Windows and MSDOS teams were very close, no issue there.
The real reason someone might need to do this hack is that there were in fact many versions of "DOS" not made by Microsoft. These included Zenith, Compaq, Digital Research and IBM. Each of these each had their own subversions.
IBM DOS was basically MS-DOS (except IBM did do some of their own work of course). Pretty sure Zenith and Compaq DOSes were OEM MS-DOS (Zenith did have a "Z-DOS" but it was just another OEM version of MS-DOS for a non-IBM-compatible system). DR-DOS was of course a true third party DOS (one of the very few contemporary ones IIRC)
Reading the source code (which is available on archive.org) you can see exactly this. Lots of IFDEF statements for compiling MSDOS and PCDOS differences. When I first saw that, I was really surprised.
Gamers dont care about obscure vulnerabilities on their gaming rigs.
So I think this is some sort of misguided hit piece against intel.
Everyone knows pcs are riddled with security flaws less obscure than this. People who run their business on cloud servers might care. Gamers though? No.
They should care, considering some of these vulnerabilities are exploitable just by JavaScript, meaning merely visiting a bad website could leak sensitive information
We've banned this account for repeatedly violating the site guidelines. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.
I bought a non K CPU (without hyper threading) , If I would have bought the K version and later Intel announces "disable the hyperthreads to be 100% safe" I would not be happy, even if I am 99.99% safe with HT on, (I personally did not enable or disable any security thing, I run the Ubuntu defaults).
IMO Intel customers should not be indifferent, what you thought you bought was not what you got latter, you lost performance and you have to do advanced stuff to disable the security patches and be unsafe
Edit:
My bad, I considering buying i7 and got an i5 , I got confused(my i5 is a K CPU 6th gen).
Which processor did you buy where the K version has hyperthreading and the non-K does not? I don't think that distinction exists in any Intel cpu generation. K just means unlocked and sometimes a higher clock, it says nothing about hyperthreading.
Yeah. As the article says, losing hyperthreading effectively downgrades your Core i7 to a Core i5, since (depending on generation) that's one of the main differences between the two processor series.
This is both true, and humorous. A lot of advances in mechanical computing were driven by the needs of WWI and WWII artillery battalion colonels, and ship captains - hitting distant, often-times moving targets at different elevations, and in various wind conditions.
For example, the Mark I mechanical computer[1] could, when pointed at a target, measure its distance, altitude and heading, its own ship's speed, pitch, and heading, current windspeed - and combine that with the chosen projectile type, weight, propellant type, and current temperature - all to compute a firing solution that had the best chance of sinking ships adorned with swastikas, or a rising sun.
Not a general-purpose computation machine, but work on these sorts of devices heavily overlapped with work on programmable computers.
That was my dad, in WWII. He was the only one in his unit who could do the math. He kept going AWOL but they couldn’t do more than bring him back down to private because no one else could do the trig.
Quite literally a killer app, at that. As were many of the other earliest uses of computers -- wartime cryptanalysis and numerical computations for nuclear weapon development.
100% of other EmDrive-like claims haven't panned out. Short of substantial evidence why this time it's different, this time it's probably not different.
Eh, there was this weird guy back in the early 20th century that said he could get massive amounts of energy out of some rare metals - I think that one's worked out pretty well so far. Point being, just because something looks like it breaks reality or thermodynamics or whatever doesn't mean it actually does.
Of course, this is still probably BS. Unless the US really is flying [0] legit 'ignore gravity and inertia' UFOs...
The problem is a sort of Pascal's mugging. Yes, some breakthrough claims pan out. But if you take every claim equally seriously, you'll be absolutely snowed under amidst claims of breathtaking new discoveries. Extraordinary claims still require extraordinary evidence, because there are so many more extraordinary claims than actual breakthroughs.
I mean, how many claims of Revolutionary New Battery Technology (for instance) are we going to get before we get a truly revolutionary new battery tech? Probably many! And those don't even require new physics! Lots of patents turn out to be totally useless (practically speaking), even ones that don't make extraordinary claims. Ones that do probably require heightened scrutiny. A better toaster? Probably works! A cheap and portable mind-control device? Maybe not.
The Manhattan project had the benefit of most of the physics being at least fairly well understood. Everyone knew there was energy to be liberated from the atom, the question was whether a bomb would be practical: could it be small enough to fit in a plane? Could the material be enriched and mined practically? All of that stuff was engineering problems, absolutely massive ones. There were big uncertainties about the physics, but they were about the size of the effect, not about whether it existed at all.
But EmDrive ideas are putting the engineering before the horse, the physics supposedly underlying them are not mainstream at all. The Manhattan project got off the ground because all the heavyweights in nuclear physics at the time thought it was possible. Nuclear chain reactions were demonstrated first, before the Manhattan project was started. (Self-sustaining chain reactions did only come as part of the Manhattan project)
> how many claims of Revolutionary New Battery Technology (for instance) are we going to get before we get a truly revolutionary new battery tech
We've already got lots of revolutionary new battery technologies. Just, none of them are optimized for the consumer-electronics usage profile (and, in fact, the "revolutionary" part of them isn't that they're better in all ways than existing battery tech, but rather that they allow for trade-offs we weren't previously able to make.) Such advances are already revolutionizing cubesats, supercapacitors, etc.
there was this weird guy back in the early 20th century that said he could get massive amounts of energy out of some rare metals
That's a pretty good description of the opposite of what happened. It was new but mainstream physics and the potential was quickly and widely recognized, experiments designed, performed, reproduced, etc. And one of the central people wasn't even a guy.
This gives me a chance to blow the dust off a Carl Sagan classic:
> But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers.
1. They pretend the term "UFO" is on equal footing as "flying saucer", and that in the past the military was incredulous on this subject. Of course it was and should be skeptical about "flying saucers", but I don't believe it ever was incredulous on UFO reports, indeed I'd guess the abreviation Unidentified Flying Object was originally a military term to designate flying craft, not identified by the observer...
2. They mention that this was one of the first large-scale deployments of sensor fusion: if one sensor detects an object, then it is digitally gossiped to all other stations: boats, planes, ... so this is the simplest explanation for "independent" sightings by the Nimitz Carrier for example, also if this is one of the first deployments with sensor fusion then many members of different crews could easily mis-interpret the appearance of objects on their local screen as deriving from a local sensor..., only one sensor system needs to imagine an object, and all crews believe they independently witnessed the same object... For the article to explicitly mention this from source material without connecting the dots is just poor reporting.
3. They describe top down behaviour resembling a cover-up, if genuine this is not very surprising either: nation states try to keep secret not only the performance of their system in optimal conditions (knowing and bypassing this limit undetected would be valuable to an enemy), but they also try to keep secret failure modes (since the enemy can exploit failure modes, think chaff etc...). Another explanation is that the manufacturers are well connected with top brass, and they try to keep their reputation by covering up shoddy performance off their systems...
Well, yes, except that physicists were pretty confident that they nailed electromagnetism, except the pesky thing that the speed of light was c - but relative to what? Naturally there should have been some medium (the "ether") but when they looked for it they weren't there: the famous Michelson–Morley experiment.
So people had already known that there was some glaring gap in our knowledge, and something had to fill in the gap.
The most recent research suggests the thrust was real, sort of, but not a reactionless effect.
> And now it seems that the previously detected thrust was illusory, at least according to a team of researchers in Germany. They built their own EmDrive and tested it in a vacuum chamber, as the NASA researchers did.
> The German team picked something up as well. But follow-up analysis "clearly indicates that the 'thrust' is not coming from the EmDrive but from some electromagnetic interaction," the researchers wrote in their new study, which you can read here. That interaction is likely between EmDrive power cables and Earth's magnetic field, the team concluded.
The real reason someone might need to do this hack is that there were in fact many versions of "DOS" not made by Microsoft. These included Zenith, Compaq, Digital Research and IBM. Each of these each had their own subversions.