it's outside my price range. But the i3 is the shame of the BMW brand and so are many other electric cars that are very clearly this or that manufacturers attempt to get a foot into the door.
Tesla is in this business and this business only, so it is swim or sink for them. No other manufacturer has yet embraced electric cars seriously, they are all testing the waters and putting their main effort into the next model of the combustion cars. Hyundai might be the most serious with the Ioniq series where they simply build the same car with different engines instead of having a seperate electric model, and that might be one reason why it was such an unexpectedly positive surprise during my test drive, because it's an actual car and not a prototype.
The TSLA stock price reflects that fact. Investors (like me, full disclosure) believe that Tesla is betting on the right horse here and that the all-or-nothing approach will give them a serious advantage over the "I want to play, too" approach of the traditional car manufacturers. This advantage will manifest in the long run, so falling short on short-term production goals is not so very important (unless you are a journalist who needs to hand in a story about Tesla this month) and that's why the stock price barely moves whenever these announcements are made. I and other people who own TSLA stock don't expect the ROI in the next quarter or even the next year. There are other stocks if you enjoy gambling and day-trading.
I don't care.
Not what you claim, nor whether or not it is true.
You ruined your reputation through decades of being evil. It won't recover anytime soon, no matter what. Especially not as long as you don't admit to the massive damage you have done to computing. We would be 10 years into the future without you, so for at least that time, suck it up and stop crying.
Aaaaand just like that any and all of my interest in this product has disappeared.
A personal assistant isn't if he serves more than one master. In the real world, we call that treason and cut their heads off. Well, in recent centuries we fire them instead, but same idea.
It would actually be a good idea to rediscover some of the advances of the past that have been lost to history. My domain is information security, and in many areas we are worse than our ancestors in the early days of computing were. Updating some of the academic research that has fallen by the wayside could do wonders for us.
Didn't read that clearly out of the GP. Yes, in such case the very short period to accomplish this is indeed an issue.
What is absurd about it? Every company ever does account for future expenses. There's a even a term for it (which I don't know in English, only in my native language).
It is not at all absurd to require you to put money aside to ensure that you can fullfill your obligations in the future. On the contrary, not requiring that is what is absurd. It means that you are gambling with the pensions of your employees.
Unlike patents or copyrights, trademarks and brand registrations require the owner to actively defend them. So Birkenstock actually didn't have a choice of going after Amazon or not, and neither would it in going after counterfeiters.
Or Apple could partner with on of its chinese suppliers, who also runs a clothes factory, and produce knock-off products, just a little bit cheaper, until the Italiens run out of money.
Polygamy and open relationships are not the same thing. Most importantly, an open relationship does not prevent another person from marrying. A polygamous relationship, however, does.
Actually yes. A lot of trucks are apparently already pre-ordered. I think you vastly underestimate the size of the trucking industry, and how much it means if even 1% of it is interested in a new truck.
Which, if the claims about TCO are even halfway true, way more than 1% should be.
And they would be right to believe that, because it is by far the more likely explanation.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
What happened is that BC is now traded by the financial industry (or parts of it), and thus has turned into the same casino as the financial markets.
I predict that fluctuations will continue as regular folks, who read all those magazine and newspaper articles, are fleeced by the professional traders who already know this game from all their other markets.
I used to work at a broker house for a short time. Here is one life lesson I learnt: Traders make the fastest money on the down. Whenever you see a stock price crashing, someone just made a killing. The media makes it sound like a disaster and a loss - notice how literally every word that journalists use to describe a market going down fast has negative connotations? But for pros, that is a goldmine. They go home rich that day. Going up is boring, going down is where you can earn your new car, or house.
Someone wanted a new car. That's why BC is crashing. It needed to crash to get all that sweet money that normal folks invested in the past days out of the market and into trader pockets. That's how the casino works.
And to all who post that he could shoot up something more valuable, like a university science project - did you read that they usually do these tests with blocks of cement or such? You just never complained about that because it wasn't on /.
A lot of the "best practices" are utter bullshit or outright harmful. In Information Security, we are basically at the end of the middle ages of medicine - a few people have woken up and are thinking stuff like "maybe actually check if this does anything?" but most follow ridiculous rituals because that's what the ISO or OWASP or some random website says.
There is an alarmingly small number of actual studies and evidence to support almost all of the best practices. In fact, even when you start searching for them, good luck.
I did a small meta-study by myself (to be published soon) and I'd love to do a large one but I'm not in the academic world anymore, hard to do that when you get paid for applying the best practices and can only work on improving the field as an aside.
But slowly, slowly, us experts are waking up. The NIST password rules change in summer might have been a wakeup call. I sincerely hope so.