Here's some free advice, which is going to sound like flamebait: GO HOME.
The economy is bad in the US; even though some indicators are up, jobs continue to not be created. Plus, it's an election year, wherein a Democrat hopes to unseat an incumbent Republican. To that end, Kerry is going to do everything he can to rally the unworking swing voters to his cause, and that includes making it very uncomfortable and difficult for non-voting workers to keep jobs in lieu of voting out-of-work workers. And Bush, in counter-attack, will also make things difficult, just maybe not as much.
So I predict a tough year ahead for you, and it'll only get tougher until many many more Americans are working in jobs that they like--probably a few years off, if ever to return. Good luck, but I think you should pack your bags.
Just give me a boring old cube, a desk, a decent computer, and a steady paycheck with a company where I don't lie awake at night wondering if the doors will be open when I get there tomorrow. Oh, and some old curmudgeon of a boss who's been in business for 20 years and actually knows how to run a company.
I might recommend that you try working for the government. The non-shooting parts are pretty much like all you describe, besides the "competent manager" bit, but you can't have everything.
Does this mean that we're more likely to get Palladium aka Trusted Computing to work with Linux? If Intel is interested in making sure that their boards work with Linux, this seems like a good start to keep Microsoft from tying up the hardware...
Funny--I look at a company's support for the Mac as a "canary in a mine shaft" type thing. Broadly speaking, if a company has the resources to also support the Mac, it's doing pretty well; but if it drops support, it's circling the drain.
Cases in point: Microsoft (supports the Mac, record profits); Palm (circling the drain.) Case against: KaZaa. But as a rule of thumb, I think it's an interesting data point. What to make of SGI's recent announcement of support for the Mac, I dunno, but their stock has tripled in the last year, so maybe the rule holds?
Games of course are an exception, and the reasons why this might be indicative of anything is up for grabs--but I would guess that Mac support is a luxury that often doesn't pay for itself, so when it's present it indicates that a company is fat and happy. But when it goes, it means that the bean counters are doing some crunching to save some jobs, and the expense just can't be justified.
I would be really careful about this. While the power of choice is attractive to geeks, it more often than not puts normal people off. I think that you stand to lose more converts than you gain by putting up extreme Linux desktops--normal people react with "this is a much too complicated thing for me", rather than "oh cool! I want to twiddle with my machine too!"
For proof, look no farther than how many Windows users have changed the default background on their machine.
no-one (and I mean no-one) has ever done a deal with Microsoft and not regretted it later.
Apple made a deal with Microsoft--which got them Office for the Mac, Internet Explorer, and $150M. Saved their ass, and I don't think anyone regrets it.
You can boot off of a CD / iPod / Zip / NetBoot / what-have-you and you will still see the encrypted disk image.
Right. But what I meant was--if I use an OS X boot CD to change the password of a user with FileVault, will that work? Then, I can log in as that user with the new password, FV be damned. And you can't stop this attack with OF, because, as you say, you can just remove the drive from the box and circumvent the OF password that existed on the original machine. You would still have to essentially destroy the machine to work around a physical lock on the box, but it isn't cop-proof.
That's what the padlock hasp on the towers is for. Then you'd have to cut your way in, which would be a pain.
And if you were really paranoid, I wonder if you could max out the RAM and then superglue it in place? I imagine you could sauter on new leads, but you'd have to really want to. Much easier to just pull the HD from the case and mount it in another box, but would that allow you to defeat a password and/or FileVault?
Matter of fact, I'm not sure if you change your password with a CD what effect that has on a FileVault account. Does it sync up, or not?
In a forensic environment, which was what this article was discussing, the examiner has to get past my login to get my data. so whie it might be easy to get me to run code that breaks my encryption, it's harder to get someone else to do it.
And, btw, these recent "email virus" things demonstrate nothing about how secure OS X is; it's harder to get OS X to run arbitrary attachments as binaries, simply because the mail client doesn't allow random attachments to have execute privileges.
So I'm pretty well versed in Macs. How would one go about getting forensic work when a Mac is used by a bad-guy and the good guys want to see what's on it? Does that stuff go to the RCMP, as the article stated, or do they hire contractors, or what?
Know of any other UNIX-like operating system that uses HFS+?
When I first read the article, that's what I assumed that he meant, also. That, and Open Firmware passwords, + now FileVault, make it pretty hard to get my data without getting a password from me.
It's the HFS+ and I would assume the lack of PPC compatible forensic utilities that make this difficult. Even if OS X =Unix, if the tool you care to use you don't have the source for, and it's not in general release, you can't just recompile it.
Now I hate my new.sig--changed before this article made/.
I see your point; I think it's a good one. However: But unless an ad says "unlimited bandwidth" specifically, the "unlimited" moniker is not the bald-faced lie so many/.'ers claim it to be.
Many ads for broadband service do say exactly that. I'm in a Comcast area, and I saw ads of theirs that did--without so much as an asterisk that points to the small print that put any limits on it. I think a reasonable person would assume that they could download as much as they wanted--that, in fact, they were working from the assumption that they couldn't exceed the capacity of the pipe.
The reason ISP's use the word "unlimited" in their advertisements is because it sells more accounts than if they don't.
I don't doubt that that is true. However, you go on to justify it by saying that "the consumers are demanding to be lied to", and that they must be lied to because it's not possible to provide what they were promised.
Ok. I want you to dig a T1 to my house, so I can really have the bandwidth that I want. In turn, I promise to pay you $1,000/month. Deal? Sign here, please.
Oh, what? Of course I'm not going to pay you $1,000/month. Where on Earth did you think I could come up with that amount of money? I was just lying to you to get you to do what I wanted; the alternative was to not lie to you, and not get what I wanted, which is not acceptable. You should have known this, so it's really your fault for having believed me. Instead, I'll pay you whatever is left out of my check each month after rent, pizza and beer. And I like a lot of beer.
Frankly, it's pretty unbelievable that you think this is acceptable--I predict that you won't stay in business long. And that the first time someone tries the same argument on you, you'll cry to a judge. Finally, it's noted that you posted as an AC. Chicken. A little afraid of what your customers would do to you if they knew your real policy?
Apple argued TCO arguments for years and years. But it didn't do them a damn bit of good. It may have even been true, especially before Windows 2000 came out. However: 1) nobody believed Apple, or the "TCO" voodoo, because it smelled like an accounting game, and 2) Microsoft was cheaper for initial purchase. Who cares about support later? That's another department's problem. The initial outlay is the killer, whereas continuing cots are easier to manage.
I think Microsoft knows this, and that's why they're freaked out. I see exactly the same tools that Microsoft used against Apple, being turned around to be used by Linux against Microsoft. When Linux becomes "good enough", the sticker price is going to be what matters most.
Sorry, friend. I am a Mac user myself--IT support, s'matter of fact. My intention was not to bang on the Mac; rather, it was to, once again, remind everyone how virus-free the Mac is. With enough humility so I'm not immediately ignored as a zealot.
that aims to define exactly who it is that is opening email, saving attachments, opening the attachment, running the payload, and is not using AV software.
Mac users fit that defintion. Why should they care about attachments, really? There will be, one day, I'm sure, a virus that infects Macs--just as there have been in the past. And that will be a day of reckoning, as millions of Mac users scramble to get virus-smart. But the last 4 years of being virus-free, without any A/V software, and blithely opening attachments has made most Mac users pretty carefree, and careless.
I know a guy, higher than entry-level, who sent it to everyone in his 10,000+ employee company. Fired for being clueless. And downing the email system.
Why is that hard to believe? You think that there is some special "For Presidential Addresses"-type Word Processor? I wouldn't be surprised if he used Word, Adobe Acrobat, and Excel a lot. Presuming he does any of his own content creation, and doesn't simply use a paper and pencil.
They tell the rover where they want it to go, and the Rover is smart enough to chart the correct course and avoid obstacles on its own. Yes, that it is pretty cool, although I don't think it's been really challenged yet--Spirit hasn't yet gone far enough to have to avoid an obstacle--so it may not work as well as expected.
There's more information on this on the web; try www.spaceflightnow.com for scrupulous detail and links.
Try here. Interesting that you threatended to use FOIA before actually trying to find out what's already on the web. To sum: they're using VxWorks with a radiation-hardened RAD6000 32-bit RISC chip from BAE systems. I've seen information on the RAM configuration, especially since they began having trouble with the Flash RAM; essentially, they use EEPROM, some Flash, some regular ECC RAM.
I'm sure the NASA engineers have computers at home, mostly running either Windows 98, 2000 or XP.
You can see in the control room video lots of Sun Terminals, and a fair amount of Apple PowerBooks running OS X. I suspect that these guys are more Unix-savvy than your average bear:)
Slashdot Mirror
Here's some free advice, which is going to sound like flamebait: GO HOME.
The economy is bad in the US; even though some indicators are up, jobs continue to not be created. Plus, it's an election year, wherein a Democrat hopes to unseat an incumbent Republican. To that end, Kerry is going to do everything he can to rally the unworking swing voters to his cause, and that includes making it very uncomfortable and difficult for non-voting workers to keep jobs in lieu of voting out-of-work workers. And Bush, in counter-attack, will also make things difficult, just maybe not as much.
So I predict a tough year ahead for you, and it'll only get tougher until many many more Americans are working in jobs that they like--probably a few years off, if ever to return. Good luck, but I think you should pack your bags.
Just give me a boring old cube, a desk, a decent computer, and a steady paycheck with a company where I don't lie awake at night wondering if the doors will be open when I get there tomorrow. Oh, and some old curmudgeon of a boss who's been in business for 20 years and actually knows how to run a company.
I might recommend that you try working for the government. The non-shooting parts are pretty much like all you describe, besides the "competent manager" bit, but you can't have everything.
Does this mean that we're more likely to get Palladium aka Trusted Computing to work with Linux? If Intel is interested in making sure that their boards work with Linux, this seems like a good start to keep Microsoft from tying up the hardware...
Funny--I look at a company's support for the Mac as a "canary in a mine shaft" type thing. Broadly speaking, if a company has the resources to also support the Mac, it's doing pretty well; but if it drops support, it's circling the drain.
Cases in point: Microsoft (supports the Mac, record profits); Palm (circling the drain.) Case against: KaZaa. But as a rule of thumb, I think it's an interesting data point. What to make of SGI's recent announcement of support for the Mac, I dunno, but their stock has tripled in the last year, so maybe the rule holds?
Games of course are an exception, and the reasons why this might be indicative of anything is up for grabs--but I would guess that Mac support is a luxury that often doesn't pay for itself, so when it's present it indicates that a company is fat and happy. But when it goes, it means that the bean counters are doing some crunching to save some jobs, and the expense just can't be justified.
I would be really careful about this. While the power of choice is attractive to geeks, it more often than not puts normal people off. I think that you stand to lose more converts than you gain by putting up extreme Linux desktops--normal people react with "this is a much too complicated thing for me", rather than "oh cool! I want to twiddle with my machine too!"
For proof, look no farther than how many Windows users have changed the default background on their machine.
no-one (and I mean no-one) has ever done a deal with Microsoft and not regretted it later.
Apple made a deal with Microsoft--which got them Office for the Mac, Internet Explorer, and $150M. Saved their ass, and I don't think anyone regrets it.
You can boot off of a CD / iPod / Zip / NetBoot / what-have-you and you will still see the encrypted disk image.
Right. But what I meant was--if I use an OS X boot CD to change the password of a user with FileVault, will that work? Then, I can log in as that user with the new password, FV be damned. And you can't stop this attack with OF, because, as you say, you can just remove the drive from the box and circumvent the OF password that existed on the original machine. You would still have to essentially destroy the machine to work around a physical lock on the box, but it isn't cop-proof.
That's what the padlock hasp on the towers is for. Then you'd have to cut your way in, which would be a pain.
And if you were really paranoid, I wonder if you could max out the RAM and then superglue it in place? I imagine you could sauter on new leads, but you'd have to really want to. Much easier to just pull the HD from the case and mount it in another box, but would that allow you to defeat a password and/or FileVault?
Matter of fact, I'm not sure if you change your password with a CD what effect that has on a FileVault account. Does it sync up, or not?
In a forensic environment, which was what this article was discussing, the examiner has to get past my login to get my data. so whie it might be easy to get me to run code that breaks my encryption, it's harder to get someone else to do it.
And, btw, these recent "email virus" things demonstrate nothing about how secure OS X is; it's harder to get OS X to run arbitrary attachments as binaries, simply because the mail client doesn't allow random attachments to have execute privileges.
Dig GroupCal from SnerdWare for your Exchange-on-a-Mac. Bascically, it allows iCal to hook into the OWA webservices of Exchange.
So I'm pretty well versed in Macs. How would one go about getting forensic work when a Mac is used by a bad-guy and the good guys want to see what's on it? Does that stuff go to the RCMP, as the article stated, or do they hire contractors, or what?
Feel free to respond to email.
Know of any other UNIX-like operating system that uses HFS+?
When I first read the article, that's what I assumed that he meant, also. That, and Open Firmware passwords, + now FileVault, make it pretty hard to get my data without getting a password from me.
It's the HFS+ and I would assume the lack of PPC compatible forensic utilities that make this difficult. Even if OS X =Unix, if the tool you care to use you don't have the source for, and it's not in general release, you can't just recompile it.
Now I hate my new
That's interesting. But does it allow you to protect only selected files, or does it encrypt all the data in the user's home dir?
I see your point; I think it's a good one. However:
But unless an ad says "unlimited bandwidth" specifically, the "unlimited" moniker is not the bald-faced lie so many
Many ads for broadband service do say exactly that. I'm in a Comcast area, and I saw ads of theirs that did--without so much as an asterisk that points to the small print that put any limits on it. I think a reasonable person would assume that they could download as much as they wanted--that, in fact, they were working from the assumption that they couldn't exceed the capacity of the pipe.
The reason ISP's use the word "unlimited" in their advertisements is because it sells more accounts than if they don't.
I don't doubt that that is true. However, you go on to justify it by saying that "the consumers are demanding to be lied to", and that they must be lied to because it's not possible to provide what they were promised.
Ok. I want you to dig a T1 to my house, so I can really have the bandwidth that I want. In turn, I promise to pay you $1,000/month. Deal? Sign here, please.
Oh, what? Of course I'm not going to pay you $1,000/month. Where on Earth did you think I could come up with that amount of money? I was just lying to you to get you to do what I wanted; the alternative was to not lie to you, and not get what I wanted, which is not acceptable. You should have known this, so it's really your fault for having believed me. Instead, I'll pay you whatever is left out of my check each month after rent, pizza and beer. And I like a lot of beer.
Frankly, it's pretty unbelievable that you think this is acceptable--I predict that you won't stay in business long. And that the first time someone tries the same argument on you, you'll cry to a judge. Finally, it's noted that you posted as an AC. Chicken. A little afraid of what your customers would do to you if they knew your real policy?
The EU hasn't changed their minds from a few days ago.
Apple argued TCO arguments for years and years. But it didn't do them a damn bit of good. It may have even been true, especially before Windows 2000 came out. However: 1) nobody believed Apple, or the "TCO" voodoo, because it smelled like an accounting game, and 2) Microsoft was cheaper for initial purchase. Who cares about support later? That's another department's problem. The initial outlay is the killer, whereas continuing cots are easier to manage.
I think Microsoft knows this, and that's why they're freaked out. I see exactly the same tools that Microsoft used against Apple, being turned around to be used by Linux against Microsoft. When Linux becomes "good enough", the sticker price is going to be what matters most.
5 years from now this won't likely be a problem.
5 years from now, your employer may not need a domestic "outsourcing manager" either. You might try being afraid for yourself.
Sorry, friend. I am a Mac user myself--IT support, s'matter of fact. My intention was not to bang on the Mac; rather, it was to, once again, remind everyone how virus-free the Mac is. With enough humility so I'm not immediately ignored as a zealot.
I guess you think I went too far?
that aims to define exactly who it is that is opening email, saving attachments, opening the attachment, running the payload, and is not using AV software.
Mac users fit that defintion. Why should they care about attachments, really? There will be, one day, I'm sure, a virus that infects Macs--just as there have been in the past. And that will be a day of reckoning, as millions of Mac users scramble to get virus-smart. But the last 4 years of being virus-free, without any A/V software, and blithely opening attachments has made most Mac users pretty carefree, and careless.
I know a guy, higher than entry-level, who sent it to everyone in his 10,000+ employee company. Fired for being clueless. And downing the email system.
Type up the State of the Union address in Word?
Why is that hard to believe? You think that there is some special "For Presidential Addresses"-type Word Processor? I wouldn't be surprised if he used Word, Adobe Acrobat, and Excel a lot. Presuming he does any of his own content creation, and doesn't simply use a paper and pencil.
They tell the rover where they want it to go, and the Rover is smart enough to chart the correct course and avoid obstacles on its own. Yes, that it is pretty cool, although I don't think it's been really challenged yet--Spirit hasn't yet gone far enough to have to avoid an obstacle--so it may not work as well as expected.
There's more information on this on the web; try www.spaceflightnow.com for scrupulous detail and links.
Try here.
Interesting that you threatended to use FOIA before actually trying to find out what's already on the web. To sum: they're using VxWorks with a radiation-hardened RAD6000 32-bit RISC chip from BAE systems. I've seen information on the RAM configuration, especially since they began having trouble with the Flash RAM; essentially, they use EEPROM, some Flash, some regular ECC RAM.
Even more here.
I'm sure the NASA engineers have computers at home, mostly running either Windows 98, 2000 or XP.
You can see in the control room video lots of Sun Terminals, and a fair amount of Apple PowerBooks running OS X. I suspect that these guys are more Unix-savvy than your average bear