Funny, as a native speaker with a high standardized English comprehension level I was also curious what was wrong, mostly just so I could laugh at the false-pedant. Unfortunately, it was just typos and not even entertaining.
No, the AMT has full access to RAM, and only after it has been turned on in the BIOS and also provisioned, with the caveat that if you have Windoze installed with the Intel drivers then it can do the provisioning from the OS.
The IME is just the part that the AMT interfaces with when installed. It is like a BIOS for add-on ICs, and the AMT is the add-on IC that provides the enterprise remote management features. There are other add-ons for IME that might also have network interfaces, for example there is one is that can be used to disable the machine in case of theft.
What tells you that your RAM chip didn't itself save your encryption keys and send them somewhere? You can't know that! You can't really know much of anything about what is really happening inside a complex device like a computer that is actually running and doing stuff. Who knows what sort of VW-style hidden code is in there that makes the device look like it operates a certain way, when really it can operate in a variety of ways.
If your activities require that level of trust, you can't write them down, or use electronics to work on them. Sorry. It is probably safest not to even think anything that requires that level of trust, because trust is an illusion. Find a methodology that relies less on trust, and activities involving technology might still be possible.;)
Well, other than the fact that Apple also has proprietary security ICs on their boards!
Even a micro using Harvard architecture usually has some proprietary security features for disabling/reenabling chip programming. Who knows what it really does? There is no end to it, you'll never be able to buy integrated circuits that somebody already manufactured and know for sure what is inside them, what the Secret Code(TM) Really Does(R)
I recently bought a T560 and it doesn't have the parts of the Intel ecosystem that were accused of being "spyware," which is not the IME itself but the AMT (Active ManagenT).
Just take a look at Intel's CPU lineup; only the more expensive chips have it. You can get the upgraded CPU in most Thinkpads, but take a careful look at the specs and prices; the CPU with the Intel Management Engine costs a lot more and is only very slightly faster; most of the increased price is for the IME! It makes sense to buy it if you're in a corporate environment that buys the management software from Intel, but for regular users just choose the regular CPU and be happy.
The nonsense about being able to turn it on remotely requires it to actually have two parts installed, the IME and also the AMT module. The IME doesn't do anything without the AMT. People will present a bait-and-switch (and many of them are merely confused about the features, not even intentionally dishonest) where they talk about the IME being present in most Intel chipsets, but they when they start talking about the dangers they're talking mostly about the AMT which is the part that can actually be used remotely and isn't even installed on most systems.
Another part that people aren't understanding is that the AMT has to be turned on to be used. The remote stuff only works after it has been "activated" and also "provisioned." Provisioning is the step where it becomes able to listen to the network.
The reality is that you can't trust any hardware. It all comes out of factories you aren't allowed to inspect, it all runs proprietary microcode underneath the "registers" and "CPU instructions" that are presented to the programmer in a way that mimics older chips where the programmer directly accessed real registers using actual CPU instructions. Now those instructions are just an API. You don't know how it really works; you don't have access and it isn't publicly documented. There is more source code at a lower level than ASM, and nobody has access. Even if you buy an open source CPU, it is manufactured in facility controlled by others and is made up of proprietary logic gates and hidden microcode.
If there was an alternative, the IME concerns would be more valid than they are. This is scary mostly to ignorant people who think they otherwise would know what the CPU is doing. If you understand the way this technology really works, then the dangers in IME are present in all integrated circuits, all the time! Possibly excepting "new old stock" of ancient microcontrollers.
If you're not kidding, then it is a conspiracy theory.
Believing that it is true does not stop it from being a theory, or from involving a conspiracy. Actually, it would be required to have a conspiracy since it is actually sold as an enterprise security feature and companies are paying extra for the features it comes with.
You can talk about it not being finished yet, but other people are talking about how it is in active deployment by multiple countries and flying important missions in Korea.
It makes no sense to talk about the costs of a production strategy without comparing the costs of the alternative, which you don't have. It may be that they saved more (because of scale) by starting the production line at a higher rate than they would have saved by starting slower. This plane has different modularity requirements than most planes, it may even be that the refit is actually part of the planned R&D cycle and isn't even a mistake or cost problem. I don't know that, and neither do you.
No, I do remember them saying that the F-22 was going to be the super-awesome one that was really expensive and they'd only make a few, and that the F-35 would be the one that had all the fancy stealth combined with maximum mission flexibility for general use and would be manufactured in large numbers.
The role of the F-22 is actually to be an escort for F-35s, with the F-35s providing the mission flexibility and the F-22 suppressing SAMs.
So buy Grippen, universally considered superior to F-35,
For values of "universal" that are equal to "people on the internet who don't have access to technical performance information of either aircraft," sure.
Slashdot reader schwit1 writes, "This is akin to buying an exotic car you can barely afford, without also budgeting for insurance, repairs, and tuneups."
Actually it's like buying a new exotic car every three months so you don't have to do schedule maintenance on any of the others.
(because you can afford it);)
Why are there people in the world that still don't know the US military really does have a big budget, they're not just talking themselves up?
The really funny part is how far the reality is from what the fanbois on the internet keep repeating to each other; the A-10 is primarily used as a missile platform. It does still do a little bit of close air support, duties it shares with the F-16, but it does it from high altitude as a generic missile launch platform.
People like to repeat that they're really reliable, and it is true they can survive a lot of AAA damage, but the threat in modern combat isn't AAA it is RPGs and MANPADs. And the A-10 is a sitting duck for those. Sure, the pilot is protected by armor, but the engines aren't; they're very vulnerable. They can't loiter at low altitude over infantry to do the type of close air support that the fanbois are picturing! They get shot down doing that. So yeah, they're still stuck using them, but they don't use them differently from the way they use an F-16 for that; flying in circles high overhead, dropping shit on coordinates.
Why do they need new wings? Because the enemy weapons can reach it more easily.
The F-22 wasn't "scrapped," they built the number that they needed as the top end fighters, and used the lessons learned to design the F-35.
This was the plan all along; build two new stealth fighters, one super-high-tech, the other one cheaper and more suitable for mass production.
The main role of the F-22 is to intercept surface to air missiles (SAMs). The idea is that you have a bunch of F-35s and F-22s, and most air defenses can't see either one, but even when they can and they fire a SAM, or when they see the planes coming visually and launch infrared or similar missiles, then the missiles still have a much harder time finding the F-22s and they can shoot them down with air to air missiles. You only need a limited number in that role. Waste of money to have a lot of something that fancy when nobody else has it and they can't see the F-35 anyways.
A lot of people commenting on these stories don't realize that F-35 is already in use. Last month when some F-35s, B-1s, and an F-22s flew near to North Korea, there was no response at all; until the US announced that it had happened so that the North Koreans could freak out. They hadn't even seen them! Try that with an F-16.;)
You can believe that the generals are all a bunch of buffoons out of a bad movie, but history says they're pretty good at understanding and using the technologies involved.
Well, sure, they could also just buy a bunch of magic ponies on no-bid contracts if they really wanted.
What you seem to miss is that you're being a weird sort of sheep and just repeating anything negative that sounds vaguely cromulent.
This is one of the stupidest stories on this topic in awhile; production and maintenance happen in different places and are done by different people; why would being behind schedule building the maintenance facilities mean delaying production? That would only increase the costs, it is almost as if you, and the editor, think that there would somehow be cost savings?
By the way, "top of the line" fighters would be the F-22, which is way more expensive than the F-35. You drank so much Hateraide(TM) you started believing that the gossip writers know more about military procurement than the military!
If you ever find a history book or encyclopedia, you can discover that Portugal exists next door to Spain without being part of Spain. They're even smaller, and have a related language.
The difference between Portugal and Catalonia so far is that Catalonia has never gone to the field to fight for their independence. Events are spiraling out of control, it is a very uncertain time.
I've never done iPhone dev, but on Android this could totally be done by designers who were given control over the animations and don't actually understand the programming at all. And if the programmers are doing their own QA (for example, in test-driven development that is required) they might not even realize there is an extra stupidity to test there because it is outside their actual specialty.
I blame the project managers for telling the designs to animate, and not telling QA to test that part extensively. It should be predicted that the programmers didn't expect the designers to even want to do something so horrible, and so didn't plan for it. A project manager should understand that as soon as they hear the word "animation."
I'm using Mathdroid, which you can get from the fdroid repo. It is easily my most used mobile app. Scrollback buffer, variable support, hitting a bare operator automatically inserts the last answer in front, etc.
Actually, it works better than any of the linux calculators I got from a distro, ever. HP-15C is nice, and I'd probably use something similar if I didn't have Mathdroid.
Right, right, you're just all caught up in "ME ME ME ME ME" even though "self determination" is not "personal determination," it is already talking about a group. So, no.
That seemingly requires Catalonia to win the war, which is quite unlikely to happen if it came to open war, which itself is unlikely.
That being the situation where Spain's position would have changed, that is naturally the requirement for the EU's position to change since it is based on nothing other than the status quo.
It hardly seems worth the effort to do an analysis of Spain agreeing to Catalonia seceding after winning the war! Seems to me to be obvious that if they were willing to go war over it, they'd feel strongly enough that they'd insist on getting their way after also winning. But European civics sometimes produce surprising results.
Slashdot Mirror
Funny, as a native speaker with a high standardized English comprehension level I was also curious what was wrong, mostly just so I could laugh at the false-pedant. Unfortunately, it was just typos and not even entertaining.
Given that the intended function is remote management, calling it a "backdoor" is inherently dishonest. These are clearly side doors.
No, the AMT has full access to RAM, and only after it has been turned on in the BIOS and also provisioned, with the caveat that if you have Windoze installed with the Intel drivers then it can do the provisioning from the OS.
The IME is just the part that the AMT interfaces with when installed. It is like a BIOS for add-on ICs, and the AMT is the add-on IC that provides the enterprise remote management features. There are other add-ons for IME that might also have network interfaces, for example there is one is that can be used to disable the machine in case of theft.
What tells you that your RAM chip didn't itself save your encryption keys and send them somewhere? You can't know that! You can't really know much of anything about what is really happening inside a complex device like a computer that is actually running and doing stuff. Who knows what sort of VW-style hidden code is in there that makes the device look like it operates a certain way, when really it can operate in a variety of ways.
If your activities require that level of trust, you can't write them down, or use electronics to work on them. Sorry. It is probably safest not to even think anything that requires that level of trust, because trust is an illusion. Find a methodology that relies less on trust, and activities involving technology might still be possible. ;)
Well, other than the fact that Apple also has proprietary security ICs on their boards!
Even a micro using Harvard architecture usually has some proprietary security features for disabling/reenabling chip programming. Who knows what it really does? There is no end to it, you'll never be able to buy integrated circuits that somebody already manufactured and know for sure what is inside them, what the Secret Code(TM) Really Does(R)
I recently bought a T560 and it doesn't have the parts of the Intel ecosystem that were accused of being "spyware," which is not the IME itself but the AMT (Active ManagenT).
Just take a look at Intel's CPU lineup; only the more expensive chips have it. You can get the upgraded CPU in most Thinkpads, but take a careful look at the specs and prices; the CPU with the Intel Management Engine costs a lot more and is only very slightly faster; most of the increased price is for the IME! It makes sense to buy it if you're in a corporate environment that buys the management software from Intel, but for regular users just choose the regular CPU and be happy.
The nonsense about being able to turn it on remotely requires it to actually have two parts installed, the IME and also the AMT module. The IME doesn't do anything without the AMT. People will present a bait-and-switch (and many of them are merely confused about the features, not even intentionally dishonest) where they talk about the IME being present in most Intel chipsets, but they when they start talking about the dangers they're talking mostly about the AMT which is the part that can actually be used remotely and isn't even installed on most systems.
Another part that people aren't understanding is that the AMT has to be turned on to be used. The remote stuff only works after it has been "activated" and also "provisioned." Provisioning is the step where it becomes able to listen to the network.
The reality is that you can't trust any hardware. It all comes out of factories you aren't allowed to inspect, it all runs proprietary microcode underneath the "registers" and "CPU instructions" that are presented to the programmer in a way that mimics older chips where the programmer directly accessed real registers using actual CPU instructions. Now those instructions are just an API. You don't know how it really works; you don't have access and it isn't publicly documented. There is more source code at a lower level than ASM, and nobody has access. Even if you buy an open source CPU, it is manufactured in facility controlled by others and is made up of proprietary logic gates and hidden microcode.
If there was an alternative, the IME concerns would be more valid than they are. This is scary mostly to ignorant people who think they otherwise would know what the CPU is doing. If you understand the way this technology really works, then the dangers in IME are present in all integrated circuits, all the time! Possibly excepting "new old stock" of ancient microcontrollers.
If you're not kidding, then it is a conspiracy theory.
Believing that it is true does not stop it from being a theory, or from involving a conspiracy. Actually, it would be required to have a conspiracy since it is actually sold as an enterprise security feature and companies are paying extra for the features it comes with.
You can talk about it not being finished yet, but other people are talking about how it is in active deployment by multiple countries and flying important missions in Korea.
It makes no sense to talk about the costs of a production strategy without comparing the costs of the alternative, which you don't have. It may be that they saved more (because of scale) by starting the production line at a higher rate than they would have saved by starting slower. This plane has different modularity requirements than most planes, it may even be that the refit is actually part of the planned R&D cycle and isn't even a mistake or cost problem. I don't know that, and neither do you.
No, I do remember them saying that the F-22 was going to be the super-awesome one that was really expensive and they'd only make a few, and that the F-35 would be the one that had all the fancy stealth combined with maximum mission flexibility for general use and would be manufactured in large numbers.
The role of the F-22 is actually to be an escort for F-35s, with the F-35s providing the mission flexibility and the F-22 suppressing SAMs.
So buy Grippen, universally considered superior to F-35,
For values of "universal" that are equal to "people on the internet who don't have access to technical performance information of either aircraft," sure.
What if they did budget for maintenance, they just didn't explain their maintenance schedule to the public? What then?! lol durrrrrrr
Slashdot reader schwit1 writes, "This is akin to buying an exotic car you can barely afford, without also budgeting for insurance, repairs, and tuneups."
Actually it's like buying a new exotic car every three months so you don't have to do schedule maintenance on any of the others.
(because you can afford it) ;)
Why are there people in the world that still don't know the US military really does have a big budget, they're not just talking themselves up?
Rumor has it that many of the infantry units have to have rest periods, too, but not everybody in the command structure agrees.
The really funny part is how far the reality is from what the fanbois on the internet keep repeating to each other; the A-10 is primarily used as a missile platform. It does still do a little bit of close air support, duties it shares with the F-16, but it does it from high altitude as a generic missile launch platform.
People like to repeat that they're really reliable, and it is true they can survive a lot of AAA damage, but the threat in modern combat isn't AAA it is RPGs and MANPADs. And the A-10 is a sitting duck for those. Sure, the pilot is protected by armor, but the engines aren't; they're very vulnerable. They can't loiter at low altitude over infantry to do the type of close air support that the fanbois are picturing! They get shot down doing that. So yeah, they're still stuck using them, but they don't use them differently from the way they use an F-16 for that; flying in circles high overhead, dropping shit on coordinates.
Why do they need new wings? Because the enemy weapons can reach it more easily.
The F-22 wasn't "scrapped," they built the number that they needed as the top end fighters, and used the lessons learned to design the F-35.
This was the plan all along; build two new stealth fighters, one super-high-tech, the other one cheaper and more suitable for mass production.
The main role of the F-22 is to intercept surface to air missiles (SAMs). The idea is that you have a bunch of F-35s and F-22s, and most air defenses can't see either one, but even when they can and they fire a SAM, or when they see the planes coming visually and launch infrared or similar missiles, then the missiles still have a much harder time finding the F-22s and they can shoot them down with air to air missiles. You only need a limited number in that role. Waste of money to have a lot of something that fancy when nobody else has it and they can't see the F-35 anyways.
A lot of people commenting on these stories don't realize that F-35 is already in use. Last month when some F-35s, B-1s, and an F-22s flew near to North Korea, there was no response at all; until the US announced that it had happened so that the North Koreans could freak out. They hadn't even seen them! Try that with an F-16. ;)
You can believe that the generals are all a bunch of buffoons out of a bad movie, but history says they're pretty good at understanding and using the technologies involved.
Well, sure, they could also just buy a bunch of magic ponies on no-bid contracts if they really wanted.
What you seem to miss is that you're being a weird sort of sheep and just repeating anything negative that sounds vaguely cromulent.
This is one of the stupidest stories on this topic in awhile; production and maintenance happen in different places and are done by different people; why would being behind schedule building the maintenance facilities mean delaying production? That would only increase the costs, it is almost as if you, and the editor, think that there would somehow be cost savings?
By the way, "top of the line" fighters would be the F-22, which is way more expensive than the F-35. You drank so much Hateraide(TM) you started believing that the gossip writers know more about military procurement than the military!
As a daily emacs user I couldn't disagree more! lol
If you ever find a history book or encyclopedia, you can discover that Portugal exists next door to Spain without being part of Spain. They're even smaller, and have a related language.
The difference between Portugal and Catalonia so far is that Catalonia has never gone to the field to fight for their independence. Events are spiraling out of control, it is a very uncertain time.
I don't live in any of those places so I don't need to be "ready" for any of it.
As long as they show me animated cat pictures at the same time, no problem!
If they show animated Cheetarah videos, a lot of people will even give them a VPN connection so they can plunder all your ports at once.
I've never done iPhone dev, but on Android this could totally be done by designers who were given control over the animations and don't actually understand the programming at all. And if the programmers are doing their own QA (for example, in test-driven development that is required) they might not even realize there is an extra stupidity to test there because it is outside their actual specialty.
I blame the project managers for telling the designs to animate, and not telling QA to test that part extensively. It should be predicted that the programmers didn't expect the designers to even want to do something so horrible, and so didn't plan for it. A project manager should understand that as soon as they hear the word "animation."
I'm using Mathdroid, which you can get from the fdroid repo. It is easily my most used mobile app. Scrollback buffer, variable support, hitting a bare operator automatically inserts the last answer in front, etc.
Actually, it works better than any of the linux calculators I got from a distro, ever. HP-15C is nice, and I'd probably use something similar if I didn't have Mathdroid.
Right, right, you're just all caught up in "ME ME ME ME ME" even though "self determination" is not "personal determination," it is already talking about a group. So, no.
Perhaps it is an excellent example of my point and was selected precisely because it's been independent for centuries?
Often when we want to correct other people's statements it just means we didn't understand them. ;)
That seemingly requires Catalonia to win the war, which is quite unlikely to happen if it came to open war, which itself is unlikely.
That being the situation where Spain's position would have changed, that is naturally the requirement for the EU's position to change since it is based on nothing other than the status quo.
It hardly seems worth the effort to do an analysis of Spain agreeing to Catalonia seceding after winning the war! Seems to me to be obvious that if they were willing to go war over it, they'd feel strongly enough that they'd insist on getting their way after also winning. But European civics sometimes produce surprising results.
Yeah but there is a 17% chance that the human behind me says something funny!