The top router can only handle 6 outbound connections at 1 bit per second (total 6 bits per second).
The second rank of routers can handle TEN outbound connections at 1 bit per second (total 10 bits per second).
And they aren't adding any time delays for the merging of the data streams.
I think I can see what they're trying to do the pictures. And it doesn't look right to me (but who am I anyway). Their choke point (the first router) needs a LOT of information about the second rank of routers.
In essence, they're turning 3 data streams into 4 data streams. The 3 original streams go out on 3 of the six outbound lines to 3 of the super fast routers which will send them to 30 of the end points. Given that there are only 20 end points, 10 of them will receive two of the original messages.
Now, those 3 data streams are also merged and that merged stream is sent out on the THREE LEFTOVER LINES. Which end up going to 30 end points.
The problem in my example is that it leaves 10 of the 20 end points with 2 copies of the merged messages and only 1 of the original streams to attempt to unlock them with.
Why not just save time and effort and send the original 3 messages out with 2 lines each? That's GOT to be easier than merging them and HOPING that each endpoint gets the correct unlocking keys.
The numbers they give do not correspond to the diagram.
Suppose we additionally send Amy's missive to Carl along link 1 and Ben's to Dana along link 4. Sending these two messages uses network resources (links 1 and 4) that the routing system could not usefully employ for meeting Amy's and Ben's demands. Carl's node receives Amy's transmission and knows for each instant (from link 6) whether the number of 1s in the pair of messages issued by Amy and Ben is even or odd. If Carl's node is programmed to also "know" the rule used by the coders at the start of link 5 or if it can infer the rule from the evidence itself, the collected evidence will enable it to decipher the message sent by Ben. And Dana's node will similarly uncover Amy's message.
So they had originally started with one channel from A to D and that channel was also used by B sending to C.
They said that it was inefficient because A to D would have to wait at times for B to C.
Their "solution" seems to be to add a SECOND CHANNEL that will transmit a bit AS FAST AS THE PRIMARY CHANNEL and so both messages will get to their destination sooner.
Why not just use that secondary channel to transmit the data in the first place?
I'm sure China would prefer their home grown standard.
The question is whether or not the features of that standard can be incorporated into ODF soon enough for China to adopt ODF as their standard instead of their home grown one.
Or can a big enough chunk of them be incorporated so that they can evolve in parallel and merge some time in the future?
Not least is in its reinforcing of the attachment people have to their ISP's email address, making it harder to change ISPs if a better deal comes along.
And... ?
I don't see what the difference would be. Whether your email is hosted by your ISP or by Google for your ISP. It's the same account name.
If anything was a problem it would be whether Google would "index" your email so it could target ads at you.
If the customers could not afford Windows and had to go with something like Ubuntu, then more people would become familiar with Linux... and Microsoft would LOSE those customers.
This is going to happen, eventually, anyway. Microsoft has 90%+ of the workstation market. There's not many ways they can get money out of that market anymore.
Except by re-selling Windows to those same people. Again and again and again.
WHAT if, after you had paid the taxes on earnings with which you built a house, sales taxes on the materials, real estate taxes during your life, and inheritance taxes at your death, the government would eventually commandeer it entirely? This does not happen in our society... to houses. Or to businesses. Were you to have ushered through the many gates of taxation a flour mill, travel agency or newspaper, they would not suffer total confiscation.
Go ahead and skip paying the property taxes (unless you're a church) and see how long it takes the government to take those away.
If you want to treat "intellectual property" the same as physical property, then let's start with taxing it. Even if it doesn't make a profit for you. If you've released it, it goes into Public Domain unless you keep paying the taxes on it.
I actually believe that this would be the best "middle ground" between the the two sides. 99.999% of the stuff published would NOT be valuable enough to keep paying taxes on, year after year after year. Say $5 per item (single song, single story, single program, etc).
The items that ARE that valuable are so valuable that the owners (not necessarily the original producers of the work) can BUY legislation that extends copyright indefinitely for EVERYTHING. Even the 99.999% of stuff that isn't worth it.
So would you spend $50k on the seal, knowing that anyone who sees you standing on the street with it can report you?
Sure. Why not?
Should it pose a problem, your criminal friends can spend their spare time reporting every other seal. The cops won't know the legitimate complaints from the fraudulent ones.
And all you need is enough time to turn that $50K investment into $5,000K.
This is not about establishing a permanent presence. This is about cashing out a LOT of money as QUICKLY as possible by exploiting the knowledge that since you have that seal, you are safe. You will be operating in BULK.
Eventually it will be closed down. And you will already have used the profits to purchase another one.
So your transaction isn't released until you get off the phone line and take the call from the bank.
This is a good thing. The system fails in such a manner that your money STAYS with you.
This gets to the concepts of not doing something if it cannot be secured and verified vs Making it as easy as possible for the customer even it it makes it easier to criminals to steal the customer's money.
Once you have control of their workstation, there's really nothing you can do ONLINE that can be safe.
That's why you need a SECOND CHANNEL to confirm the transaction.
Which is why the bank should be calling your phone number and asking you to press "1" to authorize the transaction.
This won't stop them from re-routing your transactions. If you're trying to send $500 from your bank account, they can re-route it to their account. But they couldn't make any DIFFERENT transactions.
And the bank could quickly build up a list of known fraudulent addresses.
Suppose there was a seal that you could only buy for $50,000 and a background check. But having that seal on your vehicle (no matter what size) meant that your shipment would NEVER be checked by law enforcement. No matter what borders you crossed. No matter what time.
Does ANYONE think that that would be a good idea? That it would reduce drug smuggling in any way?
Or would you just laugh at the person naive enough to suggest it?
Either very few will spend the money to get the domain name, in which case there won't be enough information out to know that.bank was 'safe'... or was it.safe?
Or lots of banks will spend the money and that will mean lots of different people will be performing the checks.
Now, you DO realize that we are talking about "criminals", right? The people who already break the law. So things like bribery and extortion will not be forbidden.
Just about everyone has a bank account. That means educating a mere 300 MILLION people in the US alone.
Even if you spend just $1 on educating each person, there has got to be a better way to secure online transactions for $300 MILLION.
A far better solution would be to go for the simpler approach.
For every transaction you initiate online, the bank will call the phone number that they have on record for you and ask you to "press 1 to authorize the transaction in the amount of $X, press 2 to cancel or press 3 to report a fraudulent transaction".
There, that solves the problem for all people with online banking who also have a phone (say about 99.9% of them).
And the best thing is that the bank will then have records of what IP addresses are originating the fraudulent transactions and be able to flag those on its own.
"The transaction for the amount $X is originating from an address with a history of reports of fraudulent behaviour. Press 1 to authorize the transaction in the amount of $X, press 2 to cancel or press 3 to report a fraudulent transaction".
Organized online criminals could afford to buy.bank domains for $50,000.
Only if they can prove that they are a real bank. And they would not be able to register misleading domain names. And in the worst case, a rogue domain would be shut down quickly. The possibility of losing their investment in registering such a domain wouldn't be worth the risk for criminals.
Who determines what "misleading domain names" means?
And we are talking about criminals making MILLIONS of dollars a year.
Spending $50K to make $5,000K is a GREAT deal. After all, EVERYONE knows that if it's a.bank address it's completely safe.
So try to focus as much as possible on getting the SAME model for everything that is possible (without under-powering something).
Then get a couple of extra hard drives and a spare machine. In case of disaster, just drop in the spare machine or a replacement hard drive.
Otherwise, get on the phone and talk to the vendors about getting a 4 year, overnight replacement warranty on your hardware. Shop around. See what prices you're quoted.
Local sites will PROBABLY not be able to provide that kind of support. That requires a warehouse where you can leave extra parts. So don't expect that. Understand that you'll be storing your own emergency replacements AND spending the weekend getting the replacement server up and running after a disaster. You'll save money up-front AND maybe get some good-will. But you're trading your time for those savings.
If you keep churning the technology on a 3 year basis, you should be good.
If you're looking at 4 years, you're running a bigger risk. It depends upon what you're comfortable with. Hardware can fail at any time.
Sure. With Chinese users using pirated versions of Windows with who knows what kind of backdoor trojans built into their copies, they're lucky this hasn't happened previously.
So what you are saying is that Symantec CORRECTLY identified those files as being infected.
Yet that does not seem to be what TFA stated. In fact, let's take a look at what, exactly, TFA stated, okay?
The Cupertino, Calif.-based security vendor also said that only Simplified Chinese versions of Windows XP SP2 that have been patched with a Microsoft fix from November 2006 were impacted.
Well! It seems that your supposition was incorrect and that it was an actual flaw in Symantec's product that identified clean files as "infected".
Imagine that. It seems that Symantec did fuck up their update.
(Personally, I think this is hilarious! The Chinese like to talk about harmony. Well, the universe has become a little more balanced and harmonious now.)
Yeah, why let the facts get in the way of disparaging an entire nation.
All localized Windows versions? 33 MUI versions and 27 LIPs? Original XP, SP1, SP2 and other intermediate patched up versions?
Yes. If they need help I'm sure that VMWare will be happy to provide them some expertise (seeing as how they seem to be sorely lacking it). And than is JUST FOR INSTALLING THE PATCH.
And you don't need to test "other intermediate patched up versions".
This is a virus scanner. Right?
So they only need to test against the various released versions of the files. All they need is a set of DIRECTORIES with the files to be scanned in them.
So one box could have ALL the various patches for that system. Based upon the variances in the files. One box for the US release. One box for the Spanish release. Etc.
And as I said, they don't have to be physical boxes. VMWare can help out a whole lot in that regard.
Fascinating. So you are floating the possibility that this was PLANNED? And what possible reason could Symantic have for annoying their customers this much?
Oh, you don't happen to have a restore disk? Oh, you're running a pirated copy of Windows?
The "pirates" will have every CD and diskette ever made readily available to them.
The only people who won't have the disks are the home users who have been spending their lives doing things other than storing and tracking everything that ever touched their computer.
But they've been PAYING for the regular updates to PROTECT them from "problems".
Not to mention that many OEM's don't provide the right disks. You get a "recovery" CD which will reformat your box and re-install all the software TO THE CONDITION YOU ORIGINALLY RECEIVED THE BOX.
Too bad about all your files and pictures and such.
Oh, and who said this scenario wasn't tested?
Still waiting on the reasons why Symantec would do plan this and test it.
There already are more than one document format standard. For instance, ODF and PDF are both ISO standards, and while they don't do precisely the same thing (there is plenty of overlap though), neither does ODF and OXML.
Since you agree that ODF and PDF do not do the same thing, you cannot say that they are multiple formats for the same thing.
PDF's are very handy for sending out documents THAT YOU DO NOT WANT CHANGED.
So, what does ODF do / not do that OOXML does do / does not do?
However, it's going to be harder and harder, as OpenOffice will implement a way to read and write MS's XML format, since it HAS to be documented if MS intends to satisfy government customers.
As can be seen with their current "standard", they can just cite "behave the same way as MS Word version X.y.z on OS a" and claim that it is "documented".
Since Microsoft is the only ones who REALLY know how that behaviour was implemented, they'll be the only one who can write a compleat implementation.
Just as the situation is today. Look at the "reviews" of OpenOffice.org by various "journalists". You'll see them complaining that the formating on a document was "messed up" when they went from MS Word to OpenOffice.org back to MS Word.
Now, if there are a dozen word processors out there and they all implement the ODF standard and none of them (except MS Word) trashes the formatting when bouncing a document between the other 11...
THAT is what businesses and governments want. The ability to see the same document the same way no matter WHO edited it on WHAT operating system using WHICH word processor.
If Microsoft fails at that it will be because Microsoft failed on their own.
Slashdot Mirror
The top router can only handle 6 outbound connections at 1 bit per second (total 6 bits per second).
The second rank of routers can handle TEN outbound connections at 1 bit per second (total 10 bits per second).
And they aren't adding any time delays for the merging of the data streams.
I think I can see what they're trying to do the pictures. And it doesn't look right to me (but who am I anyway). Their choke point (the first router) needs a LOT of information about the second rank of routers.
In essence, they're turning 3 data streams into 4 data streams. The 3 original streams go out on 3 of the six outbound lines to 3 of the super fast routers which will send them to 30 of the end points. Given that there are only 20 end points, 10 of them will receive two of the original messages.
Now, those 3 data streams are also merged and that merged stream is sent out on the THREE LEFTOVER LINES. Which end up going to 30 end points.
The problem in my example is that it leaves 10 of the 20 end points with 2 copies of the merged messages and only 1 of the original streams to attempt to unlock them with.
Why not just save time and effort and send the original 3 messages out with 2 lines each? That's GOT to be easier than merging them and HOPING that each endpoint gets the correct unlocking keys.
For their system to work, it seems that A has to send to B and C
which blocks C from sending anything
but C must be sending to D at the same time so that the messages can be merged at the "coder" point.
And the coder would then use TWO transmissions to send the "hint" and the merged data.
It's still sending two data streams (one for merged stream and one for hints) when they were originally complaining about how it was a single channel.
So they had originally started with one channel from A to D and that channel was also used by B sending to C.
They said that it was inefficient because A to D would have to wait at times for B to C.
Their "solution" seems to be to add a SECOND CHANNEL that will transmit a bit AS FAST AS THE PRIMARY CHANNEL and so both messages will get to their destination sooner.
Why not just use that secondary channel to transmit the data in the first place?
Did I miss something?
I'm sure China would prefer their home grown standard.
The question is whether or not the features of that standard can be incorporated into ODF soon enough for China to adopt ODF as their standard instead of their home grown one.
Or can a big enough chunk of them be incorporated so that they can evolve in parallel and merge some time in the future?
Linux, it runs your computer AND whitens your teeth.
And
I don't see what the difference would be. Whether your email is hosted by your ISP or by Google for your ISP. It's the same account name.
If anything was a problem it would be whether Google would "index" your email so it could target ads at you.
In fact, Microsoft BENEFITS from such "piracy".
... and Microsoft would LOSE those customers.
If the customers could not afford Windows and had to go with something like Ubuntu, then more people would become familiar with Linux
This is going to happen, eventually, anyway. Microsoft has 90%+ of the workstation market. There's not many ways they can get money out of that market anymore.
Except by re-selling Windows to those same people. Again and again and again.
Go ahead and skip paying the property taxes (unless you're a church) and see how long it takes the government to take those away.
If you want to treat "intellectual property" the same as physical property, then let's start with taxing it. Even if it doesn't make a profit for you. If you've released it, it goes into Public Domain unless you keep paying the taxes on it.
I actually believe that this would be the best "middle ground" between the the two sides. 99.999% of the stuff published would NOT be valuable enough to keep paying taxes on, year after year after year. Say $5 per item (single song, single story, single program, etc).
The items that ARE that valuable are so valuable that the owners (not necessarily the original producers of the work) can BUY legislation that extends copyright indefinitely for EVERYTHING. Even the 99.999% of stuff that isn't worth it.
Sure. Why not?
Should it pose a problem, your criminal friends can spend their spare time reporting every other seal. The cops won't know the legitimate complaints from the fraudulent ones.
And all you need is enough time to turn that $50K investment into $5,000K.
This is not about establishing a permanent presence. This is about cashing out a LOT of money as QUICKLY as possible by exploiting the knowledge that since you have that seal, you are safe. You will be operating in BULK.
Eventually it will be closed down. And you will already have used the profits to purchase another one.
Ah, but if the people putting the seals on the trucks were "*actually* trustworthy" then they would be "a decent idea" with regards to drug smuggling.
Do you see the point?
SOMEONE has to approve the seal. A person. And people can be bought. You will NOT know if that person was "*actually* trustworthy" or not.
Particularly when that seal would mean that EVERYONE in the world KNEW that it was safe to use that site.
So your transaction isn't released until you get off the phone line and take the call from the bank.
This is a good thing. The system fails in such a manner that your money STAYS with you.
This gets to the concepts of not doing something if it cannot be secured and verified
vs
Making it as easy as possible for the customer even it it makes it easier to criminals to steal the customer's money.
Once you have control of their workstation, there's really nothing you can do ONLINE that can be safe.
That's why you need a SECOND CHANNEL to confirm the transaction.
Which is why the bank should be calling your phone number and asking you to press "1" to authorize the transaction.
This won't stop them from re-routing your transactions. If you're trying to send $500 from your bank account, they can re-route it to their account. But they couldn't make any DIFFERENT transactions.
And the bank could quickly build up a list of known fraudulent addresses.
Yes, look at the drug trade.
Suppose there was a seal that you could only buy for $50,000 and a background check. But having that seal on your vehicle (no matter what size) meant that your shipment would NEVER be checked by law enforcement. No matter what borders you crossed. No matter what time.
Does ANYONE think that that would be a good idea? That it would reduce drug smuggling in any way?
Or would you just laugh at the person naive enough to suggest it?
Either very few will spend the money to get the domain name, in which case there won't be enough information out to know that .bank was 'safe' ... or was it .safe?
Or lots of banks will spend the money and that will mean lots of different people will be performing the checks.
Now, you DO realize that we are talking about "criminals", right? The people who already break the law. So things like bribery and extortion will not be forbidden.
Just look at the drug trade.
Just about everyone has a bank account. That means educating a mere 300 MILLION people in the US alone.
Even if you spend just $1 on educating each person, there has got to be a better way to secure online transactions for $300 MILLION.
A far better solution would be to go for the simpler approach.
For every transaction you initiate online, the bank will call the phone number that they have on record for you and ask you to "press 1 to authorize the transaction in the amount of $X, press 2 to cancel or press 3 to report a fraudulent transaction".
There, that solves the problem for all people with online banking who also have a phone (say about 99.9% of them).
And the best thing is that the bank will then have records of what IP addresses are originating the fraudulent transactions and be able to flag those on its own.
"The transaction for the amount $X is originating from an address with a history of reports of fraudulent behaviour. Press 1 to authorize the transaction in the amount of $X, press 2 to cancel or press 3 to report a fraudulent transaction".
Who determines what "misleading domain names" means?
And we are talking about criminals making MILLIONS of dollars a year.
Spending $50K to make $5,000K is a GREAT deal. After all, EVERYONE knows that if it's a
It's all about hardware support.
So try to focus as much as possible on getting the SAME model for everything that is possible (without under-powering something).
Then get a couple of extra hard drives and a spare machine. In case of disaster, just drop in the spare machine or a replacement hard drive.
Otherwise, get on the phone and talk to the vendors about getting a 4 year, overnight replacement warranty on your hardware. Shop around. See what prices you're quoted.
Local sites will PROBABLY not be able to provide that kind of support. That requires a warehouse where you can leave extra parts. So don't expect that. Understand that you'll be storing your own emergency replacements AND spending the weekend getting the replacement server up and running after a disaster. You'll save money up-front AND maybe get some good-will. But you're trading your time for those savings.
If you keep churning the technology on a 3 year basis, you should be good.
If you're looking at 4 years, you're running a bigger risk. It depends upon what you're comfortable with. Hardware can fail at any time.
So what you are saying is that Symantec CORRECTLY identified those files as being infected.
Yet that does not seem to be what TFA stated. In fact, let's take a look at what, exactly, TFA stated, okay?
Well! It seems that your supposition was incorrect and that it was an actual flaw in Symantec's product that identified clean files as "infected".
Imagine that. It seems that Symantec did fuck up their update.
Yeah, why let the facts get in the way of disparaging an entire nation.
Yes. If they need help I'm sure that VMWare will be happy to provide them some expertise (seeing as how they seem to be sorely lacking it). And than is JUST FOR INSTALLING THE PATCH.
And you don't need to test "other intermediate patched up versions".
This is a virus scanner. Right?
So they only need to test against the various released versions of the files. All they need is a set of DIRECTORIES with the files to be scanned in them.
So one box could have ALL the various patches for that system. Based upon the variances in the files. One box for the US release. One box for the Spanish release. Etc.
And as I said, they don't have to be physical boxes. VMWare can help out a whole lot in that regard.
It's called "Computer SCIENCE" for a reason.
Fascinating. So you are floating the possibility that this was PLANNED? And what possible reason could Symantic have for annoying their customers this much?
The "pirates" will have every CD and diskette ever made readily available to them.
The only people who won't have the disks are the home users who have been spending their lives doing things other than storing and tracking everything that ever touched their computer.
But they've been PAYING for the regular updates to PROTECT them from "problems".
Not to mention that many OEM's don't provide the right disks. You get a "recovery" CD which will reformat your box and re-install all the software TO THE CONDITION YOU ORIGINALLY RECEIVED THE BOX.
Too bad about all your files and pictures and such.
Still waiting on the reasons why Symantec would do plan this and test it.
Okay, I understand when people say that patches cannot be tested against EVERY software package out there.
But to not test against the core files of the operating system you KNOW they will be installed upon?
And people pay an annual subscription fee for that kind of "service".
Suppose you know an exploit in IIS or Exchange.
... or do you see what Microsoft will pay you NOT to sell it to them?
Do you sell it to those guys for $16K
Soon:
MSNBC online running ads from Aquantive for Windows Vista.
Eventually:
MSNBC running ads from Aquantive for XBox720.
Since you agree that ODF and PDF do not do the same thing, you cannot say that they are multiple formats for the same thing.
PDF's are very handy for sending out documents THAT YOU DO NOT WANT CHANGED.
So, what does ODF do / not do that OOXML does do / does not do?
Examples.
As can be seen with their current "standard", they can just cite "behave the same way as MS Word version X.y.z on OS a" and claim that it is "documented".
Since Microsoft is the only ones who REALLY know how that behaviour was implemented, they'll be the only one who can write a compleat implementation.
Just as the situation is today. Look at the "reviews" of OpenOffice.org by various "journalists". You'll see them complaining that the formating on a document was "messed up" when they went
from MS Word
to OpenOffice.org
back to MS Word.
Now, if there are a dozen word processors out there and they all implement the ODF standard and none of them (except MS Word) trashes the formatting when bouncing a document between the other 11
THAT is what businesses and governments want. The ability to see the same document the same way no matter WHO edited it on WHAT operating system using WHICH word processor.
If Microsoft fails at that it will be because Microsoft failed on their own.