It's mid-July, and Windows 7 isn't even released yet. Even if companies started testing Windows 7 in their environments today, planning to deploy it before the end of the year would be pretty fast for any mid-to-large company.
Combine that with the general wisdom that you should wait for Microsoft's first (at least) service pack before purchasing any of their products, and there's an even stronger reason for companies to take their time.
So I really can't see why this article's statistics are considered newsworthy.
Oh come on now. He isn't all that bad. Sure, he has his issues. He is slow. He is bloated. He doesn't treat me correctly. He's complex. He's slow. The way he treats me leaves a lot to be desired. Sure, I would rather he talked to me instead of punch me in the face. He is slow. He has a hard time staying employed. But really, he's not THAT bad...
So that's basically a mechanically implemented low-pass filter, right? I would think that it would be easier and cheaper to implement electronic low-pass filters at each wall outlet. Especially if you're worried about someone plugging a sniffer into one of the facility's interior power outlets.
But it wouldn't be cheaper, and it would definitely be less secure. With a mechanical low-pass filter, you have one central node you have to maintain. You have a big capital outlay, but once built, the motor-generator combo is very, very reliable, and needs little maintenance. It is practically impossible for a lone attacker to compromise it. With electronic low-pass filters at each outlet, you have hundreds (if not thousands) of nodes to monitor and maintain (consider the ongoing expense of that), and it becomes very easy for a single person to compromise one of those nodes using just a screwdriver.
Good security is never just a matter of money. It's a matter of understanding how attackers behave, knowing how people and equipment can be compromised, and then spending money wisely, even if not frugally.
But the mechanical barrier is so big and expensive that you can only afford to have them at major barriers. That still leaves all the devices on the "trusted" side of the barrier as running on what's essentially a big, trusted data bus.
If someone can sneak a sniffer into the secure area and plug it into an unmonitored electrical outlet that's electrically near a secure system, then you have a problem.
So I guess the question is, do you trust all the people on the inside? And do you adequately scrutinize all devices they bring inside, including everything that might have a tiny microchip?
An electronic solution would be easier and cheaper, but how do you prove it works? What happens when a component fails? Sometimes simple solutions are the most reliable.
Presumably by the same means you prove that the mechanical system works.
My guess is that there's actually more existing research on how to design extremely effective electronic filters for a certain frequency band (or anything that makes the SNR get very close to 0 while keeping noise to acceptable limits), than there is regarding the use of a motor/generator combination to achieve the same effect. If anything, I'd expect more justification to be needed for the (presumably less studied) mechanical solution.
Facebook and the Merging of Games and Social Networks
At the risk of sounding like someone who was 50 years old when COBOL became popular, games and social networks already occupy the same category in my mind.
I worked in a facility that was fully TEMPEST shielded in the 80's. Dual airlock doors with full metal seals to get in. The power line leakage problem was taken care of a motor/generator setup. Incoming power only went to an electic motor. The motor was connected by a shaft which spun a generator to supply power to the computer room. With only a mechanical connection no data would be leaking back.
So that's basically a mechanically implemented low-pass filter, right? I would think that it would be easier and cheaper to implement electronic low-pass filters at each wall outlet. Especially if you're worried about someone plugging a sniffer into one of the facility's interior power outlets.
It is a very miserable language to write in, and I wouldn't code in it for less than several hundreds of dollars per hour, just because its so boring and takes way too much typing to do simple things that would be a snap in other languages.
Couldn't you write in a more concise language, and have a simple compiler generate the equivalent COBOL code?
Even if it couldn't reverse-translate existing COBOL code, it could make your life a lot easier for newly written code.
Perhaps the greatest benefit of this ruling is that it could be appealed up to the SCOTUS.
Granted, this is risky for both sides. But perhaps if the SCOTUS gets enough appeal requests regarding software patents, it will finally address them.
As a practicing CS researcher and as a programmer, I sincerely feel that patent threats are the greatest limitation we face on software innovation. I can't begin to imagine that the benefits to our society are outweighing the costs.
Just think one day we can grow massive "pillars" in the earth, and these "pillars" can sequester carbon and be powered by the sun as they grow. Then as they reach a certain height and are no longer as efficient as they once were, we can take them down and use them as fuel. We can then plant new pillars to grow and use the by products from old burnt "pillars" to help the new ones grow. Perhaps then if we properly manage these "pillar farms" and modify the "pillars" just right we can have them absorb more carbon from the air than they release when burned for fuel.
Slashdot Mirror
It's mid-July, and Windows 7 isn't even released yet. Even if companies started testing Windows 7 in their environments today, planning to deploy it before the end of the year would be pretty fast for any mid-to-large company.
Combine that with the general wisdom that you should wait for Microsoft's first (at least) service pack before purchasing any of their products, and there's an even stronger reason for companies to take their time.
So I really can't see why this article's statistics are considered newsworthy.
FWIW, I get your joke and think it's very funny.
BTW, it's "bin", not "ben".
To whoever modded the parent down as "Troll": I really think you're off the mark.
surely we should all be changing our passwords back to "Joshua"?
Yeah? You want to play a game, mothafucka???
Hang up your punk-ass modem and step down. She-it.
(Okay, I probably need to stop watching The Wire before I go to work.)
So am I if my computer is boned?
So, how's going to set the record for sending the first pornography packet into outer space?
Oh come on now. He isn't all that bad. Sure, he has his issues. He is slow. He is bloated. He doesn't treat me correctly. He's complex. He's slow. The way he treats me leaves a lot to be desired. Sure, I would rather he talked to me instead of punch me in the face. He is slow. He has a hard time staying employed. But really, he's not THAT bad...
But... the chairs. Oh God, the chairs...
companies that grab hold of SharePoint integration with Exchange and MS Office, would rather give up their children than that combo.
So the stereotypes are true??? Damn...
But it wouldn't be cheaper, and it would definitely be less secure. With a mechanical low-pass filter, you have one central node you have to maintain. You have a big capital outlay, but once built, the motor-generator combo is very, very reliable, and needs little maintenance. It is practically impossible for a lone attacker to compromise it. With electronic low-pass filters at each outlet, you have hundreds (if not thousands) of nodes to monitor and maintain (consider the ongoing expense of that), and it becomes very easy for a single person to compromise one of those nodes using just a screwdriver.
Good security is never just a matter of money. It's a matter of understanding how attackers behave, knowing how people and equipment can be compromised, and then spending money wisely, even if not frugally.
But the mechanical barrier is so big and expensive that you can only afford to have them at major barriers. That still leaves all the devices on the "trusted" side of the barrier as running on what's essentially a big, trusted data bus.
If someone can sneak a sniffer into the secure area and plug it into an unmonitored electrical outlet that's electrically near a secure system, then you have a problem.
So I guess the question is, do you trust all the people on the inside? And do you adequately scrutinize all devices they bring inside, including everything that might have a tiny microchip?
An electronic solution would be easier and cheaper, but how do you prove it works? What happens when a component fails? Sometimes simple solutions are the most reliable.
Presumably by the same means you prove that the mechanical system works.
My guess is that there's actually more existing research on how to design extremely effective electronic filters for a certain frequency band (or anything that makes the SNR get very close to 0 while keeping noise to acceptable limits), than there is regarding the use of a motor/generator combination to achieve the same effect. If anything, I'd expect more justification to be needed for the (presumably less studied) mechanical solution.
I'm not going to spend the time deep-diving on this one, but you're being a little overconfident, I think. Here's just a guess about you:
At the risk of sounding like someone who was 50 years old when COBOL became popular, games and social networks already occupy the same category in my mind.
I worked in a facility that was fully TEMPEST shielded in the 80's. Dual airlock doors with full metal seals to get in. The power line leakage problem was taken care of a motor/generator setup. Incoming power only went to an electic motor. The motor was connected by a shaft which spun a generator to supply power to the computer room. With only a mechanical connection no data would be leaking back.
So that's basically a mechanically implemented low-pass filter, right? I would think that it would be easier and cheaper to implement electronic low-pass filters at each wall outlet. Especially if you're worried about someone plugging a sniffer into one of the facility's interior power outlets.
Some/all of APC's surge suppressors contain in-line EMI filters.
Is that enough to stop this hack?
Thanks, but isn't your explanation a bit over-simplified?
So what happens when you're thin enough? How do you avoid going down to dangerously low amounts of stored fat?
Do genetic modifications go away on their own over time, or do they propagate as the affected cells divide?
It is a very miserable language to write in, and I wouldn't code in it for less than several hundreds of dollars per hour, just because its so boring and takes way too much typing to do simple things that would be a snap in other languages.
Couldn't you write in a more concise language, and have a simple compiler generate the equivalent COBOL code?
Even if it couldn't reverse-translate existing COBOL code, it could make your life a lot easier for newly written code.
No mod points at the moment, but FWIW I'd +1 Funny the post.
One must wonder ...
...how pilots experienced in the area and are still alive know that these downdrafts can rip the wings off an airplane?
Yes, it's odd. Almost as though they can somehow communicate amongst themselves or even read NTSB reports.
Yes... this definitely is something we need to understand better.
p>I thought they already accepted an appeal of the Bilski case and were going to hear it next year?
Well, so much for that "+5 Insightful" I was going to give my wife for her birthday...
Perhaps the greatest benefit of this ruling is that it could be appealed up to the SCOTUS.
Granted, this is risky for both sides. But perhaps if the SCOTUS gets enough appeal requests regarding software patents, it will finally address them.
As a practicing CS researcher and as a programmer, I sincerely feel that patent threats are the greatest limitation we face on software innovation. I can't begin to imagine that the benefits to our society are outweighing the costs.
One newspaper alleges that another did this. Why does the summary state, without qualification, that it occurred?
What I noticed is a dramatic shift in the listening to your IT guy lately.
In other news, we're firing our IT guy for letting you hack our webcams.
You read the web page? I just drink a fifth of Jack, bang on the keyboard, and let the moderators sort it out.
Just think one day we can grow massive "pillars" in the earth, and these "pillars" can sequester carbon and be powered by the sun as they grow. Then as they reach a certain height and are no longer as efficient as they once were, we can take them down and use them as fuel. We can then plant new pillars to grow and use the by products from old burnt "pillars" to help the new ones grow. Perhaps then if we properly manage these "pillar farms" and modify the "pillars" just right we can have them absorb more carbon from the air than they release when burned for fuel.
Perhaps, but is that technology "green"?