Don't most people hook their DVD players up to their receivers using either an optical or a coaxial digital cable? Why would changing anything in the dvd player make any kind of difference in the sound quality if all the player is doing is passing along a digital bitstream to the receiver?
Whistleblower protection prevents a company from firing or otherwise disciplining you.. You don't get a get-out-of-jail-free card just because your company is doing something illegal and you know about it.
It might be a violation of the terms of service with their ISP, but I'm not sure it's illegal... In any case, if what he was doing turns out to be illegal then it really doesn't matter if he has the goods on the company or not.
IPSentry is cheap and easy to set up, and it can monitor a lot more than temperature and humidity. It has a ton of ways to notify you, and you can write your own notification modules in VB if you want.
But the one trick that is left, if you only want basic service and internet, is to order just the internet and then split the cable. You will get basic programming for free.
Not with Cablevision...f**kers put a filter on my line.
I'm not sure I'd call them shortsighted.. They successfully extorted hundreds of millions of dollars out of MS all in the name of "consumer choice" which we now know was a load of BS.
Assuming this is to be used for quantum cryptography (the original article is terribly badly written and this isn't clear), latency has absolutely nothing to do with it. A man-in-the-middle attack simply won't work due to quantum mechanics.
I'm no physicist, but I think this is different.. It's closer to current fiber transmission technology, but instead of sending a burst of photons for a short, fixed duration you only send a single one.
I only threw that out as the first obvious point of attack, but even for your delay problem, I can think of an obvious workaround if the data rate of the "secure" channel remains less than the rate of non-secure channels.
Yeah I'd assume that's one of the reasons they're working on improving the speed. If they can get it closer to the speed of light (which they're a LONG way from), and the endpoints can measure the round-trip time precisely enough, it'll be nearly impervious to repeaters.
There are always other places and methods to attack. For example, if we concede that the channel is impervious (which I still doubt), then the adversary would have to go after the information at the endpoints, either before or after it entered or left the channel.
Sure, but having a secure channel would be a huge step towards more secure data. Long cable runs have historically been an easy target since they're very difficult to defend. Think of all of the spycraft incidents that have been reported - tunnels, submarines, wiretaps, etc. Getting into a secure facility to attack an endpoint is much much harder than tapping the cable somewhere along the way unless you're the guy from Splinter Cell.
Adding a repeater in the middle would add latency which could be easily detected by either end by running a few simple tests. Since this is a point-to-point technology your transmission speeds should be predictable and constant.
If you really needed the paycheck and you're going to have financial problems because you're not drawing a paycheck then you're a fool. If that's not the case, then there's no reason to keep working while you devote yourself to finding a job that you will not hate.
I use IPSentry to monitor our servers. It's cheap, easy to use, and can check just about anything you'd want to. You can even write your own monitoring and alerting plugins if that's your thing.
Clustering SQL Server is heavily reliant on MS Cluster Services in the enterprise editions of Windows Server. I doubt you could just run SQL under Linux and expect it to be clusterable.
There are plenty of ways to get a good analog signal. HDCP does not protect the analog signal, nor was it designed to. HDCP is supposed to protect the original digital bitstream, PERIOD. Other technologies (Macrovision, watermarking, etc.) are supposed to protect analog signals. Putting the HDCP and D/A conversion in the same chip makes it difficult to separate the two processes and get at the digital signal before it is converted to analog. Once it's analog, you have to reencode it back into digital form. No matter how good a signal you're getting, this is not the same as a digital copy of the original and that's all that HDCP is supposed to prevent you from getting.
So on the output of this chip there is a normal RGB (plus sync) signal. This is fed to the switching matrix (where it is combined with all other inputs the TV supports) and then this analog RGB signal is again digitized and fed to the scaler that scales it up or down to drive the LCD panel.
HDCP is designed to protect the digital stream, not the analog signal. If the chip decrypted the digital stream and fed it to the scaler, it would be vulnerable. It looks like that by converting it to analog in the same chip, they're preventing the decrypted digital signal from being copied. Sure you can re-encode it, but you can do that with an analog output just as well.
Slashdot will continue posting Cringely articles two to three times a month whether or not he has anything worthwhile, interesting or surprising to say, just because it's Cringely.
It's also because he almost always throws in a couple of fanatical anti-Microsoft rants.
Actually if you take the time to read what it tells you after the scan, it says:
"This software is not necessarily hazardous unless it is used by a particular spyware threat. If you quarantine or remove all of the spyware threats from your computer you do not necessarily need to remove this program. Please note: if a legitimate application is using functionality contained in an enabler application, removing the enabler may cause that application to cease functioning properly.
This application is okay to have running on your computer, as they are only dangerous if a Spyware application is also installed on your machine and exploiting it. However if you did not install this, or know of a legitimate application that did, you may consider quarantining or removing it. Please note: if a legitimate application is using functionality contained in an enabler application, it may cause that application to cease functioning properly."
The simple solution is to select "Always ignore" and you'll never see it pop up in another scan.
I'll take a little picture degradation to be able to hang a 37" TV on the bedroom wall rather than having a 200-pound behemoth taking up 3/4 of my dresser. And you'd have a hard time telling the difference in picture quality from 15' away unless you saw them side by side.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't most people hook their DVD players up to their receivers using either an optical or a coaxial digital cable? Why would changing anything in the dvd player make any kind of difference in the sound quality if all the player is doing is passing along a digital bitstream to the receiver?
Whistleblower protection prevents a company from firing or otherwise disciplining you.. You don't get a get-out-of-jail-free card just because your company is doing something illegal and you know about it.
It might be a violation of the terms of service with their ISP, but I'm not sure it's illegal... In any case, if what he was doing turns out to be illegal then it really doesn't matter if he has the goods on the company or not.
IPSentry is cheap and easy to set up, and it can monitor a lot more than temperature and humidity. It has a ton of ways to notify you, and you can write your own notification modules in VB if you want.
But the one trick that is left, if you only want basic service and internet, is to order just the internet and then split the cable. You will get basic programming for free.
Not with Cablevision...f**kers put a filter on my line.
I'm not sure I'd call them shortsighted.. They successfully extorted hundreds of millions of dollars out of MS all in the name of "consumer choice" which we now know was a load of BS.
Assuming this is to be used for quantum cryptography (the original article is terribly badly written and this isn't clear), latency has absolutely nothing to do with it. A man-in-the-middle attack simply won't work due to quantum mechanics.
I'm no physicist, but I think this is different.. It's closer to current fiber transmission technology, but instead of sending a burst of photons for a short, fixed duration you only send a single one.
I only threw that out as the first obvious point of attack, but even for your delay problem, I can think of an obvious workaround if the data rate of the "secure" channel remains less than the rate of non-secure channels.
Yeah I'd assume that's one of the reasons they're working on improving the speed. If they can get it closer to the speed of light (which they're a LONG way from), and the endpoints can measure the round-trip time precisely enough, it'll be nearly impervious to repeaters.
There are always other places and methods to attack. For example, if we concede that the channel is impervious (which I still doubt), then the adversary would have to go after the information at the endpoints, either before or after it entered or left the channel.
Sure, but having a secure channel would be a huge step towards more secure data. Long cable runs have historically been an easy target since they're very difficult to defend. Think of all of the spycraft incidents that have been reported - tunnels, submarines, wiretaps, etc. Getting into a secure facility to attack an endpoint is much much harder than tapping the cable somewhere along the way unless you're the guy from Splinter Cell.
Adding a repeater in the middle would add latency which could be easily detected by either end by running a few simple tests. Since this is a point-to-point technology your transmission speeds should be predictable and constant.
The user registry should be in the user's home directory.
Ever wonder what that NTUSER.DAT file in your home directory is?
If you really needed the paycheck and you're going to have financial problems because you're not drawing a paycheck then you're a fool. If that's not the case, then there's no reason to keep working while you devote yourself to finding a job that you will not hate.
I use IPSentry to monitor our servers. It's cheap, easy to use, and can check just about anything you'd want to. You can even write your own monitoring and alerting plugins if that's your thing.
Clustering SQL Server is heavily reliant on MS Cluster Services in the enterprise editions of Windows Server. I doubt you could just run SQL under Linux and expect it to be clusterable.
She tells him that directly.. Of course if he's just imagining her, I guess he could have dreamed up that conversation as well.
It's mental fuckery caused by a microchip implanted in his brain.
Halo 2 = teh suck
Ghost Recon 2 = teh hotness
It's not the tiles that have this problem, it's the reinforced carbon-carbon (RCC) pieces on the leading edges of the wings.
There are plenty of ways to get a good analog signal. HDCP does not protect the analog signal, nor was it designed to. HDCP is supposed to protect the original digital bitstream, PERIOD. Other technologies (Macrovision, watermarking, etc.) are supposed to protect analog signals. Putting the HDCP and D/A conversion in the same chip makes it difficult to separate the two processes and get at the digital signal before it is converted to analog. Once it's analog, you have to reencode it back into digital form. No matter how good a signal you're getting, this is not the same as a digital copy of the original and that's all that HDCP is supposed to prevent you from getting.
But you still have to reencode it.. That's not what HDCP is designed to prevent.
So on the output of this chip there is a normal RGB (plus sync) signal. This is fed to the switching matrix (where it is combined with all other inputs the TV supports) and then this analog RGB signal is again digitized and fed to the scaler that scales it up or down to drive the LCD panel.
HDCP is designed to protect the digital stream, not the analog signal. If the chip decrypted the digital stream and fed it to the scaler, it would be vulnerable. It looks like that by converting it to analog in the same chip, they're preventing the decrypted digital signal from being copied. Sure you can re-encode it, but you can do that with an analog output just as well.
How about some Wi-Fi Proof Paint? Or just freeload on your neighbor's network...
Slashdot will continue posting Cringely articles two to three times a month whether or not he has anything worthwhile, interesting or surprising to say, just because it's Cringely.
It's also because he almost always throws in a couple of fanatical anti-Microsoft rants.
While it's nice to something as fast as possible, is there a point to have a 3.0Gb/s interface to a product that can only handle 817Mb/s?
The drive's onboard cache runs a lot faster than the drive itself.
Actually if you take the time to read what it tells you after the scan, it says:
"This software is not necessarily hazardous unless it is used by a particular spyware threat. If you quarantine or remove all of the spyware threats from your computer you do not necessarily need to remove this program. Please note: if a legitimate application is using functionality contained in an enabler application, removing the enabler may cause that application to cease functioning properly. This application is okay to have running on your computer, as they are only dangerous if a Spyware application is also installed on your machine and exploiting it. However if you did not install this, or know of a legitimate application that did, you may consider quarantining or removing it. Please note: if a legitimate application is using functionality contained in an enabler application, it may cause that application to cease functioning properly."
The simple solution is to select "Always ignore" and you'll never see it pop up in another scan.
I'll take a little picture degradation to be able to hang a 37" TV on the bedroom wall rather than having a 200-pound behemoth taking up 3/4 of my dresser. And you'd have a hard time telling the difference in picture quality from 15' away unless you saw them side by side.