I mean those devices are sold as "business mobiles". Yet the keyboard lacks all important keys. For example there are no modifier keys and not even an "Escape" key.
How are you supposed to use, for example Microsoft Word, on such a thing.
I mean it's obviously foolish to not get some proper education, and at companies you typically only learn how not to do it. A formal education can bring you the inspiration and time to become a decent programmer.
However, currently there is the rare chance of a second ".com"-bubble. Companies are hiring just about anybody and paying them insane amounts of money. It's like in that old documentary I've seen about Netscape where they all thought they'd be great... but if you look at the actual product you'll find that it's unacceptably bad, by any standard except for 1990s commercial software standards.
So, if you manage to keep your standard of living low, you can milk a company for the money. Then when it'll collapse in 1 or 2 years you can get some proper education.
Well first of all the usual stuff. It needs to be completely open source and have an open bootloader so there is a chance of security. It also needs to have rather simple code so it can be checked, as well as decent battery life.
Then there is the whole issue of user interfaces which isn't even solved for mobile phones these days. What you need is a powerful interface that works on small devices. So far the best contestant in that area seems to be the HP-01 calculator watch. http://www.led-forever.com/htm... It allows you to start a stop watch, and then use the result in real time to do calculations on it.
Unfortunately it seems like "smartwatch" manufacturers will go the other route, making them rather useless. Just like they already did with the idea of a "smartphone" when they turned it from something like the Nokia Communicator to something like the iPhone.
There is, apart from some clouds, nothing in between. Those are ideal conditions. Considering that even the radio links of the moon missions had a few megabits of channel capacity, that's not very much. (Yes those links were analog, but Shannon has showed that you can still express the capacity of such a channel in bits or shannons)
So you are still looking through a letterbox. This may be acceptable in situations where you need lots of width.
It's a typical "market research" product. People put 2 screens next to each other and complain about the bezel, a company realizes this and makes a "double wide" monitor. People don't put 2 screens next to each other because they want to have just a wider screen. They do so because they want to have a larger screens. Putting screens on top of each other is, however, rather difficult. That's why they are put next to each other.
What people actually want is a large high definition screen. Ideally with more than 2000 pixels in height. That way you can put whole designs on your screen without having to constantly scroll and zoom around. Just imagine routing a wire on a board and being able to see where you're going.
I mean those people create _actual_ harm. China cannot harm people outside China in any significant way, and should they ever do, your local government would at least protest. However no western government ever protests against the US... even when they abduct people.
China doesn't even run large sigint installations in Germany the way the US does.
To be honest I've never seen a capture card doing anything with the signal. I know the chipsets are capable of detecting it, but I've never seen it implemented in a driver.
Well, but a week long Exchange semi-outage still costs money, no matter what your support level is. (Happened at a large German manufacturer of household appliances) Microsoft software just doesn't seem to be enterprise ready.
So far the main advantage of BluRay is that you can get a HD copy at a reasonable price where you can actually get rid of the DRM in most cases. Currently this makes using a BluRay just as illegal as pirating the movie. If they would stop adding DRM, they would not only reduce the production costs (DRM is expensive!), but also give the customers what they want.
Yes, plus they want to be able to give out VHS copies to people. In fact some producers dubbed all their material to VHS to be able to have a portable editing station in their hotel room where they could do a rough edit. The final edit would be done on proper equipment, but they already got a feel for how it would look like.
Actually the "broadcast quality" equipment ran various forms of Betacam which only shares the cassette size with Beta. The closest thing ever promoted by Sony for actual broadcast use was U-Matic, an ancestor of Beta with 3/4inch tape. It came in Low Band, High Band and SP.
However as stated before, there's a professional market where quality doesn't matter, and that's where (S-)VHS came in.
VHS never was broadcast quality, however there's still a large market for professional non broadcast TV. For example companies would want to put internal information video on VHS since it's cheap and "good enough". For that market you get better (S-)VHS recorders.
It depends on the way the "stabilizer" works. Most just blank out some lines while some might actually replace the whole sync signal which is what you want.
Macrovision is record only. Professional VHS and/or S-VHS recorders actually had a switch where you could turn of the Macrovision AGC so those never were a problem. Such professional VTRs are now available fairly cheap, even the ones with little use. I'd gravitate towards an S-VHS one since they are able to play VHS, and they provide the S-Video output for no cross colour.
Well but iOS for the iPhone x is a different image than iOS for the iPhone y. The same goes for Android. That's why the manufacturer decides which devices get updates and which don't.
Yes and so is USB, the question is, will the controllers for it be the same? There is some pressure for such standards from the ARM-hosting crowd, since ARM based servers would fill a very interesting niche in the market.
Something that already exists on the PC. You can trivially boot up any operating system you want on any PC and the basic things like the display and the input devices will just work. This is because the PC platform not only has certain basic hardware components standardised, but also because there are interfaces to enumerate the hardware you have. Once you have your kernel in memory and running, it can simply look for the hardware and access the hardware accordingly.
On ARM there is no such thing as a PCI bus. Therefore your kernel needs to be compiled for the very device you want to use it for. You cannot just compile in the most common ethernet controllers into your kernel and expect it to choose the right one. This may work, but very likely your first driver will try to probe blindly for its device, crashing your system, before the second one even has a chance to run.
This is why there are movements to create a common hardware interface, one where you just have a single operating system image running on a huge variation of hardware just like on the PC. Unfortunately the business model of ARM doesn't help here. ARM licenses its cores to many SoC manufacturers. Each one of them hopes to lock in its customers making it deliberately hard to switch to any of their competitors. A common interface would sweep away the borders. You could switch from manufacturer A to manufacturer B just like you can switch from a Dell PC to an HP one.
When people believed you could use a computer without being able to program. That's how mandatory programming courses got shut down and the incompetence "trickled down".
Actually the Nokia 770 was a phenomenal success, despite not being advertised. It spawned 5 successors and the line was only cancelled when Nokia was Elopped. Even then the single remaining product was outselling all of their Windows products despite being only offered in selected markets.
It was the first, and unfortunately the last, mobile device that was actually useful. It was the closest thing to a portable computer you could get.
Actually scratch that, the protocol feature is not suitable for adding noise since it's like a ping. You send some data and it comes back verbatim... that's trivial to filter out as an attacker.
I mean paper doesn't have to be inefficient, in fact it rarely is since paper based workflows are often optimized. Everybody working with paper understands the process and can therefore come up with ways to optimize it. I once worked at a hospital which had paper files. It makes sense since the documents in there can be in a lot of different types. The process of dealing with it was rather efficient on the paper side, you had some numbers and got the file with that number from a cabinet. The actual bottleneck was the computer based indexing system. We had something similar to E-Mail called "Outlook/Exchange". We ended up printing out those pseudo E-Mails, looking up each number individually in the indexing system, and writing the number of the file next to it. There was no way of sorting the entries to be able to reach them efficiently, nor was the system well designed. (it had SQL injection bugs!) This is just one example of how badly designed computer based workflows can be.
Then there is the other point of governments being supposedly less efficient than companies. I have no idea where that idea comes from. I have 2 retirement funds, one run by a private company, the other one run by the government. While the government one manages to pay out millions of pensions every month and flawlessly adapts to any changes in my life, the private one can't even get a simple address change right, twice in a row!
Why should companies change? Companies mainly act to self-preserve. Any change is not just constructive, but also destructive. For a company to change it would need to have a vital reason, without that reason it cannot change. Some people claim that there is the magic hand of the market which will somehow fix the problem though something called "competition". Those people go on citing exotic areas where their dogma actually worked and there was competition. However look around you. Go to an electronics store with a list of brands that come from the same manufacturer and then look at how many different prices exactly the same product gets sold. If there was competition, everyone would buy the cheapest of the otherwise identical products. There is no competition on many markets.
Such systems are not insecure because they are digital or involve computers or anything. (seriously I doubt the guy even understands what digital and analog means) Such systems are insecure because they are unnecessarily complex.
Let's take the Stuxnet example. That system designed to control and monitor the speed at which centrifuges spin. That's not really a complex task. That's something you should be able to solve in much less than a thousand lines of code. However the system they built had a lot of unnecessary features. For example if you inserted an USB stick (why did it have USB support) it displayed icons for some of the files. And those icons can be in DLLs where the stub code gets executed when you load them. So you insert an USB stick and the system will execute code from it... just like it's advertised in the manual. Other features include remote printing to file, so you can print to a file on a remote computer, or storing configuration files in an SQL database, obviously with a hard coded password.
Those systems are unfortunately done by people who don't understand what they are doing. They use complex systems, but have no idea how they work. And instead of making their systems simpler, they actually make them more and more complex. Just google for "SCADA in the Cloud" and read all the justifications for it.
Slashdot Mirror
I mean those devices are sold as "business mobiles". Yet the keyboard lacks all important keys. For example there are no modifier keys and not even an "Escape" key.
How are you supposed to use, for example Microsoft Word, on such a thing.
I mean it's obviously foolish to not get some proper education, and at companies you typically only learn how not to do it. A formal education can bring you the inspiration and time to become a decent programmer.
However, currently there is the rare chance of a second ".com"-bubble. Companies are hiring just about anybody and paying them insane amounts of money. It's like in that old documentary I've seen about Netscape where they all thought they'd be great... but if you look at the actual product you'll find that it's unacceptably bad, by any standard except for 1990s commercial software standards.
So, if you manage to keep your standard of living low, you can milk a company for the money. Then when it'll collapse in 1 or 2 years you can get some proper education.
Well first of all the usual stuff. It needs to be completely open source and have an open bootloader so there is a chance of security. It also needs to have rather simple code so it can be checked, as well as decent battery life.
Then there is the whole issue of user interfaces which isn't even solved for mobile phones these days. What you need is a powerful interface that works on small devices. So far the best contestant in that area seems to be the HP-01 calculator watch.
http://www.led-forever.com/htm...
It allows you to start a stop watch, and then use the result in real time to do calculations on it.
Unfortunately it seems like "smartwatch" manufacturers will go the other route, making them rather useless. Just like they already did with the idea of a "smartphone" when they turned it from something like the Nokia Communicator to something like the iPhone.
There is, apart from some clouds, nothing in between. Those are ideal conditions. Considering that even the radio links of the moon missions had a few megabits of channel capacity, that's not very much. (Yes those links were analog, but Shannon has showed that you can still express the capacity of such a channel in bits or shannons)
So you are still looking through a letterbox. This may be acceptable in situations where you need lots of width.
It's a typical "market research" product. People put 2 screens next to each other and complain about the bezel, a company realizes this and makes a "double wide" monitor.
People don't put 2 screens next to each other because they want to have just a wider screen. They do so because they want to have a larger screens. Putting screens on top of each other is, however, rather difficult. That's why they are put next to each other.
What people actually want is a large high definition screen. Ideally with more than 2000 pixels in height. That way you can put whole designs on your screen without having to constantly scroll and zoom around. Just imagine routing a wire on a board and being able to see where you're going.
I mean those people create _actual_ harm.
China cannot harm people outside China in any significant way, and should they ever do, your local government would at least protest. However no western government ever protests against the US... even when they abduct people.
China doesn't even run large sigint installations in Germany the way the US does.
To be honest I've never seen a capture card doing anything with the signal. I know the chipsets are capable of detecting it, but I've never seen it implemented in a driver.
Well, but a week long Exchange semi-outage still costs money, no matter what your support level is. (Happened at a large German manufacturer of household appliances) Microsoft software just doesn't seem to be enterprise ready.
So far the main advantage of BluRay is that you can get a HD copy at a reasonable price where you can actually get rid of the DRM in most cases. Currently this makes using a BluRay just as illegal as pirating the movie. If they would stop adding DRM, they would not only reduce the production costs (DRM is expensive!), but also give the customers what they want.
Yes, plus they want to be able to give out VHS copies to people. In fact some producers dubbed all their material to VHS to be able to have a portable editing station in their hotel room where they could do a rough edit. The final edit would be done on proper equipment, but they already got a feel for how it would look like.
Actually the "broadcast quality" equipment ran various forms of Betacam which only shares the cassette size with Beta. The closest thing ever promoted by Sony for actual broadcast use was U-Matic, an ancestor of Beta with 3/4inch tape. It came in Low Band, High Band and SP.
However as stated before, there's a professional market where quality doesn't matter, and that's where (S-)VHS came in.
VHS never was broadcast quality, however there's still a large market for professional non broadcast TV. For example companies would want to put internal information video on VHS since it's cheap and "good enough". For that market you get better (S-)VHS recorders.
It depends on the way the "stabilizer" works. Most just blank out some lines while some might actually replace the whole sync signal which is what you want.
Macrovision is record only.
Professional VHS and/or S-VHS recorders actually had a switch where you could turn of the Macrovision AGC so those never were a problem.
Such professional VTRs are now available fairly cheap, even the ones with little use. I'd gravitate towards an S-VHS one since they are able to play VHS, and they provide the S-Video output for no cross colour.
Well but iOS for the iPhone x is a different image than iOS for the iPhone y. The same goes for Android. That's why the manufacturer decides which devices get updates and which don't.
Yes and so is USB, the question is, will the controllers for it be the same?
There is some pressure for such standards from the ARM-hosting crowd, since ARM based servers would fill a very interesting niche in the market.
Something that already exists on the PC. You can trivially boot up any operating system you want on any PC and the basic things like the display and the input devices will just work.
This is because the PC platform not only has certain basic hardware components standardised, but also because there are interfaces to enumerate the hardware you have. Once you have your kernel in memory and running, it can simply look for the hardware and access the hardware accordingly.
On ARM there is no such thing as a PCI bus. Therefore your kernel needs to be compiled for the very device you want to use it for. You cannot just compile in the most common ethernet controllers into your kernel and expect it to choose the right one. This may work, but very likely your first driver will try to probe blindly for its device, crashing your system, before the second one even has a chance to run.
This is why there are movements to create a common hardware interface, one where you just have a single operating system image running on a huge variation of hardware just like on the PC. Unfortunately the business model of ARM doesn't help here. ARM licenses its cores to many SoC manufacturers. Each one of them hopes to lock in its customers making it deliberately hard to switch to any of their competitors. A common interface would sweep away the borders. You could switch from manufacturer A to manufacturer B just like you can switch from a Dell PC to an HP one.
When people believed you could use a computer without being able to program. That's how mandatory programming courses got shut down and the incompetence "trickled down".
Actually the Nokia 770 was a phenomenal success, despite not being advertised. It spawned 5 successors and the line was only cancelled when Nokia was Elopped. Even then the single remaining product was outselling all of their Windows products despite being only offered in selected markets.
It was the first, and unfortunately the last, mobile device that was actually useful. It was the closest thing to a portable computer you could get.
Actually scratch that, the protocol feature is not suitable for adding noise since it's like a ping. You send some data and it comes back verbatim... that's trivial to filter out as an attacker.
In his paper he admits that no data is necessary.
But wouldn't it make a lot more sense to do this on the application side? There you can easily just add "noise" in any way you want.
I mean keep alive is already done by TCP, a keep alive doesn't need data. Why did this even get into the standard?
It seems like the only purpose for this code was for Robin S. to erect a monument for himself. Again why did this get into the standard?
I mean paper doesn't have to be inefficient, in fact it rarely is since paper based workflows are often optimized. Everybody working with paper understands the process and can therefore come up with ways to optimize it.
I once worked at a hospital which had paper files. It makes sense since the documents in there can be in a lot of different types. The process of dealing with it was rather efficient on the paper side, you had some numbers and got the file with that number from a cabinet. The actual bottleneck was the computer based indexing system. We had something similar to E-Mail called "Outlook/Exchange". We ended up printing out those pseudo E-Mails, looking up each number individually in the indexing system, and writing the number of the file next to it. There was no way of sorting the entries to be able to reach them efficiently, nor was the system well designed. (it had SQL injection bugs!)
This is just one example of how badly designed computer based workflows can be.
Then there is the other point of governments being supposedly less efficient than companies. I have no idea where that idea comes from. I have 2 retirement funds, one run by a private company, the other one run by the government. While the government one manages to pay out millions of pensions every month and flawlessly adapts to any changes in my life, the private one can't even get a simple address change right, twice in a row!
Why should companies change? Companies mainly act to self-preserve. Any change is not just constructive, but also destructive. For a company to change it would need to have a vital reason, without that reason it cannot change.
Some people claim that there is the magic hand of the market which will somehow fix the problem though something called "competition". Those people go on citing exotic areas where their dogma actually worked and there was competition. However look around you. Go to an electronics store with a list of brands that come from the same manufacturer and then look at how many different prices exactly the same product gets sold. If there was competition, everyone would buy the cheapest of the otherwise identical products. There is no competition on many markets.
Such systems are not insecure because they are digital or involve computers or anything. (seriously I doubt the guy even understands what digital and analog means) Such systems are insecure because they are unnecessarily complex.
Let's take the Stuxnet example. That system designed to control and monitor the speed at which centrifuges spin. That's not really a complex task. That's something you should be able to solve in much less than a thousand lines of code. However the system they built had a lot of unnecessary features. For example if you inserted an USB stick (why did it have USB support) it displayed icons for some of the files. And those icons can be in DLLs where the stub code gets executed when you load them. So you insert an USB stick and the system will execute code from it... just like it's advertised in the manual. Other features include remote printing to file, so you can print to a file on a remote computer, or storing configuration files in an SQL database, obviously with a hard coded password.
Those systems are unfortunately done by people who don't understand what they are doing. They use complex systems, but have no idea how they work. And instead of making their systems simpler, they actually make them more and more complex. Just google for "SCADA in the Cloud" and read all the justifications for it.
Yes it did. It was transmitted via USB stick.