"The chip runs at a staggering speed of24 GHz (enabling it to transfer data as fast as the main network of the Internet) and can soon lift wireless, high-frequency communication to a whole new level."
24GHz is the carrier frequency of the radar. The amount of information in a signal is related to the bandwidth of the signal, as well as linearity and noise. This design was done in SIGe BiCMOS, which is more than capable of designing a wireless tranceiver at 24Ghz RF frequency. The phased-array signals are mixed down to baseband and probably converted to digital, at which point a DSP chip would then process the information in the signals at a much lower clock frequency using standard CMOS.
"This current chip is sure to be much more successful than its predecessors as far as the automobile industry is concerned, but whether or not its processing speed will become important in the computer industry remains to be seen."
24GHz is an FCC assigned band for automoive radar. The processing speed isn't the issue since the radar signal is mixed down to extract the basesband info, which is processed at a much slower rate. 24 GHz is significant since phased array antennas at this frequency are getting small enough to put in car bumpers without being too ugly for the people who care about what it looks like.
" 24 GHz would be a cycle time of 41.7 ps. For just about everyone, that's longer than the setup time plus hold time of a flop, making it impossible to do any logic in any given cycle. There is also the possibility of only listening to every other clock, but then it really wouldn't be 12 ghz. "
They use a Sige process from IBM, from which it is possiible to make a 24 GHz mixer and divder.
"CMOS is getting fast enough (could be SiGe BiCMOS chip but probably CMOS) to allow for amplifiers and ADC (analog-to-digital) that work in the radar (~25GHz on up)"
They used an IBM SiGe proces according to my ISSCC digest
The chip has most likely has an onboard frequency synthesizer with an LC tank VCO generating the LO to generate the 24 GHz RF Output using a mixer. This can all be done using the latest SiGe technology, or GaAs or InP technologies.
" Yes, and any interesting/compatibility-breaking changes they made in their version could immediately be added to all other GPL implementations. It might let them "pollute" Java (if people actually cared to use their changes), but it wouldn't let them "hijack" Java, which is the real concern."
Yes, but MS gains defacto control of Java by their vast momentum, which means Sun and the OSS community would spend all their time making their version compatible with MS's version, instead of the other way around. In the end they may even give up and let MS maintain it.
Your problem is that you're more concerned about assigning blame then solving the problem. MS is saying they lose either way. If they don't release a patch, the vulnerability exists for everyone, but is less understood and less likely to be exploited. If they release a patch, people can patch the vulnerability, but MS makes it significantly more likely that an exploit will be developed, since they believe crackers are reverse engineering patches to develop exploits. Therefore, the unpatched systems are much more likely to be exploited if they release a patch. The solution to the problem seems to require a method to insure that above 90% of systems are patched soon after the release of a patch. Hoever, there are other factors that make people hesitant to patch systems, inclding fear of breaking functionality, lack of time, etc. This is what should be being discussed, but the person who wrote the post was more interested in bashing MS than actually looking at the problem.
" This is a forum for open discussion. If you believe something is true then say it.
Can you explain Microsofts position so we can discuss it sensibly?
Thought not."
MS's position is that by releasing patches, they make it easier to for attackers to crack into unpatched systems. The crackers simply compare the patch with the old cade, find what was changed, and figure out the exploit from there. That was the point of the artcle. The post of the article mentions none of this, but simply takes a quote out of context and uses it to claim MS believes they should not patch systems. The post completely mischaracterizes the intent of the article, which should have been a vehicle to discuss the dilemma of releasing patches that MS has found through experience. I thought this was obvious from just mentioning the quote I posted above, which formed the basis of the article, but I guess it I assumed too much in gauging your reasoning skills, based on your response.
" Instead of working it out for themselves, malicious hackers are reverse engineering the patches to better understand the vulnerabilities, said David Aucsmith, who is in charge of technology at Microsoft's security business and technology unit."
Of course I wouldn't expect a biaed site like/. to bother even considering MS's arguement. The post doesn't even bother to explain the MS position, but instead just continues with the mindless MS bashing that I've come to expect here to insure that no meaningful disscussion ensues and nothing is learned from MS, since of course they can't possibly have anything usefull to teach us about computer use and misuse.
"'[he] could only think of one instance when a vulnerability was exploited before a patch was available'. Erm..."
Although the MS guy overstates his case, it isn't always a good idea to release a patch for a system after an exploit is discovered internally that is not well known. The problem is that releasing the patch also alerts malicious individuals of the vulnerability. The real problem that must be solved first is figuring out a way to deploy a patch at a level near 100% so that releasing the patch does more good than harm.
"The GPL is also the only Open Source license that can keep Microsoft from "polluting" Java."
If Java is Open Source. MS can change it all they want from the Sun standard. The only stipulation is that they then must release their source code. MS would love this as it puts them in a far better position than they're in now, where they're not allowed to ship non-compliant versions of Java as ordered by the courts.
"I'm against the DMCA, stupid patents and bad copyright laws because IMO they hinder competition (eg, increased barriers of entry to the market). I'm for extra laws against what a monopoly is allowed to do, because IMO without them it could hinder competition (eg, increased barriers of entry to the market).
Where's the hypocrisy?"
The hypocrisy is you preach freedom when you denounce the patriot act or the DMCA. When you preach freedom, but deny MS their freedom because you don't like the way they do business, you're a hypocrite. When you denounce copyright law and support the GPL, you are a hypocrite. Libertarians think monopoly regulation is bullshit, and do not support it. They also don't support laws that create monopolies, such as those that made the local phone and power companies what they are today.
" the difference is that apple dosn't *abuse* their monopoly with quicktime, while Microsoft does."
Apple is extremely abusive in terms of monopoly power. Remember when Jobs killed all the clone makers by refusing to license MacOS at a reasonable price. He killed Exponential as well by refusing to license a modified BIOS to boot their chip. Don't get me wrong, that is their right. However, MS should be allowed the same rights.
" Yes, the only logically consistent stance is to be pro-regulation or anti-regulation on every issue. Nevermind the issue itself, it's irrelevant. You must choose either anarchy or totalitarianism, because I, Anonymous Coward, will call you a hypocrite otherwise."
anti-regulation is not anarchy. It is an affirmation of individual rights. The only regulations that should be imposed on a person are to prevent the infringement on the rights of others. Arbitrarily imposing regulations on businesses simply beause you don't like the way they do business is totalitarianism. The govt has no right to tell MS what they can include in Windows than they have the right to tell Red Hat what they can include. Forcing MS to give you what you want at a price you want is a type of slavery.
" We have government spending money on OS now?
I think like car-building, airlines and railway, the operating systems should be left to private commercial markets."
The govt. can spend money on product development if it is necessary for govt. functions. In this case, the NSA is extremely motivated to have a secure OS to store their secrets. Rereleasing their mods to the public seems like a way to get more bang out of your tax dollar by letting you use their improvements.
If I don't have the freedom to set the price for a product I sell to whatever I want for whatever reason I want, then I am in some form enslaved to society.
"Also, a monopoly is one of the conditions where a market economy fails."
Music is not a monopoly, despite the/. myth. Having a monopoly on one song is not a monopoly on music. The competition in the music industry is in writing a song that people like better than the next guy's song.
"pparently the world would be better off with price fixing, collusion, and extended monopolies of the Rockefeller/Gates kinds."
Rockefeller dropped the price of oil for consumers by a tremendous amount. In a word, the answer is yes. Stop believing the bullshit liberals tell you, and start listening to libertarians.
" There's a big difference between individual rights and corporate rights."
Why? So if I, as an individual, cooperate with other people in a business venture, I must give up my rights as an individual in this venture? That makes no sense and is just an excuse for govt. to oppress businessmen
"I don't know what twisted vision of capitalism you have in mind, but nobody has the right to demolish the underpinnings of the free market by colluding to restrict competition. This settlement was A Good Thing [tm]; it was designed to remove a distortion in the market."
I don't think you understand what "free market" means. It means people are free to make any deals with whomever they want. People can cooperate as well as compete in a free market. Regulations do not make a market more free.
However, if a VoIP provider does not have 911 calling capability, they should make that very clear when you sign up so you can make an informed choice.
Slashdot Mirror
"The chip runs at a staggering speed of24 GHz (enabling it to transfer data as fast as the main network of the Internet) and can soon lift wireless, high-frequency communication to a whole new level."
24GHz is the carrier frequency of the radar. The amount of information in a signal is related to the bandwidth of the signal, as well as linearity and noise. This design was done in SIGe BiCMOS, which is more than capable of designing a wireless tranceiver at 24Ghz RF frequency. The phased-array signals are mixed down to baseband and probably converted to digital, at which point a DSP chip would then process the information in the signals at a much lower clock frequency using standard CMOS.
"The VCO is probably a DVCO (distributed voltage-controlled oscillator) [this aspect of the design might be considered a design major breakthrough]."
They used a 16-phase 19GHz VCO made up of 8 tuned CNOS differential amplifiers
" The interesting thing here is a single CMOS chip implementation. "
brActually, they used a SiGe BiCMOS process from IBM
"This current chip is sure to be much more successful than its predecessors as far as the automobile industry is concerned, but whether or not its processing speed will become important in the computer industry remains to be seen."
24GHz is an FCC assigned band for automoive radar. The processing speed isn't the issue since the radar signal is mixed down to extract the basesband info, which is processed at a much slower rate. 24 GHz is significant since phased array antennas at this frequency are getting small enough to put in car bumpers without being too ugly for the people who care about what it looks like.
" 24 GHz would be a cycle time of 41.7 ps. For just about everyone, that's longer than the setup time plus hold time of a flop, making it impossible to do any logic in any given cycle. There is also the possibility of only listening to every other clock, but then it really wouldn't be 12 ghz. "
They use a Sige process from IBM, from which it is possiible to make a 24 GHz mixer and divder.
"CMOS is getting fast enough (could be SiGe BiCMOS chip but probably CMOS) to allow for amplifiers and ADC (analog-to-digital) that work in the radar (~25GHz on up)"
They used an IBM SiGe proces according to my ISSCC digest
The chip has most likely has an onboard frequency synthesizer with an LC tank VCO generating the LO to generate the 24 GHz RF Output using a mixer. This can all be done using the latest SiGe technology, or GaAs or InP technologies.
" Yes, and any interesting/compatibility-breaking changes they made in their version could immediately be added to all other GPL implementations. It might let them "pollute" Java (if people actually cared to use their changes), but it wouldn't let them "hijack" Java, which is the real concern."
Yes, but MS gains defacto control of Java by their vast momentum, which means Sun and the OSS community would spend all their time making their version compatible with MS's version, instead of the other way around. In the end they may even give up and let MS maintain it.
Your problem is that you're more concerned about assigning blame then solving the problem. MS is saying they lose either way. If they don't release a patch, the vulnerability exists for everyone, but is less understood and less likely to be exploited. If they release a patch, people can patch the vulnerability, but MS makes it significantly more likely that an exploit will be developed, since they believe crackers are reverse engineering patches to develop exploits. Therefore, the unpatched systems are much more likely to be exploited if they release a patch. The solution to the problem seems to require a method to insure that above 90% of systems are patched soon after the release of a patch. Hoever, there are other factors that make people hesitant to patch systems, inclding fear of breaking functionality, lack of time, etc. This is what should be being discussed, but the person who wrote the post was more interested in bashing MS than actually looking at the problem.
" This is a forum for open discussion. If you believe something is true then say it.
Can you explain Microsofts position so we can discuss it sensibly?
Thought not."
MS's position is that by releasing patches, they make it easier to for attackers to crack into unpatched systems. The crackers simply compare the patch with the old cade, find what was changed, and figure out the exploit from there. That was the point of the artcle. The post of the article mentions none of this, but simply takes a quote out of context and uses it to claim MS believes they should not patch systems. The post completely mischaracterizes the intent of the article, which should have been a vehicle to discuss the dilemma of releasing patches that MS has found through experience. I thought this was obvious from just mentioning the quote I posted above, which formed the basis of the article, but I guess it I assumed too much in gauging your reasoning skills, based on your response.
" Instead of working it out for themselves, malicious hackers are reverse engineering the patches to better understand the vulnerabilities, said David Aucsmith, who is in charge of technology at Microsoft's security business and technology unit."
/. to bother even considering MS's arguement. The post doesn't even bother to explain the MS position, but instead just continues with the mindless MS bashing that I've come to expect here to insure that no meaningful disscussion ensues and nothing is learned from MS, since of course they can't possibly have anything usefull to teach us about computer use and misuse.
Of course I wouldn't expect a biaed site like
"'[he] could only think of one instance when a vulnerability was exploited before a patch was available'. Erm..."
Although the MS guy overstates his case, it isn't always a good idea to release a patch for a system after an exploit is discovered internally that is not well known. The problem is that releasing the patch also alerts malicious individuals of the vulnerability. The real problem that must be solved first is figuring out a way to deploy a patch at a level near 100% so that releasing the patch does more good than harm.
"The GPL is also the only Open Source license that can keep Microsoft from "polluting" Java."
If Java is Open Source. MS can change it all they want from the Sun standard. The only stipulation is that they then must release their source code. MS would love this as it puts them in a far better position than they're in now, where they're not allowed to ship non-compliant versions of Java as ordered by the courts.
"I'm against the DMCA, stupid patents and bad copyright laws because IMO they hinder competition (eg, increased barriers of entry to the market). I'm for extra laws against what a monopoly is allowed to do, because IMO without them it could hinder competition (eg, increased barriers of entry to the market).
Where's the hypocrisy?"
The hypocrisy is you preach freedom when you denounce the patriot act or the DMCA. When you preach freedom, but deny MS their freedom because you don't like the way they do business, you're a hypocrite. When you denounce copyright law and support the GPL, you are a hypocrite. Libertarians think monopoly regulation is bullshit, and do not support it. They also don't support laws that create monopolies, such as those that made the local phone and power companies what they are today.
" the difference is that apple dosn't *abuse* their monopoly with quicktime, while Microsoft does."
Apple is extremely abusive in terms of monopoly power. Remember when Jobs killed all the clone makers by refusing to license MacOS at a reasonable price. He killed Exponential as well by refusing to license a modified BIOS to boot their chip. Don't get me wrong, that is their right. However, MS should be allowed the same rights.
" Yes, the only logically consistent stance is to be pro-regulation or anti-regulation on every issue. Nevermind the issue itself, it's irrelevant. You must choose either anarchy or totalitarianism, because I, Anonymous Coward, will call you a hypocrite otherwise."
anti-regulation is not anarchy. It is an affirmation of individual rights. The only regulations that should be imposed on a person are to prevent the infringement on the rights of others. Arbitrarily imposing regulations on businesses simply beause you don't like the way they do business is totalitarianism. The govt has no right to tell MS what they can include in Windows than they have the right to tell Red Hat what they can include. Forcing MS to give you what you want at a price you want is a type of slavery.
I don't think the US. govt. is allowed to use GPL. Of course, they must honor the gpl for the rest of the linux kernel, however.
" We have government spending money on OS now? I think like car-building, airlines and railway, the operating systems should be left to private commercial markets."
The govt. can spend money on product development if it is necessary for govt. functions. In this case, the NSA is extremely motivated to have a secure OS to store their secrets. Rereleasing their mods to the public seems like a way to get more bang out of your tax dollar by letting you use their improvements.
" It worked for Robin Hood, and nobody accused him of supporting oppression and tyranny."
Ayn Rand has. See Atlas Shrugged. I'm giving people a guilt trip for stealing money from the hands of record labels and other copyright holders.
"LOL
Preventing monopolies == slavery?
You're some kind of stupid, man."
If I don't have the freedom to set the price for a product I sell to whatever I want for whatever reason I want, then I am in some form enslaved to society.
"Also, a monopoly is one of the conditions where a market economy fails."
/. myth. Having a monopoly on one song is not a monopoly on music. The competition in the music industry is in writing a song that people like better than the next guy's song.
Music is not a monopoly, despite the
"pparently the world would be better off with price fixing, collusion, and extended monopolies of the Rockefeller/Gates kinds."
Rockefeller dropped the price of oil for consumers by a tremendous amount. In a word, the answer is yes. Stop believing the bullshit liberals tell you, and start listening to libertarians.
" There's a big difference between individual rights and corporate rights."
Why? So if I, as an individual, cooperate with other people in a business venture, I must give up my rights as an individual in this venture? That makes no sense and is just an excuse for govt. to oppress businessmen
"I don't know what twisted vision of capitalism you have in mind, but nobody has the right to demolish the underpinnings of the free market by colluding to restrict competition. This settlement was A Good Thing [tm]; it was designed to remove a distortion in the market."
I don't think you understand what "free market" means. It means people are free to make any deals with whomever they want. People can cooperate as well as compete in a free market. Regulations do not make a market more free.
However, if a VoIP provider does not have 911 calling capability, they should make that very clear when you sign up so you can make an informed choice.