Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment That's how (Score 5, Insightful) 49

Both vulnerabilities are blown out of proportions and you need to rush to actively fix them only when your platform runs untrusted code which is mostly relevant for VPS/clouds/etc.

When you only run your own trusted code (say a DB or an HTTP server), there's little if any need to patch them urgently. Of course, this implies that your authentication process is properly secured and when it's not, the intruder might as well find other local unpatched vulnerabilities.

Comment Right-o (Score 3, Informative) 114

Like the fact that there's no AI whatsoever. There are limited-purpose algorithms for very narrow tasks which work a lot like the calculator: i.e. they far surpass what the average human being is capable of (most people cannot compute in their heads), yet they cannot reason (which is why image recognition systems can be easily fooled), think (which is why proper translation is a pipe dream) or invent anything (which is why they cannot come up with new ideas). The hype about AI is so strong, people actually fear will be enslaved by robot overlords soon yet we are not close to general AI than we were 50 years ago, we just have much better hardware to use to train those algorithms.

Even image recognition AI which is touted as a breakthrough is largely incomplete because animals intelligence doesn't require petabytes of data and petaflops of compute power to recognize objects in all their embodiments maybe because we've deciphered only the outmost layer of the nervous system.

In short there's no AI to speak of. Up to this day we've just been automating the most primitive tasks which don't require intelligence per se. They require statistics, lots of data and lots of compute power.

Oh, and these algorithms are almost completely opaque, so we cannot understand them, properly tune them or even expect proper answers from them all the time.

Comment Re:Nice try (Score 1) 375

Those workloads with significant performance losses are more or less completely artificial, e.g. average users don't create hundreds of thousands of files day in and day out and even in this case only SSD disks are affected. Considering that SSD disk operations are sometimes several orders of magnitude faster than those for spinning disks this performance loss is still nothing to worry about.

Comment Some info (Score 3, Informative) 375

I like how they've weaseled out of the whole fiasco (why didn't /. post a link to the original press release?):

"Contrary to some reports, any performance impacts are workload-dependent, and, for the average computer user, should not be significant and will be mitigated over time".

I'm not sure I can read between the lines properly but I guess new revisions of Coffee Lake/Kaby Lake/SkyLake(X) CPUs are coming and they will contain a hardware fix (though it still seems highly unlikely considering how difficult it's to deploy a new hardware design - however unlike other fabless companies, like AMD/NVIDIA/ARM/etc Intel has everything under control). After all they've known about this issue for almost half a year.

Meanwhile as for consumer workloads they are correct. Two German websites have already tested a Windows build with a fix and found very little performance losses.

Phoronix has also run a number of tests on Linux and found out that only few (mostly artificial) tasks are seriously affected.

Intel home users may sleep well. As for enterprise customers no one has run virtualization tests yet though - that's what truly important for large deployments (clouds).

Slashdot Top Deals

Nondeterminism means never having to say you are wrong.

Working...