There are four twisted pairs. Assume they are 100MHz each. That's only 400MHz (800 if you think the other one of a pair does anything (*)). Yet you push 1000Mbits a second over it (and, yes, that's the actual speed) .
How? PAM, QAM, and a bunch of other tricks - because you think you need an entire cycle/wavelength in order to encode a single bit of information, which just isn't true.
(*) it doesn't - the other half of the pair allows you to subtract interference received along the same route by an equal length cable. Much like MIMO antenna differencing.
And if she'd eaten them when you were in the womb, you'd have had her contaminated blood, and all her immune response (i.e. zero) to it.
And if you'd been given them to eat, it would have been different too.
But nobody is saying that there aren't the 1% who might be allergic to peanut. But, unless and until you have a reaction, why avoid them? That's the point. Avoiding them can provoke an immune reaction to a "foreign" agent.
Instead of the 1% having a visible allergic reaction, we have the 50% who say they are "intolerant" to a major food group and/or make themselves allergic by avoiding it altogether. And then guess what reaction their children have, and so on.
Everything in moderation. Don't shove peanuts down your newborn's face, but don't avoid them in pregnancy either.
Cat5 cables is only aimed at 100MHz signals, but you can put Gigabit Ethernet over it.
The number of bits sent does not have to be less than the frequency of the carrier (or even half that).
Phase, amplitude, frequency-modulation, plus others, all combined allow you to get a lot more out of the signal than merely the carrier frequency rate.
Otherwise your old 56Kb/s modem of old would never have got to that speed, your DSL modems wouldn't come close, your wifi would be nothing more than a radio modem, etc.
Hasn't been true for decades, and with multiple antenna etc. tricks you can do even more.
Gemalto do the majority of the smartcard market these days.
I've used them for everything for business banking to access control.
Is it not scary enough that they have been compromised to the point of making almost every SIM on the planet useless? By comparison a banking smartcard here or there is nothing.
Ironically, every few months our bank will tell us that we have to replace the PIN-pads/smartcards/whatever for a newer model "to be secure". Nobody's yet answered then why their software only works on IE (and older versions at that).
Already some versions of Linux has been everything from Lucid Lynx to Trust Tahr. Windows is technically Chicago, isn't it?
And, sorry, but my software on my desktop at the moment consists of Xibo, Google, Putty, Audacity, GIMP, MonkeyJam, Scratch, GLPI (colloquially known as "gloopy"), and numerous others. And I work in a very posh independent school. This is what the kids see every day. Are the school bothered? No.
If you're put off by the name, use the version number like everyone else. And if your CIO doesn't allow you to deploy something because of a nickname, yet it fulfills all your business purposes and doesn't have the name visible ANYWHERE, he's an idiot.
Oddly, if I want what *I* want on a machine nowadays, things have turned on their heads.
On headless servers I run Ubuntu LTS - it means that when I want to suck in a new daemon, it's as simple as apt-get install, it installs all necessary dependencies (so though it might pick up KDE libs, it's unlikely to pick up X itself or anything else at all) and it all just works in a secure default config. And updates can happen automatically.
On desktops, where I need to choose what happens to each pixel of my desktop in detail, I tend to run Slackware. It leaves me in control, lets me have any desktop I like and doesn't pretend to know better than I about how I should click things.
The Linux world has been upturned for me over the last ten years. And with things like systemd dominance on the horizon, I can only see myself sticking with this setup. I don't particularly care how one of the remote headless servers I operate wants to show things, so long as it boots and I don't have to faff about worrying about the hardware. All I want is an initial SSH and be able to apt-get stuff and be up and running in minutes so I can put the rest of my config back on.
And my desktop still needs to be like, well, my desktop. You don't get to play with it. And doing so is as rude as throwing all my stuff of my desk and putting your own on there.
Actually, MS claimed that even they COULDN'T unbundle IE from Windows for many years. Only when it was demonstrated in court that it was possible did they backtrack.
The fact is that MS didn't give you a choice. The only choice was to suffer the install of IE, ignore it repeated attempts to be the default, and have to leave it installed forever handling some things that it never needed to be handling.
And then the EU quashed all that crap and made them put a browser choice screen on every PC in the EU for several years to counteract it.
Yeah, sorry, even with crap translation, it doesn't read like that to me.
What they want is to be bundled as the default for everything by default. It doesn't really say that Google are strong-arming them into only ever providing Google and nothing else. There's nothing stopping Yandex putting out Yandex Android with all the defaults changed, but they'd have to convince phone manufacturers to use it, and then access to Google Play Store isn't guaranteed (but if it uses Android, you have a legal right to use the store as it says so in the Play EULA... like cheap tablets that don't get the official Google Play go-ahead and don't bundle it, Google aren't stopping you installing it yourself if that's what you want to do - and they don't even need to go that far... how many other types of machines are you allowed to connect to the iTunes app store and download your stuff with?).
Sorry, but it sounds like sour grapes to me. And it's a lot of waffle surrounding that the fact the PEOPLE don't change the defaults, not that the defaults aren't changeable with a 5-second search of how to do so.
Comparing it to the monopoly market position of bundling IE on Windows in a captive market is just hyperbole. If Google said to manufacturers you can only ever sell phones with Android, if you sell a phone with anything else we'll stop giving you any of our Android products and you won't be able to sell them, the default has to be left at Chrome when you sell, we'll never remove Chrome from the Android system because it's "all one thing", and they owned more than 90% of the market, and Chrome had almost zero market usage outside of such monopolistic actions, then it would be comparable. They aren't. By a long-shot.
Nothing is stopping them selling a Yandex Android phone with Yandex as the default and Yandex app store. In the same way that many of the cheap Android devices worldwide do just that. The fact is, though, that they want the Google name for the App Store so they don't have to pay a penny for running that, and run stock Android, but still have their search engine be the default, and expect Google to jump in and help them when the system is all open anyway.
The gap between us and the Moon means we used vast portions of the available resources that have been here for milions of years to get to that point. And we've never gone back because to do so again would be just too expensive in those terms, even with advances in technology.
Now extend that to extended life on the Moon, stripping that bare and moving to Mars, stripping that bare to move to the other planets, etc. By the time you're heading out of the solar system, you've got such few resources that you have to use most of them to stay alive and keep moving. Even assuming some form of nuclear fusion "alchemy" (where we could form any material from hydrogen, and convert anything at all to energy) - getting intact to the next star is a huge feat. And you better hope there's resources there to plunder enough to reach the next, and so on.
You need seriously advanced technology, you need to continue to work for tens of thousands of years, just to survive to the point where you could strip enough planets of their base resources to contain the technology to sustain you to the next star. This is why Dyson-spheres were in such vogue - the only way to get that amount of sheer energy is to capture and live off of entire stars, to get enough energy to get to the next.
You need lots of huge breakthroughs, like fusion, then you need to shrink them to practical sizes, like spaceships, then you need to keep them running forever, which requires an awful lot of infrastructure to keep supplying all those advanced materials, then you need to be able to strip anything you come across of any useful resource, forever, and maintain it all, and then head somewhere practical that will be useful to you and not just "another M-class planet".
Fermi's Paradox is really right here. Anybody who could do all that would have no interest in us, our technology, our resources, or anything at all really... and that's one of the reasons that we wouldn't see them.
Once you hit a certain point of exponential growth and advancement, you'll never bother with planets and the things that live on them again.
To be invaded, you have to have something worthwhile. Colonisable planets wouldn't be hard to find for a civilisation capable of inter-system travel. We don't have anything particularly rare or in unusual abundance in terms of useful minerals. We are boring in and of ourselves and contact would be pretty pointless for anything working at that level.
And the more we find out, the more "usual" we become - there are now orders of magnitude more stars believed to have Earth-like planets than before. There's just not much here worth having.
Chances are, any civilisation out there is just aware of us but ignoring us because we're like insects to them, on a not particularly interesting planet, or is no more advanced than we are.
Likely our first contact would also be our last. "Hi, humans, what do you have interesting for us? Nothing. Okay. See you in a few million years when you grow up" and then we'd chase our own tails trying to re-establish contact for the next few thousand years.
It would be an infeasibly difficult and expensive project to cover all of the Earth's surface alone in radar / optical scans in near-enough time to spot anything moving oddly no matter what it was or where it moved, and then isolate that from the background noise of trees moving and things rolling down hills.
To then extend that by several DOZEN orders of magnitude to cover the entire solar system? Sorry, it's really sci-fi at the moment. If we could populate a few of the outer planets and triangulate, maybe, but to cover all the solar system would really need "solar system-GPS" type coverage.
The space is just too huge, and our tech too primitive. There are asteroids etc. discovered almost every day that we never knew were there and are 1km+ in size. And though we can track their orbits, we can't do that for every of that size on a regular enough basis. Plus, if we did, it would only take something following a natural orbit to throw us off the scent (and given that's that the lowest-energy method of sticking around for a long time, it would be stupid not to do such a thing for any visiting craft).
Likely, this wouldn't happen, and we'd not spot anything, until we'd colonised most of the planets and brought out tech up by orders of magnitude too.
We have problems spotting and tracking 1km-long rocks in space beyond the Earth's orbit. We literally get taken by surprise by large rocks and their orbits all the time, whizzing around our solar system without us knowing they're there.
We're also not looking for those kinds of things, as such. A ship of some description able to sense us from afar and come into the system probably wouldn't jump in at the third planet out by default. They'd probably jump in off-axis, far away, and we'd be hard pushed to spot anything of space ship size (http://io9.com/nasa-spots-a-po...
That wasn't spotted for ages, discovered only in 2013, when it was only 10 times the moon's distance away (nearly a Mars distance). It was spotted only by something looking for near-earth objects and only because it looked like its natural trajectory may bring it close to Earth in the next 100 or so years. It's 650 metres long, orbits every three years and could weigh tens or hundreds of thousands of tons.
We can't see this kind of stuff. The angles and chances are just too small and anything that settles into a natural orbit is basically indistinguishable from a rock. It wouldn't take much for something to jump in just outside the outer planets and settle, say, a Saturn distance away, probably off-axis (hiding in-axis may well give shadows etc. that give it away and we likely look at the planets and other things in our axis more than elsewhere) and we'd never spot it. Never. If we did, we'd think it was a rock.
From there, a basic telescope (or a pair of binoculars) would be able to light us up like a Christmas tree, show us to be particularly interesting, and a simple radio antenna would be able to prove that their was life on here, while at the same time being basically invisible to us without even trying.
Any civilisation with a 1km intra-system space-ship capability likely has much better tech than a $200 telescope and a satellite dish connected to a radio scanner, They'd know we were here, and be able to observe us for centuries, long before we ever would know they were there - and we'd probably NOT know they were anything other than a rock.
The distances are too immense, the angles involved far too tiny once you get out past the moon, and there's just too much stuff moving about if you have a sensitive instrument. Hell, we don't even reliably know what everything in EARTH ORBIT is, let alone trying to go out to even a Moon-distance or Mars-distance or Neptune-distance.
Basically, we would never know. The only way to get to the point we would know would be to colonise enough of the solar systems to provide mapping and triangulation of the entire space in-between, And even then, you probably could still hide if you were at all careful.
Using basic encryption to authenticate a download of an operating system is to an official server is what I'd class as absolute bare basics.
Does it check hash values or signed packages? I would hope the answer's yes for anything made in the last ten years.
That's not a "killer feature". That's basic expectation.
On the Apple front - they do this by removing much of your control of the device. There are as many rogue apps on the iTunes store as anywhere else. There are also security problems that were left alone for just as long as everyone else:
(Note: published after 90 days past initial notification, the article says two were definitely still unpatched. Apple are no different to any other large company in this regard, so saying it's "a pretty big deal for them" is probably hyperbole).
I'd also say, just if they're making their money from hardware there's little incentive to fix software - at least compared to companies that just or primarily sell software.
Very much depends who "you" are, how many you tested, what you tested and whether you have any interest in seeing Samsung fail or not.
Sorry, but an AC post against Samsung - hell, even 100, or 100 1-star posts on Amazon (which often consist of "it didn't arrive", "I broke it and don't know how to fix it" or "this was shit and didn't work as cat litter at all", can't compete against the sheer number of 5-star reviews I see of some of their SSD products (not all, granted, but some) - including those of actual confirmed purchases.
Like with everything, you have to know what you're buying, and buy the right thing. And still you might get stuck with the flaky cheap model, or have a run of bad luck.
As far as I can tell, despite the early firmware problems which I waited out to see Samsung's response, the 840 EVO range are still top of their class, especially the 1Tb model - and the firmware problems are basically gone now (we all cock up, it's how you handle the cock-ups that matters).
Sorry, but your post is just noise without any kind of evidence. Sadly, a random blog post from some guy showing you photos of what he bought and when, screenshots of a benchmark or two, and a running list of problems and/or statistics about those devices means infinitely more than your post does.
At times, everything but the front page is being served by a third-party CDN, by the looks of it. When that happens, you get "logged out", and content pages fail with certificate errors because they're not coming from slashdot.org but a cdn domain.
Either slashdot are under attack and keeping quiet, or they're falling over and keeping quiet.
While we're discussing HTTP, what's wrong with Slashdot lately?
I keep getting timeouts, signed out, nothing but the front page, everything else loaded from a CDN (that just gives me browser security warnings because it's not coming up as slashdot.org), etc.
Are you guys under attack, or just unable to keep a site with ~100 comments per article up?
HTTP does not require encryption. It's a hypertext protocol.
However, it can be transported by anything else. You could have HTTP over UDP, or pigeon post if you wanted.
What you are confusing is a need for security with a completely inappropriate layer for such security. The same way that embedding IP details into FTP DATA packets is stupid and wrong.
HTTP/2 over TLS is what you want. And that doesn't give a shit what HTTP/2 does in terms of security.
Actually, infinitely more important are TLS and DNSSEC working together. And, I'd argue, IPv6 after that. What you send over that secure, authenticated, reliable, modern channel is then of little consequence.
Once you have the transport sorted, the protocol for where the text goes on the page should have no bearing on your actual security.
The distances are indeed immense and we have much bigger worries.
Guys, we haven't had a human leave Earth properly in nearly 50 years. Given how little tech like this was possible 50 years before we did do that, that's damn atrocious. And that didn't come with bothering to use AU for the distance at all.
Even Voyager is 40 years old, and we've barely sent a damn thing to follow them.
Get to the Moon, and then we can worry about Mars. Get to Mars, and then we can worry about other planets. Get to other planets, and then we can worry about other stars.
But, as has been shown, we don't have the resources to do much more than the occasional probe to Mars. Worrying about contacting a star that passed thousands of AU away, tens of thousands of years ago, is really just worthless at the moment.
Not saying we can't look at the next step before we actually NEED to do it, but we're so far behind it's laughable.
Not even sure if we could communicate effectively with something that far out. We struggle with Voyager as it is, 400 times the distance means 160,000 times the power, accuracy or sensitivity required just to stay in touch. There's really no point sending anything in that direction unless we can keep in touch with it, and we have lost contact with Earth-orbiting satellites before now - sometimes for decades before we've re-established any useful contact.
They supply chips to manufacturers and overclocking is specifically RUNNING SOMETHING PAST ITS DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS. As such, overclocking causing product returns is exactly the kind of things that suppliers will push back to nVidia on to cost them money.
How would you like it if you designed sold a laptop for which a component manufacturer allowed you to ramp it up to 120 degrees when your case was only designed, built and tested to withstand 90 degrees? Every return you get, you'd either push back to the user themselves (their own fault) or to the chip manufacturer for allowing their chips to run outside their own specs.
If you want to overclock, it's at your own risk and with ZERO support from the manufacturer (nVidia or anyone else). I say this as someone who once owned a couple of MSI laptops with a "TurboCharge" button placed next to the Wifi button that overclocked the CPU and GPU. It specifically said using it voids your warranty. I never used it. In fact, I uninstalled the hotkey software that would ever let you try to do so.
If a car manufacturer says their cars are not designed to run at over 100mph (almost every standard tyre you will buy) or over 7000rpm, that's where they stop caring. And they will - like car manufacturer's have - put in rev limiters to stop you damaging the engine by trying to go beyond that. If you choose to is at YOUR option, and your own risk and no manufacturer will condone or help you to do that.
Otherwise it wouldn't BE "over"clocking. It would just be "clocking"
Weren't there online MMO games that tried that? And someone just made a tool that cached all the content etc. that the local computer received and offered it from a fake local server instead. Not perfect, but surely good enough to defeat even these tactics if you have enough interest in reverse-engineering something.
If the code you want to protect is running on general-purpose processors under the control of a third-party (the user who might want to reverse-engineer), there's nothing you can do to stop them, only make their lives harder.
If you're running services entirely on your end on behalf of the customer, then maybe you can stop things happening. But the second they have an opportunity to "change the mind" of the local software they're running to accept or not accept something, they have the power to fake acceptance. Hell, a lot of reverse-engineering is done by tweaking programs to contain their own "trojan horse" code that will then go through and happily output all the "decrypted/deobfuscated" code that it was trying to hide.
Reverse engineering is possible on any processor I physically control. That's the end of it. If you want to move your product entirely to the cloud under your own control, feel free. But then you have the burden of all those computing resources, it's difficult to integrate (or trust with) my data, and you get into the OnLive situation all over again. Sure, zero "piracy" of games that could have been released exclusively on OnLive, At the expense of cost, performance, latency, network dependency, etc.
Another way to crack HARESâ(TM) encryption, says Torrey, would be to take advantage of a debugging feature in some chips... But taking advantage of that feature requires a five-figure-priced JTAG debugger, not a device most reverse engineers tend to have lying around."
Or running the code in a VM.
Really? This sounds just the same as someone saying that DEP would stop this kind of reverse engineering (the concept seems incredibly similar to me, maybe I'm wrong). If someone wants to reverse engineer software, they will have the tools to do so and, in this modern world, any software thats run on physical hardware but not in a VM must have a limited lifespan.
If all else fails, emulate the machine. Slow, yes, but reverse-engineering and debugging tools need to be incredibly slow anyway.
Sorry, but this is a slashvertisement for something with precisely zero deployments in real-life software that people might want to reverse-engineer.
And, as said, all you've done is make it easier to create malware that's difficult to remove. So, in effect, such facilities in processors will end up being beefed up to take account of this and rendering the technique obsolete.
In all of recorded computing history, every technique for preventing reverse-engineering or debugging has turned out not to work, or to be so onerous on users that nobody ever actually enables it.
My car already has a GPS tracker on it, with GSM texting if it moves, and integration into the fuel pump (or any 12v-controlled output) to allow remote-disable.
Takes no longer to install than a car radio, hides BEHIND the car radio (and still gets good GSM/GPS signal), even gives you an SOS button if you want it (texts the emergency numbers programmed into it with GPS position), geofencing, speed warning, remote live tracking on Google Earth, etc.
Sorry, but you're at least five years too late.
Sadly, I fit this into a 1997 car, so it's probably worth more than the car. And with a GBP 5 / month SIM card, I get free texts to and from it.
Slashdot Mirror
There are four twisted pairs. Assume they are 100MHz each. That's only 400MHz (800 if you think the other one of a pair does anything (*)). Yet you push 1000Mbits a second over it (and, yes, that's the actual speed) .
How? PAM, QAM, and a bunch of other tricks - because you think you need an entire cycle/wavelength in order to encode a single bit of information, which just isn't true.
(*) it doesn't - the other half of the pair allows you to subtract interference received along the same route by an equal length cable. Much like MIMO antenna differencing.
And if she'd eaten them when you were in the womb, you'd have had her contaminated blood, and all her immune response (i.e. zero) to it.
And if you'd been given them to eat, it would have been different too.
But nobody is saying that there aren't the 1% who might be allergic to peanut. But, unless and until you have a reaction, why avoid them? That's the point. Avoiding them can provoke an immune reaction to a "foreign" agent.
Instead of the 1% having a visible allergic reaction, we have the 50% who say they are "intolerant" to a major food group and/or make themselves allergic by avoiding it altogether. And then guess what reaction their children have, and so on.
Everything in moderation. Don't shove peanuts down your newborn's face, but don't avoid them in pregnancy either.
Cat5 cables is only aimed at 100MHz signals, but you can put Gigabit Ethernet over it.
The number of bits sent does not have to be less than the frequency of the carrier (or even half that).
Phase, amplitude, frequency-modulation, plus others, all combined allow you to get a lot more out of the signal than merely the carrier frequency rate.
Otherwise your old 56Kb/s modem of old would never have got to that speed, your DSL modems wouldn't come close, your wifi would be nothing more than a radio modem, etc.
Hasn't been true for decades, and with multiple antenna etc. tricks you can do even more.
Gemalto do the majority of the smartcard market these days.
I've used them for everything for business banking to access control.
Is it not scary enough that they have been compromised to the point of making almost every SIM on the planet useless? By comparison a banking smartcard here or there is nothing.
Ironically, every few months our bank will tell us that we have to replace the PIN-pads/smartcards/whatever for a newer model "to be secure". Nobody's yet answered then why their software only works on IE (and older versions at that).
"It's called Linux 4.0."
How's that?
Already some versions of Linux has been everything from Lucid Lynx to Trust Tahr. Windows is technically Chicago, isn't it?
And, sorry, but my software on my desktop at the moment consists of Xibo, Google, Putty, Audacity, GIMP, MonkeyJam, Scratch, GLPI (colloquially known as "gloopy"), and numerous others. And I work in a very posh independent school. This is what the kids see every day. Are the school bothered? No.
If you're put off by the name, use the version number like everyone else. And if your CIO doesn't allow you to deploy something because of a nickname, yet it fulfills all your business purposes and doesn't have the name visible ANYWHERE, he's an idiot.
Oddly, if I want what *I* want on a machine nowadays, things have turned on their heads.
On headless servers I run Ubuntu LTS - it means that when I want to suck in a new daemon, it's as simple as apt-get install, it installs all necessary dependencies (so though it might pick up KDE libs, it's unlikely to pick up X itself or anything else at all) and it all just works in a secure default config. And updates can happen automatically.
On desktops, where I need to choose what happens to each pixel of my desktop in detail, I tend to run Slackware. It leaves me in control, lets me have any desktop I like and doesn't pretend to know better than I about how I should click things.
The Linux world has been upturned for me over the last ten years. And with things like systemd dominance on the horizon, I can only see myself sticking with this setup. I don't particularly care how one of the remote headless servers I operate wants to show things, so long as it boots and I don't have to faff about worrying about the hardware. All I want is an initial SSH and be able to apt-get stuff and be up and running in minutes so I can put the rest of my config back on.
And my desktop still needs to be like, well, my desktop. You don't get to play with it. And doing so is as rude as throwing all my stuff of my desk and putting your own on there.
Strange, because I've used a number of Android devices that don't even have Google search on at all but some proprietary junk instead.
Not saying Google Search wasn't on there, but it wasn't shipped as the default.
Actually, MS claimed that even they COULDN'T unbundle IE from Windows for many years. Only when it was demonstrated in court that it was possible did they backtrack.
The fact is that MS didn't give you a choice. The only choice was to suffer the install of IE, ignore it repeated attempts to be the default, and have to leave it installed forever handling some things that it never needed to be handling.
And then the EU quashed all that crap and made them put a browser choice screen on every PC in the EU for several years to counteract it.
Yeah, sorry, even with crap translation, it doesn't read like that to me.
What they want is to be bundled as the default for everything by default. It doesn't really say that Google are strong-arming them into only ever providing Google and nothing else. There's nothing stopping Yandex putting out Yandex Android with all the defaults changed, but they'd have to convince phone manufacturers to use it, and then access to Google Play Store isn't guaranteed (but if it uses Android, you have a legal right to use the store as it says so in the Play EULA... like cheap tablets that don't get the official Google Play go-ahead and don't bundle it, Google aren't stopping you installing it yourself if that's what you want to do - and they don't even need to go that far... how many other types of machines are you allowed to connect to the iTunes app store and download your stuff with?).
Sorry, but it sounds like sour grapes to me. And it's a lot of waffle surrounding that the fact the PEOPLE don't change the defaults, not that the defaults aren't changeable with a 5-second search of how to do so.
Comparing it to the monopoly market position of bundling IE on Windows in a captive market is just hyperbole. If Google said to manufacturers you can only ever sell phones with Android, if you sell a phone with anything else we'll stop giving you any of our Android products and you won't be able to sell them, the default has to be left at Chrome when you sell, we'll never remove Chrome from the Android system because it's "all one thing", and they owned more than 90% of the market, and Chrome had almost zero market usage outside of such monopolistic actions, then it would be comparable. They aren't. By a long-shot.
Nothing is stopping them selling a Yandex Android phone with Yandex as the default and Yandex app store. In the same way that many of the cheap Android devices worldwide do just that. The fact is, though, that they want the Google name for the App Store so they don't have to pay a penny for running that, and run stock Android, but still have their search engine be the default, and expect Google to jump in and help them when the system is all open anyway.
The problem is really resources.
The gap between us and the Moon means we used vast portions of the available resources that have been here for milions of years to get to that point. And we've never gone back because to do so again would be just too expensive in those terms, even with advances in technology.
Now extend that to extended life on the Moon, stripping that bare and moving to Mars, stripping that bare to move to the other planets, etc. By the time you're heading out of the solar system, you've got such few resources that you have to use most of them to stay alive and keep moving. Even assuming some form of nuclear fusion "alchemy" (where we could form any material from hydrogen, and convert anything at all to energy) - getting intact to the next star is a huge feat. And you better hope there's resources there to plunder enough to reach the next, and so on.
You need seriously advanced technology, you need to continue to work for tens of thousands of years, just to survive to the point where you could strip enough planets of their base resources to contain the technology to sustain you to the next star. This is why Dyson-spheres were in such vogue - the only way to get that amount of sheer energy is to capture and live off of entire stars, to get enough energy to get to the next.
You need lots of huge breakthroughs, like fusion, then you need to shrink them to practical sizes, like spaceships, then you need to keep them running forever, which requires an awful lot of infrastructure to keep supplying all those advanced materials, then you need to be able to strip anything you come across of any useful resource, forever, and maintain it all, and then head somewhere practical that will be useful to you and not just "another M-class planet".
Fermi's Paradox is really right here. Anybody who could do all that would have no interest in us, our technology, our resources, or anything at all really... and that's one of the reasons that we wouldn't see them.
Once you hit a certain point of exponential growth and advancement, you'll never bother with planets and the things that live on them again.
To be invaded, you have to have something worthwhile. Colonisable planets wouldn't be hard to find for a civilisation capable of inter-system travel. We don't have anything particularly rare or in unusual abundance in terms of useful minerals. We are boring in and of ourselves and contact would be pretty pointless for anything working at that level.
And the more we find out, the more "usual" we become - there are now orders of magnitude more stars believed to have Earth-like planets than before. There's just not much here worth having.
Chances are, any civilisation out there is just aware of us but ignoring us because we're like insects to them, on a not particularly interesting planet, or is no more advanced than we are.
Likely our first contact would also be our last. "Hi, humans, what do you have interesting for us? Nothing. Okay. See you in a few million years when you grow up" and then we'd chase our own tails trying to re-establish contact for the next few thousand years.
It would be an infeasibly difficult and expensive project to cover all of the Earth's surface alone in radar / optical scans in near-enough time to spot anything moving oddly no matter what it was or where it moved, and then isolate that from the background noise of trees moving and things rolling down hills.
To then extend that by several DOZEN orders of magnitude to cover the entire solar system? Sorry, it's really sci-fi at the moment. If we could populate a few of the outer planets and triangulate, maybe, but to cover all the solar system would really need "solar system-GPS" type coverage.
The space is just too huge, and our tech too primitive. There are asteroids etc. discovered almost every day that we never knew were there and are 1km+ in size. And though we can track their orbits, we can't do that for every of that size on a regular enough basis. Plus, if we did, it would only take something following a natural orbit to throw us off the scent (and given that's that the lowest-energy method of sticking around for a long time, it would be stupid not to do such a thing for any visiting craft).
Likely, this wouldn't happen, and we'd not spot anything, until we'd colonised most of the planets and brought out tech up by orders of magnitude too.
We have problems spotting and tracking 1km-long rocks in space beyond the Earth's orbit. We literally get taken by surprise by large rocks and their orbits all the time, whizzing around our solar system without us knowing they're there.
We're also not looking for those kinds of things, as such. A ship of some description able to sense us from afar and come into the system probably wouldn't jump in at the third planet out by default. They'd probably jump in off-axis, far away, and we'd be hard pushed to spot anything of space ship size (http://io9.com/nasa-spots-a-po...
That wasn't spotted for ages, discovered only in 2013, when it was only 10 times the moon's distance away (nearly a Mars distance). It was spotted only by something looking for near-earth objects and only because it looked like its natural trajectory may bring it close to Earth in the next 100 or so years. It's 650 metres long, orbits every three years and could weigh tens or hundreds of thousands of tons.
We can't see this kind of stuff. The angles and chances are just too small and anything that settles into a natural orbit is basically indistinguishable from a rock. It wouldn't take much for something to jump in just outside the outer planets and settle, say, a Saturn distance away, probably off-axis (hiding in-axis may well give shadows etc. that give it away and we likely look at the planets and other things in our axis more than elsewhere) and we'd never spot it. Never. If we did, we'd think it was a rock.
From there, a basic telescope (or a pair of binoculars) would be able to light us up like a Christmas tree, show us to be particularly interesting, and a simple radio antenna would be able to prove that their was life on here, while at the same time being basically invisible to us without even trying.
Any civilisation with a 1km intra-system space-ship capability likely has much better tech than a $200 telescope and a satellite dish connected to a radio scanner, They'd know we were here, and be able to observe us for centuries, long before we ever would know they were there - and we'd probably NOT know they were anything other than a rock.
The distances are too immense, the angles involved far too tiny once you get out past the moon, and there's just too much stuff moving about if you have a sensitive instrument. Hell, we don't even reliably know what everything in EARTH ORBIT is, let alone trying to go out to even a Moon-distance or Mars-distance or Neptune-distance.
Basically, we would never know. The only way to get to the point we would know would be to colonise enough of the solar systems to provide mapping and triangulation of the entire space in-between, And even then, you probably could still hide if you were at all careful.
Using basic encryption to authenticate a download of an operating system is to an official server is what I'd class as absolute bare basics.
Does it check hash values or signed packages? I would hope the answer's yes for anything made in the last ten years.
That's not a "killer feature". That's basic expectation.
On the Apple front - they do this by removing much of your control of the device. There are as many rogue apps on the iTunes store as anywhere else. There are also security problems that were left alone for just as long as everyone else:
http://arstechnica.com/securit...
(Note: published after 90 days past initial notification, the article says two were definitely still unpatched. Apple are no different to any other large company in this regard, so saying it's "a pretty big deal for them" is probably hyperbole).
I'd also say, just if they're making their money from hardware there's little incentive to fix software - at least compared to companies that just or primarily sell software.
Very much depends who "you" are, how many you tested, what you tested and whether you have any interest in seeing Samsung fail or not.
Sorry, but an AC post against Samsung - hell, even 100, or 100 1-star posts on Amazon (which often consist of "it didn't arrive", "I broke it and don't know how to fix it" or "this was shit and didn't work as cat litter at all", can't compete against the sheer number of 5-star reviews I see of some of their SSD products (not all, granted, but some) - including those of actual confirmed purchases.
Like with everything, you have to know what you're buying, and buy the right thing. And still you might get stuck with the flaky cheap model, or have a run of bad luck.
As far as I can tell, despite the early firmware problems which I waited out to see Samsung's response, the 840 EVO range are still top of their class, especially the 1Tb model - and the firmware problems are basically gone now (we all cock up, it's how you handle the cock-ups that matters).
Sorry, but your post is just noise without any kind of evidence. Sadly, a random blog post from some guy showing you photos of what he bought and when, screenshots of a benchmark or two, and a running list of problems and/or statistics about those devices means infinitely more than your post does.
At times, everything but the front page is being served by a third-party CDN, by the looks of it. When that happens, you get "logged out", and content pages fail with certificate errors because they're not coming from slashdot.org but a cdn domain.
Either slashdot are under attack and keeping quiet, or they're falling over and keeping quiet.
While we're discussing HTTP, what's wrong with Slashdot lately?
I keep getting timeouts, signed out, nothing but the front page, everything else loaded from a CDN (that just gives me browser security warnings because it's not coming up as slashdot.org), etc.
Are you guys under attack, or just unable to keep a site with ~100 comments per article up?
HTTP does not require encryption. It's a hypertext protocol.
However, it can be transported by anything else. You could have HTTP over UDP, or pigeon post if you wanted.
What you are confusing is a need for security with a completely inappropriate layer for such security. The same way that embedding IP details into FTP DATA packets is stupid and wrong.
HTTP/2 over TLS is what you want. And that doesn't give a shit what HTTP/2 does in terms of security.
Actually, infinitely more important are TLS and DNSSEC working together. And, I'd argue, IPv6 after that. What you send over that secure, authenticated, reliable, modern channel is then of little consequence.
Once you have the transport sorted, the protocol for where the text goes on the page should have no bearing on your actual security.
The distances are indeed immense and we have much bigger worries.
Guys, we haven't had a human leave Earth properly in nearly 50 years. Given how little tech like this was possible 50 years before we did do that, that's damn atrocious. And that didn't come with bothering to use AU for the distance at all.
Even Voyager is 40 years old, and we've barely sent a damn thing to follow them.
Get to the Moon, and then we can worry about Mars.
Get to Mars, and then we can worry about other planets.
Get to other planets, and then we can worry about other stars.
But, as has been shown, we don't have the resources to do much more than the occasional probe to Mars. Worrying about contacting a star that passed thousands of AU away, tens of thousands of years ago, is really just worthless at the moment.
Not saying we can't look at the next step before we actually NEED to do it, but we're so far behind it's laughable.
Not even sure if we could communicate effectively with something that far out. We struggle with Voyager as it is, 400 times the distance means 160,000 times the power, accuracy or sensitivity required just to stay in touch. There's really no point sending anything in that direction unless we can keep in touch with it, and we have lost contact with Earth-orbiting satellites before now - sometimes for decades before we've re-established any useful contact.
Have worked in a school where the children weren't allowed bunsen burners, and had to simulate chemical reactions / explosions on computer software.
It's honestly NOT that unusual.
And?
They supply chips to manufacturers and overclocking is specifically RUNNING SOMETHING PAST ITS DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS. As such, overclocking causing product returns is exactly the kind of things that suppliers will push back to nVidia on to cost them money.
How would you like it if you designed sold a laptop for which a component manufacturer allowed you to ramp it up to 120 degrees when your case was only designed, built and tested to withstand 90 degrees? Every return you get, you'd either push back to the user themselves (their own fault) or to the chip manufacturer for allowing their chips to run outside their own specs.
If you want to overclock, it's at your own risk and with ZERO support from the manufacturer (nVidia or anyone else). I say this as someone who once owned a couple of MSI laptops with a "TurboCharge" button placed next to the Wifi button that overclocked the CPU and GPU. It specifically said using it voids your warranty. I never used it. In fact, I uninstalled the hotkey software that would ever let you try to do so.
If a car manufacturer says their cars are not designed to run at over 100mph (almost every standard tyre you will buy) or over 7000rpm, that's where they stop caring. And they will - like car manufacturer's have - put in rev limiters to stop you damaging the engine by trying to go beyond that. If you choose to is at YOUR option, and your own risk and no manufacturer will condone or help you to do that.
Otherwise it wouldn't BE "over"clocking. It would just be "clocking"
Weren't there online MMO games that tried that? And someone just made a tool that cached all the content etc. that the local computer received and offered it from a fake local server instead. Not perfect, but surely good enough to defeat even these tactics if you have enough interest in reverse-engineering something.
If the code you want to protect is running on general-purpose processors under the control of a third-party (the user who might want to reverse-engineer), there's nothing you can do to stop them, only make their lives harder.
If you're running services entirely on your end on behalf of the customer, then maybe you can stop things happening. But the second they have an opportunity to "change the mind" of the local software they're running to accept or not accept something, they have the power to fake acceptance. Hell, a lot of reverse-engineering is done by tweaking programs to contain their own "trojan horse" code that will then go through and happily output all the "decrypted/deobfuscated" code that it was trying to hide.
Reverse engineering is possible on any processor I physically control. That's the end of it. If you want to move your product entirely to the cloud under your own control, feel free. But then you have the burden of all those computing resources, it's difficult to integrate (or trust with) my data, and you get into the OnLive situation all over again. Sure, zero "piracy" of games that could have been released exclusively on OnLive, At the expense of cost, performance, latency, network dependency, etc.
Another way to crack HARESâ(TM) encryption, says Torrey, would be to take advantage of a debugging feature in some chips... But taking advantage of that feature requires a five-figure-priced JTAG debugger, not a device most reverse engineers tend to have lying around."
Or running the code in a VM.
Really? This sounds just the same as someone saying that DEP would stop this kind of reverse engineering (the concept seems incredibly similar to me, maybe I'm wrong). If someone wants to reverse engineer software, they will have the tools to do so and, in this modern world, any software thats run on physical hardware but not in a VM must have a limited lifespan.
If all else fails, emulate the machine. Slow, yes, but reverse-engineering and debugging tools need to be incredibly slow anyway.
Sorry, but this is a slashvertisement for something with precisely zero deployments in real-life software that people might want to reverse-engineer.
And, as said, all you've done is make it easier to create malware that's difficult to remove. So, in effect, such facilities in processors will end up being beefed up to take account of this and rendering the technique obsolete.
In all of recorded computing history, every technique for preventing reverse-engineering or debugging has turned out not to work, or to be so onerous on users that nobody ever actually enables it.
Welcome to the 90's, USA.
I don't think I've ever had a phone on contract that couldn't be unlocked on demand after the initial period.
My car already has a GPS tracker on it, with GSM texting if it moves, and integration into the fuel pump (or any 12v-controlled output) to allow remote-disable.
It cost me GBP30 ($50?) on Amazon. It's this one:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/pro...
Takes no longer to install than a car radio, hides BEHIND the car radio (and still gets good GSM/GPS signal), even gives you an SOS button if you want it (texts the emergency numbers programmed into it with GPS position), geofencing, speed warning, remote live tracking on Google Earth, etc.
Sorry, but you're at least five years too late.
Sadly, I fit this into a 1997 car, so it's probably worth more than the car. And with a GBP 5 / month SIM card, I get free texts to and from it.