Given the Sidekick's gruesome demise at the hands of Microsoft, RIM actually has a pretty strong claim to being the dominant "good messaging dumbphone" of choice. Because of the emphasis on solid keyboards, and the ability to reuse the stuff they've been refining for corporate since forever, they are nicer than the no-name junk; but their comparatively modest hardware specs and data use make them cheaper than the smartphones that people actually want. At least if advertising in my area(and observation of what younger student types are carrying) is any indication, they are indeed among the most common devices in the 'one cut above a pure dumbphone' niche. Corporate doesn't seem to care, since this hasn't changed RIM's style very much, outside of a few gimmicky consumer-oriented handsets.
It isn't a high-margin market; but it isn't a small one.
The golden boys of Wall St. seem to have a very limited attention span for boring commodity producers who aren't continually heaping up the growth or delivering larger profits every quarter. It is unsurprising that they would turn on RIM rather sharply: RIM has, after all, fallen from being The phone of the Serious Set to being a smart-ish phone that lags behind Android and the successor to the sidekick among impecunious text-messagers. Party is over, dudes. Margins are set to be less exciting from here on in.
However, there is a large difference between having your share price plummet and "collapsing". RIM has consistently had, and will likely continue to have, the ability to deliver phones that squeeze reasonable performance out of hardware that is practically Nokia-esque in its distance from the leading edge. This means that RIM can afford to make their handsets cheap. Unlike other cheap handset makers, however, they have a relatively well regarded platform in terms of security and integration with enterprise email systems. Their aggressive pre-crunching of data before it goes over the airwaves(and the fact that their web browser blows goats through capillary tubing) also means that carriers are often pretty willing to make RIM data plans incrementally cheaper than those for smarter phones whose appetite for data reflects their PC heritage.
Given those two sets of facts, I would very much agree that RIM's ability to command exciting margins in the future is in the tank. Apple, among the mainstream, and high end androids, among the techies, have the premium niche sewn up for now. MS and HP's positions are currently unenviable; but both are fresher and more dynamic than RIM. The cheap seats will, increasingly, be dominated by semi-KIRFs running stock android pumped out by the assorted Pacific rim OEMs who used to be the anonymous servitors of brands you've heard of. However, given those two sets of facts, I would also argue that RIM should be able to embed itself fairly solidly in its niche, and hang on for a fair length of time. The market for boring business email phones is not exactly small, and RIM has by far the most mature offering in that area.
In fairness to Intel, if you need pure bang, particularly if it is necessary that said bang be delivered to a single-threaded application, AMD has nothing on them.
However, as you say, AMD has plenty of more-than-fast-enough offerings that are dirt cheap, and tend to be supported by slightly cheaper motherboards. Given that many modern games tend to be GPU bound much of the time, gamers on budgets are generally pretty well served by cheaping out a bit on the CPU and going up a model or two on the GPU side. Since NVIDIA sells no CPUs(barring Tegra, which is irrelevant here) and no longer has a chipset business worthy of note, they'd be fools not to try to scoop up the "good enough AMD rig and enough cash left over for a slightly ludicrous video card" demographic.
Now, given Intel's strength, they aren't about to cancel SLI support on intel, despite being fucked over on the chipset side; but ignoring AMD doesn't make much sense.
While it doesn't solve the problem of DDR3 being slower than GDDR5, AMD has been pushing their "Torrenza" initiative to have assorted specialized 3rd party processors be able to plug directly into the hypertransport bus(either in an HTX slot, or in one or more of the CPU sockets of a multi-socket system). That would give the hypothetical GPU both fast access to the CPU and as-fast-as-the-CPU access to large amounts of cheap RAM.
Ludicrously uneconomic for gaming purposes, of course; but there are probably some compute tasks where the ability to have 32GB of comparatively slow RAM would be much handier than 1GB or 2 of the fast stuff.
Hard to say(until bulldozer drops) whether NVIDIA thinks that they are really good, or good enough. Since NVIDIA no longer has an intel chipset business, tying SLI to Intel platforms no longer serves to move more product; but to restrict the size of their potential market(since anybody who wants the, often quite aggressive, price/performance of an AMD part won't be buying more than one NVIDIA card, at most).
So long as they are confident that AMD's CPUs will be good enough not to bottleneck SLI configurations, trying to sell multiple cards to people who purchase AMD CPUs seems only reasonable. If, of course, they think that the CPUs will be even better than good enough, the approach is even more reasonable, so it doesn't tell us too much about which it is.
The cynical observer might argue that, if the real goal is to have an outside hatchetman, rather than the home office, handle 3,000 layoffs, Accenture is very much an acceptable choice...
I'm not sure that the basement of the police station is "public"; but I suspect that at least one of the electrodes clipped to their genitalia is, in fact, positive...
For that purpose, cryptographic signing would seem to be pretty useless: by design, the slightest modification to the file breaks the signature, and the signature is readily strippable. Signing is for people who want to prove that they did. Some variation of the various "fingerprinting" techniques that the Copy Cops have been trying on films and such would be what you would need to go after somebody who very much wants to hide their involvement in the chain.
In many cases, I suspect, the unique pattern of manufacturing irregularities in the CCD would probably be much harder to hide(without either throwing away massive amounts of image data, or using classy gear, multiple exposures, darkfield subtraction, etc.) than a cryptographic signature or some of the weaker fingerprinting techniques...
It isn't one sided! In the totally plausible event where a major multinational corporation is SOL without a specific individual's contractual cooperation, said individual is also entirely free to insist on mandatory arbitration clauses with an arbiter of his choice.
As long as the signing key is unique per-camera(which I would bloody well hope it is, for forensic purposes), "tamper-evident" is arguably good enough, and probably easier to approach(as with any hardware security measure, the approach to the ideal is more or less asymptotic, with price spiking to near infinity as you reach the goal).
If the camera is tamper-evident, anybody who suspects manipulation of photos ostensibly from that camera can attack the credibility of the camera on technical grounds, just as they might a witness: "Your honor, the camera has probe traces on its 'secure' ROM pins, its private key could easily have signed more shit than John Hancock."
In such a case, anybody who wanted to use the camera for evidence gathering would be required to maintain physical security around it, as is necessary.
The problem crops up if the key can be extracted silently, or is shared between multiple cameras. Tamper-proof is optional. Tamper-evident is absolutely necessary, or doubt is cast on every image signed.
The fun thing about arbitration is that and individual is likely to only be involved in one or two cases, if that. This makes them a poor "customer" of arbitration services. Large companies, on the other hand, might deal with hundreds or thousands of cases a year. Guess which side an arbiter hoping for future work might consider favoring...
Hilariously, of course, Justice Antonin "the originalist" Scalia was on the side of the majority, voting against the idea that states had the right to regulate the limits of contractual obligations; because that would be at odds with the intent of the FAA... Though, this was the guy who gave us the broadest definition of "interstate commerce" that could (un)reasonably be imagined in Gonzales v. Raich.
They certainly can try, apparently. It sure is a good thing that we have arbitration clauses to prevent people gang-raped on the job from having the hassle of an actual trial, when they could simply have a closed-door proceeding run by somebody hired by their employer instead...
I'm pretty sure that we can rule out the possibility of the patient having taken an effective homeopathic medicine on grounds of internal consistency...(unless they were suffering from thirst, of course. Homeopathic medicines are overpriced for that affliction; but efficacious).
In any sharing setup, which is the advice the poster is looking for, non-authenticated traffic should always be on a distinct VLAN, with no access to the network used by authenticated traffic, or any ability to access the router config interface(s). All they need to see is their own system and the public internet. Segregating each non-authenticated user from other non-authenticated users isn't a personal security imperative; but it is polite.
To deal with the bandwidth issues, that non-authenticated VLAN should, naturally, have a QoS priority below any authenticated traffic(possibly with a small slice of guaranteed bandwidth, if you are a really nice guy and your authenticated traffic frequently saturates the line..)
Most consumer routers won't let you do that with stock firmware; but openWRT can likely help you out, with the right firmware.
Worst case, it is often possible, with better stock firmwares, to at least set up the VLAN and QoS side of things, and then just hang a $20 cheapy router off the VLANed port on the primary router. Ugly; but cheap and easy and doesn't require any software support for multiple SSIDs or the like.
It's totally untraceable. We stripped out the name, CC data, and address and simply replaced it with a numeric UID. There should be no way at all of determining the identity of somebody who routinely drives to and from a given residential address... Just like that AOL search dataset became totally anonymous when they switched to UIDs.
I think you might be mistaken on the meaning of that: You cannot be tried or punished for doing something that was not illegal when you did it; but later became illegal. Nor can you be re-punished if you were convicted of a crime that carried one sentence when you committed it; but was later changed to carry a different sentence(unless you are just inherently evil, like those convicted of sex offenses who were then added to the newly created 'registry' systems).
However, if you do something that was illegal at the time you did it, there is no requirement that the cops crack the case immediately. Depending on the type of crime, the state having jurisdiction where it occurred, etc. there might be a statue of limitations that would apply; but that would be the only bound on the ability to prosecute for past crimes.
Changing a 65mph zone to 45mph, and then prosecuting everybody who is known to have gone over 45 in the past few years would not be kosher; but there is no requirement that you be caught in the act(though that certainly does make proof easier).
Slashdot Mirror
Are we sure that they didn't garbage collect the case?
Given the Sidekick's gruesome demise at the hands of Microsoft, RIM actually has a pretty strong claim to being the dominant "good messaging dumbphone" of choice. Because of the emphasis on solid keyboards, and the ability to reuse the stuff they've been refining for corporate since forever, they are nicer than the no-name junk; but their comparatively modest hardware specs and data use make them cheaper than the smartphones that people actually want. At least if advertising in my area(and observation of what younger student types are carrying) is any indication, they are indeed among the most common devices in the 'one cut above a pure dumbphone' niche. Corporate doesn't seem to care, since this hasn't changed RIM's style very much, outside of a few gimmicky consumer-oriented handsets.
It isn't a high-margin market; but it isn't a small one.
The golden boys of Wall St. seem to have a very limited attention span for boring commodity producers who aren't continually heaping up the growth or delivering larger profits every quarter. It is unsurprising that they would turn on RIM rather sharply: RIM has, after all, fallen from being The phone of the Serious Set to being a smart-ish phone that lags behind Android and the successor to the sidekick among impecunious text-messagers. Party is over, dudes. Margins are set to be less exciting from here on in.
However, there is a large difference between having your share price plummet and "collapsing". RIM has consistently had, and will likely continue to have, the ability to deliver phones that squeeze reasonable performance out of hardware that is practically Nokia-esque in its distance from the leading edge. This means that RIM can afford to make their handsets cheap. Unlike other cheap handset makers, however, they have a relatively well regarded platform in terms of security and integration with enterprise email systems. Their aggressive pre-crunching of data before it goes over the airwaves(and the fact that their web browser blows goats through capillary tubing) also means that carriers are often pretty willing to make RIM data plans incrementally cheaper than those for smarter phones whose appetite for data reflects their PC heritage.
Given those two sets of facts, I would very much agree that RIM's ability to command exciting margins in the future is in the tank. Apple, among the mainstream, and high end androids, among the techies, have the premium niche sewn up for now. MS and HP's positions are currently unenviable; but both are fresher and more dynamic than RIM. The cheap seats will, increasingly, be dominated by semi-KIRFs running stock android pumped out by the assorted Pacific rim OEMs who used to be the anonymous servitors of brands you've heard of. However, given those two sets of facts, I would also argue that RIM should be able to embed itself fairly solidly in its niche, and hang on for a fair length of time. The market for boring business email phones is not exactly small, and RIM has by far the most mature offering in that area.
C'mon, Apple has embraced commodity hardware inside slim, elegant cases for some years now...
In fairness to Intel, if you need pure bang, particularly if it is necessary that said bang be delivered to a single-threaded application, AMD has nothing on them.
However, as you say, AMD has plenty of more-than-fast-enough offerings that are dirt cheap, and tend to be supported by slightly cheaper motherboards. Given that many modern games tend to be GPU bound much of the time, gamers on budgets are generally pretty well served by cheaping out a bit on the CPU and going up a model or two on the GPU side. Since NVIDIA sells no CPUs(barring Tegra, which is irrelevant here) and no longer has a chipset business worthy of note, they'd be fools not to try to scoop up the "good enough AMD rig and enough cash left over for a slightly ludicrous video card" demographic.
Now, given Intel's strength, they aren't about to cancel SLI support on intel, despite being fucked over on the chipset side; but ignoring AMD doesn't make much sense.
While it doesn't solve the problem of DDR3 being slower than GDDR5, AMD has been pushing their "Torrenza" initiative to have assorted specialized 3rd party processors be able to plug directly into the hypertransport bus(either in an HTX slot, or in one or more of the CPU sockets of a multi-socket system). That would give the hypothetical GPU both fast access to the CPU and as-fast-as-the-CPU access to large amounts of cheap RAM.
Ludicrously uneconomic for gaming purposes, of course; but there are probably some compute tasks where the ability to have 32GB of comparatively slow RAM would be much handier than 1GB or 2 of the fast stuff.
Hard to say(until bulldozer drops) whether NVIDIA thinks that they are really good, or good enough. Since NVIDIA no longer has an intel chipset business, tying SLI to Intel platforms no longer serves to move more product; but to restrict the size of their potential market(since anybody who wants the, often quite aggressive, price/performance of an AMD part won't be buying more than one NVIDIA card, at most).
So long as they are confident that AMD's CPUs will be good enough not to bottleneck SLI configurations, trying to sell multiple cards to people who purchase AMD CPUs seems only reasonable. If, of course, they think that the CPUs will be even better than good enough, the approach is even more reasonable, so it doesn't tell us too much about which it is.
The cynical observer might argue that, if the real goal is to have an outside hatchetman, rather than the home office, handle 3,000 layoffs, Accenture is very much an acceptable choice...
I'm not sure that the basement of the police station is "public"; but I suspect that at least one of the electrodes clipped to their genitalia is, in fact, positive...
I think that we now know where Steve's next donor organ will be coming from...
For that purpose, cryptographic signing would seem to be pretty useless: by design, the slightest modification to the file breaks the signature, and the signature is readily strippable. Signing is for people who want to prove that they did. Some variation of the various "fingerprinting" techniques that the Copy Cops have been trying on films and such would be what you would need to go after somebody who very much wants to hide their involvement in the chain.
In many cases, I suspect, the unique pattern of manufacturing irregularities in the CCD would probably be much harder to hide(without either throwing away massive amounts of image data, or using classy gear, multiple exposures, darkfield subtraction, etc.) than a cryptographic signature or some of the weaker fingerprinting techniques...
I'm guessing, based on history that being accomplices to human rights violations doesn't bother them...
It isn't one sided! In the totally plausible event where a major multinational corporation is SOL without a specific individual's contractual cooperation, said individual is also entirely free to insist on mandatory arbitration clauses with an arbiter of his choice.
See, fair and balanced!
As long as the signing key is unique per-camera(which I would bloody well hope it is, for forensic purposes), "tamper-evident" is arguably good enough, and probably easier to approach(as with any hardware security measure, the approach to the ideal is more or less asymptotic, with price spiking to near infinity as you reach the goal).
If the camera is tamper-evident, anybody who suspects manipulation of photos ostensibly from that camera can attack the credibility of the camera on technical grounds, just as they might a witness: "Your honor, the camera has probe traces on its 'secure' ROM pins, its private key could easily have signed more shit than John Hancock."
In such a case, anybody who wanted to use the camera for evidence gathering would be required to maintain physical security around it, as is necessary.
The problem crops up if the key can be extracted silently, or is shared between multiple cameras. Tamper-proof is optional. Tamper-evident is absolutely necessary, or doubt is cast on every image signed.
"but openWRT can likely help you out, with the right firmware." should be "but openWRT can likely help you out, with the right hardware."
The fun thing about arbitration is that and individual is likely to only be involved in one or two cases, if that. This makes them a poor "customer" of arbitration services. Large companies, on the other hand, might deal with hundreds or thousands of cases a year. Guess which side an arbiter hoping for future work might consider favoring...
Hilariously, of course, Justice Antonin "the originalist" Scalia was on the side of the majority, voting against the idea that states had the right to regulate the limits of contractual obligations; because that would be at odds with the intent of the FAA... Though, this was the guy who gave us the broadest definition of "interstate commerce" that could (un)reasonably be imagined in Gonzales v. Raich.
They certainly can try, apparently. It sure is a good thing that we have arbitration clauses to prevent people gang-raped on the job from having the hassle of an actual trial, when they could simply have a closed-door proceeding run by somebody hired by their employer instead...
Mandatory corporate kangaroo courts! What could possibly go wrong?
I'm pretty sure that we can rule out the possibility of the patient having taken an effective homeopathic medicine on grounds of internal consistency...(unless they were suffering from thirst, of course. Homeopathic medicines are overpriced for that affliction; but efficacious).
In any sharing setup, which is the advice the poster is looking for, non-authenticated traffic should always be on a distinct VLAN, with no access to the network used by authenticated traffic, or any ability to access the router config interface(s). All they need to see is their own system and the public internet. Segregating each non-authenticated user from other non-authenticated users isn't a personal security imperative; but it is polite.
To deal with the bandwidth issues, that non-authenticated VLAN should, naturally, have a QoS priority below any authenticated traffic(possibly with a small slice of guaranteed bandwidth, if you are a really nice guy and your authenticated traffic frequently saturates the line..)
Most consumer routers won't let you do that with stock firmware; but openWRT can likely help you out, with the right firmware.
Worst case, it is often possible, with better stock firmwares, to at least set up the VLAN and QoS side of things, and then just hang a $20 cheapy router off the VLANed port on the primary router. Ugly; but cheap and easy and doesn't require any software support for multiple SSIDs or the like.
It's totally untraceable. We stripped out the name, CC data, and address and simply replaced it with a numeric UID. There should be no way at all of determining the identity of somebody who routinely drives to and from a given residential address... Just like that AOL search dataset became totally anonymous when they switched to UIDs.
I think you might be mistaken on the meaning of that: You cannot be tried or punished for doing something that was not illegal when you did it; but later became illegal. Nor can you be re-punished if you were convicted of a crime that carried one sentence when you committed it; but was later changed to carry a different sentence(unless you are just inherently evil, like those convicted of sex offenses who were then added to the newly created 'registry' systems) .
However, if you do something that was illegal at the time you did it, there is no requirement that the cops crack the case immediately. Depending on the type of crime, the state having jurisdiction where it occurred, etc. there might be a statue of limitations that would apply; but that would be the only bound on the ability to prosecute for past crimes.
Changing a 65mph zone to 45mph, and then prosecuting everybody who is known to have gone over 45 in the past few years would not be kosher; but there is no requirement that you be caught in the act(though that certainly does make proof easier).
I suspect that the lesson they actually learned is: "It would have worked if we had just made it longer!"
That isn't the half of it: Handy Venn Diagram.