True - and the real baffler for me is that if everyone were made to pay in this manner the cost would probably be a lot less than $75 / house.. But as another poster observed, TN natives really don't like mandatory taxes.
I see what you're saying - I originally thought you were saying the auctions couldn't happen until 2020. Agree that the full transition wouldn't happen until around that time.. Apologies for confusion.
You may know more than I do, but I've talked with FCC economists and they never mentioned holding off on this auction until 2020. They seem to think they can reallocate spectrum today and make it work..
Yeah really -- some bonus for messaging on the bus right? It's slower so it doesn't break! I suspect the problems they foresee on multi-core don't slow down as much as inter-bus comms anyway, so there may actually be less information in the article than I thought at first.
Agreed - but the article (i read it!) makes an interesting observation about IPv6 NAT. So far standards groups don't want to touch it b/c it's "ugly" or something. It seems to me that NAT'ing IPv6 would make it much easier to plug wide stretches of IPv6 into the IPv4 world? At least providing some basic cross-over services that are missing today according to the article?
No you should tether your phone to your laptop and get 700k+ service that way. Assuming you have a smart phone with an unlimited data plan which I assume you do b/c you travel a lot for business (and if you don't try sinking that $7/mo plus another $23 into a data plan and discover the joys of not looking for an rj-11 jack to get online).
Thanks - you are correct and OP is wrong about availability in terms of usage. OP is generally right that most of the spectrum is allocated tho (barring the white space you cite, which is not a large fraction).
To address this, in the National Broadband Plan the FCC recommended holding a kind of auction to sell off unused digital TV spectrum. The idea is to consolidate the used spectrum down to the bottom and clear up a nice swatch of spectrum up top for new data comms services.
The idea is to share revenue with the current spectrum license holders in the auction to incent them to give up the spectrum they aren't using..
White House announced a little while back that they support this plan so it may actually be attempted..
I think specifically they are talking about having 48 cores behind an L2 cache. Or 48 cores on a single die. Multi-CPU boxes generally communicate between CPU dies via the bus and from what little I can gather, that helps reduce or eliminate the issue they're describing..
In many ways the tea-party is no different from past Republican platforms. While republicans are no better at shrinking gov't, they are better at claiming that they will do this in the future in order to get elected. So tea-party is claiming they will reduce the gov't. I'll believe it when I see it. Another child post to yours gives some good stats on the big programs that would have to be cut in order make headway in shrinking gov't.. Not easy choices there..
Yeah - good point. I was wondering the same thing. It's one thing to dunk a sensor into molten rock and have it continue to function. It's another to get it to transmit through the heat/density/whatever above it. Hmm. On the plus side if they have anything that can convert heat to electricity they'll have power to spare (though they'll need to setup some kind of a heat differential somehow as best I understand thermodyanmics).
I think there's some wooshing going on from other replies to your post.. Nice ref to Tanenbaum. That networking bible has done more for my career than any other book.
I have most of life savings (outside of real estate) at one brokerage company. It's not all in their funds, but there's still a risk (gov't insurance only goes so high right). I agree that folks shouldn't have piled all the money into madoff's funds but there's some level of risk in centralizing your assets at any level. It's a PITA to move money into lots of different holding companies/brokerage houses for example to try to avoid broker bankruptcy. Just saying this isn't black and white but a continuum of risk mgmt. These folks didn't put huge amounts of money into Enron (or any single ticker symbol) for example - that's better than some.. They still got screwed.
Thanks. I think I follow both your equation and your argument - but they seem divergent.
Cost of R&D is a sunk cost only once it's made.
In the total scope of running the business you have to decide whether and how much R&D to sink and you know this is going to ultimately affect what you have to charge for your product to make a buck. I would most definitely call this passing R&D costs on to the customer. If I don't invest R&D, my price can be lower, but maybe my product quality or long-term viability as a company is sacrificed as a result. Decisions, decisions.. Life running a company.
If I'm following along, your equations support this way of thinking. R&D is only a sunk cost once you make it. But deciding whether and how much investment (and in what) to make is a key aspect of running a successful business, and is a key driver of price in many industries (big pharma for example).
And regarding my background, I helped design, start and manage a business which is now a publicly traded company, so I think I'm reasonably qualified to offer an opinion on this.
Price is driven by cost of development - of course it is. If it weren't, then companies would be selling a product for a price floated on the market as you suggest, and then finding themselves out of capital b/c their total income would be *less than* their total expenditures.
How they recoup their dev costs depends on the business model, but to suggest that dev costs don't impact pricing is just nonsense.
If one company has lower dev costs than another, they have what's known as "competitive advantage" -- they can create new products with equal value to the consumer at a lower cost. That company now has a viable option (not available to their competitor) to float their product to the market at a price lower than their competitor, and still make positive net revenue.
Thanks. It also got me thinking that if all this transactional stuff affected by POA is secured in an SSL channel, then it would be hard to get at it to begin with? This attack seems predicated on getting a hold of other's encrypted cookies/password in order to be powerful? This is just a sophisticated man-in-the-middle attack with capability to unwind *one* encryption channel? If SSL is in operation, then this doesn't help?
They claim it would work against many bank sites, but it seems like all bank sites use SSL.
IANAL, but if they have a reason for firing you, it needs to be a legitimate one. Firing someone b/c you can't afford the position or you don't want the person on your staff is ok. But there are some protected classes of firing, like gender, age, handicapped and ethnicity.
Regarding legitimate firing reasons, if they fire you because you were illegally competing with them and it turns out that in fact you were not, I suspect there might be possibilities for claiming damages, or getting a court to reinstate you. Usually that's why companies pretend that there is no reason at all for firing someone ("just not working out"). If this company fired him for violation of his non-compete clause then he's got grounds to challenge that reason. Most likely if this guy can prove he's innocent (sounds difficult from the fact pattern he presented), he can settle with the company, but he'll still probably need a lawyer to accomplish that.
100% seemed wrong to me - there seems like a lot of ways to secure against the attack based on the article, but that article seems unreliable in the details as you point out. This attack does seem to require some kind of non-generic output from the ASP server side:
The attack that Rizzo and Duong have implemented against ASP.NET apps requires that the crypto implementation on the Web site have an oracle that, when sent ciphertext, will not only decrypt the text but give the sender a message about whether the padding in the ciphertext is valid.
But what's really not clear is their reference to "side channels" where this information might also be obtained. Perhaps they can gain some understand of the errors from the time it takes the process to return to the query or other metrics?
In terms of speed - they claim they haven't run across a.NET implementation that they couldn't break in 50 minutes (avg 30 min). So this isn't an arbitrary N-time exploit - this is pretty concrete.
Slashdot Mirror
True - and the real baffler for me is that if everyone were made to pay in this manner the cost would probably be a lot less than $75 / house.. But as another poster observed, TN natives really don't like mandatory taxes.
My url says: http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/09/30/2054210/Google-URL-Shortener-Opened-To-the-Public
Wonder why different peeps get different url's to this story?
George Carlin says this best: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYIC0eZYEtI
I see what you're saying - I originally thought you were saying the auctions couldn't happen until 2020. Agree that the full transition wouldn't happen until around that time.. Apologies for confusion.
FYI - here's the press release on the topic of broadband auctions by the White House recently: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/fact-sheet-doubling-amount-commercial-spectrum-unleash-innovative-potential-wireles
You may know more than I do, but I've talked with FCC economists and they never mentioned holding off on this auction until 2020. They seem to think they can reallocate spectrum today and make it work..
Yeah really -- some bonus for messaging on the bus right? It's slower so it doesn't break! I suspect the problems they foresee on multi-core don't slow down as much as inter-bus comms anyway, so there may actually be less information in the article than I thought at first.
Thanks for the tip!
Thanks for the clarification - very helpful. (And also thanks for being thoughtful in your response - your civility is welcome & appreciated!)
Agreed - but the article (i read it!) makes an interesting observation about IPv6 NAT. So far standards groups don't want to touch it b/c it's "ugly" or something. It seems to me that NAT'ing IPv6 would make it much easier to plug wide stretches of IPv6 into the IPv4 world? At least providing some basic cross-over services that are missing today according to the article?
No you should tether your phone to your laptop and get 700k+ service that way. Assuming you have a smart phone with an unlimited data plan which I assume you do b/c you travel a lot for business (and if you don't try sinking that $7/mo plus another $23 into a data plan and discover the joys of not looking for an rj-11 jack to get online).
Thanks - you are correct and OP is wrong about availability in terms of usage. OP is generally right that most of the spectrum is allocated tho (barring the white space you cite, which is not a large fraction).
To address this, in the National Broadband Plan the FCC recommended holding a kind of auction to sell off unused digital TV spectrum. The idea is to consolidate the used spectrum down to the bottom and clear up a nice swatch of spectrum up top for new data comms services.
The idea is to share revenue with the current spectrum license holders in the auction to incent them to give up the spectrum they aren't using..
White House announced a little while back that they support this plan so it may actually be attempted..
I think specifically they are talking about having 48 cores behind an L2 cache. Or 48 cores on a single die. Multi-CPU boxes generally communicate between CPU dies via the bus and from what little I can gather, that helps reduce or eliminate the issue they're describing..
Awesome fake title. Congrats - funniest post I've read today..
Elaborate please. I'm ignorant and curious.
In many ways the tea-party is no different from past Republican platforms. While republicans are no better at shrinking gov't, they are better at claiming that they will do this in the future in order to get elected. So tea-party is claiming they will reduce the gov't. I'll believe it when I see it. Another child post to yours gives some good stats on the big programs that would have to be cut in order make headway in shrinking gov't.. Not easy choices there..
Or go to the march to restore sanity..
Yeah - good point. I was wondering the same thing. It's one thing to dunk a sensor into molten rock and have it continue to function. It's another to get it to transmit through the heat/density/whatever above it. Hmm. On the plus side if they have anything that can convert heat to electricity they'll have power to spare (though they'll need to setup some kind of a heat differential somehow as best I understand thermodyanmics).
I think there's some wooshing going on from other replies to your post.. Nice ref to Tanenbaum. That networking bible has done more for my career than any other book.
That's b/c the biz guys take it on faith that the engr guys will make it right if they can pay them enough. They're often right too.. :)
I have most of life savings (outside of real estate) at one brokerage company. It's not all in their funds, but there's still a risk (gov't insurance only goes so high right). I agree that folks shouldn't have piled all the money into madoff's funds but there's some level of risk in centralizing your assets at any level. It's a PITA to move money into lots of different holding companies/brokerage houses for example to try to avoid broker bankruptcy. Just saying this isn't black and white but a continuum of risk mgmt. These folks didn't put huge amounts of money into Enron (or any single ticker symbol) for example - that's better than some.. They still got screwed.
I think some approaches call this "sharding?"
Thanks. I think I follow both your equation and your argument - but they seem divergent.
Cost of R&D is a sunk cost only once it's made.
In the total scope of running the business you have to decide whether and how much R&D to sink and you know this is going to ultimately affect what you have to charge for your product to make a buck. I would most definitely call this passing R&D costs on to the customer. If I don't invest R&D, my price can be lower, but maybe my product quality or long-term viability as a company is sacrificed as a result. Decisions, decisions.. Life running a company.
If I'm following along, your equations support this way of thinking. R&D is only a sunk cost once you make it. But deciding whether and how much investment (and in what) to make is a key aspect of running a successful business, and is a key driver of price in many industries (big pharma for example).
And regarding my background, I helped design, start and manage a business which is now a publicly traded company, so I think I'm reasonably qualified to offer an opinion on this.
Interesting discussion anyway..
What on earth are you talking about?
Price is driven by cost of development - of course it is. If it weren't, then companies would be selling a product for a price floated on the market as you suggest, and then finding themselves out of capital b/c their total income would be *less than* their total expenditures.
How they recoup their dev costs depends on the business model, but to suggest that dev costs don't impact pricing is just nonsense.
If one company has lower dev costs than another, they have what's known as "competitive advantage" -- they can create new products with equal value to the consumer at a lower cost. That company now has a viable option (not available to their competitor) to float their product to the market at a price lower than their competitor, and still make positive net revenue.
Thanks. It also got me thinking that if all this transactional stuff affected by POA is secured in an SSL channel, then it would be hard to get at it to begin with? This attack seems predicated on getting a hold of other's encrypted cookies/password in order to be powerful? This is just a sophisticated man-in-the-middle attack with capability to unwind *one* encryption channel? If SSL is in operation, then this doesn't help?
They claim it would work against many bank sites, but it seems like all bank sites use SSL.
What am I missing?
IANAL, but if they have a reason for firing you, it needs to be a legitimate one. Firing someone b/c you can't afford the position or you don't want the person on your staff is ok. But there are some protected classes of firing, like gender, age, handicapped and ethnicity.
Regarding legitimate firing reasons, if they fire you because you were illegally competing with them and it turns out that in fact you were not, I suspect there might be possibilities for claiming damages, or getting a court to reinstate you. Usually that's why companies pretend that there is no reason at all for firing someone ("just not working out"). If this company fired him for violation of his non-compete clause then he's got grounds to challenge that reason. Most likely if this guy can prove he's innocent (sounds difficult from the fact pattern he presented), he can settle with the company, but he'll still probably need a lawyer to accomplish that.
100% seemed wrong to me - there seems like a lot of ways to secure against the attack based on the article, but that article seems unreliable in the details as you point out. This attack does seem to require some kind of non-generic output from the ASP server side:
The attack that Rizzo and Duong have implemented against ASP.NET apps requires that the crypto implementation on the Web site have an oracle that, when sent ciphertext, will not only decrypt the text but give the sender a message about whether the padding in the ciphertext is valid.
But what's really not clear is their reference to "side channels" where this information might also be obtained. Perhaps they can gain some understand of the errors from the time it takes the process to return to the query or other metrics?
In terms of speed - they claim they haven't run across a .NET implementation that they couldn't break in 50 minutes (avg 30 min). So this isn't an arbitrary N-time exploit - this is pretty concrete.