The maker of my RAID enclosure insisted on the opposite, that you MUST use all the same brand/model drive in the enclosure. For what it's worth, the 4 Toshiba 3.5"/1tb drives that replaced the failed Seagate drives have worked perfectly over the last 9 months.
Not just Linux! I've had 50% failure rate (3 of 6 over the last 18 months) on Seagate 3.5" 1tb drives in a RAID enclosure connected to my Mac. I'll also note the continuing problems with the Momentus XT 2.5" hybrid drives; apparently the drive is optimized for Windows and works poorly at best (or fails more frequently) under Linux or Mac OS X. And Seagate's firmware update is basically a Windows solution that requires lots of extra effort to work on any other OS.
Didn't Princeton have a similar problem with iPhones? Sure seems to me that Princeton should look at its own rules and infrastructure to see why it has to be so strict when so many others don't have this problem...
The (thin) articles say that Gelertner's patent was for arranging documents in a time flow. Why wouldn't Eadweard Muybridge's work be prior art? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muybridge)
This sure seems to me to be Yet Another Duh! patent.
What makes a good tablet? It's a combination of hardware, software and 'ecosystem.' Some of the non iPad hardware is interesting, particularly for things like cameras. The value of Android for tablets is yet to be shown, the new tablet focused Android release is immature when compared to iOS. So I'm not convinced that it's yet fair to cite alternatives to iPad as "good" yet. "Promising", but not verified as "good". We'll see what RIM has to offer shortly.
When you bring in the ecosystem, you have not just the Apple store (both on-line and brick-and-mortar), but also the associated maturity of Apple iOS applications. I think Apple still has at least a 1 year lead, when you look at the total package.
Personally, I'm disappointed by the iPad 2 camera, but otherwise I think it's a very solid device, at a very convincing price point.
The Nokia share of 20.9% in 2011 happens to match the 20.9% attributed to WinPhone7 in 2015. And just how likely is that, independent of the relative merits of the competition?
What appalls me is that people get PAID to produce this bovine effluent!!
1. Those 3 "incompatible package managers" all came from Linux. There actually is an "incompatible [with Linux] package manager", the one developed by Apple for MacOS X applications. That's the one to use if you're deploying to OS X, otherwise just pick one from the "variety" that is Linux... 2. EMACS is built into the shell, open up the terminal application and type "emacs". Works like a charm... 3. There's a -wonderful- EMACS port to the Mac called Aquamacs. http://aquamacs.org/ 4. Why build software that depends on the low-level differences between Linux and OS X? What's wrong with the POSIX set of standards for that level of application development. Color within the lines; -show me why for a Web app you have to go outside of the POSIX standards at that level.- 5. Buy a copy of Parallels or VMWare and install one (or more!!) distributions of Linux, or use BootCamp to dual-boot. 6. As far as the price of the hardware, you get what you pay for. My experience with Mac laptops is that they're a heluva lot more durable than machines from HP, Dell or Toshiba; ThinkPads have similar reliability (at similar higher price-points.)
The community can't have it both ways. It can't insist that Apple censor some apps and then complain that Apple has set "arbitrary" rules for approving apps.
When we lived in the Pacific Northwest, I paid attention to the predictions/analysis of the Pacific/San Juan de Fuca (SJF) plate boundary. The predictions there are for a really big earthquake associated with the boundary. As I recall (and I hope some geologist will correct me if I get it wrong), the San Andreas fault is a lateral slip fault, the plates slide against each other. But the SJF fault is a buckle(?) fault. Instead of sliding laterally, the pressure builds up as the plates collide by pushing into each other, like pushing the fingers of your hand against your palm, keeping your fingers straight. Eventually, your fingers slip and kinda "sproing," creating a Really Big earthquake. Historical evidence indicates this happens fairly frequently and when it does, the resulting quake and tsunami are doozies!
We have friends in both Seattle and Vancouver, I hope I'm wrong...
Is this what Web 2.0 means, supporting an attention span where technologies must fit into little soundbites for people unwilling to actually read and understand the underlying complexity? Oh, I guess I'm not "agile enough". sigh.... (And yeah this could be considered flamebait, but I really am pretty disgusted with the whole "I don't want to deal with complexity" notion. I think one thing that increasingly separates the few competent programmers from the great unwashed masses of hackers is the willingness to actually tackle and understand big, hard problems.)
Well, the charges against Manning have been formally and legally documented. One can argue about the consequences, but I have not heard anyone argue that Manning did not do what has been alleged. "Material support to the enemy" could be a charge that requires not just potential impact, but also motivation, and that's what the Court will have to decide.
The opinions that "the people rule", "openness is the only way", etc, etc, are hyperbole.
The medical model for disease works for computer viruses too. You need both a vulnerability and a vector. The number of potential hosts increases the attractiveness of the host for a virus (whether through natural evolution or malice aforethought.) The number of hosts also increases the vector span. But there still has to be a vulnerability!
Similarly, we need for the countermeasures to be demonstrated as both "safe and effective." My personal experience with Mac OS 9 and earlier anti-virus applications is that they were not very "safe", they caused a lot of problems. For OS X, I'm waiting for some reasonable demonstration of "effective" based on real-world threats. Predictions of doom from anti-virus vendors (who most certainly have a vested financial interest) that are not substantiated with real-world experiences are not persuasive to me.
By the way, what is the measured track record for successful penetrations observed by third parties, i.e. "in the real world", for both Win 7 and Mac OS? The argument that "Mac OS claims to be secure... [by] not targeted as much" rings hollow to me. You'd think if vulnerabilities exist in a platform that is growing by leaps and bounds at the -high end- of the market would have garnered some successful penetrations, if nothing else than for the "glory of hacking the supposedly secure platform."
So how much of the income actually goes to WikiLeaks-the-website, versus funding for Assange's legal defense fund (on UNRELATED charges) or to support Assange's own ego-inflated life-style?
I might be persuaded to support WikiLeaks, but I won't spend a single penny to support Assange's defense on a rape charge. (And the idea that the Swedes, of all countries, are going to send Assange to Git-Mo, is particularly ludicrous. UK is -much closer- to the US in that regard; if I were Assange and I really believed that shit, I'd feel a lot safer in a Swedish court than a British one. That's not intended as a dig on UK justice, by the way, but as an acknowledgement that the British and the US have much tighter connections on terrorism cases.)
I'm working in a Mac OS X environment, but this should work for Linux too: I have groups for the various classes of stuff, e.g. photos, household files (like taxes and Christmas letters), etc. Each group has a group home associated with it, and I mount those from my server as needed. (The server's a RAID 5 box). Irreplaceable stuff like photos are copied a couple of times, once to a disk on a separate machine and periodically to a portable USB drive that I keep at a friend's house. (I have 2 of them and rotate them.) An advantage of the group-based approach is that I can use group privileges to limit access if required (e.g. my work related stuff is not readable by the rest of the family. Photos are updatable by my wife and I and readable by everyone else, etc.)
For sensitive materials, I actually use a Mac OS X encrypted disk image in the group home directory. One of these days I'll work out how to get whole-drive encryption on my Mac OS X Mini Server.
And as a side note, I'm seeing -50% failure rate- on Seagate 3.5" 1tb drives that are about 1-2 years old. The RAID enclosure is running Toshiba 1tb drives. One of my 2 USB backups (with a Seagate drive) failed, so I'll replace that with a Toshiba or WD drive. I'm really disgusted with Seagate reliability!
Eiffel and Ada have had 'design by contract' as a key language feature for 25+ years, and this is a major contribution to both 'safety' and correctness of design. It's good to see Java catch up.
The CISCO report highlights growth in Apple's reported patched vulnerabilities. But it seems to me that a theoretic vulnerability is not the same as an actual real-world exploit. This is particularly true when there's a zero-day exploit that causes 'badguy code' to run. If that code runs in a non-privileged account and therefore can't accomplish its intent, does that count as an actual problem?
I'm not trying here to push the "Macs are better" argument, but rather explore the question of how we measure vulnerabilities, exploits, etc. And of course, there's the "decidability question" that others have mentioned: How do you know when an attempt to exploit a vulnerability -fails-?
So maybe we need 3 measures:
vulnerabilities
attempted exploits
successful exploits A lot of people have argued (the "antibody" approach) that it's better to focus on recovering from/mitigating an exploit, rather than believing we can remove all vulnerabilities. Would our current measures show the success (or failure) of that approach?
Slashdot Mirror
About Greenpeace, a theater troupe whose desire for headlines outweighs any real contribution to the debate.
The maker of my RAID enclosure insisted on the opposite, that you MUST use all the same brand/model drive in the enclosure. For what it's worth, the 4 Toshiba 3.5"/1tb drives that replaced the failed Seagate drives have worked perfectly over the last 9 months.
Not just Linux! I've had 50% failure rate (3 of 6 over the last 18 months) on Seagate 3.5" 1tb drives in a RAID enclosure connected to my Mac. I'll also note the continuing problems with the Momentus XT 2.5" hybrid drives; apparently the drive is optimized for Windows and works poorly at best (or fails more frequently) under Linux or Mac OS X. And Seagate's firmware update is basically a Windows solution that requires lots of extra effort to work on any other OS.
Didn't Princeton have a similar problem with iPhones? Sure seems to me that Princeton should look at its own rules and infrastructure to see why it has to be so strict when so many others don't have this problem...
Someone with points mod parent up. Best line I've seen in quite a while!
http://techcrunch.com/2011/04/11/windows-app-store/
(With all that investment in Microsoft Research, why does Microsoft copy others, particularly Apple, so much???)
So what is the difference between a religion and a cult, anyway?
The (thin) articles say that Gelertner's patent was for arranging documents in a time flow. Why wouldn't Eadweard Muybridge's work be prior art? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muybridge)
This sure seems to me to be Yet Another Duh! patent.
What makes a good tablet? It's a combination of hardware, software and 'ecosystem.' Some of the non iPad hardware is interesting, particularly for things like cameras. The value of Android for tablets is yet to be shown, the new tablet focused Android release is immature when compared to iOS. So I'm not convinced that it's yet fair to cite alternatives to iPad as "good" yet. "Promising", but not verified as "good". We'll see what RIM has to offer shortly.
When you bring in the ecosystem, you have not just the Apple store (both on-line and brick-and-mortar), but also the associated maturity of Apple iOS applications. I think Apple still has at least a 1 year lead, when you look at the total package.
Personally, I'm disappointed by the iPad 2 camera, but otherwise I think it's a very solid device, at a very convincing price point.
The Nokia share of 20.9% in 2011 happens to match the 20.9% attributed to WinPhone7 in 2015.
And just how likely is that, independent of the relative merits of the competition?
What appalls me is that people get PAID to produce this bovine effluent !!
1. Those 3 "incompatible package managers" all came from Linux. There actually is an "incompatible [with Linux] package manager", the one developed by Apple for MacOS X applications. That's the one to use if you're deploying to OS X, otherwise just pick one from the "variety" that is Linux...
2. EMACS is built into the shell, open up the terminal application and type "emacs". Works like a charm...
3. There's a -wonderful- EMACS port to the Mac called Aquamacs. http://aquamacs.org/
4. Why build software that depends on the low-level differences between Linux and OS X? What's wrong with the POSIX set of standards for that level of application development. Color within the lines; -show me why for a Web app you have to go outside of the POSIX standards at that level.-
5. Buy a copy of Parallels or VMWare and install one (or more!!) distributions of Linux, or use BootCamp to dual-boot.
6. As far as the price of the hardware, you get what you pay for. My experience with Mac laptops is that they're a heluva lot more durable than machines from HP, Dell or Toshiba; ThinkPads have similar reliability (at similar higher price-points.)
The community can't have it both ways. It can't insist that Apple censor some apps and then complain that Apple has set "arbitrary" rules for approving apps.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOGkDsH0OsI
And Magically Delicious!
When we lived in the Pacific Northwest, I paid attention to the predictions/analysis of the Pacific/San Juan de Fuca (SJF) plate boundary. The predictions there are for a really big earthquake associated with the boundary. As I recall (and I hope some geologist will correct me if I get it wrong), the San Andreas fault is a lateral slip fault, the plates slide against each other. But the SJF fault is a buckle(?) fault. Instead of sliding laterally, the pressure builds up as the plates collide by pushing into each other, like pushing the fingers of your hand against your palm, keeping your fingers straight. Eventually, your fingers slip and kinda "sproing," creating a Really Big earthquake. Historical evidence indicates this happens fairly frequently and when it does, the resulting quake and tsunami are doozies!
We have friends in both Seattle and Vancouver, I hope I'm wrong...
Is this what Web 2.0 means, supporting an attention span where technologies must fit into little soundbites for people unwilling to actually read and understand the underlying complexity? Oh, I guess I'm not "agile enough". sigh....
(And yeah this could be considered flamebait, but I really am pretty disgusted with the whole "I don't want to deal with complexity" notion. I think one thing that increasingly separates the few competent programmers from the great unwashed masses of hackers is the willingness to actually tackle and understand big, hard problems.)
Well, the charges against Manning have been formally and legally documented. One can argue about the consequences, but I have not heard anyone argue that Manning did not do what has been alleged. "Material support to the enemy" could be a charge that requires not just potential impact, but also motivation, and that's what the Court will have to decide.
The opinions that "the people rule", "openness is the only way", etc, etc, are hyperbole.
I note that opinions expressed in support of the charge are marked as trolls, while opinions expressed in opposition to the charge are modded up.
The medical model for disease works for computer viruses too. You need both a vulnerability and a vector. The number of potential hosts increases the attractiveness of the host for a virus (whether through natural evolution or malice aforethought.) The number of hosts also increases the vector span. But there still has to be a vulnerability!
Similarly, we need for the countermeasures to be demonstrated as both "safe and effective." My personal experience with Mac OS 9 and earlier anti-virus applications is that they were not very "safe", they caused a lot of problems. For OS X, I'm waiting for some reasonable demonstration of "effective" based on real-world threats. Predictions of doom from anti-virus vendors (who most certainly have a vested financial interest) that are not substantiated with real-world experiences are not persuasive to me.
By the way, what is the measured track record for successful penetrations observed by third parties, i.e. "in the real world", for both Win 7 and Mac OS? The argument that "Mac OS claims to be secure ... [by] not targeted as much" rings hollow to me. You'd think if vulnerabilities exist in a platform that is growing by leaps and bounds at the -high end- of the market would have garnered some successful penetrations, if nothing else than for the "glory of hacking the supposedly secure platform."
dave
So how much of the income actually goes to WikiLeaks-the-website, versus funding for Assange's legal defense fund (on UNRELATED charges) or to support Assange's own ego-inflated life-style?
I might be persuaded to support WikiLeaks, but I won't spend a single penny to support Assange's defense on a rape charge. (And the idea that the Swedes, of all countries, are going to send Assange to Git-Mo, is particularly ludicrous. UK is -much closer- to the US in that regard; if I were Assange and I really believed that shit, I'd feel a lot safer in a Swedish court than a British one. That's not intended as a dig on UK justice, by the way, but as an acknowledgement that the British and the US have much tighter connections on terrorism cases.)
I'm working in a Mac OS X environment, but this should work for Linux too: I have groups for the various classes of stuff, e.g. photos, household files (like taxes and Christmas letters), etc. Each group has a group home associated with it, and I mount those from my server as needed. (The server's a RAID 5 box). Irreplaceable stuff like photos are copied a couple of times, once to a disk on a separate machine and periodically to a portable USB drive that I keep at a friend's house. (I have 2 of them and rotate them.) An advantage of the group-based approach is that I can use group privileges to limit access if required (e.g. my work related stuff is not readable by the rest of the family. Photos are updatable by my wife and I and readable by everyone else, etc.)
For sensitive materials, I actually use a Mac OS X encrypted disk image in the group home directory. One of these days I'll work out how to get whole-drive encryption on my Mac OS X Mini Server.
For my photos, I'm experimenting with various keyword Digital Asset Management schemes, inspired by "The DAM Book" http://oreilly.com/catalog/9780596523589/
And as a side note, I'm seeing -50% failure rate- on Seagate 3.5" 1tb drives that are about 1-2 years old. The RAID enclosure is running Toshiba 1tb drives. One of my 2 USB backups (with a Seagate drive) failed, so I'll replace that with a Toshiba or WD drive. I'm really disgusted with Seagate reliability!
Eiffel and Ada have had 'design by contract' as a key language feature for 25+ years, and this is a major contribution to both 'safety' and correctness of design. It's good to see Java catch up.
I suspect I cuss enough for 3 or 4 "average people", and that's without using Windows...
Thou shalt friend thy neighbor as thyself
The CISCO report highlights growth in Apple's reported patched vulnerabilities. But it seems to me that a theoretic vulnerability is not the same as an actual real-world exploit. This is particularly true when there's a zero-day exploit that causes 'badguy code' to run. If that code runs in a non-privileged account and therefore can't accomplish its intent, does that count as an actual problem?
I'm not trying here to push the "Macs are better" argument, but rather explore the question of how we measure vulnerabilities, exploits, etc. And of course, there's the "decidability question" that others have mentioned: How do you know when an attempt to exploit a vulnerability -fails-?
So maybe we need 3 measures:
vulnerabilities
attempted exploits
successful exploits
A lot of people have argued (the "antibody" approach) that it's better to focus on recovering from/mitigating an exploit, rather than believing we can remove all vulnerabilities. Would our current measures show the success (or failure) of that approach?