LTO-7 tape is 300 MBps uncompressed, or 2.4 Gbps. That should work on plain old USB 3.0 (5 Gbps). If you let the drive compress the data, in theory it's 750 MBps or 6 Gbps. That should be OK on SAS-2. Or a USB 10 Gbps interface. 20 Gbps isn't really needed. SAS-2 PCI-E interfaces can be hard for fairly cheap these days. I have 3 of them at home. PCI-E 3.0 x8 . All purchased under $100. Can't afford the LTO-7 drive, though.
Yes, it really does work like that. HIV superinfection is not a real concern once one is undetectable. Contacting another strain while on HAART is almost impossible. This is because the strains that are resistant to some meds are also not very "fit" as explained by my doctor.
If you are positive but not on treatment, yes, there is more of a risk that you could contract multiple strains.
Diseases that were recently acquired cannot instantly be detected . Individuals who just contracted HIV are actually the most infectious. they have a very high viral load, but test negative on an antibody test, which is typically used for screening. You would need to know for sure that you haven't had any exposure during the entire window period of the test. And moreover, you would need to make sure that your partner either. I fail to see how a technological gadget helps with that problem.
There are missing facts from that page, IMO. People who are on HAART on already contract seldom, if ever, become subsequently infected with another strain which may be resistant to their own meds. If this actually happened, they would cease to become undetectable, ie. their meds no longer would work. As long as the meds work, and the viral load remains undetectable, viral particles that could be analyzed to determine the presence of another strain are simply absent, by definition. Thus, superinfection is really only a concern prior to going on HAART and becoming undetectable. Ie. you can initially be infected by multiple strains. But once you go on treatment - which will depend on which strain and mutations you got - this is no longer a real issue.
There is no such thing as double AIDS. If you had AIDS and went on HAART, the chance of being infected with a second strain, ie. superinfection, is remote. Source: my primary physician who is also an HIV specialist.
And the HIV status on hookup apps/ads is primarily used for other cases, not the deranged cases your cited.
HIV+ individuals who have an undetectable viral load still test positive on HIV antibody tests. They do not "seroconvert to a seronegative state".
As far as risk of transmission not being zero, even the CDC states that "People who take ART daily as prescribed and achieve and maintain an undetectable viral load have effectively no risk of sexually transmitting the virus to an HIV-negative partner." .
Makes no sense since HIV isn't a death sentence and hasn't been for years.
Condoms also fail occasionally, even if one is informed of their partner's HIV status. But at this point, anyone who is positive should go on HAART and become undetectable, which makes HIV untransmittable, regardless of condom use.
It makes complete sense, IMO. Maybe a positive person only wants to hookup with another positive person, to avoid uncomfortable conversations that lead nowhere. Of course, conversely, a lot of misguided negatives will filter out based on HIV status, not understanding that sero-sorting does not work for "negatives". Most people on the site who claim to be negatives haven't had a recent HIV test. Even the most sensitive HIV tests still have a 2 week window period of false negative. The most common and cheaper antibody tests have a 3 months window period for false negatives.
You realize that doesn't prevent anything, right ? This very likely violates ADA and all kinds of anti-discrimination laws as well. Considering the extremely high rate of HIV in the LGBT community, this would be a really bone-headed move by any site Even with the current option to do so, very few positives ever disclose their status in their profile. Very likely because of uninformed, backwards attitudes like yours. With TasP, PreP and PEP available, the people of known HIV+ status on anti-retrovirals are the least likely to infect anyone on the whole site. The real danger with HIV is people who do not actually know their status.
In practice, superinfection (with multiple strains or subtypes) is exceedingly rare for people who are already on antiretrovirals. At least according to my physician.
It's really not a panacea. I work from California but 95% of my coworkers are abroad, in India and Australia. 0% are in my local office.
Tools like IM, audio/video conference, email slack are no replacement for being in the same room with another person, and never will be. All those communications have to be scheduled. Communications are slowed down way too much. Things get misunderstood. There is nothing like dropping into somebody's office to discuss an issue and getting it resolved immediately.
What they really need to disable is third party cookies. Period. This stops a lot of the tracking. No more advertisements on another site for something you have just searched for on google. It breaks a few web sites that rely on them, unfortunately. Mostly discussions forums. It does break my credit union's billpay and a host provisioning site at my work, too. IMO, sites that rely on third party cookies are poorly designed.
Hey Mozilla engineers, if you really want to lower tracking for your users, you should change the default 3rd party cookies setting from "allow from visited" to "never". No more seeing ads for the things you have searched for, after doing that, among other things.
It breaks a few low-value sites like some message boards, but screw those. Privacy is more important.
I don't collect movies, but I do care about having the best quality in my home theater. All 4K streaming services, including Amazon and Vudu, both have much lower bit rates for streaming than what's available on a 4K UHD Blu-ray disc
This is true for HD streaming vs Blu-ray discs, too.
I don't care one bit about the "right now" argument. Most streaming movies sound like crap in my 11.4 speaker setup in my home theater. About the same as DVDs. HD streaming picture is quite noticeably worse on the 106" projection screen, too. We are talking about typical bit rates of 5 Mbps for HD vs 20 Mbps for Blu-ray. Even with better compression algorithms for streaming, it doesn't come close to Blu-ray.
I haven't watched any 4K content yet as 4K projectors have been too expensive until now. That may finally change this season, though, after 9 years of waiting for an affordable 4K projector.
Even if one is watching a good movie, it is ruined most of the time by other obnoxious movie goers who won't stop talking, won't stop texting, bring their 5 year old kid who can't shut up to a midnight show of a PG13 movie, listen to music on their phone on speaker, and even smoke joints filling up the entire theater.
All of the above are real situations I have encountered this year.
My husband and myself normally watch one movie in the theater per week. It's extremely hard to justify doing so again. This used to be something we looked forward to, but not anymore.
We have a home theater at home, but the streaming movies are for the most part not watchable on our 106" HD screen, and the audio is even more lame on the 11..4 audio system. Only thing that is watchable is Blu-ray discs, and those are dying. Redbox has a horrible selection.
There is simply no download/streaming equivalent to Blu-ray disc quality.
Movie theaters as they are currently operated need to die. Either enforce proper viewer etiquette and kick out the unruly guests, like, say, a symphony would do, or just close up shop. The former will create many full time jobs.
Netflix so-called HD videos have a very low bit rate compared to Blu-ray. Only 4-5 Mbps for Netflix vs 15-40 Mbps for Blu-ray.
Even though Netflix uses more modern compression algorithms, with that much difference in bit rate, the Netflix video looks significantly worse than Blu-ray, especially on a 106" projection screen in my home theater.
The audio also leaves much to be desired.
The difference will only get worse with the Ultra HD Blu-ray standard, which has 82 to 128 Mbit/s bit rate.
I actually burnt a motherboard and CPU a few weeks ago during an overclocking experiment gone bad, after using a little bit too much voltage. There was smoke coming out of the VRMs on the motherboard. The machine did shut down, and did not catch fire, thankfully. This was an AMD FX-8350 on a Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD3 . The chip was confirmed dead when I tried it in another identical motherboard.
So yes, if a rootkit could actually change those BIOS settings, it could potentially cause this.
The problem with that is that there is no actual way to detect that an old browser doesn't support SHA-2. For example, older versions of Firefox/NSS since 2003 have supported SHA-2 server certificates, but not SHA-2 in TLS cipher suites as the MAC algorithm, which wasn't specified until years later.
The TLS ClientHello message does not specify which types of hash algorithm the client supports for certificates, only the list of cipher suites that the client supports.
Thus, Facebook, or anyone else, has no way of determining if a client really doesn't support SHA-2 server certificates.
What they are probably doing is assuming that clients that don't support SHA-2 MAC in TLS cipher suites . But that's a wrong assumption. Many older clients will be downgraded to SHA-1 server certificates as a result, even though they support SHA-2 certificates. And they will have no way of knowing that this happened.
Slashdot Mirror
LTO-7 tape is 300 MBps uncompressed, or 2.4 Gbps. That should work on plain old USB 3.0 (5 Gbps).
If you let the drive compress the data, in theory it's 750 MBps or 6 Gbps. That should be OK on SAS-2. Or a USB 10 Gbps interface. 20 Gbps isn't really needed.
SAS-2 PCI-E interfaces can be hard for fairly cheap these days. I have 3 of them at home. PCI-E 3.0 x8 . All purchased under $100. Can't afford the LTO-7 drive, though.
Not in people already on HAART.
Yes, it really does work like that. HIV superinfection is not a real concern once one is undetectable. Contacting another strain while on HAART is almost impossible. This is because the strains that are resistant to some meds are also not very "fit" as explained by my doctor.
If you are positive but not on treatment, yes, there is more of a risk that you could contract multiple strains.
No. It is mainly spread because many people don't know their real, current HIV status.
Diseases that were recently acquired cannot instantly be detected . Individuals who just contracted HIV are actually the most infectious. they have a very high viral load, but test negative on an antibody test, which is typically used for screening. You would need to know for sure that you haven't had any exposure during the entire window period of the test. And moreover, you would need to make sure that your partner either. I fail to see how a technological gadget helps with that problem.
There are missing facts from that page, IMO. People who are on HAART on already contract seldom, if ever, become subsequently infected with another strain which may be resistant to their own meds. If this actually happened, they would cease to become undetectable, ie. their meds no longer would work. As long as the meds work, and the viral load remains undetectable, viral particles that could be analyzed to determine the presence of another strain are simply absent, by definition.
Thus, superinfection is really only a concern prior to going on HAART and becoming undetectable. Ie. you can initially be infected by multiple strains.
But once you go on treatment - which will depend on which strain and mutations you got - this is no longer a real issue.
There is no such thing as double AIDS. If you had AIDS and went on HAART, the chance of being infected with a second strain, ie. superinfection, is remote. Source: my primary physician who is also an HIV specialist.
And the HIV status on hookup apps/ads is primarily used for other cases, not the deranged cases your cited.
HIV+ individuals who have an undetectable viral load still test positive on HIV antibody tests. They do not "seroconvert to a seronegative state".
As far as risk of transmission not being zero, even the CDC states that "People who take ART daily as prescribed and achieve and maintain an undetectable viral load have effectively no risk of sexually transmitting the virus to an HIV-negative partner." .
Makes no sense since HIV isn't a death sentence and hasn't been for years.
Condoms also fail occasionally, even if one is informed of their partner's HIV status.
But at this point, anyone who is positive should go on HAART and become undetectable, which makes HIV untransmittable, regardless of condom use.
It makes complete sense, IMO. Maybe a positive person only wants to hookup with another positive person, to avoid uncomfortable conversations that lead nowhere.
Of course, conversely, a lot of misguided negatives will filter out based on HIV status, not understanding that sero-sorting does not work for "negatives". Most people on the site who claim to be negatives haven't had a recent HIV test. Even the most sensitive HIV tests still have a 2 week window period of false negative. The most common and cheaper antibody tests have a 3 months window period for false negatives.
You still need to tap to intercept the plaintext traffic somewhere.
You realize that doesn't prevent anything, right ?
This very likely violates ADA and all kinds of anti-discrimination laws as well.
Considering the extremely high rate of HIV in the LGBT community, this would be a really bone-headed move by any site
Even with the current option to do so, very few positives ever disclose their status in their profile. Very likely because of uninformed, backwards attitudes like yours. With TasP, PreP and PEP available, the people of known HIV+ status on anti-retrovirals are the least likely to infect anyone on the whole site.
The real danger with HIV is people who do not actually know their status.
In practice, superinfection (with multiple strains or subtypes) is exceedingly rare for people who are already on antiretrovirals. At least according to my physician.
It's really not a panacea. I work from California but 95% of my coworkers are abroad, in India and Australia. 0% are in my local office.
Tools like IM, audio/video conference, email slack are no replacement for being in the same room with another person, and never will be. All those communications have to be scheduled. Communications are slowed down way too much. Things get misunderstood. There is nothing like dropping into somebody's office to discuss an issue and getting it resolved immediately.
What they really need to disable is third party cookies. Period.
This stops a lot of the tracking. No more advertisements on another site for something you have just searched for on google.
It breaks a few web sites that rely on them, unfortunately. Mostly discussions forums. It does break my credit union's billpay and a host provisioning site at my work, too. IMO, sites that rely on third party cookies are poorly designed.
Hey Mozilla engineers, if you really want to lower tracking for your users, you should change the default 3rd party cookies setting from "allow from visited" to "never". No more seeing ads for the things you have searched for, after doing that, among other things.
It breaks a few low-value sites like some message boards, but screw those. Privacy is more important.
I don't collect movies, but I do care about having the best quality in my home theater. All 4K streaming services, including Amazon and Vudu, both have much lower bit rates for streaming than what's available on a 4K UHD Blu-ray disc
This is true for HD streaming vs Blu-ray discs, too.
I don't care one bit about the "right now" argument. Most streaming movies sound like crap in my 11.4 speaker setup in my home theater.
About the same as DVDs. HD streaming picture is quite noticeably worse on the 106" projection screen, too.
We are talking about typical bit rates of 5 Mbps for HD vs 20 Mbps for Blu-ray. Even with better compression algorithms for streaming, it doesn't come close to Blu-ray.
I haven't watched any 4K content yet as 4K projectors have been too expensive until now. That may finally change this season, though, after 9 years of waiting for an affordable 4K projector.
Many iOS devices are not capable of being upgraded to iOS 10 . This is the case for my old iPad 2 which is on iOS 9.3.5 and can't be patched.
Even if one is watching a good movie, it is ruined most of the time by other obnoxious movie goers who won't stop talking, won't stop texting, bring their 5 year old kid who can't shut up to a midnight show of a PG13 movie, listen to music on their phone on speaker, and even smoke joints filling up the entire theater.
All of the above are real situations I have encountered this year.
My husband and myself normally watch one movie in the theater per week. It's extremely hard to justify doing so again.
This used to be something we looked forward to, but not anymore.
We have a home theater at home, but the streaming movies are for the most part not watchable on our 106" HD screen, and the audio is even more lame on the 11..4 audio system. Only thing that is watchable is Blu-ray discs, and those are dying. Redbox has a horrible selection.
There is simply no download/streaming equivalent to Blu-ray disc quality.
Movie theaters as they are currently operated need to die. Either enforce proper viewer etiquette and kick out the unruly guests, like, say, a symphony would do, or just close up shop. The former will create many full time jobs.
Netflix so-called HD videos have a very low bit rate compared to Blu-ray.
Only 4-5 Mbps for Netflix vs 15-40 Mbps for Blu-ray.
Even though Netflix uses more modern compression algorithms, with that much difference in bit rate, the Netflix video looks significantly worse than Blu-ray, especially on a 106" projection screen in my home theater.
The audio also leaves much to be desired.
The difference will only get worse with the Ultra HD Blu-ray standard, which has 82 to 128 Mbit/s bit rate.
I actually burnt a motherboard and CPU a few weeks ago during an overclocking experiment gone bad, after using a little bit too much voltage.
There was smoke coming out of the VRMs on the motherboard. The machine did shut down, and did not catch fire, thankfully.
This was an AMD FX-8350 on a Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD3 . The chip was confirmed dead when I tried it in another identical motherboard.
So yes, if a rootkit could actually change those BIOS settings, it could potentially cause this.
The problem with that is that there is no actual way to detect that an old browser doesn't support SHA-2.
For example, older versions of Firefox/NSS since 2003 have supported SHA-2 server certificates, but not SHA-2 in TLS cipher suites as the MAC algorithm, which wasn't specified until years later.
The TLS ClientHello message does not specify which types of hash algorithm the client supports for certificates, only the list of cipher suites that the client supports.
Thus, Facebook, or anyone else, has no way of determining if a client really doesn't support SHA-2 server certificates.
What they are probably doing is assuming that clients that don't support SHA-2 MAC in TLS cipher suites . But that's a wrong assumption. Many older clients will be downgraded to SHA-1 server certificates as a result, even though they support SHA-2 certificates. And they will have no way of knowing that this happened.
There are 2 different votes referenced on that page. The one about Snowden is the second one.
Also, SSL/TLS certificates are X.509 certificates with the proper key usage / extended key usage.
Someone would have to be crazy enough to try to write an SSL & PKIX library fully in assembly to get that HTTPS server working.