SSL was specifically designed to be safe from MITM attacks. The question of course is whether or not your implementation is sound, but if it is DPI will not be able to see the payload.
Mobile phones are not as cheap as landlines where I live. I can get an unlimited land line (VOIP) for North America for $15 per mo. An equivalent cell plan is at least 7x the cost. The cheapest cell plans are all more than $15 per mo. And yes, while I tried to post in a way that seemed humorous, I was also serious. Cell phones are a pain in the rear. They are easy to lose. Batteries run down. Good signal levels are not a given.
They do offer some convenience and are useful when you need to be available. But I DON'T want or need to be always available all the time.
I've seen a lot of discussion that cell phones took off more rapidly in Europe because of PTTs and per minute charges even on local calls. In the US local calls were always included in the base rates for landlines, which means switching to cell phones is a lot less attractive.
Business cases include costs. There are a lot of DPI applications that would make sense if the costs were low, but I don't think you will find a business case that will make any kind of economic sense.
A. it isn't going to work on an HTTPS session. B. it doesn't make sense to reassemble an email because eventually the whole email will be submitted. C. Deep packet inspection is very expensive because it requires heinously fast hardware to inspect a 10 Gb/s data stream, and you need a lot of these at the network edges. The core networks are too fast to inspect. D. AFAIK DPI isn't deployed anywhere. Only a couple of manufacturers have 10 Gb/s gear and they are trying to sell it now, which is what ARS picked up on. E. There isn't a business case for it that I can find. F. A lot of the applications Ars describes don't require deep packet inspection, only header inspection. G. Many of these things run inline, which means there is a decrease in reliability due to insertion of the device. That means redundancy etc which drives costs up even more.
Ultimately I don't think there is any likelihood that carriers who are already facing capital expense and return on investment problems plus increasing demands for plant expansion due to video are going to buy this story. The current wisdom is that fast-dumb is what is scalable.
Maybe it is because the US has the best, most reliable land line network in the world from the days of the AT&T monopoly. Cell phones are just extra cost frippery that most of us don't need and would have to pay extra for.
I own a cell phone, but only carry it when I am looking for a job, traveling, or someone in my family is sick. The rest of the time I consider it an expensive, high maintenance, unreliable pain in the rear end and leave it at home.
You are missing a big point - even if population growth issues were solved (and they are not at least yet) there is still the environmental impact of modern agriculture. GM offers a great deal of potential to reduce use of synthetic chemicals, and also to reduce the amount of land needed to feed the world's population. Those two environmental factors alone fully justify the development of GM crops. Improved crop yields also offer economic benefits - the fewer people who have to work on farms to make a country self sufficient agriculturally, the better that countries' standard of living will be.
People like to talk about organic farming as an alternative to modern agriculture, but what they don't tell you is that it is an economic and environmental disaster because yields are lower, you need more land to practice it, and the energy inputs are greater. It is a practice that humanity just cannot afford any more. Similarly current agriculture based on synthetic chemicals has it's sustainability problems. With GM there are vast improvements that are feasible. These improvements will have huge positive impacts to life on this planet. We cannot afford to write off this technology because some people have or will make mistakes in applying it. The rewards are too great.
GM is an essential step on the path to a sustainable economy of plenty in man's future.
The lessons from the green revolution are applicable and provide solid evidence that there are large benefits from improving food yields.
1. Food supplies are adequate now - however the environmental impact of the production of the food is significant. Improving crop performance can reduce deforestation, desertification and use of chemicals such as pesticides and herbicides.
2. Population growth is greater than zero. If you don't improve crop performance the environmental impact of farming will continue to increase. This is not good.
3. Starving masses exist in Africa only, and it is like you say the result of bad people. Prior to the green revolution this was not the case - the inability to produce enough food was the reason for starving masses. Improving crop yield through cross species breeding was the solution. However with world-wide population growth continuing further improvements will be needed.
Sweden/Norway/Finland are so frickin cold (and dark in winter) that you are stuck indoors most of the time, while California is much more conducive to have a life outside. Heck, to prevent insanity you had better have broadband in these artic countries.
Another factor is that the Nordic countries have a much more homogeneous demographic profile. Income, ethnicity, and education levels are much more uniform.
I live in metro NYC. I have the local cable monopoly and the telco monopoly pipes in my lawn. Plus I can get DSL from a couple of choices. I go with the cable monopoly because the give me 30 / 5 for $60 per month and terms of service that let me run servers. The cable monopoly is also delivering about 40 HDTV channels to my 60" TV for another $60. I really do not think my service sucks, I think it competes quite favorably with just about anything.
The correct view is that the French have their own set of problems (unemployment, slow economic growth etc., little entrepreneurship due to inflexible labor laws) due to their own ideology which ties industry and government into a giant bureaucracy (a French word) firmly rooted in the Napoleonic and Louis Quatorze cultures.
Well, I pay $60 per month for 30/5 asymmetrical service from Cablevision in the metro NYC area. While your theoretical bandwidth is higher, my actual realized service averages about 26 / 4. The wires and modem are part of the price. VOIP would cost me another $15 but includes calling time within the US and Canada. Also with the service I have you can open ports 25 and 80 and run servers. While it is still a dynamic IP address the lease time is long and it doesn't change unless Cablevision splits your node.
Wireless is OK, but I don't think you will ever see it compete with land lines for high end bandwidth capability like IPTV or P2P. What I think the Google offer means is the end of walled garden networks for VOIP and other low to mid bandwidth WiFi applications.
First to file used to be the way the US Patent system worked, so it is tested law and very likely to hold up under constitutionality attacks. As you note it is how most of the rest of the world works, and for good reason, it is less evil than first to invent. The problem with first to invent is twofold - it leads to submarine patents, and it also leads to a lot more litigation. With First To File it is pretty clearcut who has priority. With first to invent it often requires a lengthy discovery process, extensive record keeping, and an expensive trial to figure out who was actually first. None of that favours the individual inventor.
I'll be modding this (-1, Overrated) just because there's no (-1, Wrong) mod.
It's too bad you can't contest obviously stupid moderation. There is a large body of scientific evidence that demonstrates that the you cannot transmit information by spooky action at a distance.
I have a Samsung CLP-550q that I paid about $330 for. I bought an HP Jet Direct on EBay for abut $40. Result: networked color laser duplex Postscript printer. While I don't like walking down the hall, for this price you don't need a lot of users to justify it over some crappy desktop inkjet.
As far as PCL goes, for this printer I don't use it. For printing from Windows I use the Samsung drivers which use the Samsung proprietary language, and for Linux I use Postscript.
For Linux I try to stick to Postscript printers. They just seem to work better and there usually aren't any driver problems when all you need is a ppd file.
Slashdot Mirror
We are not likely to run out of sand and trees before we run out of oil.
SSL was specifically designed to be safe from MITM attacks. The question of course is whether or not your implementation is sound, but if it is DPI will not be able to see the payload.
Mobile phones are not as cheap as landlines where I live. I can get an unlimited land line (VOIP) for North America for $15 per mo. An equivalent cell plan is at least 7x the cost. The cheapest cell plans are all more than $15 per mo. And yes, while I tried to post in a way that seemed humorous, I was also serious. Cell phones are a pain in the rear. They are easy to lose. Batteries run down. Good signal levels are not a given.
They do offer some convenience and are useful when you need to be available. But I DON'T want or need to be always available all the time.
I've seen a lot of discussion that cell phones took off more rapidly in Europe because of PTTs and per minute charges even on local calls. In the US local calls were always included in the base rates for landlines, which means switching to cell phones is a lot less attractive.
Business cases include costs. There are a lot of DPI applications that would make sense if the costs were low, but I don't think you will find a business case that will make any kind of economic sense.
I am pretty damn sure AT&T doesn't. They are still trying to figure out how to migrate off ATM.
A. it isn't going to work on an HTTPS session.
B. it doesn't make sense to reassemble an email because eventually the whole email will be submitted.
C. Deep packet inspection is very expensive because it requires heinously fast hardware to inspect a 10 Gb/s data stream, and you need a lot of these at the network edges. The core networks are too fast to inspect.
D. AFAIK DPI isn't deployed anywhere. Only a couple of manufacturers have 10 Gb/s gear and they are trying to sell it now, which is what ARS picked up on.
E. There isn't a business case for it that I can find.
F. A lot of the applications Ars describes don't require deep packet inspection, only header inspection.
G. Many of these things run inline, which means there is a decrease in reliability due to insertion of the device. That means redundancy etc which drives costs up even more.
Ultimately I don't think there is any likelihood that carriers who are already facing capital expense and return on investment problems plus increasing demands for plant expansion due to video are going to buy this story. The current wisdom is that fast-dumb is what is scalable.
Maybe it is because the US has the best, most reliable land line network in the world from the days of the AT&T monopoly. Cell phones are just extra cost frippery that most of us don't need and would have to pay extra for.
I own a cell phone, but only carry it when I am looking for a job, traveling, or someone in my family is sick. The rest of the time I consider it an expensive, high maintenance, unreliable pain in the rear end and leave it at home.
You are missing a big point - even if population growth issues were solved (and they are not at least yet) there is still the environmental impact of modern agriculture. GM offers a great deal of potential to reduce use of synthetic chemicals, and also to reduce the amount of land needed to feed the world's population. Those two environmental factors alone fully justify the development of GM crops. Improved crop yields also offer economic benefits - the fewer people who have to work on farms to make a country self sufficient agriculturally, the better that countries' standard of living will be.
People like to talk about organic farming as an alternative to modern agriculture, but what they don't tell you is that it is an economic and environmental disaster because yields are lower, you need more land to practice it, and the energy inputs are greater. It is a practice that humanity just cannot afford any more. Similarly current agriculture based on synthetic chemicals has it's sustainability problems. With GM there are vast improvements that are feasible. These improvements will have huge positive impacts to life on this planet. We cannot afford to write off this technology because some people have or will make mistakes in applying it. The rewards are too great.
GM is an essential step on the path to a sustainable economy of plenty in man's future.
One in four people will get cancer anyway. Your story has no correlative value.
It's one of those laws that applies to everyone except Congress.
Does anyone know if there is a functional equivalent to this for SPARC or even Solaris / Intel?
The lessons from the green revolution are applicable and provide solid evidence that there are large benefits from improving food yields.
1. Food supplies are adequate now - however the environmental impact of the production of the food is significant. Improving crop performance can reduce deforestation, desertification and use of chemicals such as pesticides and herbicides.
2. Population growth is greater than zero. If you don't improve crop performance the environmental impact of farming will continue to increase. This is not good.
3. Starving masses exist in Africa only, and it is like you say the result of bad people. Prior to the green revolution this was not the case - the inability to produce enough food was the reason for starving masses. Improving crop yield through cross species breeding was the solution. However with world-wide population growth continuing further improvements will be needed.
Either that or she has experience running horse shows.
Sweden/Norway/Finland are so frickin cold (and dark in winter) that you are stuck indoors most of the time, while California is much more conducive to have a life outside. Heck, to prevent insanity you had better have broadband in these artic countries.
Another factor is that the Nordic countries have a much more homogeneous demographic profile. Income, ethnicity, and education levels are much more uniform.
I live in metro NYC. I have the local cable monopoly and the telco monopoly pipes in my lawn. Plus I can get DSL from a couple of choices. I go with the cable monopoly because the give me 30 / 5 for $60 per month and terms of service that let me run servers. The cable monopoly is also delivering about 40 HDTV channels to my 60" TV for another $60. I really do not think my service sucks, I think it competes quite favorably with just about anything.
The correct view is that the French have their own set of problems (unemployment, slow economic growth etc., little entrepreneurship due to inflexible labor laws) due to their own ideology which ties industry and government into a giant bureaucracy (a French word) firmly rooted in the Napoleonic and Louis Quatorze cultures.
Well, I pay $60 per month for 30/5 asymmetrical service from Cablevision in the metro NYC area. While your theoretical bandwidth is higher, my actual realized service averages about 26 / 4. The wires and modem are part of the price. VOIP would cost me another $15 but includes calling time within the US and Canada. Also with the service I have you can open ports 25 and 80 and run servers. While it is still a dynamic IP address the lease time is long and it doesn't change unless Cablevision splits your node.
Wireless is OK, but I don't think you will ever see it compete with land lines for high end bandwidth capability like IPTV or P2P. What I think the Google offer means is the end of walled garden networks for VOIP and other low to mid bandwidth WiFi applications.
First to file used to be the way the US Patent system worked, so it is tested law and very likely to hold up under constitutionality attacks. As you note it is how most of the rest of the world works, and for good reason, it is less evil than first to invent. The problem with first to invent is twofold - it leads to submarine patents, and it also leads to a lot more litigation. With First To File it is pretty clearcut who has priority. With first to invent it often requires a lengthy discovery process, extensive record keeping, and an expensive trial to figure out who was actually first. None of that favours the individual inventor.
I'm all in favor of first to file.
You can't set the value, you can only measure it. This is why it doesn't work for information transmittal.
I'll be modding this (-1, Overrated) just because there's no (-1, Wrong) mod.
It's too bad you can't contest obviously stupid moderation. There is a large body of scientific evidence that demonstrates that the you cannot transmit information by spooky action at a distance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement
I have a Samsung CLP-550q that I paid about $330 for. I bought an HP Jet Direct on EBay for abut $40. Result: networked color laser duplex Postscript printer. While I don't like walking down the hall, for this price you don't need a lot of users to justify it over some crappy desktop inkjet.
As far as PCL goes, for this printer I don't use it. For printing from Windows I use the Samsung drivers which use the Samsung proprietary language, and for Linux I use Postscript.
Nah. Spooky action at a distance can't be used to transmit information.
For Linux I try to stick to Postscript printers. They just seem to work better and there usually aren't any driver problems when all you need is a ppd file.