Sorry, but this argument fails. Your description of the process is mostly correct. But, the whole legislation is available. Legislative history can be very thin. Some laws are passed with practically no debate (whether or not AI is involved). All legislation SHOULD be reviewed and debated prior to vote, but . . . Congress people and their staffs SHOULD read and verify all bills, but . . .
XaXXon is basically correct.
Sorry, but that explanation is complete crap. Farmers and livestock go by sunrise NOT clocks. Ask a rooster?
I agree with the rest.
I'm sorry that you are so un-informed. One example: https://www.history.com/news/w...
DST HAD practical value when electric lighting WAS an issue for wartime factories.
It was NOT implemented to help farmers: roosters wake to the sun NOT a clock.
3. You are correct: "it's straight up bad for everyone's health to flip their clocks back and forth." (It is also a PITA when it screws overnight updates, version control, etc.)
Hmm, NO.
You must at minimum configure the memory controller out of spec. The actual research was done with a custom memory controller implemented in an FPGA.
The research did use an FPGA, BUT . . .
p.2 bottom of 1st column
"We demonstrate that a user-level program can induce RowPress bitflips in a real DDR4-based system that already employs RowHammer protection.
The program accesses multiple different columns of the aggressor DRAM row so that the memory controller keeps the aggressor row open for a longer period of time . .
There are very few applications where root exists but is not permitted to examine user process memory at will on real hardware. None of those work on anything POSIX like.
POSIX may require guard space, but not always. The point is that a process/thread can use these techniques to flip adjacent memory regardless of software security. (Memory randomization can help, but it is not a cure.)
Even if this required root access, it could still be stealthy and very dangerous. Remember PEEK and POKE?
I did.
p.2 bottom of 1st column
"We demonstrate that a user-level program can induce RowPress bitflips in a real DDR4-based system that already employs RowHammer protection."
Even if this required root access, it could still be stealthy and very dangerous. Remember PEEK and POKE?
ECC can/does correct single-bit errors per word. Errors beyond 1bit/word are probably un-correctable and the EEC should tell the O/S to crash (if it hasn't already).
As far as the amount of RAM and cost goes: for some people/cases, it is irrelevant -- they will pay for the protection.
Please, see above.
ECC is basically a monitor and hope to fix solution. It does not prevent errors -- it hopes to correct them.
Your Q about specs. is interesting. It would hard to push beyond (positive/negative) thermal limits in a PC (right now), but you never know?
Sorry for replying to myself, but . . .
Potentially disastrous Rowhammer bitflips can bypass ECC protections
ECCploit is the first Rowhammer attack to defeat error-correcting code.
Dan Goodin - Nov 22, 2018 1:06 am UTC
MAYBE
IIRC RowHammer was able to defeat some ECC systems?
Software should not be able to affect memory timing. PERIOD. Memory timing should be absolutely fixed, no matter how much or how often memory is accessed. If activity in one memory cell can ever affect the state of another memory cell then the design is WRONG. This seems similar to an electrical noise problem. I know that we want to cram as much memory as possible onto chips and into systems, BUT . . .
Aren't these the same folks that buyout tickets to create artificial scarcity and drive up prices? Seems like the market is working according to spec.? If I'm correct, I hope they get wiped out.
Granted that you have a personal choice of what to do . . .
Depending on your (non US) country, there may be a treaty or treaties wth the U.S. that would impact your transaction.
Also, some non-U.S. (EU?) countries would require you as their citizen to report etc.
Mr. Nit-pick, here.
Wow. That is interesting. The Samsung 980 Pro 1TB (1TB, 500GB, and 250GB) was released September 2020. The 2TB was released in early (maybe January) 2021. Today is 2023-08-10? So how could you have a "2TB Samsung 980 Pro . . . chugging along for 4 years or so"?
I tried to follow this logic, but it is broken. Comcast can show the fee, label it Fee paid to FCC, and show/have a lower base price: Comcast wins (looks like a good guy).
It's time to boot, do your boot ROMs know where your disk controllers are?
