The reality is closer to "any delivery man could one day decide to just steal your mail, and this is pretty likely to happen actually". But why don't they? In fact why doesn't anyone with some control over your life use that position to screw you over and take what they want? It's the question never pondered.
There's not much need to ponder the question, because it *does* happen. Not on a huge, sweeping scale (not including the NSA stuff, anyway), but it's enough to be concerned about.
Choreography is so dependent on timing anyhow that they'd rather have the singers step on their dicks than make the entire crew have to adjust to the mistake.
That's a whole different ball of wax. If the lead doing her pretty solo under a follow spot screws up and misses a verse, we can compensate and help her out. However, if we're doing something like "West Side Story" and someone gets lost in the midst of 30 other people doing their thing, that's their problem - we're not going to wreck dozens of people like that trying to save the soloist.:-)
If you want to get around BitLocker, you don't bother exploiting BitLocker, you just install a kernel driver that filters ALL read/writes to volumes, this would be just as effective against TrueCrypt as it is against BitLocker.
On Windows you don't even need to do that. Detours gives you the ability to intercept any API call you'd like. Hook the appropriate file I/O calls, and you're done, no compromised drivers needed. Of course, there are ways to determine that the calls have been detoured, but there's practically no software in common use that does this.
The problem with using recordings is that the musicians normally synchronise themselves and follow cues from the stage.
This is the biggest issue for me. Most of my pit experience is from playing musicals, and while everything you said applies, there's another issue - when one of the performers has a brain fart and skips the first verse of a song, a real pit orchestra responds instantly and seamlessly because they're listening to what's going on independently of the conductor, and know the show. If an actor misses a cue, the orchestra vamps until he gets his act together, and can make it sound like nothing out of the ordinary happened. If for some reason the conductor gets out of sync with what's happening on stage, the orchestra knows to ignore him and to follow the stage when need be. All of those situations have happened to me personally, and I've yet to see an electronic performance that can deal with them effectively.
Having said that, I agree with some of the other posters that most of the sampled/recorded music in musical theater today is there because of money. It's not cheap to field even a small (5-7 members) pit orchestra for a show that does even only five performances per week. It's been years since I had the opportunity to play a show simply because all the theaters around where I live don't use live music anymore.
But small companies with a few machines in a co-lo? This could get ugly.
It doesn't have to. Just set up a cheap hardware firewall and keep the IPMI ports on local addresses only accessible via VPN. If the firewall/router can handle the traffic, it's often a good idea to NAT the servers' public interfaces as well so that if you have to change your public IPs all you have to change is the firewall/router config without touching the servers themselves.
If unions could get there way as easily as the conservatives and libertarians always say around here living in this country wouldn't suck nearly as much for average working people.
Police and other government employee unions aren't the same thing as the Teamsters.
I am. I already pay $800 or so per year for connectivity, so what difference does it make whether it's to AT&T or to the government, especially if I end up getting far better service as a result?
I know this is a troll, but people would do well to remember that being unable to hold the government accountable for their actions is a much greater threat to national security than any outside entity could muster against the people.
Why? Because there was no benefit for Comcast to do so.
Reducing their peering traffic by 30% (Comcast's numbers) doesn't have a benefit to Comcast, who was complaining of congestion caused by Netflix?
So what responsibility does Comcast, a for-profit entity, have to help another for-profit entity (and a direct competitor to Comcast's own streaming service) contain their operational costs.
And THIS is what the fight is *really* about. The fact that Comcast provides connectivity AND content is a conflict of interest that works to cost customers more.
Your assessment of Netflix trying to get others to absorb their operational costs is dead on.
Except that Netflix offers free colocated content servers to practically any ISP that asks, bypassing the Internet entirely. Comcast chose to refuse that offer.
The Internet worked on the assumption that a provider would be both a content source and sink.
This is the fundamental problem. The Internet has gotten to be extremely asymmetric, and this has been by design. It's very disingenuous for Comcast to complain about asymmetric peering when they've done their level best to bring that situation about, especially in light of the fact that if the content isn't available, they don't have customers. They want to provide their customers with equivalent content themselves, for a (phe)nominal fee, and Netflix's existence doesn't fit well into that plan.
Uh, no? When my Internet is slow, I blame my ISP first. Is that different for normal people or is the Comcast CEO living under a rock?
Yes, it's different. When most people (that don't really understand how the Internet works) find that one site is slow while everything else works fine, they tend to assume it's the problem site that's the cause. I'm 100% sure that was part of Comcast's thinking here, plus they get the bonus of Netflix customers getting pissed off if/when Netflix raises prices to account for the new fees. They don't understand that they're actually going to be paying Comcast via proxy, even though many aren't even Comcast customers.
I've had experiences with both good H1-Bs and awful ones. I currently work with two - one is Chinese and one is Indian. Neither is expected to put in more than 40 hours/week unless it's really needed, in which case we're *all* there. The Chinese guy is sharp as a tack, and is extremely good at both design and implementation. He's also one of my best friends. The Indian girl is fricking *amazing* when it comes to debugging - give her a dump file supplied by a customer and odds are she'll have found the problem within the hour, whether it's an application-level issue or something that we've hooked at the systems level. She's also one of the sweetest people I've ever met. Both are paid on par with what everyone else is, and our kick-ass HR manager abides by both the letter and spirit of the law - both of the H1-Bs were sought out only after we spent months looking to fill the positions with domestic workers (I interviewed quite a few of them after the company flew them in to talk to us).
I've also worked with imported workers that couldn't code their way out of a wet paper bag, even when effectively given step-by-step instructions, and others that were competent but effectively indentured servants working for far less than they were legally supposed to be. The system needs a lot of reform, both to protect domestic employees as well as those brought in from overseas.
The argument for mandated vacation time would be primarily for the workers' benefit, i.e. society in general. That it would also work out to the company's benefit (in the form of happier/more productive employees) is a side-effect. We grant corporate status to organizations because there's a perceived benefit to society at large (encouraging investment), but when that benefit to corporate investors begins to adversely affect society as a whole, government has the right to step in and change things. Note that I'm not arguing either for or against mandated vacation time - I haven't studied the pros and cons enough to have an informed opinion right now, but I do own my own corporation and have opinions regarding their place in society.
It's kind of funny, because I'm largely libertarian in my beliefs, but it seems that not many people take into account the fact that the corporate veil is also an example of "interference in the free market" and feel like it's something they're entitled to without any strings attached.
It does not explain why the government should force a company to take actions which are in the company's interest.
One could also argue that it's within the government's rights to demand whatever they want as a requirement for the company to obtain and keep a corporate charter. Otherwise, those who wish to go into business are welcome to be personally responsible for their own debts and liabilities.
In this scenario, I suppose you could invoice HP for a "consulting fee" for finding and reporting the bug to them. Troubleshooting an issue caused by broken firmware costs time too, y'know...
A traditional journalist would be less likely to make false accusations in their line of work, because they could lose their job, and their employer could be taken to court.
A traditional journalist is also less likely to pursue politically sensitive stories for the same reasons. When was the last time you remember the White House press corps really hammering the President on a sticky issue?
There were abort procedures, but all would have required waiting until after SRB separation and so wouldn't have been available to the Challenger crew. I watched the launch from my grandmother's house in Rockledge, FL, and I remember grabbing the binoculars hoping to see that somehow the orbiter got away.
Actually I think you're right. I looked a little more closely at the charging options, and I was assuming (always a recipe for failure) what was involved was one of the high-power charging adapters with the LEDs (which is where you'd have to have the DC circuitry), but I see now that it wasn't one of those involved, and that they have to be wired directly to the panel and not through a plug on the back, which totally deflates my argument. The standard cable that comes with the car is much smaller, with a regular cable and connector for the 240 volt socket, and you're probably right that the wart has just the GFCI and rudimentary sensing circuitry that is likely directly on the power line.
Sorry for wasting your time on this.:-) You're absolutely right that it's unusual to fuse the power plug itself.
I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree here. I do see where you're coming from, but IMO any device that's handling that kind of current and directs any of it to power onboard low-voltage DC circuitry needs to be thermally fused as well as breakered.
Putting one in the plug to try to detect that the outlet is overheating is non-standard.
You don't really fuse the charger to detect wiring faults in the outlet (although it's helpful in case you have something like 230V on a 115V outlet), you do it for the more common case where the transformer, regulators, or something else fails and start getting hot, and it's quite common that chargers are fused as I mentioned before.
Slashdot Mirror
The reality is closer to "any delivery man could one day decide to just steal your mail, and this is pretty likely to happen actually". But why don't they? In fact why doesn't anyone with some control over your life use that position to screw you over and take what they want? It's the question never pondered.
There's not much need to ponder the question, because it *does* happen. Not on a huge, sweeping scale (not including the NSA stuff, anyway), but it's enough to be concerned about.
Choreography is so dependent on timing anyhow that they'd rather have the singers step on their dicks than make the entire crew have to adjust to the mistake.
:-)
That's a whole different ball of wax. If the lead doing her pretty solo under a follow spot screws up and misses a verse, we can compensate and help her out. However, if we're doing something like "West Side Story" and someone gets lost in the midst of 30 other people doing their thing, that's their problem - we're not going to wreck dozens of people like that trying to save the soloist.
If you want to get around BitLocker, you don't bother exploiting BitLocker, you just install a kernel driver that filters ALL read/writes to volumes, this would be just as effective against TrueCrypt as it is against BitLocker.
On Windows you don't even need to do that. Detours gives you the ability to intercept any API call you'd like. Hook the appropriate file I/O calls, and you're done, no compromised drivers needed. Of course, there are ways to determine that the calls have been detoured, but there's practically no software in common use that does this.
The problem with using recordings is that the musicians normally synchronise themselves and follow cues from the stage.
This is the biggest issue for me. Most of my pit experience is from playing musicals, and while everything you said applies, there's another issue - when one of the performers has a brain fart and skips the first verse of a song, a real pit orchestra responds instantly and seamlessly because they're listening to what's going on independently of the conductor, and know the show. If an actor misses a cue, the orchestra vamps until he gets his act together, and can make it sound like nothing out of the ordinary happened. If for some reason the conductor gets out of sync with what's happening on stage, the orchestra knows to ignore him and to follow the stage when need be. All of those situations have happened to me personally, and I've yet to see an electronic performance that can deal with them effectively.
Having said that, I agree with some of the other posters that most of the sampled/recorded music in musical theater today is there because of money. It's not cheap to field even a small (5-7 members) pit orchestra for a show that does even only five performances per week. It's been years since I had the opportunity to play a show simply because all the theaters around where I live don't use live music anymore.
Yeah, tell that to the IRS when you go to pull your records during an audit... ;-)
Super AMOLED is superb.
Agreed, as long as you're inside. My S4 is a bear to use outside because you just can't see the display worth a damn in bright sunlight.
But small companies with a few machines in a co-lo? This could get ugly.
It doesn't have to. Just set up a cheap hardware firewall and keep the IPMI ports on local addresses only accessible via VPN. If the firewall/router can handle the traffic, it's often a good idea to NAT the servers' public interfaces as well so that if you have to change your public IPs all you have to change is the firewall/router config without touching the servers themselves.
If unions could get there way as easily as the conservatives and libertarians always say around here living in this country wouldn't suck nearly as much for average working people.
Police and other government employee unions aren't the same thing as the Teamsters.
I am. I already pay $800 or so per year for connectivity, so what difference does it make whether it's to AT&T or to the government, especially if I end up getting far better service as a result?
I know this is a troll, but people would do well to remember that being unable to hold the government accountable for their actions is a much greater threat to national security than any outside entity could muster against the people.
Why? Because there was no benefit for Comcast to do so.
Reducing their peering traffic by 30% (Comcast's numbers) doesn't have a benefit to Comcast, who was complaining of congestion caused by Netflix?
So what responsibility does Comcast, a for-profit entity, have to help another for-profit entity (and a direct competitor to Comcast's own streaming service) contain their operational costs.
And THIS is what the fight is *really* about. The fact that Comcast provides connectivity AND content is a conflict of interest that works to cost customers more.
Your assessment of Netflix trying to get others to absorb their operational costs is dead on.
Except that Netflix offers free colocated content servers to practically any ISP that asks, bypassing the Internet entirely. Comcast chose to refuse that offer.
The Internet worked on the assumption that a provider would be both a content source and sink.
This is the fundamental problem. The Internet has gotten to be extremely asymmetric, and this has been by design. It's very disingenuous for Comcast to complain about asymmetric peering when they've done their level best to bring that situation about, especially in light of the fact that if the content isn't available, they don't have customers. They want to provide their customers with equivalent content themselves, for a (phe)nominal fee, and Netflix's existence doesn't fit well into that plan.
Uh, no? When my Internet is slow, I blame my ISP first. Is that different for normal people or is the Comcast CEO living under a rock?
Yes, it's different. When most people (that don't really understand how the Internet works) find that one site is slow while everything else works fine, they tend to assume it's the problem site that's the cause. I'm 100% sure that was part of Comcast's thinking here, plus they get the bonus of Netflix customers getting pissed off if/when Netflix raises prices to account for the new fees. They don't understand that they're actually going to be paying Comcast via proxy, even though many aren't even Comcast customers.
So Netflix works out a peering arrangement with Comcast to deliver traffic directly to Comcasts network and this is somehow bad?
It is when Netflix offered to solve the problem in a manner that would cost both companies less money and were refused.
I've had experiences with both good H1-Bs and awful ones. I currently work with two - one is Chinese and one is Indian. Neither is expected to put in more than 40 hours/week unless it's really needed, in which case we're *all* there. The Chinese guy is sharp as a tack, and is extremely good at both design and implementation. He's also one of my best friends. The Indian girl is fricking *amazing* when it comes to debugging - give her a dump file supplied by a customer and odds are she'll have found the problem within the hour, whether it's an application-level issue or something that we've hooked at the systems level. She's also one of the sweetest people I've ever met. Both are paid on par with what everyone else is, and our kick-ass HR manager abides by both the letter and spirit of the law - both of the H1-Bs were sought out only after we spent months looking to fill the positions with domestic workers (I interviewed quite a few of them after the company flew them in to talk to us). I've also worked with imported workers that couldn't code their way out of a wet paper bag, even when effectively given step-by-step instructions, and others that were competent but effectively indentured servants working for far less than they were legally supposed to be. The system needs a lot of reform, both to protect domestic employees as well as those brought in from overseas.
The argument for mandated vacation time would be primarily for the workers' benefit, i.e. society in general. That it would also work out to the company's benefit (in the form of happier/more productive employees) is a side-effect. We grant corporate status to organizations because there's a perceived benefit to society at large (encouraging investment), but when that benefit to corporate investors begins to adversely affect society as a whole, government has the right to step in and change things. Note that I'm not arguing either for or against mandated vacation time - I haven't studied the pros and cons enough to have an informed opinion right now, but I do own my own corporation and have opinions regarding their place in society.
It's kind of funny, because I'm largely libertarian in my beliefs, but it seems that not many people take into account the fact that the corporate veil is also an example of "interference in the free market" and feel like it's something they're entitled to without any strings attached.
It does not explain why the government should force a company to take actions which are in the company's interest.
One could also argue that it's within the government's rights to demand whatever they want as a requirement for the company to obtain and keep a corporate charter. Otherwise, those who wish to go into business are welcome to be personally responsible for their own debts and liabilities.
And let's be honest, how bad is it really going to be if your release is delayed by a week?
But then the revenue generated by the new release would have to be recognized next quarter instead of the current one, and we *can't* have that...
In this scenario, I suppose you could invoice HP for a "consulting fee" for finding and reporting the bug to them. Troubleshooting an issue caused by broken firmware costs time too, y'know...
A traditional journalist would be less likely to make false accusations in their line of work, because they could lose their job, and their employer could be taken to court.
A traditional journalist is also less likely to pursue politically sensitive stories for the same reasons. When was the last time you remember the White House press corps really hammering the President on a sticky issue?
There were abort procedures, but all would have required waiting until after SRB separation and so wouldn't have been available to the Challenger crew. I watched the launch from my grandmother's house in Rockledge, FL, and I remember grabbing the binoculars hoping to see that somehow the orbiter got away.
Actually I think you're right. I looked a little more closely at the charging options, and I was assuming (always a recipe for failure) what was involved was one of the high-power charging adapters with the LEDs (which is where you'd have to have the DC circuitry), but I see now that it wasn't one of those involved, and that they have to be wired directly to the panel and not through a plug on the back, which totally deflates my argument. The standard cable that comes with the car is much smaller, with a regular cable and connector for the 240 volt socket, and you're probably right that the wart has just the GFCI and rudimentary sensing circuitry that is likely directly on the power line.
:-) You're absolutely right that it's unusual to fuse the power plug itself.
Sorry for wasting your time on this.
I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree here. I do see where you're coming from, but IMO any device that's handling that kind of current and directs any of it to power onboard low-voltage DC circuitry needs to be thermally fused as well as breakered.
Putting one in the plug to try to detect that the outlet is overheating is non-standard.
You don't really fuse the charger to detect wiring faults in the outlet (although it's helpful in case you have something like 230V on a 115V outlet), you do it for the more common case where the transformer, regulators, or something else fails and start getting hot, and it's quite common that chargers are fused as I mentioned before.