Apple seems to be moving hard toward mobile computing now anyway, so going for the Pentium M is a smart move all around
The Pentium M is basically a Pentium 3...
which is basically a Pentium 2...
which is basically a Pentium...
which is a DEC-engineering-based design.
Intel's first real attempt at new processor lines (the Pentium 4, the Itanium) using in-house design staff didn't yield the successes they'd hoped for.
And while the Pentium M runs really great (the PIII has always beaten the PIV clock-for-clock), it doesn't represent any design innovation... it represents a step "backwards" to the relatively ancient Pentium core design.
AMD, however, is innovating. Now, that is also with the help of ex-DEC engineers on staff, but still they're moving forward.
Yup, I'd say supply constraint is a valid concern for going with AMD.
So the question really becomes: did Apple need to make the move to an x86 architecture now? (Assuming "yes") Did they go with Intel only because they couldn't wait for AMD to step-up? Is Intel really the right pony to bet on?
Regardless of which side of the fence you sit on, could this take us closer to embedded chips under the skin?
John Spartan on Simon Phoenix being unable to buy anything because you need an implanted chip: It would be a waste of time to mug somebody . . . unless he rips off someone's hand, and let's hope he doesn't figure that one out.
More importantly, with people shooting at rescue helicopters, how the heck can one deploy any of these boxes? Let alone protect them from the rampant looting?
Great intentions, but perhaps not exactly what the people need right now. How about instead of internet access drop these people food.
Blocking based on IP range and or country is pure and simple discrimination.
What's wrong with that discrimination? I don't have anybody Korea/China/Poland that I send/receive email. So, if I choose to block email originating from those countries to me, how am I denying anything other than a spammer one more "deliver to?"
If anything, such action will force spammers to try and locate domestic spamming frontiers, and those are a *lot* easier to shut-down.
It'll just be the next version of Windows. Ensure Skype doesn't run properly, and that'll kill them off long before it can come out in the courts that Microsoft was engaging in anti-competitive practices.
It is like the old lawyer trick. My company made a product we knew would break and result in death (Say a car tire that we knew would explode and cause cars to turn over). Now your lawyers knows this, so they get a court to subpeona the papers showing we knew the product was bad. Instead of sending that one report, we send you that report mixed in 250,000 other reports. Hell, we might send you 249,999 reports and the 1 you wanted is missing. We send you so much stuff, that your whole legal staff is running at 110% and getting nowhere.
"If a new car built by my company leaves Chicago traveling west at 60 miles per hour, and the rear differential locks up, and the car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside, does my company initiate a recall?
You take the population of vehicles in the field (A) and multiply it by the probable rate of failure (B), then multiply the result by the average cost of an out-of-court settlement (C).
A times B times C equals X. This is what it will cost if we don't initiate a recall.
If X is greater than the cost of a recall, we recall the cars and no one gets hurt.
If X is less than the cost of a recall, then we don't recall."
They won't need to if they can get RFID tags in everything you own; then they can just scan you with RF from a distance, match it up against purchase records, and figure out who you are.
Of course that's absurd. Nope... they'd just scan to figure out what you have on you then use that demographic information to "anonymously" match you against a marketing profile.
It won't be, "Hi, John... want to buy some more Guess t-shirts?"
But, it will be, "Hi... I see you like Calvin Klein a bunch... want a coupon?"
Maybe prison would be safer for them. Then again... I would imagine a lot of spammers to be pale and soft; could make for some fresh chum in the showers. 8P
The problem, and it is a massive one, is not that people are collecting the information, but that they are misusing the information or allowing to be misused by failing to secure it against criminal incursions.
Agree with you completely. Trying to find a solution to this problem is along the same lines as "trying to create a gun that only shoots bad people."
The Acura TL (at least, the 2005 model) has a security feature that disables Bluetooth until you want it enabled by speaking the 4 digit code at car start-up. Most drivers have it turned off because it is a pain to enable it everytime you start the car... but if you're that paranoid about someone hacking the bluetooth on your car when you're *not* using it, this feature is easily disabled. Check the HandsFreeLink section of your owners manual.
The danger of this approach is that you have to be careful not to end up with comments which just replicate what the code says (eg. width++;// increment the width).
Perhaps I should have clarified my use of "pseudo code" better, as I didn't mean the alternative/language-neutral way of writing code(ie, a=open file("blah"); for each(read(a)){ ; } ). With the way I write my pre-coding comments, I find it very difficult to fall into the trap you've (correctly) outlined. An example of the way I comment might look like something below:
// Retrieve all the users that have a balance from the database
// For each user, check to see if the balance is positive
// If the balance is negative, then we need to send them a letter telling them to get their act together
In this way, I'm documenting what I want to get done and why. You're point is valid in that if I had written true pseudo-code, it would be pointless for the comments.
Actually, I start my programming projects by writing all the comments first; in this way, I get the pseudo-code ideas down and write the associated code under each comment. It helps me track where I am in a class/function, what I'm trying to accomplish (what parts still need to be written), and it nicely leaves an understandable trail without having to back-fill the code with comments once the project is "done."
By front-loading the process with comments, I find it really helps not just the maintainability but it also keeps my programming tasks on track.
Re:Wouldn't Static IP's limit the problem?
on
What's On Your Network?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
If static IP's were used wouldn't it make 99% of the problem go away
Short answer: no.
Just having static IP addresses isn't enough. Actually, even the pseudo-static DHCP (via MAC address) is "good enough" but also vulnerable to exploit by manually setting the MAC address of the alien network interface to one that is allowed to get an IP (there's more complexity to doing that, but suffice it to say it can be done).
To answer your question: if your network relies solely on the IP address on some guys workstation to identify it as "his," then you've opened yourself up to more problems than him hooking up his xbox or internet enabled coffee maker. What do you do when he brings his virus-laden laptop into the office BEHIND your firewalls and plugs it in?
These problems won't be solved either until you have hardware authenticated connectivity (no reassignable MAC possible in the hardware) or everything is locked down via a different auth mechanism... like utilizing a VPN.
Blocking every port from 1024-65555 is unrealistic...
In fact, if you use passive FTP to download anything from the internet,
if you use MSN Messenger to transfer files or view webcams, if you transfer files by DCC via an IRC client...
or use any other application which is not port range specific.
This means that anytime you need to do such thing you have to manually open wide 1024-65535 ports and go back to normal mode after.
You're forgetting that a lot of these firewalls have stateful connections... meaning, if you originate a connection out (such as with passive FTP... you're told which port to connect to), it automatically is allowed back in in response.
And for services that require that you have ports open and back to the particular computer (active ftp, eMule, the webcam stuff, etc), a lot of the modern firewalls also include support for Port Triggering. Basically, if you specify the ports you'll want to use in the firewall, it can automatically forward that range of ports to whichever internal computer "triggers the port forwarding." This means, you can use eMule... then your roomate can use it after just by hitting the firewall trigger. An example of how this might look on a somewhat typical home firewall is here: D-Link firewall.
And if that sounds complicated, it is no more complicated then having to tell the Windows firewall to allow those same connections into the computer.
The home hardware firewall is very easy to use... and the parent stated, there's no reason for everyone to have one. Heck, even my 60 year-old mom uses one. 8)
How can it not be a good thing to be able to show whether a given SMPT agent is authorized by the domain?
Forwarding breaks. Backup MX delivery breaks.
Problem with SPF/SenderID is that it requires direct delivery from the sending mail server in order to authenticate that sender against published DNS records; I won't even get started on how now using DNS as a security mechanism when it is far from secure is a suspect design choice.
I suppose M$ will then suggest that they be allowed to run the authentication service... and anyone who wants to be authenticated can pay a fee; you see where that's going.
In other words, the man is a litigious idiot. The fact that he's occasionally managed to get people to license from him says more about the fact that people are terrified of lawsuits than that the law itself is unfair.
Lawsuit idiocy... not just for the SCO anymore! Maybe this guy should apply for a job there.
Or here's a thought: why not locate datacenters in sub-basements? They're more secure from break-ins as there's only one route of attack (through the "roof" of the datacenter and not so much from the surrounding walls), and it should be easy to utilize geo-thermal heat dissipation; at least, it should make it easier to cool with conventional cooling if one could manage to build a heat-exchanger directly into the walls.
Older manufactured equipment was simply made better, and some of us prefer it to spending more of our liquidity on the latest and greatest (which, as stated above, tends to be more poorly made and hence, more quickly replaced).
Well, love it or hate it, it is called "planned obsolescence."
The theory goes: why make something that will last for 20 years when "better tech" is going to come out in 5? There are plenty of 286XT's out there that will still run, but you would be hard-pressed to find real uses for it still when the newest tech can be had so cheaply and is much improved.
Now whether one feels this is a marketing ploy to drive consumerism or a way to help keep a society from stagnating technologically will depend entirely on where in the scale between the two views one sits.
Ultimately, the question of "is this on the whole good or bad?" is tied to how good we are at deciding what things should be phased out. It doesn't bother me that computer tech evolves quickly... but it does bother me that my refrigerator isn't designed to last 20 years anymore.
Well, if one could combine multiple visual angles and a targeting system, one could make personalized advertising ala "Minority Report." Only you would see the ads destined for you as you walked through the mall.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple seems to be moving hard toward mobile computing now anyway, so going for the Pentium M is a smart move all around
The Pentium M is basically a Pentium 3...
which is basically a Pentium 2...
which is basically a Pentium...
which is a DEC-engineering-based design.
Intel's first real attempt at new processor lines (the Pentium 4, the Itanium) using in-house design staff didn't yield the successes they'd hoped for.
And while the Pentium M runs really great (the PIII has always beaten the PIV clock-for-clock), it doesn't represent any design innovation... it represents a step "backwards" to the relatively ancient Pentium core design.
AMD, however, is innovating. Now, that is also with the help of ex-DEC engineers on staff, but still they're moving forward.
Yup, I'd say supply constraint is a valid concern for going with AMD.
So the question really becomes: did Apple need to make the move to an x86 architecture now? (Assuming "yes") Did they go with Intel only because they couldn't wait for AMD to step-up?
Is Intel really the right pony to bet on?
Regardless of which side of the fence you sit on, could this take us closer to embedded chips under the skin?
John Spartan on Simon Phoenix being unable to buy anything because you need an implanted chip:
It would be a waste of time to mug somebody . . . unless he rips off someone's hand, and let's hope he doesn't figure that one out.
Not to correct, but technically it would have to be Darylhannasaurus.
;)
That's because it was predated by the Allisonhayesaur.
More importantly, with people shooting at rescue helicopters, how the heck can one deploy any of these boxes? Let alone protect them from the rampant looting?
Great intentions, but perhaps not exactly what the people need right now. How about instead of internet access drop these people food.
Blocking based on IP range and or country is pure and simple discrimination.
What's wrong with that discrimination? I don't have anybody Korea/China/Poland that I send/receive email. So, if I choose to block email originating from those countries to me, how am I denying anything other than a spammer one more "deliver to?"
If anything, such action will force spammers to try and locate domestic spamming frontiers, and those are a *lot* easier to shut-down.
It'll just be the next version of Windows. Ensure Skype doesn't run properly, and that'll kill them off long before it can come out in the courts that Microsoft was engaging in anti-competitive practices.
Ahhh... history... why do you repeat yourself?
It is like the old lawyer trick. My company made a product we knew would break and result in death (Say a car tire that we knew would explode and cause cars to turn over). Now your lawyers knows this, so they get a court to subpeona the papers showing we knew the product was bad. Instead of sending that one report, we send you that report mixed in 250,000 other reports. Hell, we might send you 249,999 reports and the 1 you wanted is missing. We send you so much stuff, that your whole legal staff is running at 110% and getting nowhere.
;)
"If a new car built by my company leaves Chicago traveling west at 60 miles per hour, and the rear differential locks up, and the car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside, does my company initiate a recall?
You take the population of vehicles in the field (A) and multiply it by the probable rate of failure (B), then multiply the result by the average cost of an out-of-court settlement (C).
A times B times C equals X. This is what it will cost if we don't initiate a recall.
If X is greater than the cost of a recall, we recall the cars and no one gets hurt.
If X is less than the cost of a recall, then we don't recall."
Tyler Durden, is that you?
Sure, they can play chess and recharge their batteries, but if they can't work a remote and podcast, are they really alive or just simulated life?
Dude... you've just described my grandpa!
They won't need to if they can get RFID tags in everything you own; then they can just scan you with RF from a distance, match it up against purchase records, and figure out who you are.
Of course that's absurd. Nope... they'd just scan to figure out what you have on you then use that demographic information to "anonymously" match you against a marketing profile.
It won't be, "Hi, John... want to buy some more Guess t-shirts?"
But, it will be, "Hi... I see you like Calvin Klein a bunch... want a coupon?"
What the hell is she supposed to do? Punt?
Nope... she should ensure that Windows is installed on every PC and that there is no NAT firewall between them and the Internet.
That way, they'll become so laden with viruses and spyware that they'll be unusable, but she'd still be able to claim that they're "available."
Dude... don't pick on ogg; it's having a hard enough time trying to kick mp3's ass to worry about how to improve fire.
If you had a beowulf cluster of these, you could toast a whole loaf at once!
Actually, if you put a beowulf cluster of these in an unventilated closet, you wouldn't even need the "toaster part" to make toast!
Why should spammers be able to steal and not face jail time?
Because there appears to be harsher punishments via vigilante justice or organized crime lashback.
Maybe prison would be safer for them. Then again... I would imagine a lot of spammers to be pale and soft; could make for some fresh chum in the showers. 8P
The problem, and it is a massive one, is not that people are collecting the information, but that they are misusing the information or allowing to be misused by failing to secure it against criminal incursions.
Agree with you completely. Trying to find a solution to this problem is along the same lines as "trying to create a gun that only shoots bad people."
The Acura TL (at least, the 2005 model) has a security feature that disables Bluetooth until you want it enabled by speaking the 4 digit code at car start-up. Most drivers have it turned off because it is a pain to enable it everytime you start the car... but if you're that paranoid about someone hacking the bluetooth on your car when you're *not* using it, this feature is easily disabled. Check the HandsFreeLink section of your owners manual.
The danger of this approach is that you have to be careful not to end up with comments which just replicate what the code says (eg. width++; // increment the width).
// Retrieve all the users that have a balance from the database
// For each user, check to see if the balance is positive
// If the balance is negative, then we need to send them a letter telling them to get their act together
Perhaps I should have clarified my use of "pseudo code" better, as I didn't mean the alternative/language-neutral way of writing code(ie, a=open file("blah"); for each(read(a)){ ; } ). With the way I write my pre-coding comments, I find it very difficult to fall into the trap you've (correctly) outlined. An example of the way I comment might look like something below:
In this way, I'm documenting what I want to get done and why. You're point is valid in that if I had written true pseudo-code, it would be pointless for the comments.
Actually, I start my programming projects by writing all the comments first; in this way, I get the pseudo-code ideas down and write the associated code under each comment. It helps me track where I am in a class/function, what I'm trying to accomplish (what parts still need to be written), and it nicely leaves an understandable trail without having to back-fill the code with comments once the project is "done."
By front-loading the process with comments, I find it really helps not just the maintainability but it also keeps my programming tasks on track.
... is just basically DOS?
If static IP's were used wouldn't it make 99% of the problem go away
Short answer: no.
Just having static IP addresses isn't enough. Actually, even the pseudo-static DHCP (via MAC address) is "good enough" but also vulnerable to exploit by manually setting the MAC address of the alien network interface to one that is allowed to get an IP (there's more complexity to doing that, but suffice it to say it can be done).
To answer your question: if your network relies solely on the IP address on some guys workstation to identify it as "his," then you've opened yourself up to more problems than him hooking up his xbox or internet enabled coffee maker.
What do you do when he brings his virus-laden laptop into the office BEHIND your firewalls and plugs it in?
These problems won't be solved either until you have hardware authenticated connectivity (no reassignable MAC possible in the hardware) or everything is locked down via a different auth mechanism... like utilizing a VPN.
Blocking every port from 1024-65555 is unrealistic...
In fact, if you use passive FTP to download anything from the internet, if you use MSN Messenger to transfer files or view webcams, if you transfer files by DCC via an IRC client... or use any other application which is not port range specific.
This means that anytime you need to do such thing you have to manually open wide 1024-65535 ports and go back to normal mode after.
You're forgetting that a lot of these firewalls have stateful connections... meaning, if you originate a connection out (such as with passive FTP... you're told which port to connect to), it automatically is allowed back in in response.
And for services that require that you have ports open and back to the particular computer (active ftp, eMule, the webcam stuff, etc), a lot of the modern firewalls also include support for Port Triggering. Basically, if you specify the ports you'll want to use in the firewall, it can automatically forward that range of ports to whichever internal computer "triggers the port forwarding." This means, you can use eMule... then your roomate can use it after just by hitting the firewall trigger. An example of how this might look on a somewhat typical home firewall is here: D-Link firewall.
And if that sounds complicated, it is no more complicated then having to tell the Windows firewall to allow those same connections into the computer.
The home hardware firewall is very easy to use... and the parent stated, there's no reason for everyone to have one. Heck, even my 60 year-old mom uses one. 8)
How can it not be a good thing to be able to show whether a given SMPT agent is authorized by the domain?
Forwarding breaks.
Backup MX delivery breaks.
Problem with SPF/SenderID is that it requires direct delivery from the sending mail server in order to authenticate that sender against published DNS records; I won't even get started on how now using DNS as a security mechanism when it is far from secure is a suspect design choice.
I suppose M$ will then suggest that they be allowed to run the authentication service... and anyone who wants to be authenticated can pay a fee; you see where that's going.
In other words, the man is a litigious idiot. The fact that he's occasionally managed to get people to license from him says more about the fact that people are terrified of lawsuits than that the law itself is unfair.
Lawsuit idiocy... not just for the SCO anymore! Maybe this guy should apply for a job there.
Or here's a thought: why not locate datacenters in sub-basements? They're more secure from break-ins as there's only one route of attack (through the "roof" of the datacenter and not so much from the surrounding walls), and it should be easy to utilize geo-thermal heat dissipation; at least, it should make it easier to cool with conventional cooling if one could manage to build a heat-exchanger directly into the walls.
Older manufactured equipment was simply made better, and some of us prefer it to spending more of our liquidity on the latest and greatest (which, as stated above, tends to be more poorly made and hence, more quickly replaced).
Well, love it or hate it, it is called "planned obsolescence."
The theory goes: why make something that will last for 20 years when "better tech" is going to come out in 5? There are plenty of 286XT's out there that will still run, but you would be hard-pressed to find real uses for it still when the newest tech can be had so cheaply and is much improved.
Now whether one feels this is a marketing ploy to drive consumerism or a way to help keep a society from stagnating technologically will depend entirely on where in the scale between the two views one sits.
Ultimately, the question of "is this on the whole good or bad?" is tied to how good we are at deciding what things should be phased out. It doesn't bother me that computer tech evolves quickly... but it does bother me that my refrigerator isn't designed to last 20 years anymore.
Well, if one could combine multiple visual angles and a targeting system, one could make personalized advertising ala "Minority Report." Only you would see the ads destined for you as you walked through the mall.
Oh my God... what the hell am I saying?!?