They could be open and sell each chip at its fair market price for its level of functionality. Chips sold at the wrong price level can only happen if they *do* price discrimination. On the other hand, if product binning were the only reason as claimed by some posters this could not happen - there would be no chips sold at the wrong price.
Mod parent up.
There also better solutions than code signing if it were only about preventing people from getting silicon with broken cores sold as fully functional: Just publish the test result with the serial number.
On the other hand, it might equally well be price discrimination where they turn off perfectly working features just to be able to sell the same product to different people for a different price. Who knows?
In the context about dhcp, there was a very similar problem before and people added some sanitation:
So yes, people are aware that having an attacker control parts of the environment is a bad idea and this needs to be restriced. But for some reason this fix to dhcp does not cover all possibilties..
No, it seems that any command is run using the user's shell which might be bash.
The question is, what language would they write good code in?
If Linus is right, C++ attracks bad programmers. So another language would not help. Personally, I stick to C. It is not the perfect language, but all others I tried are worse..
FWIW, C++ has many features that are strong improvements over C.
Well C++ has many features. They are meant to be improvements. But they are basically *all* broken.
This is just syntactic sugar. But even this is broken: You have to put the complete class definition in the header - including private implementation details. How stupid is this? You can actually have much better encapsulation in C by putting an incomplete struct in the header and define the struct in the C file.
e.g. OTOH, it's also full of things that are only worthwhile if you are really interested in run-time optimization.
I am not sure what you mean by this... C++ is good if you want to do compile-time optimizations and you don't trust the compiler to do it for you, so you write your own program transformations using templates which run at compile time and generate super efficient code. Some interesting math libraries are written this way. But ofcourse, templates as a compile time language are just horrible and you would be much better off to write code generators in a proper programming language instead.
Yes. This only works if the user has an account. But he might be able to break out of a locked-down account which only runs a specific command.
I once started to add a feature to firefox in my spare time and still haven't finished it because of it took much time... This C++ mess was certainly part of the reason, layers on top of layers... and horrible long compile times. I know very few people who write good C++ code.
Sorry for the sarcastic reply.
I sympathize with the idea that scientist should try to explain their ideas to the general public, but I do not
agree with the idea that scientific findings should only be taken serious if it is explained so well that I can be
understood by the general public. Some things are just too difficult to be easily explained - and even if this is possible
in some cases, it might take too much time and effort to explain it well. So yes, I think political decisions must
sometimes be based on the authoritative advice from certain scientific insitutions.
True. Feynman is great.
But it is a long time since I read that book, and I think that while it explains the key ideas very well I would be surprized if it enables an average person to do actual computations in quantum field theory to verify some of its predictions on their own. For this, you have to dive into the math on a much deeper level. So the point still stands.
In fact, the conspiracy theory that the government is funding climate scientists who say that global warming is real and caused by human activity with the purpose to strengthen the government's authoritarian grip on society is a myth. But also the more plausible idea that scientists exaggerate their findings to get more funding does not seem to be true:
Where is the layman's textbook on Quantum Electrodynamics? Oh, it must be all fake!
there are some reaons why starting with zero might be better:
I wish we would actually debate how to best deal with global warming instead of whether it exists or what causes it.
That is exactly what we are debating.
Obviously we are also debating whether global warming exists or is caused by humans. To me - as a scientist - this is a deeply worrying sign of ignorance.
And the best way of dealing with it is to ignore it, because the costs of dealing with global warming down the road are tiny compared to the costs of limiting emissions right now, for any realistic IPCC scenario.
This is an interesting opinion. You present it as obvious, but it is the opposite of what most people who studied this seems to think.
The problem is that climate scientists and their activist friends are unwilling to accept basic economics and keep making proposals outside their domain of expertise.
This is clearly not basic economics. Is is more about estimating future risks and estimating economic cost which seems difficult to me. The term "climate scientists and their activist friends" also indicates a bit of paranoid thinking.