True, and lead isn't the only problem. I have family in a small midwestern town that occasionally still has "boil orders". Coming from the 'burbs it was somewhat shocking to realize, no, the US does NOT in fact have consistent universal potable water supplies to all of its citizens after all...
But poor people definitely get the same public education.
Not even remotely true. Income inequality resulting in public educational inequality is one of the biggest problems in the US today.
But I think your point was that Internet access should be a basic utility (more like electricity or water, which as long as you don't live in Flint, are much less variable than education) which I totally agree with.
How do you know? It's entirely possible that the same vulnerabilities exist in different software doing very similar things. How do you know it's in the rendering engine and not one of the common libraries they use, etc? You don't, because no one has made the exploits available to you.
Because it's open source?
The real question is, if Mozilla has "already received" this information, why would they not share it with the other browser developers in the name of security?
Is one of Wikileaks' terms that they not disclose "secret information"? That would be pretty fucking hypocritical...
Except my link already said just that:
"Starting in 2014, Intel introduced "Refresh" cycles after a tock in form of a smaller update to the microarchitecture. It is said that this is done because of the expanding times to the next tick... In March 2016 in a Form 10-K report, Intel announced that it had deprecated the Tick-Tock cycle in favor of a three-step "process-architecture-optimization" model..."
Did you even read it?
Two excellent points in this comment - the obvious one about breakthroughs not being a planned project, and the other, also important: there just isn't a huge financial motivation for a company like Intel to make a chip an order of magnitude faster right now.
That's especially true if you look at the inevitable tradeoffs - if they could make a chip 10x faster using 10x more power, would they bother? Or 10x more power with 10x cost? Probably not, since the market would be so limited. These days - both in mobile devices/laptops and datacenters - most consumers would prefer a chip with the same performance and 1/10 the power usage and/or cost. Performance is only one of many optimizations being worked on, and today it's not really even the most important one.
In fact, process improvements are critical as a valid source of performance gains.
That's pretty much Intel's entire chip development model...
You know what, I think we are basically in agreement.
Stupid
Ok, good idea, I did. Commonly accepted stats are approx 65-80% of servers now run Linux, 20-35% run Windows, and FreeBSD comes in at a magical rounding error of 1-2%.
Workhorse, indeed.
Claiming an argument is a logical fallacy by appeal to authority does not *make* an argument, it (possibly) refutes one. You can not *make* an argument with it any more than an eraser can make a sentence.
On the other hand, invalidating a poor attempt to refute a real argument is in itself supporting the original argument. Thus I was making the argument. In the end the result of the last 3 posts is clearly that Linus has a point that should be considered.
One thing everyone can agree, on at least, is that you have contributed absolutely ZERO to the argument either way.
I don't see what is so hard to understand...
Nothing about your statement makes *any* sense. "Appeal to authority" in itself is not an argument, weak or strong.
Citation?
"Appeal to authority" is not a logical fallacy when the authority is actually an expert in the field. You'd have to be a moron not to value the opinion of a highly accomplished programmer over an AC troll on slashdot.
This is the first good point made to explain the seeming contradiction.
"Love your country but never trust its government." -- from a hand-painted road sign in central Pennsylvania
