Repeat with me: Automation is good. It makes we, human kind, more productive. With the same human work, we can get more benefits for ourselves, so on average our wealth improves. The people that do not need to do manual and repetitive jobs can move to a more creative work which produces more benefit for mankind. Gutenberg's printing was good. e-mail was good, despite removing works in the Post office. Hydraulic excavators are good. And all of them reduce the number of jobs, and unions cannot and shouldn't try to prevent this. Fortunately, we are no longer relying on picks and shovels to dig tunnels.

The problem is not with automation, which is good for mankind as a whole; the problem is with the distribution of wealth. We are facing a serious problem, in which those who have the machines (capital) become much richer by producing the same as before, and those that lose their employments become poorer. I certainly believe that this problem will aggravate with time, as more jobs are out-dated by technology, and "the system" cannot provide an alternative way to earn a living.

One option might be to move to a system in which everyone has a basic "social earning", enough for a living, while those with a work would earn more money. However, this imposes serious trouble, such as obvious abuse and unfairness. I see the problem, but I don't foresee a clear solution.

Note that, on multiple processors, the legacy x86 and the x64 implementations are (almost completely) separated, using different processor resources. Between the larger/better resources, and the higher number of register, the x64 pipeline gets a better performance in the same processor. The lower memory usage also helps to improve performance, but its impact is minor.

The vulnerability is originally disclosed here, not in the posted link.

This vulnerability only works from the same broadcast domain where the TV is, since the remote control protocol relies on broadcast messages to announce the service. This means that your TV cannot be cracked from the Internet. Let's hope that Samsung apply a fix soon, in any case.

The seminal paper proposing the use of switched/routed interconnection networks on-chip (NoCs) was published by Dally and Towels 11 years ago in DAC'01: Route packets, not wires: On-chip interconnection networks. The idea of associating a router to each core and replicating it in "tiles" is not new either; Tilera was (IIRC) the first company to sell processors based on a tiled design, which was an evolution of the RAW research project. A related research project, the TRIPs, replicated functional units on each tile, rather than full cores. Intel has used a tiled design in the Polaris, SSC and MIC (which includes the forthcoming Knights Corner).

So no, the idea of using routed interconnects is not new at all. In fact, after reading the linked article, turns out that 2/3ths of the text are introducing the idea, and the last section details the contributions: Two ideas developed by the group of Li-Shiuan Peh seeking to improve performance (by using virtual bypassing, a form of routing precomputation) and reducing power consumption (using low-swing signaling).

Actually, if the Ethernet CAT5 does not get to gigabit speeds, then a certification of the cable would fail. That cable is not cat5.

There are two categories of HDMI cables, category-1 and category-2 (for 720p and 1080p, roughly speaking). If a cable is certified for a given cat, it means that it can transmit the corresponding signal with a low (bounded) error rate. Obviously, it is more difficult for a longer cable to pass the cat-2 test. But there are more factors, such as the length, the construction (connectors, etc) and the instalation itself (twists are bad!!).

So no, the fact that you build an Ethernet cable from cat-5 does not mean the final result will be certified for cat-5; similarly, a high-speed HDMI cable should be certified before being sold, and probably the cheapest ones are not. However, the fact that the digital signal transmitted on these cables is uncompressed audio/video makes them much more error-tolerant, so it is likely that a lower-quality cable (i.e., with a higher bit error rate) produces a higher distorsion, but it is not noticed by the end user.

Facebook, on the other side, is mostly public, so the loss of image might also apply.

Oh, wait...