Even if Cisco does an audit they won't be able to ensure the complete set of code isn't back-doored.
While this is true, is that as big of a security risk? (yes, I realize that any security breach is a big deal, but I'm looking at the big picture here) If the chipmaker for the 802.11ac chips has a backdoor in it, then what can they gain access to? Can they control the entire device, or just that subset of the device? They might have access to the encrypted network traffic, but can they do anything with it? Also, wouldn't finding the dump of the data out of the network, or into the network be relatively easy to spot?
Since I'm a sysadmin and not a hardware designer I'll wait for some answers here. Should be a good discussion.
The internet used to be a non-essential service. That time has long gone. Now the network is the new interstate, and we are behind the rest of the world because we insist that the free market will do a better job of providing universal internet infrastructure. This is demonstrably not true, the free market will provide excessive capacity where there is profit to be made, but no capacity where there is no profit to be made. This uneven coverage actually hurts the country. Just as uneven electrification, interstate system, or health coverage hurt the country.
I disagree. It's not essential. There are still communities in the US without telephone service. Why didn't the government intervene there? Because telephone service isn't essential either. I think you're not understanding the definition of the word essential. It means absolutely necessary.
We should create a government run high performance back bone that runs to every city in the US and town. Corporations could still compete on top of this system paying a rent for the maintenance and upgrades to the system similar to the rents they pay for air spectrum. Corporations would then not have to double build infrastructure so the overall cost would be lower. The reason that companies don't want this is that one of the ways that they keep their monopoly is that it is expensive to build network capability, so they can exclude competition from smaller companies that cannot afford to build infrastructure.
The government does not need to provide more nonessential services. Like I said in the OP, our governments can't even provide essential services properly. We don't need them overextending their incompetence to nonessential services too.
In my experience local, state and federal governments have a hard time providing essential services that they *should* provide. It's rare when that is done effectively and efficiently. Why do we want to grow our governments to start providing nonessential services?
Here's the other problem: it really, truly is unfair competition when the taxpayers will be on the hook for the capital investment of a municipally operated ISP. Private companies do not have that luxury of having someone else pay for the construction of a new network and then only collecting monthly fees for ongoing operation.
No, I do not work for any ISP nor do I have any financial interest in them.
So don't let them. Don't let capital leave the country. Establish a border between participating and non-participating countries and assing a heavy tariff for trade moving across it.
Yeah, that's not very realistic. Let's just be honest and recognize that this whole climate summit crap isn't going to work unless everyone is on board. And even then we have to be careful about how it will affect the local and global economies.
Hrmmm... isn't that kinda like saying, "why should I stop shitting on the pavement, other people do it?". Someone has to make a start!
But there's no incentive for the others to join. If fact, it's the opposite. The countries not participating will see huge economic benefits as other countries lose their industries and jobs and move to the less-regulated counties. It's already happened before. Let's not be stupid and pretend it won't happen again.
It's also useless since there have been 500 coal-fired power plants brought online in Asia in the last 9 months. Why should the US and other countries destroy their economy in the name of of a climate agreement if it's not all inclusive?
To the best of my understanding of the industry, the providers (Comcast, Cox, Mediacom, DirecTV, Dish, etc) are pretty much restrained on how to offer the content based on their contracts with the content creators/networks. Often the networks require that channels be bundled which is why we don't see much "a la carte" choices out there.
I'm stuck with providers like DirecTV for the near future (not that I really mind that) due to my obsession with sports.
Instead of dreaming, perhaps you need to look in the mirror and see why corporations would rather employ Joe Unknown from the other side of the world than you. If you have value, you will always get a job over someone trying the H-1B route. Presumably you have limited skills and no experience. And "web" isn't a skill, bad luck.
Tell that to the former senior engineers at Texas Instruments who were laid off while making $150k while their Indian replacements were paid $50k.
What does 'support' mean to you? To me, it means 'if I find a bug that critically affects my business, someone will fix it'. For any given open source package, I can usually find a dozen companies willing to offer me that service, with varying cost / levels of competence. With a proprietary product, I can find at most one, and usually their 'support' option is 'please buy the next version, yes I know the UI has changed, just add it up to your retraining budget'.
Here's the problem with using a 3rd party to fix bugs: These fixes may not be compatible with updates/upgrades from the original software source. I have run into these issues before with both OS and proprietary software. It was a real pain in the butt to resolve.
I'm not saying that support contacts are 100% airtight. They're not. But when it comes to covering your butt from the less tech-minded people at the top of the company it is usually the safest option. There are always exceptions though.
I've always been open minded when it came to OS solutions. The big issue that I see from the management perspective is support for the product. I happen to have very limited software development experience in my crew, mostly systems management. If/when something breaks we need to be able to assure management that we have the resources or support contracts in place to get the issue resolved ASAP.
I'm assuming that most other people are in the same boat. It's all about covering your butt.
The future of television is on-demand and not scheduled programming with the option to pay subscription fees to kill all advertising. This means no cable TV as we currently see it.
Even when a generic version of a drug appears, greed is often in play. Just a month or two again, this was in the news "The rights to Daraprim were purchased in August by a new company, Turing Pharmaceuticals, which promptly increased the price from $13.50 per tablet to $750 per tablet -- a 5,000 percent jump -- the New York Times reported."
Bullshit. They can make sure the telcos are contractually obligated to publish timely updates.
They don't, because they don't give a shit.
I wish that were true, but what leverage do the handset makers have against the telcos? Apple was the only one so far to beat the telcos and get direct access to update their devices. But what can Samsung, HTC, LG, and others do about it? Their market share is smaller and they cannot throw their weight around to force the telcos.
I hate the idea of additional government regulations, but maybe the FCC needs to mandate that the carriers don't have any control over the software updates. My landline provider has no say in my phone system. My ISP has no say on the devices I use on their network. Why does Verizon or AT&T?
One thing that really strikes me about this story is how many walls the founders of this movement ran into trying to get it set up - they wanted towers, but said putting those up would be prohibitively expensive for such a small organization. Now, imagine that a municipality was able to get behind this, maybe get some state funding to offset the costs (perhaps by providing free broadband to homes with children in public schools that otherwise could not afford it) and was able to put up a better system that didn't rely so much on the homeowners to maintain (the article states that any homeowner who has it installed has to provide power for it for life even if they do not use it). Commercial providers would be forced to cut prices and improve service or go under.
Commercial providers run into the same roadblocks. It is very expensive to build towers.
Commercial providers also can't force their fees on people like a municipality. Municipality can tax residents for Internet service they don't use. When was the last time a commercial company did that?
To suggest that municipalities would provide fair competition with for-profit companies is not understanding the economics of it.
The DC bus is likely at a lower voltage than typical AC circuits, therefore less able to cause electrocution.
It's not the voltage that kills, it's the current. As little as 100mA is fatal if it crosses the heart. And if you want to work with lower voltage for the same job that means the current must be higher.
I run a small email system ~2500 users and don't have your problems...
You probably have a dedicated/static IP and it isn't tainted from others who have used it before you.
For people trying to run their own email server at home it can be a real pain. ISP's blocking 25 and 587. DHCP means that your IP pool has a bad reputation. Etc...
Slashdot Mirror
Even if Cisco does an audit they won't be able to ensure the complete set of code isn't back-doored.
While this is true, is that as big of a security risk? (yes, I realize that any security breach is a big deal, but I'm looking at the big picture here) If the chipmaker for the 802.11ac chips has a backdoor in it, then what can they gain access to? Can they control the entire device, or just that subset of the device? They might have access to the encrypted network traffic, but can they do anything with it? Also, wouldn't finding the dump of the data out of the network, or into the network be relatively easy to spot?
Since I'm a sysadmin and not a hardware designer I'll wait for some answers here. Should be a good discussion.
Internet is fast becoming an essential service.
Please explain how it is absolutely necessary to have Internet access.
And it's only unfair competition if the municipal ISP had a monopoly.
That's not the definition of unfair competition.
The internet used to be a non-essential service. That time has long gone. Now the network is the new interstate, and we are behind the rest of the world because we insist that the free market will do a better job of providing universal internet infrastructure. This is demonstrably not true, the free market will provide excessive capacity where there is profit to be made, but no capacity where there is no profit to be made. This uneven coverage actually hurts the country. Just as uneven electrification, interstate system, or health coverage hurt the country.
I disagree. It's not essential. There are still communities in the US without telephone service. Why didn't the government intervene there? Because telephone service isn't essential either. I think you're not understanding the definition of the word essential. It means absolutely necessary.
We should create a government run high performance back bone that runs to every city in the US and town. Corporations could still compete on top of this system paying a rent for the maintenance and upgrades to the system similar to the rents they pay for air spectrum. Corporations would then not have to double build infrastructure so the overall cost would be lower. The reason that companies don't want this is that one of the ways that they keep their monopoly is that it is expensive to build network capability, so they can exclude competition from smaller companies that cannot afford to build infrastructure.
The government does not need to provide more nonessential services. Like I said in the OP, our governments can't even provide essential services properly. We don't need them overextending their incompetence to nonessential services too.
You pay for the United States Postal Service by using it. It is funded *solely* through the services it provides.
You only pay for the USPS if you send mail. You don't pay for it otherwise.
Everyone pays for public education regardless of whether you use it or not.
In my experience local, state and federal governments have a hard time providing essential services that they *should* provide. It's rare when that is done effectively and efficiently. Why do we want to grow our governments to start providing nonessential services?
Here's the other problem: it really, truly is unfair competition when the taxpayers will be on the hook for the capital investment of a municipally operated ISP. Private companies do not have that luxury of having someone else pay for the construction of a new network and then only collecting monthly fees for ongoing operation.
No, I do not work for any ISP nor do I have any financial interest in them.
I use the enterprise version of Mailarchiva at my work. It is a solid product.
So don't let them. Don't let capital leave the country. Establish a border between participating and non-participating countries and assing a heavy tariff for trade moving across it.
Yeah, that's not very realistic. Let's just be honest and recognize that this whole climate summit crap isn't going to work unless everyone is on board. And even then we have to be careful about how it will affect the local and global economies.
It will be interesting to see how well they validate registrations.
I'm sure it will go over just fine. How hard could it be for the government to setup a functioning website?
Hrmmm... isn't that kinda like saying, "why should I stop shitting on the pavement, other people do it?". Someone has to make a start!
But there's no incentive for the others to join. If fact, it's the opposite. The countries not participating will see huge economic benefits as other countries lose their industries and jobs and move to the less-regulated counties. It's already happened before. Let's not be stupid and pretend it won't happen again.
It's also useless since there have been 500 coal-fired power plants brought online in Asia in the last 9 months. Why should the US and other countries destroy their economy in the name of of a climate agreement if it's not all inclusive?
To the best of my understanding of the industry, the providers (Comcast, Cox, Mediacom, DirecTV, Dish, etc) are pretty much restrained on how to offer the content based on their contracts with the content creators/networks. Often the networks require that channels be bundled which is why we don't see much "a la carte" choices out there.
I'm stuck with providers like DirecTV for the near future (not that I really mind that) due to my obsession with sports.
Instead of dreaming, perhaps you need to look in the mirror and see why corporations would rather employ Joe Unknown from the other side of the world than you. If you have value, you will always get a job over someone trying the H-1B route. Presumably you have limited skills and no experience. And "web" isn't a skill, bad luck.
Tell that to the former senior engineers at Texas Instruments who were laid off while making $150k while their Indian replacements were paid $50k.
Why? Failover keeps high uptime even if you have less reliable hardware.
Unless the unreliable hardware is your power source.
What does 'support' mean to you? To me, it means 'if I find a bug that critically affects my business, someone will fix it'. For any given open source package, I can usually find a dozen companies willing to offer me that service, with varying cost / levels of competence. With a proprietary product, I can find at most one, and usually their 'support' option is 'please buy the next version, yes I know the UI has changed, just add it up to your retraining budget'.
Here's the problem with using a 3rd party to fix bugs: These fixes may not be compatible with updates/upgrades from the original software source. I have run into these issues before with both OS and proprietary software. It was a real pain in the butt to resolve.
I'm not saying that support contacts are 100% airtight. They're not. But when it comes to covering your butt from the less tech-minded people at the top of the company it is usually the safest option. There are always exceptions though.
I've always been open minded when it came to OS solutions. The big issue that I see from the management perspective is support for the product. I happen to have very limited software development experience in my crew, mostly systems management. If/when something breaks we need to be able to assure management that we have the resources or support contracts in place to get the issue resolved ASAP.
I'm assuming that most other people are in the same boat. It's all about covering your butt.
The future of television is on-demand and not scheduled programming with the option to pay subscription fees to kill all advertising. This means no cable TV as we currently see it.
The wide world of sports begs to differ.
Even when a generic version of a drug appears, greed is often in play. Just a month or two again, this was in the news "The rights to Daraprim were purchased in August by a new company, Turing Pharmaceuticals, which promptly increased the price from $13.50 per tablet to $750 per tablet -- a 5,000 percent jump -- the New York Times reported."
Followed by another company that is selling the pill for less than a dollar per pill. But that's not as sensational, is it?
http://science.slashdot.org/story/15/10/25/1420259/drug-firm-offers-1-version-of-750-daraprim-pill
Bullshit. They can make sure the telcos are contractually obligated to publish timely updates.
They don't, because they don't give a shit.
I wish that were true, but what leverage do the handset makers have against the telcos? Apple was the only one so far to beat the telcos and get direct access to update their devices. But what can Samsung, HTC, LG, and others do about it? Their market share is smaller and they cannot throw their weight around to force the telcos.
I hate the idea of additional government regulations, but maybe the FCC needs to mandate that the carriers don't have any control over the software updates. My landline provider has no say in my phone system. My ISP has no say on the devices I use on their network. Why does Verizon or AT&T?
"they refuse to share their source code, and that the U.S. government hasn't even asked them"
How wonderful of them! That's like me saying that I haven't killed anyone for $100,000 even though nobody every asked me.
It's easy to be moral when you haven't been challenged.
"No details have been released regarding what the show will be about, or who will star in it. CBS is currently looking for a writer to helm the show."
Seems backwards to me.
One thing that really strikes me about this story is how many walls the founders of this movement ran into trying to get it set up - they wanted towers, but said putting those up would be prohibitively expensive for such a small organization. Now, imagine that a municipality was able to get behind this, maybe get some state funding to offset the costs (perhaps by providing free broadband to homes with children in public schools that otherwise could not afford it) and was able to put up a better system that didn't rely so much on the homeowners to maintain (the article states that any homeowner who has it installed has to provide power for it for life even if they do not use it). Commercial providers would be forced to cut prices and improve service or go under.
Commercial providers run into the same roadblocks. It is very expensive to build towers.
Commercial providers also can't force their fees on people like a municipality. Municipality can tax residents for Internet service they don't use. When was the last time a commercial company did that?
To suggest that municipalities would provide fair competition with for-profit companies is not understanding the economics of it.
The DC bus is likely at a lower voltage than typical AC circuits, therefore less able to cause electrocution.
It's not the voltage that kills, it's the current. As little as 100mA is fatal if it crosses the heart. And if you want to work with lower voltage for the same job that means the current must be higher.
I couldn't find the word "promise" anywhere.
Here's reality: residential consumers are not paying for guaranteed bandwidth. Want guaranteed speeds? Get a dedicated circuit.
I run a small email system ~2500 users and don't have your problems...
You probably have a dedicated/static IP and it isn't tainted from others who have used it before you.
For people trying to run their own email server at home it can be a real pain. ISP's blocking 25 and 587. DHCP means that your IP pool has a bad reputation. Etc...
This was my first thought as well. They could be showing them watered-down code for all they know.