This is such an egregious typo that I have a hard time believing it wasn't deliberate.

Not that there aren't lots of problems with these so-called "free trade" agreements that really aren't... but this would definitely be a violation and would justify sanctions (such as tariffs) from treaty member nations.

What good does a "competitive advantage" do if the "profit advantage" is taken out of it?

Hahahaha. Sure. But look at all the "waterfall" projects that have failed after 10 years and more billions of dollars or pounds. I'm not sure about over there, but there have been a few famous ones in the U.S.

Yes, very definitely. My comment was only meant in the context of accidentally destroying important data, or some such. Certainly if it could result in personal harm you would not want to do it. In most circumstances, anyway. I can think of a few exceptions.

Hahahahaha! Good one.

Ultimately, your goal is to get paid. If you don't do what the customer wants, you have failed to achieve your goal.

It is acceptable to try to dissuade them. It is acceptable to warn them. But document it when you do. And if they still want it despite all your warnings and attempts to convince, then give it to them. That's what you're getting paid for. If they complain later, show them your documentation and where they insisted even though you advised against it.

I once worked for a company that demanded the ability to do X in the software, despite my warnings that it was a bad idea. So I put in confirmations. When they first clicked the button to do X, it first popped up a message saying "This will result in _____. Are you sure you want to do this?". If they clicked Yes, then another confirmation popped up: "Are you really sure?" And if they clicked yes again, a third confirmation popped up: "Are you really, really, REALLY sure?"

An administrator mentioned to me later that he thought the warnings were funny, but he liked the fact they were there.

I don't know what dictionary you used, but the first definition at dictionary.com was the one I wrote above.

While it might be an "acceptable" use, it is still an abandonment of the word's etymology and historical meaning, which was literally to "put the lie to", not just something that was deceptive. Acceptable? Maybe. But it's a definite distortion of the word's actual connotations. Remember that words have not just denotations but also connotations, and that ain't it.

The problem however was that the ARCNET daisy chain had a fairly short maximum physical length before you got signal degradation. And repeaters usually only handled a few lines unless you wanted to spend a boatload of money, so it was common to extend your daisychains as long as you could before resorting to a hub or bridge.

The reliability was good but moving machines (which happened a lot at the time there) was a pain in the butt.

I, for one, welcomed Ethernet when it became affordable. I had become so tired of crawling through ceilings and fishing down walls whenever someone moved to a different office. When the company moved to a new building, I had them run Cat 4 cable to each office (this was early 90s), and I put a big Ethernet hub in a rack in the new "comm closet", and a big patch panel on the wall. My life became SO much easier after that. I could actually take a Sunday off once in a while.

And that is 100% irrelevant to the point I was making. Just as with Intel, the "disabled" chips only became available well after the full-featured chips. The design didn't happen until the manufacturer decided to create a branch of the product line from the existing branch.

Do you not remember the customer revolt over Intel doing this? I was systems manager when it happened. And believe me, people were pissed off.

Ahah. Maybe so, BUT... you have to keep in mind that his behavior is ALSO the classic behavior of an inventor who is very suspicious that others might steal his invention before he can profit from it.

This is hardly unusual. The Wright Brothers did exactly the same thing. For a number of years they staged demonstrations only in foreign countries, and didn't let people get close or examine the equipment.

Their behavior was so "paranoid" that Scientific American did not believe their claims, and persisted in giving the credit for sustained powered flight to someone else. It wasn't until something like 6 years later that they decided the preponderance of the evidence was actually in the Wrights' favor.

So don't misunderstand me. I don't disagree that his behavior is suspicious. But there actually exist legitimate reasons for his behavior to be suspicious, and legitimate inventors of the past have behaved the same way. Look at the Wrights. Look at Tesla. (Who had every reason to be paranoid... people really were out to steal his inventions, and succeeded more than once.)

It's a bit premature to say which is which.

This is one of the strangest sentences I have encountered in quite a while.

First, "belie" is very definitely the wrong word to use here. It means "to show to be false". And second, Ethernet is ubiquitous largely because of its simplicity... there is nothing surprising about that.

I don't have an opinion about Rossi's device, and skepticism is warranted. But outright rejection is not reasonable, for a number of reasons.

In the decades since the Pons-Fleischman debacle back in 1989, there has been a huge amount of evidence that the phenomenon they described is real. The problem is just that it has been grossly unpredictable. Lots of people have replicated their results, just not reliably.

In addition, researchers for the U.S. Navy and other laboratories have been investigating the exact same Nickel-to-Copper LENR reaction for many years, saying that it shows great promise.

Don't confuse outright rejection with skepticism. They aren't the same things. I am skeptical of Rossi's claims too, but until more evidence comes in I am keeping an open mind. Even if Rossi turns out not to be the one who has made this work, there is every reason to believe there is something to this technology.

Here's the problem: they're pulling the same blunder that got Intel in hot water back in the 90s.

People aren't stupid (although many of them act that way sometimes). If you can take a part that sells for $1,000, disable some of the functionality, and sell it for $650... then you can sell the whole unit for $650. It's a ripoff and people know it.

Now, if it's a matter of disabling cores that don't pass testing anyway, that might be an effective way to dump "defective" parts on the market and still profit from them. But it's pretty hard -- for very good reasons -- to convince people that it doesn't actually cost you MORE money to disable only those that don't pass tests... meaning you still could have sold those better parts for the lower amount.

Wow. I don't know how that sneaked in there. The final paragraph should simply have been:

"The 'not very practical' designation simply means you haven't been using your imagination."

First off, the kind of OTP situation discussed in TFA isn't even a very common concern: using forensic tech to recover the key from memory. Either you'd have to have some kind of computer with virtually no garbage collection of free memory, or the computer would have to be seized immediately after having sent the message. Just not something that is going to happen every day.

But to address your own comment: you must keep in mind that almost ALL modern encryption has the problem that a key must be generated and distributed. Public-key or asymmetrical cryptography is great for certain things, but even that relies on keeping a key secret (although the secret key does not have to be distributed).

The point is: as long as your OTP key remains secret (if the key is pretty random and of course if it is used only once), then it is inviolable. There are many extremely practical uses for such technology.

For example: you can dispense with the "one time only" requirement if you simply want little more than a "keeping the kid sister's prying eyes off my email" level of security. You can dispense with the key distribution requirement if you have agreed upon a common external changing key source. And so on.

The "not very practical" designation simply means you haven't been using your imagination. common kind of OTP, nor is it a very practical one. The subset they describe is made by adding characters to a message from a random source to obscure the message.