I've always hated Intel. Here's one more reason:
 

"RichA" wrote

| Despicable company. Their history is replete with all levels of
incompetence, arrogance and corruption.
|
| http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-42553818
|

Their price gouging alone is enough reason to
avoid them. I haven't had an Intel CPU since
1999 when I bought a 300 MHz Celeron.

It does turn out, though, that AMDs are slightly
susceptible to one bug. Latest detail are at The
Register today.

Maybe the most important takeway here is
that it's yet another reminder in a long,
long list of reminders that people choose to
ignore. The most important single fact related
to computer security:

VMs, javascript in webpages, and any other
scenario where executable code runs, cannot
be made safe. People just don't want to accept
that.

I've always hated Intel. Here's one more reason:
 

In article , Mayayana
wrote:


VMs, javascript in webpages, and any other
scenario where executable code runs, cannot
be made safe. People just don't want to accept
that.

nothing is 100% safe, something people *do* understand and accept.

I've always hated Intel. Here's one more reason:
 

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

It's even true when it come to sex, you have to make sure the chandalier is
properly and securly fixed to the ceiling.

particularly when you tie your partner to it.

I've always hated Intel. Here's one more reason:
 

"RichA" wrote

| VMs, javascript in webpages, and any other
| scenario where executable code runs, cannot
| be made safe. People just don't want to accept
| that.
|
| all the more reason to run ad/java/flash killers as often as possible.

Indeed. I only enable script when absolutely necessary,
and then only from sources that are absolutely necessary.
(By using NoScript.) I've never even had Flash installed.
After script it's by far the #1 risk and these days it's
rarely used except for ads. Ditto for Java and
Silverlight. Most people shouldn't need them installed
at all.

I've always hated Intel. Here's one more reason:
 

"Whisky-dave" wrote

| VMs, javascript in webpages, and any other
| scenario where executable code runs, cannot
| be made safe. People just don't want to accept
| that.
|
| People do in the same way most accept speed limits and other areas where
you can minimise the likely hood of having an accident.
| Why do American footballers wear all the gear ?
| Why do peole drive cars so fast and close that they are likely to hyave an
accident they would have if the drove slower.
| It's even true when it come to sex, you have to make sure the chandalier
is properly and securly fixed to the ceiling.
|
Excuses, excuses. You're demonstrating my point
by talking about unrelated issues. It's very simple.
You can accept the facts and be as careful as possible
with script, within the limits of the inconvenience
you're willing to put up with. That's a reasonable
approach. Or you can be lazy and accuse others of
tinfoil hat wearing, and generally avoid actually
looking at the facts of the issue.

I've always hated Intel. Here's one more reason:
 

In article , Mayayana
wrote:

Or you can be lazy and accuse others of
tinfoil hat wearing, and generally avoid actually
looking at the facts of the issue.

nothing lazy about it. that exactly describes you.

I've always hated Intel. Here's one more reason:
 

"Whisky-dave" wrote

| How does a tinfoil had protect you if the chandalier falls from the
cieling ?
|

Beats me. Your highfalutin analysis is
too abstruse for me to keep up. :)

I've always hated Intel. Here's one more reason:
 

On 2018-01-04 16:06, RichA wrote:
On Thursday, 4 January 2018 12:38:41 UTC-5, Mayayana wrote:
"RichA" wrote

| VMs, javascript in webpages, and any other
| scenario where executable code runs, cannot
| be made safe. People just don't want to accept
| that.
|
| all the more reason to run ad/java/flash killers as often as possible.

Indeed. I only enable script when absolutely necessary,
and then only from sources that are absolutely necessary.
(By using NoScript.) I've never even had Flash installed.
After script it's by far the #1 risk and these days it's
rarely used except for ads. Ditto for Java and
Silverlight. Most people shouldn't need them installed
at all.

I'm wondering what enormous impact a 20-30% slowdown in processing is going to do with massive installations like internet pipes, server farms, etc?

Given Apple's benchmarked results to date, the 5-30% (not 20-30)
speculated slowdown might be exaggerated. They are seeing no measurable
performance hit (3 3rd party benchmarks) for one flaw's mitigation; and
a "up to" 2.5% hit in 1 of 3 benchmarks for the other.

Nonetheless a class action suit against intel (and AMD and ARM) could be
in the offing. AMD and ARM are also affected for the so-called
"Spectre" defect. Intel alone has the "Meltdown" defect and Spectre.

I'd love a $250 contribution from intel for my next Mac.

--
“When it is all said and done, there are approximately 94 million
full-time workers in private industry paying taxes to support 102
million non-workers and 21 million government workers.
In what world does this represent a strong job market?”
..Jim Quinn

I've always hated Intel. Here's one more reason:
 

On 2018-01-04 11:45, nospam wrote:
In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

It's even true when it come to sex, you have to make sure the chandalier is
properly and securly fixed to the ceiling.

particularly when you tie your partner to it.

Just one?


--
“When it is all said and done, there are approximately 94 million
full-time workers in private industry paying taxes to support 102
million non-workers and 21 million government workers.
In what world does this represent a strong job market?”
..Jim Quinn

I've always hated Intel. Here's one more reason:
 

On 2018-01-05 10:04, RichA wrote:
On Friday, 5 January 2018 09:42:59 UTC-5, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2018-01-04 16:06, RichA wrote:

I'm wondering what enormous impact a 20-30% slowdown in processing is going to do with massive installations like internet pipes, server farms, etc?

Given Apple's benchmarked results to date, the 5-30% (not 20-30)
speculated slowdown might be exaggerated. They are seeing no measurable
performance hit (3 3rd party benchmarks) for one flaw's mitigation; and
a "up to" 2.5% hit in 1 of 3 benchmarks for the other.

No point in taking their word for it yet. It's like how "review sites" (PAID review sites) of cameras always manage to miss key performance flaws that the consumers somehow find.

And yet I take Apple's word for it more than your sky-is-falling
horse**** any day. I have my share of complaints about Apple but when
they post such things they are usually accurate.

I did neglect to add, however, that Apple's "cure" in 10.13.2 might be a
partial fix for the three flaws. There is speculation about that the
upcoming 10.13.3 may further improve the fix and that that could have
impact on CPU performance. TBD.

Also the quoted 5-30% hit is theoretical - not real world. Could be
worse, but more likely ain't that bad. (And that would apply to other OS').

--
“When it is all said and done, there are approximately 94 million
full-time workers in private industry paying taxes to support 102
million non-workers and 21 million government workers.
In what world does this represent a strong job market?”
..Jim Quinn