I don't have a lot of positive things to say about Microsoft but this is something they correctly evaluated. It may have been purely because they foresaw the awful PR they would get as a result in the future but it was still a good call.
I've never understood why so many people buy playstations. They're so limited and not even that much cheaper than a decent gaming PC that will blow it out of the water.
Then you are unfit to judge them because consoles are standardized platforms which enables developers to optimize games without needing to worry about which cpu or graphics card the user has. This means the can push the system it's limits without worrying about user/reviewer backlash.
By the time you've bought 3-5 AAA games on steam vs PS4 games, the PC already cheaper.
Nope. Gotta buy a new graphics card regularly to keep up. Those can easily be more expensive than a console.
This completely dismisses the parental responsibility to use ESRB ratings. Kids with shitty parents who ignore the ratings aren't going to be saved because Sony said "no boobs" to developers.
He's right, we really need some sort of department or agency to ensure our cybersecurity. Nay, not just cybersecurity but our security in general. It would need to protect not just the government but the whole nation. Yes, that's it! We need a national security agency!.... Wait a second...;)
farms are large and spread-out spaces, and cows are often shuffled between grazing grounds and areas of the farm where they can be more easily milked and checked on.
It makes no sense to us 5G for this because 5G is for dense areas that need high-speed. LoRaWAN is cheaper, lower power and has a range of over 10 kilometers.
They might as well use WiFi for the cows. This is stupid.
Seems like it would be more logical to just use a high altitude balloon to go to the edge of space where you would either hit the edge of a dome or see the curvature of the Earth (while asphyxiating). Why deal with the complexities of a rocket?
Only insomuch as Evers is unable to immediately rescind Walker's deal ($4.5 billion in incentives and subsidies according to TFA).
The people elected Evers on the very basis that he would kill the deal. The fact that his ability to do so was taken away AFTER Walker lost the election shows that Walker is undermining the will of the people which is completely undemocratic.
C'mon Tesla, just come out and say it - you cannot sell a $35,000 car, and you have no intention to do so, and you're just playing games to get people to "move up" to the $40K version.
You should consider the fact that Mr. Musk is no longer at the helm of the company. I'm betting this is a cynical move by the board of directors to increase profits. Musk didn't care about the money as much as he cared about the technology getting used. New overlord, new priorities,
But before leaving office, [Scott Walker (R)] undermined [Tony Evers (D)]’ power over the project by signing a bill that moved the Foxconn liaison out of the governor’s administration and into the state’s economic development corporation, WEDC, and prevented Evers from appointing a new WEDC CEO until September. So far, Evers has taken a cautious approach.
This mess has been brought to you by the Republican party.
To me this is way different than right/left, this is car owners just being jerks probably because they see Tesla drivers as elite - could honestly be either conservative or liberal
Actually, by definition, their actions are conservative. “(of a person or a set of views) opposing political or social liberalization or reform.”
Rural areas (which it was) are dominated by Republican voters and it happened in a Republican dominated state.
Could one of them be a closet Democrat? Sure... but it's rather improbable. So what's more likely? Well, I saw one comment sum up their hate for Tesla quite nicely.
Because Tesla is green and liberals like green so therefore they hate Tesla. Because climate change is a hoax so keep chugging oil. Because Tesla is from California, and California is liberal, so don’t trust Tesla. Because it’s not what their dad and grandad said was good.
It's a simple fact that if you want a rock solid system that you shouldn't be bothering with any version of Windows. I know they don't have to use any exotic hardware either because those giant displays have FPGA based translators that take a simple video input (I used to chat with a guy who made them). A simple SBC running some Linux or BSD variant would have been the sane choice.
Someone put in the minimum amount of effort into this display and it shows.
I see little reason why Tesla should be taking accepting anything less than a billion euros. It's in the best interest of the world (and Tesla) if they make Fiat Chrysler really bleed to pay to avoid such a massive fine.
I doubt we ever will have something that is worth building up a drone delivery infrastructure.
They are actually good for inspections, so they do have legitimate uses. However, they have been found to be very useful for illegitimate purposes. It's currently being used to reach nearly inaccessible locations like prisons. However, in the future I could foresee them being used to drop off drugs to avoid having a physical presence.
They invest in a dozen big drones capable of carrying, say, four extra-large meat lovers pizzas in an insulated pouch - Let's call that $25000, dwarfing the cost of the landing platforms.
$25000 for a dozen? That would be a steal! To carry that much weight, you would be lucky to get one drone for $25000. That doesn't even cover the cost of insurance for the drones.
From the Pizza Parlor's perspective, they've made a huge capital investment, but they're delivering 2-3x the pizzas they used to.
Except they are already meeting demand (if they need more drivers then they hire more), so they aren't going to get more sales, just reduce the number of drivers. So your investment in drones is really just a way to have fewer drivers. Drivers are cheap but these drones are expensive. One lost/damaged drone is going to cost a LOT of money. It's a risky proposal.
It could not, would not, on a boat. It will not, will not, compute your float. It will not have them in the rain. It will not have them on a train. Not in the dark! Not in a tree! Not in a car! Listen to AMD! It will not run your Firefox. It will not run programs on your box. It will not be inside your house. It will not 'shop you with Mickey Mouse. It does not have them here or there. It does not have them anywhere!
Here's the issue, vehicles are owned by the drivers themselves, not the pizza place. Don't expect drivers to install a huge-ass drone platform on their car and provide their own drone or for pizza places to suddenly invest in vehicles and/or drones.
There is no driving incentive to reduce delivery time or do away with driver tipping (that's less money for the driver, so yo have to pay them more), so it's not happening. The only way this makes sense is if they can reduce the number of pizza places needed to serve an area but this is countered by the fact that traffic limits the area that can be served.
These guys ("Robert X. Cringely") know nothing about running a pizza business.
How so? Are they not electric cars? Do they not function as cars?
but they make explosive electric cars.
Electric cars do not explode, Tesla or otherwise. In the event a damaged battery cell, a cascade reaction can occur in which the battery slowly burns the car but never explode. However, ICE cars have been known to explode because they are powered by a combustible fuel source and a collision can cause the gasoline to leak. When the leaking gasoline meets a small ignition source the vehicle is soon engulfed in a fireball.
Actually, it's a fairly difficult problem because you're talking real time systems verification and dozens of threads that can interact with each other, only a tiny combination of which if a packet of type Z arrives and within 1.2 ms a packet of type Y comes in, there's an exploitable window of 50 ms where if you send a packet of type A, the modem drops.
It's a heavily multitasked system of which there's at least a couple of processors mandatory (a DSP and a control processor) all trying to handle dozens of events that can happen.
...
These edge cases cause all sorts of thread timing issues which can expose vulnerabilities, or even smash the stack.
I'm aware of the multitasked/pipelined nature of GSM decoding which is exactly why formal verification should be used for implementations. Timing issues are absolutely an issue and formal verification can help identify when, where and how they happen. A bulletproof implementation isn't impossible, it's simply not a priority because there has been no public exposure of just how weak these systems can be.
We discovered through user testing that the subway would routinely crash the modem firmware (when it goes into a tunnel suddenly and then exits it) All we could do is simply ask for firmware updates and providing them with logs of the modem and keep re-trying the scenario.
If this issue had been identified during the design phase (via formal verification) then you would have been able to properly address the issue.
Frankly, every wireless chipset (not just GSM version xyz) has been one shitty implementation after another. Since we're putting these things in everything from pocket computers to infrastructure, we need to start having stringent chipset testing to ensure they cannot be exploited. I there are few (if any) wireless chipsets that can actually stand up to fuzzing let alone a reverse engineering attack.
We really need a certification body that actually tests chipsets to ensure that at the very least they won't fault/reboot (indicative of being exploitable) when they are fuzzed. Frankly, I would think to have the highest level of certification from this body that your code would have be formally verified. Considering they are a small isolated system, this isn't a Herculean task.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't have a lot of positive things to say about Microsoft but this is something they correctly evaluated. It may have been purely because they foresaw the awful PR they would get as a result in the future but it was still a good call.
I've never understood why so many people buy playstations. They're so limited and not even that much cheaper than a decent gaming PC that will blow it out of the water.
Then you are unfit to judge them because consoles are standardized platforms which enables developers to optimize games without needing to worry about which cpu or graphics card the user has. This means the can push the system it's limits without worrying about user/reviewer backlash.
By the time you've bought 3-5 AAA games on steam vs PS4 games, the PC already cheaper.
Nope. Gotta buy a new graphics card regularly to keep up. Those can easily be more expensive than a console.
This completely dismisses the parental responsibility to use ESRB ratings. Kids with shitty parents who ignore the ratings aren't going to be saved because Sony said "no boobs" to developers.
If only there was a way to secured DNS lookups. /s -_-
He's right, we really need some sort of department or agency to ensure our cybersecurity. Nay, not just cybersecurity but our security in general. It would need to protect not just the government but the whole nation. Yes, that's it! We need a national security agency!.... Wait a second... ;)
Now that we've helped Tin Man, maybe there is hope for President Scarecrow. ;)
Losing one reusable rocket is still cheaper than using three non-reusable rockets.
farms are large and spread-out spaces, and cows are often shuffled between grazing grounds and areas of the farm where they can be more easily milked and checked on.
It makes no sense to us 5G for this because 5G is for dense areas that need high-speed. LoRaWAN is cheaper, lower power and has a range of over 10 kilometers.
They might as well use WiFi for the cows. This is stupid.
[Wikileaks] scans and removes information that might get someone killed
since when?! they dumped all quarter million pages of the Iraq stuff completely unredacted.
Seems like it would be more logical to just use a high altitude balloon to go to the edge of space where you would either hit the edge of a dome or see the curvature of the Earth (while asphyxiating). Why deal with the complexities of a rocket?
Then again, he does think the Earth is flat.
Only insomuch as Evers is unable to immediately rescind Walker's deal ($4.5 billion in incentives and subsidies according to TFA).
The people elected Evers on the very basis that he would kill the deal. The fact that his ability to do so was taken away AFTER Walker lost the election shows that Walker is undermining the will of the people which is completely undemocratic.
Razors and eyeglasses have proven to be market âoedisrupters.â Cars, not so much. Tesla is over and out, sooner rather than later.
Don't come crying when you lose money, shortseller.
C'mon Tesla, just come out and say it - you cannot sell a $35,000 car, and you have no intention to do so, and you're just playing games to get people to "move up" to the $40K version.
You should consider the fact that Mr. Musk is no longer at the helm of the company. I'm betting this is a cynical move by the board of directors to increase profits. Musk didn't care about the money as much as he cared about the technology getting used. New overlord, new priorities,
But before leaving office, [Scott Walker (R)] undermined [Tony Evers (D)]’ power over the project by signing a bill that moved the Foxconn liaison out of the governor’s administration and into the state’s economic development corporation, WEDC, and prevented Evers from appointing a new WEDC CEO until September. So far, Evers has taken a cautious approach.
This mess has been brought to you by the Republican party.
To me this is way different than right/left, this is car owners just being jerks probably because they see Tesla drivers as elite - could honestly be either conservative or liberal
Actually, by definition, their actions are conservative. “(of a person or a set of views) opposing political or social liberalization or reform.”
Rural areas (which it was) are dominated by Republican voters and it happened in a Republican dominated state.
Could one of them be a closet Democrat? Sure... but it's rather improbable. So what's more likely? Well, I saw one comment sum up their hate for Tesla quite nicely.
Because Tesla is green and liberals like green so therefore they hate Tesla. Because climate change is a hoax so keep chugging oil. Because Tesla is from California, and California is liberal, so don’t trust Tesla. Because it’s not what their dad and grandad said was good.
It's a simple fact that if you want a rock solid system that you shouldn't be bothering with any version of Windows. I know they don't have to use any exotic hardware either because those giant displays have FPGA based translators that take a simple video input (I used to chat with a guy who made them). A simple SBC running some Linux or BSD variant would have been the sane choice.
Someone put in the minimum amount of effort into this display and it shows.
I see little reason why Tesla should be taking accepting anything less than a billion euros. It's in the best interest of the world (and Tesla) if they make Fiat Chrysler really bleed to pay to avoid such a massive fine.
I doubt we ever will have something that is worth building up a drone delivery infrastructure.
They are actually good for inspections, so they do have legitimate uses. However, they have been found to be very useful for illegitimate purposes. It's currently being used to reach nearly inaccessible locations like prisons. However, in the future I could foresee them being used to drop off drugs to avoid having a physical presence.
They invest in a dozen big drones capable of carrying, say, four extra-large meat lovers pizzas in an insulated pouch - Let's call that $25000, dwarfing the cost of the landing platforms.
$25000 for a dozen? That would be a steal! To carry that much weight, you would be lucky to get one drone for $25000. That doesn't even cover the cost of insurance for the drones.
From the Pizza Parlor's perspective, they've made a huge capital investment, but they're delivering 2-3x the pizzas they used to.
Except they are already meeting demand (if they need more drivers then they hire more), so they aren't going to get more sales, just reduce the number of drivers. So your investment in drones is really just a way to have fewer drivers. Drivers are cheap but these drones are expensive. One lost/damaged drone is going to cost a LOT of money. It's a risky proposal.
It could not, would not, on a boat.
It will not, will not, compute your float.
It will not have them in the rain.
It will not have them on a train.
Not in the dark! Not in a tree!
Not in a car! Listen to AMD!
It will not run your Firefox.
It will not run programs on your box.
It will not be inside your house.
It will not 'shop you with Mickey Mouse.
It does not have them here or there.
It does not have them anywhere!
A bunch of Chinese admins are having their social credit score drop.
Here's the issue, vehicles are owned by the drivers themselves, not the pizza place. Don't expect drivers to install a huge-ass drone platform on their car and provide their own drone or for pizza places to suddenly invest in vehicles and/or drones.
There is no driving incentive to reduce delivery time or do away with driver tipping (that's less money for the driver, so yo have to pay them more), so it's not happening. The only way this makes sense is if they can reduce the number of pizza places needed to serve an area but this is countered by the fact that traffic limits the area that can be served.
These guys ("Robert X. Cringely") know nothing about running a pizza business.
Tesla is a fraud. It is Theranos...
How so? Are they not electric cars? Do they not function as cars?
but they make explosive electric cars.
Electric cars do not explode, Tesla or otherwise. In the event a damaged battery cell, a cascade reaction can occur in which the battery slowly burns the car but never explode. However, ICE cars have been known to explode because they are powered by a combustible fuel source and a collision can cause the gasoline to leak. When the leaking gasoline meets a small ignition source the vehicle is soon engulfed in a fireball.
Actually, it's a fairly difficult problem because you're talking real time systems verification and dozens of threads that can interact with each other, only a tiny combination of which if a packet of type Z arrives and within 1.2 ms a packet of type Y comes in, there's an exploitable window of 50 ms where if you send a packet of type A, the modem drops.
It's a heavily multitasked system of which there's at least a couple of processors mandatory (a DSP and a control processor) all trying to handle dozens of events that can happen.
These edge cases cause all sorts of thread timing issues which can expose vulnerabilities, or even smash the stack.
I'm aware of the multitasked/pipelined nature of GSM decoding which is exactly why formal verification should be used for implementations. Timing issues are absolutely an issue and formal verification can help identify when, where and how they happen. A bulletproof implementation isn't impossible, it's simply not a priority because there has been no public exposure of just how weak these systems can be.
We discovered through user testing that the subway would routinely crash the modem firmware (when it goes into a tunnel suddenly and then exits it) All we could do is simply ask for firmware updates and providing them with logs of the modem and keep re-trying the scenario.
If this issue had been identified during the design phase (via formal verification) then you would have been able to properly address the issue.
Frankly, every wireless chipset (not just GSM version xyz) has been one shitty implementation after another. Since we're putting these things in everything from pocket computers to infrastructure, we need to start having stringent chipset testing to ensure they cannot be exploited. I there are few (if any) wireless chipsets that can actually stand up to fuzzing let alone a reverse engineering attack.
We really need a certification body that actually tests chipsets to ensure that at the very least they won't fault/reboot (indicative of being exploitable) when they are fuzzed. Frankly, I would think to have the highest level of certification from this body that your code would have be formally verified. Considering they are a small isolated system, this isn't a Herculean task.