If you have outbound bandwidth, you have something a hacker wants. Once they 0wn your box, they'll install whatever application they want to run. Be it spamming, virus spreading, distributed computing, whatever... if your data is worthless, they can just delete it to get it out of their way.
A hole scanner just finds holes. It's a hacking tool if used by a hacker, a security tool if used by an admin... the only diffence is what the user intends on doing after the hole is discovered.
Sun's control of the Java language is a benevolent dictatorship. If Java was truely Open Source, then Microsoft could have forked it to allowed J++ to exist on Windows and blow a hole in the "write once, run everywhere" theory.
In order for there to be a language that's solid in all environments, there's got to be a gatekeeper at the door.
The post doesn't say it, but it definitely insinuates that the nefarious RIAA and possibly the BSA is behind this latest worm. Unfortunately, that kind of knee-jerk reaction is counterproductive to finding the real virus spreaders.
This is Slashdot, which also assumes only SCO would write a virus that D-DOSes them.
Basically, news of a D-DOS creates an accusation at whichever side Slashdot hates most, lack of fact notwithstanding.
A: The RIAA, to try to take down the P2P services. B: A disgruntled artist, who blames the P2P apps for why they can't get paid. C: The owner of unaffected P2P app trying to take down the competition. D: A random hacker, who doesn't have any interest in the music industry, but just wants to ruin people's fun. E: SCO. Because they're associated with anything Slashdot hates. F: Microsoft. Because they're associated with anything Slashdot hates. G: CowboyNeal, because he's a suspect on all Slashdot polls.
Massive design flaw found in Apple product, Slashdot prints neutral article. Any bets on the tone if Microsoft made the IPod?
Apple doesn't exactly have the same history of hardware mistakes as Microsoft has in browser/e-mail security issues. If this wasn't the first loosely-connected headphone port on an Apple product, then there'd be cause to be negative.
That, and by the time Slashdot has realized it, Apple is already offering to replace the defective units.
...for being cheap and uber-stylish. For $50 more you could have had a regular iPod with way more storage, but noooooo, you HAD to get an Apple MP3 player in something other than white!
If you want a 15 GB iPod in color, check these guys out. They'll even paint your existing iPod if you're willing to send it in.
Either that, or they didn't do any field testing. If you just hit the buttons, you'll be okay. These failures are happening after the case has been exposed to the normal tensions it'd get being in somebody's pocket... did they do that test?
You can do a lot of testing and still overlook a problem if you're not looking for it.
Well, compare that method to other artists who don't label their between-song inserts as tracks, and simply fold them into either the start or end of the songs. Those inserts make sense when listening to the album all the way through, but are quite annoying in a shuffled playlist.
That's my point... that if your 2.4 GHz phone allows you to pick a channel, those channel numbers alone tell you nothing about which one to pick to get out of the way of your own WiFi, they're meaningless.
Re:$33 cd? It is going to decrease profit
on
RIAA's Nasty Easter Egg
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Many CD versions albums that were originally released in the record-and-tape days have silent tracks that represent a gap of time on the original albums. iTunes will gladly sell those tracks one-by-one for 99 cents as well. It's just a matter of the database building happening on autopilot... if you want it, you get what you paid for.
They've taken the instruction set, and figured out how to build a chip that executes that instruction set. That's what revese engineering is... figuring out how to build a product that looks just like your comeptitor's product.
The big story here isn't that Intel has done anything "wrong", but they've done something that they haven't done in the past... something that AMD used to do when they were trailing behind Intel.
Now the shoe's on the other foot. AMD has taken one of the signs that used to say Intel was the market leader.
Not really. The 802.11 definiton for the channels are not used by anything else. So, if your 2.4GHz's interface claims there's 20 channels, you just have to guess if those channels are just 1/20th slices of the same pie, or if they've jumped around in their numbering scheme so that one click can get out of the footprint of most problems. You really don't know what your own devices are doing, so how can you predict what the neighbor's are throwing in?
It's not illegal by the FCC because anything goes in 2.4 GHz so long as you don't go over the power limits... there's no bandwidth-footprint limit that keeps you from using everything between the lines.
However, this does violate the IEEE specs for 802.11b and 802.11g. They can claim that they can interoperate with such devices, but they aren't one themselves. Those specs say one channel to a customer so that other applications and networks can exist without being blown off the air.
Two 801.11g networks next to each other can perform perfectly well once they realize to get themselves on non-overlapping channels. Two of these devices next to each other are going to collide left and right and have nowhere to run.
Large old office buildings that arn't wired for ethernet, large warehouses, and people who live on large plots of land.
Common bond: Areas where for the range of WiFi, you control nearlly all of the territory. Therefore, you're sure you're not getting in the way of anybody else because there's nobody else arround.
A densely packed dorm or appartment house is not the place to do that. It's to the point that in 2-family dwellings, the families need to agree on a consumer bandwidth sharing plan between each other so they don't buy devices that'll collide. Something like "You go on channel 3, I'll go on channel 10 for WiFi, and we'll reserve 900MHz for phones so don't get a 2.4GHz one..."
Yep... but you have to be careful what you're using is right for your application. If you're using WiFi to go accross the room, you should be using Bluetooth.
Exactly. That's the reason why the FCC and its international counterparts have to license most frequencies... otherwise there'd be more people wanting to broadcast than useful space and all sorts of jamming situations would result.
Any time a band is released for consumer applications, this almost always happens... somebody tries an application that uses all of it. Eventually, those devices are shunned by the marketplace when they're blamed for causing everything else on the same band not to work...
They're doing neither 802.11b nor 802.11g... they're violating the part of the specs that say they should only be on one channel. Therefore, their devices are compatible with both... but they're doing a flawed implementation on purpose to trade the performance gain for taking the entire 2.4GHz band as theirs.
They're basically getting all of their performance gains simply by violating the part of the WiFi standard that says you should only use one channel at a time, and leave 2/3 of the bandwidth space for other possible applications. Not to revolutionary a concept... just one that causes problems only for people other than the buyers of their systems.
It's known that mixing 802.11b and 802.11g on the same network causes slowdowns... their effective solution is to put the 802.11b devices on a different channel and therefore a different network than the 802.11g devices and join the two networks at their access point.
All of the channels basically overlap with the other channels. However, if you're on 1, 6, and 11, you manage to cover the entire chart without duplicating yourself.
Translation: They're covering the entire 2.4 GHz band, and making no appoligies to anybody else who hoped to use it near their systems. Any 2.4 GHz phones will have nowhere to hide.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't have a thing someone would want to hack
If you have outbound bandwidth, you have something a hacker wants. Once they 0wn your box, they'll install whatever application they want to run. Be it spamming, virus spreading, distributed computing, whatever... if your data is worthless, they can just delete it to get it out of their way.
A hole scanner just finds holes. It's a hacking tool if used by a hacker, a security tool if used by an admin... the only diffence is what the user intends on doing after the hole is discovered.
Sun's control of the Java language is a benevolent dictatorship. If Java was truely Open Source, then Microsoft could have forked it to allowed J++ to exist on Windows and blow a hole in the "write once, run everywhere" theory.
In order for there to be a language that's solid in all environments, there's got to be a gatekeeper at the door.
The post doesn't say it, but it definitely insinuates that the nefarious RIAA and possibly the BSA is behind this latest worm. Unfortunately, that kind of knee-jerk reaction is counterproductive to finding the real virus spreaders.
This is Slashdot, which also assumes only SCO would write a virus that D-DOSes them.
Basically, news of a D-DOS creates an accusation at whichever side Slashdot hates most, lack of fact notwithstanding.
Was the worm written by...
A: The RIAA, to try to take down the P2P services.
B: A disgruntled artist, who blames the P2P apps for why they can't get paid.
C: The owner of unaffected P2P app trying to take down the competition.
D: A random hacker, who doesn't have any interest in the music industry, but just wants to ruin people's fun.
E: SCO. Because they're associated with anything Slashdot hates.
F: Microsoft. Because they're associated with anything Slashdot hates.
G: CowboyNeal, because he's a suspect on all Slashdot polls.
Nope... not good enough. Signal loss to a loose connection or broken wire is signal loss any way you play it. :)
Massive design flaw found in Apple product, Slashdot prints neutral article. Any bets on the tone if Microsoft made the IPod?
Apple doesn't exactly have the same history of hardware mistakes as Microsoft has in browser/e-mail security issues. If this wasn't the first loosely-connected headphone port on an Apple product, then there'd be cause to be negative.
That, and by the time Slashdot has realized it, Apple is already offering to replace the defective units.
...for being cheap and uber-stylish. For $50 more you could have had a regular iPod with way more storage, but noooooo, you HAD to get an Apple MP3 player in something other than white!
If you want a 15 GB iPod in color, check these guys out. They'll even paint your existing iPod if you're willing to send it in.
Either that, or they didn't do any field testing. If you just hit the buttons, you'll be okay. These failures are happening after the case has been exposed to the normal tensions it'd get being in somebody's pocket... did they do that test?
You can do a lot of testing and still overlook a problem if you're not looking for it.
Talk about an easter egg!
I don't see this as an "easter egg"... it's just a plain bug in the design, failing after typical use.
Maybe the reason why there's a shortage is because Apple had to halt production after figuring out they've got to change this design flaw.
Well, compare that method to other artists who don't label their between-song inserts as tracks, and simply fold them into either the start or end of the songs. Those inserts make sense when listening to the album all the way through, but are quite annoying in a shuffled playlist.
That's my point... that if your 2.4 GHz phone allows you to pick a channel, those channel numbers alone tell you nothing about which one to pick to get out of the way of your own WiFi, they're meaningless.
Many CD versions albums that were originally released in the record-and-tape days have silent tracks that represent a gap of time on the original albums. iTunes will gladly sell those tracks one-by-one for 99 cents as well. It's just a matter of the database building happening on autopilot... if you want it, you get what you paid for.
No. An instruction set is not instructions on how to make a processor... just how to operate it.
They've taken the instruction set, and figured out how to build a chip that executes that instruction set. That's what revese engineering is... figuring out how to build a product that looks just like your comeptitor's product.
The big story here isn't that Intel has done anything "wrong", but they've done something that they haven't done in the past... something that AMD used to do when they were trailing behind Intel.
Now the shoe's on the other foot. AMD has taken one of the signs that used to say Intel was the market leader.
Not really. The 802.11 definiton for the channels are not used by anything else. So, if your 2.4GHz's interface claims there's 20 channels, you just have to guess if those channels are just 1/20th slices of the same pie, or if they've jumped around in their numbering scheme so that one click can get out of the footprint of most problems. You really don't know what your own devices are doing, so how can you predict what the neighbor's are throwing in?
Trial and error it is...
It's not illegal by the FCC because anything goes in 2.4 GHz so long as you don't go over the power limits... there's no bandwidth-footprint limit that keeps you from using everything between the lines.
However, this does violate the IEEE specs for 802.11b and 802.11g. They can claim that they can interoperate with such devices, but they aren't one themselves. Those specs say one channel to a customer so that other applications and networks can exist without being blown off the air.
Two 801.11g networks next to each other can perform perfectly well once they realize to get themselves on non-overlapping channels. Two of these devices next to each other are going to collide left and right and have nowhere to run.
Large old office buildings that arn't wired for ethernet, large warehouses, and people who live on large plots of land.
Common bond: Areas where for the range of WiFi, you control nearlly all of the territory. Therefore, you're sure you're not getting in the way of anybody else because there's nobody else arround.
A densely packed dorm or appartment house is not the place to do that. It's to the point that in 2-family dwellings, the families need to agree on a consumer bandwidth sharing plan between each other so they don't buy devices that'll collide. Something like "You go on channel 3, I'll go on channel 10 for WiFi, and we'll reserve 900MHz for phones so don't get a 2.4GHz one..."
Yep... but you have to be careful what you're using is right for your application. If you're using WiFi to go accross the room, you should be using Bluetooth.
Exactly. That's the reason why the FCC and its international counterparts have to license most frequencies... otherwise there'd be more people wanting to broadcast than useful space and all sorts of jamming situations would result.
Any time a band is released for consumer applications, this almost always happens... somebody tries an application that uses all of it. Eventually, those devices are shunned by the marketplace when they're blamed for causing everything else on the same band not to work...
They're doing neither 802.11b nor 802.11g... they're violating the part of the specs that say they should only be on one channel. Therefore, their devices are compatible with both... but they're doing a flawed implementation on purpose to trade the performance gain for taking the entire 2.4GHz band as theirs.
They're basically getting all of their performance gains simply by violating the part of the WiFi standard that says you should only use one channel at a time, and leave 2/3 of the bandwidth space for other possible applications. Not to revolutionary a concept... just one that causes problems only for people other than the buyers of their systems.
It's known that mixing 802.11b and 802.11g on the same network causes slowdowns... their effective solution is to put the 802.11b devices on a different channel and therefore a different network than the 802.11g devices and join the two networks at their access point.
All of the channels basically overlap with the other channels. However, if you're on 1, 6, and 11, you manage to cover the entire chart without duplicating yourself.
Translation: They're covering the entire 2.4 GHz band, and making no appoligies to anybody else who hoped to use it near their systems. Any 2.4 GHz phones will have nowhere to hide.