Intel Forced to Remove "Cripple AMD" Function from Compiler?
in [Chips]
|
Prev: No multicore grahics from Intel, Intel withdraws Larrabee!
Next: Several Ntoskrnl BSOD crashes over the last week, but different stopcodes
From: Sebastian Kaliszewski on 29 Jan 2010 09:04 Robert Myers wrote: >> And that's all because losses are bounded, and not having software at >> all would mean that lost gains would far surpass losses caused by that >> "bad" software we have today. >> > It isn't clear to me that having software of the kind you write and > sell is better than having no software at all. ROTFL! The software is being use to make create serious profits. And few million users of the software are happily using it. Yes, it would be better for all of the users and customers not to have the software... Sure... > The bound on computer risks is the collapse of civilization as we know > it. It's not a bound on one application risk. Nor even a particular set of even weakly realted applications. Yes there is a non 0 chance of all software melting down. But it's a smaller chance than 100km diameter piece of rock & ice comming at 70km/s from highly inclided orbit (or even extra solar) and getting rid of all of us in one big boom. What you wrote above only demonstrates, that contrary to what you pretend here, you have in fact no clue about risk estimation. External risks to the whole environment in wchich a particular endavour of which we estimate risk may be simply disregarded -- if such event occurs then whole envinroment is not anymore. You won't care about lost money if there is no money and no you anymore. When one estimates risk pf software malfunction one does not care about whole operations being closed due to an external reason. > Ask Google about which software is "mission critical." If their > answer didn't include IE6, I couldn't imagine why. Your poor imagination is your own problem. IE6 is not mission critical for Google for one damn simple reason that there are many other browsers google apps run on (and run even better, or even run at all). Even a total and permanent meltdown of IE6 (very, very improbable event, due to large set of obvious facts you apparently can't grasp) is not an end to a google, yahoo, even microsoft.com and all the other high profile web pages/portals. For a simple reason that there are things like IE7, IE8, Firefox, Chrome, Opera, Konqueror, and lots of others. \SK -- "Never underestimate the power of human stupidity" -- L. Lang -- http://www.tajga.org -- (some photos from my travels)
From: Sebastian Kaliszewski on 29 Jan 2010 09:14 Robert Myers wrote: [...] >> Well, only you can speak for what you find clear or what you >> consider "better". But many, many people have voted otherwise with >> their dollars, euros, yen, yuan, etc. Repeatedly. The video game >> industry is larger than movies. Commercial software enterprises >> (incl MS, ORACLE, SAP, etc) are similarly successful. >> > People do lots of stupid and even self-destructive things with money. > And they would be better if they made no money at all... yeah, sure. [...] >>> The bound on computer risks is the collapse of civilization >>> as we know it. >> Oh, dear! Not the 95% annihiliation of life on earth? >> This is possible, but highly unlikely. >> > The entire argument is about nearly limiting cases: the product of a > "negligible" probability and an intolerable cost. Nope. > > NASA has gotten all the "ordinary" risks correct twice, and twice lost > human life and shuttles because of what I suppose must be > "extraordinary" risks--the second time *after* scathing criticism and > review of its risk-management techniques. > >> As for the financial crisis of Sept 2008, computers had >> almost nothing to do with it (unlike Aug 1987). The fault >> lies in a series of incentives and decisions that are mostly >> understandable and justifiable on microscale yet add up >> to instability. This was predicted by many, perhaps even you. >> > Computers were a big contributor to this latest crisis. They led to > overconfidence about risk-management. Everyone was using the same > detailed computer model to put values on complicated securities. > Everyone made the same mistake of negligible probability over and over > and over again. Nonsnense. This is just an example of systematic error. Everyone used one model (and model was in fact vastly incomplete) thus all failures aere just the same instance of the same failure. > > For all I know, they're all using random number generators that > correlate in some way that no single person knows about but that > contains the seeds of disaster. The pun was accidental, but I'll let > it stand. [...] > That is not Google's mission at all. Google's mission is to gather > valuable information and to use it to make money. They have barely > begun to tap the possibilities. If they can't protect the information > they gather, they will go out of business. Their servers were > compromised because of a flaw in IE6. > > Are there copies of IE6 installed somewhere on Google's system? You > bet there are. They want to make sure the pages they create display > correctly in IE6, which are still widely used in enterprise. Are > those copies of IE6 better locked down now? The ones they know about > are, anyway. What a load of nonsense... \SK -- "Never underestimate the power of human stupidity" -- L. Lang -- http://www.tajga.org -- (some photos from my travels)
From: Sebastian Kaliszewski on 29 Jan 2010 09:28 Robert Myers wrote: > On Jan 28, 6:26 pm, Robert Redelmeier <red...(a)ev1.net.invalid> wrote: >> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Robert Myers <rbmyers...(a)gmail.com> wrote in part: >> >>> That's not a correct presumption. I only felt it necessary >>> to rebut his final claim in order to rebut his entire >>> argument as it pertains to computers. >> Those are your feelings, without logical validity. >> > I'm tired of you, and I thought you were tired of making a fool of > yourself. Apparently not. > > You don't understand anything more about logic than the warsaw pact > dude does about probability and statistics. ROTFL! Now we're at name calling... Contrary to you I know something about probability and statistics. It's still not much, but at least I distinguish dependent and independent events. > I've caught you dead-to-rights showing off your "knowledge," and I'm > done playing games with you. Do you want to tell me again about the > Euler equations? Everyone can see how "great" your "knowlegde" is. No facts, just exagerations, twisting and plain lies about what other side wrote and no logic. >>> People do lots of stupid and even self-destructive things >>> with money. >> Oh dear, clearly more lessons in elementary logic are needed: >> just because people do some bad things with money does not >> mean everything done with money is bad. >> > No, a**hole, but it does show that your argument about what others do > with their money is at best a red herring. And stop trying to teach > me about logic. You have no clue how little you know. Look in the mirror! >>> Packet-switching is a very clever and useful idea. >> Hardly new -- the telegraph was packet-switched. Multiplexing >> /circuit-switching was very clever but now is undone. >> >>> Whether the Internet as it is currently constituted is a >>> good idea is another matter entirely. >> ... and how do you propose to convince people or even >> communicate without logic? Shouting your feelings? >> Yes, your feelings are heard. Why should anyone care? >> > Your content-free nastiness is left in place for the world to admire. Your content-free nastiness is left in place for the world to admire. >>> NASA has gotten all the "ordinary" risks correct twice, and >>> twice lost human life and shuttles because of what I suppose >>> must be "extraordinary" risks--the second time *after* scathing >>> criticism and review of its risk-management techniques. >> Many more. Apollo 1 and lots of "accidents". Unfortunate, but risk >> management is not perfect -- it can only deal with identified risks. >> Classifying risks as "extraordinary" is a cop out. Frankly, >> I'm surprised there have not been more. I expect 10% loss. >> > "Ordinary" risks was one of the many nonsensical items in Sebastian's > post to which I did not bother to respond. Even NASA never would have > been so naive. Other that I never wrote about "Ordinary" risks. I only wrote about risks which are irrelevant to a particular case. >>> Computers were a big contributor to this latest crisis. >>> They led to overconfidence about risk-management. Everyone >>> was using the same detailed computer model to put values >>> on complicated securities. Everyone made the same mistake >>> of negligible probability over and over and over again. >> Only an incompetant craftsman blames his tools. GIGO is a >> _human_ failing, not a machine failing. Very complex because >> the human failings were systemic. Herd instinct and a certain >> blindness driven by short time horizons. >> > No, thank you. The entire ponzi scheme is built on ersatz knowledge > that depends on superficial thinking for which people are apparently > due "Nobel" prizes. It was to such "wisdom" that Sebastian appealed > in defending his own recklessness. Nonsense. [...] rest of nonsense intermixed with namecalling snipped. \SK -- "Never underestimate the power of human stupidity" -- L. Lang -- http://www.tajga.org -- (some photos from my travels)
From: Robert Myers on 29 Jan 2010 12:38 On Jan 29, 9:04 am, Sebastian Kaliszewski <s.bez_sp...(a)remove.this.informa.and.that.pl> wrote: > IE6 is not mission critical for Google for one damn simple reason that > there are many other browsers google apps run on (and run even better, > or even run at all). > > Even a total and permanent meltdown of IE6 (very, very improbable event, > due to large set of obvious facts you apparently can't grasp) is not an > end to a google, yahoo, even microsoft.com and all the other high > profile web pages/portals. For a simple reason that there are things > like IE7, IE8, Firefox, Chrome, Opera, Konqueror, and lots of others. > As I said to Prof. Redelmeier, there is little point in continuing a discussion if there is no common basis for understanding, and your comments on this issue adequately illustrate the chasm between us. So far as I know, the only thing about IE6 that matters to Google is that its applications have to run correctly on it, because many enterprise users still use IE6. So long as important users are employing IE6, it doesn't matter what other browsers are available, because Google has to test its applications on IE6. The damage to Google was that user accounts were compromised, so that users know that someone who wants to badly enough can get to user data... meaning that companies and individuals will have to worry about what kind of data will be entrusted to Google. That's a killer. The Google example shows why it doesn't matter whether an application itself is used in a way that you would identify as mission-critical. Applications unwittingly provide pathways for attack. Even applications that are not connected to the internet can become useful once a system has been penetrated, which could happen through an application so banal as Adobe Reader. That the Internet could be thrown into unfixable chaos by a malicious attack seems not at all improbable to me. I'm not going to pursue this discussion further with you, as there is no point. Robert.
From: Sebastian Kaliszewski on 1 Feb 2010 07:20
Robert Myers wrote: >> IE6 is not mission critical for Google for one damn simple reason that >> there are many other browsers google apps run on (and run even better, >> or even run at all). >> >> Even a total and permanent meltdown of IE6 (very, very improbable event, >> due to large set of obvious facts you apparently can't grasp) is not an >> end to a google, yahoo, even microsoft.com and all the other high >> profile web pages/portals. For a simple reason that there are things >> like IE7, IE8, Firefox, Chrome, Opera, Konqueror, and lots of others. >> > > As I said to Prof. Redelmeier, there is little point in continuing a > discussion if there is no common basis for understanding, and your > comments on this issue adequately illustrate the chasm between us. They demonstrate the chasm between you and reality. [...] > The Google example shows why it doesn't matter whether an application > itself is used in a way that you would identify as mission-critical. You even do not uderstand what mission-critcal means. Nope, IE6 is not mission critical for Google in any generally accepted meaning of the "mission critical". > That the Internet could be thrown into unfixable chaos by a malicious > attack seems not at all improbable to me. Im affaraid you have completely skewed meaining behind the name Internet. > I'm not going to pursue this discussion further with you, as there is > no point. Oh, yet you start two more compelety off-topic threads to continue that discussion. \SK -- "Never underestimate the power of human stupidity" -- L. Lang -- http://www.tajga.org -- (some photos from my travels) |