Lynn's presentation wasn't about any specific vulnerability (I think he did mention one vulnerability, which was patched some time before the presentation). It was generally thought that most Cisco vulnerabilities could only hang or reboot IOS. Lynn showed that you could inject code. Which makes vulnerabilities like this one a lot more dangerous, as an attacker can Own the router instead of just crashing it.
Creative is perfectly willing to play hardball(just look at what they did to John Carmack)
What was that about? [30 seconds of Googling]. Ah, was that the "We have a patent for 'Carmack's Reverse', so give us cash or include EAX in Doom3" thing?
[Cue yet another/. discussion about the evils of software patents]
1) Since I mentioned that the WiFi chip does this ack automatically I supposed that an average slashdot reader would understand that I was talking about 802.11. Evidently I was wrong. 802.11a/b/h are link layer protocols, and require an immediate explicit ack of any datagram successfully received.
2) I know about TCP and how ACK and SACK works, thankyouverymuch.
Do network cards / computers have predictable enough response times?
In case of 802.11, yes. The protocol layer requires that an ack is sent for each successfully received datagram. The timing window for this ack is so narrow that it is done automatically by the WiFi chip, no CPU involved.
Absolute horrible dreck. Just two guys that thinks cusswords and whining is interesting. If people want good quality tech rants, they should go read BOFH or the scary devil monastery instead.
With current propulsion technology, a single stage to orbit craft would be almost exclusively propellant and engines. Even the current Shuttle has trouble taking a decent payload any higher than low earth orbit.
As far as I know, the alternatives are nuclear (which won't happen due to public sentiment) and antimatter (which we don't have the tech to produce yet).
The largest reason for the Apple switch: Digital Rights Management/TCPA.
You've mixed up cause and effect here. That TPM chip is on the motherboard because Apple needs a hardware dongle to stop people from running OSX86 on non-Jobs-blessed hardware.
An argument could be made for Intel bluffing SGI and DEC, since they both scaled back development of their respective 64bit RISC CPUs and made plans to switch to IA-64. The 64bit market might have been a bit different today if they had known / gambled on Itanium being a lemon.
why migrate their developers over to writing x86 code as an interum step, instead of waiting until after the VLIW architecture is available, and migrate directly to that?
VLIW is basically to move a lot of the 'smarts' like instruction reordering and branch prediction from the CPU to the compiler. Thus freeing up a lot of transistors that can be used for cache or additional ALUs.
The compiler has to be very good, though. And you also run into problems like having to recompile when the next generation of the CPU adds more ALUs or has pipeline changes that requires different instruction ordering. So VLIW is not at all a nice type of architecture if you want binary compatibility between several generations of the CPU. Which is why the article mentioned Transmeta - which had a software layer that translated between x86 and the native VLIW languages used on the different Transmeta CPUs.
If the article is correct, the next generation Intel core will be VLIW internally, but will execute IA-32/EMT-64 through a software layer like Transmeta.
Worst case scenario? 2. The default operation of 802.11 relies on all the clients hearing eachother to avoid excessive collisions. Put 2 clients on opposite sides of the AP far enough away so that they can both hear the AP but not eachother. Start an upload from one client, and watch pings skyrocket on the other client.
From DMCA Title II which some other idiot helpfully suggested that people should read, to shore up their empty argument
I am that 'idiot', and you sir need to calm down.
The poster I replied to went on a ballistic rant because he thought FedEx had invoked the anticircumvention portion of the DMCA. If he had RTFA he'd know hat they had invoked 'notice and takedown' instead, and I merely made him aware of that fact.
Nowhere did I state that I thought that FedEx was in their right to do so. At the very least this should become a PR nightmare for them.
Slashdot Mirror
Not on TV, but MS has indeed mentioned Linux in magazine ads
And the third that is somewhat common is QZERTY. For the information packrats out there, check the Wikipedia keyboard layout article.
Lynn's presentation wasn't about any specific vulnerability (I think he did mention one vulnerability, which was patched some time before the presentation). It was generally thought that most Cisco vulnerabilities could only hang or reboot IOS. Lynn showed that you could inject code. Which makes vulnerabilities like this one a lot more dangerous, as an attacker can Own the router instead of just crashing it.
A, S, E, R, T
The first thing I thought was 'which strange european country is using that keymap?!'.
Torrent, anyone? The server is so busy right now that Firefox just times out when trying to download.
The expression 'podcast' is trendy, but the functionality is nerdy.
Creative is perfectly willing to play hardball(just look at what they did to John Carmack)
/. discussion about the evils of software patents]
What was that about? [30 seconds of Googling]. Ah, was that the "We have a patent for 'Carmack's Reverse', so give us cash or include EAX in Doom3" thing?
[Cue yet another
1) Since I mentioned that the WiFi chip does this ack automatically I supposed that an average slashdot reader would understand that I was talking about 802.11. Evidently I was wrong. 802.11a/b/h are link layer protocols, and require an immediate explicit ack of any datagram successfully received.
2) I know about TCP and how ACK and SACK works, thankyouverymuch.
The Internet Oracle has pondered your question deeply. Your question was:
...
We got your Staff of ZOT! Will we get rich by selling it to the US military?
Sincerely, Extreme Alternative Defense Systems Ltd.
http://www.xtremeads.com/stunstrike.htm
And in response, thus spake the Oracle:
Do network cards / computers have predictable enough response times?
In case of 802.11, yes. The protocol layer requires that an ack is sent for each successfully received datagram. The timing window for this ack is so narrow that it is done automatically by the WiFi chip, no CPU involved.
That was my first thought too - 'huh, F16s armed with brimstone popups, popunders and flash?'
...and in Europe and countries where USA holds enough economic power to dictate 'IP harmonization' as a part of trade agreements.
Absolute horrible dreck. Just two guys that thinks cusswords and whining is interesting. If people want good quality tech rants, they should go read BOFH or the scary devil monastery instead.
With current propulsion technology, a single stage to orbit craft would be almost exclusively propellant and engines. Even the current Shuttle has trouble taking a decent payload any higher than low earth orbit.
As far as I know, the alternatives are nuclear (which won't happen due to public sentiment) and antimatter (which we don't have the tech to produce yet).
Been wondering about that myself. I hope strands of nanofiber won't have the same effect on wetware as asbestos has.
The largest reason for the Apple switch: Digital Rights Management/TCPA.
You've mixed up cause and effect here. That TPM chip is on the motherboard because Apple needs a hardware dongle to stop people from running OSX86 on non-Jobs-blessed hardware.
As a result, a business decision was made to focus R&D in the area that had the biggest payoff -- the embedded market.
You know, that feels very much like a deja vu. Same thing happened with M68K.
There was no swindling or bluffing HP.
An argument could be made for Intel bluffing SGI and DEC, since they both scaled back development of their respective 64bit RISC CPUs and made plans to switch to IA-64. The 64bit market might have been a bit different today if they had known / gambled on Itanium being a lemon.
why migrate their developers over to writing x86 code as an interum step, instead of waiting until after the VLIW architecture is available, and migrate directly to that?
VLIW is basically to move a lot of the 'smarts' like instruction reordering and branch prediction from the CPU to the compiler. Thus freeing up a lot of transistors that can be used for cache or additional ALUs.
The compiler has to be very good, though. And you also run into problems like having to recompile when the next generation of the CPU adds more ALUs or has pipeline changes that requires different instruction ordering. So VLIW is not at all a nice type of architecture if you want binary compatibility between several generations of the CPU. Which is why the article mentioned Transmeta - which had a software layer that translated between x86 and the native VLIW languages used on the different Transmeta CPUs.
If the article is correct, the next generation Intel core will be VLIW internally, but will execute IA-32/EMT-64 through a software layer like Transmeta.
Worst case scenario? 2. The default operation of 802.11 relies on all the clients hearing eachother to avoid excessive collisions. Put 2 clients on opposite sides of the AP far enough away so that they can both hear the AP but not eachother. Start an upload from one client, and watch pings skyrocket on the other client.
but an ISP certainly could
Crap range unless you use external antennas. And (W)ISPs want rugged outdoor stuff.
This thing is more useful for places where a lot of people with computers are in a confined space. Like say Assembly or The Gathering.
x86project.com seems to be offline at the moment, so they might have been hit by a notice and takedown.
From DMCA Title II which some other idiot helpfully suggested that people should read, to shore up their empty argument
I am that 'idiot', and you sir need to calm down.
The poster I replied to went on a ballistic rant because he thought FedEx had invoked the anticircumvention portion of the DMCA. If he had RTFA he'd know hat they had invoked 'notice and takedown' instead, and I merely made him aware of that fact.
Nowhere did I state that I thought that FedEx was in their right to do so. At the very least this should become a PR nightmare for them.
According to Granick's reply to FedEx, there was no binding contract requiring that the boxes be used for shipping.
most notably circumvention
Anticircumvention is only a part of the DMCA. FedEx tried to invoke 'notice and takedown' (see title II in the linked article).