is more a matter of material specification rather than design.
Many component manufacturers have been, over the past several years, replacing existing components with RoHS compliant ones in advance of the actual date on which compliance was required. Manufacturers have similarly been changing over to RoHS compliant components and assembly processes (i.e. lead free solder) in advance of the actual requirement.
In the case at hand, it appears to be an issue with a solder joint failing on a single chip. Might that be a RoHS compliant chip which Apple was forced to use because the vendor had eliminated the non-RoHS version? Might a change from the traditional tin-lead lead ("leed," not "led") plating to achieve RoHS compliance on that chip be the root cause? Was Apple perhaps already using lead-free solder at the time these were being made?
where this component is located. Comments here talk about using a C-Clamp (which is also shown in the Danish photos) as a workaround to the problem. A quick bit of searching produces this site, which shows that the chip is nowhere near the power button, as you claim. In fact, it appears that the power button mounted to a small, completely separate PC board, in accordance with good design practice.
although it may be a manufacturing fault. It's a solder joint which has broken. Were these computers built with RoHS mandated lead-free solder? There is a lot of concern across the entire electronics industry that the changes required by RoHS will lead to reduced reliability.
This is ONE computer. Is this failure present on others with similar symptoms, or are their other faults modes which can cause the same problem?
historically, health care has been limited by our knowledge and available technology. About the most that could be spent on a treatment would be to put someone in a facility until they died. Not that it did much in the way of healing, but a good bloodletting by the local barber could be afforded by just about anyone. The expensive treatments weren't any more effective.
With modern science and technology, there are marginally effective treatments which can cost millions of $$ in resources. In a socialistic system, of course everyone thinks that regardless of their individual situation, the cost of treatment should be irrelevant if it has any chance of working. If we're all "equal," how can the state reserve such expensive treatments to only a few? The result is either a bankrupt system (when such treatments are made available to all), or one where new treatments cannot advance to achieve economies of refinement and scale (when such treatments are witheld from all).
It's all a form of the well known quote:
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. - author unknown, often attributed to Alexander Tytler
Where does the concept that "healthcare is a right" come from? When, except for very recent times, has a person been able to demand healthcare (walk into an emergency room) without any ability to pay for it?
I don't have access to the actual standard, but would guess that they're really claiming more reliability for the same storage capacity, not more reliable in absolute terms.
They can take what would have been per-block overhead with smaller sector sizes and reuse that data space for more robust error correcting codes, while maintaining the same capacity.
But, good question, since in terms of absolute reliability I can't picture anything in the current spec which would prevent private (not visible at the interface level) methods from being used (RAID within a drive?) with current drives.
during an emergency, sensor and control systems such as those described would be guaranteed to operate flawlessly, and you would bet your life on that fact?
I think you'll also find that in many places, all emergency exits are legally required to be marked/illuminated in specific ways.
Of course, if one actually _reads_ the article, there is no mention of this at all - it's all an ill-conceived figment of the article submitter's imagination, which BTW, was headlined to be about "energy savings."
Most FABs emit water cleaner than they take it in.
The why do they take it in at all (except for initial startup)? Wouldn't a continually recirculating system be cheaper than paying for municipal water?
that dynamic addresses are ALREADY damaged goods, both from the fact that so many major ISPs already block mail from dynamic addresses and also the fact that it's very common that the TOS on dynamic IP accounts forbids it.
Dynamic addresses work just fine. Exactly like static addresses, in fact. It is ISPs who have deliberatly damaged their utility.
get a static IP
Once more, we see the real colors of an ISP - money. Exactly how does extorting more money for a connection magically make it so you can unblock ports without allowing spam? The restrictions are NOT based on spam, or DOS, or any other form of net abuse. They're about extorting money from users. The argument was made that port 25 needs blocking because of spammers signing up for dialup accounts using stolen credit cards. Port blocking isn't a solution to the real problem, which is lazy ISPs who don't practice proper account controls, and won't enforce their TOS, including peering agreements.
Which gets to another of the root causes of Internet problems - ISPs who think they can act as content arbitrators (no servers for you, port blocks, etc.), yet expect the immunity of a common carrier. You can't have your cake, and eat it too. Decide what you want to be. The Internet is nothing more than a bunch of networks who've agreed to interconnect based on common standards (IP/ICMP). If you're not providing at least full support for those two, you're not an ISP.
because legitimate users on dynamic IPs use their ISP's or other mail service provider's mail servers.
That might be a reasonable answer, if:
1. The ISP contractually commits, under severe penalty, to maintain full confidentiality and security for all email passing through their servers. That includes supporting encrypted sessions (from the customer and to the endpoint, including giving the customer control over associated certificates), allowing the customer to control when log events are deleted, guaranteeing ISP employees cannot view or intercept, not archiving or recording email, and completely ignoring any subpoena or other governmental demands for monitoring or maintaining records of email. Will you do that? 2. Gives the customer full control over email filtering/reject messages/retry frequency/fail timeouts, etc., plus full access to all log events related to that user's email. Can you do that? 3. Assumes full legal responsibility, including incidental and consequential damages, related to delivery of email. Will you do that?
I used to work in the abuse department of a major US ISP and outbound port 25 filtering had an immediate and dramatic effect on the amount of spam that was going out via off-network open relays
Proof that major ISPs don't have a clue. If, instead of blocking port 25, you simply shut down the users generating the spam, the exact same results would be achieved without affecting legitimate users.
Your claim you know that it was spam being blocked simply proves that that ISP had no desire to stop the source of spam - you knew it was spam, you knew the source, and instead of excising the cancer, you killed the patient. Instead of stopping the botnets, you merely blocked a single use for them, and left them in place to abuse the Internet in other ways. How irresponsible of you.
How about the legitimate email you were then blocking? Did you offer discounts and/or refunds to those users, who were no longer getting full Internet service?
and how many customers did you cut off for sending spam (intentional or unintentional) in violation of your TOS? How may peers did you sever because they weren't policing their users, and were therefore sending spam your way?
I have little sympathy for lazy ISPs, who've created the bed they are now forced to lie in.
ISPs allow spam because they make more money putting up with it than by dealing with it properly.
with any sort of port blocking, either inbound or outbound. Unless free and open communications are allowed, they're not an ISP, they're a "web browsing service provider," and they are damaging, not helping, the Internet. Port blocking is anathematic to the purpose of the Internet, it interferes with open peer to peer communications. Port blocking is the equivalent of governmental prior restraint.
What ISPs should do is to identify nodes which have actually been infected by a botnet (or are otherwise sending spam/malware) and nuke them in accord with every ISP TOS out there. But, that would be more work, and cut into their revenues, so they don't want to do that.
I run a firewall (iptables), run up-to-date malware scanners, and take responsibilty for what leaves my network. If my security is ineffective, and one of my machines starts spewing spam, I should be cut off and held responsible. But, I should not be penalized or limited because of the actions of others.
Finally, it should be obvious that port blocking, refusing acceptance of smtp connections originating from dynamic IPs, etc. simply hasn't been effective against spam. Spam continues to increase, and will continue to do so until action is taken closer to the root causes - networks start going after originating machines, law enforcement start going after businesses using spam (and, of course, instituting a death penalty for anyone caught purchasing any product from a spammer).
the clueless admins at Charter have their outbound spam filters set so it is next to impossible to report spam. When attempting to forward a spam to the originating ISP, Charter will bounce it back as if the report itself were spam. Even trying to forward the bounced report to Charter results in a bounce. A direct email resulted in no response.
Of course, since Charter also blocks outbound port 25 (smtp), I have no choice but to send through their misconfigured relay agent.
Because she was qualified and was doing a good job, obviously.
Unfortunately, even more than most of society, academia is focused on credentials instead of knowledge and ability. It makes some sense, from a self-serving perspective.
"There was nothing in [the policies] that stood out to me that I would be in violation of," Maass said of his thinking at the time he authored the program.
Maass was charged with "violations of the Acceptable Use Policy, the Network Security Policy, disrespect for authority, disrespect for property, disorderly conduct and fraud," according to a letter he received from the University Judicial Board...
"A lot of these policies are written to be very vague and flexible so that they can be [used] in whatever situation they (the University) need to use them in," he [Maass] says...
Goldrick [ vice president of student services] declined to comment on issues concerning policies.
Would you care to quote the policy you claim he broke?
No, it sounds like he embarassed the University IT administration, so they closed ranks and used a kangaroo court to express their displeasure. Dean Wormer put him on double secret probation first, I'm sure.
it's a single logical link. Perhaps you're confused because the STS hierarchy packs 4 OC-48's into an OC-192, just like there are 24 DS-0s in a DS-1.
If one is willing to consider multiple links running on a single physical one (i.e. DWDM fiber), 72 x 10 Gbps is possible. If multiple physical links are allowed, then the limit becomes financial/practical.
"will give one company access to more information about the Internet activities of consumers than any other company in the world"
Uh, there will always be one company with access to more information than any other company, unless all companies make all of their information available to all (never happen). Exactly what makes it bad that it's Google, and not company X or Y which has access to the most information?
Slashdot Mirror
is more a matter of material specification rather than design.
Many component manufacturers have been, over the past several years, replacing existing components with RoHS compliant ones in advance of the actual date on which compliance was required. Manufacturers have similarly been changing over to RoHS compliant components and assembly processes (i.e. lead free solder) in advance of the actual requirement.
In the case at hand, it appears to be an issue with a solder joint failing on a single chip. Might that be a RoHS compliant chip which Apple was forced to use because the vendor had eliminated the non-RoHS version? Might a change from the traditional tin-lead lead ("leed," not "led") plating to achieve RoHS compliance on that chip be the root cause? Was Apple perhaps already using lead-free solder at the time these were being made?
where this component is located. Comments here talk about using a C-Clamp (which is also shown in the Danish photos) as a workaround to the problem. A quick bit of searching produces this site, which shows that the chip is nowhere near the power button, as you claim. In fact, it appears that the power button mounted to a small, completely separate PC board, in accordance with good design practice.
although it may be a manufacturing fault. It's a solder joint which has broken. Were these computers built with RoHS mandated lead-free solder? There is a lot of concern across the entire electronics industry that the changes required by RoHS will lead to reduced reliability.
This is ONE computer. Is this failure present on others with similar symptoms, or are their other faults modes which can cause the same problem?
With modern science and technology, there are marginally effective treatments which can cost millions of $$ in resources. In a socialistic system, of course everyone thinks that regardless of their individual situation, the cost of treatment should be irrelevant if it has any chance of working. If we're all "equal," how can the state reserve such expensive treatments to only a few? The result is either a bankrupt system (when such treatments are made available to all), or one where new treatments cannot advance to achieve economies of refinement and scale (when such treatments are witheld from all).
It's all a form of the well known quote:Where does the concept that "healthcare is a right" come from? When, except for very recent times, has a person been able to demand healthcare (walk into an emergency room) without any ability to pay for it?
I mean, according to the article,which is certainly obvious (heck, there's probably prior art), especially with the new Supreme Court ruling.
I don't have access to the actual standard, but would guess that they're really claiming more reliability for the same storage capacity, not more reliable in absolute terms.
They can take what would have been per-block overhead with smaller sector sizes and reuse that data space for more robust error correcting codes, while maintaining the same capacity.
But, good question, since in terms of absolute reliability I can't picture anything in the current spec which would prevent private (not visible at the interface level) methods from being used (RAID within a drive?) with current drives.
I missed it by that much.
And shouldn't we both be modded (-1, too obvious)?
Is that, like, it runs on Windows Vista _and_ Windows XP?
the super sekrit number was 0xdeadbeefcafebabe
during an emergency, sensor and control systems such as those described would be guaranteed to operate flawlessly, and you would bet your life on that fact?
I think you'll also find that in many places, all emergency exits are legally required to be marked/illuminated in specific ways.
Of course, if one actually _reads_ the article, there is no mention of this at all - it's all an ill-conceived figment of the article submitter's imagination, which BTW, was headlined to be about "energy savings."
It helps, when responding to a thread, to actually read it before swallowing your foot.
Once more, we see the real colors of an ISP - money. Exactly how does extorting more money for a connection magically make it so you can unblock ports without allowing spam? The restrictions are NOT based on spam, or DOS, or any other form of net abuse. They're about extorting money from users. The argument was made that port 25 needs blocking because of spammers signing up for dialup accounts using stolen credit cards. Port blocking isn't a solution to the real problem, which is lazy ISPs who don't practice proper account controls, and won't enforce their TOS, including peering agreements. Which gets to another of the root causes of Internet problems - ISPs who think they can act as content arbitrators (no servers for you, port blocks, etc.), yet expect the immunity of a common carrier. You can't have your cake, and eat it too. Decide what you want to be. The Internet is nothing more than a bunch of networks who've agreed to interconnect based on common standards (IP/ICMP). If you're not providing at least full support for those two, you're not an ISP.
1. The ISP contractually commits, under severe penalty, to maintain full confidentiality and security for all email passing through their servers. That includes supporting encrypted sessions (from the customer and to the endpoint, including giving the customer control over associated certificates), allowing the customer to control when log events are deleted, guaranteeing ISP employees cannot view or intercept, not archiving or recording email, and completely ignoring any subpoena or other governmental demands for monitoring or maintaining records of email. Will you do that?
2. Gives the customer full control over email filtering/reject messages/retry frequency/fail timeouts, etc., plus full access to all log events related to that user's email. Can you do that?
3. Assumes full legal responsibility, including incidental and consequential damages, related to delivery of email. Will you do that?
Your claim you know that it was spam being blocked simply proves that that ISP had no desire to stop the source of spam - you knew it was spam, you knew the source, and instead of excising the cancer, you killed the patient. Instead of stopping the botnets, you merely blocked a single use for them, and left them in place to abuse the Internet in other ways. How irresponsible of you.
How about the legitimate email you were then blocking? Did you offer discounts and/or refunds to those users, who were no longer getting full Internet service?
and how many customers did you cut off for sending spam (intentional or unintentional) in violation of your TOS? How may peers did you sever because they weren't policing their users, and were therefore sending spam your way?
I have little sympathy for lazy ISPs, who've created the bed they are now forced to lie in.
ISPs allow spam because they make more money putting up with it than by dealing with it properly.
with any sort of port blocking, either inbound or outbound. Unless free and open communications are allowed, they're not an ISP, they're a "web browsing service provider," and they are damaging, not helping, the Internet. Port blocking is anathematic to the purpose of the Internet, it interferes with open peer to peer communications. Port blocking is the equivalent of governmental prior restraint.
What ISPs should do is to identify nodes which have actually been infected by a botnet (or are otherwise sending spam/malware) and nuke them in accord with every ISP TOS out there. But, that would be more work, and cut into their revenues, so they don't want to do that.
I run a firewall (iptables), run up-to-date malware scanners, and take responsibilty for what leaves my network. If my security is ineffective, and one of my machines starts spewing spam, I should be cut off and held responsible. But, I should not be penalized or limited because of the actions of others.
Finally, it should be obvious that port blocking, refusing acceptance of smtp connections originating from dynamic IPs, etc. simply hasn't been effective against spam. Spam continues to increase, and will continue to do so until action is taken closer to the root causes - networks start going after originating machines, law enforcement start going after businesses using spam (and, of course, instituting a death penalty for anyone caught purchasing any product from a spammer).
the clueless admins at Charter have their outbound spam filters set so it is next to impossible to report spam. When attempting to forward a spam to the originating ISP, Charter will bounce it back as if the report itself were spam. Even trying to forward the bounced report to Charter results in a bounce. A direct email resulted in no response. Of course, since Charter also blocks outbound port 25 (smtp), I have no choice but to send through their misconfigured relay agent.
Because she was qualified and was doing a good job, obviously.
Unfortunately, even more than most of society, academia is focused on credentials instead of knowledge and ability. It makes some sense, from a self-serving perspective.
Would you care to quote the policy you claim he broke?
No, it sounds like he embarassed the University IT administration, so they closed ranks and used a kangaroo court to express their displeasure. Dean Wormer put him on double secret probation first, I'm sure.
it's a single logical link. Perhaps you're confused because the STS hierarchy packs 4 OC-48's into an OC-192, just like there are 24 DS-0s in a DS-1.
If one is willing to consider multiple links running on a single physical one (i.e. DWDM fiber), 72 x 10 Gbps is possible. If multiple physical links are allowed, then the limit becomes financial/practical.
Don't they have redundant paths? Can't they use ECMP? (I'm assuming that the "limit" is referring to 10 Gbps max link speed)
"will give one company access to more information about the Internet activities of consumers than any other company in the world"
Uh, there will always be one company with access to more information than any other company, unless all companies make all of their information available to all (never happen). Exactly what makes it bad that it's Google, and not company X or Y which has access to the most information?
What do they offer that anyone wants, that can't be better served elsewhere? This is a serious question, not a troll.
From my limited past dealings with them, they're appropriately named - a bunch of "yahoos," they are.