Maybe you've already done so, and assuming it is still under warranty, but I would call Apple's tech support and raise hell. As someone who also has installed memory countless times, if I had a socket fracture like your's under normal installation I would scream defect. Warranty should cover poor workmanship or defective parts.
did the whole plastic base break? or just the area around the clips that hold the memory down? If it's just the clips, you could try hot gluing the memory down. Should be non-conductive and strong enough to keep pressure on the dimm. If you just used two globs, one on each side, you could exacto knife them out/off if you needed to remove the dimm.
So you're proposition of taking it over to a friends house got me thinking . . . What good is this if all my data is at home? Well what about an LCD + Pen + wifi + 60gb HD + GPU with a full cpu in a base station. Could someone design a system like this and keep it efficient despite an 801.11g cpu bus? We already know they are working to offload some instructions to the GPU. Having the HD and GPU in the LCD might nullify the 1280 x 1024 = not enough bandwidth for a wireless monitor. Steve did point out recently that GPU's were scaling much better than CPU's of late.
Not that I've tried it or anything, but in some circumstances using Cisco's CallManager, you can impersonate any number for long distance purposes. You set the calling party information on a given line. If the local telco doesn't do any checking, which I know of at least one that doesn't, you can make long distance calls as anyone. An example, again not that I've done this, a call placed from place of business X where the calling party info has been set to Y, where Y is the phone number of some random guy in the same area. Check the long distance bill of some random guy and there it is! This might be limited to people being billed by the same company, though in some cases it is not limited by CO, dialing prefix, or even city.
This is not a problem with Cisco's product, it's poor security practices of a backwards local telco. Why? They've never had any intellectual competition.
How about Internet Explorer 6? It reboots when complete without even prompting you. How about changing a computer's name, or joining a new domain? Reboot. Change pagefile size. Reboot. Change max registry size. Reboot. How about an.msi based install fails ungracefully, and then you want to install some other.msi based install, reboot. Apply Blaster patch. Reboot. Apply Sasser patch. Reboot.
It would be true to say XP/2k are better about it than Win9x, but that's not much of a complement.
Remember,/. isn't just for *nix hacks, the unfortunate Windows admins slum here too.
My neighbor, a machine operator by trade, installed my septic system, put in my driveway, and dug the hole for my house foundation. I paid for the backhoe for a week, he did the heavy work with me helping out.
In return, I upgraded his laptop OS, memory, and pretty much am his tech support.
I just realized this, looking at another poster calling this a subnet exploit. This really isn't a remote root. Maybe 10 years ago you'd call this a remote root. But in today's world of MS 90% market dominance with a whole product line of OS's that a few months ago could each and every one of them could be remotely dazed and controlled through rpc, we really should KNOW what remote exploit really means.
Home users will not be hacked, unless it's by their ISP.
LANs are safe unless you've got some disgruntled worker out there, but that's always the case.
I know security purists will scoff. I'd be one if I wasn't working under an MS loving boss.
I've never heard of a way to block DHCP requests at a switch. Really, I'm all ears if there is a way to do it. I once had a trainer bring down a whole region of several hundred users, just by bringing a DHCP server online in a training lab. These were NT servers with NT clients. I don't think it was until Active Directory that DHCP was brought into the fold.
Routers connect subnets. Routers do not forward broadcasts. If you use VLANs and have multiple logical subnets on one physical network, you still won't see broadcasts from one VLAN passed to the others.
So if you're on the same physical/logical subnet with no routing required between machines, the exploit is possible.
They are starting to bare some resemblence, with the brushed metal UI and sidebar/tray look. The main difference:
In iTunes I can create a smart playlist that queries my mp3's and returns all music that's never been played, or all Jazz, or all songs who's artist's name contains my dog's name or whatever. It also has the browse feature which, for me, is perfectly suited to quickly finding music. Or if I just want to text query, I quickly type in a song or artist name into the search bar and boom it found.
So for a file browser, it could be a folder(playlist) that executes a search returning all Movies, instead of or in addition to my static movies folder. Maybe this can be accomplished through folder actions?
I guess the searching is already there, pretty quick as well.
XP was supposed to be... Really, what WAS it supposed to be? Win2k Afterbirth?
2000 was supposed to be... Apparently MS' best work
ME was supposed to be... Non-Existent*
98 SE was supposed to be... Win98 Gold Master
*Windows 2000 was supposed to be the convergence of the Pro and Home codebase. They didn't make it.
Why couldn't you have an iTunes-like filesystem interface. You've got a flat landscape until you populate your files with metadata. You've got saved searches(smart playlists), static lists(standard playlists). You could even let the OS keep an HFS representation of this(Keep iTunes music folder organized). So why not?
So now you've protected the data from the network, and guaranteed its virgin delivery to the monitor. But how do we know it's really Jane sitting there watching President Gates' PPV State of the Union address? Well we just snap a photo every couple minutes, using the monitor's built in camera, and compare it with the digitally signed Photo ID we have in THE database.
Then when we get REALLY good, we integrate photon to neutrino decay that ensures that Gates' pearly whites can't gleam beyond the user's calibrated seating distance!
I think the argument of Mac's longevity is the MOST compelling. Maybe it has only been so since the later PPC generations(603, 604, 604e, G3,G4), but I think it is a real difference. In my experience Windows eats the hardware over time. A clean install of Win2k is very fast on decent hardware(+400mhz PII, PIII and higher), but it bogs down quickly. The more you add, the slower it seems to get. The longer you run it, the slower it seems to get. I'm not talking about having tons of programs running, tons of little crap utils sitting in the Tray chewing up resources. I'm talking about registry bloat, and systems that seem to crawl even when nothing is running other that standard windows processes. Ever run regmon and see how many registry queries happen just to click on the start menu and go to your favorites? It is truly a feat of modern computing that the registry doesn't blow up more often.
With the apple(350mhz g3) and powercomputing(180mhz 604e) machines I've owned, they seem to be more consistent. With OS X, AFAIC it gets faster with time. And I don't know what your talking about when you say upgrading isn't an option. The only thing that hasn't been upgradeable on the macs I've owned is the memory architecture. You could put a G3 in an old PPC601 box. Show me a 486 that'll take a pentium II or III upgrade. People seem to forget that when us mac geeks were using LC400 with 16-25 mhz 68030, with a nice gui more functional/modern than win9x, the pc guys were still using 386s and Win3.11
The new G4 (MPC7457 and MPC7447) draw a paltry 10 watts at 1 GHz
I guess that means the real reason my Mac is slower is the subsidization of power keeping energy cheap making it more cost effective to have 1 P4 instead of 8 G4's
My employer is in the process of rolling out a Cisco Callmanager based VoIP system. Cisco 7960 phones are around $250, which probably isn't that outrageous compared to other phones that can handle up to 5 lines.
The system over all is pretty spendy to install. Servers for call manager, server for Voice Mail system, all new phones, retrofiting with Cat5e. I can't see a big reason for this if I just need to switch 3 phone lines between 5 people. But for a couple of hunded people in a few locations, it's a different story. Phone company here charges $100/hr for a tech to work on our system. That adds up quickly, and much of the work seems trivial. Move this line from this office to another. Change this or that extension. Blah blah $100 blah. We're basically doing this to squeeze the local telco out of our service costs. Now it's all soft, we control extensions, we control dialing rules, we control call blocking and such. All of this is fine because our IT staff isn't overworked, so adding this layer probably won't add any bodies.
Bottom line is if you are installing network infrastructure and are spending money for managed switches and other hardware, and have more than a handfull of employees, consider making sure your switches and routers are VoIP capable, i.e. QOS, VLAN, etc., and consider replacing your PBX with a VoIP server solution when it comes time to expand or replace. The primary beauty of VoIP for us is 1. Scalability, 2. Independence from local telco 3. More feature rich phones.
That said, IMO the VoIP revolution is of the LAN, not WAN type.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe you've already done so, and assuming it is still under warranty, but I would call Apple's tech support and raise hell. As someone who also has installed memory countless times, if I had a socket fracture like your's under normal installation I would scream defect. Warranty should cover poor workmanship or defective parts.
did the whole plastic base break? or just the area around the clips that hold the memory down? If it's just the clips, you could try hot gluing the memory down. Should be non-conductive and strong enough to keep pressure on the dimm. If you just used two globs, one on each side, you could exacto knife them out/off if you needed to remove the dimm.
So you're proposition of taking it over to a friends house got me thinking . . . What good is this if all my data is at home? Well what about an LCD + Pen + wifi + 60gb HD + GPU with a full cpu in a base station. Could someone design a system like this and keep it efficient despite an 801.11g cpu bus? We already know they are working to offload some instructions to the GPU. Having the HD and GPU in the LCD might nullify the 1280 x 1024 = not enough bandwidth for a wireless monitor. Steve did point out recently that GPU's were scaling much better than CPU's of late.
Where's that everso important and ranted about 2nd mouse button, the Mac users chuckled . . .
She's actually a 42 year old diesel mechanic from Cleveland.
Just recently looked at version 9, still ships for at least Linux HP-UX and Solaris, can't remember if I saw AIX there.
Not that I've tried it or anything, but in some circumstances using Cisco's CallManager, you can impersonate any number for long distance purposes. You set the calling party information on a given line. If the local telco doesn't do any checking, which I know of at least one that doesn't, you can make long distance calls as anyone. An example, again not that I've done this, a call placed from place of business X where the calling party info has been set to Y, where Y is the phone number of some random guy in the same area. Check the long distance bill of some random guy and there it is! This might be limited to people being billed by the same company, though in some cases it is not limited by CO, dialing prefix, or even city.
This is not a problem with Cisco's product, it's poor security practices of a backwards local telco. Why? They've never had any intellectual competition.
How about Internet Explorer 6? It reboots when complete without even prompting you. How about changing a computer's name, or joining a new domain? Reboot. Change pagefile size. Reboot. Change max registry size. Reboot. How about an .msi based install fails ungracefully, and then you want to install some other .msi based install, reboot. Apply Blaster patch. Reboot. Apply Sasser patch. Reboot.
/. isn't just for *nix hacks, the unfortunate Windows admins slum here too.
It would be true to say XP/2k are better about it than Win9x, but that's not much of a complement.
Remember,
My neighbor, a machine operator by trade, installed my septic system, put in my driveway, and dug the hole for my house foundation. I paid for the backhoe for a week, he did the heavy work with me helping out.
In return, I upgraded his laptop OS, memory, and pretty much am his tech support.
By the size of things, maybe there putting a whole linux distro in there!
File Name:
SFU35BETA_EN.exe
Download Size:
214772 KB
Date Published:
7/27/2003
Version:
3.5
I just realized this, looking at another poster calling this a subnet exploit. This really isn't a remote root. Maybe 10 years ago you'd call this a remote root. But in today's world of MS 90% market dominance with a whole product line of OS's that a few months ago could each and every one of them could be remotely dazed and controlled through rpc, we really should KNOW what remote exploit really means.
Home users will not be hacked, unless it's by their ISP.
LANs are safe unless you've got some disgruntled worker out there, but that's always the case.
I know security purists will scoff. I'd be one if I wasn't working under an MS loving boss.
I've never heard of a way to block DHCP requests at a switch. Really, I'm all ears if there is a way to do it. I once had a trainer bring down a whole region of several hundred users, just by bringing a DHCP server online in a training lab. These were NT servers with NT clients. I don't think it was until Active Directory that DHCP was brought into the fold.
How is DHCP authorized in the Unix world.
Routers connect subnets. Routers do not forward broadcasts. If you use VLANs and have multiple logical subnets on one physical network, you still won't see broadcasts from one VLAN passed to the others.
So if you're on the same physical/logical subnet with no routing required between machines, the exploit is possible.
Didn't to post AC
They are starting to bare some resemblence, with the brushed metal UI and sidebar/tray look. The main difference:
In iTunes I can create a smart playlist that queries my mp3's and returns all music that's never been played, or all Jazz, or all songs who's artist's name contains my dog's name or whatever. It also has the browse feature which, for me, is perfectly suited to quickly finding music. Or if I just want to text query, I quickly type in a song or artist name into the search bar and boom it found.
So for a file browser, it could be a folder(playlist) that executes a search returning all Movies, instead of or in addition to my static movies folder. Maybe this can be accomplished through folder actions?
I guess the searching is already there, pretty quick as well.
2000 was supposed to be... Apparently MS' best work
ME was supposed to be... Non-Existent*
98 SE was supposed to be... Win98 Gold Master
*Windows 2000 was supposed to be the convergence of the Pro and Home codebase. They didn't make it.
Why couldn't you have an iTunes-like filesystem interface. You've got a flat landscape until you populate your files with metadata. You've got saved searches(smart playlists), static lists(standard playlists). You could even let the OS keep an HFS representation of this(Keep iTunes music folder organized). So why not?
. . . I'll be able to run Win2k on my Mac?
I tried 'apropos UNIX quote' and I got nothing!? What am I doing wrong? I knew man pages were helpful, but never so exciting and serene!
Neo's pr0n just LOOKS more real. Jeez, You missed the whole point!
Then when we get REALLY good, we integrate photon to neutrino decay that ensures that Gates' pearly whites can't gleam beyond the user's calibrated seating distance!
I think the argument of Mac's longevity is the MOST compelling. Maybe it has only been so since the later PPC generations(603, 604, 604e, G3,G4), but I think it is a real difference. In my experience Windows eats the hardware over time. A clean install of Win2k is very fast on decent hardware(+400mhz PII, PIII and higher), but it bogs down quickly. The more you add, the slower it seems to get. The longer you run it, the slower it seems to get. I'm not talking about having tons of programs running, tons of little crap utils sitting in the Tray chewing up resources. I'm talking about registry bloat, and systems that seem to crawl even when nothing is running other that standard windows processes. Ever run regmon and see how many registry queries happen just to click on the start menu and go to your favorites? It is truly a feat of modern computing that the registry doesn't blow up more often.
With the apple(350mhz g3) and powercomputing(180mhz 604e) machines I've owned, they seem to be more consistent. With OS X, AFAIC it gets faster with time. And I don't know what your talking about when you say upgrading isn't an option. The only thing that hasn't been upgradeable on the macs I've owned is the memory architecture. You could put a G3 in an old PPC601 box. Show me a 486 that'll take a pentium II or III upgrade. People seem to forget that when us mac geeks were using LC400 with 16-25 mhz 68030, with a nice gui more functional/modern than win9x, the pc guys were still using 386s and Win3.11
The new G4 (MPC7457 and MPC7447) draw a paltry 10 watts at 1 GHz I guess that means the real reason my Mac is slower is the subsidization of power keeping energy cheap making it more cost effective to have 1 P4 instead of 8 G4's
I saw one of these a year & 1/2 ago using Solscape, which downloads from NASA's SOHO site. I figured it was a weird lense error, or capture error.
The system over all is pretty spendy to install. Servers for call manager, server for Voice Mail system, all new phones, retrofiting with Cat5e. I can't see a big reason for this if I just need to switch 3 phone lines between 5 people. But for a couple of hunded people in a few locations, it's a different story. Phone company here charges $100/hr for a tech to work on our system. That adds up quickly, and much of the work seems trivial. Move this line from this office to another. Change this or that extension. Blah blah $100 blah. We're basically doing this to squeeze the local telco out of our service costs. Now it's all soft, we control extensions, we control dialing rules, we control call blocking and such. All of this is fine because our IT staff isn't overworked, so adding this layer probably won't add any bodies.
Bottom line is if you are installing network infrastructure and are spending money for managed switches and other hardware, and have more than a handfull of employees, consider making sure your switches and routers are VoIP capable, i.e. QOS, VLAN, etc., and consider replacing your PBX with a VoIP server solution when it comes time to expand or replace. The primary beauty of VoIP for us is 1. Scalability, 2. Independence from local telco 3. More feature rich phones.
That said, IMO the VoIP revolution is of the LAN, not WAN type.