hobbesmaster posted:

on the other hand AMD has always been honest about a 30% performance hit

hobbesmaster posted:

I’m still confused by how

anthonypants posted:

microsoft has patch kb4056892 out tonight for windows 10, which might the fix for this bug, or it might not. who knows

quote:

Addresses issue where event logs stop receiving events when a maximum file size policy is applied to the channel.
Addresses issue where printing an Office Online document in Microsoft Edge fails.
Addresses issue where the touch keyboard doesn’t support the standard layout for 109 keyboards.
Addresses video playback issues in applications such as Microsoft Edge that affect some devices when playing back video on a monitor and a secondary, duplicated display.
Addresses issue where Microsoft Edge stops responding for up to 3 seconds while displaying content from a software rendering path.
Addresses issue where only 4 TB of memory is shown as available in Task Manager in Windows Server version 1709 when more memory is actually installed, configured, and available.
Security updates to Windows SMB Server, the Windows Subsystem for Linux, Windows Kernel, Windows Datacenter Networking, Windows Graphics, Microsoft Edge, Internet Explorer, and the Microsoft Scripting Engine.

quote:

WHAT THIS LIMITED WARRANTY DOES NOT COVER:

- design defects or errors in the Product (errata)
- damage to the product or errrors or malfunctions in the Product due to . . . malicious code

quote:

Hardware support for branch target injection mitigation is present: False
Windows OS support for branch target injection mitigation is present: True
Windows OS support for branch target injection mitigation is enabled: False
Windows OS support for branch target injection mitigation is disabled by system policy: False
Windows OS support for branch target injection mitigation is disabled by absence of hardware support: True

canis minor posted:

Wasn't this the flow of some Linux expo from last year, or am I misremembering?

cinci zoo sniper posted:

looks like some estonian medical institution paid its way out of ransomware

akadajet posted:

this poo poo again?
https://twitter.com/MacRumors/status/951133444909580288

Raere posted:

certainty: observed

Wiggly Wayne DDS posted:

do you have an example of that lock? all residential ones i've seen are p trivial. where do you live?

ymgve posted:

considering the quality of door materials in the US, this is correct in two ways

univbee posted:

Plorkyeran posted:

cable locks are to prevent someone from just casually walking away with the laptop. hopefully not a threat model relevant to a workplace (other than a lovely coop space I guess?), but the durability of the thing you're attaching the laptop too isn't particularly relevant

Arbitrary Coin posted:

Not an IT or comp person at all, but a while ago at my workplace we got a company wide email that we got infected by a virus. The IT department told us to solve this by downloading Malwarebytes, running the trial version's software cleanup and then uninstalling it. The size of the company I work for couple hundred to low thousands employees and they're large enough to have multiple offices. Exactly how sketchy is this?

Wiggly Wayne DDS posted:

they're right next to the rowhammer in-the-wild attacks

quote:

http://www.dailyhalacha.com/m/halacha.aspx?id=2687

Hacham Ovadia Yosef addresses this question in his Hazon Ovadia (vol. 6 pp. 107-109), and he rules that it is permissible to wear such a garment on Shabbat, even if one knows for certain that static electricity will be produced. He explains that to begin with, producing a spark – as opposed to an actual flame – is in general forbidden only on the level of Mi’de’rabbanan (Rabbinic enactment), as opposed to Torah law. The Gemara establishes that “Nisosot En Bahem Mamash” – sparks are not significant, and thus do not violate the Torah prohibition of Mab’ir. Igniting a spark is forbidden only on the level of Rabbinic enactment. This point was also made by the Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909), in responding to a question posed to him by a man who had struck a match on Shabbat and produced a spark. The man wanted to know how he should go about repenting for this violation, and in his response the Ben Ish Hai noted that the man had not committed a Torah violation, but rather a Rabbinic enactment.

Hacham Ovadia proceeds to explain that when it comes to a prohibition enacted by the Sages, we may be lenient in situations of “Pesik Resheh” – where one has no intention to perform the forbidden act. There is a famous ruling of the Aruch which permits performing an action on Shabbat even though it will inevitably result in a Shabbat violation, as long as one has no interest in that result. An example is the practice that was common long ago to use a stone to prepare oneself for defecation, a process which inevitably results in removing hair. The Aruch permits such a practice on Shabbat, since one has no intention to remove hair. Another example would be candles placed near a door on Shabbat, such that the flames will flicker every time the door opens because of the wind. The Aruch would permit opening the door, even though this causes the flame to rise and then descend (which violates the prohibition of Mab’ir), since the person has no interest in causing this effect.

The Shulhan Aruch rules stringently in both cases, and maintains that one may not perform an act that will invariably result in a Shabbat violation. However, Hacham Ovadia asserts that the Shulhan Aruch would likely rule leniently if the violation at stake is forbidden only Mi’derabbanan. Although the Shulhan Aruch does not accept the Aruch’s position permitting actions that result in Torah violations, we can assume that he would accept this position with regard to prohibitions enacted by the Sages. Therefore, when it comes to producing static electricity, which entails a Rabbinic violation, it is permissible when this result is unintended. This is certainly the case when one wears clothing which creates static electricity – as he has no intention whatsoever to create electricity – and it is therefore permissible to wear such clothing on Shabbat.

Summary: It is permissible to wear on Shabbat clothing which creates static electricity.

420 SWAGLORD posted:

Bunch of rabbi lookin for exploits in the Law of Moses. Torah is a old, buggy implementation of Yahweh's will and you'd better believe they're gonna take advantage of that. With a single loop of string all of Manhattan becomes open to you during Shabbat. Elohim's own secfuck, 1962.

spit on my clit posted:

just shut twitter the gently caress down already. where else can trump go? "Gab"?

my bitter bi rival posted:

This might be a bit of a broad topic, but does anyone have any recommendations for intelligently done end-user workplace IT security training or good resources for setting up your own? One of our sys admins has been doing these off the shelf phishing emails and garbage traffic school type web classes rife with awful information. I saw this a few years ago: https://www.infoq.com/presentations/security-etsy and it seems like it is a much more accessible and user-friendly way of going about things but I feel a little overwhelmed doing something like that from scratch.

Cocoa Crispies posted:

*woop*woop* it’s the android police

*woop*woop* it’s a site for the obese

Cocoa Crispies posted:

if at&t is calling their volte product "HD Voice" then yeah they're doing it

ate poo poo on live tv posted:

Nation state fuckup. (The gently caress up is the authoritarian nation state that doesn't have codified speech protections and narrow treason definitions not the browser cookie).

Wiggly Wayne DDS posted:

military has policies on these devices anyway, it's lack of enforcement and exemptions

Bhodi posted:

Why has no one mentioned the self-inflicted wound of DoD and other militaries encouraging fitbit use to combat obesity yet?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/16/overweight-soldiers-given-fitbit-bracelets-to-help-them-lose-wei/
https://www.athleticbusiness.com/military/army-testing-tracking-technology.html



they did this to themselves by encouraging fitness tracking without guidelines or consideration of privacy leakage