I've also had horrible experience with HPs. Out of 3 consumer grade models, one had multiple battery/power supply failures while within warranty. The last time it happened, they held on to it until the warranty expired, then mailed it back saying that nothing was wrong. The other two had the battery and power supply fail within a month after the warranty expired. All three ended up with dead batteries and third party power supplies.
Maybe the business models are better, but IMO, the poor quality of the consumer models indicates that the business models will be of poorer quality than comparable business models from other vendors.
I've tried that a couple of times. The first time, the woman was extremely offended and hung up. The second time, the guy laughed and hung up.
Sadly, I haven't gotten actual people for a long time now. These days, it's all pre-recorded messages, mostly from debt collectors. All you can do with those is call them back and say "wrong number", and they stop calling for a few months until they form a new company. And since now you're the one calling, they're no longer fair game. (IMO anyway)
How would you "secure" a system against a DDoS? The only solution is to throw money at the problem. Yes, you can mitigate to some degree, but the numbers get very big very fast regardless.
Quick google turns up "DDoS attack size broke 100 Gbps for first time" from Feb 2011. The only way to prevent 100 Gbps of traffic from drowning your site is to have *significantly* more than 100 Gbps of bandwidth available to you, or to hire someone who does. And even then, someone must pay for that bandwidth.
Another hurdle to overcome is if someone is attacking your application layer, you have to throw CPU cycles (and possibly RAM) at the problem to solve it. If you assume a typical HTTP request of 1k, handling or filtering 100M (or even 1M @ 1Gbps) http requests per second is going to require some hefty hardware. A quick google gives the number 3k requests per second for a typical apache server serving blank pages. You would need 300 web servers to handle 1M requests, and 30,000 to handle 100M requests. Numbers are just ballpark figures, and may be off by an order of magnitude or two, but you get the idea.
In short, protecting against a DDoS is hardly professional neglect. It's a financial decision. Even if you hire someone else to handle it for you, someone eventually pays the price.
I suspect that one of the main uses of this will be at protests. By extracting cell phone data from protesters, and you can predict future protests as well as find all sorts of data to discredit the protesters.
From the perspective of the article, the only facts that Google is reporting are that the web page exists, and some content of the page. The "opinion" is the page rank, the choice in which content from the page is displayed, and the association of the page to certain keywords.
Libel is a written defamatory statement, expressly stated or implied to be factual. Truth and opinions are not actionable. One possible catch for Google is a court finding that Google implies that the pages in the results are factual. A larger problem for them is that the law isn't the same in every country, so protected speech in one country may be illegal in another.
Don't worry, every newly elected US president since WWII has started a war within the first 12 months of his presidency.
No, I didn't fact-check that. Know why? I was told this somewhere during Dubya. We then tried top of our heads to invalidate this statement. It didn't do wonders for anyone's mood that every Presient we threw out there (without internet in reach) at least plausibly started a war within 12 months. I'd try and hope Obama didn't, but I have no need to have any more illusions shattered today.
(Oh, and while the statement was indeed 12 months, an example where it was 14 months will not lift the mood either).
That is a very interesting observation, so I put a timeline together to see if it's true. President Carter is the only exception. But if you only count direct military action as "war" (in bold), the observation breaks down a bit more (Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Ford, Carter). With that said, looking at the timeline is rather disenheartening, especially if you look at the dramatic rise of 'international police'-like activity starting with Reagan. The bolded actions in the timeline look like they're rising exponentially. Also, I don't see any correlation between time in office and military activity. (No math was done, just visual estimation.) I leave the decision, dear reader, up to you.
TIMELINE OF AMERICAN MILITARY ACTIVITY AND US PRESIDENTS AFTER WORLD WAR II
Presidents inserted before first action which started during their presidency. Presidents are indented and in italic. What I see as direct military action is in bold.
WORLD WAR II 1941-45 Naval, troops, bombing, nuclear Hawaii bombed, fought Japan, Italy and Germay for 3 years; first nuclear war. Harry S. Truman (1945-1953) IRAN 1946 Nuclear threat Soviet troops told to leave north. YUGOSLAVIA 1946 Nuclear threat, naval Response to shoot-down of US plane. URUGUAY 1947 Nuclear threat Bombers deployed as show of strength. GREECE 1947-49 Command operation U.S. directs extreme-right in civil war. GERMANY 1948 Nuclear Threat Atomic-capable bombers guard Berlin Airlift. CHINA 1948-49 Troops/Marines evacuate Americans before Communist victory. PHILIPPINES 1948-54 Command operation CIA directs war against Huk Rebellion. PUERTO RICO 1950 Command operation Independence rebellion crushed in Ponce. KOREA 1951-53 (-?) Troops, naval, bombing , nuclear threats U.S./So. Korea fights China/No. Korea to stalemate; A-bomb threat in 1950, and against China in 1953. Still have bases. Dwight D. Eisenhower (1953-1961) IRAN 1953 Command Operation CIA overthrows democracy, installs Shah. VIETNAM 1954 Nuclear threat French offered bombs to use against seige. GUATEMALA 1954 Command operation, bombing, nuclear threat CIA directs exile invasion after new gov't nationalized U.S. company lands; bombers based in Nicaragua. EGYPT 1956 Nuclear threat, troops Soviets told to keep out of Suez crisis; Marines evacuate foreigners. LEBANON l958 Troops, naval Army & Marine occupation against rebels. IRAQ 1958 Nuclear threat Iraq warned against invading Kuwait. CHINA l958 Nuclear threat China told not to move on Taiwan isles. PANAMA 1958 Troops Flag protests erupt into confrontation. VIETNAM l960-75 Troops, naval, bombing, nuclear threats Fought South Vietnam revolt & North Vietnam; one million killed in longest U.S. war; atomic bomb threats in l968 and l969. John F. Kennedy (1961-1963) CUBA l961 Command operation CIA-directed exile invasion fails. GERMANY l961 Nuclear threat Alert during Berlin Wall crisis. LAOS 1962 Command operation Military buildup during guerrilla war. CUBA l962
The problem is that voting systems are not held to the same standard as "life critical" software, as it would drive up the price considerably. For example, some systems even use MS Access on Windows! And they provide no means of detecting or correcting problems after they occur, as all votes are typically stored on a single hard drive, with no backup, or even redundancy. (Yes, that's right, a hard drive crash could wipe out thousands of votes with no hope of recovery.)
However, there are solutions which solve the problems without requiring some of the more exotic and expensive methods of providing reliability, such as printing paper ballots. For some inexplicable reason, voting machine companies have strongly resisted paper ballot systems.
I'm only scratching the surface, but it's enough to provide some insight into why so many people are rabidly against these voting machines.
I misread "appliances" to include all appliances, but that is obviously not what the original poster meant. However, it is a significant distinction worth mentioning. The term "appliance" by itself covers a great deal more territory than "major appliances listed below".
Also, I am not suggesting that the program & device are ineffective, merely that there are limitations that are not immediately obvious upon hearing of it. It is one layer for a layered defense, effective for its intended purpose. In Florida, it's probably more important than in other areas, hence the program. And, as you said, you should still combine it with local protection for more sensitive equipment (which was the point I was trying to make).
You can't "bypass" a surge protector. You just remove it, if necessary. It is installed in parallel to your power, not in series. They generally work by shorting the surge to ground. An easy to visualize one is the gas discharge tube. Two electrodes in a glass tube, with a gas between them. If the voltage gets high enough, the gas becomes ionized, shorting the circuit. Electricity flowing through the short is not flowing through your equipment.
Also, a whole house suppressor does not eliminate the need to protect individual pieces of equipment, and no surge suppressor is perfect.
I commented elsewhere, so can't mod anymore, but grandparent gives the best answer here. Different surge suppressors have different use cases. And a good ground is critical, or you're wasting your money.
Read it closer. They only insure the "major appliances", which they list specifically, and which are more tolerant of over-voltage than delicate electronic devices.
"Well, you see, it's not a dead process with an entry in the process table. It's more of a process running on a dead person who still has an entry in the process table."
Another thing that you see is that a wire is connected to two different circuit breakers on either end. Also known as two circuits that accidentally got joined together. Turn off the breaker, and the wire is still powered from the other side. Or if only the neutrals are tied together; turn off the breaker, you think you're safe, someone flips a light switch, and BAM! The white wire bites you.
Exactly correct. I'm trying to switch my life over to FOSS as much as possible, but trying to cobble something together is a bad idea. If your business relies on it, it MUST be robust. The easy way to check is, "How much would the business lose if it failed?" and "What are the odds of the COTS system designed for this task failing?" and "What are the odds of my homebrew system failing?" If the answers are A>cost(B) and C>>B, your answer is pretty obvious. Same goes for A>>cost(B) and C>B.
Oracle may be quite justified in objecting to Google a) not properly implementing Java AND b) implementing it in such a way that it's close enough to real Java to conflict.
Quoting the grandparent.
By comparison, Google is neither claiming that Android is Java, nor will you find the Java logo (the coffee/tea cup) on any Android devices.
In short, Microsoft got busted for trademark infringement. APIs can't be trademarked. (Then again, I thought they couldn't be copyrighted.)
In a nutshell, a plaintiff in a trademark case has the burden of proving that the defendant's use of a mark has created a likelihood-of-confusion about the origin of the defendant's goods or services.
"I think so too" comments are usually upmodded by moderators who agree with them. Comments themselves are (or should be) upmodded because of the content of the comments being Interesting/Insightful/etc., rather than because of opinion.
OTOH, maybe I'm just being an argumentative SOB looking for karma by defending someone name Bruce Perens who has a four digit id.
There is a simple solution to this. Encrypt each connection to a remailer using an authenticated transient key. Something like SSL. I don't know if it's being done or not, but it seems pretty obvious, and it definitely protects against eavesdroppers gaining the key and decrypting past messages.
Chicago, IL -> Orlando, FL 2 weeks from today: Greyhound.com: $134 Kayak.com: $122
I'm sure the numbers aren't what would appear on your final receipt, but the point is, The airlines are cost competitive with Greyhound, even ignoring the additional trip time and INS "papers please" inspections in Orlando that I keep hearing about from multiple people.
What's more, as a business owner, you start to think automatically in terms of limiting liability. If you go by the general rule that Profit=Investment*Risk, opening yourself up to unlimited personal liability sets your investment to your personal net worth, so the risk would need to be significantly lower for the same amount of profit for the investment to be worthwhile.
(Pedants can poke holes in this, but the general idea is sound. Profit:risk ratios drive investment decisions.)
What you're missing is, "Why did they decide not to take the medicine?"
Did they stop taking the medication by reason of insanity? (The voices in my head told me that the doctor is trying to kill me by making me take these pills.)
Did they stop taking the medication due to side effects? (I'm going to see the doctor next week, I'll get a different prescription then. I guess I can go a week without anything.)
Did they stop taking the medication due to forgetfulness? Bonus points if the medication is of the type that affects memory. If you forgot if you took your medication, is it worse to take more and risk overdose, or miss a dose?
How this relates the vaccines, is that the parents decided to avoid vaccination due to willful ignorance, which is negligence. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willful_violation -- especially the See Also's. A real lawyer can probably figure out which bucket this fits in exactly. Criminal Recklessness also seems to fit, as do a few others.
Slashdot Mirror
I've also had horrible experience with HPs. Out of 3 consumer grade models, one had multiple battery/power supply failures while within warranty. The last time it happened, they held on to it until the warranty expired, then mailed it back saying that nothing was wrong. The other two had the battery and power supply fail within a month after the warranty expired. All three ended up with dead batteries and third party power supplies.
Maybe the business models are better, but IMO, the poor quality of the consumer models indicates that the business models will be of poorer quality than comparable business models from other vendors.
Me: (whispering) So... what are you wearing?
I've tried that a couple of times. The first time, the woman was extremely offended and hung up. The second time, the guy laughed and hung up.
Sadly, I haven't gotten actual people for a long time now. These days, it's all pre-recorded messages, mostly from debt collectors. All you can do with those is call them back and say "wrong number", and they stop calling for a few months until they form a new company. And since now you're the one calling, they're no longer fair game. (IMO anyway)
How would you "secure" a system against a DDoS? The only solution is to throw money at the problem. Yes, you can mitigate to some degree, but the numbers get very big very fast regardless.
Quick google turns up "DDoS attack size broke 100 Gbps for first time" from Feb 2011. The only way to prevent 100 Gbps of traffic from drowning your site is to have *significantly* more than 100 Gbps of bandwidth available to you, or to hire someone who does. And even then, someone must pay for that bandwidth.
Another hurdle to overcome is if someone is attacking your application layer, you have to throw CPU cycles (and possibly RAM) at the problem to solve it. If you assume a typical HTTP request of 1k, handling or filtering 100M (or even 1M @ 1Gbps) http requests per second is going to require some hefty hardware. A quick google gives the number 3k requests per second for a typical apache server serving blank pages. You would need 300 web servers to handle 1M requests, and 30,000 to handle 100M requests. Numbers are just ballpark figures, and may be off by an order of magnitude or two, but you get the idea.
In short, protecting against a DDoS is hardly professional neglect. It's a financial decision. Even if you hire someone else to handle it for you, someone eventually pays the price.
I suspect that one of the main uses of this will be at protests. By extracting cell phone data from protesters, and you can predict future protests as well as find all sorts of data to discredit the protesters.
Not that it's entirely relevant, but indirect profit still counts as profit with regards to IP.
From the perspective of the article, the only facts that Google is reporting are that the web page exists, and some content of the page. The "opinion" is the page rank, the choice in which content from the page is displayed, and the association of the page to certain keywords.
Libel is a written defamatory statement, expressly stated or implied to be factual. Truth and opinions are not actionable. One possible catch for Google is a court finding that Google implies that the pages in the results are factual. A larger problem for them is that the law isn't the same in every country, so protected speech in one country may be illegal in another.
Don't worry, every newly elected US president since WWII has started a war within the first 12 months of his presidency.
No, I didn't fact-check that. Know why? I was told this somewhere during Dubya. We then tried top of our heads to invalidate this statement.
It didn't do wonders for anyone's mood that every Presient we threw out there (without internet in reach) at least plausibly started a war within 12 months.
I'd try and hope Obama didn't, but I have no need to have any more illusions shattered today.
(Oh, and while the statement was indeed 12 months, an example where it was 14 months will not lift the mood either).
That is a very interesting observation, so I put a timeline together to see if it's true. President Carter is the only exception. But if you only count direct military action as "war" (in bold), the observation breaks down a bit more (Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Ford, Carter). With that said, looking at the timeline is rather disenheartening, especially if you look at the dramatic rise of 'international police'-like activity starting with Reagan. The bolded actions in the timeline look like they're rising exponentially. Also, I don't see any correlation between time in office and military activity. (No math was done, just visual estimation.) I leave the decision, dear reader, up to you.
TIMELINE OF AMERICAN MILITARY ACTIVITY AND US PRESIDENTS AFTER WORLD WAR II
Presidents inserted before first action which started during their presidency. Presidents are indented and in italic. What I see as direct military action is in bold.
WORLD WAR II 1941-45 Naval, troops, bombing, nuclear Hawaii bombed, fought Japan, Italy and Germay for 3 years; first nuclear war.
Harry S. Truman (1945-1953)
IRAN 1946 Nuclear threat Soviet troops told to leave north.
YUGOSLAVIA 1946 Nuclear threat, naval Response to shoot-down of US plane.
URUGUAY 1947 Nuclear threat Bombers deployed as show of strength.
GREECE 1947-49 Command operation U.S. directs extreme-right in civil war.
GERMANY 1948 Nuclear Threat Atomic-capable bombers guard Berlin Airlift.
CHINA 1948-49 Troops/Marines evacuate Americans before Communist victory.
PHILIPPINES 1948-54 Command operation CIA directs war against Huk Rebellion.
PUERTO RICO 1950 Command operation Independence rebellion crushed in Ponce.
KOREA 1951-53 (-?) Troops, naval, bombing , nuclear threats U.S./So. Korea fights China/No. Korea to stalemate; A-bomb threat in 1950, and against China in 1953. Still have bases.
Dwight D. Eisenhower (1953-1961)
IRAN 1953 Command Operation CIA overthrows democracy, installs Shah.
VIETNAM 1954 Nuclear threat French offered bombs to use against seige.
GUATEMALA 1954 Command operation, bombing, nuclear threat CIA directs exile invasion after new gov't nationalized U.S. company lands; bombers based in Nicaragua.
EGYPT 1956 Nuclear threat, troops Soviets told to keep out of Suez crisis; Marines evacuate foreigners.
LEBANON l958 Troops, naval Army & Marine occupation against rebels.
IRAQ 1958 Nuclear threat Iraq warned against invading Kuwait.
CHINA l958 Nuclear threat China told not to move on Taiwan isles.
PANAMA 1958 Troops Flag protests erupt into confrontation.
VIETNAM l960-75 Troops, naval, bombing, nuclear threats Fought South Vietnam revolt & North Vietnam; one million killed in longest U.S. war; atomic bomb threats in l968 and l969.
John F. Kennedy (1961-1963)
CUBA l961 Command operation CIA-directed exile invasion fails.
GERMANY l961 Nuclear threat Alert during Berlin Wall crisis.
LAOS 1962 Command operation Military buildup during guerrilla war.
CUBA l962
I'm running on a platform of free air conditioning for all computing devices!
The problem is that voting systems are not held to the same standard as "life critical" software, as it would drive up the price considerably. For example, some systems even use MS Access on Windows! And they provide no means of detecting or correcting problems after they occur, as all votes are typically stored on a single hard drive, with no backup, or even redundancy. (Yes, that's right, a hard drive crash could wipe out thousands of votes with no hope of recovery.)
However, there are solutions which solve the problems without requiring some of the more exotic and expensive methods of providing reliability, such as printing paper ballots. For some inexplicable reason, voting machine companies have strongly resisted paper ballot systems.
I'm only scratching the surface, but it's enough to provide some insight into why so many people are rabidly against these voting machines.
I misread "appliances" to include all appliances, but that is obviously not what the original poster meant. However, it is a significant distinction worth mentioning. The term "appliance" by itself covers a great deal more territory than "major appliances listed below".
Also, I am not suggesting that the program & device are ineffective, merely that there are limitations that are not immediately obvious upon hearing of it. It is one layer for a layered defense, effective for its intended purpose. In Florida, it's probably more important than in other areas, hence the program. And, as you said, you should still combine it with local protection for more sensitive equipment (which was the point I was trying to make).
You can't "bypass" a surge protector. You just remove it, if necessary. It is installed in parallel to your power, not in series. They generally work by shorting the surge to ground. An easy to visualize one is the gas discharge tube. Two electrodes in a glass tube, with a gas between them. If the voltage gets high enough, the gas becomes ionized, shorting the circuit. Electricity flowing through the short is not flowing through your equipment.
Also, a whole house suppressor does not eliminate the need to protect individual pieces of equipment, and no surge suppressor is perfect.
I commented elsewhere, so can't mod anymore, but grandparent gives the best answer here. Different surge suppressors have different use cases. And a good ground is critical, or you're wasting your money.
Read it closer. They only insure the "major appliances", which they list specifically, and which are more tolerant of over-voltage than delicate electronic devices.
This gives a whole new meaning to zombie process.
"Well, you see, it's not a dead process with an entry in the process table. It's more of a process running on a dead person who still has an entry in the process table."
Another thing that you see is that a wire is connected to two different circuit breakers on either end. Also known as two circuits that accidentally got joined together. Turn off the breaker, and the wire is still powered from the other side. Or if only the neutrals are tied together; turn off the breaker, you think you're safe, someone flips a light switch, and BAM! The white wire bites you.
Exactly correct. I'm trying to switch my life over to FOSS as much as possible, but trying to cobble something together is a bad idea. If your business relies on it, it MUST be robust. The easy way to check is, "How much would the business lose if it failed?" and "What are the odds of the COTS system designed for this task failing?" and "What are the odds of my homebrew system failing?" If the answers are A>cost(B) and C>>B, your answer is pretty obvious. Same goes for A>>cost(B) and C>B.
(Significantly greater than, not bitwise shift.)
Oracle may be quite justified in objecting to Google a) not properly implementing Java AND b) implementing it in such a way that it's close enough to real Java to conflict.
Quoting the grandparent.
By comparison, Google is neither claiming that Android is Java, nor will you find the Java logo (the coffee/tea cup) on any Android devices.
In short, Microsoft got busted for trademark infringement. APIs can't be trademarked. (Then again, I thought they couldn't be copyrighted.)
In a nutshell, a plaintiff in a trademark case has the burden of proving that the defendant's use of a mark has created a likelihood-of-confusion about the origin of the defendant's goods or services.
http://www.bitlaw.com/trademark/infringe.html
See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_infringement
"I think so too" comments are usually upmodded by moderators who agree with them. Comments themselves are (or should be) upmodded because of the content of the comments being Interesting/Insightful/etc., rather than because of opinion.
OTOH, maybe I'm just being an argumentative SOB looking for karma by defending someone name Bruce Perens who has a four digit id.
There is a simple solution to this. Encrypt each connection to a remailer using an authenticated transient key. Something like SSL. I don't know if it's being done or not, but it seems pretty obvious, and it definitely protects against eavesdroppers gaining the key and decrypting past messages.
Chicago, IL -> Orlando, FL 2 weeks from today:
Greyhound.com: $134
Kayak.com: $122
I'm sure the numbers aren't what would appear on your final receipt, but the point is, The airlines are cost competitive with Greyhound, even ignoring the additional trip time and INS "papers please" inspections in Orlando that I keep hearing about from multiple people.
The rule of thumb is that as long as the decision to regulate speech is not based on the content of that speech, you're OK.
What's more, as a business owner, you start to think automatically in terms of limiting liability. If you go by the general rule that Profit=Investment*Risk, opening yourself up to unlimited personal liability sets your investment to your personal net worth, so the risk would need to be significantly lower for the same amount of profit for the investment to be worthwhile.
(Pedants can poke holes in this, but the general idea is sound. Profit:risk ratios drive investment decisions.)
What you're missing is, "Why did they decide not to take the medicine?"
Did they stop taking the medication by reason of insanity? (The voices in my head told me that the doctor is trying to kill me by making me take these pills.)
Did they stop taking the medication due to side effects? (I'm going to see the doctor next week, I'll get a different prescription then. I guess I can go a week without anything.)
Did they stop taking the medication due to forgetfulness? Bonus points if the medication is of the type that affects memory. If you forgot if you took your medication, is it worse to take more and risk overdose, or miss a dose?
How this relates the vaccines, is that the parents decided to avoid vaccination due to willful ignorance, which is negligence. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willful_violation -- especially the See Also's. A real lawyer can probably figure out which bucket this fits in exactly. Criminal Recklessness also seems to fit, as do a few others.
Blame bob, we all know he's retiring in five years/three years/one year/six months/two months/two weeks/...
The entity is forcing itself to do something. The government wants the government to do something. It's hardly what you're implying.