Agreed he should accuse WIFI with no evidence, but at the same time it is not a legitimize test with WIFI in the loop. If he's experience connection issues or measuring performance of his cable connection, then he should do a direct connection to eliminate WIFI since it is very susceptible to many issues that could affect performance. Only then can he point fingers at the cable connection.
It may not have to do with cell lifetime, but it does relate to overall endurance. If their "tricks" are legitimate algorithmic approaches to improving endurance, then the native cell lifetime becomes less of a solid metric to endurance. It would be the analogy to when clock speeds of CPUs became less relevant when manufacturers began focusing on increasing pipeline throughput instead of clock speed.
If a decrease from 20nm to 16nm feature size increases density by 25% and only decreases cell lifetime by 10%, then they will have more than enough new capacity to overprovision for the difference, and if their algorithmic improvements are legitimate, then that mitigates the need for additional over provisioning.
There's alot of "if"s in there of course, because you can't always take such PR at face value.
Avg. sustained running speed for a person is around 8-10 mph unless your an Olympic athlete. Car ~80 mph highway. So my anology holds as Running * 10 == Car. Just thought I'd add that for the mathematically challenged.
The fact that you want to do more simultaneous "broadband activities" at a time and 4mbps doesn't provide enough bandwidth for this doesn't mean 4mbps != broadband.
You named some things it's good enough for(wikipedia requires about 5% of that bandwidth, so to imply it is just good enough is a kind of rediculous), but you've not given one concrete example of a situation where 4mbps is not enough for typical usage. Unless you're trying to download torrents while streaming 1080p from something like Netflix at the same time, then 4mbps is fine for vast majority of things. If your ISP is giving you the full 4mbps and they haven't over provisioned in your neighborhood(if your on shared bandwidth like cable) then you can have two people watching Netflix at the same time on that connection.
Those are the kinds of activities you can only do on broadband, and the fact that you can do them on 4mbps is what makes it broadband. Unless there is a problem with your connection or your trying to do more than one broadband activity, then something like Netflix should be working just fine.
4mbps is 100 times faster than 56 kbps. This makes 4mbps the car, and 56kbps being on foot, the bicyle would be ISDN which is about as terrible as dialup.
Your anology is bad. You obviously have never used dialup. Dialup is like being on foot. ISDN, which is slightly better than dialup is the bicycle. 4 mbps is the car. 4mbps is 100 times faster than dialup, if not more because where I can usually get the full speed of my broadband connection, I almost never got the full speed of dialup, usually around 33kbps. What took a week to download on dialup takes 1 hour on 4 mbps.
Give anyone 4 mbps connection who is living in an area that still has dialup as their only option, and ask them if its broadband. If someone works to bring 4/1 mbps connections to more areas, they should be able to advertise it as broadband.
And that's where the anti-GMO nuts fall on their faces. We've eaten hybrid, selectively bred, and grafted plants for decades, and the anti-GMO's eat plenty of this stuff, and there are potential side affects to all of these processes. Just look at pure bred dogs and cats, and all the medical problems many of them have that are an attribute of their breed.
Mostly valid points. None of them invalidate the parent's point. If there is a significant infection of malware, then it is newsworthy. What factors led to the infection don't make it unnewsworthy.
"These[server systems] are easier to lock down, since there are no users downloading cool stuff and bringing in malware." Your comparing desktop usage to server usage. Regardless of Linux or Windows the same issues are there for each usage scenario.
-Desktop: If there is a vulnerability in a Linux or Windows desktop, the usage pattern of users is going to be a pathway onto the machine for malware. These days you could probably take any average user since most are unfamiliar with desktops, stick them with a desktop of any OS flavor, and they will in both cases go to a browser and do things that put the system at risk. These days they implement similar levels of security. Many flavors of both prompt you to escalate an process to root/admin privilage, so each are vulnerable to users unwisely escalating software of questionable sources.
-Server: If there is a vulnerability in a server, regardless of OS, "a remote exploit is required to bring down a server system". This doesn't invalidate the parent's point.
Parent's point is that it is newsworthy because many naive individuals in the Linux community likes to purport that Linux is somehow invulnerable to such exploits. When I say "many naive" I don't mean to say all Linux users are naive, just that there are a fair share who don't understand that Linux and software running on Linux has the same potential to harbor undiscovered vulnerabilities as any other competing OS/software.
This means they make blanket statements about how this or that security problem effecting Windows isn't a concern for Linux. They don't know about clarifying criteria that Linux is more secure under the circumstances that you maintain updates and properly administer WAN facing interfaces.
The result is you have individuals running unmaintained Linux servers because they think they are more secure, but which require significantly more attention than similar Windows counterparts. So you have two factors working against the security of Linux, misinformation, and ease of maintenance.
Even in situation where you have a capable staff who understand the importance of maintaining updates. If you have updates that are fragile and require lots of testing, require alot of babysitting to apply, or are in other ways difficult to automate in a reliable way, then you are going to occasionally create situations for admins where their manpower isn't enough to get to those updates immediately. That's not to imply that Windows updates don't sometimes break things and require testing, but I would say they are easier to automate overall and more reliable. Probably due to the fact there are far fewer flavors of Windows, so updates which do have issues are quickly hotfixed. When I've had updates on Linux fail, sometimes there is a good bit of manual work to back them out, fix whatever went wrong, and re apply them.
I am not trying to say Windows is better than Linux, as I am not trying to do a compelte comparison of the two, but simply pointing out that this article highlights some of the factors that contribute to the formation of such an infection. Certainly Windows has some of these same issues as well and we've seen infections that targeted machines that weren't up to date. However, I think Windows has done a better job at least with the automatic updates to address this kind of problem. It certainly isn't always perfect, but its pretty good.
1. AC said SSL is magic, implying that they believe it is a hoax. I am simply pointing out they are an idiot who understands nothing about cryptography. 2. Saying that someone has identified a potential weakness in a cryptography algorithm doesn't change the fact that it is deterministic and well understood among cryptography experts. There is still nothing magic about it. 3. Your rebuttal implies that I was trying to claim that the NSA was innocent in some way or defend them. Obviously you have the worst reading comprehension in the history of mankind because no where in the two sentences do I make any such claim. 4. There are documents that indicate NSA was looking for potential weaknesses in various security protocols and possibly tampering with devices, but there is no evidence that they influenced the SSL standard itself to introduce weaknesses. Tampering with a device to break its implementation of SSL is seperate concept from the SSL standard itself. Could they have influenced the standard? They could be powering their headquarters with goat fetuses for all we know. It's all wild speculation in the absence of evidence. All evidence points to them pouring large amounts of manpower and computing power into breaking SSL. If they did indeed influence the standard, then whatever influence that had had no negligible effect based on what we know of the kind of efforts they've had to throw at SSL. Evidence of their efforts doesn't show any significant success. Their only successes in any relation to SSL have been more traditional techniques that involve circumventing SSL, such as compromising a server so they can capture data before it is encrypted, since SSL is such a tough nut to crack. More evidence that they haven't cracked SSL. Besides, influencing the standard in that way would have required more foresight than most governments are capable of.
Only one point is needed to show you're an idiot. The evidence is overwhelming.
This appears to be for the posting, not for the submission of applicant/resume. But essentially the same concept. I build my resume using a GUI, it generates XML submission as needed, employer parses what information they are interested in or throws feedback indicating missing required info.
A good car has down force and sticks to the road. A good plane does the opposite. I was at a flight museum that had a flying car on display and it was described as something like a "Mediocre car, and mediocre plane" Not that it's impossible, but the most basic attributes of a plane and car are contradictory.
The reentering of resume information is ridiculous.
What if there was a common XML format that represented your resume? You created this using a desktop GUI and just upload the resume.xml to potential employees.
I think the challenge is identifying bad edits. Once you identify a bad edit, you can bulk undo everything from that source. With google maps, a phone number change might not be apparently a bad edit until you call it, and even then if it was setup with the sole purpose of misrepresenting a business, then it will be difficult to verify. With wikipedia, identifying a bad edit is usually simple as "hey this link goes to this third party place it shouldn't" or it's clear bias or vandalism.
Indeed, no matter what language you allow people to use, from C++ to English, it comes down to communicating intent clearly and unambiguously. In just about every programming language, you have bugs resulting from a gap in what someone actually wrote, versus what they intended to write. If you don't think analytically and logically, then you are going to make this mistake alot.
On the other hand, I certainly agree that sometimes learning curves and programming hassles are steeper and more common than necessary. Poor documentation, and lack of cookbooks/guides for common scenarios, poorly communicated errors, shoddy development tooling, unintuitive tooling, etc. I hate getting pulled off onto a tangent because something isn't working as it should and having to delve into something I shouldn't have to.
You are taking the hardline "murica fuh yuh" FREEDOM stance. You need to start thinking about what freedoms you are protecting. It's not as cut and dry as you would like it to be. Don't children have a right to be free from being sexual assaulted, raped, and abused? When did your right to use Tor to download torrents exceed their right to be treated with some humanity?
No that is not the logic being applied. You are ignoring certain factors in the sake of making a very silly argument. A car manufacturer is not an accomplice because someone used one of their cars to commit a crime, because the design and typical use of a car is for legitimate purposes. If however, the car manufacturer provided features designed specifically to aid criminals, or features which happenstance had more common criminal uses than legitimate, then they would be an accomplice be cause the knowingly continued to provide these features without taking corrective action. It seems wrong that I am a criminal because I provide some product/service, and happenstance without my foresight it is used for criminal purposes. One would be expected to take responsible action to make amends to the product/service to eliminate or track this usage. For example, ISPs providing a physical link are capable of identifying the source of criminal activity.
So the distinction is when you provide a product/service that is known to have primary illegal usages. You can make arguments for Tor on a non-legal basis such as freedom, right to anonymity, anti regime, anti oppressive government arguments. However, from the standpoint of law, there is a certain distinction on what makes someone an accomplice.
Agreed. There are some very noble uses of Tor, but when you operate an exit node you are basically allowing any scum to use your connection to hide their activities, and some are really sick. I wish there were a good solution to allow an exit node to be operated, but prevent some of the more nefarious uses. In the absence of that, it is pretty irresponsible to contribute such a powerful component(the exit node) without discretion for what it will be used for. At least an ISP providing a physical link has the capability to identify households, whereas the Tor exit node prevents that, and exit node operators know this. So I think in that respect the ISP is not an accomplice, as they know and are willing to help catch criminals(although there is an argument to be made in oppressive regimes abusing this power). Where as an exit node operator should be knowledgeable that they are preventing the prosecution of criminals, some of which are towards the extreme of being really disgusting, and thus are knowingly acting as an accomplice.
There was a FreeNET that basically was an encrypted distributed WWW that hosted parts on different people's machines. It was encrypted to absolve hosts from responsibility, but it was used quite a bit for child pornography.
Of course even without Tor, when you identify a household sourcing criminal activities, you still have the grey area of things like unsecured Wifi. Is someone an accomplice because they left their Wifi open for anyone to connect to? It is a slippery slope and the tech illiteracy of judges contributes to some bad rulings in cases like this.
Was it wrong for a company like T-Mobile to profit from scams against its customers when there were clear warning signs the charges it was imposing were fraudulent?
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed he should accuse WIFI with no evidence, but at the same time it is not a legitimize test with WIFI in the loop. If he's experience connection issues or measuring performance of his cable connection, then he should do a direct connection to eliminate WIFI since it is very susceptible to many issues that could affect performance. Only then can he point fingers at the cable connection.
It may not have to do with cell lifetime, but it does relate to overall endurance. If their "tricks" are legitimate algorithmic approaches to improving endurance, then the native cell lifetime becomes less of a solid metric to endurance. It would be the analogy to when clock speeds of CPUs became less relevant when manufacturers began focusing on increasing pipeline throughput instead of clock speed.
If a decrease from 20nm to 16nm feature size increases density by 25% and only decreases cell lifetime by 10%, then they will have more than enough new capacity to overprovision for the difference, and if their algorithmic improvements are legitimate, then that mitigates the need for additional over provisioning.
There's alot of "if"s in there of course, because you can't always take such PR at face value.
So if anything 4mbps is 100 * dialup, while car is 10 * foot, so if anything 4mbps is better than a car. It's more like a mach 1 fighter jet.
Avg. sustained running speed for a person is around 8-10 mph unless your an Olympic athlete. Car ~80 mph highway. So my anology holds as Running * 10 == Car. Just thought I'd add that for the mathematically challenged.
"but it's still fairly frustrating"
The fact that you want to do more simultaneous "broadband activities" at a time and 4mbps doesn't provide enough bandwidth for this doesn't mean 4mbps != broadband.
You named some things it's good enough for(wikipedia requires about 5% of that bandwidth, so to imply it is just good enough is a kind of rediculous), but you've not given one concrete example of a situation where 4mbps is not enough for typical usage. Unless you're trying to download torrents while streaming 1080p from something like Netflix at the same time, then 4mbps is fine for vast majority of things. If your ISP is giving you the full 4mbps and they haven't over provisioned in your neighborhood(if your on shared bandwidth like cable) then you can have two people watching Netflix at the same time on that connection.
Those are the kinds of activities you can only do on broadband, and the fact that you can do them on 4mbps is what makes it broadband. Unless there is a problem with your connection or your trying to do more than one broadband activity, then something like Netflix should be working just fine.
4mbps is 100 times faster than 56 kbps. This makes 4mbps the car, and 56kbps being on foot, the bicyle would be ISDN which is about as terrible as dialup.
Math mthrfckr, learn it.
Your anology is bad. You obviously have never used dialup.
Dialup is like being on foot.
ISDN, which is slightly better than dialup is the bicycle.
4 mbps is the car.
4mbps is 100 times faster than dialup, if not more because where I can usually get the full speed of my broadband connection, I almost never got the full speed of dialup, usually around 33kbps. What took a week to download on dialup takes 1 hour on 4 mbps.
Give anyone 4 mbps connection who is living in an area that still has dialup as their only option, and ask them if its broadband. If someone works to bring 4/1 mbps connections to more areas, they should be able to advertise it as broadband.
And that's where the anti-GMO nuts fall on their faces. We've eaten hybrid, selectively bred, and grafted plants for decades, and the anti-GMO's eat plenty of this stuff, and there are potential side affects to all of these processes. Just look at pure bred dogs and cats, and all the medical problems many of them have that are an attribute of their breed.
No it doesn't. Obviously he is literate. What part of his statement makes you think he is illiterate?
Mostly valid points. None of them invalidate the parent's point. If there is a significant infection of malware, then it is newsworthy. What factors led to the infection don't make it unnewsworthy.
"These[server systems] are easier to lock down, since there are no users downloading cool stuff and bringing in malware." Your comparing desktop usage to server usage. Regardless of Linux or Windows the same issues are there for each usage scenario.
-Desktop: If there is a vulnerability in a Linux or Windows desktop, the usage pattern of users is going to be a pathway onto the machine for malware. These days you could probably take any average user since most are unfamiliar with desktops, stick them with a desktop of any OS flavor, and they will in both cases go to a browser and do things that put the system at risk. These days they implement similar levels of security. Many flavors of both prompt you to escalate an process to root/admin privilage, so each are vulnerable to users unwisely escalating software of questionable sources.
-Server: If there is a vulnerability in a server, regardless of OS, "a remote exploit is required to bring down a server system". This doesn't invalidate the parent's point.
Parent's point is that it is newsworthy because many naive individuals in the Linux community likes to purport that Linux is somehow invulnerable to such exploits. When I say "many naive" I don't mean to say all Linux users are naive, just that there are a fair share who don't understand that Linux and software running on Linux has the same potential to harbor undiscovered vulnerabilities as any other competing OS/software.
This means they make blanket statements about how this or that security problem effecting Windows isn't a concern for Linux. They don't know about clarifying criteria that Linux is more secure under the circumstances that you maintain updates and properly administer WAN facing interfaces.
The result is you have individuals running unmaintained Linux servers because they think they are more secure, but which require significantly more attention than similar Windows counterparts. So you have two factors working against the security of Linux, misinformation, and ease of maintenance.
Even in situation where you have a capable staff who understand the importance of maintaining updates. If you have updates that are fragile and require lots of testing, require alot of babysitting to apply, or are in other ways difficult to automate in a reliable way, then you are going to occasionally create situations for admins where their manpower isn't enough to get to those updates immediately. That's not to imply that Windows updates don't sometimes break things and require testing, but I would say they are easier to automate overall and more reliable. Probably due to the fact there are far fewer flavors of Windows, so updates which do have issues are quickly hotfixed. When I've had updates on Linux fail, sometimes there is a good bit of manual work to back them out, fix whatever went wrong, and re apply them.
I am not trying to say Windows is better than Linux, as I am not trying to do a compelte comparison of the two, but simply pointing out that this article highlights some of the factors that contribute to the formation of such an infection. Certainly Windows has some of these same issues as well and we've seen infections that targeted machines that weren't up to date. However, I think Windows has done a better job at least with the automatic updates to address this kind of problem. It certainly isn't always perfect, but its pretty good.
1. AC said SSL is magic, implying that they believe it is a hoax. I am simply pointing out they are an idiot who understands nothing about cryptography.
2. Saying that someone has identified a potential weakness in a cryptography algorithm doesn't change the fact that it is deterministic and well understood among cryptography experts. There is still nothing magic about it.
3. Your rebuttal implies that I was trying to claim that the NSA was innocent in some way or defend them. Obviously you have the worst reading comprehension in the history of mankind because no where in the two sentences do I make any such claim.
4. There are documents that indicate NSA was looking for potential weaknesses in various security protocols and possibly tampering with devices, but there is no evidence that they influenced the SSL standard itself to introduce weaknesses. Tampering with a device to break its implementation of SSL is seperate concept from the SSL standard itself. Could they have influenced the standard? They could be powering their headquarters with goat fetuses for all we know. It's all wild speculation in the absence of evidence. All evidence points to them pouring large amounts of manpower and computing power into breaking SSL. If they did indeed influence the standard, then whatever influence that had had no negligible effect based on what we know of the kind of efforts they've had to throw at SSL. Evidence of their efforts doesn't show any significant success. Their only successes in any relation to SSL have been more traditional techniques that involve circumventing SSL, such as compromising a server so they can capture data before it is encrypted, since SSL is such a tough nut to crack. More evidence that they haven't cracked SSL. Besides, influencing the standard in that way would have required more foresight than most governments are capable of.
Only one point is needed to show you're an idiot. The evidence is overwhelming.
Your response doesn't invalidate how cryptography works. It's solid math and there's no magic about it.
This appears to be for the posting, not for the submission of applicant/resume. But essentially the same concept. I build my resume using a GUI, it generates XML submission as needed, employer parses what information they are interested in or throws feedback indicating missing required info.
A good car has down force and sticks to the road. A good plane does the opposite. I was at a flight museum that had a flying car on display and it was described as something like a "Mediocre car, and mediocre plane" Not that it's impossible, but the most basic attributes of a plane and car are contradictory.
The reentering of resume information is ridiculous.
What if there was a common XML format that represented your resume? You created this using a desktop GUI and just upload the resume.xml to potential employees.
No longer is it Photoshopped, but instead we say it's been Carnegie Melloned.
Apparently writing itself is hard, much less writing propet software.
I think the challenge is identifying bad edits. Once you identify a bad edit, you can bulk undo everything from that source. With google maps, a phone number change might not be apparently a bad edit until you call it, and even then if it was setup with the sole purpose of misrepresenting a business, then it will be difficult to verify. With wikipedia, identifying a bad edit is usually simple as "hey this link goes to this third party place it shouldn't" or it's clear bias or vandalism.
Indeed, no matter what language you allow people to use, from C++ to English, it comes down to communicating intent clearly and unambiguously. In just about every programming language, you have bugs resulting from a gap in what someone actually wrote, versus what they intended to write. If you don't think analytically and logically, then you are going to make this mistake alot.
On the other hand, I certainly agree that sometimes learning curves and programming hassles are steeper and more common than necessary. Poor documentation, and lack of cookbooks/guides for common scenarios, poorly communicated errors, shoddy development tooling, unintuitive tooling, etc. I hate getting pulled off onto a tangent because something isn't working as it should and having to delve into something I shouldn't have to.
One word: pinball wizard. Wait that's two words, or is it three?
You are taking the hardline "murica fuh yuh" FREEDOM stance. You need to start thinking about what freedoms you are protecting. It's not as cut and dry as you would like it to be. Don't children have a right to be free from being sexual assaulted, raped, and abused? When did your right to use Tor to download torrents exceed their right to be treated with some humanity?
No that is not the logic being applied. You are ignoring certain factors in the sake of making a very silly argument. A car manufacturer is not an accomplice because someone used one of their cars to commit a crime, because the design and typical use of a car is for legitimate purposes. If however, the car manufacturer provided features designed specifically to aid criminals, or features which happenstance had more common criminal uses than legitimate, then they would be an accomplice be cause the knowingly continued to provide these features without taking corrective action. It seems wrong that I am a criminal because I provide some product/service, and happenstance without my foresight it is used for criminal purposes. One would be expected to take responsible action to make amends to the product/service to eliminate or track this usage. For example, ISPs providing a physical link are capable of identifying the source of criminal activity.
So the distinction is when you provide a product/service that is known to have primary illegal usages. You can make arguments for Tor on a non-legal basis such as freedom, right to anonymity, anti regime, anti oppressive government arguments. However, from the standpoint of law, there is a certain distinction on what makes someone an accomplice.
Agreed. There are some very noble uses of Tor, but when you operate an exit node you are basically allowing any scum to use your connection to hide their activities, and some are really sick. I wish there were a good solution to allow an exit node to be operated, but prevent some of the more nefarious uses. In the absence of that, it is pretty irresponsible to contribute such a powerful component(the exit node) without discretion for what it will be used for. At least an ISP providing a physical link has the capability to identify households, whereas the Tor exit node prevents that, and exit node operators know this. So I think in that respect the ISP is not an accomplice, as they know and are willing to help catch criminals(although there is an argument to be made in oppressive regimes abusing this power). Where as an exit node operator should be knowledgeable that they are preventing the prosecution of criminals, some of which are towards the extreme of being really disgusting, and thus are knowingly acting as an accomplice.
There was a FreeNET that basically was an encrypted distributed WWW that hosted parts on different people's machines. It was encrypted to absolve hosts from responsibility, but it was used quite a bit for child pornography.
Of course even without Tor, when you identify a household sourcing criminal activities, you still have the grey area of things like unsecured Wifi. Is someone an accomplice because they left their Wifi open for anyone to connect to? It is a slippery slope and the tech illiteracy of judges contributes to some bad rulings in cases like this.
Was it wrong for a company like T-Mobile to profit from scams against its customers when there were clear warning signs the charges it was imposing were fraudulent?