This false distinction between “Internet access service” and “a distinct transmission service” is utterly ridiculous and completely ungrounded from reality. As the FCC would have it, there is some sort of “transmission” that is separate from the Internet that ISPs provide access to.
As usual I feel behind the curve in trying to understand where these guys are coming from.
Back in the day, when the "Internet" and AOL was the same thing to many people and you accessed it through a dial-up modem, there was definitely a distinction between packet transmission and ISP provided services. I remember trying to get USENET access through my dad's system where AOL was the "ISP." Everything in their app worked fine and you could do some "Internety" things but on the Windows side there didn't seem to be anything like a protocol stack that was recognizable to anyone used to using *nix type systems. Maybe I just didn't know what I was doing but I couldn't even get a PING from the command line shell to my home system which had a public IP address.
Wouldn't the FCC's position make sense if this was still the way we were doing things? Maybe the top people there think it is.
Also, since the attack writes nothing to disk, how does it survive a reboot or power cycle?
I think that was the whole point of why this new exploit sounds so scary. Nothing gets written to disk so it isn't "traceable."
The thing is if you are able to inject your own code to run in a system in the first place, you can do it again and again as long as the owner of the system isn't aware of it and doesn't change anything. I can see the appeal of that; it would allow an attacker to set up a temporary base that would be devilishly hard to trace back to the system that injected it. At least if all you had to go on was the infected system itself.
Of course if you have decent IDS that covers both inside and outside jobs that is really not much added safety for the bad hombre. But not that many sites have that.
Trying to understand this. Basically NTFS Transactions are a deprecated feature, but this amounts to little more than monkeying with the in-RAM read cache of an executable file.
Well great. In order to do that I have to have access to the system at some level in the first place. So this exploit technique is only really viable if you have either an inside job or a leaked password. And it isn't clear to me that you don't need an admin-level access to use that API as well.
Unless I missed something this doesn't seem like that hot an issue.
Highly refined carbohydrates are poison only to people who can't properly process them (diabetics).
Oh, right. So what you are now saying is that high-fructose corn syrup, artificial trans-fats, unfermented soy products and machined grains are all perfectly healthy food choices as long as you can "properly" process them. Whatever that means. I suppose it means that you don't show ill effects for an extended period.
It only works as long as the lifestyle changes are in place.
What a bizarre objection. I've seen it before and it never ceases to astound me. Consider what you are saying:
Behavior A produces undesirable outcome X.
Behavior B produces desirable outcome Y.
Reverting from Behavior B back to Behavior A produces undesirable X again.
So therefore Behavior B is "faulty" somehow and not a real remedy for X!
Has it ever occurred to people making that argument that "Behavior A" basically amounts to eating poison (highly refined carbohydrates) which should never have been followed in the first place? Apparently not.
I agree. There are lots of things that wouldn't cost that much, could be adapted to space storage fairly easily, and might turn out useful later on if it can be picked up from Mars orbit.
That would be comparatively low-yield with regard to PR, though.
My understanding is that many of the WH workers all the way to the top use private e-mail and are probably handling classified documents that way. Just like in the GWB days when the RNC provided the e-mail servers.
Of course I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that. After all there is no Clinton involved in it so who cares. I am just pointing out that if you are concerned about leaks personal e-mail has to be at least as big a threat any personal phones.
I can't believe the Chinese Communist Party actually thinks people are dumb enough to believe the shit that they spew.
I'm not sure why you would think this. There are plenty of people right here in the U.S. (and a more than a few spotted right here on/.) that would be perfectly OK with the government regulating the internet in this way. Check in with the anti-porn crusaders if you want an example but there are many more.
If you have ever been to China, particularly in the well-developed industrial/financial centers, many if not most of them view the Communist party as ideological bureaucrats currently in charge, frequently annoying and sometimes dangerous, but an entity to be worked with and around. Bribed as necessary. They then get on with the work of being successful capitalists which they consider themselves.
I think this is an interesting avenue of study but when I read:
James Clement, a self-described 'citizen-scientist,'
I get wary to the point of being totally turned off. Pretty soon I would expect to start getting banner ads for some new "miracle supplement" or something like that after after reading it. It wouldn't be bad to be wrong about this but the track record...
Even Universities and well-funded corporation get huckster scientists. The guy doing it alone by definition doesn't have the institutional filters in place to keep pipe dreams and wishful thinking at bay.
My housekeeper's husband works as a welder at the Tesla plant. I might see him later this week so I'm going to ask him what he thinks about this. (He's Hispanic and a pretty good guy.) Unfortunately the way that Slashdot works this thread will be pretty much dead and buried by the time I learn anything worth contributing. But if the question comes up again I'll post it.
As far as other Tesla people I run into at the various lunch establishments in the neighborhood -- they are all preoccupied with getting Series 3 production up to speed. They don't seem to have much else to talk about.
Clinton is not just bad at campaigning but she's got some serious charges of corruption against her. Only now, a year later, have many of the charges started to prove true because her protection from the media and deep state is starting to fall away. What did Clinton bring to the table that proved her suited to be POTUS?
Just a few facts that stand in the way of this narrative:
1. Clinton got 3M+ more votes and would have won the electoral college had it not been for Comey's last minute intervention in the election.
2. In spite of being the most investigated person in history no charges have ever been brought against her because there are no plausible charges to bring.
3. There has never been a candidate that had more experience for the office than Clinton in 2016. First Lady, Senator, Secretary of State, human rights activist and respected the world over. When Trump secured his nomination through the outstanding blundering and total incompetence of all Republican contenders there were more than a few conservative media institutions that endorsed Clinton in spite of decades and in one case a century (Arizona Republic I believe) of never endorsing a Democrat. The reason: the issue of character and competence was so extreme that they were willing to set aside their agenda.
Neither Bill or Jeff are the richest person in the world and never were. Valdimir Putin is richer than both put together (love that revolution) and there are individuals and families throughout south Asia that could buy out both of them with pocket change.
There is a lot to wealth besides stocks traded publicly on U.S exchanges.
If you want to wallow in superficial American media fantasies that's fine but it doesn't make anyone smarter.
If you think it doesn't matter consider the fact that Trump is widely regarded as a rich guy but if his and his whole family's balance sheet were accurately reported he would probably have negative net worth. Do you think the glassy-eyed crowds would have voted for him in such big numbers if that was how he was generally known? I sure don't.
I was wondering if that is what it was, but with the stress of having a major file server down I just couldn't justify the hours it would take to a) learn how to diagnose it and then b) do an analysis. That system had only the one VM left on it so I was just happy enough to take the latest VM image and put it on another hypervisor.
One drive was making ugly noises so maybe (probably) a head crash. The confident product theory of hardware RAID is that shouldn't have mattered the remaining good drive(s) should have just continued service but it didn't. Fortunately I never fell into the trap of i-got-hardware-raid-so-i-don't-need-backup. In my mind that is about the same level of false confidence as a drunk has getting behind the wheel.
Just as this article popped up I was assembling a JBOD array (twelve 4TB drives) for a new data center project, my first in quite a while. Also self funded so I don't have to defer to anyone in decisions.
When I started I did a bit of reading trying to decide what RAID hardware to get. To make a long story short once I read the architecture of ZFS and several somewhat-polemic-but-well-reasoned blog entries I decided that is what I wanted.
Only two months ago I had an aged Dell RAID array let me down. I have no idea what actually happened, but it appears some error crept in one of the drives and it got faithfully spread across the array and there was just no recovering it. If I didn't have good backups that would have been about 12 years of the company's IP up in smoke. I just thought I'd share.
So I ended up as a prime candidate (with new found distrust for hardware RAID) to be a new ZFS-as-my-main-storage user. I've just recently learned stuff that was well established five years ago and I can't understand why doesn't everybody do it this way.
Wow. snapshots? I can do routine low-cost snapshots? Data compression? Sane volume management? (I consider LVM to the the crazy aunt in the attic. Part of the family but...) Old Solaris hands are probably rolling their eyes but this is like mana from heaven to me.
Given the plethora of benefits I am sure the incentive is high enough to keep ZFS on Linux going onward. ZFS root file system would be nice but I am more than willing to work around that now.
How "binding"? Just until the next time the Attorney General decides to change it?
Pretty much that. Far too many American citizen comrades have no idea we are living in a country where there are "laws" that the public is not entitled to see.
Also far too many citizen comrades are perfectly OK with that. They think to the extent that it affects them it is keeping them safe or something.
I find it weird that you can rate the reliability of a car you've never even touched and which nobody has had on the road for any length of time,
I suppose a lot of people here have not had much experience in manufacturing products. At my companies we have often had to declare to prospective customers the MTBF (Mean Time Between Failure) of products we hadn't gotten to production yet.
Typically one of our circuit assemblies (with large chips) will have an MTBF of 50K to 100K hours these days. Certainly we can't run a bunch of them in the test lab for that length of time to determine this. The product would be too old to ship before the tests were done!
The answer is that there are a number of accepted models (with vendors of software for them) that are used to do this. Telcordia/Bellcore, MIL-217, and so on. You gather data from the each of the components (resistors, LEDs, chips, DC-DC converters, etc.) and put them into the model and it calculates the predicted MTBF result. OEM customers will accept that value as long as you worked the model correctly.
It is actually kind of interesting to play with the model to see what happens when you change the product. If you add a fan component or a rotating-media disk drive you see a big impact in the MTBF.
Can you do this for a whole car? Yes it is possible but some components won't have MTBF figures established. For that you can substitute similar parts and make a judgement call. I would be surprised if Tesla hadn't done this already but I would also be equally surprised if CR had. Not in any rigorous way at least. It is a lot of work.
So I am pretty sure that they are just doing SWAG on most of it which I wouldn't trust much. Sure Tesla models do have their problems because they are damn near prototype units they are shipping. Things go wrong with them that has to be fixed but Tesla takes that in stride and fixes them. But it doesn't make for good-looking reliability predictions.
One thing about CR that I had noted ever since I started reading them back in the '70s. When it comes to American-made cars they always seem to have a bias against them. If Dodge or Chevrolet does something that Mercedes or BMW or Honda do they will shave the score off the American car but not the foreign car. I think they are better about this than they used to be (decades ago when I last paid attention) but it was very pronounced then and they could be taking it out Tesla now.
For Intel's sake, this had better rock, or else it's DOA.
Odds are it is already DOA. Intel being Intel they get the itch every now and then and feel the need to capture some high-yield revenue stream other than the x86 family.
Over the years they have done it all. FPGAs? Embedded controllers? RISC processors? Switch Chips? Infiniband? GPUs? The list is endless. From this perspective "neural net" is nothing new.
Start with some tech acquisition, run up a bunch of hype, do some trade shows or even TED talks. At the end of the day it doesn't run Windows so it doesn't make money for them and the business unit is quietly sold off or disbanded.
Check in on this in 12 months and you will find Intel strategic talk on "getting back to core competency" again.
Slashdot Mirror
This false distinction between “Internet access service” and “a distinct transmission service” is utterly ridiculous and completely ungrounded from reality. As the FCC would have it, there is some sort of “transmission” that is separate from the Internet that ISPs provide access to.
As usual I feel behind the curve in trying to understand where these guys are coming from.
Back in the day, when the "Internet" and AOL was the same thing to many people and you accessed it through a dial-up modem, there was definitely a distinction between packet transmission and ISP provided services. I remember trying to get USENET access through my dad's system where AOL was the "ISP." Everything in their app worked fine and you could do some "Internety" things but on the Windows side there didn't seem to be anything like a protocol stack that was recognizable to anyone used to using *nix type systems. Maybe I just didn't know what I was doing but I couldn't even get a PING from the command line shell to my home system which had a public IP address.
Wouldn't the FCC's position make sense if this was still the way we were doing things? Maybe the top people there think it is.
Also, since the attack writes nothing to disk, how does it survive a reboot or power cycle?
I think that was the whole point of why this new exploit sounds so scary. Nothing gets written to disk so it isn't "traceable."
The thing is if you are able to inject your own code to run in a system in the first place, you can do it again and again as long as the owner of the system isn't aware of it and doesn't change anything. I can see the appeal of that; it would allow an attacker to set up a temporary base that would be devilishly hard to trace back to the system that injected it. At least if all you had to go on was the infected system itself.
Of course if you have decent IDS that covers both inside and outside jobs that is really not much added safety for the bad hombre. But not that many sites have that.
Trying to understand this. Basically NTFS Transactions are a deprecated feature, but this amounts to little more than monkeying with the in-RAM read cache of an executable file.
Well great. In order to do that I have to have access to the system at some level in the first place. So this exploit technique is only really viable if you have either an inside job or a leaked password. And it isn't clear to me that you don't need an admin-level access to use that API as well.
Unless I missed something this doesn't seem like that hot an issue.
Highly refined carbohydrates are poison only to people who can't properly process them (diabetics).
Oh, right. So what you are now saying is that high-fructose corn syrup, artificial trans-fats, unfermented soy products and machined grains are all perfectly healthy food choices as long as you can "properly" process them. Whatever that means. I suppose it means that you don't show ill effects for an extended period.
Go for it dude. With that logic you'll go far.
Telecom carriers that spend obscene amounts of cash on lobbyists and PACs to help disabled people and the elderly. That's all they want. Really.
Sounds. legit.
There is no cure, and there never will be.
It only works as long as the lifestyle changes are in place.
What a bizarre objection. I've seen it before and it never ceases to astound me. Consider what you are saying:
Behavior A produces undesirable outcome X.
Behavior B produces desirable outcome Y.
Reverting from Behavior B back to Behavior A produces undesirable X again.
So therefore Behavior B is "faulty" somehow and not a real remedy for X!
Has it ever occurred to people making that argument that "Behavior A" basically amounts to eating poison (highly refined carbohydrates) which should never have been followed in the first place? Apparently not.
I agree. There are lots of things that wouldn't cost that much, could be adapted to space storage fairly easily, and might turn out useful later on if it can be picked up from Mars orbit.
That would be comparatively low-yield with regard to PR, though.
The largest losses won't be among tech and factory workers. It will be retail and driving.
Retail already has big bloody chunks torn out of it by online sales.
The rush to automated rides, trucks, and personal vehicles is breathless.
Moral of the story: Find something better to do.
My understanding is that many of the WH workers all the way to the top use private e-mail and are probably handling classified documents that way. Just like in the GWB days when the RNC provided the e-mail servers.
Of course I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that. After all there is no Clinton involved in it so who cares. I am just pointing out that if you are concerned about leaks personal e-mail has to be at least as big a threat any personal phones.
It's cheaper to deal with the financial loss of a hack, than it is to have decent security policies implemented ... ./
Actually in many (if not most) cases the people making the decisions simply don't think it will really happen to them.
Don't forget hate week starts next Wednesday.
And the profit motive is here today. And was here yesterday. And every day from here forward.
I can see that my reference to "institutional filters" went right over your head didn't it.
I can't believe the Chinese Communist Party actually thinks people are dumb enough to believe the shit that they spew.
I'm not sure why you would think this. There are plenty of people right here in the U.S. (and a more than a few spotted right here on /.) that would be perfectly OK with the government regulating the internet in this way. Check in with the anti-porn crusaders if you want an example but there are many more.
If you have ever been to China, particularly in the well-developed industrial/financial centers, many if not most of them view the Communist party as ideological bureaucrats currently in charge, frequently annoying and sometimes dangerous, but an entity to be worked with and around. Bribed as necessary. They then get on with the work of being successful capitalists which they consider themselves.
I think this is an interesting avenue of study but when I read:
James Clement, a self-described 'citizen-scientist,'
I get wary to the point of being totally turned off. Pretty soon I would expect to start getting banner ads for some new "miracle supplement" or something like that after after reading it. It wouldn't be bad to be wrong about this but the track record...
Even Universities and well-funded corporation get huckster scientists. The guy doing it alone by definition doesn't have the institutional filters in place to keep pipe dreams and wishful thinking at bay.
My housekeeper's husband works as a welder at the Tesla plant. I might see him later this week so I'm going to ask him what he thinks about this. (He's Hispanic and a pretty good guy.) Unfortunately the way that Slashdot works this thread will be pretty much dead and buried by the time I learn anything worth contributing. But if the question comes up again I'll post it.
As far as other Tesla people I run into at the various lunch establishments in the neighborhood -- they are all preoccupied with getting Series 3 production up to speed. They don't seem to have much else to talk about.
Are they still running those PDP-10s? Would be amazing to see if they are.
Even if the whole lot of them could be replaced by a couple of smallish VMs running on a laptop somewhere.
A couple of them (look at the center last row female) look like Real Dolls to me.
Clinton is not just bad at campaigning but she's got some serious charges of corruption against her. Only now, a year later, have many of the charges started to prove true because her protection from the media and deep state is starting to fall away. What did Clinton bring to the table that proved her suited to be POTUS?
Just a few facts that stand in the way of this narrative:
1. Clinton got 3M+ more votes and would have won the electoral college had it not been for Comey's last minute intervention in the election.
2. In spite of being the most investigated person in history no charges have ever been brought against her because there are no plausible charges to bring.
3. There has never been a candidate that had more experience for the office than Clinton in 2016. First Lady, Senator, Secretary of State, human rights activist and respected the world over. When Trump secured his nomination through the outstanding blundering and total incompetence of all Republican contenders there were more than a few conservative media institutions that endorsed Clinton in spite of decades and in one case a century (Arizona Republic I believe) of never endorsing a Democrat. The reason: the issue of character and competence was so extreme that they were willing to set aside their agenda.
Neither Bill or Jeff are the richest person in the world and never were. Valdimir Putin is richer than both put together (love that revolution) and there are individuals and families throughout south Asia that could buy out both of them with pocket change.
There is a lot to wealth besides stocks traded publicly on U.S exchanges.
If you want to wallow in superficial American media fantasies that's fine but it doesn't make anyone smarter.
If you think it doesn't matter consider the fact that Trump is widely regarded as a rich guy but if his and his whole family's balance sheet were accurately reported he would probably have negative net worth. Do you think the glassy-eyed crowds would have voted for him in such big numbers if that was how he was generally known? I sure don't.
It may have been the RAID write hole ?
I was wondering if that is what it was, but with the stress of having a major file server down I just couldn't justify the hours it would take to a) learn how to diagnose it and then b) do an analysis. That system had only the one VM left on it so I was just happy enough to take the latest VM image and put it on another hypervisor.
One drive was making ugly noises so maybe (probably) a head crash. The confident product theory of hardware RAID is that shouldn't have mattered the remaining good drive(s) should have just continued service but it didn't. Fortunately I never fell into the trap of i-got-hardware-raid-so-i-don't-need-backup. In my mind that is about the same level of false confidence as a drunk has getting behind the wheel.
Just as this article popped up I was assembling a JBOD array (twelve 4TB drives) for a new data center project, my first in quite a while. Also self funded so I don't have to defer to anyone in decisions.
When I started I did a bit of reading trying to decide what RAID hardware to get. To make a long story short once I read the architecture of ZFS and several somewhat-polemic-but-well-reasoned blog entries I decided that is what I wanted.
Only two months ago I had an aged Dell RAID array let me down. I have no idea what actually happened, but it appears some error crept in one of the drives and it got faithfully spread across the array and there was just no recovering it. If I didn't have good backups that would have been about 12 years of the company's IP up in smoke. I just thought I'd share.
So I ended up as a prime candidate (with new found distrust for hardware RAID) to be a new ZFS-as-my-main-storage user. I've just recently learned stuff that was well established five years ago and I can't understand why doesn't everybody do it this way.
Wow. snapshots? I can do routine low-cost snapshots? Data compression? Sane volume management? (I consider LVM to the the crazy aunt in the attic. Part of the family but ...) Old Solaris hands are probably rolling their eyes but this is like mana from heaven to me.
Given the plethora of benefits I am sure the incentive is high enough to keep ZFS on Linux going onward. ZFS root file system would be nice but I am more than willing to work around that now.
How "binding"? Just until the next time the Attorney General decides to change it?
Pretty much that. Far too many American citizen comrades have no idea we are living in a country where there are "laws" that the public is not entitled to see.
Also far too many citizen comrades are perfectly OK with that. They think to the extent that it affects them it is keeping them safe or something.
The more it evolves the more it stays the same. Shinji still isn't going to get to have sex with Asuka.
It is the new bling.
You wouldn't expect him to be the only one on campus without one would you?
I find it weird that you can rate the reliability of a car you've never even touched and which nobody has had on the road for any length of time,
I suppose a lot of people here have not had much experience in manufacturing products. At my companies we have often had to declare to prospective customers the MTBF (Mean Time Between Failure) of products we hadn't gotten to production yet.
Typically one of our circuit assemblies (with large chips) will have an MTBF of 50K to 100K hours these days. Certainly we can't run a bunch of them in the test lab for that length of time to determine this. The product would be too old to ship before the tests were done!
The answer is that there are a number of accepted models (with vendors of software for them) that are used to do this. Telcordia/Bellcore, MIL-217, and so on. You gather data from the each of the components (resistors, LEDs, chips, DC-DC converters, etc.) and put them into the model and it calculates the predicted MTBF result. OEM customers will accept that value as long as you worked the model correctly.
It is actually kind of interesting to play with the model to see what happens when you change the product. If you add a fan component or a rotating-media disk drive you see a big impact in the MTBF.
Can you do this for a whole car? Yes it is possible but some components won't have MTBF figures established. For that you can substitute similar parts and make a judgement call. I would be surprised if Tesla hadn't done this already but I would also be equally surprised if CR had. Not in any rigorous way at least. It is a lot of work.
So I am pretty sure that they are just doing SWAG on most of it which I wouldn't trust much. Sure Tesla models do have their problems because they are damn near prototype units they are shipping. Things go wrong with them that has to be fixed but Tesla takes that in stride and fixes them. But it doesn't make for good-looking reliability predictions.
One thing about CR that I had noted ever since I started reading them back in the '70s. When it comes to American-made cars they always seem to have a bias against them. If Dodge or Chevrolet does something that Mercedes or BMW or Honda do they will shave the score off the American car but not the foreign car. I think they are better about this than they used to be (decades ago when I last paid attention) but it was very pronounced then and they could be taking it out Tesla now.
For Intel's sake, this had better rock, or else it's DOA.
Odds are it is already DOA. Intel being Intel they get the itch every now and then and feel the need to capture some high-yield revenue stream other than the x86 family.
Over the years they have done it all. FPGAs? Embedded controllers? RISC processors? Switch Chips? Infiniband? GPUs? The list is endless. From this perspective "neural net" is nothing new.
Start with some tech acquisition, run up a bunch of hype, do some trade shows or even TED talks. At the end of the day it doesn't run Windows so it doesn't make money for them and the business unit is quietly sold off or disbanded.
Check in on this in 12 months and you will find Intel strategic talk on "getting back to core competency" again.