It turns out, the reason the cops were called was because a neighbor called the cops *on him*! So people are going to fucking say that the cop, once called, had no right to have ANYONE identify themselves?!
---
Welcome to Humboldt County. Papers, Please. No? You're Under Arrest.
On the evening of the 21st of May, 2000, Dudley Hiibel stepped out of his red 1988 GMC pick-up truck and lit a cigarette. The pick-up was parked on the side of Grass Valley Road, a rural stretch of asphalt that leads out of the mining town of Winnemucca into the rural cattle ranching area where Dudley lives and farms.
The pick-up had been driven by Dudley's 17 year-old daughter Mimi, with whom Dudley had been having an argument over a boy Dudley didn't approve of that she'd been seeing in town. Mimi got mad at her dad and punched him in the shoulder. They continued shouting at one another as they drove back to to the ranch, and Mimi eventually pulled over the truck after her dad said he wanted out.
That's what Dudley Hiibel was doing that May evening in 2000: standing on the side of Grass Valley Road smoking a cigarette, his elbow resting on the rolled-down passenger window, talking with his daughter.
Then the police arrived.
Deputy Lee Dove of the Humboldt County Sheriff's Department came on the scene - siren a-wailing - in response to a domestic violence report. Someone saw Mimi arguing with her dad and thought it had come to blows. The witness said that he saw "a man with a black cowboy hat" who "slugged the female". Dove was there to investigate the report.
Everything that happened next is all on videotape... you be the judge.
If you think that the first thing Deputy Dove would do on the scene would be to make sure the 'slugged female' was all right, you would be wrong. Deputy Dove never asked or even looked at Mimi until she had been thrown to the ground face-first and handcuffed.
But that comes later in the story.
Rather than investigate the complaint, Deputy Dove (who has twice had evidence he collected suppressed by the court) instead began to demand Dudley Hiibel show his ID. Eleven times Dove demanded Dudley show 'his papers'. Dudley asked a simple question: why?
"Because I'm investigating", said Dove.
"Investigating what?" Dudley asked.
"I'm investigating an investigation" was Dove's non-reply.
Eleven times Dove demanded Dudley's ID. And when the Deputy decided Dudley wasn't "going to cooperate", he cuffed, then tossed him in the back of his patrol car.
And It Didn't Stop There
Meanwhile, Dudley's daughter was watching the encounter between her dad and the Law from the cab of the pick-up truck. You can hear her screaming "Nooo" as her father is being handcuffed.
Another policeman, a Nevada state trooper by the name of Merschel, was on the scene and was holding the door of the pick-up truck shut so that Mimi couldn't get out. Screaming, she finally forced the door open only to be thrown face down into the hard dirt by the side of the road by Trooper Merschel.
The video is almost too painful to watch at this point. A second trooper climbs on top of Mimi and he and Trooper Merschel brutally pin 17 year-old Mimi to the ground and slap on the cuffs.
With Dudley Hiibel arrested for refusing to show ID and his daughter Mimi beaten and in handcuffs, Deputy Lee Dove now comes over to talk to Mimi and 'investigate'.
The Aftermath
Dudley Hiibel was charged with Domestic Battery, Battery, Acts Which Constitute Domestic Violence, and Obstructing/Delaying A Peace Officer. As there was no battery or domestic violence involved, the only charge that was left was Delaying A Peace Officer. By refusing to show Deputy Lee Dove his ID, Dudley was fined $250.00 . He's appealling it all the way to the United States Supreme Court.
It is this very charge that is now coming before the U.S. Supreme Court on the 22nd of March. The question before the
People crying about Nazi Germany, Ashcroft, the erosion of civil liberties. I don't have to read the article, or watch the video, as this is a VERY general concept:
This could have happened just as easily in 1994, 1984, or 1964 as in 2004 (or 2003, or whenever this actual incident happened). It's not about Bush, or the "climate" in America, or 9/11. It's not about an SS officer saying "papers please", or Jews wearing yellow stars, or a long slippery slope. It's about whether or not, and under what conditions, a local municipal police officer involved in an active investigation can compel a person to identify themselves.
How is a police officer involved in an active investigation supposed to identify a person? Im assuming that the physical geographic location this took place is also pertinent, since I'm guessing a police officer didn't just randomly stop to make someone identify themselves in a location that had nothing to do with what he was investigating.
No, I'm not going to say he should have just produced ID, or told them his name, or use the "if he's got nothing to hide" argument. But it's sickening to see the oh-so-typical leftist slashdot response. Hell, not only did I not RTFA, I don't even have to read the comments to guess the standard canned responses.
So instead of getting all self righteous and spewing the obligatory security vs liberty quote - which is wildly irrelevant to this discussion, by the way - why don't you give me YOUR opinion on when a police officer in an investigation in a particular area can rightfully ask someone to identify themselves, because I'd really like to know.
The Computer Science department is consistently ranked as one of the top 10 in the United States, and also ranks in the top 10 in several specific CS graduate areas. The department and its faculty and staff are the recipients of numerous honors and awards. The CS department has a wide variety of research areas, including computer networking, and operates the Wisconsin Advanced Internet Laboratory (WAIL), a one of a kind laboratory for network testing and research.
The University of Wisconsin itself is a premier public research University with a yearly budget of $1.7 billion. It ranks number 2 in research spending (and number 1 among public universities), number 2 in number of research doctorates granted, 16 of 39 major academic programs ranked in the NRC top 10, and 35 of 39 major academic programs ranked in the NRC top 25.
There are so many top notch faculty, staff, and students here at the tops of so many fields that it's amazing, from bioinformatics to nuclear engineering, from music to Slavic languages, from space physics to medical physics (including the only freestanding medical physics department in the United States), from medicine (and 3 affiliated hospitals) to literature. The University has a significant commitment to research, expanding and improving its infrastructure, and is continuously embarking on major new building inititives. The city of Madison itself is also a wonderful place to live.
Bizarro was an imperfect clone of Superman yet still pulled off the occasional superhero feat. So it is with the Dell DJ.
By Peter Lewis
The evil scientist Lex Luthor used his duplicator ray to try to clone Superman, but something went terribly wrong. The result was Bizarro, a good-natured but ugly and backward version of the Man of Steel. Bizarro was the antithesis of cool; his home planet, Htrae, was square.
When Bizarro had good news to announce, he would say, "This am terrible!"
Which leads us into a discussion of Dell's new Bizarro version of Apple's iPod, called the Dell Digital Jukebox Music Player, or Dell DJ for short. Coming from the square world of Dell instead of the hip world of Apple, it's bigger, heavier, and clunkier than Apple's sleek, suave, elegant iPod, which arrived on the scene two years ago and quickly became the most popular portable digital music player on our home planet, Earth. Even worse, the Musicmatch-backed Dell Music Store is the clumsy, Bizarro counterpart to Apple's brilliant iTunes Music Store.
[...]
Bizarro, the pathetic wretch, was driven mad by constant comparisons with the handsome, smart, and sexy Superman he was meant to emulate. So too must the DJ suffer from inevitable comparisons with the iPod, with its two-year headstart. If the iPod did not exist, the DJ might even lay claim to the title of Best Portable Music Player Since the Sony Walkman.
But the iPod does exist, and so do Apple iTunes and the Apple iTunes Music Store, and thus the Dell DJ is doomed to be merely the second-best player on the market.
I called Dell sales and Dell technical support, and Dell has no method for replacing the battery (outside of warranty), and the battery is not user replaceable.
It does a fabulous job of explaining the major differences between Mac OS X and Linux and other UNIX variants.
Every time anyone has ever come to me and said "why can't do X, Y. or Z on OS X?" or "how come I don't have tool X?" or "why does Y behave in this fashion?", there is always a solution or an answer. You make it seem as if OS X is a mystery, and no one knows how it works. There is plenty of information out there, and obscurity isn't the primary place OS X gets its security: it's through good design and basically all services being shut off out of the box, and the fact that security and OS updates are easy for anyone to install without having to keep track of every single security issue out there, and without breaking things every time you patch your machine. It's a lot easier for the average person, or even some people forced into the de facto sysadmin role, to run a reasonably secure OS X machine as opposed to other OSes.
O'Reilly also publishes an execllent book, entitled Mac OS X for UNIX Geeks, that does an excellent job of explaining Mac OS X to people already familiar with Linux or other UNIX variants.
The information is out there, on Apple's own documentation, the Internet, books, and other places. OS X is different from a lot of other OSes, and a lot of the schemes, like Frameworks, Directory Services, and SystemStarter for example, are arguably better. But there is a way to use almost every tool, or do anything you wish, sometimes in exactly the same fashion, that you have previously done on Linux/UNIX.
As has been pointed out countless times again, the cost was NOT a "mere" $5M. Their total hardware cost was ~$7M ($5.3M for the computers and memory, another $1.7M for the infiniband hardware), there was another $1M to upgrade an existing building.
"The total cost of the asset, including systems, memory, storage, primary and secondary communications fabrics, and cables is $5.2M." (Source: http://don.cc.vt.edu/tcfslides.pdf)
That $5.2M INCLUDED the Infiniband cards, switches, and cabling.
"The total cost of the asset, including systems, memory, storage, primary and secondary communications fabrics and cables is $5.2mil. Facilities upgrade was $2mil. 1mil for the upgrades, 1mil for the UPS and generators." (Source: Interview with Dr. Varadarajan)
There was then an additional $1M for "facilities upgrades", and $1M for power infrastructure.
They also had the benefit of free labour (millions of Mac zealots)
Huh? Millions of "zealots", eh?
Even if we GROSSLY overestimate labor, let's say a MILLION DOLLARS, the total cost is still $8M. So screw the free labor argument: even if they paid a MILLION DOLLARS to put it together (which is a huge, gross exaggeration), they're still much, much cheaper than anything close. Also, ANY academic institution has this same benefit.
and have not factored in the cost of power and cooling (at 2MW total power and cooling, this is a pretty significant expense, about $5,000 a day) or the support costs.
Sorry. Other clusters don't include power in their capital costs. And cooling *is* equipment included in the VT cluster. Ongoing support costs are NOT included in the costs of any of the other Top 500 clusters. The only thing different about the VT cluster was that the $5.2M figure didn't include some of the infrastructure costs other clusters have. But even the ASCI clusters are asset + infrastructure only, and do NOT include buildings, energy, or support costs. So, sorry again. And even at $7M + our imaginary labor, it's still ridiculously cheaper.
Even NCSA's new Tungsten cluster is $12M for the ASSET ALONE. That does not include building, support, infrastructure upgrades, or anything. Just the computer. And Dell installed it for free. So are they "PC zealots", since it was free labor?
Because the next list in June 2004, and the one after it, and the one after that, will include many new very, very expensive clusters (some $100M+) with performance far, far beyond 10Tflops.
So, yes, someone can build a 1101-G5 cluster right now, and be faster than VT's cluster. But they won't be on any list, and they definitely won't be anywhere near #3 on the next Top 500 list. And neither will VT.
That's why the whole VT #3 thing is the coup that it is: the timing was *perfect* for them to take the #3 spot for a mere $5.2M. The PR and grants they'll get *because of* that are more than worth it. That will never happen again for anywhere near that small an amount of money anytime soon.
See some of the new clusters that will be in the Top 10 on the next list:
This was *more* than worth it for Virginia Tech, academically, scientifically, and economically.
They spent $5M to instantly catapult themselves to the forefront of high performance computing, which was successful. Now they're replacing the entire cluster with ECC on the cheap, and will be doing real work with it in no time. This is a coup for VT, plain and simple. No one will be #3 again on the Top 500 list for anything close to $5M anytime in the foreseeable future. (The Top 10 will soon be populated with even more $100M+ clusters.) Virginia Tech's gamble will pay off many more times over for Virginia Tech, the people of Virginia, and the federal taxpayers who helped pay for it. As you claim to be a professor (which I doubt), it surprises me that you're too dense to realize that. Remind me to steer clear of your "classes".
They became the #3 most powerful supercomputer site in the world, #2 in the US, and #1 in education - and the first academic site to break 10Tflops - for a pittance, and in accordance with all rules set forth by the Top 500 organization - and now can attract much more grant money to do even more research and become an even bigger contributor, instead of taking years and millions more dollars to do it.
The Top 500 list has always been about hype! Wake up! Bravo to Virginia Tech. The only "pity" here is that you're so ignorant and shortsighted.
A while ago I stumbled across LEDtronics...they have a wide variety of LED products, but what makes them really interesting is that they have retrofits for just about every kind of incandescent bulb out there, with ordinary threaded bases that operate on anything from 12VDC to 240VAC, and bulbs for automotive applications. They also have a cross reference that converts incandescent bulb number, bulb type, or bulb base to an LED product.
Macworld : More PowerBook 5300 woes: battery, power, and circuitry flaws. (Product Support) : Lu, Cary
More than any previous PowerBooks, Apple's most recent high-end model has been plagued with a host of troubles. First, Apple replaced the lithium-ion (LiIon) batteries it had begun to ship with 5300-series PowerBooks (see News, December 1995) because two of the Sony-made batteries had caught fire. Now , ironically , Sony's LiIon battery-producing plant in Koriyama , Japan , has itself been destroyed by fire. The Koriyama facility produced 3 million LiIon batteries a month (about three-quarters of the world's supply) , and Sony's second LiIon plant , in Tochigi , Japan , won't be operational until the spring. Thus , even if Sony figures out what went wrong with the LiIon batteries , no new ones will be available until at least mid-year. So Apple will have no choice but to continue shipping 5300-series PowerBooks with nickel-metal- hydride (NIMH) batteries , which it began doing when it resumed PowerBook shipments.
If users are complaining about it, it's a flaw. Because the flaw can not be fixed without significant re-engineering, it's fundamental.
Um, no, not everything that is complained about is a flaw. This issue affects a very, very small portion of iPod owners. The second part of that statement is rendered invalid. Additionally, there is an official program to replace the batteries, if need be, as well as numerous ways to do it yourself. Just because the Neistat brothers couldn't do it means nothing. The instructions are here, with pictures: old, new.
The vast, vast majority of iPod owners' batteries will last the life of the product. These premature failures are fringe cases. Lithium ion batteries are good for 300 to 500 charge/discharge cycles. If you are a heavy user, i.e., recharging an average of once a day or more, and using the unit daily, AND are always running the unit down to completely dead (a big no-no for all lithium ion batteries) you could conceivably be in a situation where your battery has degraded prematurely. But the plain fact of the matter is that almost all first generation iPods, some of which are over two years old, continue to function just fine, and will continue to do so.
Other manufacturers are doing the same thing: integrating batteries on hard drive-based players specifically for the purpose of reducing the size.
Apple, your customers are speaking. Are you listening?
Apple, an extremely small, vocal percentage of your customers are making an issue out of nothing (since there are several reasonable ways to replace the battery, including official ways through Apple itself) - er, wait, some people who don't even own iPods, but just relish in anything negative related to Apple - are you listening?
(Note: if Apple's rumored new "cheap" iPods have easily accessible user-replaceable batteries, it won't be because of slashdot, the Neistat brothers, or "bad press", because the products have been in development for ages before this ever even came up.)
(Not in relation to the mini-iPods, as I don't know their specifications, but there seem to be enough idiotic battery posts, so...)
Q: Is the iPod's battery replacable?
A: Yes. Apple has an official battery replacement program for $99. You send your iPod in (any model iPod), and Apple will replace the battery for $99.
Q: Is the iPod's battery user-replaceable?
A: Yes and no. The iPod's case is not designed to be opened, so, in that repsect, it's not what you would generally refer to as "user-replaceable". But, the case can be opened, and there are several third parties that offer replacement batteries for the iPod, such as iPodBattery.com (instructions available at that link) and PDASmart, for as low as $49. Some will even do the replacement for you if you send it it.
Q: What's the deal? Does Apple think the iPod is disposable?
A: No.
Q: I heard that the iPod's battery only lasts 18 months, and then you have to buy a new iPod, is that true?
A: NO! The vast, vast majority of even the earliest iPods, now over two years old, continue to function just fine. Some iPods, however, have had issues with batteries. Lithium ion batteries are only good for 300 to 500 charge/discharge cycles. For this reason, certain customers' usage patterns may cause the batteries to degrade, or fail, sooner than others.
A2: If the battery does fail, and the iPod is no longer under its original one year warranty or $59 AppleCare Protection Plan, or any of numerous third party service plans, you don't have to buy a new iPod. You may replace the battery yourself for as little as $49, or have Apple perform the replacement for $99.
Q: Why didn't Apple use better batteries?
A: Apple used the best lithium ion battery technology available from leading battery manufacturers. This is the best, most cost effective battery technology available given the requirements of the device. The lithium ion batteries Apple uses are no different than lithium ion batteries used by anyone else. The battery should last most normal users several years.
Q: Why doesn't Apple make the battery easily replaceable, then? Or use different batteries, like AA?
A: Because if they did either, the size of the batteries and/or the access panels and mechanisms required to access the battery would make the unit significantly larger than it is, likely by several milimeters in thickness at a minimum, and it may possibly affect other dimensions as well. It was an engineering decision to use an integrated battery; if it were not integrated, the unit would not have the small, sleek form factor that makes it so attractive. Additionally, the iPod's battery is indeed replaceable, as has been discussed above.
Q: Well, no one else does that!
A: Wrong. Prime example: Dell's new DJ portable music player uses an integrated, non-user-replaceable lithium ion battery, just like the iPod. Dell also has no plan or program to replace batteries outside of warranty at this time.
Q: But, Apple only released their battery replacement service because of all the bad publicity from the Neistat brothers' video.
Wrong again. Apple released the battery replacement program as early as November 14. ipodsdirtysecret.com was only registered on November 20, and started being heavily publicized on November 21. Additionally, Apple had been planning the battery replacement program for months - these types of service programs don't just happen overnight - before Casey Neistat even had his first contact with Apple. The video campaign had nothing to do with Apple's rollout of the battery replacement program.
1. It is well known ALL lithium ion family batteries die after a period of time. ALL have a finite lifetime. Apple used the best battery technology available in the manufacture of the iPod.
2. Apple provides an official method for iPod owners to obtain replacement batteries for $99, as well as extended warranty and service plans for new iPod purchases. This is available to all owners of all iPods. (This is in addition to numerous practical third party battery replacement plans and extended service plans.)
3. The iPod was not engineered to have batteries fail prematurely, nor is there any fundamential engineering defect or deficiency with the iPod. Lithium ion batteries fail after a finite period of time, plain and simple. No specific disclosures are required for any other lithium ion product, and none should be expected of Apple. (Yes, before Apple offered a battery replacement plan, there was a big hole in their service offerings. That hole is now filled, and this whole thing is now, therefore, a non-issue. Why not start a class action investigation into lithium ion batteries in general, since that's what this is fundamentally about?)
4. As to user-replaceability: if the iPod were designed with user-replaceable batteries, it would need to be engineered with access panels and mechanisms which would add, at a minimum, likely up to several millimeters to the thickness to the unit, as well as potentially opening up the unit to greater numbers of issues than even out-of-warranty battery failures cause. Additionally, the unit would likely be not as small and sleek as it currently is, thus making the unit much less desirable.
5. Other best-of-breed products, such as Dell's DJ portable music player, also use non-user-replaceable lithium ion batteries. Dell has no plan or program to replace failed batteries outside of warranty at this time. Better get a class action investigation ready for Dell, too, because they'll have the same exact problems as Apple, in the same exact proportion. Lithium ion is lithium ion.
6. The vast majority of first generation iPods, many over two years old, continue to function without issue.
I hope you find this information valuable in your investigation, and take the time to consider the facts.
The point I'm making is that it's an engineering tradeoff: to use a custom fitted battery with no access mechanisms/panels, vs. using user-accessible, removeable batteries of standard, pre-exisiting form factors (like AA). If that's what you want, get an Archos.
Part of what makes the iPod so attractive is its small, sleek form. This is accomplished in large part because of the way that the battery was engineered into the unit, and why equally small units, like Dell's DJ, have gone down the same road.
Now, what should a manufacturer's responsibilities be if they're going to use a non (easily) user replaceable battery, when the battery has a finite lifetime? I don't know. But that wasn't the point I was trying to make, either. It's still disingenuous at best to say that 18 months is the magic lifetime of an iPod battery, because that's just false. First, there's nothing substandard or deficient about the iPod's battery. It's a Lithium polymer (and formerly standard Lithium ion) battery. Lithium ion batteries have a finite lifetime. They only last so many charges. Under normal use, this should last most owners for several years.
And Apple now has a program to replace the battery for those who may need to. But the vast majority of first gen iPods - many over two years old - are still working just fine. The larger issue, raised somewhat in the story, is whether manufacturers should use non-user-replaceable batteries, or try to lead customers down the primrose path of "disposable" technology products. I do not at all think that Apple's intent was for the iPod to be disposable, at any level. Sure they want people to buy new products, etc., but they didn't secretly intend for the iPod to be "disposable". The fact is there was a hole in Apple's support for customers whose early iPods' batteries failed. It has now been resolved. There is no fundamental problem with the iPod; in fact, far from it: the engineering decisions, such as integrating the battery, among other things, and thereby getting the ultra-small form, is exactly what makes the iPod such a runaway success.
From: das@doit.wisc.edu
Subject: iPod story
Date: December 20, 2003 6:18:37 PM CST
To: stueverh@washpost.com
I'm very disappointed with your iPod story, for several important reasons. If you only read one of the responses you get about this story, read this one:
1. Apple began offering the battery replacement program as early as November 14, before the ipodsdirtysecret.com domain name was even registered (November 20). While coincidentally close, Apple released both the AppleCare Protection Plan for iPod and the battery replacement program BEFORE anyone had ever seen the videos, and indeed before anyone at Apple or otherwise knew anything about the Neistat brothers' video. A small - very small - amount of research would have revealed this. (Also, the battery program was in the works since at least June.) The reason this is important is that you make it seem that it's only because of the brothers' tactics that Apple responded, the implication being they otherwise wouldn't have. That is false.
2. Since the battery replacement program - that the Neistat brothers themselves say is "fair" in their statement - was already in effect when they rolled out the video, they KNOWINGLY let almost a half million people see the incorrect and inaccurate video without telling them the truth: that Apple DID offer a battery replacement program. I'm sure they felt like their little video would be essentially negated since Apple already released a replacement program, so they went ahead with it anyway.
3. ALL lithium ion batteries fail after a period of time. ALL. The fact that the iPod's battery is not user replaceable, i.e., is a custom form factor carefully engineered into the product, is one of the things that makes it so small, and thus, so desirable...tradeoffs.
4. The Dell DJ's lithium ion battery is also not user-replaceable, and Dell officially has no repair or replacement plan (outside of warranty) for the battery.
5. They are currently hosting their anti-Apple video on Mac.com - Apple's own servers! (albeit paid by another Mac.com user - yes, I realize that a Mac.com user can do whatever they want with their webspace; it's just ironic).
6. I offered to host their video for them when they were begging for mirrors in the first few days...with ONE condition: that they post/link to/etc information about Apple's battery replacement program that had ALREADY BEEN ROLLED OUT that they were essentially denying existed. They NEVER posted the information after several promises to do so (while I was hosting the video) and taking complete advantage of my offer. See http://das.doit.wisc.edu/neistatoriginal.txt for proof of this.
7. My girlfriend and I both - and thousands of others - have first gen iPods over two years old that have no problems with the battery. The blanket statement that the batteries only last "18 months" is also false. Do the have a finite lifetime? Yes. Is it always, or even mostly, 18 months? Nope.
Disappointed,
Dave Schroeder University of Wisconsin - Madison das@doit.wisc.edu http://das.doit.wisc.e du/ 608-265-4737
This isn't so much of a root vulnerability as a default configuration that trusts the integrity of the local network services. This functionality has been around since NeXTSTEP, and is designed to allow for auto-configuration of new servers/machines brought into the network. The quick 'fix' for the vast majority of users who choose to implement it is to uncheck LDAPv3 and NetInfo altogether in Directory Access. Or, if LDAP services are used, just uncheck 'Use DHCP-supplied LDAP Server' in LDAPv3.... One could argue that these features should be off by default, but if they are, it kind of wrecks the whole auto-configuration scheme. [There is a certain level of implicit trust of the local network that is assumed.]
This functionality - yes, functionality - has been in Mac OS X and its predecessors for YEARS. Just because all of a sudden someone paints it as a root exploit does not make it so. This is nothing like the standard fare of Windows remote exploits, some of which can be exploited against unpatched machines from any location on earth, at will, remotely, at any time, against any unprotected vulnerable machine. This "exploit" requires that a roque DHCP server be set up on your local network (!), and that a machine be rebooted (or otherwise perform a DHCP request) in this malicious environment. I repeat: just calling something a root exploit does not make it so.
Perhaps it's time to have a larger discussion about how much you can really trust your local network infrastructure services, be they in a home environment or in a corporate setting, because that's what this is really about.
Should Mac OS X have this default behavior?
What are the tradeoffs?
And so on.
I just find the distinct lack of understanding of this issue astounding.
(Note: and no, this isn't an issue of Apple glossing over something by calling something a "feature" when it's really an "exploit", as you could argue for some of MS's exploits. This really is a feature, and one that can be taken advantage of by rogue services on your network...like just about anything can in one way or another. If you're being affected by this so-called "exploit", you've got bigger problems on your hands...)
Slashdot Mirror
Well, here they are...
It turns out, the reason the cops were called was because a neighbor called the cops *on him*! So people are going to fucking say that the cop, once called, had no right to have ANYONE identify themselves?!
---
Welcome to Humboldt County. Papers, Please.
No? You're Under Arrest.
On the evening of the 21st of May, 2000, Dudley Hiibel stepped out of his red 1988 GMC pick-up truck and lit a cigarette. The pick-up was parked on the side of Grass Valley Road, a rural stretch of asphalt that leads out of the mining town of Winnemucca into the rural cattle ranching area where Dudley lives and farms.
The pick-up had been driven by Dudley's 17 year-old daughter Mimi, with whom Dudley had been having an argument over a boy Dudley didn't approve of that she'd been seeing in town. Mimi got mad at her dad and punched him in the shoulder. They continued shouting at one another as they drove back to to the ranch, and Mimi eventually pulled over the truck after her dad said he wanted out.
That's what Dudley Hiibel was doing that May evening in 2000: standing on the side of Grass Valley Road smoking a cigarette, his elbow resting on the rolled-down passenger window, talking with his daughter.
Then the police arrived.
Deputy Lee Dove of the Humboldt County Sheriff's Department came on the scene - siren a-wailing - in response to a domestic violence report. Someone saw Mimi arguing with her dad and thought it had come to blows. The witness said that he saw "a man with a black cowboy hat" who "slugged the female". Dove was there to investigate the report.
Everything that happened next is all on videotape... you be the judge.
If you think that the first thing Deputy Dove would do on the scene would be to make sure the 'slugged female' was all right, you would be wrong. Deputy Dove never asked or even looked at Mimi until she had been thrown to the ground face-first and handcuffed.
But that comes later in the story.
Rather than investigate the complaint, Deputy Dove (who has twice had evidence he collected suppressed by the court) instead began to demand Dudley Hiibel show his ID. Eleven times Dove demanded Dudley show 'his papers'. Dudley asked a simple question: why?
"Because I'm investigating", said Dove.
"Investigating what?" Dudley asked.
"I'm investigating an investigation" was Dove's non-reply.
Eleven times Dove demanded Dudley's ID. And when the Deputy decided Dudley wasn't "going to cooperate", he cuffed, then tossed him in the back of his patrol car.
And It Didn't Stop There
Meanwhile, Dudley's daughter was watching the encounter between her dad and the Law from the cab of the pick-up truck. You can hear her screaming "Nooo" as her father is being handcuffed.
Another policeman, a Nevada state trooper by the name of Merschel, was on the scene and was holding the door of the pick-up truck shut so that Mimi couldn't get out. Screaming, she finally forced the door open only to be thrown face down into the hard dirt by the side of the road by Trooper Merschel.
The video is almost too painful to watch at this point. A second trooper climbs on top of Mimi and he and Trooper Merschel brutally pin 17 year-old Mimi to the ground and slap on the cuffs.
With Dudley Hiibel arrested for refusing to show ID and his daughter Mimi beaten and in handcuffs, Deputy Lee Dove now comes over to talk to Mimi and 'investigate'.
The Aftermath
Dudley Hiibel was charged with Domestic Battery, Battery, Acts Which Constitute Domestic Violence, and Obstructing/Delaying A Peace Officer. As there was no battery or domestic violence involved, the only charge that was left was Delaying A Peace Officer. By refusing to show Deputy Lee Dove his ID, Dudley was fined $250.00 . He's appealling it all the way to the United States Supreme Court.
It is this very charge that is now coming before the U.S. Supreme Court on the 22nd of March. The question before the
People crying about Nazi Germany, Ashcroft, the erosion of civil liberties. I don't have to read the article, or watch the video, as this is a VERY general concept:
This could have happened just as easily in 1994, 1984, or 1964 as in 2004 (or 2003, or whenever this actual incident happened). It's not about Bush, or the "climate" in America, or 9/11. It's not about an SS officer saying "papers please", or Jews wearing yellow stars, or a long slippery slope. It's about whether or not, and under what conditions, a local municipal police officer involved in an active investigation can compel a person to identify themselves.
How is a police officer involved in an active investigation supposed to identify a person? Im assuming that the physical geographic location this took place is also pertinent, since I'm guessing a police officer didn't just randomly stop to make someone identify themselves in a location that had nothing to do with what he was investigating.
No, I'm not going to say he should have just produced ID, or told them his name, or use the "if he's got nothing to hide" argument. But it's sickening to see the oh-so-typical leftist slashdot response. Hell, not only did I not RTFA, I don't even have to read the comments to guess the standard canned responses.
So instead of getting all self righteous and spewing the obligatory security vs liberty quote - which is wildly irrelevant to this discussion, by the way - why don't you give me YOUR opinion on when a police officer in an investigation in a particular area can rightfully ask someone to identify themselves, because I'd really like to know.
Science article, full article available to those with access to Science
More at EurekAlert
The Computer Science department is consistently ranked as one of the top 10 in the United States, and also ranks in the top 10 in several specific CS graduate areas. The department and its faculty and staff are the recipients of numerous honors and awards. The CS department has a wide variety of research areas, including computer networking, and operates the Wisconsin Advanced Internet Laboratory (WAIL), a one of a kind laboratory for network testing and research.
The University of Wisconsin itself is a premier public research University with a yearly budget of $1.7 billion. It ranks number 2 in research spending (and number 1 among public universities), number 2 in number of research doctorates granted, 16 of 39 major academic programs ranked in the NRC top 10, and 35 of 39 major academic programs ranked in the NRC top 25.
There are so many top notch faculty, staff, and students here at the tops of so many fields that it's amazing, from bioinformatics to nuclear engineering, from music to Slavic languages, from space physics to medical physics (including the only freestanding medical physics department in the United States), from medicine (and 3 affiliated hospitals) to literature. The University has a significant commitment to research, expanding and improving its infrastructure, and is continuously embarking on major new building inititives. The city of Madison itself is also a wonderful place to live.
From Fortune's review:
Dell Unveils Its iPod Kryptonite
Bizarro was an imperfect clone of Superman yet still pulled off the occasional superhero feat. So it is with the Dell DJ.
By Peter Lewis
The evil scientist Lex Luthor used his duplicator ray to try to clone Superman, but something went terribly wrong. The result was Bizarro, a good-natured but ugly and backward version of the Man of Steel. Bizarro was the antithesis of cool; his home planet, Htrae, was square.
When Bizarro had good news to announce, he would say, "This am terrible!"
Which leads us into a discussion of Dell's new Bizarro version of Apple's iPod, called the Dell Digital Jukebox Music Player, or Dell DJ for short. Coming from the square world of Dell instead of the hip world of Apple, it's bigger, heavier, and clunkier than Apple's sleek, suave, elegant iPod, which arrived on the scene two years ago and quickly became the most popular portable digital music player on our home planet, Earth. Even worse, the Musicmatch-backed Dell Music Store is the clumsy, Bizarro counterpart to Apple's brilliant iTunes Music Store.
[...]
Bizarro, the pathetic wretch, was driven mad by constant comparisons with the handsome, smart, and sexy Superman he was meant to emulate. So too must the DJ suffer from inevitable comparisons with the iPod, with its two-year headstart. If the iPod did not exist, the DJ might even lay claim to the title of Best Portable Music Player Since the Sony Walkman.
But the iPod does exist, and so do Apple iTunes and the Apple iTunes Music Store, and thus the Dell DJ is doomed to be merely the second-best player on the market.
I called Dell sales and Dell technical support, and Dell has no method for replacing the battery (outside of warranty), and the battery is not user replaceable.
(Also, iPod's battery is replaceable, via several different methods.)
Amit Singh of the IBM Almaden Research Center has written in in-depth technical introduction to Mac OS X, entitled What is Mac OS X? Intended for an audience of Linux and UNIX users, the paper is available here (and covered in this previous slashdot article.
It does a fabulous job of explaining the major differences between Mac OS X and Linux and other UNIX variants.
Every time anyone has ever come to me and said "why can't do X, Y. or Z on OS X?" or "how come I don't have tool X?" or "why does Y behave in this fashion?", there is always a solution or an answer. You make it seem as if OS X is a mystery, and no one knows how it works. There is plenty of information out there, and obscurity isn't the primary place OS X gets its security: it's through good design and basically all services being shut off out of the box, and the fact that security and OS updates are easy for anyone to install without having to keep track of every single security issue out there, and without breaking things every time you patch your machine. It's a lot easier for the average person, or even some people forced into the de facto sysadmin role, to run a reasonably secure OS X machine as opposed to other OSes.
O'Reilly also publishes an execllent book, entitled Mac OS X for UNIX Geeks, that does an excellent job of explaining Mac OS X to people already familiar with Linux or other UNIX variants.
The information is out there, on Apple's own documentation, the Internet, books, and other places. OS X is different from a lot of other OSes, and a lot of the schemes, like Frameworks, Directory Services, and SystemStarter for example, are arguably better. But there is a way to use almost every tool, or do anything you wish, sometimes in exactly the same fashion, that you have previously done on Linux/UNIX.
As has been pointed out countless times again, the cost was NOT a "mere" $5M. Their total hardware cost was ~$7M ($5.3M for the computers and memory, another $1.7M for the infiniband hardware), there was another $1M to upgrade an existing building.
"The total cost of the asset, including systems, memory, storage, primary and secondary communications fabrics, and cables is $5.2M." (Source: http://don.cc.vt.edu/tcfslides.pdf)
That $5.2M INCLUDED the Infiniband cards, switches, and cabling.
"The total cost of the asset, including systems, memory, storage, primary and secondary communications fabrics and cables is $5.2mil. Facilities upgrade was $2mil. 1mil for the upgrades, 1mil for the UPS and generators." (Source: Interview with Dr. Varadarajan)
There was then an additional $1M for "facilities upgrades", and $1M for power infrastructure.
They also had the benefit of free labour (millions of Mac zealots)
Huh? Millions of "zealots", eh?
Even if we GROSSLY overestimate labor, let's say a MILLION DOLLARS, the total cost is still $8M. So screw the free labor argument: even if they paid a MILLION DOLLARS to put it together (which is a huge, gross exaggeration), they're still much, much cheaper than anything close. Also, ANY academic institution has this same benefit.
and have not factored in the cost of power and cooling (at 2MW total power and cooling, this is a pretty significant expense, about $5,000 a day) or the support costs.
Sorry. Other clusters don't include power in their capital costs. And cooling *is* equipment included in the VT cluster. Ongoing support costs are NOT included in the costs of any of the other Top 500 clusters. The only thing different about the VT cluster was that the $5.2M figure didn't include some of the infrastructure costs other clusters have. But even the ASCI clusters are asset + infrastructure only, and do NOT include buildings, energy, or support costs. So, sorry again. And even at $7M + our imaginary labor, it's still ridiculously cheaper.
Even NCSA's new Tungsten cluster is $12M for the ASSET ALONE. That does not include building, support, infrastructure upgrades, or anything. Just the computer. And Dell installed it for free. So are they "PC zealots", since it was free labor?
Because the next list in June 2004, and the one after it, and the one after that, will include many new very, very expensive clusters (some $100M+) with performance far, far beyond 10Tflops.
l ist_for_CPU.gif
So, yes, someone can build a 1101-G5 cluster right now, and be faster than VT's cluster. But they won't be on any list, and they definitely won't be anywhere near #3 on the next Top 500 list. And neither will VT.
That's why the whole VT #3 thing is the coup that it is: the timing was *perfect* for them to take the #3 spot for a mere $5.2M. The PR and grants they'll get *because of* that are more than worth it. That will never happen again for anywhere near that small an amount of money anytime soon.
See some of the new clusters that will be in the Top 10 on the next list:
http://www.bayarea.net/~kins/AboutMe/GIFs/TOP500_
This was *more* than worth it for Virginia Tech, academically, scientifically, and economically.
They spent $5M to instantly catapult themselves to the forefront of high performance computing, which was successful. Now they're replacing the entire cluster with ECC on the cheap, and will be doing real work with it in no time. This is a coup for VT, plain and simple. No one will be #3 again on the Top 500 list for anything close to $5M anytime in the foreseeable future. (The Top 10 will soon be populated with even more $100M+ clusters.) Virginia Tech's gamble will pay off many more times over for Virginia Tech, the people of Virginia, and the federal taxpayers who helped pay for it. As you claim to be a professor (which I doubt), it surprises me that you're too dense to realize that. Remind me to steer clear of your "classes".
They became the #3 most powerful supercomputer site in the world, #2 in the US, and #1 in education - and the first academic site to break 10Tflops - for a pittance, and in accordance with all rules set forth by the Top 500 organization - and now can attract much more grant money to do even more research and become an even bigger contributor, instead of taking years and millions more dollars to do it.
The Top 500 list has always been about hype! Wake up! Bravo to Virginia Tech. The only "pity" here is that you're so ignorant and shortsighted.
A while ago I stumbled across LEDtronics...they have a wide variety of LED products, but what makes them really interesting is that they have retrofits for just about every kind of incandescent bulb out there, with ordinary threaded bases that operate on anything from 12VDC to 240VAC, and bulbs for automotive applications. They also have a cross reference that converts incandescent bulb number, bulb type, or bulb base to an LED product.
"The author says he wrote it to introduce Mac OS X to the Linux User's Group at his work."
Interestingly, "his work" is the IBM Alamaden Research Center.
http://www.apple.com/education/science/profiles/va tech/
...touche?
http://ipodbatteryfaq.com/
From this article:
Macworld : More PowerBook 5300 woes: battery, power, and circuitry flaws. (Product Support) : Lu, Cary
More than any previous PowerBooks, Apple's most recent high-end model has been plagued with a host of troubles. First, Apple replaced the lithium-ion (LiIon) batteries it had begun to ship with 5300-series PowerBooks (see News, December 1995) because two of the Sony-made batteries had caught fire. Now , ironically , Sony's LiIon battery-producing plant in Koriyama , Japan , has itself been destroyed by fire. The Koriyama facility produced 3 million LiIon batteries a month (about three-quarters of the world's supply) , and Sony's second LiIon plant , in Tochigi , Japan , won't be operational until the spring. Thus , even if Sony figures out what went wrong with the LiIon batteries , no new ones will be available until at least mid-year. So Apple will have no choice but to continue shipping 5300-series PowerBooks with nickel-metal- hydride (NIMH) batteries , which it began doing when it resumed PowerBook shipments.
Looks a lot like ToySight, a collection of games for the Apple iSight (or any other FireWire connected camera under Mac OS X).
If users are complaining about it, it's a flaw. Because the flaw can not be fixed without significant re-engineering, it's fundamental.
Um, no, not everything that is complained about is a flaw. This issue affects a very, very small portion of iPod owners. The second part of that statement is rendered invalid. Additionally, there is an official program to replace the batteries, if need be, as well as numerous ways to do it yourself. Just because the Neistat brothers couldn't do it means nothing. The instructions are here, with pictures: old, new.
The vast, vast majority of iPod owners' batteries will last the life of the product. These premature failures are fringe cases. Lithium ion batteries are good for 300 to 500 charge/discharge cycles. If you are a heavy user, i.e., recharging an average of once a day or more, and using the unit daily, AND are always running the unit down to completely dead (a big no-no for all lithium ion batteries) you could conceivably be in a situation where your battery has degraded prematurely. But the plain fact of the matter is that almost all first generation iPods, some of which are over two years old, continue to function just fine, and will continue to do so.
Other manufacturers are doing the same thing: integrating batteries on hard drive-based players specifically for the purpose of reducing the size.
Apple, your customers are speaking. Are you listening?
Apple, an extremely small, vocal percentage of your customers are making an issue out of nothing (since there are several reasonable ways to replace the battery, including official ways through Apple itself) - er, wait, some people who don't even own iPods, but just relish in anything negative related to Apple - are you listening?
Oh, wait...you already did.
(Note: if Apple's rumored new "cheap" iPods have easily accessible user-replaceable batteries, it won't be because of slashdot, the Neistat brothers, or "bad press", because the products have been in development for ages before this ever even came up.)
(Not in relation to the mini-iPods, as I don't know their specifications, but there seem to be enough idiotic battery posts, so...)
Q: Is the iPod's battery replacable?
A: Yes. Apple has an official battery replacement program for $99. You send your iPod in (any model iPod), and Apple will replace the battery for $99.
Q: Is the iPod's battery user-replaceable?
A: Yes and no. The iPod's case is not designed to be opened, so, in that repsect, it's not what you would generally refer to as "user-replaceable". But, the case can be opened, and there are several third parties that offer replacement batteries for the iPod, such as iPodBattery.com (instructions available at that link) and PDASmart, for as low as $49. Some will even do the replacement for you if you send it it.
Q: What's the deal? Does Apple think the iPod is disposable?
A: No.
Q: I heard that the iPod's battery only lasts 18 months, and then you have to buy a new iPod, is that true?
A: NO! The vast, vast majority of even the earliest iPods, now over two years old, continue to function just fine. Some iPods, however, have had issues with batteries. Lithium ion batteries are only good for 300 to 500 charge/discharge cycles. For this reason, certain customers' usage patterns may cause the batteries to degrade, or fail, sooner than others.
A2: If the battery does fail, and the iPod is no longer under its original one year warranty or $59 AppleCare Protection Plan, or any of numerous third party service plans, you don't have to buy a new iPod. You may replace the battery yourself for as little as $49, or have Apple perform the replacement for $99.
Q: Why didn't Apple use better batteries?
A: Apple used the best lithium ion battery technology available from leading battery manufacturers. This is the best, most cost effective battery technology available given the requirements of the device. The lithium ion batteries Apple uses are no different than lithium ion batteries used by anyone else. The battery should last most normal users several years.
Q: Why doesn't Apple make the battery easily replaceable, then? Or use different batteries, like AA?
A: Because if they did either, the size of the batteries and/or the access panels and mechanisms required to access the battery would make the unit significantly larger than it is, likely by several milimeters in thickness at a minimum, and it may possibly affect other dimensions as well. It was an engineering decision to use an integrated battery; if it were not integrated, the unit would not have the small, sleek form factor that makes it so attractive. Additionally, the iPod's battery is indeed replaceable, as has been discussed above.
Q: Well, no one else does that!
A: Wrong. Prime example: Dell's new DJ portable music player uses an integrated, non-user-replaceable lithium ion battery, just like the iPod. Dell also has no plan or program to replace batteries outside of warranty at this time.
Q: But, Apple only released their battery replacement service because of all the bad publicity from the Neistat brothers' video.
Wrong again. Apple released the battery replacement program as early as November 14. ipodsdirtysecret.com was only registered on November 20, and started being heavily publicized on November 21. Additionally, Apple had been planning the battery replacement program for months - these types of service programs don't just happen overnight - before Casey Neistat even had his first contact with Apple. The video campaign had nothing to do with Apple's rollout of the battery replacement program.
...posted to their solicitation page:
-----
Here are some pieces of relevant information:
1. It is well known ALL lithium ion family batteries die after a period of time. ALL have a finite lifetime. Apple used the best battery technology available in the manufacture of the iPod.
2. Apple provides an official method for iPod owners to obtain replacement batteries for $99, as well as extended warranty and service plans for new iPod purchases. This is available to all owners of all iPods. (This is in addition to numerous practical third party battery replacement plans and extended service plans.)
3. The iPod was not engineered to have batteries fail prematurely, nor is there any fundamential engineering defect or deficiency with the iPod. Lithium ion batteries fail after a finite period of time, plain and simple. No specific disclosures are required for any other lithium ion product, and none should be expected of Apple. (Yes, before Apple offered a battery replacement plan, there was a big hole in their service offerings. That hole is now filled, and this whole thing is now, therefore, a non-issue. Why not start a class action investigation into lithium ion batteries in general, since that's what this is fundamentally about?)
4. As to user-replaceability: if the iPod were designed with user-replaceable batteries, it would need to be engineered with access panels and mechanisms which would add, at a minimum, likely up to several millimeters to the thickness to the unit, as well as potentially opening up the unit to greater numbers of issues than even out-of-warranty battery failures cause. Additionally, the unit would likely be not as small and sleek as it currently is, thus making the unit much less desirable.
5. Other best-of-breed products, such as Dell's DJ portable music player, also use non-user-replaceable lithium ion batteries. Dell has no plan or program to replace failed batteries outside of warranty at this time. Better get a class action investigation ready for Dell, too, because they'll have the same exact problems as Apple, in the same exact proportion. Lithium ion is lithium ion.
6. The vast majority of first generation iPods, many over two years old, continue to function without issue.
I hope you find this information valuable in your investigation, and take the time to consider the facts.
The point I'm making is that it's an engineering tradeoff: to use a custom fitted battery with no access mechanisms/panels, vs. using user-accessible, removeable batteries of standard, pre-exisiting form factors (like AA). If that's what you want, get an Archos.
Part of what makes the iPod so attractive is its small, sleek form. This is accomplished in large part because of the way that the battery was engineered into the unit, and why equally small units, like Dell's DJ, have gone down the same road.
Now, what should a manufacturer's responsibilities be if they're going to use a non (easily) user replaceable battery, when the battery has a finite lifetime? I don't know. But that wasn't the point I was trying to make, either. It's still disingenuous at best to say that 18 months is the magic lifetime of an iPod battery, because that's just false. First, there's nothing substandard or deficient about the iPod's battery. It's a Lithium polymer (and formerly standard Lithium ion) battery. Lithium ion batteries have a finite lifetime. They only last so many charges. Under normal use, this should last most owners for several years.
And Apple now has a program to replace the battery for those who may need to. But the vast majority of first gen iPods - many over two years old - are still working just fine. The larger issue, raised somewhat in the story, is whether manufacturers should use non-user-replaceable batteries, or try to lead customers down the primrose path of "disposable" technology products. I do not at all think that Apple's intent was for the iPod to be disposable, at any level. Sure they want people to buy new products, etc., but they didn't secretly intend for the iPod to be "disposable". The fact is there was a hole in Apple's support for customers whose early iPods' batteries failed. It has now been resolved. There is no fundamental problem with the iPod; in fact, far from it: the engineering decisions, such as integrating the battery, among other things, and thereby getting the ultra-small form, is exactly what makes the iPod such a runaway success.
...how big the iPod would be if it used 4 AA batteries...
Apple "shill" or not, the contents of my post were still the truth...
From: das@doit.wisc.edu
e du/
Subject: iPod story
Date: December 20, 2003 6:18:37 PM CST
To: stueverh@washpost.com
I'm very disappointed with your iPod story, for several important reasons. If you only read one of the responses you get about this story, read this one:
1. Apple began offering the battery replacement program as early as November 14, before the ipodsdirtysecret.com domain name was even registered (November 20). While coincidentally close, Apple released both the AppleCare Protection Plan for iPod and the battery replacement program BEFORE anyone had ever seen the videos, and indeed before anyone at Apple or otherwise knew anything about the Neistat brothers' video. A small - very small - amount of research would have revealed this. (Also, the battery program was in the works since at least June.) The reason this is important is that you make it seem that it's only because of the brothers' tactics that Apple responded, the implication being they otherwise wouldn't have. That is false.
2. Since the battery replacement program - that the Neistat brothers themselves say is "fair" in their statement - was already in effect when they rolled out the video, they KNOWINGLY let almost a half million people see the incorrect and inaccurate video without telling them the truth: that Apple DID offer a battery replacement program. I'm sure they felt like their little video would be essentially negated since Apple already released a replacement program, so they went ahead with it anyway.
3. ALL lithium ion batteries fail after a period of time. ALL. The fact that the iPod's battery is not user replaceable, i.e., is a custom form factor carefully engineered into the product, is one of the things that makes it so small, and thus, so desirable...tradeoffs.
4. The Dell DJ's lithium ion battery is also not user-replaceable, and Dell officially has no repair or replacement plan (outside of warranty) for the battery.
5. They are currently hosting their anti-Apple video on Mac.com - Apple's own servers! (albeit paid by another Mac.com user - yes, I realize that a Mac.com user can do whatever they want with their webspace; it's just ironic).
6. I offered to host their video for them when they were begging for mirrors in the first few days...with ONE condition: that they post/link to/etc information about Apple's battery replacement program that had ALREADY BEEN ROLLED OUT that they were essentially denying existed. They NEVER posted the information after several promises to do so (while I was hosting the video) and taking complete advantage of my offer. See http://das.doit.wisc.edu/neistatoriginal.txt for proof of this.
7. My girlfriend and I both - and thousands of others - have first gen iPods over two years old that have no problems with the battery. The blanket statement that the batteries only last "18 months" is also false. Do the have a finite lifetime? Yes. Is it always, or even mostly, 18 months? Nope.
Disappointed,
Dave Schroeder
University of Wisconsin - Madison
das@doit.wisc.edu
http://das.doit.wisc.
608-265-4737
...once, Apple said it, and advertized it, but I'll say it again:
... One could argue that these features should be off by default, but if they are, it kind of wrecks the whole auto-configuration scheme. [There is a certain level of implicit trust of the local network that is assumed.]
This isn't so much of a root vulnerability as a default configuration that trusts the integrity of the local network services. This functionality has been around since NeXTSTEP, and is designed to allow for auto-configuration of new servers/machines brought into the network. The quick 'fix' for the vast majority of users who choose to implement it is to uncheck LDAPv3 and NetInfo altogether in Directory Access. Or, if LDAP services are used, just uncheck 'Use DHCP-supplied LDAP Server' in LDAPv3.
This functionality - yes, functionality - has been in Mac OS X and its predecessors for YEARS. Just because all of a sudden someone paints it as a root exploit does not make it so. This is nothing like the standard fare of Windows remote exploits, some of which can be exploited against unpatched machines from any location on earth, at will, remotely, at any time, against any unprotected vulnerable machine. This "exploit" requires that a roque DHCP server be set up on your local network (!), and that a machine be rebooted (or otherwise perform a DHCP request) in this malicious environment. I repeat: just calling something a root exploit does not make it so.
Perhaps it's time to have a larger discussion about how much you can really trust your local network infrastructure services, be they in a home environment or in a corporate setting, because that's what this is really about.
Should Mac OS X have this default behavior?
What are the tradeoffs?
And so on.
I just find the distinct lack of understanding of this issue astounding.
(Note: and no, this isn't an issue of Apple glossing over something by calling something a "feature" when it's really an "exploit", as you could argue for some of MS's exploits. This really is a feature, and one that can be taken advantage of by rogue services on your network...like just about anything can in one way or another. If you're being affected by this so-called "exploit", you've got bigger problems on your hands...)