In my case, it's always been because the native terminal emulator had issues actually emulating terminals when connected to remote systems, it was intended to be only a terminal-shaped wrapper around the host system's shell.
America is not rich. A handful of Americans are rich. The rest of us are not, and can never be allowed to become rich because that would not be in the interests of the aforementioned handful.
On some of IBM's smaller processors, such as channel controllers and the CSP used in the midrange line prior to the System/38, the xor instruction had a special feature when used with identical source and destination - It would inhibit parity and/or ECC error checking on the read cycle, which meant that xor could be used to clear a register or memory location that had been stored with bad parity without taking a machine check or processor check.
Interesting, since the general culture at IBM seems to have preferred SUB over XOR -- their earlier business-oriented machines didn't even have a XOR instruction, and even on later ones the use of SUB has persisted, including in the IBM PC and AT BIOS.
(There was another, now deleted, comment somewhere in this thread that mentioned IBM's preference for SUB. Source of that statement was Claude, but it seems very likely to be correct. The BIOS code I've checked myself, lots of 'SUB AX,AX', no XOR)
You may not be looking for the right thing. On the aforementioned CSP, the instruction that performed XOR was called "XR" and not "XOR". My source is firsthand knowledge; I was a CE and performed service calls on the System/34, System/36, 370, and 390.
In any case, I am describing equipment built mostly in late 60s through the late 70s at IBM Rochester and Poughkeepsie. The IBM PC was developed by an entirely different team at IBM Boca Raton, and IBM didn't design its CPU.
I don't doubt that this specific processor special-cased XOR (regardless of how it was called in the assembly language)!
Merely pointing out that where both operations were available, there seems to have been a preference to use SUB instead, with some continuity from early business-oriented mainframes, to the 360, to the PC.
You probably would prefer to use SUB with fault-checking to clear registers in general-purpose code, and only use XOR in early startup (and perhaps fault handlers), where error checking has to be suppressed. So both observations seem to align well?
Another thing I should point out is that the CSP instruction set was not documented to the customer. The CSP software was called "Microcode" and the customer was not told about the CSP's design or how it worked. The documented instruction set for the System/34 and System/36 is that of the Main Storage Processor or MSP, which was an evolution of the IBM System/3.
"We'll fix it eventually" is not good enough. If a human can find a flaw, then a bot can find the same flaw, and the bots are always watching and always testing. If someone can't commit to immediate security response when running a public-facing internet service then they should not be running that service, because the rest of the internet will not forgive them when their machine gets popped and becomes everyone else's problem.
If they can't commit to a hard timeline of less than a few days, then publish. What happens next is not your fault - it was inevitable anyway.
Edit for clarity: This is just in general, not specifically SDF or small orgs or large orgs. The internet does not care about the difference. The internet just does not care period. Nobody is going to give anyone else any breaks, and especially not a botnet.
Apparently, the only place the VAX 380 exists is in a writing sample by Pearson Education. Otherwise, there is no evidence of DEC ever producing something called "VAX 380".
It looks entirely made up because the procedure described is also entirely alien to me, and I had professional experience with both VMS and Ultrix when they were still supported by DEC. (And it's certainly not BSD...)
Could be. You could also have been thinking of the 11/730, which was a cost-reduced 11/750 and thus the second-slowest VAX model DEC ever sold.
The slowest would be the 11/725, which was a cost-reduced 11/730 that had a reduced clock speed and half of the bus slots filled with epoxy to limit expansion. The 11/725 was so slow that using it was an act of masochism; It was slower than your 11/23+.
Those models were pretty rare though. Even though they were cheaper than an 11/750 the performance drop from the 750 to the 730 was too severe to justify even the reduced cost. If that were all then maybe replacing PDP-11s being used in industrial applications might have saved it but the 730 was still too expensive versus the existing PDP-11 products, and the 725's limited expansion made it less attractive than those same PDP-11 products. The PDP-11 thus outlived both the 725 and the 730.
Achually. If you have L.M.Ericsson 8x8 latching crossbar switch, 64-bit memory needs only 6 relays. Yes SIX.
The Fuji relay-computer has lots of those crossbar switches.
However. The rope-memory in this scene is read-only-storage containing vast amount of data. Rope memory is economical to use but labor-intensive to produce.
The company doesn't get the choice. If they fire you or cut your pay over jury service, or even just threaten to to do so, and you can prove it, they can be arrested immediately. I have personally witnessed a judge issue a bench warrant for the arrest of a retail manager who told an employee that if she failed to get out of jury duty before her shift started that she would be fired. When the manager was brought in and questioned by the judge he tried to argue that it was his right to deny jury service by his employees. He was given 90 days in jail for contempt of court.
I don’t know. Maybe I could worked with HR for more but our employee manual said they would pay for two weeks and this was a company that was generally pretty understanding about personal matters. Certainly an hourly employee or someone self employed is probably not getting any sort of a deal.
I wouldn’t have been fired (which seems a different case) but being largely unable to, say, make sales calls or other external activities for 6 months I would expect to have consequences even if just as simple as underforming my peers. Maybe a manager would understand and take it into account but I wouldn’t count on it. It doesn’t have to be blatant as in your example.
If you perform nearly any work at all in a given week you're entitled to your salary, and they can't fire you. They might be able to take away the $15/day stipend from your pay, and there are obvious additional negatives (6 months with limited context and practice of your craft will reduce your performance when you get back too), but that 2-week cap is a lawsuit waiting to happen unless they also forbid you from doing any work while on jury duty.
As I say grand jury duty is often not every day, you can always take your PTO, and there are always nights and weekends. A company can always keep paying your base salary but, as you say, there could be longer term consequences.
And the case upthread is obviously a retail manager being stupid but I also assume there is no obligation to pay hourly employees for hours they don’t work or for tips they didn’t collect.
You can, but if salaried you usually shouldn't, ignoring any particularly malicious employers and social contracts around the outskirts of the law.
> No obligation to pay hourly employees, tips, etc
Yeah, if you're not salaried you're screwed. PTO might cover a few days, but if you have a month-long trial and need money for rent then my understanding of the law is that serving as a juror will make you homeless unless the courtroom is willing to extend some compassion for your hardship.
The problem is punishing the uploader doesn't remove the upload. Once the public has it, it has it forever. It doesn't un-contaminate a jury pool, and there's no later retraction if whatever that was uploaded is found to be lacking context, false, or outright fabricated. Once that kind of damage is done, it can't be un-done.
Yeah, that's unfortunate. But the same is true of lots of other crimes. No way to unstab someone. Usually we account for that by setting a higher punishment
Using HTTP does not guarantee your content can be read, since it can be modified in transit. Your content could be replaced entirely and you would never know unless someone reported it to you.
But, as we learned with the telnet filter going into place, we exist on the network at the pleasure of everyone else. Their concerns must come before ours. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
reply