My wife used Uber once. The vehicle was not clean, the driver was (in her words) creepy, she didn't like his driving, and he insisted on playing music she thought obnoxious. All in all, she quite unhappy with the whole experience. She insists that we'll be staying with taxis.
Send an email to someone with employee type click-bait (juicy info about your company or a major competitor, whatever) and get drive-by malware that installs some VBA code in Outlook.
When that employee emails others in the company, the VBA is included and installs itself, tells the user his Outlook session has expired and puts up a dialog asking for the account and password. Employee enters the data and it is sent to a command and control server. That user is now pwned.
Send messages (seemingly from a pwned employee) to the CEO, CFO, Finance and Legal departments with VBA attachments that are installed. The VBA sends all their email to the bad guys. Not saying it's the way it was done, but that's one way to do it.
That is true, but nVidia's outreach engineers have a history of checking code that regresses performance on competitor hardware. See what this Value developer has to say about "Vendor A":
Vendor A is also jokingly known as the "Graphics Mafia". Be very careful if a dev from Vendor A gets embedded into your team. These guys are serious business.
So, you are suggesting that game studios let vendors check in code totally unreviewed? I worked at a company that had two engineers from Nvidia and 3 from AMD - none of them had the ability to check in code, although they did have access to our sources.
The Nvidia engineers were top notch, knew their products, knew how to get performance from their products, and would be unhappy if we didn't take notice of what they said. The AMD people were OK, but just not in the same league as the Nvidia people. Which was best for us? The Nvidia guys improved our product for both their customers and AMD customers. The AMD people would only look at AMD specific code and provided way less assistance. I'd go with the Nvidia guys any day - they were indeed serious, hard working engineers, one with a ph.d., the other with a masters.
And the best you can suggest for fiddling is a benchmark from 13 years ago? That several lifetimes in graphics technology - go look at any 2001 game. As I recall, both Nvidia and ATI (as it was then) tweaked benchmarks to favor their product around that time and were found out. However, modern graphics benchmarks make it difficult for any manufacturer to corrupt the results.
How, exactly, can Nvidia make games run poorly on other hardware? They don't write the games. Both AMD and Nvidia have extensive outreach programs to developers and make engineers available to game studios, and obviously those engineers will make suggestions on how to improve game performance on their hardware. But I doubt that game studio staff would be willing to cripple their games on either platform at the behest of Nvidia or AMD engineers.
Would you like to provide citations that they bribe sites? And how would that hurt game performance? How can using certain benchmarks (as you suggest) make games run slower on other hardware? And even if they did, are you saying that sites would accept Nvidia's suggestions and ignore AMD suggestions?
AMD fanboy much?
A component manufacturer is unhappy that someone else is using his product id so he puts code in a driver that sets the product id to zero. This prevents the fake component being recognized by his driver or any other driver. The license for the driver explicitly states that using the driver with a fake component may irretrievably damage the component.
If the component manufacturer doesn't want the fake product to work with his driver he can code his driver to ignore the fake. Modifying the product id to brick the component is another matter entirely.
This doesn't hurt the people who created the fake, or even the people who purchased the fake and used them in their manufacturing. It only hurts end users who have done nothing except purchase a product in retail channels. Deliberately destroying equipment because it uses a fake component goes to a whole new level of nastiness.
It really is insulting to give a Nobel prize for an improvement to a revolutionary idea, and ignore the person who did the original work. Without Holonyak's original work there would be no basis for the improvement.
It took me all of 5 seconds to hide the album in iTunes. All gone, I'll never see it again (unless I choose to unhide it).
Such a hardship.
I agree. If you don't mind tinkering, pfSense is the way to go
I agree that pfSense is a great solution but I disagree about the tinkering . pfSense fits well in the mantra of "simple things can be done simply but complex things are possible". It needs little tinkering if you have a reasonably standard setup - say an internet connection plus a local network. It has decent defaults.
If you have a more complex setup (I have a LAN interface, a DMZ, a guest network, and a VPN interface as well as several additional software packages) then some tinkering will be needed.
I have pfSense running on a Soekris net6501 for my home network firewall. I have set up OpenVPN - configuration took only a few minutes and it has worked perfectly.
The Soekris Net6501 is more than sufficient for my needs but pfSense scales well and will run on many types of hardware. When I was testing it I ran pfSense as a VM without any problems - in retrospect I should have left it that way permanently.
This isn't patent trolling. nVidia literally invented the GPU and much shader technology back in the 1990s. A lot of graphic stuff now considered basic was developed and patented by nVidia.
These are probably legitimate patents that other companies are using without a license. One of the reasons that Intel graphics technology is still far behind is that they are coming late to the graphics game and have a patent minefield to avoid. It looks like Qualcomm and Samsung decided to ignore the minefield and hope that they didn't step on a patent mine - or at least not step on one that would be noticed by nVidia.
Link to Original Source
1. Place immature people (of any physical age) in an anonymous, no consequences environment.
2. Give them the ability to address people whom they would never have the opportunity to approach outside of a virtual environment.
3. Supply a conduit such as Twitter or Facebook or email that requires very little effort compared to writing and mailing a physical letter.
The result is completely predictable.
Automobile companies make a large number of vehicles - both GM and Toyota make around 10 million per year. Saving just one dollar on each vehicle adds millions to the company profits.
Something as simple as the extra wiring to create multiple data busses in the vehicle could add a couple of dollars to the vehicle cost. The auto makers will not do it unless it is mandated (either by law or their legal department fearing lawsuits) or they see some sort of a competitive advantage (somewhat unlikely) or there's a PR disaster.
nVidia makes the chips and very recently a couple of reference designs and retail tablets. They don't make the OS and other software.
As you pointed out, Google (not nVidia) removed support for CL rendering to push their own product. I'm sure nVidia was unhappy about that as it removed one of their competitive advantages.
With the Tegra K1, nVidia is pointing out (quite rightly) that their hardware supports a bunch of new things. nVidia's literature describes the Jetson-TK1 as a development kit, not a product. It is made available so that people can write software that supports the features in the hardware
I completely fail to see where nVidia has been dishonest in this.