Another of ATA's big problems is that yes, it has the bandwidth to handle a fast drive, but not more than one.
That turns out not to be the case. Even with 7200 disks, ATA 100 is able to handle 2 drives in parallel for RAID, on the same cable. Going to 10000 rpm and an ATA133 and it will still handle 2 very well. See: tomshardware
Also, the more traffic ATA eats up, the more CPU it eats
Moores law eats this issue for breakfast I think- harddrives are increasing in speed much more slowly than processors are. I mean, sure a SCSI interface saves processor but not that much.
I think you're on drugs. The whole point of the doctor is that he needs to be a likeable avuncular or grandfatherly figure, but one where you always just about wonder why there's always a young girl in toe all the time...;-)
Roan Atkinson is primarily comedic; and whilst he might stretch the part, you're talking serious risk that the audience wouldn't buy it.That's probably why some of the doctors have been more successful than others btw. Sure as a one-off joke, but as a non comedic situation? Nah.
The actor that plays Giles would be absolutely perfect for the part. IMO.
In theory you could connect the whole of America up using peer-peer wireless. In practice, the bandwidth of fiber is so astonishingly high (maybe 100 Terabits/sec), and the thirst for bandwidth is high enough, that the wireless isn't going to be enough to form a backbone. It would be like trying to connect America up with roads, without using any freeways. Sure, you could do it, in theory; in practice I'm sure it wouldn't work.
I'm talking about energetic efficiency, not fuel efficiency. Energetically, rockets are much more efficient than a jet engine, in or out of the atmosphere.
Fuel mass efficiency is better with a jet engine, I'll grant you.
Well, putting the earth that close to the Sun would do that. However, if earth stays where it is, and given that no government has a current plan to move it; then even a direct hit would not cause more than a few service disruptions; it's happened before, plenty of times.
Does this mean that all music that contains parts of John Cage's 4'33 is covered by DRM? What are they gonna replace it with? The sound of one hand clapping? Oh great, you mean we get stuck with elevator music ALL THE TIME?;-)
I can't imagine any conceivable situation in which someone would be put in a situation where a million dollars would be tied to pushing a button and killing someone.
Actually, in a loose sense spam mail is like that. If you send spam mail to 100 million people and it takes on average 20 seconds for people to read it and delete it, that's about 63 man years. That means overall you've killed a person and for a lot less than a million dollars.
That's one way- and there may be more direct ways- what happens about all the people that receive mail and have a heart attack whilst reading the mail. Receiving junk mail is somewhat stressful.
To some extent I share your concern about the lack of safety equipment.
However, the example you give wouldn't work- any moisture gets cooked off by the microwave in the first 30 seconds- don't forget he's microwaving the mold at the same time as heating the metal; any fly would be dessicated long before.
However, I'm not saying there aren't other safety issues, any time you have that much heat energy in one place there's potential for catastophic failure. (e.g. what happens if the mold suddenly cracks due to the heat when he's holding it?)
Well, I just tried this on my laptop that works over wireless. It's connected to my PC that is on ADSL.
The ping time from my PC to www.google.com was about 110ms. The ping time from laptop across the wireless lan, through my PC to www.google.com was actually lower, about 110 ms (not quite sure why!). So in this case it's so small I couldn't measure it. (Actually I got the lowest figure from my laptop, 100ms - go figure).
For that test, the radio only went a few feet, however the distance over the wireless network doesn't directly affect it- if I'd have done it over a distance of 30km, it adds only about 100 microseconds latency; but with satellite, the issue with satellite packet connections isn't that it's wireless per se, it is that the signal has to go away ~35000km and then come back again... that takes about 1/2 a second or so.
Moreover, with all the cable companies limiting the use of cable modem service, and (I'd assume, please correct me if I'm wrong) wireless resources must be a lot more limited, are there large restrictions on what you can do with a wireless connection? For instance, running any sort of servers what-so-ever (I know my cable ISP hates it when I simply have ftpd running to transfer files from another machine). Of course, I doubt you'd run a server off a wireless connection, but, like in my case, sometimes you must, if only for a short period of time.
The biggest issue is that the ISP doesn't usually let you sublet the service. You might be able to bypass that by forming a company and getting everyone who wants to use it to join the company, and then the company pays the bills.
Apart from any restrictions the ISP puts on you there's no big drama with putting a server on a wireless link- the wireless link usually has about 20 times the bandwidth of an ADSL line. It's quite comparable to ethernet in performance, provided the link is a good one (no interference).
Safety margins are a variable adjustable at will by engineers.
Upto a point. Beyond that point the system doesn't work for physical, economic or political reasons. With a rocket, increasing margins can add weight and/or cost. Adding too much weight precludes making orbit, adding too much cost precludes selling the product.
Yeah, I know, I never said it was, I said it was hacked at a time where encryption... was a rarity. I was trying to remind people that all this equipment is really old. The industry standard in security is rather further forward now; and they aren't comparable. The DMS100 probably wasn't out of line with the standards of the day when it was designed; although it certainly wasn't state of the art. And it's still better than some other equipment you can buy today from companies.
It would have made no difference, according to his testimony, Kevin would have just rung up some bottom feeder in Sprint and asked for the passwords, pretending to work for Nortel, and they'd have given it to him. Shared passwords don't actually work. Right?
So then you're not talking about the defaults, you're talking about authentication infrastructures; and then you have to get customer buy in that its even a good idea. It all gets hugely messy. It's worth doing, but persuading people that, is hard.
If the customer "wires it up to the public network" they're turning it on.
Oh right, if you redefine the English language then of course you are completely correct. Normal people call plugging the mains lead in the back, and pressing the power button "turning it on". Connecting a node to the public networks is referred to as "turning it up"; but not in your world apparently. Oh yeah, and that Alcatel ADSL modem is "secure" in your terms too. Way to go!
p.s. you seem to have an axe to grind- when were you fired from Nortel?
The default state of this gear should not be insecure.
It isn't insecure. It's only when the customer wires it up to the public telephone networks, without first bothering to set the passwords up that it becomes insecure.
And for what it's worth, your Alcatel DSL router isn't a case of bad design.
Yes it is, no default passwords, tftp server you can't switch off; oh and did I forget to mention the so called 'cryptographic' backdoor?
For a DSL router this isn't a big deal if you don't accpet connections on the WAN port.
It doesn't but it still is a big deal because there is a way of bouncing packets off the LAN and accessing the tftp server that way.
If I recall correctly, TFTP doesn't have a password scheme. The first T is for trivial. There's no authentication and it's sessionless.
Ok... But what you seem to have missed is why did they have a tftp server at all... why IS there a tftp server in the box in the first place? Oh yeah, one file is readable that might interest you, via the tftp server you can do little things like read/set the password file.
But the probability of identity theft if they've implemented the system correctly and the users use it properly should be very nearly zero. Whether I trust Microsoft to implement a high trust system like this, is unclear. [Ok, it's not unclear- I don't;-) ]
Re:Lots of problems ahead for MS
on
Analyzing Palladium
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Breaking one persons account can be handled the same way they deal with credit card theft, they just publish a list of identities that are known to have been broken. No big drama.
SSTO will probably work. But the big question is whether it will be cheaper or not. It looks right now that the consensus is no, and TSTO (Two Stage To Orbit) is the way to go for lower cost.
However SSTO has advantages too, lower cost isn't everything. SSTO may be more reliable, because there's less to go wrong; and it may have a lower turn-around time because you don't have to reassemble the vehicles each time. But on the other hand SSTO rockets are lighter, and that means the materials can be nearer to the edge and more likely to fail. We won't know how it comes out on balance until both have been achieved and a few thousand launches are past.
Call this farfetched if you wish, but in Bill Gates wallet beside the picture of his children is a copy of this plan which he looks at daily, and smiles:)
That is farfetched. I'm sure he doesn't have pictures of his children there; probably a calculator that calculates his net worth in terms of how many people he can buy with it.
I would think that an identification code embedded in hardware is going to be cracked, and in short order. What happens to Charlie consumer when he finds that his version of Word no longer works because some cracker has a hold of his unique
identifier? And that he can't change that identifier without a new MOBO? Or that Microsoft is giving away his credit card number to anyone who can spoof his identity?
I'm not so sure. The identification code is embedded in the hardware, and there would be no way to read it. At best you can give it data and use it to encrypt/decrypt stuff for you. The only way this stuff can be attacked is if something can spoof this, and pretend to be the Windows OS. But the hardware in the BIOS and the motherboard are going to be doing their absolute best to stop that happening- the BIOS/hardware can run certificate checks on the program that is asking for the encryption and authenticate it that way.
The problem is that in doing this you are moving many of the traditional OS functions down into the BIOS/hardware, this will make it very complex to do right, but modern semiconductors can probably do this. It doesn't necessarily benefit Microsoft though- there's going to be plenty of forces in the world, particularly Europe that will preclude that, although domestically in America it may be different.
Mainly at the moment I believe its a showcase for their engines and expertise, they are expert rocket engineers. Also, rocket engines have an undeserved reputation for unreliability, so they have a point to make there. They've run rocket engines in a conference center right infront of people before, it has safety features that mean it won't blowup, and if they fail, they have kevlar containment features to catch the bits.
I'm sure these particular engineers would be able to reach orbit if they had sufficient funds- they used to work at Rotary Rocket.
The main difference is that a jet engine has a rotating fan/compressor down the center. A rocket engine doesn't necessarily have a pump at all; although they usually do, but it's separate. Rocket engines are much more powerful, lighter, and more efficient (bizarely enough.)
A rocket engine consists of a combustion chamber with a nozzle attached (usually a converging/diverging nozzle called a DeLaval nozzle). Rocket engines need not have any moving parts, although in practice they usually do have some for control purposes.
Yes, but you presumably want the MP to do something. For that he may want reason to believe that he actually is representing you, otherwise he'll probably just bin it. He may even want to ring you about the issue; so filling in garbage is not a good idea.
Yes, usually. But we are talking about a greater than 20:1 ratio of weights here. The Space Shuttle can't survive a fully loaded takeoff on its undercarriage at all. Sure, it can be beefed up to take it, but that's more dry weight. And the dry weight of the vehicle is very important, because you carry that all the way to orbit.
Slashdot Mirror
That turns out not to be the case. Even with 7200 disks, ATA 100 is able to handle 2 drives in parallel for RAID, on the same cable. Going to 10000 rpm and an ATA133 and it will still handle 2 very well. See: tomshardware
Also, the more traffic ATA eats up, the more CPU it eats
Moores law eats this issue for breakfast I think- harddrives are increasing in speed much more slowly than processors are. I mean, sure a SCSI interface saves processor but not that much.
I think you're on drugs. The whole point of the doctor is that he needs to be a likeable avuncular or grandfatherly figure, but one where you always just about wonder why there's always a young girl in toe all the time... ;-)
Roan Atkinson is primarily comedic; and whilst he might stretch the part, you're talking serious risk that the audience wouldn't buy it.That's probably why some of the doctors have been more successful than others btw. Sure as a one-off joke, but as a non comedic situation? Nah.
The actor that plays Giles would be absolutely perfect for the part. IMO.
In theory you could connect the whole of America up using peer-peer wireless. In practice, the bandwidth of fiber is so astonishingly high (maybe 100 Terabits/sec), and the thirst for bandwidth is high enough, that the wireless isn't going to be enough to form a backbone. It would be like trying to connect America up with roads, without using any freeways. Sure, you could do it, in theory; in practice I'm sure it wouldn't work.
Fuel mass efficiency is better with a jet engine, I'll grant you.
Power, telephony, GPS outages, loss of some satellites, also radio interference; that sorta thing. End of earth probably not included in package.
Wow; you must be excessively clever.
Well, putting the earth that close to the Sun would do that. However, if earth stays where it is, and given that no government has a current plan to move it; then even a direct hit would not cause more than a few service disruptions; it's happened before, plenty of times.
Does this mean that all music that contains parts of John Cage's 4'33 is covered by DRM? What are they gonna replace it with? The sound of one hand clapping? Oh great, you mean we get stuck with elevator music ALL THE TIME? ;-)
Actually, in a loose sense spam mail is like that. If you send spam mail to 100 million people and it takes on average 20 seconds for people to read it and delete it, that's about 63 man years. That means overall you've killed a person and for a lot less than a million dollars.
That's one way- and there may be more direct ways- what happens about all the people that receive mail and have a heart attack whilst reading the mail. Receiving junk mail is somewhat stressful.
However, the example you give wouldn't work- any moisture gets cooked off by the microwave in the first 30 seconds- don't forget he's microwaving the mold at the same time as heating the metal; any fly would be dessicated long before.
However, I'm not saying there aren't other safety issues, any time you have that much heat energy in one place there's potential for catastophic failure. (e.g. what happens if the mold suddenly cracks due to the heat when he's holding it?)
For that test, the radio only went a few feet, however the distance over the wireless network doesn't directly affect it- if I'd have done it over a distance of 30km, it adds only about 100 microseconds latency; but with satellite, the issue with satellite packet connections isn't that it's wireless per se, it is that the signal has to go away ~35000km and then come back again... that takes about 1/2 a second or so.
Moreover, with all the cable companies limiting the use of cable modem service, and (I'd assume, please correct me if I'm wrong) wireless resources must be a lot more limited, are there large restrictions on what you can do with a wireless connection? For instance, running any sort of servers what-so-ever (I know my cable ISP hates it when I simply have ftpd running to transfer files from another machine). Of course, I doubt you'd run a server off a wireless connection, but, like in my case, sometimes you must, if only for a short period of time.
The biggest issue is that the ISP doesn't usually let you sublet the service. You might be able to bypass that by forming a company and getting everyone who wants to use it to join the company, and then the company pays the bills.
Apart from any restrictions the ISP puts on you there's no big drama with putting a server on a wireless link- the wireless link usually has about 20 times the bandwidth of an ADSL line. It's quite comparable to ethernet in performance, provided the link is a good one (no interference).
Upto a point. Beyond that point the system doesn't work for physical, economic or political reasons. With a rocket, increasing margins can add weight and/or cost. Adding too much weight precludes making orbit, adding too much cost precludes selling the product.
Yeah, I know, I never said it was, I said it was hacked at a time where encryption... was a rarity. I was trying to remind people that all this equipment is really old. The industry standard in security is rather further forward now; and they aren't comparable. The DMS100 probably wasn't out of line with the standards of the day when it was designed; although it certainly wasn't state of the art. And it's still better than some other equipment you can buy today from companies.
So then you're not talking about the defaults, you're talking about authentication infrastructures; and then you have to get customer buy in that its even a good idea. It all gets hugely messy. It's worth doing, but persuading people that, is hard.
Oh right, if you redefine the English language then of course you are completely correct. Normal people call plugging the mains lead in the back, and pressing the power button "turning it on". Connecting a node to the public networks is referred to as "turning it up"; but not in your world apparently. Oh yeah, and that Alcatel ADSL modem is "secure" in your terms too. Way to go!
p.s. you seem to have an axe to grind- when were you fired from Nortel?
It isn't insecure. It's only when the customer wires it up to the public telephone networks, without first bothering to set the passwords up that it becomes insecure.
And for what it's worth, your Alcatel DSL router isn't a case of bad design.
Yes it is, no default passwords, tftp server you can't switch off; oh and did I forget to mention the so called 'cryptographic' backdoor?
For a DSL router this isn't a big deal if you don't accpet connections on the WAN port.
It doesn't but it still is a big deal because there is a way of bouncing packets off the LAN and accessing the tftp server that way.
If I recall correctly, TFTP doesn't have a password scheme. The first T is for trivial. There's no authentication and it's sessionless.
Ok... But what you seem to have missed is why did they have a tftp server at all... why IS there a tftp server in the box in the first place? Oh yeah, one file is readable that might interest you, via the tftp server you can do little things like read/set the password file.
But the probability of identity theft if they've implemented the system correctly and the users use it properly should be very nearly zero. Whether I trust Microsoft to implement a high trust system like this, is unclear. [Ok, it's not unclear- I don't ;-) ]
However SSTO has advantages too, lower cost isn't everything. SSTO may be more reliable, because there's less to go wrong; and it may have a lower turn-around time because you don't have to reassemble the vehicles each time. But on the other hand SSTO rockets are lighter, and that means the materials can be nearer to the edge and more likely to fail. We won't know how it comes out on balance until both have been achieved and a few thousand launches are past.
That is farfetched. I'm sure he doesn't have pictures of his children there; probably a calculator that calculates his net worth in terms of how many people he can buy with it.
I'm not so sure. The identification code is embedded in the hardware, and there would be no way to read it. At best you can give it data and use it to encrypt/decrypt stuff for you. The only way this stuff can be attacked is if something can spoof this, and pretend to be the Windows OS. But the hardware in the BIOS and the motherboard are going to be doing their absolute best to stop that happening- the BIOS/hardware can run certificate checks on the program that is asking for the encryption and authenticate it that way.
The problem is that in doing this you are moving many of the traditional OS functions down into the BIOS/hardware, this will make it very complex to do right, but modern semiconductors can probably do this. It doesn't necessarily benefit Microsoft though- there's going to be plenty of forces in the world, particularly Europe that will preclude that, although domestically in America it may be different.
I'm sure these particular engineers would be able to reach orbit if they had sufficient funds- they used to work at Rotary Rocket.
A rocket engine consists of a combustion chamber with a nozzle attached (usually a converging/diverging nozzle called a DeLaval nozzle). Rocket engines need not have any moving parts, although in practice they usually do have some for control purposes.
Yes, but you presumably want the MP to do something. For that he may want reason to believe that he actually is representing you, otherwise he'll probably just bin it. He may even want to ring you about the issue; so filling in garbage is not a good idea.
Yes, usually. But we are talking about a greater than 20:1 ratio of weights here. The Space Shuttle can't survive a fully loaded takeoff on its undercarriage at all. Sure, it can be beefed up to take it, but that's more dry weight. And the dry weight of the vehicle is very important, because you carry that all the way to orbit.