The lack of this in other systems is actually really annoying, since the essential benefit is that if a file gets corrupted then the remaining disks can "vote" on which copy of the data is actually the correct one. As I understand it, in all the common RAID configurations, no such system is implemented even if multi-redundancy is available (i.e. in RAID6 there could be several potentially true copies of your data).
Strictly speaking putting "John Smith" on the login screen isn't giving away a login name at all: the actual username might j.smith jsmith, smith, JSmith, or any one of dozens of combinations.
There's also the issue that like, 90% of all uses of that login screen aren't for internet accessible PCs via that path. Which means it's strictly local, which means someone already has physical access to the box and thus it's pretty much game-over security wise in the first place.
I'm kind of hoping this means Skype will get some decent "share an app"/"share my desktop" support. I haven't really found anything that gives the same functionality as NetMeeting (for free, anyway).
Businesses aren't necessarily stupid (that said, there are plenty of stupid people in the world for a few of them to be). Even if they were monetizing IPv4, you could bet your arse that it means they've given the problem enough thought to realize that they actually do need an IPv6 action-plan of some kind, ideally dual-stack, "ready to go" since if you think you can sell your IPv4 addresses then you also realize at some point they really will deplete.
I may not be understanding this correctly, but isn't this the kind of problem that NAT64 can solve? If IPv6 home users are NAT'd for their access to the IPv4 world (by their routers doing translation initially, then I guess later on the ISP level) surely the transition could work smoothly? Home users retain close to equivalent functionality, and use IPv6 as more IPv6 becomes available and we start building up the critical mass needed to make the switch happen.
This is probably key really - at the end of the day it can't "look" like you've hidden something, so you'd be just as well off using a hidden partition with something like Truecrypt, since you'll have to keep the decoding program on a portable key of some kind.
Indeed - I owned several generations of Windows mobile PDA through my high school/university years. Mostly iPaq's plus a Windows Phone model from before the iPhone happened.
And yet you have no idea how such a thing should work. You could build such a thing for users right now - NAT64 exists, it could be implemented. Just no one's doing it, because no ISPs are handing out only IPv6 etc. etc.
If there's one thing about IPv6 which grates its every single time it comes up someone stamps their feet and throws a tantrum about how stupid it is that it doesn't work seamlessly with IPv4, while immediately going on to demonstrate they have no real idea why you can't do this in the first place, and thus no idea about how to fix it either.
The moment you put out the words "well IPv4 devices will need a firmware upgrade..." *bzzzt* game over. That's what IPv6 needs. But a device with a 32-bit ASIC for handling IPv4 is just as broken whether you're adding 12 bits or 96 bits of address, and anything which can be firmware flashed to support an extra 12-bits can do 96-bits as well (and under IPv6 will have an easier time of it as well).
The vast majority of home PCs *are* behind a NAT. What the vast majority of home PCs are not going to work behind properly is a double NAT, and a trend towards that will fundamentally break the future development of a whole host of user-centric applications. You can more or less kiss the idea of peer-to-peer anything goodbye.
The big problem with electric vehicles is that the grid simply isn't designed to dump ~50kWh into a battery pack in 5 minutes - but it can be done over the 20-80% range which batteries in such vehicles get operated at.
The "study" reporting that was highly flawed, since it effectively discounted the entire development cost of the Hummer (I've never seen any reports regarding the Range Rover), while including the development cost of the Prius.
Correct it and *oh look* it doesn't add up at all.
Well, also - when the gangs decide to start firing off weapons, police and security forces and fire back, and finally, everytime we take someone down, there's no money left in the enterprise so there isn't going to be 10 more poverty stricken people trying to take his place.
I don't get why we care about tax revenue. Saving a ton of money by *not* having to police violent crime, gangs, and dealers so much seems like a decent amount of "revenue" to me.
Heroin, delivered safely and cheaply is *very* unlikely to be any kind of a problem to society. It's in the same category of drugs as morphine and codeine, and it's users are basically spaced out. The biggest danger of it is overdosing and stopping breathing, which is mostly a danger because users have to use a drug of an unknown grade, in unhygenic circumstances, at a very high price.
Heroin addictions biggest issue is simply cost. Drop that down - hell, subsidize it - and we'd have a much easier time dealing with addicts and the huge benefit that their life wouldn't need to go completely to hell before they could decide to detox.
The single biggest problem I have with Sydney's heroin injection room, on Oxford St, is that we *don't* supply the heroin as well.
Just because they hate on the whole "will we ever have to stop using petrol" thing doesn't mean they also can't hate on the sheer absurdity of a down-rated military vehicle frame that won't fit down most average roads as a car anyone should buy.
The lawyers for Tesla most likely don't watch Top Gear. If they did, they would know about the episode where Clarkson drove a Prius and ranted about how epically slow it was - something along the lines of "it would be useless as a milk delivery vehicle because all your milk would be bad before you reached the first house". Oddly enough, Toyota did not sue over that one.
That one was too obviously stupid though. Obviously if you take any mid-range fuel efficient car, and put the pedal into the floor it will (1) be fairly slow and (2) have atrocious fuel economy.
The Tesla test on the other hand was just downright intentionally misleading. It was staggering finding out how biased they went with that one.
I had an MS Tablet - a Toshiba Portege model one. Got me through my undergrad years - super useful for note-taking in mathematics lectures. The problem, though, is just through normal usage the digitizer would break down. And when it did I ended up without my principle note-taking device for 2 weeks while it was replaced.
Eventually the warranty ran out, and by then I had pretty much given up on using it as a convertible tablet because I needed my laptop, but the digitizer just couldn't be depended upon.
Judging by my brother's experiences with his much newer Dell convertible tablet (which has both stylus and finger-touch inputs) the situation has not really drastically improved. That said, devices like the iPad and the current crop of tablets are more or less side-stepping it by not supporting stylus-based input and focusing on the finger-touch experience. But that creates a much more limited device.
In a study focussed on radiation adsorption, I would think the people who spend a considerable amount of time near a mix of X-Rays and MRI machines might be worth considering as a substantially unique group.
X-rays are a different sort of beast altogether. As for any stray EM exposure from MRIs, why would this affect the right hip more than the left?
Unless all the users are standing front on to the MRI machine at all times, then they're going to be experiencing a powerful differential in emissions intensity. I had an MRI a few weeks ago, and the room was setup such that the users are sitting sideways to the pole of the magnet - because it allows them to easily talk to and manage the patient I presume.
Even without this observation, if we are postulating radio-frequency from cellphones has a physiological effect, then we would have to consider the huge bursts used in MRI as also being significant.
X-Rays is more of a "you are around ionizing radiation a lot" thing - but one might note, the whole reason it's used in analyzing bone density in the first place is because it's *specifically* adsorbed by bone to start with. And it's not just X-Rays - nuclear medicine involves a range of different isotopes and radiation types. It is a small dose yes, but so is cellphone radiation - *ignoring* one improbable effect while you're claiming to study another improbable effect does not make for a very compelling argument.
The article notes they did a regression test and found no correlation with age. It does not seem to note that the distribution of ages between the two groups is very different - and as any undergrad should be taught, if your calibration curve doesn't cover your experimental range you cannot presume it follows the same function.
This seems pretty alarming to me since it's well studied that loss of bone density accelerates with age - hence all the concern about osteoporosis in older women (but it also effects men).
It could simply be that people who wear a phone tend to put more weight on the other side of their body. Given the age differences in the study, it seems perfectly likely.
Also, I am super curious why there is no special mention of whoever he pulled (apparently 1/3rd of the study participants) from the Nuclear Medicine School.
In a study focussed on radiation adsorption, I would think the people who spend a considerable amount of time near a mix of X-Rays and MRI machines might be worth considering as a substantially unique group.
There are some pretty surprising statements in there like this in the discussion: "First, although the choice of iliac bone is understandable because it is the bone closest to the phone when the latter is carried in a belt pouch, it is probable that regions of interest had to be determined manually or through a custom software (details were not provided in the report). In the current study, regions of interest were used that were automatically set by a reliable commercial software provided with the bone densitometer."
I don't know enough about how any of that stuff works to criticize it, but there's no further explanation provided of the algorithm used or whether you'd expect it to be suitable for making the inferences being made. Selecting regions of interest almost immediately makes me curious about the bias that introduces.
The samples are also a bit odd - there's almost no overlap in age or weight between the two groups (it would seem - I may be reading this wrong but the means given are way the christ different between the user and non-user groups, and no real argument is presented as to why we'd expect linear relationships of the various parameters clear up through the differing ages).
Slashdot Mirror
The lack of this in other systems is actually really annoying, since the essential benefit is that if a file gets corrupted then the remaining disks can "vote" on which copy of the data is actually the correct one. As I understand it, in all the common RAID configurations, no such system is implemented even if multi-redundancy is available (i.e. in RAID6 there could be several potentially true copies of your data).
Strictly speaking putting "John Smith" on the login screen isn't giving away a login name at all: the actual username might j.smith jsmith, smith, JSmith, or any one of dozens of combinations.
There's also the issue that like, 90% of all uses of that login screen aren't for internet accessible PCs via that path. Which means it's strictly local, which means someone already has physical access to the box and thus it's pretty much game-over security wise in the first place.
I'm kind of hoping this means Skype will get some decent "share an app"/"share my desktop" support. I haven't really found anything that gives the same functionality as NetMeeting (for free, anyway).
Also the Great Internet Firewall.
China would see routing all of IPv4 through a government controlled NAT as a feature, not a problem.
Businesses aren't necessarily stupid (that said, there are plenty of stupid people in the world for a few of them to be). Even if they were monetizing IPv4, you could bet your arse that it means they've given the problem enough thought to realize that they actually do need an IPv6 action-plan of some kind, ideally dual-stack, "ready to go" since if you think you can sell your IPv4 addresses then you also realize at some point they really will deplete.
I may not be understanding this correctly, but isn't this the kind of problem that NAT64 can solve? If IPv6 home users are NAT'd for their access to the IPv4 world (by their routers doing translation initially, then I guess later on the ISP level) surely the transition could work smoothly? Home users retain close to equivalent functionality, and use IPv6 as more IPv6 becomes available and we start building up the critical mass needed to make the switch happen.
This is probably key really - at the end of the day it can't "look" like you've hidden something, so you'd be just as well off using a hidden partition with something like Truecrypt, since you'll have to keep the decoding program on a portable key of some kind.
Indeed - I owned several generations of Windows mobile PDA through my high school/university years. Mostly iPaq's plus a Windows Phone model from before the iPhone happened.
And yet you have no idea how such a thing should work. You could build such a thing for users right now - NAT64 exists, it could be implemented. Just no one's doing it, because no ISPs are handing out only IPv6 etc. etc.
If there's one thing about IPv6 which grates its every single time it comes up someone stamps their feet and throws a tantrum about how stupid it is that it doesn't work seamlessly with IPv4, while immediately going on to demonstrate they have no real idea why you can't do this in the first place, and thus no idea about how to fix it either.
The moment you put out the words "well IPv4 devices will need a firmware upgrade..." *bzzzt* game over. That's what IPv6 needs. But a device with a 32-bit ASIC for handling IPv4 is just as broken whether you're adding 12 bits or 96 bits of address, and anything which can be firmware flashed to support an extra 12-bits can do 96-bits as well (and under IPv6 will have an easier time of it as well).
There are 6+ billion people in the world.
Fundamentally, individual users already cannot have real IP addresses.
The vast majority of home PCs *are* behind a NAT. What the vast majority of home PCs are not going to work behind properly is a double NAT, and a trend towards that will fundamentally break the future development of a whole host of user-centric applications. You can more or less kiss the idea of peer-to-peer anything goodbye.
^ This.
The big problem with electric vehicles is that the grid simply isn't designed to dump ~50kWh into a battery pack in 5 minutes - but it can be done over the 20-80% range which batteries in such vehicles get operated at.
The "study" reporting that was highly flawed, since it effectively discounted the entire development cost of the Hummer (I've never seen any reports regarding the Range Rover), while including the development cost of the Prius.
Correct it and *oh look* it doesn't add up at all.
Well, also - when the gangs decide to start firing off weapons, police and security forces and fire back, and finally, everytime we take someone down, there's no money left in the enterprise so there isn't going to be 10 more poverty stricken people trying to take his place.
I don't get why we care about tax revenue. Saving a ton of money by *not* having to police violent crime, gangs, and dealers so much seems like a decent amount of "revenue" to me.
Heroin, delivered safely and cheaply is *very* unlikely to be any kind of a problem to society. It's in the same category of drugs as morphine and codeine, and it's users are basically spaced out. The biggest danger of it is overdosing and stopping breathing, which is mostly a danger because users have to use a drug of an unknown grade, in unhygenic circumstances, at a very high price.
Heroin addictions biggest issue is simply cost. Drop that down - hell, subsidize it - and we'd have a much easier time dealing with addicts and the huge benefit that their life wouldn't need to go completely to hell before they could decide to detox.
The single biggest problem I have with Sydney's heroin injection room, on Oxford St, is that we *don't* supply the heroin as well.
With enough power capacity you can take a battery from 20% to 80% charge in about 5 minutes.
The average household electrical grid is definitely not up to it though.
Just because they hate on the whole "will we ever have to stop using petrol" thing doesn't mean they also can't hate on the sheer absurdity of a down-rated military vehicle frame that won't fit down most average roads as a car anyone should buy.
The lawyers for Tesla most likely don't watch Top Gear. If they did, they would know about the episode where Clarkson drove a Prius and ranted about how epically slow it was - something along the lines of "it would be useless as a milk delivery vehicle because all your milk would be bad before you reached the first house". Oddly enough, Toyota did not sue over that one.
That one was too obviously stupid though. Obviously if you take any mid-range fuel efficient car, and put the pedal into the floor it will (1) be fairly slow and (2) have atrocious fuel economy.
The Tesla test on the other hand was just downright intentionally misleading. It was staggering finding out how biased they went with that one.
They were also very fragile.
I had an MS Tablet - a Toshiba Portege model one. Got me through my undergrad years - super useful for note-taking in mathematics lectures. The problem, though, is just through normal usage the digitizer would break down. And when it did I ended up without my principle note-taking device for 2 weeks while it was replaced.
Eventually the warranty ran out, and by then I had pretty much given up on using it as a convertible tablet because I needed my laptop, but the digitizer just couldn't be depended upon.
Judging by my brother's experiences with his much newer Dell convertible tablet (which has both stylus and finger-touch inputs) the situation has not really drastically improved. That said, devices like the iPad and the current crop of tablets are more or less side-stepping it by not supporting stylus-based input and focusing on the finger-touch experience. But that creates a much more limited device.
X-rays are a different sort of beast altogether. As for any stray EM exposure from MRIs, why would this affect the right hip more than the left?
Unless all the users are standing front on to the MRI machine at all times, then they're going to be experiencing a powerful differential in emissions intensity. I had an MRI a few weeks ago, and the room was setup such that the users are sitting sideways to the pole of the magnet - because it allows them to easily talk to and manage the patient I presume.
Even without this observation, if we are postulating radio-frequency from cellphones has a physiological effect, then we would have to consider the huge bursts used in MRI as also being significant.
X-Rays is more of a "you are around ionizing radiation a lot" thing - but one might note, the whole reason it's used in analyzing bone density in the first place is because it's *specifically* adsorbed by bone to start with. And it's not just X-Rays - nuclear medicine involves a range of different isotopes and radiation types. It is a small dose yes, but so is cellphone radiation - *ignoring* one improbable effect while you're claiming to study another improbable effect does not make for a very compelling argument.
The article notes they did a regression test and found no correlation with age. It does not seem to note that the distribution of ages between the two groups is very different - and as any undergrad should be taught, if your calibration curve doesn't cover your experimental range you cannot presume it follows the same function.
This seems pretty alarming to me since it's well studied that loss of bone density accelerates with age - hence all the concern about osteoporosis in older women (but it also effects men).
It could simply be that people who wear a phone tend to put more weight on the other side of their body. Given the age differences in the study, it seems perfectly likely.
Also, I am super curious why there is no special mention of whoever he pulled (apparently 1/3rd of the study participants) from the Nuclear Medicine School.
In a study focussed on radiation adsorption, I would think the people who spend a considerable amount of time near a mix of X-Rays and MRI machines might be worth considering as a substantially unique group.
It's linked through in the OP. See here.
There are some pretty surprising statements in there like this in the discussion:
"First, although the choice of iliac bone is understandable because it is the bone closest to the phone when the latter is carried in a belt pouch, it is probable that regions of interest had to be determined manually or through a custom software (details were not provided in the report). In the current study, regions of interest were used that were automatically set by a reliable commercial software provided with the bone densitometer."
I don't know enough about how any of that stuff works to criticize it, but there's no further explanation provided of the algorithm used or whether you'd expect it to be suitable for making the inferences being made. Selecting regions of interest almost immediately makes me curious about the bias that introduces.
The samples are also a bit odd - there's almost no overlap in age or weight between the two groups (it would seem - I may be reading this wrong but the means given are way the christ different between the user and non-user groups, and no real argument is presented as to why we'd expect linear relationships of the various parameters clear up through the differing ages).