Security is hard to get right because you have to get *everything* right. Make one mistake and you've got no security.
I don't agree. Isn't one of the basic principles of security to use multiple layers? Firewall, IDS, TCP wrappers, strong passwords, etc. Insert various other security methods anywhere in the chain and you can be well defended. If I make a mistake in my firewall config, I should still be reasonably sure that I won't be totally compromised.
I recently discovered that with Xbox Media Center (http://xboxmediacenter.de) I can do just this. There are certainly downsides -- the browsing interface isn't as flexible as with a web browser, and searching kind of blows because you have to type in your search terms with your remote control via an on-screen keyboard. But it is YouTube on your TV. I was surprised at how decent it looked.
I was watching "Kidnapped" last night (I don't recall which network it's on) and they were looking at someone's computer and "31337" was on the screen. The lead character went on to say that this meant "elite" in the hacker community. This didn't impress me much, but he went on to say, "Also, 31337 is the UDP port that the hacker group Cult of the Dead Cow uses to access Windows 95 PCs using Back Orafice."
A little dated, but I thought that was a pretty impressive reference for a television show to make.
Technically this is a convenient way to stuff a lot of managed storage into a small space with low power consumption. Cool, but it's really nothing more than a bunch of servers in a single rack with big hard drives. If I've got a petabyte of storage to utilize I want to manage it as one large pool (or several large pools), not 40 servers, on each of which I need to run an OS and services which make a relatively small portion of that storage available. Where's my FC or iSCSI target ports?
Put your virtual machine images on iSCSI or ATAoE LUNs. Make copies at will. Don't worry about copying the full image at boot, just boot the virtual machine from the hard disk images on the SAN. I guess you need a SAN first, but iSCSI SANs are cheap and relatively easy these days.
The main benefit of linux is a stable kernel versus an unstable kernel (microsoft)
Replace "unstable" with bloated or proprietary and I'll agree. The stability/BSOD arguments against Windows don't really carry that much weight any more.
There is no technical solution for a social problem.
I'm not so sure. While it isn't popular and would suck immensely, an OS or computer that was only allowed to run signed executables is a technical solution to this problem. Of course, this only works as long as the signing authority is secure and can be trusted.
Perhaps "arrogant" wasn't the right word for the poster to use, but I can see where he's coming from with this. If you're presenting at a prestigious institution (or one that considers itself such) you should show a little respect for that institution by dressing it up a bit. A tie wouldn't be necessary, but ditching the jeans and wearing a button up shirt (or a polo shirt even) seems like it would be in order.
I'm a computer guy, I wear jeans to work every day, and I'm happy that way. If I'm being asked to speak in front of a large group of people I don't grab something out of the hamper, y'know?
Is it just me, or do the screenshots of Parallels look nearly identical to VMWare? I realize both applications do the same thing, but if you wouldn't have told me it wasn't VMWare I wouldn't have noticed a difference.
I read the article and I don't see anything desktop specific here. It sounds like you have a single storage array on the back end to which your (file/database/whatever) servers are attached. The storage array has both high performance Fibre Channel drives and less expensive drives. It keeps track of which blocks are accessed most frequently and migrates them to the appropriate disk tier.
Sure, your desktop connects over the network to a SAN attached server in some fashion, but I don't see anywhere in the article that says this product:
A. runs a desktop agent of some sort that classifies your data based on access patterns
B. is meant to be directly attached to desktop machines
Where did desktops come from in the article summary? This isn't for your workstation folks.
I suspect the latency of satellite Internet access would make your soft-phone useless anyhow. Also, there are relatively simple traffic shaping solutions to mitigate your Superman scenario.
Here in the UK (IANAL) iirc I am perfectly entitled to walk into your house if it is unlocked and use your stuff so long as I don't break them or cause you financial loss. I can even take items out with me if I don't intend to permanently deprive you of them.
What? The UK doesn't have trespassing laws? I have a hard time believing you can just walk into a stranger's house and take a nap on the sofa. Would the homeowner throw up his hands and say, "Oops, should have made sure I locked the door." Does it matter if anyone is home when you decide to stroll into their unlocked home?
This is kind of off topic, but it's fresh in my mind. I just got back to my hotel from the EMC World conference in Boston where the Barenaked Ladies were tonight's entertainment. The skinny lead singer guy was talking about how the band was like-minded with the technical crowd. He said, "I've got Windows XP running on my Macbook with an Intel Pro Duo processor". He said it was only so he could update his GPS. That comment got a lot of applause. The wider guy mentioned ethernet and how it was really just tiny pneumatic tubes like at the drive-up bank teller. They were pretty funny guys.
I'm a geek, but my wife isn't. She's seen iMacs at other peoples' houses and she wants one because it looks nice. She also needs to run her work apps at home, and Boot Camp can make that possible. My next PC at home will likely be a Mac that runs Windows XP most of the time. Ditto for my work laptop -- I like the form factor and design of Mac hardware. The tools I need to use at work don't run on MacOS, but that's no longer a show stopper.
A combination of de-duplication and calculating and storing only the changes between similar byte streams is apparently the key.
All I see in the replies is mathematical Shannon limits and how this is snake oil. It's not about compressing my 650MB ISO image down to 5MB. Say it with me people, de-duplication. This works especially well in the backup to disk space. Think about it, I'm doing incremental backups every day and full backups on the weekends. The vast majority of my second, third, and nth full backups are comprised of data I've already stored. Why store it again? Perhaps compression is the wrong word for it, but essentially you're storing many times what you could store without a de-duplication appliance.
This applies best to backup-to-disk scenarios but it's not limited to them. Another example, say an email with an 10MB Word/OpenOffice document attachment goes out to the whole company. 200 people save the attachment to their H: drive (sorry,/home/user around here). That's 2GB of space. With the method employed here I store the document once and then only store pointers to it. Your effective compression ratio is 200:1.
A step further, this can be applied at the block level rather than the file level. One of the 200 people above could change 1MB of the document. I only need to store that 1MB of changed data.
This stuff works, and it uses methods that have been around a long time. Don't be so quick to yell bullshit without understanding what's going on underneath the covers.
Let's not forget the web of people they're connecting to other people via the invite system. While there's surely people who will give away Gmail invites to anyone that asks, most of them are people they know. If there's abuse on a particular account you can correlate that account with the account which gave the invite. Are the other invitees of this parent account abusive as well? Whack them all.
There's probably a lot of other advantages to knowing who knows who, this one is just obvious.
Someone has to add the obligitory "They can't look at my encrypted files" comment. This is it. I'd be okay with storing data I cared about on a Google server, it's my option to encrypt it.
My data back-ups are routinely over 4GB is size. No way am I tranporting that up my stinking little DSL connection.
How much of that 4GB do you change every day? Google may offer some sort of service which does a lazy sync of your data over the course of a few days and then only incrementally sync the changes, a la rsync. I could see this working quite well, actually.
And while you might say, a totally unencumbered non-watermarked file should be resellable, let's be honest: the powers what is will never let that happen.
Let's take that a step further. Do you think there's a realistic chance that an encumbered watermarked file will be resellable? That the powers that be will ever let you resell your watermarked copy of the music you payed for? The watermark on your file would need to change at the same time the ownership of the file changed. If it didn't, you could claim you sold the copy of song.mp3 that ends up on P2P with your mark on it before it ever got there. It defeats the purpose of watermarking.
Somehow I don't see the music industry making it easy to transfer ownership of watermarked files...Even if they did it it certainly wouldn't be free. They'd do everything they could to make it easier to just buy a new copy from them at the original price.
I wonder where they got their sample of people to respond to this poll. People are so divided along party lines that anyone who pays any attention to the news media would read this question as "Are you for or against the current administration?" or "Do you support Democrats or Republicans?"
Not surprisingly about half go one way and half go the other.
It seems pretty evident to me that there is a large percentage of individuals in the US population that no longer think for themselves. They simply know if they dislike Democrats or they dislike Republicans. On any given issue they will simply spout whatever garbage their side's talking heads have been saying on television or political radio. It's unfortunate because can't hardly have a rational conversation with most people about anything involving politics. I don't want to hear the opinions of Rush Limbaugh or Al Franken regurgitated to me. What do YOU think? It's a truly sad state of affairs.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't agree. Isn't one of the basic principles of security to use multiple layers? Firewall, IDS, TCP wrappers, strong passwords, etc. Insert various other security methods anywhere in the chain and you can be well defended. If I make a mistake in my firewall config, I should still be reasonably sure that I won't be totally compromised.
I recently discovered that with Xbox Media Center (http://xboxmediacenter.de) I can do just this. There are certainly downsides -- the browsing interface isn't as flexible as with a web browser, and searching kind of blows because you have to type in your search terms with your remote control via an on-screen keyboard. But it is YouTube on your TV. I was surprised at how decent it looked.
A little dated, but I thought that was a pretty impressive reference for a television show to make.
Technically this is a convenient way to stuff a lot of managed storage into a small space with low power consumption. Cool, but it's really nothing more than a bunch of servers in a single rack with big hard drives. If I've got a petabyte of storage to utilize I want to manage it as one large pool (or several large pools), not 40 servers, on each of which I need to run an OS and services which make a relatively small portion of that storage available. Where's my FC or iSCSI target ports?
Put your virtual machine images on iSCSI or ATAoE LUNs. Make copies at will. Don't worry about copying the full image at boot, just boot the virtual machine from the hard disk images on the SAN. I guess you need a SAN first, but iSCSI SANs are cheap and relatively easy these days.
Replace "unstable" with bloated or proprietary and I'll agree. The stability/BSOD arguments against Windows don't really carry that much weight any more.
That was neither obligatory nor funny.
I'm not so sure. While it isn't popular and would suck immensely, an OS or computer that was only allowed to run signed executables is a technical solution to this problem. Of course, this only works as long as the signing authority is secure and can be trusted.
I'm a computer guy, I wear jeans to work every day, and I'm happy that way. If I'm being asked to speak in front of a large group of people I don't grab something out of the hamper, y'know?
Is it just me, or do the screenshots of Parallels look nearly identical to VMWare? I realize both applications do the same thing, but if you wouldn't have told me it wasn't VMWare I wouldn't have noticed a difference.
Sure, your desktop connects over the network to a SAN attached server in some fashion, but I don't see anywhere in the article that says this product:
A. runs a desktop agent of some sort that classifies your data based on access patterns
B. is meant to be directly attached to desktop machines
Where did desktops come from in the article summary? This isn't for your workstation folks.
I suspect the latency of satellite Internet access would make your soft-phone useless anyhow. Also, there are relatively simple traffic shaping solutions to mitigate your Superman scenario.
Ummm...Ever heard of shadows?
Yes, that was lame.
What? The UK doesn't have trespassing laws? I have a hard time believing you can just walk into a stranger's house and take a nap on the sofa. Would the homeowner throw up his hands and say, "Oops, should have made sure I locked the door." Does it matter if anyone is home when you decide to stroll into their unlocked home?
Stop...saying...handwaving
This is kind of off topic, but it's fresh in my mind. I just got back to my hotel from the EMC World conference in Boston where the Barenaked Ladies were tonight's entertainment. The skinny lead singer guy was talking about how the band was like-minded with the technical crowd. He said, "I've got Windows XP running on my Macbook with an Intel Pro Duo processor". He said it was only so he could update his GPS. That comment got a lot of applause. The wider guy mentioned ethernet and how it was really just tiny pneumatic tubes like at the drive-up bank teller. They were pretty funny guys.
Ugh...Enough with the Soviet Russian Beowulf Portman grits cluster already.
I'm a geek, but my wife isn't. She's seen iMacs at other peoples' houses and she wants one because it looks nice. She also needs to run her work apps at home, and Boot Camp can make that possible. My next PC at home will likely be a Mac that runs Windows XP most of the time. Ditto for my work laptop -- I like the form factor and design of Mac hardware. The tools I need to use at work don't run on MacOS, but that's no longer a show stopper.
Check out Data Domain for a similar product. There are other people doing this stuff.
All I see in the replies is mathematical Shannon limits and how this is snake oil. It's not about compressing my 650MB ISO image down to 5MB. Say it with me people, de-duplication. This works especially well in the backup to disk space. Think about it, I'm doing incremental backups every day and full backups on the weekends. The vast majority of my second, third, and nth full backups are comprised of data I've already stored. Why store it again? Perhaps compression is the wrong word for it, but essentially you're storing many times what you could store without a de-duplication appliance.
This applies best to backup-to-disk scenarios but it's not limited to them. Another example, say an email with an 10MB Word/OpenOffice document attachment goes out to the whole company. 200 people save the attachment to their H: drive (sorry, /home/user around here). That's 2GB of space. With the method employed here I store the document once and then only store pointers to it. Your effective compression ratio is 200:1.
A step further, this can be applied at the block level rather than the file level. One of the 200 people above could change 1MB of the document. I only need to store that 1MB of changed data.
This stuff works, and it uses methods that have been around a long time. Don't be so quick to yell bullshit without understanding what's going on underneath the covers.
There's probably a lot of other advantages to knowing who knows who, this one is just obvious.
Someone has to add the obligitory "They can't look at my encrypted files" comment. This is it. I'd be okay with storing data I cared about on a Google server, it's my option to encrypt it.
How much of that 4GB do you change every day? Google may offer some sort of service which does a lazy sync of your data over the course of a few days and then only incrementally sync the changes, a la rsync. I could see this working quite well, actually.
Let's take that a step further. Do you think there's a realistic chance that an encumbered watermarked file will be resellable? That the powers that be will ever let you resell your watermarked copy of the music you payed for? The watermark on your file would need to change at the same time the ownership of the file changed. If it didn't, you could claim you sold the copy of song.mp3 that ends up on P2P with your mark on it before it ever got there. It defeats the purpose of watermarking.
Somehow I don't see the music industry making it easy to transfer ownership of watermarked files...Even if they did it it certainly wouldn't be free. They'd do everything they could to make it easier to just buy a new copy from them at the original price.
It seems pretty evident to me that there is a large percentage of individuals in the US population that no longer think for themselves. They simply know if they dislike Democrats or they dislike Republicans. On any given issue they will simply spout whatever garbage their side's talking heads have been saying on television or political radio. It's unfortunate because can't hardly have a rational conversation with most people about anything involving politics. I don't want to hear the opinions of Rush Limbaugh or Al Franken regurgitated to me. What do YOU think? It's a truly sad state of affairs.