Generally, the States can write laws that are more strict than the Federal law. They can write laws so that State laws don't apply to the actions of the US Government, but those laws still apply to everybody else just fine. For example, the Forest Service doesn't need to get permission from the State, such as local permitting, to build roads and stuff in their forest. They have their own federal land use laws to regulate that.
There are severe limits to what the US Government can prevent the States from regulating. They can enact Federal rules and force the State rules to include at least that much, but then States get to extend that how they want. Stopping that requires a Constitutional Amendment!
Federal Supremacy is only useful to include in your analysis when you consider how it works. Just pointing at it and claiming that Caesar is in Rome isn't really good enough.
It sounds like a good plan until you realize that they copied and re-implemented the API, and it all works fine when you're not suffering under Oracle.
Nowadays, you don't see much, if any, hype about THD.
In Europe they mandate low THD even in kitchen appliances. Don't think your stereo will be allowed to have high THD just because you're a hipster. Power factor correction is the future of electronics.
I am literally describing current SCOTUS precedent, don't be a dunce. Don't repeat nonsense you heard on your newsvertainment, look up the fucking ruling and read the damn opinion.
it does mean that AMD has one less bargaining chip next time negotiations come around (i.e. they can't realistically threaten to go back to GF)
It doesn't say that they're never going to compete at 7nm, they're just saying that they're not going to compete right now while it's the cutting edge. From the story:
Gary Patton admits that GlobalFoundries never planned to be a leading producer of 7-nm chips in terms of volume. Furthermore, the company has been seeing increasing adoption of its 14LPP/12LP technologies by designers of various emerging devices, keeping Fab 8 busy and leaving fewer step-and-scan systems for 7LP products.
So the main business reasons seem to be related to the fact that they're getting increased demand for their older processes, and can make more money on that then on doing the R&D to be a bit player at 7nm. They'd need a new factory to do both, and they don't think it is worth building a new factory for 7nm right now.
So I would expect them to be adding 7nm later, when TSMC and Samsung are pushing 5 and 3nm. And by then, AMD may still be on 7nm and happy to switch back. Maybe in 3 years AMD will have their top end chips somewhere else, and most of their volume coming from GF. Totally realistic.
Because the sandbox can screw up and eat your cat at any time.
The vulnerability it protects against happens when you're rebuilding an installer package locally. Building the installer can cause it to run naughty javascript that might be hidden in the code related to icons. Most users would never ever run this. Very few users are rebuilding packages that they're not involved in maintaining.
But if the new sandbox has security bugs, they could hit regular users who never even tried to rebuild a package.
You seem to misunderstand the intent. Maybe because you've been watching too much Fox News, and they weren't honest with you about the purpose of these efforts?
The goal isn't to keep people from having arms, or to keep them from making their own. See how easy that is? Now everything makes sense! They're only trying to make it hard enough that you're doing it because you cared, not just because you were angry and wanted to hurt people. That doesn't solve all problems, but it doesn't try to either.
Historically in Europe many small villages, especially in the mountains, had wooden cannons. Big ones. Made from a log.
Of course it "blows up" when you fire it, but don't think that stops the shot from going out the end at a high velocity! It just means, run fast after lighting the fuse, or if equipped with a percussive hammer, fire it with a long string!
Reading comprehension doesn't help unless you also read a lot.;)
Hey Cluestick, I'm in a "Blue State" and we have lots of militias.
Even your National Guard is a militia!
But also the "survivalist" morons have a militia.
The 2nd Amendment lists both the right of a State to allow militias, and also an individual right to bear arms. The militia part means that if your militia is legal under State law, and can pass a minimal military parade review, then the federal government can't claim that it is unlawful for them to bear arms as a group.
But it isn't like the 1st Amendment, where Congress can make no law restricting the freedom of the press. Instead, Congress shall not abridge the right. That only means, after Congress passes some law, it has to leave a path so that people can still do the thing. (possess arms; march around in a group)
Abridge literally means you left no bridge, so "shall not abridge" doesn't mean there are no rules to navigate, only that there is a path through those rules that leads to exercising the right.
Did you consider the question, "Why would they need to test its security?" Does not testing security, when you know you need to do it, create a security risk?
How can you point at "because they didn't take the time to test its security" and not also arrive at, "If they don't have time to test the security, then including it would be a risk?"
You just from them not having time, to their excuse about why they didn't have time, without considering the actual effect of not having enough time. It doesn't matter why they didn't have time, that has nothing at all to do with the implications of not having enough time.
They used to know they were ignorant. Now they're all at the Dunning-Kruger peak.
The world is much smaller these days. Now everybody can visit Mt. Stupid whenever they want! You can even spend your whole life there. Utopia!?!
There is no question that people are more ignorant relative to their perception of their knowledge level. Nevertheless, they probably do have more knowledge now. But do they sense any danger in that??
Me too. I always read that modern "science" was based on the methods of Natural Philosophers that were contemporaneous with Isaac Newton, and their system of publishing directly to each other through "open letters" published in the journals of the Philosphic Societies that they were members of and where membership granted them rights to be included in the publication. This had value because the regular publishers acted as gatekeepers, but couldn't ever be expected to understand new discoveries, or to place that above their profits.
By that understanding, it should be obvious that having the publishers control what is published, but using a class of Peers who stand above the researchers and guard the gate, is an intermediate system between the intention of science, and the financial realities of the publishing industry. Adding more direct, uncontrolled information sources should only improve science, if science is what it claims to be. Though obviously, the concept that the person on the street has of what science is is totally absurd and unscientific.
Did you consider the possibility that the verb "memorizing" does not actually mean, "the act of having remembered something," but rather "the act of attempting to remember things?"
Also, you leave out consideration of the fact that the brain is a dishonest narrator about what you remember accurately! If you remember that a fact is indexed, and where it is indexed, and you value looking it up more than trying to go by memory, then you'll be more likely to just look up the number and have it right. But when you go by memory, you've got some avoidable errors.
So memory is good, memory is important, but that doesn't mean that the act of trying to memorize things is useful. And other intelligence studies have actually found that people with high general intelligence tend to forget details that they consider unimportant at a higher rate than the average dummy. Having a good memory is good, but having a good memory only of the most important bits is even better. Save some storage space for something else, remember where the index is stored, forget what is on what page, or what all 17th digit of pi is.
It seems obvious, but if there isn't enough available hours to audit the sandbox, there is even less available to individually audit all the code that would run inside the sandbox.
And most of that code has been in the wild for a long time and is pretty stable. (Stable means unchanging in software) So it is less likely to be dangerous than newer code, that hasn't been in the wild for long, and isn't yet stable.
Slashdot Mirror
He probably just has too many search tools, so now he's more stupider.
And even, somehow, more useful.
The Federal Supremacy Clause.
Generally, the States can write laws that are more strict than the Federal law. They can write laws so that State laws don't apply to the actions of the US Government, but those laws still apply to everybody else just fine. For example, the Forest Service doesn't need to get permission from the State, such as local permitting, to build roads and stuff in their forest. They have their own federal land use laws to regulate that.
There are severe limits to what the US Government can prevent the States from regulating. They can enact Federal rules and force the State rules to include at least that much, but then States get to extend that how they want. Stopping that requires a Constitutional Amendment!
Federal Supremacy is only useful to include in your analysis when you consider how it works. Just pointing at it and claiming that Caesar is in Rome isn't really good enough.
Are you sure that is true in South Brexitville?
It sounds like a good plan until you realize that they copied and re-implemented the API, and it all works fine when you're not suffering under Oracle.
Make Linkedin Great Again!
To be a V1H?
That's why America doesn't lead the world in culture anymore. We used to have music videos on television, now we have music television with no music.
But India has VH1. With real music videos on it. And who was responsible? MTV. Go figure.
Obviously, we should blame China for this.
Nowadays, you don't see much, if any, hype about THD.
In Europe they mandate low THD even in kitchen appliances. Don't think your stereo will be allowed to have high THD just because you're a hipster. Power factor correction is the future of electronics.
I am literally describing current SCOTUS precedent, don't be a dunce. Don't repeat nonsense you heard on your newsvertainment, look up the fucking ruling and read the damn opinion.
it does mean that AMD has one less bargaining chip next time negotiations come around (i.e. they can't realistically threaten to go back to GF)
It doesn't say that they're never going to compete at 7nm, they're just saying that they're not going to compete right now while it's the cutting edge. From the story:
Gary Patton admits that GlobalFoundries never planned to be a leading producer of 7-nm chips in terms of volume. Furthermore, the company has been seeing increasing adoption of its 14LPP/12LP technologies by designers of various emerging devices, keeping Fab 8 busy and leaving fewer step-and-scan systems for 7LP products.
So the main business reasons seem to be related to the fact that they're getting increased demand for their older processes, and can make more money on that then on doing the R&D to be a bit player at 7nm. They'd need a new factory to do both, and they don't think it is worth building a new factory for 7nm right now.
So I would expect them to be adding 7nm later, when TSMC and Samsung are pushing 5 and 3nm. And by then, AMD may still be on 7nm and happy to switch back. Maybe in 3 years AMD will have their top end chips somewhere else, and most of their volume coming from GF. Totally realistic.
The most important thing in my pants is only 2.5 nanometers in diameter.
Before you consider the rest of the factors, 10% yield sounds like a working process to me!
You'd know if it didn't work when the yield was well below 1%.
You won't know if 10% is good or bad unless you do a financial analysis. Lots of high tech processes have low yield.
It might not be weasel words, it might just some edujamakatid words.
Because the sandbox can screw up and eat your cat at any time.
The vulnerability it protects against happens when you're rebuilding an installer package locally. Building the installer can cause it to run naughty javascript that might be hidden in the code related to icons. Most users would never ever run this. Very few users are rebuilding packages that they're not involved in maintaining.
But if the new sandbox has security bugs, they could hit regular users who never even tried to rebuild a package.
Ultimately, the SCOTUS will rule that code is free speech.
Next time you're visiting the future in the time machine, bring back the sports page!
You seem to misunderstand the intent. Maybe because you've been watching too much Fox News, and they weren't honest with you about the purpose of these efforts?
The goal isn't to keep people from having arms, or to keep them from making their own. See how easy that is? Now everything makes sense! They're only trying to make it hard enough that you're doing it because you cared, not just because you were angry and wanted to hurt people. That doesn't solve all problems, but it doesn't try to either.
Historically in Europe many small villages, especially in the mountains, had wooden cannons. Big ones. Made from a log.
Of course it "blows up" when you fire it, but don't think that stops the shot from going out the end at a high velocity! It just means, run fast after lighting the fuse, or if equipped with a percussive hammer, fire it with a long string!
Reading comprehension doesn't help unless you also read a lot. ;)
Hey Cluestick, I'm in a "Blue State" and we have lots of militias.
Even your National Guard is a militia!
But also the "survivalist" morons have a militia.
The 2nd Amendment lists both the right of a State to allow militias, and also an individual right to bear arms. The militia part means that if your militia is legal under State law, and can pass a minimal military parade review, then the federal government can't claim that it is unlawful for them to bear arms as a group.
But it isn't like the 1st Amendment, where Congress can make no law restricting the freedom of the press. Instead, Congress shall not abridge the right. That only means, after Congress passes some law, it has to leave a path so that people can still do the thing. (possess arms; march around in a group)
Abridge literally means you left no bridge, so "shall not abridge" doesn't mean there are no rules to navigate, only that there is a path through those rules that leads to exercising the right.
If Epic didn't give Google the information, then Google doesn't have it and can't act based on it!
Did you consider the question, "Why would they need to test its security?" Does not testing security, when you know you need to do it, create a security risk?
How can you point at "because they didn't take the time to test its security" and not also arrive at, "If they don't have time to test the security, then including it would be a risk?"
You just from them not having time, to their excuse about why they didn't have time, without considering the actual effect of not having enough time. It doesn't matter why they didn't have time, that has nothing at all to do with the implications of not having enough time.
They used to know they were ignorant. Now they're all at the Dunning-Kruger peak.
The world is much smaller these days. Now everybody can visit Mt. Stupid whenever they want! You can even spend your whole life there. Utopia!?!
There is no question that people are more ignorant relative to their perception of their knowledge level. Nevertheless, they probably do have more knowledge now. But do they sense any danger in that??
Maybe... I'm too stupid to understand
Me too. I always read that modern "science" was based on the methods of Natural Philosophers that were contemporaneous with Isaac Newton, and their system of publishing directly to each other through "open letters" published in the journals of the Philosphic Societies that they were members of and where membership granted them rights to be included in the publication. This had value because the regular publishers acted as gatekeepers, but couldn't ever be expected to understand new discoveries, or to place that above their profits.
By that understanding, it should be obvious that having the publishers control what is published, but using a class of Peers who stand above the researchers and guard the gate, is an intermediate system between the intention of science, and the financial realities of the publishing industry. Adding more direct, uncontrolled information sources should only improve science, if science is what it claims to be. Though obviously, the concept that the person on the street has of what science is is totally absurd and unscientific.
Did you consider the possibility that the verb "memorizing" does not actually mean, "the act of having remembered something," but rather "the act of attempting to remember things?"
Also, you leave out consideration of the fact that the brain is a dishonest narrator about what you remember accurately! If you remember that a fact is indexed, and where it is indexed, and you value looking it up more than trying to go by memory, then you'll be more likely to just look up the number and have it right. But when you go by memory, you've got some avoidable errors.
So memory is good, memory is important, but that doesn't mean that the act of trying to memorize things is useful. And other intelligence studies have actually found that people with high general intelligence tend to forget details that they consider unimportant at a higher rate than the average dummy. Having a good memory is good, but having a good memory only of the most important bits is even better. Save some storage space for something else, remember where the index is stored, forget what is on what page, or what all 17th digit of pi is.
Editing fail there slashdot...
Or a win, since it's a slashvertisement.
Yers. Derfinitely. But I feedz empathy fer thum after readin ther fikshuns.
It seems obvious, but if there isn't enough available hours to audit the sandbox, there is even less available to individually audit all the code that would run inside the sandbox.
And most of that code has been in the wild for a long time and is pretty stable. (Stable means unchanging in software) So it is less likely to be dangerous than newer code, that hasn't been in the wild for long, and isn't yet stable.