...between "security through obscurity" and attempting to hide vulnerabilities, and broadcasting security issues as loudly as possible at public forums.
Both are harmful, and neither benefit security optimally.
As with most things, the most beneficial position is usually a balance between extremes.
Since when is it evil for a law enforcement agency to follow up on a complaint, even if the complaint is later found to be invalid? Or should law enforcement agencies be able to predict the future, and just skip the investigative step, and automatically know whether a crime has been committed? It might have been absurd or vindictive for ISS and/or Cisco to approach the FBI, but when someone approaches the FBI and claims a crime has been committed, would you prefer that the FBI did nothing? It HAS to investigate, just like the police still respond to even 911 hangups. If nothing is wrong and no crime has been committed, it's dropped. But when a complaint is initiated, the investigative step MUST take place, else, how would law enforcement even function?
Actually, the FBI has not "decided" to get involved. Lynn's own lawyer says she believes the FBI is merely following up on a complaint that it received from either Cisco or ISS before the settlement was reached. In other words, Cisco or ISS may have been (inappropriately or not, depending on your stand on trade secrets) attempting to silence Lynn, but the FBI wasn't just doing this on its own. Is the FBI not supposed to investigate allegations of crime? The FBI doesn't even know whether a crime has been committed.
Further, Lynn himself admitted that the vulnerability had already been patched by a Cisco update. Lynn's issue is that he didn't believe Cisco presented the vulnerability (or its patch) in an urgent enough fashion.
And "the government" isn't doing anything save for investigating an allegation of a crime, as it is charged with doing when it receives a complaint. Should the police no longer respond when 911 is dialed unless it's absolutely certain a crime is being committed? Is this not what "investigation" is for? Sorry, I don't buy into the conspiracies.
First, according to this new article, Lynn would have been allowed to speak if Cisco was allowed to speak as well.
In other words, give Cisco the opportunity to explain that patching vulnerabilities in major commercial vendor-supported code isn't just something that happens instantaneously. I'm not saying Cisco is completely in the clear here, but no everything shouldn't be open source, and patching shouldn't/can't happen like it does in the open source community. Some people will no doubt fundamentally or philosophically disagree with this, but in major network infrastructure, there is a place for stable, predictable commercial support. Along with that sometimes comes commercial and/or proprietary code - code which is kept proprietary for competitive advantage. This is not to say that flaws should not be revealed for the good of all, but speaking in generalities here, broadcasting everything as loudly and widely as possible to the public isn't necessarily the best way to address issues. Nor is hiding things in obscurity. But there is a scale here, and it's NOT black and white.
Further, the FBI is investigating not because of some corporatist government conspiracy, and is not being used as Cisco's own "police force". It is investigating a claim of a complaint it received, as it is compelled to do by its very reason for existence, and doesn't even know if a crime has been committed. Would you want law enforcement agencies to not investigate allegations of crime, whatever your opinion of this particular instance aside?
Even Lynn's own lawyer says "that she thought the agency was simply following through on a complaint it received when Cisco and ISS filed their lawsuit against Lynn and that it didn't come after her client reached his settlement. She didn't know the nature of the complaint but said it was probably something to do with intellectual property and that it most likely came from Cisco or ISS.
Granick said she did not think the FBI would arrest Lynn.
"Definitely not," she said. "I don't have any sense at all that that's where they're going. I don't know what the circumstances are under which anyone contacted the FBI. It may very well be that given that we settled the civil case yesterday, this is over."
The original posted used the term "if" in the context of implying Atlantis would be needed, otherwise the questioning of the grounding of the fleet makes no sense; grounding of the fleet is only a concern if Atlantis were needed. It isn't. Therefore, the concern about how Atlantis could be launched is meaningless.
And the term to referring to spacecraft in orbit, or tasks performed while in orbit, is "on orbit".
Try to be correct at least once in your post next time.
The foam didn't even strike Discovery! It's just that it *fell off* at all, and the fact that everyone is paying attention to it now because of Columbia.
Yes, they'll be coming back. And no, it won't be particularly interesting if they land safely, because the foam didn't even hit the shuttle, not to mention that the shuttle has been hit by debris over 15000 times in the history of the program. Over a hundred tiles alone fall off and need to be replaced on every mission.
There's nothing interesting about this except the media circus. It's to bad they don't pay more attention to the *actual science* that NASA is doing with the shuttle, on this and the hundred-some other missions instead of obsessing over foam.
(And another shuttle would hardly be "scrambled".)
And the fact that the over 15,000 pieces of debris that hit the shuttle on the previous 113 flights didn't cause any problems 112 of those 113 times. You might say once is too many, but we're only finding issues here because we're looking so hard.
And, no, it's not "hard to do" with one shuttle on orbit. The fleet is grounded. Discovery is on orbit. Once it returns, no further shuttles will be launched until further notice. Quite simple.
Jokes about the shuttle fleet being grounded while one is on orbit aside, things fall off the shuttles all the time during launch and reentry. This is expected. Foam insulation (during launch), insulating tiles, and so on. In the previous 113 missions, the shuttles have been hit with debris over 15,000 times, mostly during launch. Additionally, NASA replaces about 100 protective tiles after every flight and repairs hundreds more.
The point is, now that we're looking intensely for problems in this area, we're going to find them. We're looking with eyes, cameras, satellites, lasers, sensors, robotic arms - all with unprecedented scrutiny. What do we expect to find? The shuttles are the most complicated pieces of machinery ever built, designed to launch into space with a controlled explosion, and then return to earth. Regardless of whether some here think the shuttle is junk, whether it's unnecessary, whether Air Force jocks doomed the program for the beginning, whether manned spaceflight is sentimental tripe, etc., the fact remains that flying something like the shuttle is a risky endeavor.
It's all about smart management of risk. Eliminating risk, especially for something like the shuttle, is impossible. This focus on debris falling from the shuttle is nothing more than a reactionary CYA tactic in the midst of a media circus in case something else like this were to happen again. Doing get me wrong: it's wise to consider the problem, to attempt to prevent it, and to ensure there is not undue exposure. But that exposure cannot be eliminated, and this intense focus on debris in particular beyond anything else, even in light of Columbia, is unwarranted.
NASA is operating in panic mode: one more catastrophic shuttle failure, and that's the end of the shuttle program, and essentially the practical end of the ISS and a lot of scientific research to boot. If you're paralyzed with fear, you're, well...paralyzed.
This New York Times article, which I posted in the previous article on this, sums up the situation quite nicely, for those who may have missed it.
Notable:
...all this inspection may be a mixed blessing. The more NASA looks for damage, engineers and other experts say, the more it will find. And the risks of overreaction to signs of damage while the shuttle is in orbit may be just as great as the risks of playing them down.
"How do you distinguish - discriminate - between damage which is critical and damage which is inconsequential?" asked Dr. David Wolf, an astronaut who spent four months aboard the Russian space station Mir. "We could be faced with very difficult decisions, in part because of all this additional information that we will be presented with."...if a crack is detected [...] "how is NASA supposed to explain that this is not a problem?"
"...the harder they look, they'll find more things."
"There is risk in anything you do."
July 27, 2005
Intense Hunt for Signs of Damage Could Raise Problems of Its Own
By JOHN SCHWARTZ
CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla., July 26 - Now that the Discovery is in orbit, the examination begins. Its 12½-day mission will be the most photographed in the history of the shuttle program, with all eyes on the craft to see if it suffered the kind of damage from blastoff debris that brought down the Columbia in February 2003.
There were cameras on the launching pad, cameras aloft on planes monitoring the ascent, cameras on the shuttle checking for missing foam on the external fuel tank, and a camera on the tank itself. One camera caught a mysterious object falling from the shuttle at liftoff; radar detected another, about two minutes into the flight. Cameras aboard the shuttle and the International Space Station will monitor the Discovery until the end of its mission.
But all this inspection may be a mixed blessing. The more NASA looks for damage, engineers an
The shuttle program has lived with damage from debris from the very first flight, in 1981; in 113 missions the orbiters have been hit by debris some 15,000 times, mostly on liftoff. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration replaces about 100 insulating tiles after every flight and repairs many more than that, Stephanie S. Stilson, the vehicle manager for Discovery, said Monday.
July 27, 2005 Intense Hunt for Signs of Damage Could Raise Problems of Its Own
By JOHN SCHWARTZ CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla., July 26 - Now that the Discovery is in orbit, the examination begins. Its 12½-day mission will be the most photographed in the history of the shuttle program, with all eyes on the craft to see if it suffered the kind of damage from blastoff debris that brought down the Columbia in February 2003.
There were cameras on the launching pad, cameras aloft on planes monitoring the ascent, cameras on the shuttle checking for missing foam on the external fuel tank, and a camera on the tank itself. One camera caught a mysterious object falling from the shuttle at liftoff; radar detected another, about two minutes into the flight. Cameras aboard the shuttle and the International Space Station will monitor the Discovery until the end of its mission.
But all this inspection may be a mixed blessing. The more NASA looks for damage, engineers and other experts say, the more it will find. And the risks of overreaction to signs of damage while the shuttle is in orbit may be just as great as the risks of playing them down.
"How do you distinguish - discriminate - between damage which is critical and damage which is inconsequential?" asked Dr. David Wolf, an astronaut who spent four months aboard the Russian space station Mir. "We could be faced with very difficult decisions, in part because of all this additional information that we will be presented with."
The shuttle program has lived with damage from debris from the very first flight, in 1981; in 113 missions the orbiters have been hit by debris some 15,000 times, mostly on liftoff. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration replaces about 100 insulating tiles after every flight and repairs many more than that, Stephanie S. Stilson, the vehicle manager for Discovery, said Monday.
Now, though, it will be far easier to spot such damage while the shuttle is still in orbit. Thanks to a $15 million laser camera system developed by a Canadian company, Neptec, for example, NASA can detect a crack of just two-hundredths of an inch, the width of two business cards pressed together. On the leading edge of the orbiter's wing, such a crack could admit dangerous amounts of superheated gas during re-entry. A similar crack elsewhere might not.
It was a large hole in the left wing's leading edge, caused by impact with a 1.67-pound piece of insulating foam during the launching, that led to the Columbia disaster.
But if a crack is detected, said Iain Christie, director of research and development for Neptec, "how is NASA supposed to explain that this is not a problem?"
Nor is it clear how it could be fixed. NASA's efforts to create a repair kit for tile and leading-edge panels, a recommendation of the board that investigated the Columbia accident, have not been successful. Techniques will be tested during a spacewalk in coming days, but they are not ready for an actual repair, and the Discovery astronauts have said they would not want to trust any patchwork on a return to Earth.
Another option, the "safe haven" plan, would involve abandoning the $2 billion shuttle and having the astronauts wait in the space station for a rescue mission. For that to work, another shuttle would have to be launched within a few weeks.
That is theoretically possible but carries risks of its own: the chance, for example, that the orbiting astronauts would run o
...with China's commensurate commitment to freedom of speech, human rights, free flows of information among its citizenry, support of protest and political dissent, and so on.
That's not the only critical front on which the US will be competing with China: the US will soon pass the oil/fossil fuel consumption crown to China as well if current trends continue.
Further, China is free to spend for its own growth with little oversight from the populace (such as investing heavily in pebble bed fission reactors, planning to build 30 new reactors by 2020), allowing it to spend money as it sees fit without the same social and political constraints as the US. And even with what little oversight you think we might have in the US, it's far greater than the influence a typical Chinese citizen has. It's too bad that we'll likely never see new nuclear plants built anytime soon here, with all the political baggage.[1] We'll just keep using the quickly diminishing supply of conventional fossil fuels.[2]
[1] An environmental research group came to my door the other day extolling the virtues of environmental law, conservation, anti-pollution law, and etc., as you'd expect. All noble causes, when tempered with economic reality. But they continued on to also say opposition to ANY nuclear project was critical. Could they "count on my support?" In a word, no.
[2] Bush is actually pushing hard for the nuclear plants we're in desperate need of. See the policy speeches here. Contrast this with some typical opponents' opposition to all ongoing nuclear research under the guise of nuclear weapons nonproliferation.
Except that DeWalt isn't going to come after you because you have a knockoff drill. See, the analogy doesn't transfer, because the copy of Windows is pirated; a knockoff DeWalt is just that: a knockoff. But if DeWalt wants to get restitution from whoever is making knockoffs of their drills, what Microsoft is doing is the equivalent of coming after YOU instead of the people making the "knockoffs". That's the difference.
Microsoft said the company has no plans at this time to require users running automatic updates to provide proof that their copies of Windows are genuine.
But note the "at this time". If they're making the change for Windows Update, there's no reason they couldn't disallow it via Automatic Updates at some point in the future.
the user will be given the oppportunity to purchase a legitimate copy of the software for a discounted price, upon providing proof of purchase (!!)
That will be an interesting feat.
And, jokes aside, "proof of purchase" of what? If they mean a possible purchase of a machine with, or a standalone copy of, a counterfeit version of Windows, assuming the user purchased it legitimately in good faith, how in the hell is this the user's responsibility or fault? I'm not talking about someone who got Windows from a guy in an overcoat for $10 on a street corner (not to mention you probably wouldn't have a "proof of purchase" for that kind of sale); I'm talking about purchases reasonably believed to be legitimate. No, this doesn't mean that a software company has to honor pirated or illegal copies even if the user believed it to be legal for whatever reason, but it seems like this really sticks it to the user (not to mention the internet community as a whole by not providing OS updates, the fact they claim to be providing security updates aside[1]) as opposed to working to target the entities they believe to be illegally selling Windows...especially if the customer has a "proof of purchase" of an illegitimate copy of Windows in the first place, which presumably contains some element of contact information for the source if it can reasonably considered to constitute any semblance of "proof of purchase". They should be offering amnesty and/or discounts to people who are running straight-up pirated versions of Windows with no "proof of purchase" at all, if this is any attempt to reach out to people running unlicensed copies!
(Make no mistake: I'm not saying Microsoft is obligated to honor illegally purchased copies of Windows, whether they're pirated, or even ones purchased innocently and in good faith. But they'd be a hell of a lot better citizen of the internet community if they didn't withhold updates in either instance.)
[1] Windows Service Pack 2 would apparently not be included in this, for example, because it's not a "security update"; but it can be strongly argued that SP2 did more for general Windows XP security than any "security update" ever has. In other words, not updating the multitude of for-whatever-reason non-legal copies of Windows out there does everyone involved a major disservice, not the least of which is the rest of the world surrounding them.
That may end up being true, but the point really is that the number of users doing it will still be relatively small.
Mainstream commercial hardware and software vendors won't make a business out of promoting Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware if Apple's EULA prohibits it, and further, large numbers of business/institutional customers won't want to run Mac OS X in a configuration totally unsupported (and unsanctioned) by Apple.
So while the law may be on individual users' side post-sale, it will still be hacker-types and individual users doing it, and it definitely won't be widespread when compared with conventional Apple hardware sales. So even if people argue that, say X thousand (or X hundred thousand...) people are going to run Mac OS X on non-Apple commodity hardware, whether or not they pirate it, there will still be an order of magnitude more people running it legitimately on Apple-branded hardware. Institutional/business/university customers won't be running it in unsupported fashion, either, for a variety of reasons.
The point is that even if it ends up being strictly "legal" in certain jurisdictions, Apple's non-support will make it a hassle. Any product (such as an open source VM) that allows it will have to be continually updated to deal with Apple updates, and there will be inevitable compatibility problems. In short, for ordinary people or other entities who really want Mac OS X, it will be done via Apple hardware.
Except that it will be illegal (against copyright law/against the DMCA/in violation of some other provision in your jurisdiction/against Apple's EULA) to run Mac OS X on anything but Apple-brand hardware, as it is today. Why do you think there are no Mac clones??
Microsoft, or any major other commercial vendor, isn't going to do anything to allow someone to run software in direct violation of the software's EULA and/or copyright law. Everyone saying "but people will just be running OS X on PC!!!" are completely missing the point that it is against the EULA, meaning NO commercial vendor will even touch it, and will be completely unsupported by Apple, meaning it will be relegated to hobbyists and hackers. Ordinary business, academic, and institutional purchasers who want to run Mac OS X and Windows (and other x86 OSes) on the same machine will be buying machines from Apple.
It ignores the New York Times articles which offered the most compelling information for why the switch happened: namely that Apple demanded certain pricing from IBM that IBM refused to give them. I guess they omitted that because it reflects poorly on Apple?
That's just as much speculation as anything else, and, even if true, is itself was probably tied to the fact that IBM missed its 3GHz part delivery commitment to Apple by over a year. In other words, the assertion that Apple switched for these reasons is valid. Further, I don't say that it was factual; it says "The following scenario likely contributed to this decision". And it very likely did. Pricing demands as a result of that situation are secondary and incidental.
It says that the 68k to PowerPC switch was "as seamless as practical", and says that they have completed a switch of this magnitude before. It says this, assuming (a) what the magnitude of this switch is before it even happens, and ignoring (b) that Apple had about 12% market share when it began the PowerPC transition, and 5% afterward. I mean, yes, they made their transition, but it was certainly not "seamless" there was a major developer outcry, and they lost most of their customer base. I think it's debateable, therefore, how well it went.
As another poster pointed out, market share != customer base. Sales dipped after the transition, but the 68K to PowerPC transition is widely regarded as extremely successful: Apple was able to switch processor architectures entirely, while having minimal impact on users. The fact that PowerPC has been a staple for Apple for over ten years is a testament to the success and wisdom of the transition.
Further, Apple is one of very few companies to have a transition of any type of this magnitude; and it's had not one, but two, covering hardware AND software! Both were executed successfully, so contribute to a reasoned judgement on how well Apple may execute the Intel transition.
The FAQ contradicts itself: It correctly states in the first question that Apple announced that the first Intel-based machines would ship before mid-2006, and then down the page, in discussing "should I buy a Mac", it says "x86-based Macs won't even begin shipping until mid-2006". How the hell can they make this assertion, when Apple has announced no shipping plans? Apple could very well have Intel-based Macs available earlier than "mid-2006" (say, at Macworld in January), which would also go with what they announced (the transition begins BEFORE mid-2006). I think the answer of whether to buy a Mac now is much greyer than this FAQ implies.
Jeez. Um, I see what you're trying to get at, but that's not really contradicting itself. They both say "mid-2006", and given Apple's long history of product announcements, there is absolutely NO reason to believe that these machines won't ship as late as possible while still meeting the criteria of shipping before "mid-2006" (technically, before WWDC 2006, according to jobs). Even if they shipped a couple months early, that would still be mid-2006, so your assertion of a contradiction here is really grasping. And either way, if a PowerPC-based Mac was appropriate for someone, it still is just as much today. It's up to the customer to decide whether they'd like to wait.
Anyway, I just wanted to point out the the purpose of this "FAQ" appears to be to make people feel like "everything's going to be OK", rather than just presenting facts. I wouldn't pay much attention to it. Read the Mac press instead; whoever set that up clearly has a very pro-Mac agenda that's coloring their interpretation of things. Shit, it reads like it was written by Apple and Intel's PR departments.
Um, that's because everything IS going to be OK. And the facts presented and reasons given clearly show it. It's loaded with external references. The things that aren't strictly facts are prefaced by statements such as "this will likely b
It's completely non-profit, non-commercial, there is no advertising of any type, there are no referral or clickthru ad links, and I get no financial gain of any type from the site.
So is there something wrong with collecting and putting factual information together on a website for the benefit of others?
You won't be able to legally (or in a supported fashion) run Mac OS X on anything but Apple-branded hardware.
So it's FAR more likely that in order to run Mac OS X, people will buy a Mac. You know, like they do today and have been doing for over 21 years (and over four years for Mac OS X).
Will there be people who will pirate Mac OS X (or perhaps even buy it) and run it in completely unsupported configurations under Windows or Linux on commodity x86 hardware? Sure. But the number will be negligible as a comparison to people running Mac OS X in a supported configuration on Apple-brand hardware.
Further, the number of people legally running Mac OS X on Apple-branded hardware and legally running Windows in a VM (in addition to other open source OSes) will far outstrip people doing it any other way. Any belief that there will be more people pirating and illegally running OS X against the EULA in unsupported configurations versus ordinary people running OS X on Apple machines they've purchased is ignorant, to say the least.
And as for the "Apple Tax", I suppose you're the self-appointed arbiter of how much manufacturers are allowed to charge for hardware? Are more expensive, higher quality PC vendors also charging a "tax"?
Many people run Windows on Mac OS X today (under emulators), and it's absolutely horridly slow. You're telling me that people won't want to do this at the full native speed of the underlying hardware?
It won't be "on a few desktops belonging to sufficiently clever hackers" (in fact, that description more appropriately describes the number of people who will be running Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware); rather, it will be routinely done by tens and perhaps hundreds of thousands of people. The same people who use products like Virtual PC today, with the exception that it will actually be usable. And since no emulation will be required, there will probably be even more virtual machine offerings, some perhaps even free and/or open source.
Further, Apple's #2 man (Phil Schiller) has said specifically that Apple won't do anything to stop people from running Windows on Intel-based Macs. And why would Microsoft's "lawyers" do anything? People are *already* running Windows on Macs in the form of Virtual PC, and on numerous x86 virtual machines (like vmware) on x86 hardware today. Why would this be any different?
Lastly, re: economic absurdity, I never said people would buy Macs specifically to run Windows. People will buy Macs to run Mac OS X. The fact that they'll ALSO run Windows (whether it's dual boot, in a VM, or both, it definitely will in some fashion) at full speed is just icing on the cake, and will encourage people to buy Macs who otherwise wanted to, but couldn't because they couldn't afford to run their necessary Windows software under emulation. For people who want to run all platforms in a supported configuration, it will be a dream machine. Linux variants WILL support Intel-based Macs. Mac OS X obviously will. And a commercially supported VM product is virtually guaranteed to run Windows (and other x86 OSes) in a supported VM environment on Mac OS X.
Apple will do NOTHING to stop people from running Windows on the machines. Perhaps they won't offer drivers and support for running Windows *directly* on the production hardware, but Windows WILL run in a VM environment, which is how 99% of people who'd want to run Windows on an Intel-based Mac would want to run it anyway, i.e., without the ridiculous need to reboot: they'd want to run it side-by-side with Mac OS X, seamlessly. And it WILL happen, and no one will stop it. In fact, it's a huge win for Apple.
Apple has not forgotten about 64-bit computing, or x86-64. However, Apple is trying to make the initial phase of the transition as simple as possible. 64-bit is a requirement for systems utilizing more than 4GB of RAM, which will be a necessity for some applications in the future, and is currently possible on today's Apple systems; Apple knows 64-bit capability is a requirement.
Does this mean Apple's abandoning its commitment to a 64-bit architecture?
We don't have any specifics yet, but it seems highly unlikely to us that Apple would turn its back on 64-bit chips. Intel offers 64-bit chips and it's almost impossible to conceive that Apple would move backward in this area.
First of all, Microsoft gets no revenue from every Mac sold. Because exactly zero Macs come with Office. They come with a *trial* of Office. Customers must still purchase it separately.
Second, a comparatively small number of people (mostly concentrated in business and institutional settings) will be the only people running Windows under virtualization. Some new customers will be added because of the speed, and perhaps some new-to-Mac customers because they can run Windows in addition to Mac OS X.
Third, people buy Macs because they want the Mac OS. Not because they secretly want to run Windows on Apple hardware. They're using or switching to Mac OS X because Windows is the steaming pile of dogshit that it is. Running Windows is only a necessity to run Windows software (and having access to the wide variety of commodity PC hardware). I'm not sure many people run Windows because it's the most stable, secure OS available. Not to mention that people who run Windows on an Intel-based Mac will likely be NOT dual-booting, but rather running it in virtualization, side by side with Mac OS X, and only doing it when they need to run Windows-specific software.
Lastly, your assertion that Apple would stop supporting Mac OS X is nothing short of hilarious. I don't even know how to respond to it. Apple might not be a "software company", but Mac OS X is entirely what draws people to the Mac platform. The fact that the hardware is excellently engineered is incidental. Further, if ANYTHING will transform Apple into a "software company", propelling Mac OS X into the larger world beyond Apple hardware when appropriate, it's this transition. In other words, the exact opposite of what you said.
In fact, the actual scenario is more or less the opposite of your entire post. But it was good entertainment!
Slashdot Mirror
...between "security through obscurity" and attempting to hide vulnerabilities, and broadcasting security issues as loudly as possible at public forums.
Both are harmful, and neither benefit security optimally.
As with most things, the most beneficial position is usually a balance between extremes.
How is this funny or relevant?
Since when is it evil for a law enforcement agency to follow up on a complaint, even if the complaint is later found to be invalid? Or should law enforcement agencies be able to predict the future, and just skip the investigative step, and automatically know whether a crime has been committed? It might have been absurd or vindictive for ISS and/or Cisco to approach the FBI, but when someone approaches the FBI and claims a crime has been committed, would you prefer that the FBI did nothing? It HAS to investigate, just like the police still respond to even 911 hangups. If nothing is wrong and no crime has been committed, it's dropped. But when a complaint is initiated, the investigative step MUST take place, else, how would law enforcement even function?
Actually, the FBI has not "decided" to get involved. Lynn's own lawyer says she believes the FBI is merely following up on a complaint that it received from either Cisco or ISS before the settlement was reached. In other words, Cisco or ISS may have been (inappropriately or not, depending on your stand on trade secrets) attempting to silence Lynn, but the FBI wasn't just doing this on its own. Is the FBI not supposed to investigate allegations of crime? The FBI doesn't even know whether a crime has been committed.
Further, Lynn himself admitted that the vulnerability had already been patched by a Cisco update. Lynn's issue is that he didn't believe Cisco presented the vulnerability (or its patch) in an urgent enough fashion.
And "the government" isn't doing anything save for investigating an allegation of a crime, as it is charged with doing when it receives a complaint. Should the police no longer respond when 911 is dialed unless it's absolutely certain a crime is being committed? Is this not what "investigation" is for? Sorry, I don't buy into the conspiracies.
First, according to this new article, Lynn would have been allowed to speak if Cisco was allowed to speak as well.
In other words, give Cisco the opportunity to explain that patching vulnerabilities in major commercial vendor-supported code isn't just something that happens instantaneously. I'm not saying Cisco is completely in the clear here, but no everything shouldn't be open source, and patching shouldn't/can't happen like it does in the open source community. Some people will no doubt fundamentally or philosophically disagree with this, but in major network infrastructure, there is a place for stable, predictable commercial support. Along with that sometimes comes commercial and/or proprietary code - code which is kept proprietary for competitive advantage. This is not to say that flaws should not be revealed for the good of all, but speaking in generalities here, broadcasting everything as loudly and widely as possible to the public isn't necessarily the best way to address issues. Nor is hiding things in obscurity. But there is a scale here, and it's NOT black and white.
Further, the FBI is investigating not because of some corporatist government conspiracy, and is not being used as Cisco's own "police force". It is investigating a claim of a complaint it received, as it is compelled to do by its very reason for existence, and doesn't even know if a crime has been committed. Would you want law enforcement agencies to not investigate allegations of crime, whatever your opinion of this particular instance aside?
Even Lynn's own lawyer says "that she thought the agency was simply following through on a complaint it received when Cisco and ISS filed their lawsuit against Lynn and that it didn't come after her client reached his settlement. She didn't know the nature of the complaint but said it was probably something to do with intellectual property and that it most likely came from Cisco or ISS.
Granick said she did not think the FBI would arrest Lynn.
"Definitely not," she said. "I don't have any sense at all that that's where they're going. I don't know what the circumstances are under which anyone contacted the FBI. It may very well be that given that we settled the civil case yesterday, this is over."
So please, let's not overreact.
AC dumbass:
The original posted used the term "if" in the context of implying Atlantis would be needed, otherwise the questioning of the grounding of the fleet makes no sense; grounding of the fleet is only a concern if Atlantis were needed. It isn't. Therefore, the concern about how Atlantis could be launched is meaningless.
And the term to referring to spacecraft in orbit, or tasks performed while in orbit, is "on orbit".
Try to be correct at least once in your post next time.
The foam didn't even strike Discovery! It's just that it *fell off* at all, and the fact that everyone is paying attention to it now because of Columbia.
Yes, they'll be coming back. And no, it won't be particularly interesting if they land safely, because the foam didn't even hit the shuttle, not to mention that the shuttle has been hit by debris over 15000 times in the history of the program. Over a hundred tiles alone fall off and need to be replaced on every mission.
There's nothing interesting about this except the media circus. It's to bad they don't pay more attention to the *actual science* that NASA is doing with the shuttle, on this and the hundred-some other missions instead of obsessing over foam.
Except Discovery is not "seriously damaged".
(And another shuttle would hardly be "scrambled".)
And the fact that the over 15,000 pieces of debris that hit the shuttle on the previous 113 flights didn't cause any problems 112 of those 113 times. You might say once is too many, but we're only finding issues here because we're looking so hard.
And, no, it's not "hard to do" with one shuttle on orbit. The fleet is grounded. Discovery is on orbit. Once it returns, no further shuttles will be launched until further notice. Quite simple.
The point is, now that we're looking intensely for problems in this area, we're going to find them. We're looking with eyes, cameras, satellites, lasers, sensors, robotic arms - all with unprecedented scrutiny. What do we expect to find? The shuttles are the most complicated pieces of machinery ever built, designed to launch into space with a controlled explosion, and then return to earth. Regardless of whether some here think the shuttle is junk, whether it's unnecessary, whether Air Force jocks doomed the program for the beginning, whether manned spaceflight is sentimental tripe, etc., the fact remains that flying something like the shuttle is a risky endeavor.
It's all about smart management of risk. Eliminating risk, especially for something like the shuttle, is impossible. This focus on debris falling from the shuttle is nothing more than a reactionary CYA tactic in the midst of a media circus in case something else like this were to happen again. Doing get me wrong: it's wise to consider the problem, to attempt to prevent it, and to ensure there is not undue exposure. But that exposure cannot be eliminated, and this intense focus on debris in particular beyond anything else, even in light of Columbia, is unwarranted.
NASA is operating in panic mode: one more catastrophic shuttle failure, and that's the end of the shuttle program, and essentially the practical end of the ISS and a lot of scientific research to boot. If you're paralyzed with fear, you're, well...paralyzed.
This New York Times article, which I posted in the previous article on this, sums up the situation quite nicely, for those who may have missed it.
Notable:
"How do you distinguish - discriminate - between damage which is critical and damage which is inconsequential?" asked Dr. David Wolf, an astronaut who spent four months aboard the Russian space station Mir. "We could be faced with very difficult decisions, in part because of all this additional information that we will be presented with."
"...the harder they look, they'll find more things."
"There is risk in anything you do."
July 27, 2005
Intense Hunt for Signs of Damage Could Raise Problems of Its Own
By JOHN SCHWARTZ
CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla., July 26 - Now that the Discovery is in orbit, the examination begins. Its 12½-day mission will be the most photographed in the history of the shuttle program, with all eyes on the craft to see if it suffered the kind of damage from blastoff debris that brought down the Columbia in February 2003.
There were cameras on the launching pad, cameras aloft on planes monitoring the ascent, cameras on the shuttle checking for missing foam on the external fuel tank, and a camera on the tank itself. One camera caught a mysterious object falling from the shuttle at liftoff; radar detected another, about two minutes into the flight. Cameras aboard the shuttle and the International Space Station will monitor the Discovery until the end of its mission.
But all this inspection may be a mixed blessing. The more NASA looks for damage, engineers an
The shuttle program has lived with damage from debris from the very first flight, in 1981; in 113 missions the orbiters have been hit by debris some 15,000 times, mostly on liftoff. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration replaces about 100 insulating tiles after every flight and repairs many more than that, Stephanie S. Stilson, the vehicle manager for Discovery, said Monday.
In fact, the rest of this article sums up the situation quite nicely:
July 27, 2005
Intense Hunt for Signs of Damage Could Raise Problems of Its Own
By JOHN SCHWARTZ
CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla., July 26 - Now that the Discovery is in orbit, the examination begins. Its 12½-day mission will be the most photographed in the history of the shuttle program, with all eyes on the craft to see if it suffered the kind of damage from blastoff debris that brought down the Columbia in February 2003.
There were cameras on the launching pad, cameras aloft on planes monitoring the ascent, cameras on the shuttle checking for missing foam on the external fuel tank, and a camera on the tank itself. One camera caught a mysterious object falling from the shuttle at liftoff; radar detected another, about two minutes into the flight. Cameras aboard the shuttle and the International Space Station will monitor the Discovery until the end of its mission.
But all this inspection may be a mixed blessing. The more NASA looks for damage, engineers and other experts say, the more it will find. And the risks of overreaction to signs of damage while the shuttle is in orbit may be just as great as the risks of playing them down.
"How do you distinguish - discriminate - between damage which is critical and damage which is inconsequential?" asked Dr. David Wolf, an astronaut who spent four months aboard the Russian space station Mir. "We could be faced with very difficult decisions, in part because of all this additional information that we will be presented with."
The shuttle program has lived with damage from debris from the very first flight, in 1981; in 113 missions the orbiters have been hit by debris some 15,000 times, mostly on liftoff. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration replaces about 100 insulating tiles after every flight and repairs many more than that, Stephanie S. Stilson, the vehicle manager for Discovery, said Monday.
Now, though, it will be far easier to spot such damage while the shuttle is still in orbit. Thanks to a $15 million laser camera system developed by a Canadian company, Neptec, for example, NASA can detect a crack of just two-hundredths of an inch, the width of two business cards pressed together. On the leading edge of the orbiter's wing, such a crack could admit dangerous amounts of superheated gas during re-entry. A similar crack elsewhere might not.
It was a large hole in the left wing's leading edge, caused by impact with a 1.67-pound piece of insulating foam during the launching, that led to the Columbia disaster.
But if a crack is detected, said Iain Christie, director of research and development for Neptec, "how is NASA supposed to explain that this is not a problem?"
Nor is it clear how it could be fixed. NASA's efforts to create a repair kit for tile and leading-edge panels, a recommendation of the board that investigated the Columbia accident, have not been successful. Techniques will be tested during a spacewalk in coming days, but they are not ready for an actual repair, and the Discovery astronauts have said they would not want to trust any patchwork on a return to Earth.
Another option, the "safe haven" plan, would involve abandoning the $2 billion shuttle and having the astronauts wait in the space station for a rescue mission. For that to work, another shuttle would have to be launched within a few weeks.
That is theoretically possible but carries risks of its own: the chance, for example, that the orbiting astronauts would run o
...but thanks, guys.
...with China's commensurate commitment to freedom of speech, human rights, free flows of information among its citizenry, support of protest and political dissent, and so on.
That's not the only critical front on which the US will be competing with China: the US will soon pass the oil/fossil fuel consumption crown to China as well if current trends continue.
Further, China is free to spend for its own growth with little oversight from the populace (such as investing heavily in pebble bed fission reactors, planning to build 30 new reactors by 2020), allowing it to spend money as it sees fit without the same social and political constraints as the US. And even with what little oversight you think we might have in the US, it's far greater than the influence a typical Chinese citizen has. It's too bad that we'll likely never see new nuclear plants built anytime soon here, with all the political baggage.[1] We'll just keep using the quickly diminishing supply of conventional fossil fuels.[2]
[1] An environmental research group came to my door the other day extolling the virtues of environmental law, conservation, anti-pollution law, and etc., as you'd expect. All noble causes, when tempered with economic reality. But they continued on to also say opposition to ANY nuclear project was critical. Could they "count on my support?" In a word, no.
[2] Bush is actually pushing hard for the nuclear plants we're in desperate need of. See the policy speeches here. Contrast this with some typical opponents' opposition to all ongoing nuclear research under the guise of nuclear weapons nonproliferation.
Why is Microsoft any different?
They're not.
Except that DeWalt isn't going to come after you because you have a knockoff drill. See, the analogy doesn't transfer, because the copy of Windows is pirated; a knockoff DeWalt is just that: a knockoff. But if DeWalt wants to get restitution from whoever is making knockoffs of their drills, what Microsoft is doing is the equivalent of coming after YOU instead of the people making the "knockoffs". That's the difference.
Thanks:
Microsoft said the company has no plans at this time to require users running automatic updates to provide proof that their copies of Windows are genuine.
But note the "at this time". If they're making the change for Windows Update, there's no reason they couldn't disallow it via Automatic Updates at some point in the future.
If you used the Security Center and set it to receive Automatic Updates automatically it would work, even with a counterfeit version of Windows.
Reference or proof, please?
the user will be given the oppportunity to purchase a legitimate copy of the software for a discounted price, upon providing proof of purchase (!!)
That will be an interesting feat.
And, jokes aside, "proof of purchase" of what? If they mean a possible purchase of a machine with, or a standalone copy of, a counterfeit version of Windows, assuming the user purchased it legitimately in good faith, how in the hell is this the user's responsibility or fault? I'm not talking about someone who got Windows from a guy in an overcoat for $10 on a street corner (not to mention you probably wouldn't have a "proof of purchase" for that kind of sale); I'm talking about purchases reasonably believed to be legitimate. No, this doesn't mean that a software company has to honor pirated or illegal copies even if the user believed it to be legal for whatever reason, but it seems like this really sticks it to the user (not to mention the internet community as a whole by not providing OS updates, the fact they claim to be providing security updates aside[1]) as opposed to working to target the entities they believe to be illegally selling Windows...especially if the customer has a "proof of purchase" of an illegitimate copy of Windows in the first place, which presumably contains some element of contact information for the source if it can reasonably considered to constitute any semblance of "proof of purchase". They should be offering amnesty and/or discounts to people who are running straight-up pirated versions of Windows with no "proof of purchase" at all, if this is any attempt to reach out to people running unlicensed copies!
(Make no mistake: I'm not saying Microsoft is obligated to honor illegally purchased copies of Windows, whether they're pirated, or even ones purchased innocently and in good faith. But they'd be a hell of a lot better citizen of the internet community if they didn't withhold updates in either instance.)
[1] Windows Service Pack 2 would apparently not be included in this, for example, because it's not a "security update"; but it can be strongly argued that SP2 did more for general Windows XP security than any "security update" ever has. In other words, not updating the multitude of for-whatever-reason non-legal copies of Windows out there does everyone involved a major disservice, not the least of which is the rest of the world surrounding them.
That may end up being true, but the point really is that the number of users doing it will still be relatively small.
Mainstream commercial hardware and software vendors won't make a business out of promoting Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware if Apple's EULA prohibits it, and further, large numbers of business/institutional customers won't want to run Mac OS X in a configuration totally unsupported (and unsanctioned) by Apple.
So while the law may be on individual users' side post-sale, it will still be hacker-types and individual users doing it, and it definitely won't be widespread when compared with conventional Apple hardware sales. So even if people argue that, say X thousand (or X hundred thousand...) people are going to run Mac OS X on non-Apple commodity hardware, whether or not they pirate it, there will still be an order of magnitude more people running it legitimately on Apple-branded hardware. Institutional/business/university customers won't be running it in unsupported fashion, either, for a variety of reasons.
The point is that even if it ends up being strictly "legal" in certain jurisdictions, Apple's non-support will make it a hassle. Any product (such as an open source VM) that allows it will have to be continually updated to deal with Apple updates, and there will be inevitable compatibility problems. In short, for ordinary people or other entities who really want Mac OS X, it will be done via Apple hardware.
Except that it will be illegal (against copyright law/against the DMCA/in violation of some other provision in your jurisdiction/against Apple's EULA) to run Mac OS X on anything but Apple-brand hardware, as it is today. Why do you think there are no Mac clones??
Microsoft, or any major other commercial vendor, isn't going to do anything to allow someone to run software in direct violation of the software's EULA and/or copyright law. Everyone saying "but people will just be running OS X on PC!!!" are completely missing the point that it is against the EULA, meaning NO commercial vendor will even touch it, and will be completely unsupported by Apple, meaning it will be relegated to hobbyists and hackers. Ordinary business, academic, and institutional purchasers who want to run Mac OS X and Windows (and other x86 OSes) on the same machine will be buying machines from Apple.
It ignores the New York Times articles which offered the most compelling information for why the switch happened: namely that Apple demanded certain pricing from IBM that IBM refused to give them. I guess they omitted that because it reflects poorly on Apple?
That's just as much speculation as anything else, and, even if true, is itself was probably tied to the fact that IBM missed its 3GHz part delivery commitment to Apple by over a year. In other words, the assertion that Apple switched for these reasons is valid. Further, I don't say that it was factual; it says "The following scenario likely contributed to this decision". And it very likely did. Pricing demands as a result of that situation are secondary and incidental.
It says that the 68k to PowerPC switch was "as seamless as practical", and says that they have completed a switch of this magnitude before. It says this, assuming (a) what the magnitude of this switch is before it even happens, and ignoring (b) that Apple had about 12% market share when it began the PowerPC transition, and 5% afterward. I mean, yes, they made their transition, but it was certainly not "seamless" there was a major developer outcry, and they lost most of their customer base. I think it's debateable, therefore, how well it went.
As another poster pointed out, market share != customer base. Sales dipped after the transition, but the 68K to PowerPC transition is widely regarded as extremely successful: Apple was able to switch processor architectures entirely, while having minimal impact on users. The fact that PowerPC has been a staple for Apple for over ten years is a testament to the success and wisdom of the transition.
Further, Apple is one of very few companies to have a transition of any type of this magnitude; and it's had not one, but two, covering hardware AND software! Both were executed successfully, so contribute to a reasoned judgement on how well Apple may execute the Intel transition.
The FAQ contradicts itself: It correctly states in the first question that Apple announced that the first Intel-based machines would ship before mid-2006, and then down the page, in discussing "should I buy a Mac", it says "x86-based Macs won't even begin shipping until mid-2006". How the hell can they make this assertion, when Apple has announced no shipping plans? Apple could very well have Intel-based Macs available earlier than "mid-2006" (say, at Macworld in January), which would also go with what they announced (the transition begins BEFORE mid-2006). I think the answer of whether to buy a Mac now is much greyer than this FAQ implies.
Jeez. Um, I see what you're trying to get at, but that's not really contradicting itself. They both say "mid-2006", and given Apple's long history of product announcements, there is absolutely NO reason to believe that these machines won't ship as late as possible while still meeting the criteria of shipping before "mid-2006" (technically, before WWDC 2006, according to jobs). Even if they shipped a couple months early, that would still be mid-2006, so your assertion of a contradiction here is really grasping. And either way, if a PowerPC-based Mac was appropriate for someone, it still is just as much today. It's up to the customer to decide whether they'd like to wait.
Anyway, I just wanted to point out the the purpose of this "FAQ" appears to be to make people feel like "everything's going to be OK", rather than just presenting facts. I wouldn't pay much attention to it. Read the Mac press instead; whoever set that up clearly has a very pro-Mac agenda that's coloring their interpretation of things. Shit, it reads like it was written by Apple and Intel's PR departments.
Um, that's because everything IS going to be OK. And the facts presented and reasons given clearly show it. It's loaded with external references. The things that aren't strictly facts are prefaced by statements such as "this will likely b
And?
It's completely non-profit, non-commercial, there is no advertising of any type, there are no referral or clickthru ad links, and I get no financial gain of any type from the site.
So is there something wrong with collecting and putting factual information together on a website for the benefit of others?
LOL!
That's funny.
You won't be able to legally (or in a supported fashion) run Mac OS X on anything but Apple-branded hardware.
So it's FAR more likely that in order to run Mac OS X, people will buy a Mac. You know, like they do today and have been doing for over 21 years (and over four years for Mac OS X).
Will there be people who will pirate Mac OS X (or perhaps even buy it) and run it in completely unsupported configurations under Windows or Linux on commodity x86 hardware? Sure. But the number will be negligible as a comparison to people running Mac OS X in a supported configuration on Apple-brand hardware.
Further, the number of people legally running Mac OS X on Apple-branded hardware and legally running Windows in a VM (in addition to other open source OSes) will far outstrip people doing it any other way. Any belief that there will be more people pirating and illegally running OS X against the EULA in unsupported configurations versus ordinary people running OS X on Apple machines they've purchased is ignorant, to say the least.
And as for the "Apple Tax", I suppose you're the self-appointed arbiter of how much manufacturers are allowed to charge for hardware? Are more expensive, higher quality PC vendors also charging a "tax"?
Oops, I'm getting married!
So I'd say you're definitely wrong, and I guess I might get a pony after all!
But Japan still won't get a 10Pflop supercomputer.
But thanks for your concern!
I wonder what the purpose of Virtual PC, Guest PC, bochs, etc., are for then?
Many people run Windows on Mac OS X today (under emulators), and it's absolutely horridly slow. You're telling me that people won't want to do this at the full native speed of the underlying hardware?
It won't be "on a few desktops belonging to sufficiently clever hackers" (in fact, that description more appropriately describes the number of people who will be running Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware); rather, it will be routinely done by tens and perhaps hundreds of thousands of people. The same people who use products like Virtual PC today, with the exception that it will actually be usable. And since no emulation will be required, there will probably be even more virtual machine offerings, some perhaps even free and/or open source.
Further, Apple's #2 man (Phil Schiller) has said specifically that Apple won't do anything to stop people from running Windows on Intel-based Macs. And why would Microsoft's "lawyers" do anything? People are *already* running Windows on Macs in the form of Virtual PC, and on numerous x86 virtual machines (like vmware) on x86 hardware today. Why would this be any different?
Lastly, re: economic absurdity, I never said people would buy Macs specifically to run Windows. People will buy Macs to run Mac OS X. The fact that they'll ALSO run Windows (whether it's dual boot, in a VM, or both, it definitely will in some fashion) at full speed is just icing on the cake, and will encourage people to buy Macs who otherwise wanted to, but couldn't because they couldn't afford to run their necessary Windows software under emulation. For people who want to run all platforms in a supported configuration, it will be a dream machine. Linux variants WILL support Intel-based Macs. Mac OS X obviously will. And a commercially supported VM product is virtually guaranteed to run Windows (and other x86 OSes) in a supported VM environment on Mac OS X.
Apple will do NOTHING to stop people from running Windows on the machines. Perhaps they won't offer drivers and support for running Windows *directly* on the production hardware, but Windows WILL run in a VM environment, which is how 99% of people who'd want to run Windows on an Intel-based Mac would want to run it anyway, i.e., without the ridiculous need to reboot: they'd want to run it side-by-side with Mac OS X, seamlessly. And it WILL happen, and no one will stop it. In fact, it's a huge win for Apple.
...and I want a pony.
Guess which two things aren't happening anytime soon?
First of all, shipping Intel-based machines probably won't even be using the Pentium 4; but:
/
http://appleintelfaq.com/#7
What about 64-bit computing?
Apple has not forgotten about 64-bit computing, or x86-64. However, Apple is trying to make the initial phase of the transition as simple as possible. 64-bit is a requirement for systems utilizing more than 4GB of RAM, which will be a necessity for some applications in the future, and is currently possible on today's Apple systems; Apple knows 64-bit capability is a requirement.
http://www.macworld.com/2005/06/features/intelfaq
Does this mean Apple's abandoning its commitment to a 64-bit architecture?
We don't have any specifics yet, but it seems highly unlikely to us that Apple would turn its back on 64-bit chips. Intel offers 64-bit chips and it's almost impossible to conceive that Apple would move backward in this area.
"Don't assume that what you see in the transition boxes represents what will be present in the final product." -Dean Reece, Apple
No, wait, you're not even close to being right.
First of all, Microsoft gets no revenue from every Mac sold. Because exactly zero Macs come with Office. They come with a *trial* of Office. Customers must still purchase it separately.
Second, a comparatively small number of people (mostly concentrated in business and institutional settings) will be the only people running Windows under virtualization. Some new customers will be added because of the speed, and perhaps some new-to-Mac customers because they can run Windows in addition to Mac OS X.
Third, people buy Macs because they want the Mac OS. Not because they secretly want to run Windows on Apple hardware. They're using or switching to Mac OS X because Windows is the steaming pile of dogshit that it is. Running Windows is only a necessity to run Windows software (and having access to the wide variety of commodity PC hardware). I'm not sure many people run Windows because it's the most stable, secure OS available. Not to mention that people who run Windows on an Intel-based Mac will likely be NOT dual-booting, but rather running it in virtualization, side by side with Mac OS X, and only doing it when they need to run Windows-specific software.
Lastly, your assertion that Apple would stop supporting Mac OS X is nothing short of hilarious. I don't even know how to respond to it. Apple might not be a "software company", but Mac OS X is entirely what draws people to the Mac platform. The fact that the hardware is excellently engineered is incidental. Further, if ANYTHING will transform Apple into a "software company", propelling Mac OS X into the larger world beyond Apple hardware when appropriate, it's this transition. In other words, the exact opposite of what you said.
In fact, the actual scenario is more or less the opposite of your entire post. But it was good entertainment!