I like to fiddle with computers as much as anyone else, but oddly enjoy having an iPhone that just does and is locked down. So perhaps the way forward is to ship products that are, by default, locked up tighter than an iPhone but with the option to incrementally relax restrictions. This way the average user who couldn't care less about what is going on under the hood and is susceptible to drive-by attacks is fairly safe. But then those who would like to fiddle and are probably a lot more security conscious have the freedom they need.
That's much like Andriod behaves together with the Google store. The Google store provides the safety catch and you can get around that if you want to. A difference is that it does not rely on code inspection, so there is more chance of bad programs getting through. It also does not protect as much against programs that are just badly designed or are careless regarding security/privacy. The access conditions make sure that applications cannot just access any API even if you use another store or direct download. E.g. a game would require me to allow it to use phone functions.
I also think that continual updates don't help much. The average user does just want a machine that they can use to browse the internet, type the odd letter, and so on. Continually pushing new versions of this and that gets them into the habit of updating and installing stuff they don't understand. It might be better to encourage these people to take their machine in for a regular service to someone who knows what they are doing, same as a car.
I'm sorry, but that's a very bad idea. Even applications that are not susceptible to buffer overflows and other low level memory management related attacks are vulnerable to other kinds of attacks. If I would have a banking application on my mobile, I would like to make sure that it is up to date. Hey, maybe there is a bug in the SSL handling where they allow third party certs to be accepted.
The trick is to let the OS handle the updates, and make applications resistant against these updates. Again, with Android you get continuous messages that your application update won't harm your user data (and configuration, most of the time). That said, Android 2.1 has only been given auto-update functionality some time ago, and users need to activate it themselves. It would be a good idea to make that a access condition/setting as well for security relevant applications.
The problem with updates is that many people associate it with the (old) windows way of doing updates. Some kind of application specific updater (within the app itself or as a service/tray icon) indicates that there is an update. The user then has to go through X steps for the update to take place, shutting down all the required applications. Then the user may even be asked to do a restart, and should pray that the update went successfully. It's just so stupid if you have an operating system that does not even reliably let you manage your applications, it's just beyond belief.
No, it states that he retrieved the username/password by asking them. The found a note next to his XBox from the neighbour next door. Both she and her husband had voluntarily given this information. Extra points for trying to read Dutch articles though:)
Note that the neighbour has given up the password of the (ADSL) router voluntarily because the internet connection of the suspect (probably cable) was sometimes unstable. So the message was just posted over a connection differently than the one he owned, probably to disguise his location. Nonetheless, it seems he just used the internet connection, albeit in a way that is not according to Dutch law. The neighbour has just been inconvenienced and will probably now think twice when somebody asks her to share her internet connection. But I don't see how this is the same as "breaking into a computer". If it was, imagine what would happen to you if you borrowed a piece of kitchen equipment while taking care of the house of your neighbour*1.
Note: I'm Dutch, if you require anything translated, please let me know by posting in this thread
*1) I'm starting to get old, nowadays you just ask over mobile:) But you get my drift.
Yeah, like all those fat cats at the banks - I've heard they are all chewing straw now. Flawed reasoning; it may be disadvantageous to the company, but the short term gains are more important to many people. Just like the fact that keeping those things open is way more advantageous than closing them down at huge cost.
"Yes, that's right, felons were re-armed if they were arrested with a firearm. They understood this was essential to allowing them to live."
Yes, and if I'm not thoroughly mistaken, at this day and age it certainly isn't. That is, unless the person is involved in gang fights, in which case giving them a gun is probably not such a bright idea either. I don't see why the "point remains" (outside of the question if it is unconstitutional or not).
Utter crud. Right. But if I look at Wikipedia then I find that there were quite a lot of breeder reactors designed, and *none* of them could ever be used to capacity, and *all* of them are out of the running.
What's utter crud is saying that you've (hah) solved the problem by proposing a breeder reactor, while the breeder reactors have been researched quite well and failed. There are also many articles on how the use of sodium is - seemingly - too high a risk to take.
I'm all for further research, but you cannot say that the waste problem is solved by just mentioning breeder reactors (and even then there is the 10 to 40% waste that you still have to process somehow - currently it seems to be in "temporary storage" until a solution is found.
1) How do you reprocess the fuel to extract the plutonium without creating nuclear waste? 2) Do we really want to have that much plutonium stored in reactors over the world?
As you will well know, the trouble with nuclear power plants is that when they fail, they fail spectacularly. Just saying there have been 0 deaths lately is not saying much if you've just narrowly escaped a meltdown. And we know what will happen if even a *partial* meltdown happens: Chernobyl. It's then not just the initial meltdown, it's a large area that is rendered uninhabitable for a very very long time. Imagine one of those clouds going over a multi-million city and you know that the whole death count of the tsunami is just *nothing* compared to the fall out.
That and the nuclear waste, which seems to be an unsolved problem that is just silently ignored, we just store it indefinitely in locations meant for "temporary storage" and presto. Look at the way the Fins (very down to earth people) are trying to do to get rid of it. And that is just for a small part of their own nuclear waste. And Germany, where they stored the trash in a salt mine and now have to dig up the leaking containers. These are the countries that actually have the money to do things like that. I'll not go into the situation in Russia, because that just makes me sick to the stomach.
I'm all for safe nuclear energy. Saying that the current power plants are anything near the safety required is simply nonsense. Neither coal or nuclear energy is currently at a level where it can produce clean, safe energy at this time.
"My former boss, who was a closed source stooge blamed the DB. Others like me knew these SSDs were not yet ready for prime-time. By the way all this was about 2 years ago. Technology could have changed for the better now."
That is almost certain. First of all, everybody that is serious in the field will tell you that you that that kind of application requires a enterprise (read: SLC flash drive). Chances are that the SSD you've tested with was an older drive with the failed Micron chipset, or maybe even older tech. If you compare those niche products with e.g. a well tested Intel SLC drive with TRIM support, you'll see not just a huge performance boost over the older SSD. Don't forget that earlier flash drives were mostly of interest because of high reliability (as in: crash resistant) and power and weight ratios.
If my information is correct, the number of defects for SSD's are about the same as HDD's, with the exception of the Intel SSD's, which cut the number of returns in about 4 (can't find the article using Google, if anybody has a link?). I've returned mine because of a failed firmware update to remove a controller bug. I would not be amazed if the actual number of failed drives is about 8 times lower than HDD. So sure they fail, but I think that the failure rate will be more like that of DRAM than HDDs. And current HDD's already have a rather low return rate IMHO.
As for the early adopters: this is definitely the year of the SSD, but don't expect a super smooth ride yet. I've got to upgrade my Vertex 2 because of power management issues, but somehow I cannot flash the drive (cannot put it in secure mode). My USB to S/PATA connector does not even support SATA commands. Really annoying stuff - but you'll still have to pry the SSD's from my cold dead hands:)
You forgot to mention that this mostly happens when people are put in a tight spot with no way out. If people would honestly try and make society good - or at least tolerable - for most people, a lot of these problems would go away. That money would be spent much better than spending money on keeping people in prison.
As long as the comparison is interesting, I've got no trouble with that. There is quite a lot of things to be said about both ways of operating.
There are a few things Google can do to alleviate some of this - out of the top of my head: - create a number of "Google approved" applications (much like the Apple store, but without disallowing anything), devs have to pay Google something to have them review the code I suppose) - split applications into categories, the categories would allow them to highlight e.g. games that require phone access and such - let devs apply for a certificate using a strong set of credentials and let them sign their code (hard to reinforce, and criminals could "hire" people to take the fall)
I'm all for a good, technical, discussion between iOS and Android.
"You've downloaded a malicious app. Do you want to delete this app [yes/no/more info]?" or "You've downloaded a malicious app. This app can be removed by downloading . Proceed [yes/no/more info]?"
This works until the app has enough access to remove the counter measures taken by Google.
I hate ISO standards with a passion. They are only really available to people with a vested interest. Most other people wont lay down the money for them. You can not search them using Google, so you get into situations that e.g. software complies to a standard, but you can nevertheless not find the specific terms used. If any government money should be spent on something useful: give it to ISO so they become truly open, as in *free*.
Also note that as a relatively rich dev, at a relatively rich company, I can buy the standards easily. A mid level dev. at an Indian company will find ~60 euro's per standard (which you may or may not need) way too much money. ISO standards suck - make them RFC's or use W3C instead (or anything else that is really open). Preferably something other devs can join as well, the more open the better.
Because of a probably temporary halt in economic growth? There is a lot that has to be done to make the environment more healthy, economic crashes are probably not going to help.
We must face that we are already in a crisis and act quickly. If we don't, we've got a very big problem, both regarding the economy and the environment.
I'm not so sure of that. I do know that battery tech is still the main issue. I've bought a Lenovo laptop (roll cage, spill resistant keyboard) and fitted it out with an Intel SSD (high IO, lowest return to manufacturer) and it will probably last a long long time. The only thing I'm really afraid of is the battery failing. After 2 years, batteries start to die, sometimes earlier. Batteries - and possibly displays - have still a long long way to go.
Repair modding, read the article on why. Can we come up with an interface that allows to undo your modding without commenting please (and why can't I post anymore in different threads on the same subject?)
Slashdot Mirror
I like to fiddle with computers as much as anyone else, but oddly enjoy having an iPhone that just does and is locked down. So perhaps the way forward is to ship products that are, by default, locked up tighter than an iPhone but with the option to incrementally relax restrictions. This way the average user who couldn't care less about what is going on under the hood and is susceptible to drive-by attacks is fairly safe. But then those who would like to fiddle and are probably a lot more security conscious have the freedom they need.
That's much like Andriod behaves together with the Google store. The Google store provides the safety catch and you can get around that if you want to. A difference is that it does not rely on code inspection, so there is more chance of bad programs getting through. It also does not protect as much against programs that are just badly designed or are careless regarding security/privacy. The access conditions make sure that applications cannot just access any API even if you use another store or direct download. E.g. a game would require me to allow it to use phone functions.
I also think that continual updates don't help much. The average user does just want a machine that they can use to browse the internet, type the odd letter, and so on. Continually pushing new versions of this and that gets them into the habit of updating and installing stuff they don't understand. It might be better to encourage these people to take their machine in for a regular service to someone who knows what they are doing, same as a car.
I'm sorry, but that's a very bad idea. Even applications that are not susceptible to buffer overflows and other low level memory management related attacks are vulnerable to other kinds of attacks. If I would have a banking application on my mobile, I would like to make sure that it is up to date. Hey, maybe there is a bug in the SSL handling where they allow third party certs to be accepted.
The trick is to let the OS handle the updates, and make applications resistant against these updates. Again, with Android you get continuous messages that your application update won't harm your user data (and configuration, most of the time). That said, Android 2.1 has only been given auto-update functionality some time ago, and users need to activate it themselves. It would be a good idea to make that a access condition/setting as well for security relevant applications.
The problem with updates is that many people associate it with the (old) windows way of doing updates. Some kind of application specific updater (within the app itself or as a service/tray icon) indicates that there is an update. The user then has to go through X steps for the update to take place, shutting down all the required applications. Then the user may even be asked to do a restart, and should pray that the update went successfully. It's just so stupid if you have an operating system that does not even reliably let you manage your applications, it's just beyond belief.
No, it states that he retrieved the username/password by asking them. The found a note next to his XBox from the neighbour next door. Both she and her husband had voluntarily given this information. Extra points for trying to read Dutch articles though :)
Note that the neighbour has given up the password of the (ADSL) router voluntarily because the internet connection of the suspect (probably cable) was sometimes unstable. So the message was just posted over a connection differently than the one he owned, probably to disguise his location. Nonetheless, it seems he just used the internet connection, albeit in a way that is not according to Dutch law. The neighbour has just been inconvenienced and will probably now think twice when somebody asks her to share her internet connection. But I don't see how this is the same as "breaking into a computer". If it was, imagine what would happen to you if you borrowed a piece of kitchen equipment while taking care of the house of your neighbour*1.
Note: I'm Dutch, if you require anything translated, please let me know by posting in this thread
*1) I'm starting to get old, nowadays you just ask over mobile :) But you get my drift.
Yeah, like all those fat cats at the banks - I've heard they are all chewing straw now. Flawed reasoning; it may be disadvantageous to the company, but the short term gains are more important to many people. Just like the fact that keeping those things open is way more advantageous than closing them down at huge cost.
I guess it is still stuck where it was a few years ago :)
Psion has nothing on my watch. It runs for years on a single battery.
"Yes, that's right, felons were re-armed if they were arrested with a firearm. They understood this was essential to allowing them to live."
Yes, and if I'm not thoroughly mistaken, at this day and age it certainly isn't. That is, unless the person is involved in gang fights, in which case giving them a gun is probably not such a bright idea either. I don't see why the "point remains" (outside of the question if it is unconstitutional or not).
Utter crud. Right. But if I look at Wikipedia then I find that there were quite a lot of breeder reactors designed, and *none* of them could ever be used to capacity, and *all* of them are out of the running.
What's utter crud is saying that you've (hah) solved the problem by proposing a breeder reactor, while the breeder reactors have been researched quite well and failed. There are also many articles on how the use of sodium is - seemingly - too high a risk to take.
I'm all for further research, but you cannot say that the waste problem is solved by just mentioning breeder reactors (and even then there is the 10 to 40% waste that you still have to process somehow - currently it seems to be in "temporary storage" until a solution is found.
And what about this article?
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1272/is_2779_138/ai_n53905175/
1) How do you reprocess the fuel to extract the plutonium without creating nuclear waste?
2) Do we really want to have that much plutonium stored in reactors over the world?
Nuclear waste? Have you solved that already? Oh, thought so.
Yeah, it's just one of those odd one in a billion events that unfortunately happened within 70 years since the first reactor was build.
As you will well know, the trouble with nuclear power plants is that when they fail, they fail spectacularly. Just saying there have been 0 deaths lately is not saying much if you've just narrowly escaped a meltdown. And we know what will happen if even a *partial* meltdown happens: Chernobyl. It's then not just the initial meltdown, it's a large area that is rendered uninhabitable for a very very long time. Imagine one of those clouds going over a multi-million city and you know that the whole death count of the tsunami is just *nothing* compared to the fall out.
That and the nuclear waste, which seems to be an unsolved problem that is just silently ignored, we just store it indefinitely in locations meant for "temporary storage" and presto. Look at the way the Fins (very down to earth people) are trying to do to get rid of it. And that is just for a small part of their own nuclear waste. And Germany, where they stored the trash in a salt mine and now have to dig up the leaking containers. These are the countries that actually have the money to do things like that. I'll not go into the situation in Russia, because that just makes me sick to the stomach.
I'm all for safe nuclear energy. Saying that the current power plants are anything near the safety required is simply nonsense. Neither coal or nuclear energy is currently at a level where it can produce clean, safe energy at this time.
I propose twoday today where we write down that specific constant as 2Pi.
"My former boss, who was a closed source stooge blamed the DB. Others like me knew these SSDs were not yet ready for prime-time. By the way all this was about 2 years ago. Technology could have changed for the better now."
That is almost certain. First of all, everybody that is serious in the field will tell you that you that that kind of application requires a enterprise (read: SLC flash drive). Chances are that the SSD you've tested with was an older drive with the failed Micron chipset, or maybe even older tech. If you compare those niche products with e.g. a well tested Intel SLC drive with TRIM support, you'll see not just a huge performance boost over the older SSD. Don't forget that earlier flash drives were mostly of interest because of high reliability (as in: crash resistant) and power and weight ratios.
Of course, if you're a real player with some money to spend:
https://shop.sun.com/store/product/8be96180-a21a-11dd-a2a2-080020a9ed93
# Over 1 million IOPS
That oughta do it, especially made for DB applications :)
For home users, the IOPS of a Vertex 2 drive should be ample, for workstations I would still go for the G2 - also because of reliability.
If my information is correct, the number of defects for SSD's are about the same as HDD's, with the exception of the Intel SSD's, which cut the number of returns in about 4 (can't find the article using Google, if anybody has a link?). I've returned mine because of a failed firmware update to remove a controller bug. I would not be amazed if the actual number of failed drives is about 8 times lower than HDD. So sure they fail, but I think that the failure rate will be more like that of DRAM than HDDs. And current HDD's already have a rather low return rate IMHO.
As for the early adopters: this is definitely the year of the SSD, but don't expect a super smooth ride yet. I've got to upgrade my Vertex 2 because of power management issues, but somehow I cannot flash the drive (cannot put it in secure mode). My USB to S/PATA connector does not even support SATA commands. Really annoying stuff - but you'll still have to pry the SSD's from my cold dead hands :)
You forgot to mention that this mostly happens when people are put in a tight spot with no way out. If people would honestly try and make society good - or at least tolerable - for most people, a lot of these problems would go away. That money would be spent much better than spending money on keeping people in prison.
As long as the comparison is interesting, I've got no trouble with that. There is quite a lot of things to be said about both ways of operating.
There are a few things Google can do to alleviate some of this - out of the top of my head:
- create a number of "Google approved" applications (much like the Apple store, but without disallowing anything), devs have to pay Google something to have them review the code I suppose)
- split applications into categories, the categories would allow them to highlight e.g. games that require phone access and such
- let devs apply for a certificate using a strong set of credentials and let them sign their code (hard to reinforce, and criminals could "hire" people to take the fall)
I'm all for a good, technical, discussion between iOS and Android.
"You've downloaded a malicious app. Do you want to delete this app [yes/no/more info]?" or
"You've downloaded a malicious app. This app can be removed by downloading . Proceed [yes/no/more info]?"
This works until the app has enough access to remove the counter measures taken by Google.
OTOH, a scientific calculator that requires access to *anything* is rather suspect.
Yeah, so now we know the number of people too lazy to change their default search engine :)
I hate ISO standards with a passion. They are only really available to people with a vested interest. Most other people wont lay down the money for them. You can not search them using Google, so you get into situations that e.g. software complies to a standard, but you can nevertheless not find the specific terms used. If any government money should be spent on something useful: give it to ISO so they become truly open, as in *free*.
Also note that as a relatively rich dev, at a relatively rich company, I can buy the standards easily. A mid level dev. at an Indian company will find ~60 euro's per standard (which you may or may not need) way too much money. ISO standards suck - make them RFC's or use W3C instead (or anything else that is really open). Preferably something other devs can join as well, the more open the better.
Because of a probably temporary halt in economic growth? There is a lot that has to be done to make the environment more healthy, economic crashes are probably not going to help.
We must face that we are already in a crisis and act quickly. If we don't, we've got a very big problem, both regarding the economy and the environment.
I'm not so sure of that. I do know that battery tech is still the main issue. I've bought a Lenovo laptop (roll cage, spill resistant keyboard) and fitted it out with an Intel SSD (high IO, lowest return to manufacturer) and it will probably last a long long time. The only thing I'm really afraid of is the battery failing. After 2 years, batteries start to die, sometimes earlier. Batteries - and possibly displays - have still a long long way to go.
Repair modding, read the article on why. Can we come up with an interface that allows to undo your modding without commenting please (and why can't I post anymore in different threads on the same subject?)