If the police come to your house and search it with a warrant when you are not home, they are required to leave a copy of the warrant "in plain sight" in most instances. Except for a few rare cases the law generally requires that the owner of the property being searched and seized be notified, and this is the accepted way to do it.
In this case ECN says they were not notified. We don't know why, but there are a number of interesting possibilities:
The police served the warrant on XO, their hosting provider. This has been done before, and I have a feeling one of these days one of the cases will make it to the federal appeals court or even supreme court. A colo is more like a apartment building than a hotel, and in most jurisdictions the named in an apartment search must be the leasee, not the apartment owner. If the police did this leaving the warrant with XO was enough legally, but not right, and XO should have told ECN.
The police named ECN, in which case they should have left the warrant in plain sight. We can argue a bit about what this means, but when taking one server I think taping it to the rack near where the server was taken would fit the bill. Since ECN sent staff and saw nothing, I'd say this didn't happen. It prevents ECN from mounting a proper defense and involving their lawyers early, and I think judges should frown on it. Unfortunately few of these cases have made it anywhere, and Judges don't understand colo...yet.
Either way, XO or the FBI fubared the notification at a corporate and legal level respectively.
Now, let's look at putting it back, first in the real world. FBI gets a warrant to search your house for a joint, breaks in when you're not at home, searches it, and finds what it thinks is a joint. Takes that, runs it off for testing and finds out it's full of oregano or something. Does the FBI now break back into your house when you're not home and put the joint back? Heck no. It would in fact be breaking and entering. Your right to privacy is being broken. Plus, they just don't do it, anyone who's ever retrieved seized property knows you go to the evidence room, fill out a bunch of paperwork, and you're on your own to take it back home. No warrant is ever issued to return property.
I think a competent lawyer could have a lot of fun with this case. Invasion of privacy, breaking and entering, civil trespass, etc, all from returning it. The FBI should have given ECN a notice to come pick it up, and they didn't. Thing is, I'm sure they know better, this really does feel like some sort of cover-up attempt. "What server? We don't have any of your servers. Are you sure it's missing?"
Cat6 makes no sense. Cat5e is fine for 1G ethernet. If you want to be ready for 10GE, then you need 6A. Cat6 buys you nothing but extra cost and termination trouble over Cat5e for no practical gain. I think it's likely by the time that 10GE is cheap enough for home, it will be able to go the distances in your home over Cat5e too, people are already demonstrating 30m over Cat5e transceivers.
HDMI also makes no sense to me. A 15m limitation makes it inappropriate for all but the smallest houses. There are also already plenty of cheap transceivers to move HDMI over Cat5e or Coax over longer distances, so either of those would cover HDMI needs with fewer technical issues.
I don't see how RG6 could be totally optional. Even in systems that can distribute over Ethernet the first box needs to be connected to the Satellite or Cable system; so you'll need RG6 at least one place. Further, most of the boxes that work over Ethernet also have MoCA connectors. By putting the data on the coax plant with MoCO the boxes can use PQoS to manage the bandwidth and insure the quality of the video streams; they can't do that with Ethernet connections.
I'll admit, I didn't use the POTS in my setup, although I borrowed those pairs for serial extensions from time to time. However, I wonder about the resale value of a home with no POTS lines...
I have seen wall-mount racks that side-mount to the wall, leaving the front and back of equipment accessible. That said, I'm not wild about any of the wall mount racks, at some point they will all be a pain.
If you have the floor space a small, 4 post cabinet is the way to go. You can often find used ones around for cheap. 4 post is preferred if you're going to have any quantity of systems in them. If the system count is low, and you won't do any 1RU or 2RU systems, a 2-post telco rack is super cheap and might take up less space. I put one in a basement a few years back. 4RU's mount fine with just front rails (screwed in, not on slides of course), and switches, routers, patch panels all work fine in a 2 post setup. Run a 20A dedicated run to it with a computer grade power strip down the side and you're set for life.
FWIW, having done a few houses, my recommendation is that each jack position get 5 cables, 3xCat5e and 2xRG6. These get terminated on a 6 position keystone, 2xRJ45 Network on top, 2x2-line RJ-11 (4C) in the middle, sharing the third Cat5 (blue/orange first jack, green/brown second), and then two RG6's get Coax jacks on the bottom.
The wire cost is low, additional pull cost is low. You pay a small amount to terminate all of that. However, you now have more than you'll ever need everywhere. That Sat system down the road, 2xCoax, check. Desktop and VoIP phone, 2 jacks, check. Home and business land lines, check. Buy keystone rack panels for your new rack, a row of network, next to the switch, row of telephone next to some splitters and/or DSL filters (if necessary), row of cable next to splitters and amps for whatever system type you have. Below that machines as necessary.
Far easier to pull up front than to be frustrated and without later.
I would not be surprised to learn that there were a few hypersonic aircraft pilots flying planes we don't know about from locations we don't get to see. Aurora for instance has been around for years in semi-rumor form, for instance. That would make it entirely possible there were hypersonic pilots not not the list you reference.
Data centers power and cooling capacity are typically expressed as a number of watts per square foot. Apple has said it's a 20MW data center, and 500,000 square feet. Simple math gives us:
20MW / 500,000 sq feet is 40 Watts per Square Foot
That is extraordinarily low for a data center built today. Most data centers built today are in the 150-200 watts/square foot range, with some pushing higher. I personally haven't seen a data center built to less than 100 watts/square foot level since about 2000.
Apple could be doing any number of things that lead to this low rating. It could be using only a fraction of the floor space inside, and thus the 20MW is current draw of a 150 watts/square foot section occupying 1/3 of the total space. They could be doing something interesting with the cooling that requires some lower density power usage. Also, disk arrays tend to be lower power than servers burning away on compute, so they may have lower usage if it is mostly storage capacity for iCloud.
Still, I am extremely skeptical that Apple would only use 20MW of power in 500,000 feet. The Greenpeace estimates are in line with what other data centers that size would use, 100MW for a data center that size would not at all be surprising. Given Apple's secrecy there's no way to know for sure.
"Comcast has no say in where this service is located" is incorrect.
It is common for content providers and eyeball networks to negotiate where and how they meet. That's true if it is a free or paid peering or a transit relationship. In peering both sides negotiate for what they want, and if there is an imbalance it's made up for by charging (paid peering). In transit, they can offer cheaper connections where they want the content to be located, and more expensive ones in other cases.
The correct way to reform your statement is "Comcast cannot unilaterally dictate where it is located."
You're right, but you left out why they went in this direction.
Apple is trying to support users with no PC. They keep talking about the "Post-PC" era. They have customers (although perhaps a small number) who have an iPhone and iPad, but no laptop/desktop and an Airport (or Time Capsule, same thing with hard drive). They aren't to where this is a fully working platform yet (for instance you need a PC to initialize the phone), but the iCloud road map and what they roll out point in this direction.
One of the puzzle pieces was making a configuration client for the iPhone/iPad to configure the Airport. It further makes sense that there would be only one program / interface across both platforms, so OSX got the same thing. I suspect they realized the left out and dumbed down features, hence leaving the old version around, I suspect the next version will put many of them back on both iOS and OSX devices.
One of the interesting things from talking to Apple folks is they feel, for most users, IPv6 should need no configuration. For instance there's no way in OSX to configure IPv6 DHCP on or off, if the RA says to do DHCP, it does, if not, it doesn't. For the Airport it should look for RA's from the ISP, if they are there it should do DHCP (probably with Prefix Delegation), if that works it should configure IPv6 on the LAN side. Apple will likely have to make a nod to static addressing and provide manual configuration; but the defaults will be automatic configuration when available I'm sure. I suspect this will come out with the next rev of hardware (since they don't do new software features on older hardware for Airports), and actually make IPv6 as easy as well, doing nothing for Apple users with the newest hardware.
Note, I don't think this is the most customer or network friendly thing Apple could be doing and so they do lose some points with me for their stance. That said, understanding why they do what they do is the key to planning ahead for their next move...
Which on a 27" screen ranks as "acceptable". I would happily double it, 5120x2880 would make the screen a shade over 200dpi, which would probably make things look pretty similar to laser printer quality output on the scree, when adjusted for viewing distance.
I've known two people who had house fires, and the documentation factor was huge for them as well. What we try to do is about once per year take a video camera into every room of the house, do a 360 spin, open every closet and drawer and shoot the contents. High value items, laptops, tv's, and so on get a close up. Generally takes about 20-30 minutes. Hold up a news paper to prove it wasn't before the paper came out.
Then, and here's the key, the tape goes to another location. We give ours to a relative who keeps it in a fire safe in their house. Now if anything happens you have a visual record to go through to help you remember everything, and you have something to give the insurance company showing everything in its spot.
IP cameras have become quite cheap, depending on your needs. If you get PoE models they are also far easier to run than traditional cameras, as a single CatE cable can get the job done. I've set up small systems a number of places including my house, and it all works quite well and easily. While you can go the open source route, I found the easiest way is with some Mac software. You can even do it without network DVR software and use cameras that capture to onboard SD cards. I find that inconvenient, but it can be a good backup if your cameras are mounted out of reach but your server isn't.
There's a product for every need. Cheap, $50 indoor lit-room only solutions to $2000 pan/tilt/zoom IR illuminated outdoor vandal proof units.
TrendNet makes affordable PoE switches. 10/100 is fine, an individual camera stream is maybe 2Mbps for a high res stream.
I use SecuritySpy on a Mac. Even watching 8 cameras it uses
Place cameras where you can get good shots of faces as they come through doors. Maybe one of your driveway or street in front to get a car. They won't stop the break in, although visible cameras outside may be a deterrent, but they will give you a fighting chance of catching the person who did it.
Oh, and get a dog with a loud bark. Most robbers don't want to find out if it is a small dog or big dog!
Several of the CDN's, most notably Akamai try really hard to locate boxes inside of networks like Comcast so there is no peering or transit link to traverse. Often they in fact pay for the right to be inside the network, on the grounds that it increases performance.
I don't know how many, if any, CDN's are inside of Comcast's network and possibly _paying_ for the privilege to do so. However if Comcast wants to make the case that Internal traffic shouldn't count against caps with their own services I see no reason why it cap should count against these collocated CDN's as well.
Net Neutrality is about being _fair_. It seems to me if someone is locating stuff in the same basic (network) location as Comcast, and maybe even paying to do so, but their traffic is capped differently that's not fair.
Lots of posts are talking about having good subject material, but I think they are missing the mark. It's not good enough to have fun, or interesting material, but it also has to be material that is suited to a presentation. Anyone who's taken a class where a professor just droned on reading powerpoint slides knows that teaching material to people via a presentation does not work well at all, for instance. One of the fun ones in corporate america is the "reason for outage" presentation, that sort of material does not fit well in presentation form either, most of the time.
Your audience has to be interested not only by the information you are communicating, but also by the way in with you present it. When you watch an Apple Keynote it's not that they do anything earth shattering, but everyone wants to know what the next gizmo is, and a plain picture on the screen and a one paragraph description read aloud keeps them enthralled! Think about interesting tech presentations, people flock to (the external version of) why things failed presentations. When Facebook/Google/Yahoo/Microsoft get up and talk about these events there is interest before the presentation in the topic, and the people listening aren't interesting in assigning blame (which is why the RFO corporate ones don't work). They are fascinated by a window into your world.
I fear the OP is off on the wrong foot. If the environment is "bog standard" and you're presenting to technical folks you're already in trouble. If 10% of the room could sit down and take a wild ass guess at what you're doing based on industry standards, and that is in fact, what you're doing, no one is going to care about your material no matter how much you try and jazz up the slides. The OP needs to think about the questions the other 99 people in the company ask all the time, and how to answer them in a fun and interesting way. It's the questions you dismiss all the time:
"At my last job we did X, and it seemed better, why don't we do that here?" "Why does the IT staff always take a 2 hour lunch on thursday?" "Why are you guys Windows fanboys, and hate OSX?"
The people are already telling you what they are interested in knowing. Those are the topics they will find interesting and engaging. Those are the things you need to present.
When you say the word "latency" most tech-savvy folks think about the propagation speed of the technology (e.g. electricity in copper, or light in fiber), and thus assume it's basically proportional to distance.
However, latency comes from other things as well. Serialization delay adds latency, and the lower the symbol speed the more it adds. Multiaccess media adds latency while waiting to transit. Multiplexing anything adds a small amount of latency looking for a time slot.
The biggest culprit? Bufferbloat. This is a term that has been coined to describe the fact that many networking devices have entirely too much buffer. In the best case someone has sized the buffer for the max line rate that device may see (perhaps 25Mbps for your DSL modem, when your link is only 10Mbps), in the worst some misguided engineer thought "more == better" when figuring out how much to buffer, or just didn't care. There are a number of efforts to try and fix this poor situation, http://www.bufferbloat.net/ is the place to start. Basically buffers add latency. A small amount of buffering increases throughput, but beyond that it does nothing but increase latency and generally make the user experience crappy. When the link is full you need to drop packets _quickly_, because that's the signal to TCP to back off. Packet loss is a _good_ thing on a full link.
Try running ICSI's Netalyzr (http://netalyzr.icsi.berkeley.edu/) which will attempt to estimate your uplink and downlink buffering. If you have a "router" in front of your DSL modem it may have some tuning, or "QoS rate shaping" that will help. If it's a device provided by your service provider you may not have access to the settings, and it may simply be configured wrong. With some vendors asking for a different model of device may help, with others, you may be screwed.
The technologies involved should deliver 20ms latencies if properly configured. You should absolutely expect that, but getting them to acknowledge a problem may take latencies over 50ms. If your service provider thinks 300ms is normal, you need to escalate or move to a different provider.
I used PeaPod (http://www.peapod.com/) when I lived in their service area and was generally happy. IIRC delivery was like $15 if you wanted a specific (and popular) time, but then they discounted the off times so most of the time I paid $5 or $0 for delivery.
What I always wish they did was have set routes. If they told me "we'll be in your area every Tuesday and give you cheaper delivery as a result" I could have gotten in sync with that for all my regular orders and they wouldn't have had to go all over town every day.
Often telecommuters work for a manager who still works in an office. When this occurs, the #1 thing all involved can do? Make the manager work from home for two weeks straight!
I've seen managers do all sorts of dumb things with telecommuters, from making them do things that made no sense to ignoring their requests for simple changes that make working from home much easier. 80-90% of these were simple ignorance. I had one manager who totally blew off my requests for video conferencing for some of our group meetings, after all we had the telephone. Two weeks of them from home and he told me he never realized how much you lose from not seeing faces for some of the meetings!
Which brings up the other half, you have to have some minimal training/awareness for the still in the office folks. Things like setting your IM status become more critical when folks are in other time zones, or can't walk by your cube or hear you coming and going. Making everyone work from home for 2 weeks a year can go a long way to helping.
It doesn't fix all the problems, but it provides a solid foundation for all of the other advice you see in the managing people remotely books.
Corporate America loves to outsource. Not because it's efficient or cheap, but because it provides someone to blame!
Outsource the network to one firm, the generator to another, the HVAC to a third. Hire temp contract lackeys to staff the place, and rent-a-cops to "guard" it. Then, when something goes wrong, blame them. If it's a big enough issue fire them and replace them with the next batch of people who won't be trained, won't care, and will eventually screw up.
This article isn't illuminating, it's simply restating the design parameters of the system!
Requiring them to carry the expense of installing copper twisted pairs and the equipment to operate it is outdated thinking. It's low bandwidth, short distance, and generally a waste of time and money for everyone involved.
Rather, they should be required to install fiber to the home, technology that should have a 30-50 year lifespan, can bring high speed data to rural america, and operates for much longer distances reducing their equipment cost.
Or Facebook and the advertisers overestimate it. For many of the things advertised (that aren't click-through buys) there's no way to know if the ads work. The ad sellers exploit this fact.
When coke shows you a coke advert they really have no way to know if you wander off to the corner store and buy one or not. I suspect for many large companies you could virtually eliminate advertising and not change sales one iota.
Ironically it's the sort of tracking in this article that might eventually prove it.
Why can't we have both? Up/down votes (with no cap) given only to citizens in good standing, with meta-moderation?
Re:And how can I use it on my BIND server?
on
Comcast DNSSEC Goes Live
·
· Score: 3, Informative
There is no need to buy a certificate. DNSSEC does not use X.509 certificates. You generate your own keys and provide them to your registrar to be published upstream.
ISC has recently added "auto DNSSEC signing" to BIND, which may be the easiest way for most folks to add DNSSEC. This page has some information:
If you look at all the possible attack vectors and scenarios changing your passwords once a year change your statistical chances of being hacked or losing data very little. The ROI is low enough I wouldn't recommend changing your passwords on a regular schedule.
Picking good (as in hard to crack) passwords is more important. For random web properties using different passwords for each so when one is compromised and caught storing passwords in plain text only one account is compromised is key.
However, that's all not what I want to talk about. This entire question is the result of a huge failure of the industry. Every web site uses a password. Every one has a different idea of what a "good" password is, meaning if you come up with one (or use a generator) it won't always be allowed. Google has taken a step forward with their two factor options (via say, a cell text) but that's not really a practical option for many small web sites.
This is an excellent case for a PKI. Users should generate a public-private key pair, and provide the public key to the web site upon sign up. Extra authentication steps could be done at setup (web of trust a la PGP, known entities, a la X.509, callback texts, whatever). Users would sign a login blob with their private key to authenticate.
Using the same key for many web sites is much less dangerous. Compromising the web sites, and all the public keys, gets the attacker approximately nothing. They can be stored in plain (unencrypted) format on the web server. The only attack is to get the users private key, which can be encrypted on their machine behind passwords, biometrics, or whatever. Getting one user's private key gets you only one user, it's a low value attack.
What's needed is a standard format for this encrypted exchange, and then support by clients (from web browsers to ssh clients) and their corresponding server services. This is where the industry is letting us down.
If the big 15-20 web properties could get together with the big 4 browsers and make this happen it would be huge leap forward.
I'm sure others will comment on the legalities and ethics of the situation, and they will be good comments. I'm going to come at this from another direction.
Successful software companies love alpha/beta testers, love getting feedback on how their software is really used, and love having smart enough users to provide good feedback. They pay big bucks to find the right testers, and get feedback from them. Also, many small developers would give almost anything to have an employer tolerant of their side project.
If I were you, I would try and find a situation where you get to use your work experience to enhance the software, and perhaps even get to work on it during work time. Maybe in return for that you have to provide them with a license for free, but you get to retain ownership and can sell it to other parties.
On the flip side, if you don't give them any deal on the software you can't complain if they come down like a hammer on you and prevent you from working on it during work hours, and maybe even try and take action against you if you use knowledge from your work to improve your personal software.
Slashdot Mirror
If the police come to your house and search it with a warrant when you are not home, they are required to leave a copy of the warrant "in plain sight" in most instances. Except for a few rare cases the law generally requires that the owner of the property being searched and seized be notified, and this is the accepted way to do it.
In this case ECN says they were not notified. We don't know why, but there are a number of interesting possibilities:
Either way, XO or the FBI fubared the notification at a corporate and legal level respectively.
Now, let's look at putting it back, first in the real world. FBI gets a warrant to search your house for a joint, breaks in when you're not at home, searches it, and finds what it thinks is a joint. Takes that, runs it off for testing and finds out it's full of oregano or something. Does the FBI now break back into your house when you're not home and put the joint back? Heck no. It would in fact be breaking and entering. Your right to privacy is being broken. Plus, they just don't do it, anyone who's ever retrieved seized property knows you go to the evidence room, fill out a bunch of paperwork, and you're on your own to take it back home. No warrant is ever issued to return property.
I think a competent lawyer could have a lot of fun with this case. Invasion of privacy, breaking and entering, civil trespass, etc, all from returning it. The FBI should have given ECN a notice to come pick it up, and they didn't. Thing is, I'm sure they know better, this really does feel like some sort of cover-up attempt. "What server? We don't have any of your servers. Are you sure it's missing?"
Cat6 makes no sense. Cat5e is fine for 1G ethernet. If you want to be ready for 10GE, then you need 6A. Cat6 buys you nothing but extra cost and termination trouble over Cat5e for no practical gain. I think it's likely by the time that 10GE is cheap enough for home, it will be able to go the distances in your home over Cat5e too, people are already demonstrating 30m over Cat5e transceivers.
HDMI also makes no sense to me. A 15m limitation makes it inappropriate for all but the smallest houses. There are also already plenty of cheap transceivers to move HDMI over Cat5e or Coax over longer distances, so either of those would cover HDMI needs with fewer technical issues.
I don't see how RG6 could be totally optional. Even in systems that can distribute over Ethernet the first box needs to be connected to the Satellite or Cable system; so you'll need RG6 at least one place. Further, most of the boxes that work over Ethernet also have MoCA connectors. By putting the data on the coax plant with MoCO the boxes can use PQoS to manage the bandwidth and insure the quality of the video streams; they can't do that with Ethernet connections.
I'll admit, I didn't use the POTS in my setup, although I borrowed those pairs for serial extensions from time to time. However, I wonder about the resale value of a home with no POTS lines...
I have seen wall-mount racks that side-mount to the wall, leaving the front and back of equipment accessible. That said, I'm not wild about any of the wall mount racks, at some point they will all be a pain.
If you have the floor space a small, 4 post cabinet is the way to go. You can often find used ones around for cheap. 4 post is preferred if you're going to have any quantity of systems in them. If the system count is low, and you won't do any 1RU or 2RU systems, a 2-post telco rack is super cheap and might take up less space. I put one in a basement a few years back. 4RU's mount fine with just front rails (screwed in, not on slides of course), and switches, routers, patch panels all work fine in a 2 post setup. Run a 20A dedicated run to it with a computer grade power strip down the side and you're set for life.
FWIW, having done a few houses, my recommendation is that each jack position get 5 cables, 3xCat5e and 2xRG6. These get terminated on a 6 position keystone, 2xRJ45 Network on top, 2x2-line RJ-11 (4C) in the middle, sharing the third Cat5 (blue/orange first jack, green/brown second), and then two RG6's get Coax jacks on the bottom.
The wire cost is low, additional pull cost is low. You pay a small amount to terminate all of that. However, you now have more than you'll ever need everywhere. That Sat system down the road, 2xCoax, check. Desktop and VoIP phone, 2 jacks, check. Home and business land lines, check. Buy keystone rack panels for your new rack, a row of network, next to the switch, row of telephone next to some splitters and/or DSL filters (if necessary), row of cable next to splitters and amps for whatever system type you have. Below that machines as necessary.
Far easier to pull up front than to be frustrated and without later.
I would not be surprised to learn that there were a few hypersonic aircraft pilots flying planes we don't know about from locations we don't get to see. Aurora for instance has been around for years in semi-rumor form, for instance. That would make it entirely possible there were hypersonic pilots not not the list you reference.
Data centers power and cooling capacity are typically expressed as a number of watts per square foot. Apple has said it's a 20MW data center, and 500,000 square feet. Simple math gives us:
20MW / 500,000 sq feet is 40 Watts per Square Foot
That is extraordinarily low for a data center built today. Most data centers built today are in the 150-200 watts/square foot range, with some pushing higher. I personally haven't seen a data center built to less than 100 watts/square foot level since about 2000.
Apple could be doing any number of things that lead to this low rating. It could be using only a fraction of the floor space inside, and thus the 20MW is current draw of a 150 watts/square foot section occupying 1/3 of the total space. They could be doing something interesting with the cooling that requires some lower density power usage. Also, disk arrays tend to be lower power than servers burning away on compute, so they may have lower usage if it is mostly storage capacity for iCloud.
Still, I am extremely skeptical that Apple would only use 20MW of power in 500,000 feet. The Greenpeace estimates are in line with what other data centers that size would use, 100MW for a data center that size would not at all be surprising. Given Apple's secrecy there's no way to know for sure.
"Comcast has no say in where this service is located" is incorrect.
It is common for content providers and eyeball networks to negotiate where and how they meet. That's true if it is a free or paid peering or a transit relationship. In peering both sides negotiate for what they want, and if there is an imbalance it's made up for by charging (paid peering). In transit, they can offer cheaper connections where they want the content to be located, and more expensive ones in other cases.
The correct way to reform your statement is "Comcast cannot unilaterally dictate where it is located."
You're right, but you left out why they went in this direction.
Apple is trying to support users with no PC. They keep talking about the "Post-PC" era. They have customers (although perhaps a small number) who have an iPhone and iPad, but no laptop/desktop and an Airport (or Time Capsule, same thing with hard drive). They aren't to where this is a fully working platform yet (for instance you need a PC to initialize the phone), but the iCloud road map and what they roll out point in this direction.
One of the puzzle pieces was making a configuration client for the iPhone/iPad to configure the Airport. It further makes sense that there would be only one program / interface across both platforms, so OSX got the same thing. I suspect they realized the left out and dumbed down features, hence leaving the old version around, I suspect the next version will put many of them back on both iOS and OSX devices.
One of the interesting things from talking to Apple folks is they feel, for most users, IPv6 should need no configuration. For instance there's no way in OSX to configure IPv6 DHCP on or off, if the RA says to do DHCP, it does, if not, it doesn't. For the Airport it should look for RA's from the ISP, if they are there it should do DHCP (probably with Prefix Delegation), if that works it should configure IPv6 on the LAN side. Apple will likely have to make a nod to static addressing and provide manual configuration; but the defaults will be automatic configuration when available I'm sure. I suspect this will come out with the next rev of hardware (since they don't do new software features on older hardware for Airports), and actually make IPv6 as easy as well, doing nothing for Apple users with the newest hardware.
Note, I don't think this is the most customer or network friendly thing Apple could be doing and so they do lose some points with me for their stance. That said, understanding why they do what they do is the key to planning ahead for their next move...
Which on a 27" screen ranks as "acceptable". I would happily double it, 5120x2880 would make the screen a shade over 200dpi, which would probably make things look pretty similar to laser printer quality output on the scree, when adjusted for viewing distance.
1366x768? That's a good resolution for a phone.
I've known two people who had house fires, and the documentation factor was huge for them as well. What we try to do is about once per year take a video camera into every room of the house, do a 360 spin, open every closet and drawer and shoot the contents. High value items, laptops, tv's, and so on get a close up. Generally takes about 20-30 minutes. Hold up a news paper to prove it wasn't before the paper came out.
Then, and here's the key, the tape goes to another location. We give ours to a relative who keeps it in a fire safe in their house. Now if anything happens you have a visual record to go through to help you remember everything, and you have something to give the insurance company showing everything in its spot.
IP cameras have become quite cheap, depending on your needs. If you get PoE models they are also far easier to run than traditional cameras, as a single CatE cable can get the job done. I've set up small systems a number of places including my house, and it all works quite well and easily. While you can go the open source route, I found the easiest way is with some Mac software. You can even do it without network DVR software and use cameras that capture to onboard SD cards. I find that inconvenient, but it can be a good backup if your cameras are mounted out of reach but your server isn't.
Checkout, in no particular order:
There's a product for every need. Cheap, $50 indoor lit-room only solutions to $2000 pan/tilt/zoom IR illuminated outdoor vandal proof units.
TrendNet makes affordable PoE switches. 10/100 is fine, an individual camera stream is maybe 2Mbps for a high res stream.
I use SecuritySpy on a Mac. Even watching 8 cameras it uses
Place cameras where you can get good shots of faces as they come through doors. Maybe one of your driveway or street in front to get a car. They won't stop the break in, although visible cameras outside may be a deterrent, but they will give you a fighting chance of catching the person who did it.
Oh, and get a dog with a loud bark. Most robbers don't want to find out if it is a small dog or big dog!
Several of the CDN's, most notably Akamai try really hard to locate boxes inside of networks like Comcast so there is no peering or transit link to traverse. Often they in fact pay for the right to be inside the network, on the grounds that it increases performance.
I don't know how many, if any, CDN's are inside of Comcast's network and possibly _paying_ for the privilege to do so. However if Comcast wants to make the case that Internal traffic shouldn't count against caps with their own services I see no reason why it cap should count against these collocated CDN's as well.
Net Neutrality is about being _fair_. It seems to me if someone is locating stuff in the same basic (network) location as Comcast, and maybe even paying to do so, but their traffic is capped differently that's not fair.
Lots of posts are talking about having good subject material, but I think they are missing the mark. It's not good enough to have fun, or interesting material, but it also has to be material that is suited to a presentation. Anyone who's taken a class where a professor just droned on reading powerpoint slides knows that teaching material to people via a presentation does not work well at all, for instance. One of the fun ones in corporate america is the "reason for outage" presentation, that sort of material does not fit well in presentation form either, most of the time.
Your audience has to be interested not only by the information you are communicating, but also by the way in with you present it. When you watch an Apple Keynote it's not that they do anything earth shattering, but everyone wants to know what the next gizmo is, and a plain picture on the screen and a one paragraph description read aloud keeps them enthralled! Think about interesting tech presentations, people flock to (the external version of) why things failed presentations. When Facebook/Google/Yahoo/Microsoft get up and talk about these events there is interest before the presentation in the topic, and the people listening aren't interesting in assigning blame (which is why the RFO corporate ones don't work). They are fascinated by a window into your world.
I fear the OP is off on the wrong foot. If the environment is "bog standard" and you're presenting to technical folks you're already in trouble. If 10% of the room could sit down and take a wild ass guess at what you're doing based on industry standards, and that is in fact, what you're doing, no one is going to care about your material no matter how much you try and jazz up the slides. The OP needs to think about the questions the other 99 people in the company ask all the time, and how to answer them in a fun and interesting way. It's the questions you dismiss all the time:
"At my last job we did X, and it seemed better, why don't we do that here?"
"Why does the IT staff always take a 2 hour lunch on thursday?"
"Why are you guys Windows fanboys, and hate OSX?"
The people are already telling you what they are interested in knowing. Those are the topics they will find interesting and engaging. Those are the things you need to present.
And why again, as a society, do you put up with that?
Unlock the phone, and prove to all Android users that Android's "security" is weak and/or has a back door.
Tell Law Enforcement they can't help with their warrant, and piss off Law Enforcement for future requests against google.
I'm glad I'm not Google.
When you say the word "latency" most tech-savvy folks think about the propagation speed of the technology (e.g. electricity in copper, or light in fiber), and thus assume it's basically proportional to distance.
However, latency comes from other things as well. Serialization delay adds latency, and the lower the symbol speed the more it adds. Multiaccess media adds latency while waiting to transit. Multiplexing anything adds a small amount of latency looking for a time slot.
The biggest culprit? Bufferbloat. This is a term that has been coined to describe the fact that many networking devices have entirely too much buffer. In the best case someone has sized the buffer for the max line rate that device may see (perhaps 25Mbps for your DSL modem, when your link is only 10Mbps), in the worst some misguided engineer thought "more == better" when figuring out how much to buffer, or just didn't care. There are a number of efforts to try and fix this poor situation, http://www.bufferbloat.net/ is the place to start. Basically buffers add latency. A small amount of buffering increases throughput, but beyond that it does nothing but increase latency and generally make the user experience crappy. When the link is full you need to drop packets _quickly_, because that's the signal to TCP to back off. Packet loss is a _good_ thing on a full link.
Try running ICSI's Netalyzr (http://netalyzr.icsi.berkeley.edu/) which will attempt to estimate your uplink and downlink buffering. If you have a "router" in front of your DSL modem it may have some tuning, or "QoS rate shaping" that will help. If it's a device provided by your service provider you may not have access to the settings, and it may simply be configured wrong. With some vendors asking for a different model of device may help, with others, you may be screwed.
The technologies involved should deliver 20ms latencies if properly configured. You should absolutely expect that, but getting them to acknowledge a problem may take latencies over 50ms. If your service provider thinks 300ms is normal, you need to escalate or move to a different provider.
I used PeaPod (http://www.peapod.com/) when I lived in their service area and was generally happy. IIRC delivery was like $15 if you wanted a specific (and popular) time, but then they discounted the off times so most of the time I paid $5 or $0 for delivery.
What I always wish they did was have set routes. If they told me "we'll be in your area every Tuesday and give you cheaper delivery as a result" I could have gotten in sync with that for all my regular orders and they wouldn't have had to go all over town every day.
Unfortunately they aren't in very many areas.
Often telecommuters work for a manager who still works in an office. When this occurs, the #1 thing all involved can do? Make the manager work from home for two weeks straight!
I've seen managers do all sorts of dumb things with telecommuters, from making them do things that made no sense to ignoring their requests for simple changes that make working from home much easier. 80-90% of these were simple ignorance. I had one manager who totally blew off my requests for video conferencing for some of our group meetings, after all we had the telephone. Two weeks of them from home and he told me he never realized how much you lose from not seeing faces for some of the meetings!
Which brings up the other half, you have to have some minimal training/awareness for the still in the office folks. Things like setting your IM status become more critical when folks are in other time zones, or can't walk by your cube or hear you coming and going. Making everyone work from home for 2 weeks a year can go a long way to helping.
It doesn't fix all the problems, but it provides a solid foundation for all of the other advice you see in the managing people remotely books.
Corporate America loves to outsource. Not because it's efficient or cheap, but because it provides someone to blame!
Outsource the network to one firm, the generator to another, the HVAC to a third. Hire temp contract lackeys to staff the place, and rent-a-cops to "guard" it. Then, when something goes wrong, blame them. If it's a big enough issue fire them and replace them with the next batch of people who won't be trained, won't care, and will eventually screw up.
This article isn't illuminating, it's simply restating the design parameters of the system!
Requiring them to carry the expense of installing copper twisted pairs and the equipment to operate it is outdated thinking. It's low bandwidth, short distance, and generally a waste of time and money for everyone involved.
Rather, they should be required to install fiber to the home, technology that should have a 30-50 year lifespan, can bring high speed data to rural america, and operates for much longer distances reducing their equipment cost.
Or Facebook and the advertisers overestimate it. For many of the things advertised (that aren't click-through buys) there's no way to know if the ads work. The ad sellers exploit this fact.
When coke shows you a coke advert they really have no way to know if you wander off to the corner store and buy one or not. I suspect for many large companies you could virtually eliminate advertising and not change sales one iota.
Ironically it's the sort of tracking in this article that might eventually prove it.
Most agents don't carry laptops...those who do?
Full disk encryption.
Smartcard access.
VPN back in to do anything.
Have those screen polarizers on them so you can't look at the screen for an angle.
Wait a minute, the FBI is full of terrorists!
Why can't we have both? Up/down votes (with no cap) given only to citizens in good standing, with meta-moderation?
There is no need to buy a certificate. DNSSEC does not use X.509 certificates. You generate your own keys and provide them to your registrar to be published upstream.
ISC has recently added "auto DNSSEC signing" to BIND, which may be the easiest way for most folks to add DNSSEC. This page has some information:
http://www.isc.org/community/blog/201006/bind-972-and-and-automatic-dnssec-signing
Here's a post with more info:
http://netlinxinc.com/netlinx-blog/45-dns/133-bind-970-part-4-automatic-zone-signing.html
If you look at all the possible attack vectors and scenarios changing your passwords once a year change your statistical chances of being hacked or losing data very little. The ROI is low enough I wouldn't recommend changing your passwords on a regular schedule.
Picking good (as in hard to crack) passwords is more important. For random web properties using different passwords for each so when one is compromised and caught storing passwords in plain text only one account is compromised is key.
However, that's all not what I want to talk about. This entire question is the result of a huge failure of the industry. Every web site uses a password. Every one has a different idea of what a "good" password is, meaning if you come up with one (or use a generator) it won't always be allowed. Google has taken a step forward with their two factor options (via say, a cell text) but that's not really a practical option for many small web sites.
This is an excellent case for a PKI. Users should generate a public-private key pair, and provide the public key to the web site upon sign up. Extra authentication steps could be done at setup (web of trust a la PGP, known entities, a la X.509, callback texts, whatever). Users would sign a login blob with their private key to authenticate.
Using the same key for many web sites is much less dangerous. Compromising the web sites, and all the public keys, gets the attacker approximately nothing. They can be stored in plain (unencrypted) format on the web server. The only attack is to get the users private key, which can be encrypted on their machine behind passwords, biometrics, or whatever. Getting one user's private key gets you only one user, it's a low value attack.
What's needed is a standard format for this encrypted exchange, and then support by clients (from web browsers to ssh clients) and their corresponding server services. This is where the industry is letting us down.
If the big 15-20 web properties could get together with the big 4 browsers and make this happen it would be huge leap forward.
I'm sure others will comment on the legalities and ethics of the situation, and they will be good comments. I'm going to come at this from another direction.
Successful software companies love alpha/beta testers, love getting feedback on how their software is really used, and love having smart enough users to provide good feedback. They pay big bucks to find the right testers, and get feedback from them. Also, many small developers would give almost anything to have an employer tolerant of their side project.
If I were you, I would try and find a situation where you get to use your work experience to enhance the software, and perhaps even get to work on it during work time. Maybe in return for that you have to provide them with a license for free, but you get to retain ownership and can sell it to other parties.
On the flip side, if you don't give them any deal on the software you can't complain if they come down like a hammer on you and prevent you from working on it during work hours, and maybe even try and take action against you if you use knowledge from your work to improve your personal software.