Ford Explorer roof pillars were initially spec'd with a fairly high-grade steel. Citing costs, management refused to use the high-grade steel and instead used a weaker steel.
Result? Lots of roof-cave-ins on a vehicle that was prone to roll over.
http://shameproject.com/report...
http://mikethemadbiologist.com...
Malcom Gladwell is the product of conservative institutes and think tanks; he has worked for racists, the tobacco industry, oil companies, big pharma, and more. His books popularize the kind of thinking that said industries have used to defend their practices.
you must consult with Imagination before you change it.
Yes. And what happens then?
I haven't in general met many professors (or EEs) who understand much about intellectual property.
OK. Can we see your agreements, please? Because that did sound very much like trolling for additional intellectual property to add to your portfolio.
People who read this article have pointed out three open CPU designs in addition to the one that I remembered.
While your product might be "production ready", please keep in mind that open projects are very often written to a higher standard than commercial ones, and the researchers involved are no less professional than your own developers. And their projects come with fewer intellectual property issues than yours.
It's only "free" for academia.
Not even them. This is a lure for universities to create tech that they are not allowed to produce in hardware, but the company that provided the original tech can monetize.
The patent terms are whatever they want them to be. In general "reasonable" and "patent" don't happen together much. And "tiny", well I really doubt it.
Having a company provide funds for a research grant and then reap the patent royalties isn't in general a good thing for society. The student researchers get paid like slave labor (if they get paid at all) and put what may be the best idea of their lives in some company's pockets.
It's very common these days for companies to allow universities to use their technology at the cost of tying the company into the university's patent revenue. And of course this is often publicly-funded research, so not only is the taxpayer paying for the development of patents used to sue that same taxpayer, the patents go directly to a company from academia.
The net effect is to feed intellectual property centered companies at the expense of the technology sector in general and small technology companies in particular.
The attack can be done by sniffing an HTTP request then the attacker will spoofed a crafted HTTP response.
Looks like the attacker needs physical access.
Performing Quantum Insert attack require that the attacker can monitor the traffic and have very fast infrastructure to win the race condition.
Again, NSA and co. seem to have these abilities. How can you defend yourself? Look for duplicated packets coming from a legitimate request. Remember, in order for the impersonation to be of value, the attacker must return a spoofed packet faster than the legitimate back-end can.
What will we see next from intelligence agencies in the future? How can we defend infrastructures from these kind of TTL races? Is there an easy fix?
The problem with that plan is that so many aspects of the way the system is designed give people with money and/or time an advantage that you'd basically have to scrap it.
This is a problem?
Well, it does typically take more than a strongly worded letter. Come to think of it, last time we sent one of those to our king his reaction was much less than accommodating to our requests.
Ya'll hear about the geometer who went to the beach to catch some rays and became a tangent ?
