Used to be Atom. I through I heard they went to ARM in recent models but not sure.
Used to be Atom. I through I heard they went to ARM in recent models but not sure.
I'm totally shocked that the Wall Street Journal might hold this opinion.
They used to be useful. They tended to have real news, and lots of it because their subscriber base used it to make multi-million dollar business decisions.
Then in 2007 Rupert Murdoch bought it from the Bancroft family. And in 2008 he replaced the editor. (Newscorp has a history of letting acquisitions run for a year or so before starting to meddle.)
Also: The gain was more than offset by the increase in the number of incoming people employed (H1-Bs, Green Card, "undocumented", etc.). The native population continued to lose jobs.
... this is way bigger than just America.
This isn't purely about partisan US politics, this is about a web of influential hard to far right politicians acting with Putin's backing - Le Pen, Farage, Banks, Trump, Assange, are all interconnected on this and not by chance meetings, but by explicit, intentional communications with each other. Even outside of the Anglo-American-Franco circle it extends throughout Europe, Hungary's Jobbik, Greece's Golden Dawn, Geert Wilders, as so on - they're all very clearly linked with a little bit of research into this pro-Russian, anti-Western political web plaguing the West right now, and it should be horrifying to anyone in the West that values their wealth and freedom.
Sounds to me like you're in favor of a globalist new world order, think progress toward it is being nibbled to death by ducks, and are promulgating a new, McCarthy Era - style, Russian menace nightmare to counter it.
Now that people can get unfiltered news on the Internet (astroturf and all) and the mainstream media are exposed as shills for the 1%, they can see how badly they're being screwed (even if they can't always tell how the power screwdriver works). Result: A bunch of movements to dismantle the machine. And a general population that can recognize ideas like yours for what they are.
Unlike what they're opposing, they don't need coordination from some top puppetmaster. But (like the 13 colonies working with France) many of them are willing to find inspiration and accept support from wherever it might be found.
People tend to get the government they deserve. George Carlin had it right.
Blaming the victims may make a good kick-off point for a comedy routine. But it's also a handy way to spike efforts to fix the problem, thus benefiting the victimizers.
After the media "sucked the air out of the room" when any of the other Republican primary reform candidates were talking (by focusing on Trump - whom they though would be the easiest candidate for Hillary to trounce), Trump/Pence was the only checkbox on the presidential ballot that looked like it might put a painful spike in Washington's increasingly corrupt business-as-usual, or stop a slide into totalitarianism or civil war.
What about this line:
"...Russia's targeting of electoral systems..."
The word "systems" implies that the evil Russians were actually hacking the voting machines.
They could have made that non-fake just by adding one word: "... Russia's alleged targeting of electoral systems
But that would have brought down the whole propaganda operation by inserting doubt into the big claim, which is an absolute no-no if you're using the "Big Lie" methodology.
(After 48 years it's finally my turn to publish an "Imminent Death of the Interenet [sic] Predicted" posting - even if it's at least half tongue-in-cheek. B-) )
Complete with a typo, of course. B-) We MUST be traditional about these things.
These botnets use weakly-protected IoT devices to overwhelm websites and other networks. "In the future," Coats says in his report, "state and non-state actors will likely use IoT devices to support intelligence operations or domestic security or to access or attack targeted computer networks."
Not to worry. There might not be a functioning Internet around for a while.
Last Friday enough information came out about the Intel AMT authentication bug to let people of ordinary skill construct a worm using it for transport, which could take over the bulk of the Internet-connected Intel-based devices - or at least the subset run by IT shops which use AMT for remote administration. This could easily be weaponized to effectively take out the Internet, quickly, for substantial periods of time, and possibly repeatedly.
The bad guys have had almost a week to work on it now. If we don't start seeing some fallout by next week, it just means that everybody who's doing it is saving it for a big hit, and/or is very good at stealth (with the stuff they're already spreading).
But given how many could be playing, I find it hard to believe SOMEBODY won't screw up and do something visible by accident. (Something like the claim that the Morris Worm was an experiment that escaped the lab during development.)
= = = = =
(After 48 years it's finally my turn to publish an "Imminent Death of the Interenet Predicted" posting - even if it's at least half tongue-in-cheek. B-) )
If I had mod points today you'd get one. ROTFL!
Isn't this blatant anti-competitive behavior by two near monopolies???
But the FTC does not currently have authority over Internet service, as part of the "hands off the Internet" legislation intended to keep regulation and taxation from stifling it.
I have been arguing for years that the FTC, rather than the FCC, is the right agency for handling things like Network Neutrality, because the pathologies we see are almost entirely the result of either monopolistic or anticompetitive behavior, and that (if it is to be regulated at all) the right way to do it is to pass legislation to designate the FTC as the responsible agency.
In fact, I wrote a paper about it a few years ago. And I got an opportunity, a few days after Trump's election, to get a copy of it into the hands of an FTC official who was tasked with asking techies for suggestions on what the commission could do to improve the regulatory environment for tech. (I have no idea whether anything came of this, but I have daydreams about it becoming a classic among the transition teams. B-) )
You will note that the Trump administration is now talking about moving Network Neutrality regulation from the FCC to the FTC. (In fact, there was a slashdot article a couple days ago, with most posters flaming them for the "remove it from the FCC" part of such a piece of legislation.)
Yes, it could be a gift to the Internet cartels if they just did the "remove it from the FCC" part. Something akin to how California's cost-saving move to de-instutionalize the mentally handicapped" (or whatever phrase was politically correct at the time) and provide them with outpatient services led to an explosion of mentally challenged homeless when only the first half was implemented. But the FCC isn't really well set up to handle a competitive problem, and their approach of trying to apply a technical solution is an example of making a simple problem more complex rather than fixing it.
... nowadays believing in facts is having a political position.
You need to capitalize the "f": "... believing in Facts is
Each of the major sides of the discussion believes the other has faked data and promulgated falsehoods disguised as science. People convinced on either side are now beyond sceptical that any alleged scientific results that disagrees with their own paradigm is not more of the same.
It's now going to take decades of actual, OPEN, REPRODUCIBLE research for climate scientists to reestablish enough credibility to convince any significant number of people to substantially change their views. By that time, if those claiming imminent doom are correct, it will be too late for convincing scientific results supporting their side to do any good.
Meanwhile, this process can't even START until "burn the heretic" epithets like "denier" have stopped - or been discredited and ridiculed into a toothless background hum.
... when the settled science of climate change
"settled science" is an oxymoron.
If you're using it, you already drank the kool aid.
I'm curious what it's using for an init system.
Perhaps this is partly in reaction to the migration of the major Linux distributions to systemd.
It is time to finally star holding engineers criminally and civilly liable,
Force them to chose between risking jail for a bug or being fired for not following the Pointy Haired Boss' instructions to skip the tetsting and get the damn thing delivered?
What a great idea. Put most of the engineers who would actually do what you want out of work and leave the field to those to dumb to notice or too psychopathic to care.
strcmp() has its own vulnerability. By sending a string without the terminating '\0' you make the strcmp() function read past the buffer.
Only if the string you are comparing it to, which was generated locally, is ALSO not null terminated.
Regardless, the right thing to do with strncmp() is to use either the proper number of digits for the hash (which you can also expect to get with strlen(computed_hash)) or the size of the buffer that received the response.
...when fits of creativity run strong, more than one programmer or writer has been known to abandon the desktop for the more spacious floor. - Fred Brooks, Jr.