As for Europe, it's no better than we are. If you compare the US federation with other continent-spanning federations you see this: Mbit/s 1: 12.3 Russian Federation 2: 10.3 US 3: 10.0 EU 4: 9.3 Canada 5: 8.0 Australia 6: 4.8 Brazil 7: 3.8 China 8: 3.4 Mexico
What are these numbers you are quoting and what is there source.
Which is more expensive. The Japanese simply used the copper wires that already ran into everyone's home (i.e. the phonelines), so it was cheap and easy for them. It won't be that easy for the americans.
Erm, isn't that exactly what DSL is?
With some of the newer micro head-ends, DSL can be run out of that green box at the end of the street, instead of 4 miles down the road at the nearest sub-office. You only need fiber to the neighborhood patch panel.
The fact that this is a white paper by a company selling network equipment didn't set off anybody's conflict of interest meter?
I'm not seeing how that ties into anything.
They sell their switches and routers mostly to corporate data centers, carriers, and ISPs. When the publish figures about MOBILE users, they aren't telling us anything we don't already know. They aren't' telling us anything the cell carriers haven't already told us.
Since they do very little DIRECTLY with Mobile devices themselves, all they are tell you is that the big boys are buying stuff to beef up their networks. All the carriers are augmenting their back haul capabilities to every cell cite in preparation for LTE.
Cisco sees some portion of that.
I can't see why you are suggesting they are feathering their own nest with this report, since no rational person is suggesting a retrenchment in mobile deployment any time soon.
But I've actually seen Mother Boards light up too, after capacitors blew. I've seen hard drives get so hot they were painful to touch. Mounted in cardboard that can't be good.
The thing is, that Joe Hacker need not comply with those. They pretty much kick in only when a device is offered for sale, and certifications are summarily ignored in the home builder market in any event.
Fire safety is a bigger issue. But I don't know of any regulations that would prevent them from selling this as long as they don't sell it as w working PC. Its a loop hole, and they know it.
Ground is handled by the power connections, which includes a ground pin, and is grounded to the mains. Grounding the power supply to the case is only needed because the case (normally) is metal, and you want to be sure it is at ground.
But is a cardboard box safe for other reasons? Like FIRE?
I've had more than a few PCs get hot enough in certain circumstances where fire is a serious danger, especially in enclosed spaces (shoved under desks), or maybe pushed up against resistive electrical baseboard heaters etc.
This thing just cries out for the Slashdot "What could possibly go wrong" meme.
Not to mention going after their lawyers. They are the only ones who profited from this entire sordid affair. If it can now be found that the suborned perjury when presenting their own witnesses perhaps we could get them disbarred.
How does this protect your privacy? It sounds more like selling your privacy.
Well, it could work out if it were turned around a bit (and the middle man eliminated).
If every time they contacted you (mail, email, phone) with a sales pitch, they had to send that 10 dollar bill along as payment for your attention and use of your mailing address, it would greatly reduce the value of a list of random names that some company is trying to sell them. If a million name list costs 10 million dollars to use each time it is used, the value and the usage of the list and the collection of the same will fall drastically.
I completely agree. I believe the downfall of humans lies with this one single trait......
We are the only swarm, of individuals. No other swarm has members acting solely on their own interests
You can't have it both ways.
1) Swarms don't act on self interest, or even know what their self interest actually is at any instant. 2) Individuals cant act as a swarm and remain individuals.
You are attempting to have your cake and choke on it too.
That people some times act in concert, and sometimes act in their own self interest, lends no credibility to your doom-sayer outlook. People are capable of doing both at the same time, act in concert AND in their own self interest. In fact, this is the norm. The net result is civilization. Civilization is probably best defined as the alignment of the self interest of individuals with the welfare of the whole. The methods of alignment in this case is not the pheromone trails of ants, but rather the reasoned path to well being, via shared defense, food production, rearing of the young, etc.
You take the two most prized distinctions of human beings, those features that allowed a weak, slow, furless, fangless creature to dominate the earth, namely intelligence, and self awareness, and some how twist that into the destruction of the species.
How better to hide incriminating evidence if you're the one in charge of the investigation in the first place?
Why would they have to hide this? Its no longer admissible, thanks to Anonymous.
Allegedly stolen property by a criminal organization during a criminal break-in with no chain of custody essentially sanitizes the evidence and probably any other evidence obtained via this evidence.
They should write a check to Anonymous thanking them for the service.
Actually there is NO evidence that hysteresis is a real problem or even pertains AT ALL to data recover from overwritten magnetic media. There has been no demonstration of file recovery after a single overwrite. An occasional bit, and maybe an entire byte, but no complete file. Its a myth.
I don't now remember what the case was, but: a few months ago a read about a guy who was charged with some crime or other. They were unable to convict him of whatever it was, but they did convict him of obstruction of justice. Why? Because the computer forensics expert stated that he had deliberately deleted some files and then run a defrag.
Without a link, I can only assume this is a hypothetical case.
In any event, once served with a warrant or arrested, deletions become destruction of evidence. Until then, you can delete to your hearts content.
Its only evidence when you are served with a warrant for it or it is seized pursuant to a warrant. Until then, its just data, not evidence. A scheduled task to purge data is evidence ONLY of a policy to do just that, which is within your rights, until ordered by a court to the contrary. Many companies have a policy to delete some types of files on a scheduled basis. Some companies work under laws that prevent this, but Joe User can pretty much do what they want on their own computer.
They fingerprint, get a value, but while they're copying the drive self cleans the bits associated with your cat pics. Bam, the copy has a different fingerprint. Now there's reasonable doubt about the usefulness of the evidence you stupidly left unencrypted in your desktop folder.
Reasonable doubt in who's eyes? Would the tech even report that fingerprint difference knowing full well how these drives behave? Would the defense even raise the issue that a fingerprint difference suggests planted evidence knowing how these drives behave?
When something is knowns to be unreliable, then neither side can rely on it.
The tech would simply copy off all files, and hash them, and work with his hashed copy. This is a repeatable act. Files can be compared again and again. To impune this method you have to impune the entire lab with an assertion of planted data.
Existing files aren't the problem. Its the deleted files where things get murky.
But there are reliable methods that work well on ssd drives OR spinning storage. That involves erasing the file(s) followed by filling the drive to capacity with copies of some random binary image files. This is actually practical on smaller/faster SSD drives (where this can be done quickly), not so much on large spinning drives.
Since even a single overwrite will effectively make file recovery impossible, any method of inducing that should suffice.
Actually the man page states that on ext3 file systems running in the default manor (data=ordered) shred works fine. If you journal data as well, not so good.
The underlying file system in use is no guarantee either. Software, such as word processors often write out a new file each time you save, and if that is successful, they then delete the old one. This defeats shred because shred requires a file to exist to delete it. (It does not shred un-allocated space).
Not to mention the fact that any method of removing something at the chip level runs a real risk of changing what was in the chip, perhaps destroying any ability to get anything off of it. There is no body of science for safe removal of SSD chips from their board. You might get away with it 9 out of ten times, or once out of a hundred. There simply isn't any data on this. There is nothing that I know of that even specifies if all bits of any given byte are written on the same chip.
Deleting a file should tell the OS that I don't need that data.
It does exactly that, by removing pointers to the data, and marking the blocks available (via normal means).
Just like tossing an old shirt in the trash makes it inaccessible after the trash man picks it up, but does not shred the shirt to rags, file systems simply make it unavailable without heroic methods. Trash pickers can, and in some cases do, salvage all sorts of things from trash.
Actual erasing things would slow down your computer quite a bit. There are softwarepackages you can obtain to do this if you are paranoid that your computer is likely to be seized.
In addition other operating systems such as Linux have a built in "Shredder" see: man (1) shred This is variously incorporated into Graphical file managers in some versions.
That little check box in the Android Applications Settings Labeled "unknown sources".
Once you allow unknown sources all bets are off. You can download an app with the standard web browser, but you can't install it unless you uncheck that box.
So that is what makes a source trusted or untrusted.
Slashdot Mirror
Cisco just so happens to sell the equipment you'll need to upgrade your network. What a coincidence!
And by making that snide remark you throw yourself firmly in the camp suggesting we don't need to upgrade our mobile networks?
Here's your sign.
Key word here is "municipal".
What part of your taxes goes to support that?
As for Europe, it's no better than we are. If you compare the US federation with other continent-spanning federations you see this:
Mbit/s
1: 12.3 Russian Federation
2: 10.3 US
3: 10.0 EU
4: 9.3 Canada
5: 8.0 Australia
6: 4.8 Brazil
7: 3.8 China
8: 3.4 Mexico
What are these numbers you are quoting and what is there source.
Which is more expensive. The Japanese simply used the copper wires that already ran into everyone's home (i.e. the phonelines), so it was cheap and easy for them. It won't be that easy for the americans.
Erm, isn't that exactly what DSL is?
With some of the newer micro head-ends, DSL can be run out of that green box at the end of the street, instead of 4 miles down the road at the nearest sub-office. You only need fiber to the neighborhood patch panel.
The fact that this is a white paper by a company selling network equipment didn't set off anybody's conflict of interest meter?
I'm not seeing how that ties into anything.
They sell their switches and routers mostly to corporate data centers, carriers, and ISPs. When the publish figures about MOBILE users, they aren't telling us anything we don't already know. They aren't' telling us anything the cell carriers haven't already told us.
Since they do very little DIRECTLY with Mobile devices themselves, all they are tell you is that the big boys are buying stuff to beef up their networks.
All the carriers are augmenting their back haul capabilities to every cell cite in preparation for LTE.
Cisco sees some portion of that.
I can't see why you are suggesting they are feathering their own nest with this report, since no rational person is suggesting a retrenchment in
mobile deployment any time soon.
Exactly.
But I've actually seen Mother Boards light up too, after capacitors blew. I've seen hard drives get so hot they were painful to touch. Mounted in cardboard that can't be good.
The thing is, that Joe Hacker need not comply with those. They pretty much kick in only when a device is offered for sale, and
certifications are summarily ignored in the home builder market in any event.
Fire safety is a bigger issue. But I don't know of any regulations that would prevent them from selling this
as long as they don't sell it as w working PC. Its a loop hole, and they know it.
thus they will still buy a case.
Says Who?
College dorm rooms and hacker basements will have these things stacked 4 high in short order.
Which might just end up being NEVER.
Ground is handled by the power connections, which includes a ground pin, and is grounded to the mains. Grounding the power supply to the case is only needed because the case (normally) is metal, and you want to be sure it is at ground.
But is a cardboard box safe for other reasons? Like FIRE?
I've had more than a few PCs get hot enough in certain circumstances where fire is a serious danger, especially in enclosed spaces (shoved under desks), or maybe pushed up against resistive electrical baseboard heaters etc.
This thing just cries out for the Slashdot "What could possibly go wrong" meme.
Not to mention going after their lawyers. They are the only ones who profited from this entire sordid affair.
If it can now be found that the suborned perjury when presenting their own witnesses perhaps we could get them disbarred.
How does this protect your privacy? It sounds more like selling your privacy.
Well, it could work out if it were turned around a bit (and the middle man eliminated).
If every time they contacted you (mail, email, phone) with a sales pitch, they had to send that 10 dollar bill along as payment for your attention and use of your mailing address, it would greatly reduce the value of a list of random names that some company is trying to sell them. If a million name list costs 10 million dollars to use each time it is used, the value and the usage of the list and the collection of the same will fall drastically.
I completely agree. I believe the downfall of humans lies with this one single trait......
We are the only swarm, of individuals. No other swarm has members acting solely on their own interests
You can't have it both ways.
1) Swarms don't act on self interest, or even know what their self interest actually is at any instant.
2) Individuals cant act as a swarm and remain individuals.
You are attempting to have your cake and choke on it too.
That people some times act in concert, and sometimes act in their own self interest, lends no credibility to your doom-sayer outlook. People are capable of doing both at the same time, act in concert AND in their own self interest. In fact, this is the norm. The net result is civilization. Civilization is probably best defined as the alignment of the self interest of individuals with the welfare of the whole. The methods of alignment in this case is not the pheromone trails of ants, but rather the reasoned path to well being, via shared defense, food production, rearing of the young, etc.
You take the two most prized distinctions of human beings, those features that allowed a weak, slow, furless, fangless creature to dominate the earth, namely intelligence, and self awareness, and some how twist that into the destruction of the species.
Unbelievable.
They weren't even under investigation until the break in.
So there is no possible claim to inevitability of discovery, and pretty much ANY evidence developed out of this evidence is tainted.
How better to hide incriminating evidence if you're the one in charge of the investigation in the first place?
Why would they have to hide this? Its no longer admissible, thanks to Anonymous.
Allegedly stolen property by a criminal organization during a criminal break-in with no chain of custody essentially sanitizes the evidence
and probably any other evidence obtained via this evidence.
They should write a check to Anonymous thanking them for the service.
Actually there is NO evidence that hysteresis is a real problem or even pertains AT ALL to data recover from overwritten magnetic media.
There has been no demonstration of file recovery after a single overwrite. An occasional bit, and maybe an entire byte, but no complete file. Its a myth.
I don't now remember what the case was, but: a few months ago a read about a guy who was charged with some crime or other. They were unable to convict him of whatever it was, but they did convict him of obstruction of justice. Why? Because the computer forensics expert stated that he had deliberately deleted some files and then run a defrag.
Without a link, I can only assume this is a hypothetical case.
In any event, once served with a warrant or arrested, deletions become destruction of evidence.
Until then, you can delete to your hearts content.
Its all a matter of timing.
Destroying "evidence".
Or ceasing to commit a crime.
In both cases you were committing a crime, by possessing said prohibited item, and you have corrected it.
And to this very DAY, Google Street View division wishes you were its lawyer.
Exactly.
Its only evidence when you are served with a warrant for it or it is seized pursuant to a warrant.
Until then, its just data, not evidence.
A scheduled task to purge data is evidence ONLY of a policy to do just that, which is within your rights, until ordered by a court to the contrary.
Many companies have a policy to delete some types of files on a scheduled basis. Some companies work under laws that prevent this,
but Joe User can pretty much do what they want on their own computer.
They fingerprint, get a value, but while they're copying the drive self cleans the bits associated with your cat pics. Bam, the copy has a different fingerprint. Now there's reasonable doubt about the usefulness of the evidence you stupidly left unencrypted in your desktop folder.
Reasonable doubt in who's eyes?
Would the tech even report that fingerprint difference knowing full well how these drives behave?
Would the defense even raise the issue that a fingerprint difference suggests planted evidence knowing how these drives behave?
When something is knowns to be unreliable, then neither side can rely on it.
The tech would simply copy off all files, and hash them, and work with his hashed copy. This is a repeatable act.
Files can be compared again and again. To impune this method you have to impune the entire lab with an assertion
of planted data.
Existing files aren't the problem. Its the deleted files where things get murky.
But there are reliable methods that work well on ssd drives OR spinning storage. That involves erasing the file(s) followed by filling the drive to capacity with copies of some random binary image files. This is actually practical on smaller/faster SSD drives (where this can be done quickly), not so much on large spinning drives.
Since even a single overwrite will effectively make file recovery impossible, any method of inducing that should suffice.
Actually the man page states that on ext3 file systems running in the default manor (data=ordered) shred works fine. If you journal data as well, not so good.
The underlying file system in use is no guarantee either. Software, such as word processors often write out a new file each time you save, and if that is successful, they then delete the old one. This defeats shred because shred requires a file to exist to delete it. (It does not shred un-allocated space).
Not to mention the fact that any method of removing something at the chip level runs a real risk of changing what was in the chip, perhaps destroying any ability to get anything off of it. There is no body of science for safe removal of SSD chips from their board. You might get away with it 9 out of ten times, or once out of a hundred. There simply isn't any data on this. There is nothing that I know of that even specifies if all bits of any given byte are written on the same chip.
Deleting a file should tell the OS that I don't need that data.
It does exactly that, by removing pointers to the data, and marking the blocks available (via normal means).
Just like tossing an old shirt in the trash makes it inaccessible after the trash man picks it up, but does not shred the shirt
to rags, file systems simply make it unavailable without heroic methods. Trash pickers can, and in some cases do, salvage all sorts of things from trash.
Actual erasing things would slow down your computer quite a bit. There are software packages you can obtain to do this if you are paranoid that your computer is likely to be seized.
In addition other operating systems such as Linux have a built in "Shredder" see: man (1) shred
This is variously incorporated into Graphical file managers in some versions.
What makes a source trusted?
That little check box in the Android Applications Settings Labeled "unknown sources".
Once you allow unknown sources all bets are off. You can download an app with the standard
web browser, but you can't install it unless you uncheck that box.
So that is what makes a source trusted or untrusted.