I think you're missing the point. You don't like Drobo? Fine - use whatever raid hardware you want. The point is that it really doesn't take much hardware to run a server for a SOHO.
Reliability without redundancy is just hope. No special Mac majic prevents hard drives from failing or the power company from killing your power supply.
If 4 hours of downtime every meantime between failures is OK for you, then running a server on a mini is OK for you. Otherwise you're just spouting marketing mumbojumbo. Timemachine backups are awesome (I would never suggest someone run anything without backups), and they are trivial, and well nigh bulletproof. So get a mini. Get an external for backup. Get an Drobo for backup or even for RAID if you want. Get over it. If you can't afford 4 hours of downtime, make sure you use the external raid for everything and have a spare mini stacked under the one you use.
If your business can afford to spend a few hours down - and there are plenty of businesses that can - then what's the big deal?
The point (and yes I am just parroting Lessig here) was that the Statute of Anne was the replacement for the old common law copyrights which were perpetual. The point of the Statute of Anne was to stop copyrights being perpetual in English law...
I'm in way over my head here, but...
In this context, what does 'perpetual' mean? Does it mean the lifetime of the author, or of a playhouse, or (as some others have implied) is it just synonymous with ownership of the [printed] media?
I wonder if you suppose that kind of copyright would extend until far after the original author's death.
For years, students, journalists, makers and old-school engineers have asked why the Arduino open source microcontroller platform has taken off, with over 100k units 'in the wild'
For years! folks have been asking why it took off! Years!
If an attacker has physical access to a computer(PC, Server, phone, etc...), is there anyway to stop them? Is there really any unbreakable way to encrypt your data?
Yes. There are many ways to encrypt data so that it is practically unbreakable. There is only one known encryption known to be perfectly unbreakable - as others have mentioned: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-time_pad .
Hollywood movies portraying the decrypting of anything is just bunk.
"practically unbreakable" in this case means "unbreakable in our lifetimes using the power of all the computers in the world".
From the article: "The attack works because the cryptographic key on current iOS devices is based on material available within the device and is independent of the passcode, the researchers said. This means attackers with access to the phone can create the key from the phone in their possession without having to hack the encrypted and secret passcode."
So Apple is encrypting the data using a key generated from data that is stored on the phone, itself. It's like you hiding a key to your house and leaving clues on the outside of your house where you stored the key. This is Apple's fault.
Or it could be because AT&T *does* suck. Or it could be because it was mostly a media-furor and not anything substantive. Or it could be because lots of people put their iphone in a case and that pretty much resolved the non-problem.
I was a senior in high school at the time. As an outreach program, a few of the area companies hired high school kids part time so they could see what real engineering work was like. I worked with a team of ME's that worked on the high pressure turbo pumps on the Space Shuttle Main Engines.
I was in school when it was announced over the intercom. I don't remember which class I was in; I gathered my books and got up to walk out of the class. The teacher asked me where I was going and I said "I work on the Space Shuttle Main Engines." and walked out. Looking back, I wonder what the teacher thought about that - I mean it does sound pretty silly from a high school kid.
My clearest memory of the day was driving to work - the radio was playing space-related songs. I remember David Bowie's 'Major Tom'. That's what stands out.
My contributions were pretty trivial; I mostly wrangled data for the ME's to look at. But it was a gut wrenching day. Thank God that we found out very quickly (that day or the next) that it looked like it had nothing to do with the main engines. I really don't know what I would have done.
I remember seeing some of this as part of an elementary school field trip in the late 70's. Maybe to the LA Museum of Modern Art? It was neat, and all, but I wasn't a fan of modern art - even back then.
Thanks, Apple! I love being told I'm a fucking idiot and shouldn't be allowed to open my PURCHASED device, should I choose to do so.
The jury is still out on you, but it's pretty safe to say that 90% of any reasonably large population are idiots when it comes to tech and really should not open their devices.
Maybe you're a clever one and have realized either: * You really shouldn't open your iphone. Probably no good will come of it. * You can open your iphone because you're clever and know where you can get a [reasonably close] driver.
Ah, yet another annoying warning message the user clicks away unread.
I guess you're referring to the Windows model, where I hear there are an awful lot of warnings. I don't face that issue, so I believe it is possible to have a reasonable number of warnings.
And given that the computer cannot know if you know and trust whoever wrote that mail, it would likely give at least 90% "false positives".
I disagree on 2 points: 1. That "the computer can't know if you know and trust the source." Certainly it can get some idea. 2. That downloading *anything* from email is a reasonable thing to do. Certainly downloading a *program* from email is virtually never a good idea and should be impossible for the casual user.
You mean, at gmail there's no way to get at attachments of mails? Somehow I cannot believe that.
Of course you can. But the normal sequence of events is that you will then view the attachment in your browser - whether it be an image or a document. You would not download it to your machine to view it. And that's the point - you shouldn't need to.
You and I may need to send/receive programs via email (though I can't remember the last time I did so), but we are not regular users, and email programs should not cater to us. After all, if you could not send programs via email and we needed that functionality, we would get around it.
...Yes, yes I am. There is absolutely nothing the OS can do to prevent a user with administrative access from installing and running software of their choice...
In the context of reading email, I call B.S.
If all email clients disallowed the downloading of any attachments, this world would be a better place. You and I would have to jump through a hoop or 2 to do the things we do, but the 99.99% of the population that only uses that feature of email programs to install trojans/viruses would appreciate it.
Taking a step up, if all attachments went into a sandbox that was essentially a jail, then this wouldn't be an issue. You can see how that would work.
This is a technical problem. There are technical solutions that would not be too hard to implement.
I don't see why blaming the user is automatically negative. If I write some C code with a null pointer bug, is it my fault or Dennis Ritchie's for designing the language to include pointers? I'd say it's mine, and that I'd be a "user" of the C programming language. In this case I think blaming me, the user, is entirely justified. Then again, responsibility is not always clear-cut. If you let a little kid play with a loaded gun, it's your fault if something happens, not the gun's user or even designer.
C *is* a loaded gun. Anyone who can manage to use a compiler *should* know that. Not that they do...
IMO, if a user runs random executable email attachments, it's they're own fault. Nowadays on Windows they usually have to click past some warning telling them it might not be a good idea, too.
Sure - running an executable you downloaded in email should be nearly impossible. Downloading a virus should also be very difficult. Installing a keylogger (or whatever they installed) should be nearly impossible. As technical folks, we all know how easy this stuff is - but as sympathetic users we should all appreciate that it should be made to be very very difficult. After all, when is the last time you received an executable via email that was not harmful? What about your mom? What about your grandmom? Why is it even possible for those folks to install this stuff?
Is it really that hard? And if you don't know what.jpeg or.pdf or.virus is you should not be using a computer.
You're not kidding? You think it should be possible for a user to trivially install a virus/trojan on their computer? You're blaming the user? Really?
If you don't know what a turn signal is they don't even let you take the test to get your drivers licence.
You are kidding, right? Of course they do. You may fail (or you may not). Spend 10 minutes at an intersection and let me know what percentage of people who turn use their signal.
When someone has a sensitive computer type job they should at least be competent to operate the machine. Any other job requires you to be able to competently operate your machine (or OSHA starts sticking their nose around writing tickets) why should not the guy operating the machine that handles other peoples (his boss) money have to prove their competency. I need all my applicable tickets/certification/first aid to do my job and I have to keep them up to date or I lose my job.
You are blaming the user... I think I like my software to be more responsible/secure than my users. Reading email should be dead simple and safe. And using ACH should be really secure and well audited. While I think that making the email/OS supplier in this case responsible for the losses is going too far, I would certainly tend to place more of the blame with them than with the user. And any bank account that can more $150K around should probably be able to catch this sort of thing earlier - and they should probably require a second form of authentication (keycode fob, etc).
Slashdot Mirror
A Drobo? Are you fucking kidding?
I think you're missing the point. You don't like Drobo? Fine - use whatever raid hardware you want. The point is that it really doesn't take much hardware to run a server for a SOHO.
Reliability without redundancy is just hope. No special Mac majic prevents hard drives from failing or the power company from killing your power supply.
If 4 hours of downtime every meantime between failures is OK for you, then running a server on a mini is OK for you. Otherwise you're just spouting marketing mumbojumbo. Timemachine backups are awesome (I would never suggest someone run anything without backups), and they are trivial, and well nigh bulletproof. So get a mini. Get an external for backup. Get an Drobo for backup or even for RAID if you want. Get over it. If you can't afford 4 hours of downtime, make sure you use the external raid for everything and have a spare mini stacked under the one you use.
If your business can afford to spend a few hours down - and there are plenty of businesses that can - then what's the big deal?
Fascinating - and here I thought that insanity regarding copyright was a fairly recent thing.
Thanks much for your reply.
The point (and yes I am just parroting Lessig here) was that the Statute of Anne was the replacement for the old common law copyrights which were perpetual. The point of the Statute of Anne was to stop copyrights being perpetual in English law...
I'm in way over my head here, but...
In this context, what does 'perpetual' mean? Does it mean the lifetime of the author, or of a playhouse, or (as some others have implied) is it just synonymous with ownership of the [printed] media?
I wonder if you suppose that kind of copyright would extend until far after the original author's death.
You can convert heat into energy? Whodda thunk it?
Actually you can only convert heat into energy if you also have a source of cold.
Isn't heat a relative term, so isn't that implicit? Nobody said they would convert ambient into energy. I think that the term heat implies cold.
Could we just move tautologies to idle? Or maybe we need a /. section called duh...
doo-doo head
Whoosh...
Are you kidding? Just read the story!
For years, students, journalists, makers and old-school engineers have asked why the Arduino open source microcontroller platform has taken off, with over 100k units 'in the wild'
For years! folks have been asking why it took off! Years!
First wikipedia entry less than 5 years ago:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arduino&oldid=56466347
Over 100K units in the wild! That's 100 TIMES 1000! WINNER!
Wait - and that makes it /more/ or /less/ relevant?
If an attacker has physical access to a computer(PC, Server, phone, etc...), is there anyway to stop them? Is there really any unbreakable way to encrypt your data?
Yes. There are many ways to encrypt data so that it is practically unbreakable. There is only one known encryption known to be perfectly unbreakable - as others have mentioned: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-time_pad .
Hollywood movies portraying the decrypting of anything is just bunk.
"practically unbreakable" in this case means "unbreakable in our lifetimes using the power of all the computers in the world".
From the article:
"The attack works because the cryptographic key on current iOS devices is based on material available within the device and is independent of the passcode, the researchers said. This means attackers with access to the phone can create the key from the phone in their possession without having to hack the encrypted and secret passcode."
So Apple is encrypting the data using a key generated from data that is stored on the phone, itself. It's like you hiding a key to your house and leaving clues on the outside of your house where you stored the key. This is Apple's fault.
Or it could be because AT&T *does* suck.
Or it could be because it was mostly a media-furor and not anything substantive.
Or it could be because lots of people put their iphone in a case and that pretty much resolved the non-problem.
Choose up to 5.
https://github.com/danlucraft/redcar
I'm using redcar. Gotta check out Eclipse and see if they've made much progress.
I was a senior in high school at the time. As an outreach program, a few of the area companies hired high school kids part time so they could see what real engineering work was like. I worked with a team of ME's that worked on the high pressure turbo pumps on the Space Shuttle Main Engines.
I was in school when it was announced over the intercom. I don't remember which class I was in; I gathered my books and got up to walk out of the class. The teacher asked me where I was going and I said "I work on the Space Shuttle Main Engines." and walked out. Looking back, I wonder what the teacher thought about that - I mean it does sound pretty silly from a high school kid.
My clearest memory of the day was driving to work - the radio was playing space-related songs. I remember David Bowie's 'Major Tom'. That's what stands out.
My contributions were pretty trivial; I mostly wrangled data for the ME's to look at. But it was a gut wrenching day. Thank God that we found out very quickly (that day or the next) that it looked like it had nothing to do with the main engines. I really don't know what I would have done.
I remember seeing some of this as part of an elementary school field trip in the late 70's. Maybe to the LA Museum of Modern Art? It was neat, and all, but I wasn't a fan of modern art - even back then.
Pfft. Who uses that stuff, anyway? Hardy was right.
Thanks, Apple! I love being told I'm a fucking idiot and shouldn't be allowed to open my PURCHASED device, should I choose to do so.
The jury is still out on you, but it's pretty safe to say that 90% of any reasonably large population are idiots when it comes to tech and really should not open their devices.
Maybe you're a clever one and have realized either:
* You really shouldn't open your iphone. Probably no good will come of it.
* You can open your iphone because you're clever and know where you can get a [reasonably close] driver.
Ah, yet another annoying warning message the user clicks away unread.
I guess you're referring to the Windows model, where I hear there are an awful lot of warnings. I don't face that issue, so I believe it is possible to have a reasonable number of warnings.
And given that the computer cannot know if you know and trust whoever wrote that mail, it would likely give at least 90% "false positives".
I disagree on 2 points:
1. That "the computer can't know if you know and trust the source." Certainly it can get some idea.
2. That downloading *anything* from email is a reasonable thing to do. Certainly downloading a *program* from email is virtually never a good idea and should be impossible for the casual user.
You mean, at gmail there's no way to get at attachments of mails? Somehow I cannot believe that.
Of course you can. But the normal sequence of events is that you will then view the attachment in your browser - whether it be an image or a document. You would not download it to your machine to view it. And that's the point - you shouldn't need to.
You and I may need to send/receive programs via email (though I can't remember the last time I did so), but we are not regular users, and email programs should not cater to us. After all, if you could not send programs via email and we needed that functionality, we would get around it.
P=NP IFF N is equal to 1.
QED
Next problem?
You're being silly, but I can think of one solution that works for any value of N, so I'm afraid you blew it.
...Yes, yes I am. There is absolutely nothing the OS can do to prevent a user with administrative access from installing and running software of their choice...
In the context of reading email, I call B.S.
If all email clients disallowed the downloading of any attachments, this world would be a better place. You and I would have to jump through a hoop or 2 to do the things we do, but the 99.99% of the population that only uses that feature of email programs to install trojans/viruses would appreciate it.
Taking a step up, if all attachments went into a sandbox that was essentially a jail, then this wouldn't be an issue. You can see how that would work.
This is a technical problem. There are technical solutions that would not be too hard to implement.
I don't see why blaming the user is automatically negative. If I write some C code with a null pointer bug, is it my fault or Dennis Ritchie's for designing the language to include pointers? I'd say it's mine, and that I'd be a "user" of the C programming language. In this case I think blaming me, the user, is entirely justified. Then again, responsibility is not always clear-cut. If you let a little kid play with a loaded gun, it's your fault if something happens, not the gun's user or even designer.
C *is* a loaded gun. Anyone who can manage to use a compiler *should* know that. Not that they do...
IMO, if a user runs random executable email attachments, it's they're own fault. Nowadays on Windows they usually have to click past some warning telling them it might not be a good idea, too.
Sure - running an executable you downloaded in email should be nearly impossible. Downloading a virus should also be very difficult. Installing a keylogger (or whatever they installed) should be nearly impossible. As technical folks, we all know how easy this stuff is - but as sympathetic users we should all appreciate that it should be made to be very very difficult. After all, when is the last time you received an executable via email that was not harmful? What about your mom? What about your grandmom? Why is it even possible for those folks to install this stuff?
If you use a decent email program/OS, it flags the file as being downloaded and possibly harmful. When you try to open it, it warns you - at least.
If you use a hosted mail service, like gmail, then the file never gets downloaded *at all*.
Hosted on Gmail. Done.
Is it really that hard? And if you don't know what .jpeg or .pdf or .virus is you should not be using a computer.
You're not kidding? You think it should be possible for a user to trivially install a virus/trojan on their computer? You're blaming the user? Really?
If you don't know what a turn signal is they don't even let you take the test to get your drivers licence.
You are kidding, right? Of course they do. You may fail (or you may not). Spend 10 minutes at an intersection and let me know what percentage of people who turn use their signal.
When someone has a sensitive computer type job they should at least be competent to operate the machine. Any other job requires you to be able to competently operate your machine (or OSHA starts sticking their nose around writing tickets) why should not the guy operating the machine that handles other peoples (his boss) money have to prove their competency.
I need all my applicable tickets/certification/first aid to do my job and I have to keep them up to date or I lose my job.
You are blaming the user...
I think I like my software to be more responsible/secure than my users. Reading email should be dead simple and safe. And using ACH should be really secure and well audited. While I think that making the email/OS supplier in this case responsible for the losses is going too far, I would certainly tend to place more of the blame with them than with the user. And any bank account that can more $150K around should probably be able to catch this sort of thing earlier - and they should probably require a second form of authentication (keycode fob, etc).
# curl -i http://us.trendmicro.com/
HTTP/1.1 301 Moved Permanently
Server: Apache
etc...
Hmm.