It's not that ssh itself is the security issue. It's the users. With ssh access, you could do all sorts of things to bring down the server that you couldn't do from the browser.
Damned if I can remember what they are called right now - been up too long for that - but they are like rubber washers on crack. Using them to mount fans will significantly reduce vibration.
Of course, if you have the time, you can use this same principle to isolate the drive, or drive cage, from the chassis.
Doing this could not only reduce the vibration experienced by your drives, but you can probably reduce noise.
SpacePort sounds good. Quick! you need to copyright and trademark that name! Maybe Double Plus AirPort.:)
Just a quick note about FireWire. Apple created it, initially for internal drive connections, but realized it would make good external drive connections, and then presented it to IEEE for standardization. They Sony grabbed it and called it i.Link.
That was, though, Apple's biggest creation. Sad, though, that they didn't add FireWire to the original iMac, or products would have been more available for it now.
All home customers are on a private IP space, business customers get live IPs. Not that it helps much of anything. Come 4pm, my 300k line slows down to 56k or worse. But there's very little else available in rural Maine.
I think you missed the part where they "don't give a crap" - as long as the money keeps coming in, the less work they do, the better - as far as they are concerned.
Assuming that anyone supports, let alone remembers ISO 9660 or, even better, FAT16, in 50 years. Of course, at that point we will also be dealing with the fact that Scorched Earth, though recoverable from it's filing system, can't run on a Undo-octal HP-AMD Thrashium Mark IX 2170.0032 THz on a 4.8 GHz bus
Not a bad plan, though. Though I would go one step further and convert any data still readable into a format that includes a description of itself. This would mean that every video/audio/image should have it's own decoder attached. HTML files would have the HTML spec. This may seem like a huge waste of space, especially on smaller files, but it is worth it for the time saved reading files later on. Of course, you need something that can always read the description, but one standard program could function for all files in this format instead of countless files. Now, this doesn't help for executables (currently, anyway) but could improve data retention.
As storage availabilities and requirements rise, an encoder/decoder for many formats would become trivial, notable exceptions being made for massively integrated applications (*cough* Office *cough*)
After all, how do you think Star Trek managed to take 50,000 year-old data crystals and read the files stored on them, or interface with Borg computers? : )
First: AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Sorry. It's just a little funny.
Second, I was just thinking about how inefficient using a web site to update their products is. With XML-RPC and SOAP available, they could at least make a client-side app that optionally does this. Yes, XP has it. Why not make it available for all their apps?
CISC-based, no. But still they have plenty of CISC instructions (lots of the apps, the OS, etc), which it has to break down into RISC instructions, which takes processing time before they can be processed. The P4 has all sorts of requirements of the instructions to obtain performance anywhere near it's theoretical maximum.
It could be your laptop's weak Wi-Fi antenna. A friend of mine has an Orinoco card, and I have an AirPort card. I tend to get better signal, which I believe is due to my PowerBook's internal antenna.
I don't know how practical a solution it is, but you might be able to make/buy an antenna to attach to your laptop to improve signal.
Indeed, plenty of good songs are on bad CDs. It would be nice if you could make compilation CDs with the individual tracks you want - preferably made in a local kiosk. That way they could cost less, and they would have just what you want. Ideally, you could also call the local music store, buy one over the phone and drop in to pick it up.
Downloading songs allows me to be sure about buying a CD before I do - I've wasted money on plenty of "One Hit" CDs that I never listen to.
Buying online, if available per song with a *slight* discount for a complete album, could prompt me to buy music more. The convenience it a big factor.
And even if it's set up in a DRM environment, if the sound is high-fidelity (better be if it's locked out - should be anyway) I can encode an MP3 on a second computer (maybe even the same one) and use it elsewhere.
Of course, they have to keep in mind that it's very easy to make the switch back to file-sharing if things go badly.
Except that coping music off of an iPod is not piracy.
The iPod still functions as a FireWire hard drive, and is more than capable of copying the files without dealing with the music interface. I have used mine to do as much. However, the music interface prohibits the copying of files from one computer to another.
Apple's solution doesn't prevent you from breaking the law. It doesn't limit your ability to legally copy content, either. It just doesn't lend a hand.
I think there will have to be a period of transition, and that some laws will probably "grandfather" in old hardware. Just as most places say older vehicles aren't subject to the same emissions standards as new ones, old computers will probably still be kicking around.
But, just as it's difficult to find an XM Satellite receiver made for a '57 Chevy, you probably will find plenty of media/programs. that requires DRM-enabled hardware. As businesses upgrade and new documents won't work with older computers, people will be forced to make the switch.
Hopefully, we can avoid the whole issue, and move into an unprecedented era of common sense and personal responsibility.
Palladium is indeed DRM, but I think they are aiming at a different direction for DRM. To me Palladium is three things; secure computing, authorized computing, and available computing.
Palladium has the ability to allow companies engaged is sensitive competetive research to add a layer of security to their documents and communications. This way, even if you manage to obtain a document, you still require authorization to view it. Human Resources, Payroll, Accounting - all of the data within a company can not only be protected from outside eyes, but from prying eyes within. Palladium can be "piece of mind" for companies worried about sensitive data.
Every major vendor of software has a problem that both helps and hinders them: piracy. When a product is new and fresh, a little piracy can lead to popularity. But as a product matures and more time and money are invested in it, companies would like to see more people paying for their hard work. This is clearly visible in Microsoft's recent Authorization scheme. Microsoft wants what they legally deserve; that people pay for what they use. While this directly benefits companies like the RIAA and the MPAA, it shouldn't come as a surprise that Microsoft is courting their interests - they have money. Palladium is ensuring that you get paid for what people use.
With Internet access becoming more pervasive, global access to your personal files and information is becoming more important to people. Apple introduces.Mac - file storage, mail, calendars, web pages, virus protection and more, in a convenient package. Microsoft had.Net, tarnished name and all, still making its way into the market. With.Net comes none other than global authentication. You can use.Net's existing authentication architecture to provide security and availability to your data and applications from anywhere. This integrates quite nicely with DRM, as you could keep authority records for content access in your.Net profile. Palladium is your data where you are.
So sure, Microsoft is pushing Palladium. It can be everything to everyone. Don't forget that you can use DRM goes both ways. If you create something for free distribution with DRM, you can ensure that no one can use it for commercial purposes. DRM is a weapon of choice - you can oppress, or you can set free.
Microsoft may sit up and talk about Palladium, but they aren't doing it for the benefit of limiting the rights of the users. If laws are passed requiring copy protection to be built into every new piece of hardware and software, Microsoft loses on two fronts.
First, sales of newer operating systems will drop as customers, afraid for their individual rights, hold off on upgrading their OS or buying a new PC. This won't be a mass swearing-off of the next-generation of computers, but it will be a noticable dent.
Second, if laws are passed making copy protection mandatory, Microsoft suddently has to go from saying that is the future to devoting huge numbers of programmers to make it the present. And then what happens when the MPAA sues them for having bugs in their software, and not making the updates automatically install on client machines?
I like Apple's presentation (at least my view of it) of antipiracy standards. The iPod came out, Apple's own music theft device as some would see it. It doesn't allow you to copy music off of it, though, so you can't share music with it using Apple's software. It comes with a "don't steal music" sticker on it, showing Apple's preference for personal responsibility - something the courts seem to have nearly forgotten.
Exactly. A whitelist system would be most effective if used in conjunction with a blacklist system.
Quick disclaimer - I think the best "content filtering system" is an authority figure (parent, teacher, librarian, etc) watching the user. Disagree at will.
First, let's be honest. There are far too many people who are under-educated about computer and the Internet who live scared little lives because the media tells them they should to believe that we will be without blacklists any time soon. It may stand against principle to say, "I don't agree with it, but here's a way to make it better" but if no one had the insight to use logic like that, the world would be one hell of an awful place. Let's move on, shall we?
The biggest, and most complained about problem of a filter is that it blocks sites that it "has no reason to block." Obviously, it thought it did, and until there is a re-design of the blocking engine or a specific exclusion, it will continue to do so. Many filters also make use of blacklists, which is a perfectly acceptable method to ensure that patently offensive content doesn't make it through.
Now, I could go into a long inquiry of the term "patently offiensive" but I will say only this: there are a few things which are considered unsuitable for general consumption by ethical standards, i.e. society as a rule does not believe they should be publicly addressed. Pornography generally falls into this category. While this does not mean society believes pornography is unacceptable as a whole, it does mean those magazines are typically partially covered and/or out of reach of small children. In my opinion, this is a fair standard for Internet blacklists.
So while blacklists are implemented, very few filtering programs stop at blacklists. This is where the ambiguity and the problems occur. Thousands of differnet blacklists can be maintained, suited to cultural, religious, moral or personal beliefs. They can be tuned for specific issues. While the same can be said of filters, the control is always diminished, and either something bad will slip through, or something good won't. Enter the whitelists.
Just as blacklists are maintained for specific reasons, so can whitelists. Indeed, a plethora of options is beneficial to the cause. They can overlap without any harm, and individually tailored lists allow people and organizations to select both what they think is bad, and what they think is good. They can set clear territories of on-and-off limits, and let the filtering software handle the middle-ground.
Of course, no filtering software is complete without the ability to override it. It would be especially nice to have the option to send reports of disagreements with the filtering software, so that maintainers of blacklists, whitelists, and the filtering software could all take a look into the needs and problems of their tools.
But don't just listen to me. Think about it for yourself.
Do you plan on producing Open Source components to any of your products? This primarily refers to server components, such as HTTP, DNS, IMAP, etc. which could function externally to the base programs (Exchange, ISA, etc.) and offer simpler and more granular control over active services.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not that ssh itself is the security issue. It's the users. With ssh access, you could do all sorts of things to bring down the server that you couldn't do from the browser.
you might be able to su to your user - not sure about the details, though.
Damned if I can remember what they are called right now - been up too long for that - but they are like rubber washers on crack. Using them to mount fans will significantly reduce vibration.
Of course, if you have the time, you can use this same principle to isolate the drive, or drive cage, from the chassis.
Doing this could not only reduce the vibration experienced by your drives, but you can probably reduce noise.
Sorry for the vague post.
I have 980 Christmas songs, and 20 Doobie Brothers.
And 1 Sheryl Crowe.
SpacePort sounds good. Quick! you need to copyright and trademark that name! Maybe Double Plus AirPort. :)
Just a quick note about FireWire. Apple created it, initially for internal drive connections, but realized it would make good external drive connections, and then presented it to IEEE for standardization. They Sony grabbed it and called it i.Link.
That was, though, Apple's biggest creation. Sad, though, that they didn't add FireWire to the original iMac, or products would have been more available for it now.
Ok, I'm offtopic, so I'll go now.
All home customers are on a private IP space, business customers get live IPs. Not that it helps much of anything. Come 4pm, my 300k line slows down to 56k or worse. But there's very little else available in rural Maine.
I think you missed the part where they "don't give a crap" - as long as the money keeps coming in, the less work they do, the better - as far as they are concerned.
Assuming that anyone supports, let alone remembers ISO 9660 or, even better, FAT16, in 50 years. Of course, at that point we will also be dealing with the fact that Scorched Earth, though recoverable from it's filing system, can't run on a Undo-octal HP-AMD Thrashium Mark IX 2170.0032 THz on a 4.8 GHz bus
Not a bad plan, though. Though I would go one step further and convert any data still readable into a format that includes a description of itself. This would mean that every video/audio/image should have it's own decoder attached. HTML files would have the HTML spec. This may seem like a huge waste of space, especially on smaller files, but it is worth it for the time saved reading files later on. Of course, you need something that can always read the description, but one standard program could function for all files in this format instead of countless files. Now, this doesn't help for executables (currently, anyway) but could improve data retention.
As storage availabilities and requirements rise, an encoder/decoder for many formats would become trivial, notable exceptions being made for massively integrated applications (*cough* Office *cough*)
After all, how do you think Star Trek managed to take 50,000 year-old data crystals and read the files stored on them, or interface with Borg computers? : )
Nah, text printout of binaries is the best backup method. After all, OCR is getting better, right?
Hey it worked for PGP...
Fortunately, Hotmail's back-end servers aren't MS SQL based (yet), or I'd have no place to send all the crap I don't read.
First: AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Sorry. It's just a little funny.
Second, I was just thinking about how inefficient using a web site to update their products is. With XML-RPC and SOAP available, they could at least make a client-side app that optionally does this. Yes, XP has it. Why not make it available for all their apps?
Or is it, and I'm just in the dark?
CISC-based, no. But still they have plenty of CISC instructions (lots of the apps, the OS, etc), which it has to break down into RISC instructions, which takes processing time before they can be processed. The P4 has all sorts of requirements of the instructions to obtain performance anywhere near it's theoretical maximum.
Maybe it's my friend's PB 1400. :)
It could be your laptop's weak Wi-Fi antenna. A friend of mine has an Orinoco card, and I have an AirPort card. I tend to get better signal, which I believe is due to my PowerBook's internal antenna.
I don't know how practical a solution it is, but you might be able to make/buy an antenna to attach to your laptop to improve signal.
Indeed, plenty of good songs are on bad CDs. It would be nice if you could make compilation CDs with the individual tracks you want - preferably made in a local kiosk. That way they could cost less, and they would have just what you want. Ideally, you could also call the local music store, buy one over the phone and drop in to pick it up.
Downloading songs allows me to be sure about buying a CD before I do - I've wasted money on plenty of "One Hit" CDs that I never listen to.
Buying online, if available per song with a *slight* discount for a complete album, could prompt me to buy music more. The convenience it a big factor.
And even if it's set up in a DRM environment, if the sound is high-fidelity (better be if it's locked out - should be anyway) I can encode an MP3 on a second computer (maybe even the same one) and use it elsewhere.
Of course, they have to keep in mind that it's very easy to make the switch back to file-sharing if things go badly.
Except that coping music off of an iPod is not piracy.
The iPod still functions as a FireWire hard drive, and is more than capable of copying the files without dealing with the music interface. I have used mine to do as much. However, the music interface prohibits the copying of files from one computer to another.
Apple's solution doesn't prevent you from breaking the law. It doesn't limit your ability to legally copy content, either. It just doesn't lend a hand.
I think there will have to be a period of transition, and that some laws will probably "grandfather" in old hardware. Just as most places say older vehicles aren't subject to the same emissions standards as new ones, old computers will probably still be kicking around.
But, just as it's difficult to find an XM Satellite receiver made for a '57 Chevy, you probably will find plenty of media/programs. that requires DRM-enabled hardware. As businesses upgrade and new documents won't work with older computers, people will be forced to make the switch.
Hopefully, we can avoid the whole issue, and move into an unprecedented era of common sense and personal responsibility.
Actually, Apple pioneered P2P with, AppleTalk/LocalTalk - available on the first Macintosh.
Palladium is indeed DRM, but I think they are aiming at a different direction for DRM. To me Palladium is three things; secure computing, authorized computing, and available computing.
.Mac - file storage, mail, calendars, web pages, virus protection and more, in a convenient package. Microsoft had .Net, tarnished name and all, still making its way into the market. With .Net comes none other than global authentication. You can use .Net's existing authentication architecture to provide security and availability to your data and applications from anywhere. This integrates quite nicely with DRM, as you could keep authority records for content access in your .Net profile. Palladium is your data where you are.
Palladium has the ability to allow companies engaged is sensitive competetive research to add a layer of security to their documents and communications. This way, even if you manage to obtain a document, you still require authorization to view it. Human Resources, Payroll, Accounting - all of the data within a company can not only be protected from outside eyes, but from prying eyes within. Palladium can be "piece of mind" for companies worried about sensitive data.
Every major vendor of software has a problem that both helps and hinders them: piracy. When a product is new and fresh, a little piracy can lead to popularity. But as a product matures and more time and money are invested in it, companies would like to see more people paying for their hard work. This is clearly visible in Microsoft's recent Authorization scheme. Microsoft wants what they legally deserve; that people pay for what they use. While this directly benefits companies like the RIAA and the MPAA, it shouldn't come as a surprise that Microsoft is courting their interests - they have money. Palladium is ensuring that you get paid for what people use.
With Internet access becoming more pervasive, global access to your personal files and information is becoming more important to people. Apple introduces
So sure, Microsoft is pushing Palladium. It can be everything to everyone. Don't forget that you can use DRM goes both ways. If you create something for free distribution with DRM, you can ensure that no one can use it for commercial purposes. DRM is a weapon of choice - you can oppress, or you can set free.
Microsoft may sit up and talk about Palladium, but they aren't doing it for the benefit of limiting the rights of the users. If laws are passed requiring copy protection to be built into every new piece of hardware and software, Microsoft loses on two fronts.
First, sales of newer operating systems will drop as customers, afraid for their individual rights, hold off on upgrading their OS or buying a new PC. This won't be a mass swearing-off of the next-generation of computers, but it will be a noticable dent.
Second, if laws are passed making copy protection mandatory, Microsoft suddently has to go from saying that is the future to devoting huge numbers of programmers to make it the present. And then what happens when the MPAA sues them for having bugs in their software, and not making the updates automatically install on client machines?
I like Apple's presentation (at least my view of it) of antipiracy standards. The iPod came out, Apple's own music theft device as some would see it. It doesn't allow you to copy music off of it, though, so you can't share music with it using Apple's software. It comes with a "don't steal music" sticker on it, showing Apple's preference for personal responsibility - something the courts seem to have nearly forgotten.
Exactly. A whitelist system would be most effective if used in conjunction with a blacklist system.
Quick disclaimer - I think the best "content filtering system" is an authority figure (parent, teacher, librarian, etc) watching the user. Disagree at will.
First, let's be honest. There are far too many people who are under-educated about computer and the Internet who live scared little lives because the media tells them they should to believe that we will be without blacklists any time soon. It may stand against principle to say, "I don't agree with it, but here's a way to make it better" but if no one had the insight to use logic like that, the world would be one hell of an awful place. Let's move on, shall we?
The biggest, and most complained about problem of a filter is that it blocks sites that it "has no reason to block." Obviously, it thought it did, and until there is a re-design of the blocking engine or a specific exclusion, it will continue to do so. Many filters also make use of blacklists, which is a perfectly acceptable method to ensure that patently offensive content doesn't make it through.
Now, I could go into a long inquiry of the term "patently offiensive" but I will say only this: there are a few things which are considered unsuitable for general consumption by ethical standards, i.e. society as a rule does not believe they should be publicly addressed. Pornography generally falls into this category. While this does not mean society believes pornography is unacceptable as a whole, it does mean those magazines are typically partially covered and/or out of reach of small children. In my opinion, this is a fair standard for Internet blacklists.
So while blacklists are implemented, very few filtering programs stop at blacklists. This is where the ambiguity and the problems occur. Thousands of differnet blacklists can be maintained, suited to cultural, religious, moral or personal beliefs. They can be tuned for specific issues. While the same can be said of filters, the control is always diminished, and either something bad will slip through, or something good won't. Enter the whitelists.
Just as blacklists are maintained for specific reasons, so can whitelists. Indeed, a plethora of options is beneficial to the cause. They can overlap without any harm, and individually tailored lists allow people and organizations to select both what they think is bad, and what they think is good. They can set clear territories of on-and-off limits, and let the filtering software handle the middle-ground.
Of course, no filtering software is complete without the ability to override it. It would be especially nice to have the option to send reports of disagreements with the filtering software, so that maintainers of blacklists, whitelists, and the filtering software could all take a look into the needs and problems of their tools.
But don't just listen to me. Think about it for yourself.
Do you plan on producing Open Source components to any of your products? This primarily refers to server components, such as HTTP, DNS, IMAP, etc. which could function externally to the base programs (Exchange, ISA, etc.) and offer simpler and more granular control over active services.
For Hardware Vendors:
What basic strategies are you employing to better penetrate the server/appliance market with Linux systems?
Notably, you can buy a MagicGate 64 MB Duo Stick at Sony's website - $70 for 64 MB is a little much, but it adds the Duo-to-Memory Stick adapter.