> Remote unlock is a safety issue for assaults.
Remote unlock actually doesn't work on [most?] Honda vehicles if the engine is running.
The issue with remote unlock is that someone can enter the vehicle while it is off and wait inside.
Readit Newscsharptwdec19 commented on Replay-based attack on Honda and Acura vehicles github.com/HackingIntoYou... · Posted by u/FridayoLeary
Nope. Look here (https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/azure-government/comp...) and search for Cosmos and you'll see this service is only approved for DoD Impact Level II systems. That is the lowest impact level the DoD offers and includes only systems exposed to the public, like the websites for recruiting and career descriptions. Any system handling controlled unclassified information or PII would not have been allowed to use this service.
And when you're talking about "most secret" contracts, those are all classified systems, which are on totally separate networks in totally separate private data centers located on military installations. Unless you've figured out how to break strong symmetric encryption using hardware-generated, hardware-loaded, pre-shared keys controlled in military arms rooms, that means you need physical access. It doesn't necessarily mean you need to break into a military installation. You can always try to break into a contractor SCIF instead, but that still isn't all that easy. My wife once saw some AT&T contractors digging too close to the wrong fiber line at her facility when she was working for the Navy at a contractor site and unmarked black SUVs were there to take those guys away to God knows where within two minutes.
That said, I don't doubt people try. When I was at Raytheon working at a secure facility, a Chinese company bought the property across the street, built a hotel at exactly the same height with windows facing us, and it was conspicuously almost always empty. I don't think demand for hotel rooms was financing that place.
> My wife once saw some AT&T contractors digging too close to the wrong fiber line at her facility when she was working for the Navy at a contractor site and unmarked black SUVs were there to take those guys away to God knows where within two minutes.
I used to do design/permitting for fiber networks and going around DOD areas/Fiber was always fun. You wind up having to submit your routes, and get vague feedback as to what you need to move, but never how far away/etc. Usually your best bet is to just go to the other side of the road if possible.
csharptwdec19 commented on size_t-to-int vulnerability in Linux’s filesystem layer openwall.com/lists/oss-se... · Posted by u/jwilk
Add Java to that list.
Same for C#. Any narrowing truncation needs to be an explicit cast. Widening is typically allowed implicitly, although in the case of the 'decimal' (128 bit struct representing a 'higher precision' floating point) type you still need an explicit cast from a 'double', since there are cases where that conversion can still change the value or fail (i.e. Infinity/NaN)
csharptwdec19 commented on Amazon Shuts Down NSO Group Infrastructure vice.com/en/article/xgx5b... · Posted by u/fieryscribe
Never assume malice where ignorance and incompetence would suffice instead. Those two things are actually not the same thing at all, depending on how you define “willful.”
It's malice but from a different aspect; willful malice in the name of 'cost cutting'.
csharptwdec19 commented on Intel in talks to buy GlobalFoundries for about $30B reuters.com/business/inte... · Posted by u/hi5eyes
I think the charitable answer is that bleeding edge process development is getting very hard and many exited/stumbled. IBM failed at 14nm too, and Intel which famously called itself 2 years in front of the rest of the industry for decades has been stumbling hard since 2015 and still hasn't really replaced their 14nm on the most visible parts of their lineup.
As to what failing means, it can be many things, sometimes you just have way too many defects to have the process be commercially viable (if your cost is 10x your competition and you can't fix it, you don't have a process), some bad technical choices because there's been less and less cross industry cooperation (things like the ITRS that gave a rough roadmap hasn't been a thing for a while, last I checked), and introducing new technologies (EUV or new metals) may compound those. Sometimes chips in your new process are more dense (which is good), but perform poorly because of one of the previously mentioned stuff to the point it's hard selling new chips that perform worse than previous gen. In Intel's 10nm case there was a bit of everything and it will be very interesting to know exactly what factored in more (Cobalt is often rumoured, a very overconfident choice for MPP was my initial understanding, I haven't really followed on this).
In the case of GloFo, it's perhaps simpler than that : GloFo was part since 2007 of an alliance between them (initially as AMD), IBM and Samsung called the Common Platform [1] that had more or less standardised a process, with a lot of the heavy research done by IBM (I would say, out of spite for Intel) and then used by GloFo and Samsung.
14nm was the first that everyone was on their own, because IBM failed their research. In the end, Samsung managed to get it done, and GloFo either failed or... didn't try really hard ? This is where I'm gonna speculate a tiny bit and be less charitable, I don't think that GloFo was sufficiently funded in terms of process development, despite their parent owner being able to.
And it definitely looked like from the outside, at least from my point of view, they were always in dire need of money except for acquisitions, and late with everything (including the process inherited from the alliance). Most of the business decisions done (including buying Chartered and reverse buying IBM's 22nm fabs) seemed to be about pure business and missed the technical understanding of the business and what it required to keep it going.
At the end of the day, for them, licensing 14 from Samsung was a great out of that mess. But that didn't happen for 10, and we (at least I) don't really know why. My guess is that GloFo would probably have been happy to keep going on with that arrangement, but I may be completely wrong on that one.
At the time I seem to recall that both had some issues filling up their order book (which seems a bit insane today, considering the current shortage) and that may have played into it from Samsung's point of view.
[1](https://www.chiphistory.org/546-ibm-microelectronics-common-...)
> 14nm was the first that everyone was on their own, because IBM failed their research. In the end, Samsung managed to get it done, and GloFo either failed or... didn't try really hard ? This is where I'm gonna speculate a tiny bit and be less charitable, I don't think that GloFo was sufficiently funded in terms of process development, despite their parent owner being able to.
For whatever it's worth, it feels like GloFo has had various process issues for a -long- time. While there were issues with the Bulldozer design itself from a deep pipeline perspective etc, the other factor in it's lukewarm lifetime (especially the first couple gens) was issues with GloFo's processes even back then. I know some of that was that they were trying to gear more towards bulk silicon vs CPUs but I think there were other issues too.
csharptwdec19 commented on Sega sued for ‘rigged’ arcade machine polygon.com/22573590/sega... · Posted by u/danso
No, that's now how it works, according to the article, which is going by what the manual shipped with the cabinet states.
The machine will not allow a win no matter what until a set number of losses has happened. The default shipped setting is to not allow a win until there has been 700 losses. Some other vendor in Arizona is noted as having been sued because he ran his games at a required 2200 losses to allow a payout.
Actual gambling devices are much more regulated and have much better payout odds most likely (depending on what's winnable), but more importantly are actually random.
These games are not chance, and they aren't skill, they're a scam that market themselves as a game of skill.
Fun fact: Actual Gambling machines are also audited on the reg.
A college friend works for my state's gaming commission. During a 'drinking talk' about digital signatures, she told me an interesting part of her job; not just going through the slot machines and validating the payout settings, but also checking the EEProms MD5 Hash* to make sure that it was in a list of 'approved' code hashes.
* - This was 15 years ago, I -really- hope they use something better nowadays.
csharptwdec19 commented on Microsoft exec: “Summary of meeting with Steve Jobs" twitter.com/TechEmails/st... · Posted by u/ent101
Agreed, yet if most companies business practices were actually investigated properly, in every single location across the globe where they operate, it is quite clear certain locations would have already closed doors if the videos were followed to the letter.
Would that be a bad thing? Or would that mean we'd have healthier competition?
Do you feel like by 2030 we would have the Infrastructure in place to go electric only? Certainly not In rural or cold areas.
In Rural/cold areas, you might not be able to go full electric. CNG is an option in those cases though.
Not a perfect solution but sometimes perfect is the enemy of good.
Is the Director’s Cut better?
I saw the original version in theaters and loved it, probably because I was was a kid and so happy Star Trek was back.
Watching it years later I finally understood that it could have been better
The DC is a lot more watchable. The biggest benefit is the CG Sequences, which are used to replace some of the 'staring at the viewscreen' type reaction shots.
As for why it wasn't remastered at 4k, let alone 1080p back then, my guess is that the cost of rendering CG above DVD resolutions was a major factor.
Source: I work for Atlassian, platform stuff
Make of that what you will.