I do agree that it does add a non-trivial amount of load, but the purpose of it being there is for isolation (keep the malware away from the bare metal like the actual HDD firmware) and snapshot capabilities -- if the VM gets completely compromised, the entire thing can be rolled back fairly quickly. With 2GB of RAM [1], it can support some low-end OS partitions.

[1]: I've seen some low-end netbooks ship with Windows 8.1 and 2GB RAM, so even though it is a painfully low amount of RAM, I'm guessing someone can use a machine with that small amount of memory.

Its hardware specs are modest, but the Compute Stick does have one item that might be useful -- slap VMWare or a hypervisor on it, and use it for a Web browsing VM, using App-V so that the browser appears seamless.

The advantage of doing things this way a hardware level of isolation. Should the browser (or add-ons) get compromised, the malware has to get out of the VM, and even then... the compromise is limited to a rather small amount of hardware so if there is some attack that is able to fry the CPU or motherboard, replacing this is a lot less pain than a blade or 1U server.

Of course, it can't run much, but for just running a Web browser in an isolated environment with a 32 GB drive, it is good enough.

I know I will fall into the Slashdot cliche of "a Beowulf cluster"... but these could be useful for physical separation and containerization of tasks. Small applications like NTP which are security sensitive so end up on a dedicated box, a small RODC for a branch office, a syslog drop box (especially with the ability to use a USB drive for storage), VDI, and other things which physical separation (as opposed to containers or VMs) would be a good thing.

It is understandable to be worried... but similar functionality has been in Windows for a while.

Secure Device is basically AppLocker, except on a driver level. AppLocker is a function that can be turned on since Windows 7 that can allow applications by signature or by their hash.

For the enterprise, this is a useful tool. One use case would be on servers, as a way to prevent an attacker from trying to install a driver for keylogging or to hook into disk I/O in efforts to try to grab a key or a password. Another use case would be in groups of locked down desktops (finance and point of sale systems come to mind.)

What Device Guards adds is that the business can choose which companies to trust. That way, if someone wants to install a product not on the list, even though the code may be signed, the install would be stopped.

All and all, this is a useful feature to have, especially on machines which should be locked down thoroughly (edge webservers, for example.)

That's something I've also noticed. Internet conspiracies have very mobile goalposts, so while their conclusions are always the same, they frequently manage to adapt and change to continuously counter facts. If you hit on last years version of the conspiracy (in this case, autism as opposed to 'too many too soon' or some other such excuse) then you're the one they call a dummy because they're totally over that and on to something else now. Completely countering them (not that many will accept being demonstrated to be wrong anyway) requires that you stay up to date on the latest misinformation.

The drawbacks are significant. In fact, this has been done before in the early 1990s with Macintosh LocalTalk-based NICs which one would aim every NIC in a room (assuming the usual cubicle based office) to a spot on the ceiling, adjust aim until all the devices sported a green LED, then they all could communicate with each other. It wasn't fast (LocalTalk did most of its stuff via broadcasts), but it was a way to network a bunch of machines in a dynamic environment without hardwiring and before the days of Wi-Fi.

After seeing this device reviewed in MacWorld, I've not seen hide nor hair or this being used since, so it apparently flopped, or just was overtaken by 10baseT.

I wonder why this technology can't get folded into basic IR output. Until 2012, MacBooks have had this built in... perhaps this might be something useful to put in a spec as a NIC option?

Of course, the downside are the security issues, but IR has been around quite a long time, and might just need a protocol update for this.

I'm not sure why this is news. Sticking any device on the PCIe bus is going to allow for a lot more speed than using the SATA bus, and because SSDs are not limited by any mechanical mechanism, many layers of RAID 0 striping can be used to keep increasing performance.

Where I see this a big help personally is virtualization [1]. Even a SSD that is stuffed into an enclosure and is run over USB 3, because VMs do a lot of random I/O, performance is distinctively better than HDDs.

[1]: With all the Web based compromises lying in wait, it is wise to run VMs and separate tasks. Plus, with App-V, Unity, and other methods, it doesn't take much from usability.

I like how you're not even trying to counter my points, just saying that more people agree with you, therefore you're right. Fortunately, regulations are not decided by majority vote, and for good reason. Do you really think the opposite should be the case, that regulations should be decided by majority vote?

and they overwhelmingly want to know if there are GMOs in them.

Depends on how you ask them. Ask what they want, few say GE labels. Ask if they want GE labels, then they say yes. Of course, labeled products are already available, and consumers can already tell if something is GE or not as I explained in my previous post; that they either do not buy the former or do not educate themselves is no justification for a new law.

Not really; look at your own loaded questions for the reason. Even independent biotech information organizations are accused of being corporate propaganda.

Personally, I wan organic food labeled as having been grown in 400-700 nm radiation. What's wrong with letting the consumer know that?

There are; they're called ingredient labels. Corn, soy, cotton, canola, sugar beet, alfalfa, summer squash, papaya. Know that, and a few details behind them, and you can tel if something is GE or not. Why do you need a label to replace educating yourself?

Yeah, that's practical. You offering to pay for all the tracking necessary to do that?

No. I am, however, saying that GE crops are no more different than those derived from hybridization, mutagenesis, bud sports, somaclonal variation, induced polyploidy, ect. all of which you eat unlabeled all the time, and you probably don't even know about them. I'm saying that unless there is a difference to the end consumer which is significantly different than what could otherwise be expected from the crop, then it should not matter for the purpose of labeling.

Why are you irrationally singling out one aspect of crop improvement, one that just so happens to be controversial (but not scientifically controversial [and yes, as a plant scientists, this stuff is about as controversial in my field as vaccines or the validity of evolution]), without demanding anything else be labeled (like other aspects of crop improvement and production, including but not limited to the other crop improvement techniques I mentioned, rootstock, PGR use, biocide use, fertilizer use [where's my poo label on organic foods?] date and location of harvest, ect) , without telling the details (such as gene inserted or what it does, ex NPTII, Bt, EPSPS, bar, CSPb, various cp genes, ect), without telling the benefits (ex. reduction in mycotoxins, reduction in insecticides, shift away from harsher herbicides such as atrazine, saving crops from viral infection, ect.).

You seem to want to be very specific and selective in what you tell the consumer, which is very fishy when we are talking about a thing that can be identified simply by knowing what you are looking for (corn, soybean, canola, cotton, alfalfa, sugar beet, summer squash, and papaya are all the GE crops out there). I can always tell if something I'm eating is likely to contain GE ingredients; why can't you educate yourself enough to do the same? Millions of vegans, Jews, Muslims, and Hindus with religious or personal dietary restrictions do the same, and they don't deserve a special law catering to their beliefs. You don't either.

The same way non-GE crop varieties such as Clearfield wheat, Beneforté broccoli, and Snowsweet apples can be patented. You do realize that non-GE crops can also be patented, yeah? My question is why you're trying to use a legal argument on a topic that should be decided on the scientific basis of the things; if they are scientifically different, th

There's noting wrong with truth in labeling. A lie of omission, however, is still a lie. If you tell consumers just enough about a single, arbitrarily selected manufactured controversy for them to be afraid, and don't give them any context whatsoever, then you're not really being honest, are you?

Let's think about this economically; do you really think farmers would have adopted this technology so rapidly if the only use for them was to spend more costly herbicides on crops, which detract from the farmer's bottom lines? Be real; your 'soaking' rhetoric is extremely misleading. The reality is that farmers apply what them need after the seeds come up, thus avoiding the need for pre- and post-emergent applications of herbicide cocktails. It's not ideal, but I don't here any anti-GMO groups coming up with better weed management strategies.

As for your point about weed evolution, yep, that's been going on for a long time, before GE crops were a thing. Saying we shouldn't use that technology because of it is pretty off base though. Better resistance mitigation strategies, yes, but not completely forging the technology simply because it exists within a biotic system. If that's your stance, I hope you never get something that requires any anti-viral medication, because by your logic, that viruses evolve means we just shouldn't treat them. Pretty bad reasoning, no?

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the technology. Glyphosate use hasn't just go up; it has displaced other herbicides (including some harsh alternatives like atrazine, or just soil eroding tillage) and allowed farmers to hit the field with a single post emergent application of one of what is actually one of the more beneign herbicides out there. I wouldn't go drinking it, but glyphosate is hardly one of the scarier agrochemicals.

So yeah, glyphosate use is up, but so what? That's better than the alternative. Do you have a better weed management solution? Because if you do the farmers of the world would love to hear it; it isn't like they spend all that money on glyphosate for nothing. What you are saying is like saying that a line of cocaine is better than a glass of wine because the cocaine weighs less; you neglect to take into consideration that not all herbicides are equal. Furthermore, you consider only the one option against an ideal, when in reality, it is one of several options, and the ideal is not one of them.

First off, you are against a technique because of how some people use it? Do I really have to point out how bad that logic is? Second, no one forces anyone to use Monsanto/Syngenta/Pioneer/ect.'s seed. They don't 'own' basic foodstuffs, they own the IP on very specific strains of crops. Don't like it? Fine, don't use them. Problem solved.

You're claims that supporting genetic engineering equate to supporting all the things various companies have done in the past is like saying that supporting vaccination equates to supporting all the nasty things pharmaceutical companies have done. Your logic is again completely off base.

Yes, things like Golden Rice and BioCassava and..oh wait, anti-GMO activists have worked to get such things blocked so that only large corporations have the money to get through the regulatory hurdles. That's a pretty key detail you conveniently neglected.

If it objectively matters, it gets labeled, if not, no label. Same reason why there is no mandatory labeling on Halal/Haram, Kosher/non-Kosher, vegan, ect. Don't want to eat GE crops? There are only 8 species of food crop that are GE; if doing five minutes of research are so hard then perhaps you don't care that much anyway.

What I hate is when people use a lie of omission to imply a falsehood. Labeling GE foods is like labeling evolution teaching textbooks with 'Evolution is just a theory.' Technically true, but also misleading politically motivated garbage and everyone knows it. I'll believe you care about 'knowing what's in your food' and not just fearmongering when you demand all other methods of crop improvement (which most people outside of plant & agricultural science [that's you] don't even know about) be labeled and demand labeling for the hows, whys, and benefits of what has been genetically engineered.

And there haven't been any 20 plus years on the effects of Wifi either, and yet, I don't see you panicking about that. Maybe when you give me a reason to suspect genetic engineering, instead of arbitrarily singling it out, I'll ignore all the safety data that shows no problems. So, lets talk biochemistry; what is it you find uniquely suspicious about genetic engineering, and be as specific as possible.

So you write a post slandering the flawless safety record of GE crops, reflecting the multitude of misinformation on the internet, then wonder why farmers and seed companies don't want them labeled? Gee, I can't imagine why.

I've personally played around with the Moonshot and being able to squeeze 45 blades in a 5U rack (the specs say 4.3U...) is a nice thing. Each blade has two DIMM spaces and a SSD, which is good enough to load a hypervisor, then use the onboard bus for going to a storage array.

I wouldn't say that each blade is as powerful as a blade in HP's conventional 16 blade enclosure (which takes 10 rack units), nor as powerful as a 1U standalone server... but you can choose what goes in, from a low end Xeon on the m710 to an AMD offering, to an Intel Atom, to ARM based procs.

High density enclosures like the HP Moonshot are quite useful. VM farms come to mind as well as privilege separation for security sensitive tasks. VDI also comes to mind (so the extremely sensitive stuff can be used and manipulated by RDP or Citrix Receiver as seamless applications, but a compromise of a user's desktop doesn't allow the entire database to be taken.) It also makes a decent testbed when doing production to test copies and staging OS/program updates for soak testing before they updates are pushed into the field. I wouldn't say high density server platforms will replace everything else (due to physical limitations, the blades are not going to outperform standard 2 Xeon machines), but they are a useful thing to have and help save space in the server room.

To me, there needs to be a paper trail. Like the lottery issue a few days ago, if someone tampers with the RNG and does it in a manner that their modifications can be backed out, there is no way to tell it was done.

This doesn't have to be in a way that causes hanging chads. It just has to be a way of logging people's votes to a physical medium that is both machine readable and human readable.

This way, when someone votes, they get a paper ballot printed out that they can doublecheck. Then it shouldn't be an issue to tally up the votes via the printed cards. Hell, universities do this all the time with Scantrons for tests and finals, in far greater volume per location than voting precincts do.

Add Chaum's verifiable voting, and one has an open, secure system.