Everyone needs to be aware of this because almost every computer we use has an Intel processor, and those computers are going to be slowed down up to 30% by the "fix."
|
It's hard to zero in on the most troubling part of this flaw. Intel's x86-64x processors are the most widely-used chips in virtually every form of laptop. If you don't know what processor you have, you almost certainly have one with this flaw. If you do have an AMD processor, however, congratulations—they are confirmed to be safe from the exploit.
In addition to the ubiquity of Intel processors, the low-level nature of this vulnerability means that hackers who may have learned to exploit it would have access to an unprecedented number of machines. And considering x86-64 has been around and prevalent since 2004, possible hackers have had access for over 10 years. No researchers have yet come forward with an example program that exploits this flaw, but that's hardly proof that hackers, or the NSA, didn't figure out how to make use of this exploit years ago.
On top of it all, the fix requires extremely deep and wide-reaching changes at the root levels of an operating system's software—changes that could impact performance of Intel machines by as much as 30 percent. The only alternative? A new computer with a different processor, or one powerful enough to make up for the performance hit. Even worse, these performance hits won't just come to your computer, but also the army of distant servers that run countless internet-connected services in the cloud.
Late Update:
How to Protect Yourself From the Newest Severe Security Flaw
|
When to Decentralize Decision Making, and When Not To
|
Rare is the business executive who doubts the importance of responsiveness: to be acutely alert to business opportunities and threats, and to be capable of grabbing the opportunity or fending off the threat fast and effectively. We find it useful to start with four qualities most executives want their organizations to have: responsiveness, reliability, efficiency, and perennity (e.g., the quality of being perennial, or continuing reliably in perpetuity). When deciding on the best level at which a given task should be done, assess the impact of the decision on these four qualities.
1. Responsiveness through immediacy. Responsiveness is all about taking the right action quickly in response to opportunities and threats. Decentralization allows immediacy in time and place, hence responsiveness.
2. Reliability through compliance. For some tasks, it is desirable or necessary to have common rules across the operating units: policies, standards, methods, procedures, or systems. Think of compensation and benefits policies, product design standards, quality assurance methods, fraud reporting procedures, financial reporting systems, and the like. These rules are meant to align the operating units with the company’s overall objectives, and make the business more predictable.
3. Efficiency through syndication. For some tasks the case for centralization is rather straightforward: a centralized unit can serve as the home for a task that is carried out more economically when aggregated in one unit than when all operating units take care of that task separately.
4. Perennity through detachment. There are certain tasks which, left to the discretion of the operating units, might not get done at all – this can be particularly true for tasks that are essential to the company’s long-term wellbeing, but do not serve a short-term function for the business units. Hence, a central unit with sufficient detachment from front-line operations may be required.
In an age where the concept of “self-managed organization” attracts much attention, the question of centralization versus decentralization does not go away. Nicolai Foss and Peter Klein argue in the article “Why Managers Still Matter” that “In today’s knowledge-based economy, managerial authority is supposedly in decline. But there is still a strong need for someone to define and implement the organizational rules of the game.” We hope that the simple logic presented in this article helps managers find solutions for achieving a balance between rules and responsiveness.
|
We at PwC have spent some time envisioning four alternative future worlds of work, each named with a color. These admittedly extreme examples of how work could look in 2030 are shaped by the ways people and organizations respond to the forces of collectivism and individualism, on one axis, and integration and fragmentation on the other. These scenarios can help organizations think through possibilities and how they will prepare to meet them.
The Red World
In the Red World, in which individualism and fragmentation reign, small is powerful. Technology allows tiny businesses to tap into the vast reservoirs of information, skills, and financing that were formerly available only to large organizations, and it gives them power and incredible reach. Innovation and people are inseparable, which will trickle down to how companies find, manage and reward workers.
The Blue World
In the Blue World, an individualized and integrated world, global corporations take center stage, becoming larger, more powerful, and more influential than ever — some even have more sway than nation states. Companies see their size and influence as the best way to protect their prized profit margins against intense competition from their peers and aggressive new market entrants.
The Green World
The Green World — collective and integrated — is driven by the need for a powerful social conscience. Reacting to public opinion, increasingly scarce natural resources, and stringent international regulations, companies push a strong ethical and ecological agenda. Social conscience, environmental responsibility, diversity, human rights and fairness are corporate imperatives.
The Yellow World
In the Yellow World — in which collectivist impulses thrive in a fragmented world — workers and companies seek out greater meaning and relevance. Humanness is highly valued. Workers find flexibility, autonomy, and fulfilment, working for organizations with strong social and ethical records. There’s a strong desire to contribute to the common good.
Imagining these four worlds offers one way to stop wondering and speculating and start planning. From each world, work backward by thinking about what your workers and HR function will need. How might the characteristics of each world come together to create a scenario that is uniquely yours? In each scenario, how will your talent needs change? How can you attract, keep, and motivate the people you need? How will your organization need to evolve to stay competitive?
The answers may not seem obvious today. We may not know all the answers. But by imagining different scenarios and taking steps to plan now, we can face the future of work with a greater sense of confidence.
No comments:
Post a Comment