Unfortunately, you are not the one who should implement any security measure... you need to make your manager aware of the fact that some corporate assets may be at risk, and that he/she might want to conduct a risk analysis to see how large the risk of information disclosure actually is, and what it is worth to the company to mitigate these risks. This largely depends on the real value of the information, not the perceived value. And you are, forgive me in saying so, biassed towards the value of this information.
Security is not a technical issue, it is a management issue. So talk to your manager!
Yup, Microsoft took the most appropriate action after being unable to reliably offer an automated patch management solution. They could not and still cannot reliably determine whether machine A has patch X installed or not, as pointed out by the Blaster worm.
DVI, which is a digital signal, suffers from the same problem digital audio signals suffer, i.e. jitter. This is a very audible degradation of digital audio signals and believe me, jitter in a digital video stream is a very visible degradation of the image.
There are currently several high-end manufacturers currently offering or planning on offering players with DVI out, but in all cases I have observed, the old-fashioned component output offers far superior image quality.
Has anyone her actually looked at XFS? And with looked at i mean worked with it. I can tell you one thing: it is wonderful.
You have complete isolation between the physical and logical filesystem. Adding extra disk space is no harder than use the logical volume manager and grow the filesystem. And if your box ever happens to go down, it is back up in no time.
It also scales very well under heavy loads, even on lowly intel hardware. Of course the is no substitute for a nice big Origin:)
Wi-Fi is rapidly becoming a "hot" technology, cool to have, among average users. Average users aren't interested in encryption or other difficult things, they are only interested in not having to mess with wires.
I have a couple questions for you. Q: Why change exchange?
A1: Because you can.
A2: Because you want open source.
A3: Because you want something stable that works.
Okay, here come my answer to each of the choices above.
A1: Don't! Migrating away from exchange is a MAJOR pain. It is very complicated to run two groupware systems besides each other, integrating the data is a nightmare and actually converting the data from the exchange store to something usable is almost impossible. I learned this the hard way, so please, PLEASE reconsider.
A2: If you want open source just because of wanting open source, you have the wrong idea. You might find it cool to have this nice open source groupware package running on this open source OS, but all your users want is email, share agendas and syncing it with their nice little PDA. They are not interested in software or hardware, they are interested in getting their job done!
A3: Exchange CAN be stable and CAN work. But don't use anything less than first class hardware, dedicate a large, multiprocessor box to exchange and know your job. Exchange needs a VERY capable administrator, or things will crash and burn. Anyone who believes Exchange is easy because it has a nice little GUI: Think Again! This is a very complex piece of software (some say fundamentally flawed). If you are not familiar with running Exchange Admin in raw mode, don't even think about administering exchange.
Bottom line: Exchange is difficult, complex, and very demanding of hardware, software and administrators. Don't be fooled by what Microsoft's marketing department tells you. if you are running it now, please keep running it, because of the pain of moving away from it (data migration is not for the faint of heart). If you plan on running it, think again, you still have a soul... i mean choice. If you just migrated to something better, my congratulations to you.
First of all, let's see what film-quality CG means. Usually it means rendering at around 2000 by 2000 pixels, with 16 bit color depth.
Second, the standard renderer in motion picture production is Pixar's Renderman. This renderer accepts RIB-files, which are plain text files describing the geometry of a scene. These files can grow quite large, several GB is not unusual. But geometry alone won't give you a picture, you need materials or image maps as well. For that, Renderman has a built-in shader language, a bit like C, to write procedural textures in. Links to these shaders are included in the RIB-file.
So what happens when you render a picture is that the renderer parses the RIB-file, compiles the shaders in and starts building the picture. Now renderman is quite a fast renderer, but the proes of building a picture can take anywhere between a couple hours and several days. I hope you understand why.
As for why things aren't speeding up while processors get faster? Complexity. Toy Story and Toy Story 2 took Pixar about as long to make, while the computing power available more than doubled. It turned out that both the textures and the scenes became a lot more complicated.
Maybe this is my European mindset, but how will this affect the environment? First of all, the production of optical media is quite environmentally unfriendly, and second, how much people will actually return a DVD like that? Imagine the extra amount of waste...
I am already there. My Dutch ISP supports IPv6, my Cisco routers support IPv6 (as of IOS v12.2), my Windows XP machines support IPv6, my Linux boxes support IPv6, Windows Server 2003 supports IPv6, and we are rolling that out right now, and of course both Bind and Microsoft DNS support AAAA records, so there is no need to wait. On the other hand, learning the new numbering scheme is quite a pain...:)
Okay, so I am supposed to believe that this software is better at being ACID than almost all relational database systems? Sure, I love clustering boxes as much as the next guy, but the overhead is tremendous if the rdbms doesn't support it, let alone the data integrity questions it brings up.
I am a long-time fan of Fowler's book "Analysis Patterns", it has become a trusty fellow. Can anyone tell me how this book measures up to Analysis Patterns?
So if i implement a new accounting system, i can get sued by every other vendor of such a system, because my system looks very name-your-favorite-acoounting-software-like?
One very important aspect all consumer photographers forget is the characteristics of film material and the impact that has on the resulting picture. I can choose saturated colors or muted colors by changing film, something Photoshop will not give me. Changing the white balance in the camera is NOT the same.
I shoot with Hasselblad, Nikon and Sinar. I have the Sinar digital back. It is NOT the same as a sheet of Velvia in my Sinar, no matter what adjustment you make in Photoshop. And yes, photoshop is a great tool.
And even IF digital is better (which it is not), then there is the question of long-term archival safeness of the files themselves and the resulting prints. Would you want a book of faded prints or do you fire up your pc every time your mom wants to view a picture?
Until film material is no longer available, I will continue to shoot on film, and scan my work as needed. I have more quality, more control and mre certainty that my work is usable 50 years from now.
Okay, is there anyone here who understands that 99.999% reliability means that you have 0.001% total UNSCHEDULED downtime, so downtime due to crashes and what not? 99.999% never talks about the downtime due to maintainance, which is, after all, scheduled downtime.
I guess it would be easier for the entire world if the US would swith to the metric system first. Think of it... the entire world already is metric (even the British!). It would also keep incidents like the mars lander from happening again.
It seems to me NVidia misses the point when it comes to Renderman. There are very good reasons why Renderman has been the industry standard for as long as computer-generated special effects are used in moviemakeing.
First of all, there are millions and millions of lines of code that are generating or modifying RIB and SL. Entire toolchains are built around it. In other words... Renderman is there, proven and established. And when i say proven, i mean proven in the production environment of a motion picture.
Second, as seen in several posts both here (in previous topics) and on usenet (search comp.graphics.rendering.renderman), real-time redering is currently not an option, and will probably not be an option for the forseeable future. The reason for this is simple... if the hardware or software gets more powerful, then the desire of the director to use that power to make things even more lifelike will also increase. Just look at Toy Story 2 vs. Toy Story... the scenes and textures are immensely more complex, resulting in a production time that wasn't significantly shorter, even though both motion pictures are quite some years apart.
Third, Renderman is a VERY flexible tool to work with. You can do as good as everything you want when it comes to geometry, and when it comes to texturing, you can write almost every texture you can imagine in the Shading Language. You have to have worked the SL to fully appreciate the power and flexibility of it.
With the average 35mm slide film having an average resolution of about 60 megapixels, there is no film scanner on the market that can currently produce scans of slides with a resolution even approaching a 35mm slide. And even if there was one, scanning on resolutions that high would produce images too large to be workable. I won't even start on the resolution of 6x6 slides.
But then, I am printing (the old-fashioned darkroom way) all my interesting work on at least 8x10, so i might be a bit more concerned with quality. Having a Hasselblad doesn't hurt either:)
Now why does this story bear a close resemblance to a software project, and why do those comments how not to do it sound so much like those failed software projects i was on??
Slashdot Mirror
It is an undocumented remote administration capability :)
I am at this very moment experimenting with OpenNMS (www.opennms.org) in my testlab. Perhaps that is worth some investigation.
Unfortunately, you are not the one who should implement any security measure... you need to make your manager aware of the fact that some corporate assets may be at risk, and that he/she might want to conduct a risk analysis to see how large the risk of information disclosure actually is, and what it is worth to the company to mitigate these risks. This largely depends on the real value of the information, not the perceived value. And you are, forgive me in saying so, biassed towards the value of this information.
Security is not a technical issue, it is a management issue. So talk to your manager!
John Cage composed a piece called 4'33", which is exactly that... 4'33" of silence.
Didn't you know Microsoft sends out their security warnings on wednesdag?
Yup, Microsoft took the most appropriate action after being unable to reliably offer an automated patch management solution.
They could not and still cannot reliably determine whether machine A has patch X installed or not, as pointed out by the Blaster worm.
I subjected this story on monday??? And someone else submits it LATER and this gets accepted?
There are currently several high-end manufacturers currently offering or planning on offering players with DVI out, but in all cases I have observed, the old-fashioned component output offers far superior image quality.
You have complete isolation between the physical and logical filesystem. Adding extra disk space is no harder than use the logical volume manager and grow the filesystem. And if your box ever happens to go down, it is back up in no time.
It also scales very well under heavy loads, even on lowly intel hardware. Of course the is no substitute for a nice big Origin :)
Wi-Fi is rapidly becoming a "hot" technology, cool to have, among average users. Average users aren't interested in encryption or other difficult things, they are only interested in not having to mess with wires.
Q: Why change exchange?
Okay, here come my answer to each of the choices above.
Don't! Migrating away from exchange is a MAJOR pain. It is very complicated to run two groupware systems besides each other, integrating the data is a nightmare and actually converting the data from the exchange store to something usable is almost impossible. I learned this the hard way, so please, PLEASE reconsider.
If you want open source just because of wanting open source, you have the wrong idea. You might find it cool to have this nice open source groupware package running on this open source OS, but all your users want is email, share agendas and syncing it with their nice little PDA. They are not interested in software or hardware, they are interested in getting their job done!
Exchange CAN be stable and CAN work. But don't use anything less than first class hardware, dedicate a large, multiprocessor box to exchange and know your job. Exchange needs a VERY capable administrator, or things will crash and burn. Anyone who believes Exchange is easy because it has a nice little GUI: Think Again! This is a very complex piece of software (some say fundamentally flawed). If you are not familiar with running Exchange Admin in raw mode, don't even think about administering exchange.
Has anyone considered that this might be a denial of service attack directed against us intrusion detection analysts?
Far, far away, I am afraid.
First of all, let's see what film-quality CG means. Usually it means rendering at around 2000 by 2000 pixels, with 16 bit color depth.
Second, the standard renderer in motion picture production is Pixar's Renderman. This renderer accepts RIB-files, which are plain text files describing the geometry of a scene. These files can grow quite large, several GB is not unusual.
But geometry alone won't give you a picture, you need materials or image maps as well. For that, Renderman has a built-in shader language, a bit like C, to write procedural textures in. Links to these shaders are included in the RIB-file.
So what happens when you render a picture is that the renderer parses the RIB-file, compiles the shaders in and starts building the picture. Now renderman is quite a fast renderer, but the proes of building a picture can take anywhere between a couple hours and several days. I hope you understand why.
As for why things aren't speeding up while processors get faster? Complexity. Toy Story and Toy Story 2 took Pixar about as long to make, while the computing power available more than doubled. It turned out that both the textures and the scenes became a lot more complicated.
Maybe this is my European mindset, but how will this affect the environment? First of all, the production of optical media is quite environmentally unfriendly, and second, how much people will actually return a DVD like that? Imagine the extra amount of waste...
I am already there. My Dutch ISP supports IPv6, my Cisco routers support IPv6 (as of IOS v12.2), my Windows XP machines support IPv6, my Linux boxes support IPv6, Windows Server 2003 supports IPv6, and we are rolling that out right now, and of course both Bind and Microsoft DNS support AAAA records, so there is no need to wait. :)
On the other hand, learning the new numbering scheme is quite a pain...
Okay, so I am supposed to believe that this software is better at being ACID than almost all relational database systems?
Sure, I love clustering boxes as much as the next guy, but the overhead is tremendous if the rdbms doesn't support it, let alone the data integrity questions it brings up.
I am a long-time fan of Fowler's book "Analysis Patterns", it has become a trusty fellow. Can anyone tell me how this book measures up to Analysis Patterns?
I wouldn't mind coating the interior of my Hasselblad with that :)
So if i implement a new accounting system, i can get sued by every other vendor of such a system, because my system looks very name-your-favorite-acoounting-software-like?
One very important aspect all consumer photographers forget is the characteristics of film material and the impact that has on the resulting picture. I can choose saturated colors or muted colors by changing film, something Photoshop will not give me. Changing the white balance in the camera is NOT the same.
I shoot with Hasselblad, Nikon and Sinar. I have the Sinar digital back. It is NOT the same as a sheet of Velvia in my Sinar, no matter what adjustment you make in Photoshop. And yes, photoshop is a great tool.
And even IF digital is better (which it is not), then there is the question of long-term archival safeness of the files themselves and the resulting prints. Would you want a book of faded prints or do you fire up your pc every time your mom wants to view a picture?
Until film material is no longer available, I will continue to shoot on film, and scan my work as needed. I have more quality, more control and mre certainty that my work is usable 50 years from now.
Okay, is there anyone here who understands that 99.999% reliability means that you have 0.001% total UNSCHEDULED downtime, so downtime due to crashes and what not? 99.999% never talks about the downtime due to maintainance, which is, after all, scheduled downtime.
I guess it would be easier for the entire world if the US would swith to the metric system first. Think of it... the entire world already is metric (even the British!).
It would also keep incidents like the mars lander from happening again.
First of all, there are millions and millions of lines of code that are generating or modifying RIB and SL. Entire toolchains are built around it. In other words... Renderman is there, proven and established. And when i say proven, i mean proven in the production environment of a motion picture.
Second, as seen in several posts both here (in previous topics) and on usenet (search comp.graphics.rendering.renderman), real-time redering is currently not an option, and will probably not be an option for the forseeable future. The reason for this is simple... if the hardware or software gets more powerful, then the desire of the director to use that power to make things even more lifelike will also increase. Just look at Toy Story 2 vs. Toy Story... the scenes and textures are immensely more complex, resulting in a production time that wasn't significantly shorter, even though both motion pictures are quite some years apart.
Third, Renderman is a VERY flexible tool to work with. You can do as good as everything you want when it comes to geometry, and when it comes to texturing, you can write almost every texture you can imagine in the Shading Language. You have to have worked the SL to fully appreciate the power and flexibility of it.
But then, I am printing (the old-fashioned darkroom way) all my interesting work on at least 8x10, so i might be a bit more concerned with quality. Having a Hasselblad doesn't hurt either :)
Now why does this story bear a close resemblance to a software project, and why do those comments how not to do it sound so much like those failed software projects i was on??