ciot1CDM

Can you guys honestly say, looking at your own website, that you don't seem to be a fly–by–night outfit?

Yes, the bar is low in VPS land, but you could certainly do much better at presenting yourselves properly.

For Intel, it's a enterprise marketing bullet, for the rest of us it's an opportunity to secure our systems the way we want, however that capacity has been denied us.

The ideal security mechanism would provide us with a per cpu key from Intel, which we use to update our own user key to the cpu, and only user signed firmware is loaded.

The exact mechanism of this can be handled in many ways.

Right now, we locked out, and primed for being snooped on without our consent.

I like Intel's engineering, but everything else I could do without.

And ARM is no better. I'd say worse actually, but I'm not going to defend that.

Please, please, AMD do the "right thing" with Zen. Allow us to be in command of our security, so we may delegate it to those we trust with the technical know how, be it OS vendors, or our IT departments, or our own selves.

Beware: their servers do not use ECC memory.

I believe building reliable, internet-scale services on such hardware is impossible. Having single bit errors, which are hardly rare [0], silently propagate is a recipe for disaster.

I applaud Scaleway for the foresight of building custom, sale-out hardware, however, that this is their second effort and still lacking in ECC use is very, very, disappointing.

I would love to use this hardware, it's almost the perfect design, but it's tragically flawed as is.

[0] DRAM Errors in the Wild: A Large-Scale Field Study http://research.google.com/pubs/pub35162.html

Why Avoton then? You just lost a sale.

I shouldn't have assumed ECC, but if you have a group designing your own hardware then routing another 8 wires shouldn't be a problem.

I'm disappointed.

If your 110MWh to train is accurate, and the 25W used by the human brain reported in this thread is as well.

This is equivalent to one person expending 500 years solely to learn Go.

(Not a physicist) So what's the result of applying Feynman's axioms to the analysis of whatever gedanken experiment that lead Einstein to special relativity? Does it further enlighten whatever paradox existed that required a resolution via special relativity?

I'm sure this issue will be revisited when/if the Jaffa becomes a favorite of tea drinkers and surpasses the digestive in British sales.

This is an article by Freeman Dyson from the Feb 2009 issue of Notices of the AMS. He explains the necessity of both birds, those that explore in breadth, and frogs, those that explore in depth.

If you're interested in a modern rigorous treatment of the classical infinitesimal, check out "smooth infinitesimal analysis" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smooth_infinitesimal_analysis)