Not just processors; all integrated circuits are black boxes to you, black boxes to the engineers that design circuits with them.
The datasheet doesn't actually document the wiring, it documents the interface, and the hardware diagrams are equivalent circuits from the perspective of the published API. Sorry.
This is a feature, not a bug, so there will be no recall. Note that this only exists if you have the AMT installed; that's the fancy part you have to pay extra for! Companies that want and have a use for centralized remote management will generally see AMT running MINIX as a huge feature! That gives them increased confidence in the security.
What most people will get confused on and "remember" wrong next week is that this is not an issue with the IME that all the intel chips have, it is only talking about the AMT... that is sold for enterprise remote management. For example, I could have paid an extra $150 for an upgraded CPU on my Thinkpad that would include this. Of course, it would still be turned off unless I subscribed to an Intel corporate service!
"It" happened because "it" didn't really happen and you can't prove it.
You can shut the business down and open a different business later. That part is no problem.
The problem, or lack of problem, comes down to the actual decision to close it and if they left some sort of trail that makes it clear it was shut down over the union. It has nothing to do with if the business was shut down, or if you started a new one; it comes down to why, and what was documented about that question.
Retaliation over labor organizing is illegal, but failing after labor organizes isn't. Nor is trying again later. But shutting them down because labor organizes is illegal. So it depends largely on if he said stupid shit to his employees while trying to talk them out of unionizing. If he said stupid shit he might be screwed. And all I know about the guy is: he's saying stupid shit now, on the same subject.
Personally, I hated Gawker ever since they fired Original Wonkette and replaced her with a man using the same pseudonym.
Back when they were known for being the most over-the-top tabloid comedy-news. The news was real, but the commentary was comedy. It became a whole genre on TV! But without OW the comedy was too weak to pull it off. Same thing with the TV genre; people tried it with weak comedians for years and it sucked. Then they tried it with quality acts and it took over late-night! Gawker did it in reverse; they had a lot of success with a quality act, but they didn't want to pay the help so they switched to cheap acts. Luckily they had another angle for views; unfortunately it was illegal and they got shafted to death for it.
If he shut the business down because he believed unionization would increase costs, that is against the law and he might end up paying their salaries for the next decade!
To be legal, normally you'd have to wait until costs suddenly increased, and then you can point at real, actual increases that are not based on personal opinion about unions.
So, just curious, and you seem up on this type of stuff so I thought I'd ask you.
What is the psychological name for the condition where you run around telling people you think they're disabled, while also trying to bully people for being disabled?
I know what they call it when you do it to people's faces; "assault victim." But what is the word when you only have the courage to do it online?
Thank you for understanding my words. That's a little bit... unusual around here!
Once you put it on their servers, its no longer "your" data in the sense that you don't have any control over it (hell, even if your theoretical legal control isn't explicitly removed by the EULA, good luck enforcing your rights against the likes of Google.)
In the United States the data is owned by them for sure; you may own the copyright, but they own the copy that is stored physically on their system. You can't get it into their system without creating a copy inside their system; you have to copy it in! And they always own that copy. But you're right; even if it was only that they control their own servers it would already be as if they owned it. Of course, not all their data is stored in the US so this might vary depending where you're using the service.
Maybe there is an idea for a new service lurking there; let people mail in flash drives, and then you plug them into a cloud service, and the user can access their own data remotely, and the service provider doesn't own the data. Colo hosting for flash drives instead of servers! I guess if I did a web search I'd find 1000 of those companies already, darn.
As for the credit card stuff, I consented when I signed up for the card. People who think they didn't consent should read legal documents before signing them. I don't use my CC for every purchase, but I also don't want to have to use cash for every purchase. It is nice to have choices. A couple times a year I go and buy a Money Order and mail it somewhere because I don't trust anybody involved; retaining and utilizing choices is the most important thing for consumers to do these days. Most of the whining is, "I want convenience and I don't know how it works and being ignorant is scary so convenience is scary, why are these people all so scary?!" The reality isn't perfect, sure. But a buffet of choices exist. Yeah, SSN is way scarier than "internet companies get access to the same data every large store already has had for decades."
If they didn't have money to pay, and were already bankrupt, they'd have dropped the case.
The reality is that if you're already bankrupt, and the lawyers are still working, it doesn't even matter if they fill out invoices because they'll be behind all the other creditors.
It isn't SCO that needs to have lots of money in that case, but rather, the lawyers themselves need to have lots of money if they want to keep chasing the case.
The reality is that the people behind the scenes who own SCO, and the lawyers, are not significantly different parties. And all the people making the decisions have plenty of money to keep making those same decisions.
Yeah, none of this is surprising; if you think you have hundreds of trade secrets, you might have a handful. Trade secrets have a narrow legal definition and not everything that your business chooses to keep confidential is automatically a trade secret, but companies like to claim as many as they can. The real case (eg, damages) is only going to be about the small handful that are meaningful.
Linux is only free if you know the difference between freedom and time. Not sure why "value" is in that statement. Oh, he misunderstood the word "free." lol
While it is true that there exist such machines as you describe, those are used by machine shops that also have $100k+ metalworking machines.
The vast majority of "commercial 3d printing" is not treated like machining, and doesn't use fancy machines. If you use a 3d printing service, it typically means somebody has dozens or hundreds of cheap 3d printing machines of the same type that home users have.
This is just the legal system grinding out the last little bits of this farce. The courts really don't care how stupid the case is, all the little technical bits still have to get handled the same.
The reason it is still around is that IBM isn't willing to just walk away and let it go, they want to burn the case completely to the ground as a warning to others who would sue them. So as long as SCO isn't willing to walk away the clear loser, they can drag it out like this. Both sides have lots of money, so the Court doesn't really care if they want to hash out the correct answer to each legal argument that was made in the case. Neither side is crying about the process.
Google knows who the spammers are. They probably charge them extra to get through those filters - you know they're already selling your data to them.
That shows how ignorant you are, even though you comment anyways.
Nothing gets through the filter, so there is nothing for them to pretend got through! It may just be that they're better at this part of the service than anybody else. Their users would probably be shocked by how much spam you get. Easily a billion times more than them.;)
Yeah, plus, if it was my data they wouldn't even let it onto their network!
This is all google's data, that their users enter into their system. Of course I'm OK with them doing whatever they do with their data. The limits are whatever they told their users the limits would be! That is their responsibility.
Who are these idiots who aren't OK with it? If I start a web service, you think I'm going to ask the internet how to handle that data, or am I going to make decisions myself depending on the needs of my business and the needs of my customers?
I mean, if you want it to be "your data" then you run it on your servers. For example, using OwnCloud or something. If you want it to be somebody else's data, and you can accept partial control, then you use some cloud service... like google.
There isn't even a goalpost in my statement. You're the one who offered a goalpost and said my comment didn't make it through! But my comment also wasn't on your field, so why would your goalposts have relevance?
If you offer a "correction" that doesn't correct my post, and I tell you that you didn't understand it, how would you know I'm wrong? You'd have to first understand what I said. And to do that, you'd have to understand enough about software programming to understand why COBOL and Makefiles would be relevant when discussing white space in code, and how it affects copypasta.
Right... once again you can't comprehend my clear words.:) New day, same story.
I'll just repeat myself. Live cells are still different than dead cells. This is about the aging of live cells.
In the case of a hermit crab, it is only replacing dead cells, so it is nothing at all like the part-swapping being discussed here. Does that help you to comprehend the meaning of the words?
Slashdot Mirror
Not just processors; all integrated circuits are black boxes to you, black boxes to the engineers that design circuits with them.
The datasheet doesn't actually document the wiring, it documents the interface, and the hardware diagrams are equivalent circuits from the perspective of the published API. Sorry.
This is a feature, not a bug, so there will be no recall. Note that this only exists if you have the AMT installed; that's the fancy part you have to pay extra for! Companies that want and have a use for centralized remote management will generally see AMT running MINIX as a huge feature! That gives them increased confidence in the security.
What most people will get confused on and "remember" wrong next week is that this is not an issue with the IME that all the intel chips have, it is only talking about the AMT... that is sold for enterprise remote management. For example, I could have paid an extra $150 for an upgraded CPU on my Thinkpad that would include this. Of course, it would still be turned off unless I subscribed to an Intel corporate service!
The BOFH is on my side. I could even be the BOFH for all you know.
He didn't say anything about wanting to have the guys stuff, or about transferring it to somebody else, or even about taking his money away.
Failure to comprehend the words does not imply [whatever your random offtopic statement is].
"It" happened because "it" didn't really happen and you can't prove it.
You can shut the business down and open a different business later. That part is no problem.
The problem, or lack of problem, comes down to the actual decision to close it and if they left some sort of trail that makes it clear it was shut down over the union. It has nothing to do with if the business was shut down, or if you started a new one; it comes down to why, and what was documented about that question.
Retaliation over labor organizing is illegal, but failing after labor organizes isn't. Nor is trying again later. But shutting them down because labor organizes is illegal. So it depends largely on if he said stupid shit to his employees while trying to talk them out of unionizing. If he said stupid shit he might be screwed. And all I know about the guy is: he's saying stupid shit now, on the same subject.
The employer doesn't pay the union, the employees do. Just, so you know next time.
Personally, I hated Gawker ever since they fired Original Wonkette and replaced her with a man using the same pseudonym.
Back when they were known for being the most over-the-top tabloid comedy-news. The news was real, but the commentary was comedy. It became a whole genre on TV! But without OW the comedy was too weak to pull it off. Same thing with the TV genre; people tried it with weak comedians for years and it sucked. Then they tried it with quality acts and it took over late-night! Gawker did it in reverse; they had a lot of success with a quality act, but they didn't want to pay the help so they switched to cheap acts. Luckily they had another angle for views; unfortunately it was illegal and they got shafted to death for it.
If he shut the business down because he believed unionization would increase costs, that is against the law and he might end up paying their salaries for the next decade!
To be legal, normally you'd have to wait until costs suddenly increased, and then you can point at real, actual increases that are not based on personal opinion about unions.
I have no idea who hosts the server, and I have no need to trust them. It is useful though if I know that they're the source of the data.
This encryption isn't about trusting the other party you agreed to exchange network data with, it is about trust in the network pipe itself!
You aspies
So, just curious, and you seem up on this type of stuff so I thought I'd ask you.
What is the psychological name for the condition where you run around telling people you think they're disabled, while also trying to bully people for being disabled?
I know what they call it when you do it to people's faces; "assault victim." But what is the word when you only have the courage to do it online?
Thank you for understanding my words. That's a little bit... unusual around here!
Once you put it on their servers, its no longer "your" data in the sense that you don't have any control over it (hell, even if your theoretical legal control isn't explicitly removed by the EULA, good luck enforcing your rights against the likes of Google.)
In the United States the data is owned by them for sure; you may own the copyright, but they own the copy that is stored physically on their system. You can't get it into their system without creating a copy inside their system; you have to copy it in! And they always own that copy. But you're right; even if it was only that they control their own servers it would already be as if they owned it. Of course, not all their data is stored in the US so this might vary depending where you're using the service.
Maybe there is an idea for a new service lurking there; let people mail in flash drives, and then you plug them into a cloud service, and the user can access their own data remotely, and the service provider doesn't own the data. Colo hosting for flash drives instead of servers! I guess if I did a web search I'd find 1000 of those companies already, darn.
As for the credit card stuff, I consented when I signed up for the card. People who think they didn't consent should read legal documents before signing them. I don't use my CC for every purchase, but I also don't want to have to use cash for every purchase. It is nice to have choices. A couple times a year I go and buy a Money Order and mail it somewhere because I don't trust anybody involved; retaining and utilizing choices is the most important thing for consumers to do these days. Most of the whining is, "I want convenience and I don't know how it works and being ignorant is scary so convenience is scary, why are these people all so scary?!" The reality isn't perfect, sure. But a buffet of choices exist. Yeah, SSN is way scarier than "internet companies get access to the same data every large store already has had for decades."
The firm can always walk away... if they can manage to let go of the Precious!
I just had to mix that in, so that I can hear the disturbance in the force when thousands of millennials cry out in horror and pain at once!
If they didn't have money to pay, and were already bankrupt, they'd have dropped the case.
The reality is that if you're already bankrupt, and the lawyers are still working, it doesn't even matter if they fill out invoices because they'll be behind all the other creditors.
It isn't SCO that needs to have lots of money in that case, but rather, the lawyers themselves need to have lots of money if they want to keep chasing the case.
The reality is that the people behind the scenes who own SCO, and the lawyers, are not significantly different parties. And all the people making the decisions have plenty of money to keep making those same decisions.
Yeah, none of this is surprising; if you think you have hundreds of trade secrets, you might have a handful. Trade secrets have a narrow legal definition and not everything that your business chooses to keep confidential is automatically a trade secret, but companies like to claim as many as they can. The real case (eg, damages) is only going to be about the small handful that are meaningful.
Linux is only free if you know the difference between freedom and time. Not sure why "value" is in that statement. Oh, he misunderstood the word "free." lol
While it is true that there exist such machines as you describe, those are used by machine shops that also have $100k+ metalworking machines.
The vast majority of "commercial 3d printing" is not treated like machining, and doesn't use fancy machines. If you use a 3d printing service, it typically means somebody has dozens or hundreds of cheap 3d printing machines of the same type that home users have.
Well, they've got "public key cryptography" and also "broadcast" so this is just another libdvdcss situation and the encryption is meaningless.
This is just the legal system grinding out the last little bits of this farce. The courts really don't care how stupid the case is, all the little technical bits still have to get handled the same.
The reason it is still around is that IBM isn't willing to just walk away and let it go, they want to burn the case completely to the ground as a warning to others who would sue them. So as long as SCO isn't willing to walk away the clear loser, they can drag it out like this. Both sides have lots of money, so the Court doesn't really care if they want to hash out the correct answer to each legal argument that was made in the case. Neither side is crying about the process.
Time for a fidonet <-> owncloud gateway! The future is here at last!!!!1!
In other news, don't print secrets on T-shirts either.
Of course gmail's spam filtering is better.
Google knows who the spammers are. They probably charge them extra to get through those filters - you know they're already selling your data to them.
That shows how ignorant you are, even though you comment anyways.
Nothing gets through the filter, so there is nothing for them to pretend got through! It may just be that they're better at this part of the service than anybody else. Their users would probably be shocked by how much spam you get. Easily a billion times more than them. ;)
Yeah, plus, if it was my data they wouldn't even let it onto their network!
This is all google's data, that their users enter into their system. Of course I'm OK with them doing whatever they do with their data. The limits are whatever they told their users the limits would be! That is their responsibility.
Who are these idiots who aren't OK with it? If I start a web service, you think I'm going to ask the internet how to handle that data, or am I going to make decisions myself depending on the needs of my business and the needs of my customers?
I mean, if you want it to be "your data" then you run it on your servers. For example, using OwnCloud or something. If you want it to be somebody else's data, and you can accept partial control, then you use some cloud service... like google.
There isn't even a goalpost in my statement. You're the one who offered a goalpost and said my comment didn't make it through! But my comment also wasn't on your field, so why would your goalposts have relevance?
If you offer a "correction" that doesn't correct my post, and I tell you that you didn't understand it, how would you know I'm wrong? You'd have to first understand what I said. And to do that, you'd have to understand enough about software programming to understand why COBOL and Makefiles would be relevant when discussing white space in code, and how it affects copypasta.
Right... once again you can't comprehend my clear words. :) New day, same story.
I'll just repeat myself. Live cells are still different than dead cells. This is about the aging of live cells.
In the case of a hermit crab, it is only replacing dead cells, so it is nothing at all like the part-swapping being discussed here. Does that help you to comprehend the meaning of the words?
If you didn't comprehend it, my advice is to either read it again, or else move on.
Live cells are still different than dead cells. This is about the aging of live cells.