Peers do not need to find specific pieces in the system to complete, any subset encoded piece will suffice.
Huh?
Also, no peer becomes a bottleneck, since no block is more important than another.
In bittorrent, no block is more important than any other.
And the only bottleneck in bittorrent is when a specific block is only available from a single seed with limited bandwidth. The moment that block is uploaded to another machine the bandwidth expands.
Finally, network bandwidth is efficiently utilized since the same information does not travel multiple times over bottleneck links.
I'm not understanding that either. You need updates as to who has what. This will be changing constantly as different peers download different blocks.
One possible solution is to use a heuristic that prioritizes exchanges of "locally rarest" pieces. But such local-rarest policies often fail to identify the "globally rarest" piece when peers have a limited view of the network.
Why would you need to? All the client has to do is connect to as many peers as necessary to find each block a minimum number of times. The only time there is a problem with this is when there is only one seed with limited bandwidth.
There is no way that a "globally rarest" will appear more often in your peer group than it does globally. This seems more of a seeder issue than a swarm issue. And it has been solved with the "super-seeder" enhancements. The seeder feeds more blocks to the guy who seems to share them the fastest.
Adding encryption to the communication channel is an additional level to troubleshoot.
Is your certificate current? Do you have enough entropy? etc
We already have it available. Without the mandate. Go to your bank's website and look for the HTTPS. Most other sites (like/.) run regular HTTP because the additional layer and expense of encryption would not gain them anything.
Do IETF participants have the will to go back and fix insecure parts of the Internet? For example, everyone knows about the lack of security in HTTP, but there seems little will within the IETF to fix the HTTP authentication problem.
That's because in the case of HTTP, and I suspect in many others, there's little agreement about what's the most important security feature to add. When you say that we'll just fix the most egregious things, then you get into an argument about where to draw the line. In the case of HTTP, the biggest concern is authentication and that is primarily solved by [Transport Layer Security]. Why not mandate TLS? That's a very good question.
Why "mandate" anything? People who want to run a site with encrypted communications CAN run a site with encrypted communications. Come on people! HTTPS.
Pretty much a fluff piece. It seems that the interviewer only had some buzzwords and a vague feeling that something was somehow insecure.
You mean like the prototypical IBM outfit - dark blue suit and black wingtips?
Pretty much. They'd have a selection. Male and female of different appearances. So you can sort of match it to you. And so you don't look like Agent Smith when a group of five of you show up.
And they'd hire people to polish them. You want to present the most professional appearance possible (if you're IBM). So spending money on getting the textures and shadows right is important. It's all about paying attention to the smallest details.
You'd all have the same "look" and that "look" would be "polished professional".
So I'm guessing innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply to a person's data, just a person.
The cops go to a judge and get a warrant based upon whatever evidence they have that a law was broken.
So if any information(data) hidden from government view in incriminating, then does that give "probable cause" to anything not already in plain sight?
They'd have to have access to it already to see that it was encrypted. And that access should require a warrant.
This would seem to be the death blow to already suffering 4th Amendment- "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Again, see the word "warrants" there?
Encrypt EVERYTHING to protect yourself from regular criminals.
But if you are accused of a crime, you have to decide whether the encrypted data will help your case or harm it. And if it will harm your case, will it do more or less harm than refusing to decrypt it?
But there has to be a warrant. Focus your complaints on situations where there aren't any warrants.
IBM, whose 20th century employees were parodied as corporate cogs in matching navy suits, doesn't have an avatar dress code. But guidelines suggest being "especially sensitive to the appropriateness of your avatar or persona's appearance when you are meeting with IBM clients or conducting IBM business."
Okay, aside from the concept of "meeting with IBM clients" in Second Life... why not just go all the way and license something unique for your company sponsored avatars? Then, if you're representing the company, you use a company avatar.
When you're on your own you can whatever you want to be.
Seriously, anyone who needs to be told what is appropriate for meeting clients really should NOT be meeting clients. In real life or online.
Therefore, in order to justify their salaries, they have to make new laws.
Over time, all the easy laws are created. Which doesn't leave much for Congress to make laws about.
What we need to do is to have all laws expire after 12 or 16 years (or whatever) so Congress can spend their time voting to pass old laws again.
That way your Congress Critters could justify their salaries AND we'd have a chance of getting rid of stupid, bad laws.
On the downside, once you finally got a law passed despite all the corporate lobbying against it, you'd have to fight the same battle again in 12 years.
a. That was an EXTREMELY targeted spam run. In which case, WHERE did he get the email addresses?
b. Considering that there are usually a few million emails sent out in a spam run, we're talking about hundreds of thousands of people who responded to that.
Neither one makes much sense to me. Oh, that's right. Rule #1 - spammers lie.
Personally, and IMHO, there were much harsher means and policies in place during WW2 (not just concerning Japanese-American citizens), and the Presidents during that war were Democrats.
We recognize those acts as wrong.
Our government recognizes those acts as wrong.
Our government has issued reparations to the people who suffered them. Because they were wrong.
Now you're using those as a yardstick? Wrong is wrong. How about we just stick to the Constitution and the Amendments? Is that too much to ask?
Is there some reason that you advocate we commit ANOTHER crime other than the fact that we had committed one before?
I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, find that, due to the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by acts of violence threatening the peace and stability of Iraq and undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq and to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people, it is in the interests of the United States to take additional steps with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 of May 22, 2003, and expanded in Executive Order 13315 of August 28, 2003, and relied upon for additional steps taken in Executive Order 13350 of July 29, 2004, and Executive Order 13364 of November 29, 2004.
Yeah, that's a single sentence.
What, specifically, is the "unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security" that he speaks of?
Personally, I find his threat to the Fifth Amendment to be far WORSE than anything anyone in Iraq can do.
Go ahead and mod me down. It's the truth whether you want to hear it or not.
We need a second party. There is only one ruling party right now.
If by that you mean "money" which pays "lobbyists" then I will agree.
Otherwise, no. We have two parties and that makes it too easy for them to run negative campaigns against the other party. You might not have heard of me, but I disagree with everything about THAT candidate the YOU don't like.
The things he did that you didn't like? I didn't like them either. And when you elect me, I won't do them!
That is MUCH more difficult when you have to split the campaigning between 2 other parties. Now you have TWO people saying that they don't like the stuff you don't like that that other guy did.
But there were so MANY problems then. Where do you start?
Particularly when both parties seem to benefit from voting problems. If you lose, you claim that it was "stolen". If you have to cheat to win, well, you win don't you?
Yes, they are attempting to block reselling products... online.
No, stating that it is "used" would not circumvent this... online... if they get their way.
The online part is important. It is the online part that is hitting their sales. People can quickly search for lower prices. Certain vendors do NOT like that.
So they hit back with every legal weirdness they can find. You can't use their trademarked names. You can't use photographs of their products. Etc.
It's stupid and it should be shot down. But we'll see how it eventually works out. Right now it's easy for them to win under the DMCA.
The big projects fail because they take long enough that people change their minds (so requirements don't stay fixed) and because there's too much communication overhead (the old "management wants status reports more often, because we're falling behind" situation).
Try planning a project that will take 5 years and $10 million.
People WILL leave the organization during that time. They will be replaced. If it was a tech, will the new tech do things the same way as the old one? Will you have hammered down your process so that s/he will HAVE to do it the same way?
What about management? Does this project suit the goals of the new manager? Manager usually have to "solve" a "problem" to justify their salaries. Coming in and seeing a project this big... that's a serious bonus if s/he can position it as a "problem".
Will the business even NEED a project that was designed 5 years ago? It doesn't take that long to put up a office tower.
So how would your open source system work? Would you openly publish how to recognize all of the government's spy software?
Nope. Just the opposite. Instead of searching for software that could be spying on you, the transparency means that you already know what is running and what it is doing.
You're right, there won't be any serious consequences. There usually aren't.
But the only problem with my proposal is that it takes THOUGHT and PLANNING. It cannot be retrofitted to an existing network. (unless you're really lucky)
The networks have to be constructed so that each point can be monitored. Instead, most networks grow "organically". As connections are needed, they're added. Without any plan. Just get the connections in now.
The same with servers. The last place I worked had a server in the DMZ cabled directly to another server behind the firewall. They did that because it was "easier" for them to handle that way.
Monitoring and security aren't considered when building a network. And until they are, social engineering attacks such as this will continue to happen. And continue to succeed.
The solution is to establish a pattern of what account at what workstation accesses what information from what servers at what times.
Then any deviation from that pattern is flagged and investigated.
Why is Alice in Accounts Receivable searching the HR server? Why is Alice logged into Bob's machine in HR? Why is Alice logging in at 1am?
I would agree back then, but not today.
on
Patents Don't Pay
·
· Score: 1
If a company is REALLY producing new ideas... that's one thing.
But today, you don't even have to show a new idea. If you hear that a competitor is working on something, you can file a patent for "a process that..." and then fill in whatever you want.
No real idea required. No working model. Not even a schematic or pseudo-code.
Just requiring SOMETHING more than "a process that..." would completely revamp our patent system.
There is absolutely ZERO INFORMATION about what a patch will fix, until it gets released. The information from Microsoft merely states what it (attempts to) fix.
Which is all the more reason to run your own tests.
In the absence of the source for the patches, users will have to guess what the impact will be - by checking every possible combination - and there are hundreds of things to check out.
If your environment is that complex, you really need to do the testing.
But most environments are not that complex. You might have a dozen different departments, all with identical configurations, that you'd need to test.
That is, if you've already followed "best practices" and standardized your systems and images.
And before I hear from all the Windows admins, yeah, I know. But re-imaging a drive is not a real solution. The rest of the industry has moved past that but you people still advocate it. Just because it takes YOU less time to re-image a drive (what? an hour per drive?) than to find the real problem?
It's "computer SCIENCE". Where is the SCIENCE in "re-format & re-install"?
Where is the advancement?
Where is the solution to whatever caused the problem?
Slashdot Mirror
Huh?
In bittorrent, no block is more important than any other.
And the only bottleneck in bittorrent is when a specific block is only available from a single seed with limited bandwidth. The moment that block is uploaded to another machine the bandwidth expands.
I'm not understanding that either. You need updates as to who has what. This will be changing constantly as different peers download different blocks.
Why would you need to? All the client has to do is connect to as many peers as necessary to find each block a minimum number of times. The only time there is a problem with this is when there is only one seed with limited bandwidth.
There is no way that a "globally rarest" will appear more often in your peer group than it does globally. This seems more of a seeder issue than a swarm issue. And it has been solved with the "super-seeder" enhancements. The seeder feeds more blocks to the guy who seems to share them the fastest.
Adding encryption to the communication channel is an additional level to troubleshoot.
/.) run regular HTTP because the additional layer and expense of encryption would not gain them anything.
Is your certificate current?
Do you have enough entropy?
etc
We already have it available. Without the mandate. Go to your bank's website and look for the HTTPS. Most other sites (like
Why "mandate" anything? People who want to run a site with encrypted communications CAN run a site with encrypted communications. Come on people! HTTPS.
Pretty much a fluff piece. It seems that the interviewer only had some buzzwords and a vague feeling that something was somehow insecure.
Pretty much. They'd have a selection. Male and female of different appearances. So you can sort of match it to you. And so you don't look like Agent Smith when a group of five of you show up.
And they'd hire people to polish them. You want to present the most professional appearance possible (if you're IBM). So spending money on getting the textures and shadows right is important. It's all about paying attention to the smallest details.
You'd all have the same "look" and that "look" would be "polished professional".
The cops go to a judge and get a warrant based upon whatever evidence they have that a law was broken.
They'd have to have access to it already to see that it was encrypted. And that access should require a warrant.
Again, see the word "warrants" there?
Encrypt EVERYTHING to protect yourself from regular criminals.
But if you are accused of a crime, you have to decide whether the encrypted data will help your case or harm it. And if it will harm your case, will it do more or less harm than refusing to decrypt it?
But there has to be a warrant. Focus your complaints on situations where there aren't any warrants.
Okay, aside from the concept of "meeting with IBM clients" in Second Life
When you're on your own you can whatever you want to be.
Seriously, anyone who needs to be told what is appropriate for meeting clients really should NOT be meeting clients. In real life or online.
Therefore, in order to justify their salaries, they have to make new laws.
Over time, all the easy laws are created. Which doesn't leave much for Congress to make laws about.
What we need to do is to have all laws expire after 12 or 16 years (or whatever) so Congress can spend their time voting to pass old laws again.
That way your Congress Critters could justify their salaries AND we'd have a chance of getting rid of stupid, bad laws.
On the downside, once you finally got a law passed despite all the corporate lobbying against it, you'd have to fight the same battle again in 12 years.
http://vx.netlux.org/vx.php?id=tv03
I still remember the password was chiba city.
A 30% response rate? Either:
a. That was an EXTREMELY targeted spam run. In which case, WHERE did he get the email addresses?
b. Considering that there are usually a few million emails sent out in a spam run, we're talking about hundreds of thousands of people who responded to that.
Neither one makes much sense to me. Oh, that's right. Rule #1 - spammers lie.
Not only that, but we PROTECT the rights of those Neo-Nazis to speak and protest IN OUR OWN COUNTRY.
We do not try to take away the property of anyone who says that they're right. Or who contributes to their organizations.
If we can give the Nazis in our own country that kind of protection, what is the problem with anyone saying anything about Iraq?
If contributing money is a CRIME, then take it to COURT! That is what our Constitution says.
We recognize those acts as wrong.
Our government recognizes those acts as wrong.
Our government has issued reparations to the people who suffered them. Because they were wrong.
Now you're using those as a yardstick? Wrong is wrong. How about we just stick to the Constitution and the Amendments? Is that too much to ask?
Is there some reason that you advocate we commit ANOTHER crime other than the fact that we had committed one before?
From the Executive Order:
Yeah, that's a single sentence.
What, specifically, is the "unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security" that he speaks of?
Personally, I find his threat to the Fifth Amendment to be far WORSE than anything anyone in Iraq can do.
Go ahead and mod me down. It's the truth whether you want to hear it or not.
If by that you mean "money" which pays "lobbyists" then I will agree.
Otherwise, no. We have two parties and that makes it too easy for them to run negative campaigns against the other party. You might not have heard of me, but I disagree with everything about THAT candidate the YOU don't like.
The things he did that you didn't like? I didn't like them either. And when you elect me, I won't do them!
That is MUCH more difficult when you have to split the campaigning between 2 other parties. Now you have TWO people saying that they don't like the stuff you don't like that that other guy did.
But there were so MANY problems then. Where do you start?
Particularly when both parties seem to benefit from voting problems. If you lose, you claim that it was "stolen". If you have to cheat to win, well, you win don't you?
We need a third party.
Yes, they are attempting to block reselling products ... online.
... online ... if they get their way.
No, stating that it is "used" would not circumvent this
The online part is important. It is the online part that is hitting their sales. People can quickly search for lower prices. Certain vendors do NOT like that.
So they hit back with every legal weirdness they can find. You can't use their trademarked names. You can't use photographs of their products. Etc.
It's stupid and it should be shot down. But we'll see how it eventually works out. Right now it's easy for them to win under the DMCA.
Try planning a project that will take 5 years and $10 million.
People WILL leave the organization during that time. They will be replaced. If it was a tech, will the new tech do things the same way as the old one? Will you have hammered down your process so that s/he will HAVE to do it the same way?
What about management? Does this project suit the goals of the new manager? Manager usually have to "solve" a "problem" to justify their salaries. Coming in and seeing a project this big
Will the business even NEED a project that was designed 5 years ago? It doesn't take that long to put up a office tower.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/conductunbecoming/
I think your "Wost case" is more than a little understated.
And your "Best case" is more than a little optimistic.
So what if a "solution" to a "problem" today causes more problems tomorrow?
That just means there's more need for more legislation tomorrow to fix that problem.
And the cycle never ends.
Nope. Just the opposite. Instead of searching for software that could be spying on you, the transparency means that you already know what is running and what it is doing.
I don't trust any of them NOT to do whatever the cops/government want(s).
Open Source all the way.
You're right, there won't be any serious consequences. There usually aren't.
But the only problem with my proposal is that it takes THOUGHT and PLANNING. It cannot be retrofitted to an existing network. (unless you're really lucky)
The networks have to be constructed so that each point can be monitored. Instead, most networks grow "organically". As connections are needed, they're added. Without any plan. Just get the connections in now.
The same with servers. The last place I worked had a server in the DMZ cabled directly to another server behind the firewall. They did that because it was "easier" for them to handle that way.
Monitoring and security aren't considered when building a network. And until they are, social engineering attacks such as this will continue to happen. And continue to succeed.
The solution is to establish a pattern of what account at what workstation accesses what information from what servers at what times.
Then any deviation from that pattern is flagged and investigated.
Why is Alice in Accounts Receivable searching the HR server?
Why is Alice logged into Bob's machine in HR?
Why is Alice logging in at 1am?
If a company is REALLY producing new ideas ... that's one thing.
..." and then fill in whatever you want.
..." would completely revamp our patent system.
But today, you don't even have to show a new idea. If you hear that a competitor is working on something, you can file a patent for "a process that
No real idea required. No working model. Not even a schematic or pseudo-code.
Just requiring SOMETHING more than "a process that
That depends upon what you mean by "scientific". You can always use black box testing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_box_testing
Which is all the more reason to run your own tests.
If your environment is that complex, you really need to do the testing.
But most environments are not that complex. You might have a dozen different departments, all with identical configurations, that you'd need to test.
That is, if you've already followed "best practices" and standardized your systems and images.
Yeah, I know. But I have karma to burn.
And before I hear from all the Windows admins, yeah, I know. But re-imaging a drive is not a real solution. The rest of the industry has moved past that but you people still advocate it. Just because it takes YOU less time to re-image a drive (what? an hour per drive?) than to find the real problem?
It's "computer SCIENCE". Where is the SCIENCE in "re-format & re-install"?
Where is the advancement?
Where is the solution to whatever caused the problem?