IOPS are like cores: for any one single task, more doesnt mean faster. But in the real world, on a multitasking OS, the more you have the better things will be and the fewer times you'll ever be stuck waiting on your PC to stop thrashing.
You'll note that to produce this crappy summary they skipped over the IOmeter pages which show the Intel 750 bursting @ 180k IOPS and sustaining 20k, while 90% of consumer SSDs cant sustain more than 8k and the x-25m theyre touting struggles to break 2k.
Load up a slew of VMs on a virtualization lab on that x-25M and compare it to the 750-- THEN tell me that its no faster.
Did you read the summary? It's reporting that new PCIe SSDs are not faster than "old" SATA SSDs as measured by real-world app- and game-loading times
Im calling BS on the statistics, which has a 1.2TB ssd as substantially slower than a 120GB SSD from years ago, which is itself substantially slower than consumer-grade drives like the Crucial BX series.
This all points to some horrible firmware issue, or testing problems, or bad methodology. Theres no real other way to explain that performance; simply increasing the capacity to 1.2TB should have it topping all of the benchmarks, regardless of the protocol used to connect it.
As to your solution, it has a massive issue. Route tables must use next hops as their gateway; you could not enter a command like that targetting my WAN, and have it work, because my WAN IP would not be a next hop for your computer. The only thing your route table can do is instruct your computer which IP on your broadcast domain will be willing to handle your datagrams. At that point, it is up to that router to figure out the next hops.
You will note I asked you what the L3 / L4 headers would be on your packet; this was specifically to demonstrate why such attacks would fail. You would have a source address of 9.9.9.9, and a destination of 192.168.50.5, and you would instruct your computer to pass that datagram off to a router at ethernet address 99:99:99:99:99:99 (your router), and he would promptly vomit and say "what the hell I cant route an RFC1918". Add the route on your router, and you've shoved the issue back to your ISP, whose router would either fail to find a route for that subnet, or (more likely) outright reject it as a violation of RFC.
The only scenario in which this attack makes sense is when the attacker IS the next hop, that is your ISP. And for 99.999% of users, this is not a realistic threat model they will face, and NAT will be "acceptable" security.
No one argues that a stateful firewall is BETTER (as it prevents attacks like you mentioned), but to say that NAT adds no security whatsoever is being silly; major infrastructure vendors disagree with you.
I understand these things quite well, as I wouldnt be in the field if I didnt. NAT provides some degree of security in the sense that if you are on an IPv4 network (99% of home users) on an RFC 1918 network (99% of home users) with NAT enabled, it is impossible for anyone to send an unsolicited datagram to your computer behind the NAT.
There are technologies which punch holes in this (like uPnP), but that does not change the implicit security.
NAT in a typical Linux based router does not prevent someone on the external interface from talking to any port and any host on the internal network
Then you have a static port mapping. Generally to get through the NAT you need to know the public IP and port (out of 65536) you want to connect to, which is dynamically assigned. Then you need to deal with the fact that anything you send is going to be pinned to a specific client port not of your choosing, and you will not know the correct source port to get the client to accept your unsolicited datagram (whch will thence be dropped).
I never said it was perfect security, but it prevents folks from accessing listening ports (like 135-139) as a listener port wont have a dynamic mapping-- only outbound traffic gets those.
But you seem to think Im wrong, so educate me. Lets set up a scenario.
Gateway Public: 1.2.1.1 Gateway private: 192.168.50.1 Windows XP box: 192.168.50.5
No firewalls, NAT on the gateway, Windows XP listening on port 135-139. What Layer3/4 headers are you going to use thats gonna get a packet delivered to one of those 4 ports on that XP box?
Most of those were around for a VERY short time, or else were rolled into another product. Goog411, for example, was specifically there to build a voice database, which is now used in Android and Google Voice.
NAT provides implicit security, even if it is not explicit. Being on an unroutable subnet means theres really nothing an intruder can do to get to your PC short of static port mappings.
. If you're a few dollars away from losing your home, this government habit of investing your money in wealthy people causes great hardship.
People in those situations arent paying taxes unless theyre making enough to survive and are straight up blowing it. You do understand how our tax system works, right?
You forgot the part where Google decided to stop cooperating with repressive regimes in outing dissidents. Still waiting for Microsoft and Yahoo to do the same.
How is Google a monopoly? Have you heard of Baidu, Bing, Yahoo? All get decent shares of the search market. Apple competes with Google quite effectively on many fronts. And you're going to have a really difficult time arguing that the market has significant barriers to entry, especially given the way in which Google broke into that market in the first place.
My "bias" comes from history. Google has continually been the most open, the quickest to admit fault, and the least likely to betray your data to some repressive regime that wants to imprison you.
You can talk of faults till the cows come home, those factors to me are crucially important. When Microsoft actively works with the CPC to hand your skype data over, and Google is blocked in China due to resisting their repressive BS, I sort of stop caring whether Google has closed such and such service or their Android Play services are a binary blob. Theyre a Good Actor, and thats what really matters.
He's saying that if you have so much information about a person that you know they're diabetic, and actually use that as a factor in deciding to show them stuff that statistically they'll go for even though you know it's proven to be harming them
Being a jerk isnt illegal (nor should it be), and ultimately the person advertising isnt DOING anything except trying to convince you to do something really unhealthy. How is that different than a friend trying to convince you to smoke? Should that too be illegal?
Seems to me the responsibility ultimately rests with the individual making the decision, and no attempt to shift the blame onto the "tempter" changes that reality.
The point is that Google's rules are the same in both markets, and the Asian market has demonstrated how unrestrictive Google is through their extensive use of AOSP to create non-google ecosystems.
It sounds like the argument is "its impossible to use Android without buying into the Google sphere", all the while ignoring the examples to the contrary. How is it Google's fault that no one in the EU has tried to be as innovative as Oppo or Xiaomi?
Im failing to see how one could argue that Google forces vendors to do anything when there are a large number of premiun handset makers in China making AOSP-based handsets with no linkage to google (which would be impossible, since Google is blocked in China).
Recognition of a religion is not a violation of church and state, so Im not clear what the point of your post is. Establishment of a religion is all that is prohibited.
Google's additions are no more or less restrictive than their counterparts.
They are SIGNIFICANTLY less restrictive than their counterparts. I just got a corporate issued iDevice, and coming from android it is infuriating just how much Apple forces you to play with their ecosystem. You can install google maps, but it wont give you lock screen integration, and it cant be made the default for instructions, and it cant prevent screen lock. You can install SwiftKey, but you cant disable the Apple keyboard, nor prevent its mandatory use for password fields. You can install chrome, but cannot force links to open in it.
It is quite obnoxious to see people holding Google up as the bad guy here. Can you imagine if Apple was dominant? Oh wait, they were for a while and it WAS obnoxious, because it WAS horrendously locked down. Google offers an alternative that people have hacked to pieces and done wonderful things with (like Samsung, XIaoMi, OnePlus, Oppo, etc's take on AOSP) and the EU feels the need to crap on them because they hate google for some reason.
Google isnt perfect but theyre the best internet company we've had in a LONG time. Everyone else is worse in just about every category.
None of their competitors even OFFER the option to have an "F-Droid" or to remove their respective equivalents of play services. Google is doing something literally no one else-- except those on AOSP-- offers. Its arguably not even possible to do the thing you're suggesting short of returning to the old days of "every phone its own OS with crappy J2ME apps".
Im not arguing whether SecureBoot is good or bad, but you're making several false technical statements and Im not a big fan of arguments premised on BS.
Bootsector malware is (or was) exceedingly common on Windows XP and 7, to the point where I was regularly using tools like aswMBR and GMER to remove it. Thats why there are so many tools to detect it-- it was quite common. Sinowal, TDSS, Whistler, and several other rootkits infect the boot sector.
In any case Microsoft is not forcing OEMs to do anything. This is about a set of requirements that were given to get a Windows certification; one of them for Windows 8 was that OEMs were REQUIRED to allow other OSes to be installed. That requirement has been removed, which could have any of a number of rationale-- it is possible its for "lockin" reasons, but there are other valid reasons too, such as the rise of locked-down single-OS tablets. Microsoft continuing to have their "other OS" requirement could arguably alienate those OEMs, so they removed that requirement from their certification.
You have an obvious issue with Microsoft as a whole, but thats not a valid techical argument against a specific one of their technologies. Secureboot IMO has a lot of baggage, but it has the very real benefit that it can defeat a number of very real and very common rootkits like TDL3/4 which have historically been nightmarish to deal with.
Its funny that you're modded up when the very first sentence of your post is contradicted by the existence of this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
As a matter of interpretation of the word "person" in the Fourteenth Amendment, U.S. courts have extended certain constitutional protections to corporations.
Perhaps you should stop relying on Ben Franklin and Adam Smith for 21st century jurisprudence.
Google uses its position to make using Android without Google services increasingly more difficult.
Google has been working over the last several versions to unbundle things from the core OS and put them into other packages-- the camera, keyboard, launcher, Chrome, and of course play services. Im not seeing how this makes it MORE difficult to use android without google services when all their effort is in modularizing it.
Slashdot Mirror
IOPS are like cores: for any one single task, more doesnt mean faster. But in the real world, on a multitasking OS, the more you have the better things will be and the fewer times you'll ever be stuck waiting on your PC to stop thrashing.
You'll note that to produce this crappy summary they skipped over the IOmeter pages which show the Intel 750 bursting @ 180k IOPS and sustaining 20k, while 90% of consumer SSDs cant sustain more than 8k and the x-25m theyre touting struggles to break 2k.
Load up a slew of VMs on a virtualization lab on that x-25M and compare it to the 750-- THEN tell me that its no faster.
Did you read the summary? It's reporting that new PCIe SSDs are not faster than "old" SATA SSDs as measured by real-world app- and game-loading times
Im calling BS on the statistics, which has a 1.2TB ssd as substantially slower than a 120GB SSD from years ago, which is itself substantially slower than consumer-grade drives like the Crucial BX series.
This all points to some horrible firmware issue, or testing problems, or bad methodology. Theres no real other way to explain that performance; simply increasing the capacity to 1.2TB should have it topping all of the benchmarks, regardless of the protocol used to connect it.
For starters, I have read up on it, and many many vendors agree that it IS security.
Sources:
Cisco (Top 2 paragraphs of intro)
http://www.cisco.com/web/about...
SANS institute (Page 5, 2nd paragraph)
And so on.
As to your solution, it has a massive issue. Route tables must use next hops as their gateway; you could not enter a command like that targetting my WAN, and have it work, because my WAN IP would not be a next hop for your computer. The only thing your route table can do is instruct your computer which IP on your broadcast domain will be willing to handle your datagrams. At that point, it is up to that router to figure out the next hops.
You will note I asked you what the L3 / L4 headers would be on your packet; this was specifically to demonstrate why such attacks would fail. You would have a source address of 9.9.9.9, and a destination of 192.168.50.5, and you would instruct your computer to pass that datagram off to a router at ethernet address 99:99:99:99:99:99 (your router), and he would promptly vomit and say "what the hell I cant route an RFC1918". Add the route on your router, and you've shoved the issue back to your ISP, whose router would either fail to find a route for that subnet, or (more likely) outright reject it as a violation of RFC.
The only scenario in which this attack makes sense is when the attacker IS the next hop, that is your ISP. And for 99.999% of users, this is not a realistic threat model they will face, and NAT will be "acceptable" security.
No one argues that a stateful firewall is BETTER (as it prevents attacks like you mentioned), but to say that NAT adds no security whatsoever is being silly; major infrastructure vendors disagree with you.
I understand these things quite well, as I wouldnt be in the field if I didnt. NAT provides some degree of security in the sense that if you are on an IPv4 network (99% of home users) on an RFC 1918 network (99% of home users) with NAT enabled, it is impossible for anyone to send an unsolicited datagram to your computer behind the NAT.
There are technologies which punch holes in this (like uPnP), but that does not change the implicit security.
NAT in a typical Linux based router does not prevent someone on the external interface from talking to any port and any host on the internal network
Then you have a static port mapping. Generally to get through the NAT you need to know the public IP and port (out of 65536) you want to connect to, which is dynamically assigned. Then you need to deal with the fact that anything you send is going to be pinned to a specific client port not of your choosing, and you will not know the correct source port to get the client to accept your unsolicited datagram (whch will thence be dropped).
I never said it was perfect security, but it prevents folks from accessing listening ports (like 135-139) as a listener port wont have a dynamic mapping-- only outbound traffic gets those.
But you seem to think Im wrong, so educate me. Lets set up a scenario.
Gateway Public: 1.2.1.1
Gateway private: 192.168.50.1
Windows XP box: 192.168.50.5
No firewalls, NAT on the gateway, Windows XP listening on port 135-139.
What Layer3/4 headers are you going to use thats gonna get a packet delivered to one of those 4 ports on that XP box?
Most of those were around for a VERY short time, or else were rolled into another product. Goog411, for example, was specifically there to build a voice database, which is now used in Android and Google Voice.
NAT provides implicit security, even if it is not explicit. Being on an unroutable subnet means theres really nothing an intruder can do to get to your PC short of static port mappings.
. If you're a few dollars away from losing your home, this government habit of investing your money in wealthy people causes great hardship.
People in those situations arent paying taxes unless theyre making enough to survive and are straight up blowing it. You do understand how our tax system works, right?
Adsense, gMail, Youtube, Android?
Never heard of em?
We live in a free society, not a police state, regardless of what you may be wishing. That makes a lot of things like this possible.
He could appeal to the Supreme.....oooooohhhhhhhh....
You forgot the part where Google decided to stop cooperating with repressive regimes in outing dissidents. Still waiting for Microsoft and Yahoo to do the same.
How is Google a monopoly? Have you heard of Baidu, Bing, Yahoo? All get decent shares of the search market. Apple competes with Google quite effectively on many fronts. And you're going to have a really difficult time arguing that the market has significant barriers to entry, especially given the way in which Google broke into that market in the first place.
My "bias" comes from history. Google has continually been the most open, the quickest to admit fault, and the least likely to betray your data to some repressive regime that wants to imprison you.
You can talk of faults till the cows come home, those factors to me are crucially important. When Microsoft actively works with the CPC to hand your skype data over, and Google is blocked in China due to resisting their repressive BS, I sort of stop caring whether Google has closed such and such service or their Android Play services are a binary blob. Theyre a Good Actor, and thats what really matters.
He's saying that if you have so much information about a person that you know they're diabetic, and actually use that as a factor in deciding to show them stuff that statistically they'll go for even though you know it's proven to be harming them
Being a jerk isnt illegal (nor should it be), and ultimately the person advertising isnt DOING anything except trying to convince you to do something really unhealthy. How is that different than a friend trying to convince you to smoke? Should that too be illegal?
Seems to me the responsibility ultimately rests with the individual making the decision, and no attempt to shift the blame onto the "tempter" changes that reality.
The point is that Google's rules are the same in both markets, and the Asian market has demonstrated how unrestrictive Google is through their extensive use of AOSP to create non-google ecosystems.
It sounds like the argument is "its impossible to use Android without buying into the Google sphere", all the while ignoring the examples to the contrary. How is it Google's fault that no one in the EU has tried to be as innovative as Oppo or Xiaomi?
Im failing to see how one could argue that Google forces vendors to do anything when there are a large number of premiun handset makers in China making AOSP-based handsets with no linkage to google (which would be impossible, since Google is blocked in China).
Recognition of a religion is not a violation of church and state, so Im not clear what the point of your post is. Establishment of a religion is all that is prohibited.
Google's additions are no more or less restrictive than their counterparts.
They are SIGNIFICANTLY less restrictive than their counterparts. I just got a corporate issued iDevice, and coming from android it is infuriating just how much Apple forces you to play with their ecosystem. You can install google maps, but it wont give you lock screen integration, and it cant be made the default for instructions, and it cant prevent screen lock. You can install SwiftKey, but you cant disable the Apple keyboard, nor prevent its mandatory use for password fields. You can install chrome, but cannot force links to open in it.
It is quite obnoxious to see people holding Google up as the bad guy here. Can you imagine if Apple was dominant? Oh wait, they were for a while and it WAS obnoxious, because it WAS horrendously locked down. Google offers an alternative that people have hacked to pieces and done wonderful things with (like Samsung, XIaoMi, OnePlus, Oppo, etc's take on AOSP) and the EU feels the need to crap on them because they hate google for some reason.
Google isnt perfect but theyre the best internet company we've had in a LONG time. Everyone else is worse in just about every category.
None of their competitors even OFFER the option to have an "F-Droid" or to remove their respective equivalents of play services. Google is doing something literally no one else-- except those on AOSP-- offers. Its arguably not even possible to do the thing you're suggesting short of returning to the old days of "every phone its own OS with crappy J2ME apps".
Im not arguing whether SecureBoot is good or bad, but you're making several false technical statements and Im not a big fan of arguments premised on BS.
Bootsector malware is (or was) exceedingly common on Windows XP and 7, to the point where I was regularly using tools like aswMBR and GMER to remove it. Thats why there are so many tools to detect it-- it was quite common. Sinowal, TDSS, Whistler, and several other rootkits infect the boot sector.
In any case Microsoft is not forcing OEMs to do anything. This is about a set of requirements that were given to get a Windows certification; one of them for Windows 8 was that OEMs were REQUIRED to allow other OSes to be installed. That requirement has been removed, which could have any of a number of rationale-- it is possible its for "lockin" reasons, but there are other valid reasons too, such as the rise of locked-down single-OS tablets. Microsoft continuing to have their "other OS" requirement could arguably alienate those OEMs, so they removed that requirement from their certification.
You have an obvious issue with Microsoft as a whole, but thats not a valid techical argument against a specific one of their technologies. Secureboot IMO has a lot of baggage, but it has the very real benefit that it can defeat a number of very real and very common rootkits like TDL3/4 which have historically been nightmarish to deal with.
Can I remove GMail, the calendar, maps, youtube from my phone
Yes, yes, yes, yes. I've done it on my Nexus. At the very least you can disable them, even if your phone wont allow their removal.
Its funny that you're modded up when the very first sentence of your post is contradicted by the existence of this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
As a matter of interpretation of the word "person" in the Fourteenth Amendment, U.S. courts have extended certain constitutional protections to corporations.
Perhaps you should stop relying on Ben Franklin and Adam Smith for 21st century jurisprudence.
One of those emails specifically says Samsung had used Skyhook to replace google location.... which sort of kills the point you were making.
Of course you cant even dream of doing something like that on any other non-AOSP OS out there.
Google uses its position to make using Android without Google services increasingly more difficult.
Google has been working over the last several versions to unbundle things from the core OS and put them into other packages-- the camera, keyboard, launcher, Chrome, and of course play services. Im not seeing how this makes it MORE difficult to use android without google services when all their effort is in modularizing it.