Spaceflight Now ran a mission update blog leading up to the failure, and they also have more coverage on the loss of the rocket.
Both of these links tell us nothing we didn't already know. Nothing like following a link labeled "more coverage" to get an almost word-for-word repeat of the blog.
You'd think they would have a camera filming the launch from the ground somewhere. You can't rely on the camera onboard the vehicle to provide you with any helpful information in the moments of and after an "anomaly". (why do they always call it that? why can't they just say "it blew up"?)
does this deal with throttling, (delaying packets) or with modifying traffic? (forging RST etc) From what I read it doesn't care about how long your packets take to get there.
Dr. Egon Spengler: There's something very important I forgot to tell you. Dr. Peter Venkman: What? Dr. Egon Spengler: Don't cross the streams. Dr. Peter Venkman: Why? Dr. Egon Spengler: It would be bad. Dr. Peter Venkman: I'm fuzzy on the whole good/bad thing. What do you mean, "bad"? Dr. Egon Spengler: Try to imagine all life as you know it stopping instantaneously and every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light. Dr Ray Stantz: Total protonic reversal. Dr. Peter Venkman: Right. That's bad. Okay. All right. Important safety tip. Thanks, Egon.
I always have my phone on me in case there's an emergency or whatnot,...But still, I need it on and within reach all the time, just in case.
I think that is the problem, fear of the unknown emergency. What if there was a fire at the chemical plant by your kids' school? How about a hostage situation at your spouse's workplace? What if I told you I could sell you a device that would be guaranteed to alert you of these dangers that your cell phone might not? How much would you be willing to pay for it?
The only reason we have this problem is that cell phones make it marginally easier for us to keep slightly better informed live. Heck, if you carried around a walkman you could get the above information if you kept tuned to a local station. You should run out and get one immediately! I mean really, what if there's an emergency or whatnot, you need it on and in within reach all the time, just in case
I think the whole thing is silly. People are so wound up and fragile nowadays that they are even afraid of missing out on being afraid.
Kick the habbit. Stop being a puppet to the fear of the unknown.
Because too many people don't think they can survive without their cell phone. One friend I invited over for some LAN gaming, his cell phone kept ringing while we played. Next time we played, I insisted he turn it off. "What happens if there's an emergency? What if my brother's been in a car accident?" "I don't know, are you a surgeon and do you have a chopper standing by in my back yard? Shut it off."
He still snuck it back on a little bit later and got TWO more calls during the game. (didn't answer them, but stopped playing a few sec each time to look at the caller ID) Some people need to learn to live without a cell phone occasionally. For a few though I think it borders on addiction, "I can quit anytime, just not right now."
Well you need to be a little patient. Make sure you have applecare. When it fails for the third time, you need to demand a replacement. Apple has a very quiet rule that you can demand a replacement machine if it experiences three major problems within the warranty period. It will likely involve a call to Apple or you will have to deal with an Apple store. Apple Authorized Service Providers (that are not Apple stores) cannot help you with this.
a simple chrome coating can add a few seconds of protection for a shell, enough to prevent it from being destroyed before it reaches its target. Mirrors are vulnerable because the reflective surface is usually very thin and poorly heat-protected. Chrome a shell and the shell serves as a heat sink to dissipate most of the energy the chrome actually ends up absorbing in the first place. Chrome's a lot hardier than a few microns of silvering.
The lasers weren't blowing holes in the shells, they were cooking them. They aren't nearly as devastating as you might at first believe. Several of their demos required several seconds to detonate the incoming round. If you can buy another 3 seconds of time on a shell, that's probably enough to beat the laser. You only have to survive the heat from the time you are acquired to the time you pass out of view of the laser.
I'm more interested in how they are generating that much laser energy. Most lasers of that calibre are chemical, and I didn't see what I would expect of a chemical laser. Being able to engage several targets one after another rapidly is a big plus over traditional chemical lasers, which require large amounts of chemicals which have to be pumped in, triggered, and vented to be replaced with more chemicals to fire again. The large flying laser beds work this way and I don't even know if they can fire more than once without landing and refueling with more chemicals. (though they are certainly more powerful than the one demo'd here)
They also demo this in the desert every time I see it. No clouds, low humidity, line of sight. Guess what laser weapons don't do well in?
but wouldn't they have to do this anyway? If they weren't secure to begin with, and someone abuses them, saying they forced you to secure them is just retarded.
Well things didn't go even remotely as planned. I intended to go out in the afternoon and return late in the evening, But I forgot a cable necessary to attach my large 2nd battery to the bike light, and didn't realize this until after I'd passed the commit point for returning with usable light. So it was long haul for the weekend, or try to drive many miles on a very dark bicycle trail cross-country with NO light.
Was one of those "murphy's rules" weekends too. The destination had recently flooded badly so there were NO vacancies at any hotels, I didn't bring my cell phone, (my bad) and my palm pilot decided to sync the wrong way last time so I lacked current numbers/addresses. The entire ride was full of almost-deal-breakers the entire time, but nothing catastrophic. Not even a flat. Overkill on the food and drink packed too. Arrived at the lot and was hit with a sudden severe thunderstorm before I could drive the short distance to my house too. Only reason I found my friend's place was I happened to mark his house on my GPS last visit. (and even that I had to use my spare batteries, thank god I don't pack light)
tho make sure you have backup plans for long rides... I realize some people can regularly do 75-100mi rides in a day, but I am not one of them. got a little too far from home and had to stay the night at a friend's. but made for an enjoyable 2 day weekend nevertheless and somehow got through it without feeling absolutely destroyed come Monday.
This is most likely a dual purpose measure being taken by the Chinese govt. Firstly, making internet access expensive does reduce the number of people using it. Less people using it means fewer people to keep tabs on. Secondly and I think more importantly, someone has to pay those people and buy that hardware to monitor your web browsing and blogging. I would expect that each subscriber to this service has several dedicated censors monitoring their line. They're probably just making the system fund itself, while at the same time providing a natural limiting factor to it. It's a very elegant solution really. If too many people try to subscribe to it, causing a problem getting enough censors and tech in place to handle the surge, they just jack up the price until it hits equilibrium again. It's a highly effective, practical, and simple solution to their need for censorship.
For those not familiar with checksums, the "ideal" checksum algorithm will toggle approximately 50% of the bits in the checksum for any one bit in the source material toggled. This makes it highly unlikely for several errors in an otherwise correct message to combine to produce the same checksum. Ideally, two messages that produce the same checksum should be wildly different, not nearly identical.
I suppose it depends on how you take it. Some people would view them as stalkers hunting you down, possibly intent on silenving you. ("knock off the negative blogs or we further modify your bandwidth limits") Others would view it as an honest attempt to seek out discontent and make things right. ("do you happen to remember the name of the rep that refused to address your concern?") Or it may simply be a selfish move on comcast's part to grease the squeaky wheels in an attempt to improve their public karma level. One pissed off and motivated blogger can do a lot of hard to the image of even a large company, making for a nice David-and-Golliath type conflict that Golliath either better make peace on or take the hit.
I suppose in the end a company is a company and they really don't care about how happy or unhappy their customers are. Happy customers can make for better business, but not always. Sometimes the best business model involves pissing off quite a percentage of your customer base. (particularly when lacking competition) So regardless of what the peons at comcast look like they're doing or think they're doing, the actual intent from comcast is not to make happy customers. It's to protect the bottom line.
So lets hope that they think making their customers happier is currently the best thing for their bottom line.
in that way it does make economical sense. If there are two companies in a market that are competing for business, with fickle customers that will change loyalties in a heartbeat for a coupon, you can be running on an unreasonably low margin. Merge them, and for one you can completely dump one of the marketing departments. If the services are similar enough you may even be able to remove some of the now redundant infrastructure. Satellites are expensive.
Tate had insisted that the companies settle charges that they violated FCC rules before she would approve the deal. The companies agreed this week to pay $19.7 million to the U.S. Treasury for violations related to radio receivers and ground-based signal repeaters.
Oh well that's different! They agreed to pay their fines! We should give them a reward for being such good little boys.
And when I go downtown to pay my speeding ticket I expect nothing less than a thank-you card and a candybar.
was this deep packet "inspection", or did they actually alter traffic? Like modifying web pages to insert ads, or change IP addresses of banners?
Or something more hands-off like monitoring customer browsing and using it to deliver better targeted ads when the customer browsed their own web pages?
Slashdot Mirror
Spaceflight Now ran a mission update blog leading up to the failure, and they also have more coverage on the loss of the rocket.
Both of these links tell us nothing we didn't already know. Nothing like following a link labeled "more coverage" to get an almost word-for-word repeat of the blog.
You'd think they would have a camera filming the launch from the ground somewhere. You can't rely on the camera onboard the vehicle to provide you with any helpful information in the moments of and after an "anomaly". (why do they always call it that? why can't they just say "it blew up"?)
does this deal with throttling, (delaying packets) or with modifying traffic? (forging RST etc) From what I read it doesn't care about how long your packets take to get there.
Dr. Egon Spengler: There's something very important I forgot to tell you.
Dr. Peter Venkman: What?
Dr. Egon Spengler: Don't cross the streams.
Dr. Peter Venkman: Why?
Dr. Egon Spengler: It would be bad.
Dr. Peter Venkman: I'm fuzzy on the whole good/bad thing. What do you mean, "bad"?
Dr. Egon Spengler: Try to imagine all life as you know it stopping instantaneously and every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light.
Dr Ray Stantz: Total protonic reversal.
Dr. Peter Venkman: Right. That's bad. Okay. All right. Important safety tip. Thanks, Egon.
I always have my phone on me in case there's an emergency or whatnot,...But still, I need it on and within reach all the time, just in case.
I think that is the problem, fear of the unknown emergency. What if there was a fire at the chemical plant by your kids' school? How about a hostage situation at your spouse's workplace? What if I told you I could sell you a device that would be guaranteed to alert you of these dangers that your cell phone might not? How much would you be willing to pay for it?
The only reason we have this problem is that cell phones make it marginally easier for us to keep slightly better informed live. Heck, if you carried around a walkman you could get the above information if you kept tuned to a local station. You should run out and get one immediately! I mean really, what if there's an emergency or whatnot, you need it on and in within reach all the time, just in case
I think the whole thing is silly. People are so wound up and fragile nowadays that they are even afraid of missing out on being afraid.
Kick the habbit. Stop being a puppet to the fear of the unknown.
Because too many people don't think they can survive without their cell phone. One friend I invited over for some LAN gaming, his cell phone kept ringing while we played. Next time we played, I insisted he turn it off. "What happens if there's an emergency? What if my brother's been in a car accident?" "I don't know, are you a surgeon and do you have a chopper standing by in my back yard? Shut it off."
He still snuck it back on a little bit later and got TWO more calls during the game. (didn't answer them, but stopped playing a few sec each time to look at the caller ID) Some people need to learn to live without a cell phone occasionally. For a few though I think it borders on addiction, "I can quit anytime, just not right now."
the key of course is not having to click 5-6 random alerts, notices, and popups before managing to get an application launched.
Attention! Your mouse has moved! Would you like to go to the Security Center to see if someone has owned your computer?
You have just clicked Cancel. Cancel or Allow?
Well you need to be a little patient. Make sure you have applecare. When it fails for the third time, you need to demand a replacement. Apple has a very quiet rule that you can demand a replacement machine if it experiences three major problems within the warranty period. It will likely involve a call to Apple or you will have to deal with an Apple store. Apple Authorized Service Providers (that are not Apple stores) cannot help you with this.
the irony of that is that very scenario is one of the proposed reasons for needing the trusted computing in the first place.
a simple chrome coating can add a few seconds of protection for a shell, enough to prevent it from being destroyed before it reaches its target. Mirrors are vulnerable because the reflective surface is usually very thin and poorly heat-protected. Chrome a shell and the shell serves as a heat sink to dissipate most of the energy the chrome actually ends up absorbing in the first place. Chrome's a lot hardier than a few microns of silvering.
The lasers weren't blowing holes in the shells, they were cooking them. They aren't nearly as devastating as you might at first believe. Several of their demos required several seconds to detonate the incoming round. If you can buy another 3 seconds of time on a shell, that's probably enough to beat the laser. You only have to survive the heat from the time you are acquired to the time you pass out of view of the laser.
I'm more interested in how they are generating that much laser energy. Most lasers of that calibre are chemical, and I didn't see what I would expect of a chemical laser. Being able to engage several targets one after another rapidly is a big plus over traditional chemical lasers, which require large amounts of chemicals which have to be pumped in, triggered, and vented to be replaced with more chemicals to fire again. The large flying laser beds work this way and I don't even know if they can fire more than once without landing and refueling with more chemicals. (though they are certainly more powerful than the one demo'd here)
They also demo this in the desert every time I see it. No clouds, low humidity, line of sight. Guess what laser weapons don't do well in?
I think it was more to protect your private data in the event that your machine is stolen.
can the TPM chip be "managed" with say, a wirecutters or an xacto knife?
maybe not bricked, but trashed? as in cannot access your user data anymore, forever?
but wouldn't they have to do this anyway? If they weren't secure to begin with, and someone abuses them, saying they forced you to secure them is just retarded.
Servers him right.
Well things didn't go even remotely as planned. I intended to go out in the afternoon and return late in the evening, But I forgot a cable necessary to attach my large 2nd battery to the bike light, and didn't realize this until after I'd passed the commit point for returning with usable light. So it was long haul for the weekend, or try to drive many miles on a very dark bicycle trail cross-country with NO light.
Was one of those "murphy's rules" weekends too. The destination had recently flooded badly so there were NO vacancies at any hotels, I didn't bring my cell phone, (my bad) and my palm pilot decided to sync the wrong way last time so I lacked current numbers/addresses. The entire ride was full of almost-deal-breakers the entire time, but nothing catastrophic. Not even a flat. Overkill on the food and drink packed too. Arrived at the lot and was hit with a sudden severe thunderstorm before I could drive the short distance to my house too. Only reason I found my friend's place was I happened to mark his house on my GPS last visit. (and even that I had to use my spare batteries, thank god I don't pack light)
What a weekend...
tho make sure you have backup plans for long rides... I realize some people can regularly do 75-100mi rides in a day, but I am not one of them. got a little too far from home and had to stay the night at a friend's. but made for an enjoyable 2 day weekend nevertheless and somehow got through it without feeling absolutely destroyed come Monday.
This is most likely a dual purpose measure being taken by the Chinese govt. Firstly, making internet access expensive does reduce the number of people using it. Less people using it means fewer people to keep tabs on. Secondly and I think more importantly, someone has to pay those people and buy that hardware to monitor your web browsing and blogging. I would expect that each subscriber to this service has several dedicated censors monitoring their line. They're probably just making the system fund itself, while at the same time providing a natural limiting factor to it. It's a very elegant solution really. If too many people try to subscribe to it, causing a problem getting enough censors and tech in place to handle the surge, they just jack up the price until it hits equilibrium again. It's a highly effective, practical, and simple solution to their need for censorship.
For those not familiar with checksums, the "ideal" checksum algorithm will toggle approximately 50% of the bits in the checksum for any one bit in the source material toggled. This makes it highly unlikely for several errors in an otherwise correct message to combine to produce the same checksum. Ideally, two messages that produce the same checksum should be wildly different, not nearly identical.
I suppose it depends on how you take it. Some people would view them as stalkers hunting you down, possibly intent on silenving you. ("knock off the negative blogs or we further modify your bandwidth limits") Others would view it as an honest attempt to seek out discontent and make things right. ("do you happen to remember the name of the rep that refused to address your concern?") Or it may simply be a selfish move on comcast's part to grease the squeaky wheels in an attempt to improve their public karma level. One pissed off and motivated blogger can do a lot of hard to the image of even a large company, making for a nice David-and-Golliath type conflict that Golliath either better make peace on or take the hit.
I suppose in the end a company is a company and they really don't care about how happy or unhappy their customers are. Happy customers can make for better business, but not always. Sometimes the best business model involves pissing off quite a percentage of your customer base. (particularly when lacking competition) So regardless of what the peons at comcast look like they're doing or think they're doing, the actual intent from comcast is not to make happy customers. It's to protect the bottom line.
So lets hope that they think making their customers happier is currently the best thing for their bottom line.
in that way it does make economical sense. If there are two companies in a market that are competing for business, with fickle customers that will change loyalties in a heartbeat for a coupon, you can be running on an unreasonably low margin. Merge them, and for one you can completely dump one of the marketing departments. If the services are similar enough you may even be able to remove some of the now redundant infrastructure. Satellites are expensive.
Tate had insisted that the companies settle charges that they violated FCC rules before she would approve the deal. The companies agreed this week to pay $19.7 million to the U.S. Treasury for violations related to radio receivers and ground-based signal repeaters.
Oh well that's different! They agreed to pay their fines! We should give them a reward for being such good little boys.
And when I go downtown to pay my speeding ticket I expect nothing less than a thank-you card and a candybar.
What's WRONG with these people?
was this deep packet "inspection", or did they actually alter traffic? Like modifying web pages to insert ads, or change IP addresses of banners?
Or something more hands-off like monitoring customer browsing and using it to deliver better targeted ads when the customer browsed their own web pages?
They have joined the Apache Software Foundation as a Platinum member(at $100K USD a year)
They just bought out ISO. I wonder if this is getting a start on ASF?
actually I do say "arr-pee-ems" when speaking that acronym, along with most of the population ;)
new mod: (-1 can't do the maths)