http://arstechnica.com/…

Two representatives of the Intel Corporation visited the Federal Communications Commission last week to boost the idea requiring IP capability on cable-set top boxes. “Given the marketplace acceptance of IP, Messrs. Lawrence and Greenstein suggested that this regulation should be amended so as to make mandatory the availability of boxes using an IP-based interface that facilitates home networking, such as Ethernet,” Intel’s filing concluded.

Said “Messrs.” included Jeffrey Lawrence, Intel’s director of content policy and attorney Seth D. Greenstein, who on July 15 met with a small army of FCC reps from the offices of Jonathan Adelstein, Michael Copps, the agency’s Media Bureau and the Office of Strategic Analysis. The Intel duo said they dropped by the Commission to discuss the “recent trends in home networking of audiovisual content from cable systems, and the rapid increase in home networks using Internet Protocol.” But Ars guesses that they wanted to offer some precedents for their IP requirement proposal, which they did.

The Intel citations include 2003 FCC regs that require cable operators to offer set tops that include the IEEE 1394 (Firewire) external data bus. Section 76.640(b)(4) of the FCC’s rules mandates that cable companies replace a non-1394 equipped box with an equipped one or upgrade the system by download. The rule has been in place since April of 2004.

Ignoring the political aspects of this why would anyone care about this? They mandated IEEE 1394 and I don’t think many used it. My last cable box has Firewire and USB and neither were used for anything. Sounds to me like the chipset makers just want what effectively comes down to guaranteed business. People want cable, they want a function cable box and they don’t care if it has ethernet, Firewire or USB connectors. Especially when they are generally disabled and useless. It’s just an extra location to collect dust.

http://www.sciencedebate2008.com/…

An open letter to the candidates
The following email was sent to the campaigns on April 18, 2008

Dear (campaign manager),

We understand Senator (Clinton, McCain or Obama) has been invited to attend a nationally televised conversation in Oregon about science and technology policy issues.

We are writing to strongly urge you to accept this invitation for the good of our nation and the planet, as well as your campaign.

This is not a science quiz; nobody cares if the candidates know scientific details or have memorized specifics, and such a forum should not take undue preparation. This is a serious policy discussion about the candidates’ vision for solving many of America’s most serious challenges, the majority of which revolve around issues of science and technology, and an opportunity for candidates to focus on big ideas and express their vision for how our country will remain innovative and competitive in the future. We understand the questions will be provided to you in advance.

The dates proposed for this event are either of May 2, May 9, or May 16, to be held at Portland State University in the midst of the Oregon mail-in primary. The format is entirely flexible. It could be a forum similar to the “Compassion Forum” the candidates recently held on faith issues, or a debate as originally proposed. But it is important that you attend. Science and technology present issues the American people care deeply about because they recognize their direct link to our country’s economic wellbeing, health, and the environment. Unfortunately, they have not gotten much attention so far in this campaign.

This proposal has the backing of PBS and three of the nation’s premier public television stations: WGBH in Boston, WNET in New York, and Oregon Public Broadcasting, and would be jointly sponsored by NOVA, NOW, the AAAS, the National Academies, the Council on Competitiveness, and Science Debate 2008. We believe PBS through its 350 member stations is an ideal platform since the network has tens of millions of viewers that are extremely interested in science, technology and their link to our nation’s future.

Sincerely,

Craig Barrett, Chairman, Intel; Chairman, National Academy of Engineering
David Baltimore, Chairman, American Association for the Advancement of Science; Past President, Caltech; Nobel Prize in Medicine, 1975
Peter Agre, Director, Johns Hopkins Malaria Research Institute, Bloomberg School of Public Health; Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 2003
Harold Varmus, President, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center; past director of the National Institutes of Health; Nobel Prize in Medicine, 1989
Richard Schrock, Frederick G. Keyes Professor Of Chemistry, M.I.T.; Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 2005
David Gross, Director of the Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics, U.C. Santa Barbara; Nobel Prize in Physics, 2004
John Mather, Project Scientist, James Webb Space Telescope; Time magazine’s 100 Most Influential People, 2007; Nobel Prize in Physics, 2006
David Politzer, The Tolman Professor of Theoretical Physics, CalTech; Nobel Prize in Physics, 2004
Leon Lederman, Past Director, FermiLab; Pritzker Professor of Science, Illinois Institute of Technology; Nobel Prize in Physics, 1988
Carter Roberts, President & CEO, World Wildlife Fund (WWF)

and the blackout continues…

http://marc.info/…

These processors are buggy as hell, and some of these bugs don’t just cause development / debugging problems, but will *ASSUREDLY* be exploitable from userland code.

As is typical, BIOS vendors will be very late providing workarounds / fixes for these processors bugs. Some bugs are unfixable and cannot be worked around. Intel only provides detailed fixes to BIOS vendors and large operating system groups. Open Source operating systems are largely left in the cold.

CPUs have always had bugs. As these chips contain more and more moving parts the likelihood of bugs will increase. Normally these bugs have been reasonably easy to work around and accommodate for… but de Raadt is saying that a large percentage of the Core 2’s bugs can’t be and are even userland exploitable. I’ve yet to look over the errata but taking Theo’s word… things sound fairly serious to me.