I agree completely about the crypto. I didn't really think that a strong crypto would be broken quickly.
I'm also not trying to disprove everything you say (just in case this offends you), I'm merely trying to look at it from all perspectives.
About the epoxy though, even if its something like welding epoxys, that stuff is not even remotely safe to put near a processor. Leak or not, there are other risks involved that will shorten the life of the processor. Sure, it can be absolutely impossible to remove without breaking something as fragile as a processor, but you'll cause plenty of problems to the proc itself too.
I think crypto can be good approaches on certain things, I do agree key methods are probably quite a bitch to crack. However, I will have to wait and see if this can work (which I still pretty much am skeptical until real trials start + more information). Thank you for your educating me in this matter, I always welcome knowledge:)
Thankfully, I think I understand what you are stating here. Can you clarify why a mounted die would not be able to be examined, modified, or reverse engineered? Are there no ways for people to examine a die post-process/post mounting? I am assuming you mean when the die is attached to the chip, right?
Isn't having any form of random-looking information whatsoever, with or without a key in any situation how people can start to crack a cipher? I do understand that a cipher is a lot harder to crack than just mere processing power.
Also, how would the fake processors be locked in the first place? If someone bought a real one with intent to duplicate fakes, how would those be locked down necessarily? Wouldn't that be all someone needs to start fabbing their own fakes, is a copy of the real?
I appreciate all your replies and the absence of flaming involved, but I'm not sure I agree with you.
Who said anyone has to observe any part of the process? All you have to do is observe the completed processor and figure out whats going on. Since its a consumer or possibly business product, you buy 1 and figure it out. Usually people call this reverse engineering? How can you ensure if something is mass produced that you can discern which of your millions of customers bought a real one in order to make a fake one?
How is that considered to be foolproof? Anyone with enough dedication/time/resources (some combination thereof) would be able to figure it out. That is the nature of true reverse engineering: it really can do anything if someone is determined.
Also this "unlocking", what makes you think it really can't be figured out by examining a processor after it's done? How is this going to help them discern which is a fake and which is a real processor? Are they going to just seize people's computers and check them for the supposedly inactivated value?
How is this supposed to stop theft/espionage, or stop the ability to make a fake processor that functions on a real motherboard? I do not feel you have explained to me the rationale of how this is supposed to stop fake copies or theft, or brand dilution on any level? I would like an answer to this paragraph the most, and I feel you have avoided it/not provided an answer.
How is this part not understood? Do you think a processor is so complicated that someone who is manufacturing fake duplicate chips would not be able to understand it/figure it out? Obviously they have done one hell of a successful job at doing so already, so whats to stop them if the way a processor that they already produce has a different method now? They have even less to observe since they can simply compare the new processor to the old. Voila! Instead of having to check every single thing the processor can do, now they only have to check maybe 1-3% of things for a change.
Really? What part of the PRO IP act as a recent example? Or how about this "no swear word" ordinance in a California town? You'd call good intentions directly stifling the first amendment? You don't think this was the goal straight from the start, that now it has to be challenged to be proven wrong?
I do understand your sarcasm, but trusted computing was never really implemented except in vista. People balked at the idea pretty hard when it came around, and as you can imagine, people have had many problems with media in vista due to the "trusted DRM's content protection". Things such as downgrading HD content quality if it wasn't on an approved monitor, and this is not new. This stuff goes back before 2003 even .
So tell me, how do you like the wonderful work microsoft, adobe, and the likes have done? Since Adobe has purchased shockwave hasn't it done a wonderful job of keeping up the shockwave name! How about Microsoft with Vista? Surely everyone loves that too.
Sheesh. I know you know quite a bit, but I truly pity the people who don't see the wool in front of their eyes and just how much it affects them.
Like before, I'm all for a successful method, if there is one. I can't say that in the case of a physical product expecting to be able to control all copies of it is reasonable. I'm not saying give up either, I just don't think trying to monitor the flow of the processors pre-purchase is going to work especially if these people are capable of selling to consumers anyway. Yes, I hate low quality crap imitations.
But as I said before, where is this info? I really don't see any in the article that shows a successful method here.
Making a phone home system is ridiculously easily faked. Example of the protocol level info exchange: (fake copy of processor) Hello proxy server? I'm a legitimate manufacturer and this processor is registered.
Bing, faked. Approximate skill needed to crack? Script kiddie level at best. You don't ever need access to manufacturer info to do this, merely the capacity to copy the processors and a few days at most to explore the validation technique. Honestly anyone who thinks you can't dupe a validation procedure obviously knows nothing of windows, steam, video games, pay per view/cable tv hacking, or phone freaking, atm scams, or any other trick. All of these get around validation. Validation via a sever is not and never will be a method that works for any form of verification. Or a quick physical example: personal identification.
AT some point there will be software involved with this unlocking, and at that point will be one of many potential weaknesses.
Another reason? You can't get rid of legacy methods of verification for the processor because there may be manufacturers that do not have newer methods and will only create the processor using a legacy method.
Really I can keep poking holes in this security all day, but nothing here shows me an even remotely fool proof method.
This situation obviously doesn't apply to Intel. They release new processors at a speed enough that even people duplicating the processor will be behind on technology. DRM on a processor is no better than DRM anywhere else. When are people going to learn this? Also, there's not a whole lot of info on this activation method. You really think its going to be not only reliable, but not able to be duplicated by the impostors over an extended period of time? Have you ever heard of a protection/control schema that actually works of this type of control? You think china would care the minute they get their hands on a single chip? Doubted.
I do understand what you're saying, but no, this is still on the patent owner. From the last sentence you said sums up the answer: The thing is, businesses are always going to opt for the cheapest option.
Whose fault is that? Why should anyone other than the business that makes that decision (aka patent owner) bear the brunt of that responsibility? Why should a manufacturer add a cost to their process and what incentive do they have to do so? Answer: none whatsoever.
It is the patent owner's responsibility to do whatever recourse is necessary to prevent the situation from happening. Doing things because they are cheaper doesn't mean you can just wipe away all the liability or responsibility. Just because for example, I manufacture using method A because its cheaper than method B doesn't take away any responsibility I have for choosing method A and the results thereafter. However, instead of accepting that responsibility I add a costly process to the manufacturer that is neither realistic nor even guaranteed to help a single drop in this scenario.
What are we, supposed to be sympathetic to a patent owner who made a bad business decision? Whose responsibility is that again, exactly? The market is not sympathetic, neither is the consumer market, neither is the manufacturer, and neither am I.
Hey, Thanks for the flame. In case you're wondering, I did indeed read the article. What I said I mean as I said it. This is a human controllable problem, not something that is fixed by manufacturing a control on the chip. If the leaks are stopped then this "magic security method" is never necessary. Who is to say that this "activated after manufacture but before shipped to consumer" method cannot somehow be activated again? Surely we can just be forced to trust the patent holder, right? Surely we can trust the manufacturer as well right? I mean after all, we can't see anything going on so certainly it must be trustworthy.
See, if someone had a contract that would hold manufacturers accountable for the data loss as I said in other replies, I'm sure they'd put a lot more effort and watching into whether a blueprint has been leaked. After all, there aren't that many processor manufacturers out there, so how hard would it be to pin down considering you know who you give it out to? Industrial espionage means something has been stolen. Obviously that would mean there is insufficient security on the BLUEPRINT by the PATENT OWNER. There are more important things here than just physical security as I have mentioned in this reply that can stop that loss.
This is what we call a lack of basic due dilligence here. Being lost at this point, this validation will cause unknown problems and will not fix the situation. Who is to believe that this new magic chip activation method won't be cracked just as easy by the imitation manufacturers? How is this to even stop a processor from functioning? That would require compliant motherboards. Who is to agree to let their motherboard be DRM'd? Oh yeah, wait, that might be trusted computing huh?
Think before you flame people please. I don't need an ad hominem attack. Nice try though.
Honestly, if its not human error then explain how any information can be leaked here. Was it magical? Did someone put it on a laptop and lose it?
Information doesn't disseminate itself. Someone has to start it. Who said it was the fault of the patent owner? It's not a matter of fault at all. The fault is not relevant even remotely.
I said it was a human controllable situation, not something of a technology solution. Aka it is the manufacturer who is at fault here, and whose responsibility is it to find a trustworthy manufacturer? The patent owner's. Who has initial control of the information before it is disseminated? The patent owner. You can of course, make the manufacturer sign agreements to make sure that it is their responsibility to secure your blueprints too. I wonder if people actually thought of that, too?
So once again, remind me who has control of the situation? Last I checked, the patent owner does and therefore, bears the responsibility regardless of fault.
That's how it starts, but that's not how it would end. Think of how much the government or any power abusing company seeking more of that would be on this like FOS. Especially if it becomes commonly manufactured. Not that this is 100%, but I wouldn't see a situation like this technology being force trickled on consumers to be completely unlikely either.
I understand that a processor blueprint is not something that people want compromised. Throwing a technical attempt to solve the problem rather than dealing with human error is just putting the blame in the wrong places and throwing stuff at the wall hoping things will stick.
Give it a month after it comes out tops and someone will find a way to get it on the touch. There's no way a more open system like the Iphone can contain software exclusive to it, even if they try to verify it over the internet.
I suspect it will be so quickly cracked apple won't be able to keep up with patches for months at a minimum.
I seem to recall some dude who had encryption on his drive, notably a porn situation, where the crypto had some kind of time component where after a week the key rotated or something? Anyone have the links for it? I think that would cause some issues on this one too.
Just a FYI, this deal has not been approved. So all this "SCO is going to be saved" stuff, has no factual basis whatsoever. Bankruptcy court would have to approve of it, and that is not likely at all. So the slashdot article here = incorrect.
Noscript NukeAnything Enhanced Restarter ShowIP IE Tab Gmail Manager Ebay Toolbar (the one those college kids made) DOM inspector All In One Gestures Adblock
I as well had to let noscript through on the site and then refresh.
options :
advanced tab: advanced encryption - SSL3 and TLS 1 checked security tab: warn about addons site forgery - using downloaded list remember passwords (my own preference ofc, I only use it for ones I can afford to compromise)
Only warning on: when viewing a page with low grade encryption
content tab: all 4 boxes checked, all advanced things checked under enable JS
and that it I think. I don't think I've changed the default that much on everything.
Oddly, at home on this config I cannot install addons, I get that undefined error shit. So no idea what the diff is, but this one runs a-okay.
First off I'd like to say, that simply being frustrated by a condition that is out of your control (dumbass - or dumas;) driving slow in front of ya) is not something that reflects on maturity or not. Any person can try to make themselves sound like the most "well restrained" and most mature person in the world but it doesn't work that way over time. Everyone has good and bad days, and on some days an individual is more short than others. If that is wrong or abnormal, then supposedly the entire world is wrong or abnormal. Violence may be a pretty stupid thing, but I think that would go far beyond the definition of "road rage" and more into the definition of Violence.
I was also talking about avoiding collisions. What is your point there? (confused)
Also, driving faster does not risk other people's lives. If you are driving faster and others are not, then your braking will not affect anyone. If you are traveling faster than the speed of traffic then where is this magic shockwave? what is wrong with people driving faster for their own benefit? Are you saying all lanes would go faster if they all go the same speed (because such a concept is impossible at best anyway).
Example of the shockwave in real affect is a railroad track by me....busses stop before they go over the tracks and for some stupid reason when the bus opens its door, people often stop as well (sheeple as always). This causes traffic to back up as far back as 2 miles, as observed by myself and someone coordinated on the other side. Is this safer? no. Numerous people have gotten into accidents from sudden braking going over the tracks as well as vehicle damage from going too slow over the tracks, in fact.
Driving at a steady speed is at best, unrealistic. Nobody can drive at the same speed all the time or we wouldn't have stoplights/stop signs, or turns for that matter. 6billion commuters are not flying airplanes to beeline to their destination. Lets be real here.
Commuter trains go 100MPH? What trains (maglev excluded) are you thinking of? Mass and velocity concerns come to mind here.
I think the rail idea like you're thinking is likely hard to implement but I am not qualified enough nor do I hold an opinion on whether its viable or not. I would say you're looking a bit too much into a certain Tom Cruise movie with that one, however.
In a corporate environment as others stated, you probably won't see it. It isn't seen as "needed/etc". In a home environment, it's almost guaranteed. In any form of development environment...
I see no reason for a server to have it. I would expect to see more servers with ESata than with firewire, perhaps I should have specified I meant for home use. Every PC I've built for my customers has had it on the case or on the motherboard whether I require or like it or not really. Considering this error sounds like a windows scenario, it's never been an issue (they mostly use Ubuntu anyway).
Yes, not accurate is exactly what I mean. However, I for one, do not need to be screwed over by traffic because some douche wants to drive just the speed limit which caused the last 3 miles of cars after him to slow to a crawl....causing me to be held up another 10-20 minutes. This same behavior incites road rage, and creates more traffic on the roads.
So yeah, get rid of the bottleneck of the feedback, and offer a method to increase performance (speed) and the issue will be gone. problem solved. Don't like driving 80+ on a 55mph highway? Get off the road/out of the way. Instead, we have people driving in the passing lane like that. This article highlights that pretty well as does the last time such a solution was shown. Simple example that has existed for a while is the autobahn. You ever seen traffic on it? I haven't.
Just about every new PC that is released with USB ports has an IEEE connection (Firewire) on the front of the case, which the motherboard supports. You seem to have forgotten that the motherboard doesn't need to have a firewire port on it, it already supports it externally (unless you have a PC that doesn't have extra USB slots except on the motherboard itself....and I guarantee you in the last 10 years no PCs have been made like that). I remember 600 mhz systems that had firewire.
Every HP, Dell, and others from more than 5 years ago still had some form of firewire from the beginning of the XP days and possibly even further back.
You do realize that speed limits are not accurate, right? The only reason they are there is to monetize away your driving privileges that they granted to you in the first place. In reality, the minute you have a drivers license, you just lost a ton of rights on the US.
If people realize that the reason the world goes 80 instead because that is the natural point that people feel safe to drive given current conditions and someone wasn't driving in the fast lane (going excessively slow and causing the feedback), such a situation wouldn't occur.
Exactly as someone else said, this is not automotive specific, and the only solution to excess feedback is to reduce whatever is slowing things down, not to "slow things down further". If roads were unrestricted for speeds and had more lanes people would go 100+ more frequently (and more safely), of course roads would wear faster among other things like that.
Additionally, this feedback driving creates a "safety-minded" driver, aka someone who drives so slow in the snow/rain/etc that it creates pileups for hours. "I see a drop of rain on my windshield = lets drive 15 under the limit (as if the limit wasnt bad enough)" = feedback at its finest.
By biased individuals or neutral opinions? I'd be willing to bet it was the former. I personally prefer open office but honestly can't say that I would expect there to be a difference between the two applications. This is in fact, one of the reasons why people have such an issue with OOXML trying to become a standard.
As previous, that was a skeptical question, not an attack on the GP. Doesn't mean I don't want to hear an honest answer as opposed to "answers are out there". So yeah, when has there ever been anything office does better than open office, that is not something that can be done in open office? Compatibility between formats issue being left aside in that question. I'm still waiting for a response to this.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree completely about the crypto. I didn't really think that a strong crypto would be broken quickly.
:)
I'm also not trying to disprove everything you say (just in case this offends you), I'm merely trying to look at it from all perspectives.
About the epoxy though, even if its something like welding epoxys, that stuff is not even remotely safe to put near a processor. Leak or not, there are other risks involved that will shorten the life of the processor. Sure, it can be absolutely impossible to remove without breaking something as fragile as a processor, but you'll cause plenty of problems to the proc itself too.
I think crypto can be good approaches on certain things, I do agree key methods are probably quite a bitch to crack. However, I will have to wait and see if this can work (which I still pretty much am skeptical until real trials start + more information). Thank you for your educating me in this matter, I always welcome knowledge
Lets try this again.
Does MobiTV and Verizon have the right to send a cease and desist letter? No. Enough people obviously know better.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode15/usc_sec_15_00000687---a000-.html
That is a part of Cornell's about cease and desist.
I am wondering though, is there any guidelines for what kinds of sanctions a lawyer can receive for filing an invalid C&D?
IANAL.
Thank you for your reply.
Thankfully, I think I understand what you are stating here. Can you clarify why a mounted die would not be able to be examined, modified, or reverse engineered? Are there no ways for people to examine a die post-process/post mounting? I am assuming you mean when the die is attached to the chip, right?
Isn't having any form of random-looking information whatsoever, with or without a key in any situation how people can start to crack a cipher? I do understand that a cipher is a lot harder to crack than just mere processing power.
Also, how would the fake processors be locked in the first place? If someone bought a real one with intent to duplicate fakes, how would those be locked down necessarily? Wouldn't that be all someone needs to start fabbing their own fakes, is a copy of the real?
I appreciate all your replies and the absence of flaming involved, but I'm not sure I agree with you.
Who said anyone has to observe any part of the process? All you have to do is observe the completed processor and figure out whats going on. Since its a consumer or possibly business product, you buy 1 and figure it out. Usually people call this reverse engineering? How can you ensure if something is mass produced that you can discern which of your millions of customers bought a real one in order to make a fake one?
How is that considered to be foolproof? Anyone with enough dedication/time/resources (some combination thereof) would be able to figure it out. That is the nature of true reverse engineering: it really can do anything if someone is determined.
Also this "unlocking", what makes you think it really can't be figured out by examining a processor after it's done? How is this going to help them discern which is a fake and which is a real processor? Are they going to just seize people's computers and check them for the supposedly inactivated value?
How is this supposed to stop theft/espionage, or stop the ability to make a fake processor that functions on a real motherboard? I do not feel you have explained to me the rationale of how this is supposed to stop fake copies or theft, or brand dilution on any level? I would like an answer to this paragraph the most, and I feel you have avoided it/not provided an answer.
How is this part not understood? Do you think a processor is so complicated that someone who is manufacturing fake duplicate chips would not be able to understand it/figure it out? Obviously they have done one hell of a successful job at doing so already, so whats to stop them if the way a processor that they already produce has a different method now? They have even less to observe since they can simply compare the new processor to the old. Voila! Instead of having to check every single thing the processor can do, now they only have to check maybe 1-3% of things for a change.
Really? What part of the PRO IP act as a recent example? Or how about this "no swear word" ordinance in a California town? You'd call good intentions directly stifling the first amendment? You don't think this was the goal straight from the start, that now it has to be challenged to be proven wrong?
I do understand your sarcasm, but trusted computing was never really implemented except in vista. People balked at the idea pretty hard when it came around, and as you can imagine, people have had many problems with media in vista due to the "trusted DRM's content protection". Things such as downgrading HD content quality if it wasn't on an approved monitor, and this is not new. This stuff goes back before 2003 even .
Note even in 2003 people knew what was going on as far as slashdot (See article comments).
So tell me, how do you like the wonderful work microsoft, adobe, and the likes have done? Since Adobe has purchased shockwave hasn't it done a wonderful job of keeping up the shockwave name! How about Microsoft with Vista? Surely everyone loves that too.
Sheesh. I know you know quite a bit, but I truly pity the people who don't see the wool in front of their eyes and just how much it affects them.
Like before, I'm all for a successful method, if there is one. I can't say that in the case of a physical product expecting to be able to control all copies of it is reasonable. I'm not saying give up either, I just don't think trying to monitor the flow of the processors pre-purchase is going to work especially if these people are capable of selling to consumers anyway. Yes, I hate low quality crap imitations.
But as I said before, where is this info? I really don't see any in the article that shows a successful method here.
Making a phone home system is ridiculously easily faked. Example of the protocol level info exchange: (fake copy of processor) Hello proxy server? I'm a legitimate manufacturer and this processor is registered.
Bing, faked. Approximate skill needed to crack? Script kiddie level at best. You don't ever need access to manufacturer info to do this, merely the capacity to copy the processors and a few days at most to explore the validation technique. Honestly anyone who thinks you can't dupe a validation procedure obviously knows nothing of windows, steam, video games, pay per view/cable tv hacking, or phone freaking, atm scams, or any other trick. All of these get around validation. Validation via a sever is not and never will be a method that works for any form of verification. Or a quick physical example: personal identification.
AT some point there will be software involved with this unlocking, and at that point will be one of many potential weaknesses.
Another reason? You can't get rid of legacy methods of verification for the processor because there may be manufacturers that do not have newer methods and will only create the processor using a legacy method.
Really I can keep poking holes in this security all day, but nothing here shows me an even remotely fool proof method.
This situation obviously doesn't apply to Intel. They release new processors at a speed enough that even people duplicating the processor will be behind on technology. DRM on a processor is no better than DRM anywhere else. When are people going to learn this? Also, there's not a whole lot of info on this activation method. You really think its going to be not only reliable, but not able to be duplicated by the impostors over an extended period of time? Have you ever heard of a protection/control schema that actually works of this type of control? You think china would care the minute they get their hands on a single chip? Doubted.
I do understand what you're saying, but no, this is still on the patent owner. From the last sentence you said sums up the answer: The thing is, businesses are always going to opt for the cheapest option.
Whose fault is that? Why should anyone other than the business that makes that decision (aka patent owner) bear the brunt of that responsibility? Why should a manufacturer add a cost to their process and what incentive do they have to do so? Answer: none whatsoever.
It is the patent owner's responsibility to do whatever recourse is necessary to prevent the situation from happening. Doing things because they are cheaper doesn't mean you can just wipe away all the liability or responsibility. Just because for example, I manufacture using method A because its cheaper than method B doesn't take away any responsibility I have for choosing method A and the results thereafter. However, instead of accepting that responsibility I add a costly process to the manufacturer that is neither realistic nor even guaranteed to help a single drop in this scenario.
What are we, supposed to be sympathetic to a patent owner who made a bad business decision? Whose responsibility is that again, exactly? The market is not sympathetic, neither is the consumer market, neither is the manufacturer, and neither am I.
Hey, Thanks for the flame. In case you're wondering, I did indeed read the article. What I said I mean as I said it. This is a human controllable problem, not something that is fixed by manufacturing a control on the chip. If the leaks are stopped then this "magic security method" is never necessary. Who is to say that this "activated after manufacture but before shipped to consumer" method cannot somehow be activated again? Surely we can just be forced to trust the patent holder, right? Surely we can trust the manufacturer as well right? I mean after all, we can't see anything going on so certainly it must be trustworthy.
See, if someone had a contract that would hold manufacturers accountable for the data loss as I said in other replies, I'm sure they'd put a lot more effort and watching into whether a blueprint has been leaked. After all, there aren't that many processor manufacturers out there, so how hard would it be to pin down considering you know who you give it out to? Industrial espionage means something has been stolen. Obviously that would mean there is insufficient security on the BLUEPRINT by the PATENT OWNER. There are more important things here than just physical security as I have mentioned in this reply that can stop that loss.
This is what we call a lack of basic due dilligence here. Being lost at this point, this validation will cause unknown problems and will not fix the situation. Who is to believe that this new magic chip activation method won't be cracked just as easy by the imitation manufacturers? How is this to even stop a processor from functioning? That would require compliant motherboards. Who is to agree to let their motherboard be DRM'd? Oh yeah, wait, that might be trusted computing huh?
Think before you flame people please. I don't need an ad hominem attack. Nice try though.
Honestly, if its not human error then explain how any information can be leaked here. Was it magical? Did someone put it on a laptop and lose it?
Information doesn't disseminate itself. Someone has to start it. Who said it was the fault of the patent owner? It's not a matter of fault at all. The fault is not relevant even remotely.
I said it was a human controllable situation, not something of a technology solution. Aka it is the manufacturer who is at fault here, and whose responsibility is it to find a trustworthy manufacturer? The patent owner's. Who has initial control of the information before it is disseminated? The patent owner. You can of course, make the manufacturer sign agreements to make sure that it is their responsibility to secure your blueprints too. I wonder if people actually thought of that, too?
So once again, remind me who has control of the situation? Last I checked, the patent owner does and therefore, bears the responsibility regardless of fault.
That's how it starts, but that's not how it would end. Think of how much the government or any power abusing company seeking more of that would be on this like FOS. Especially if it becomes commonly manufactured. Not that this is 100%, but I wouldn't see a situation like this technology being force trickled on consumers to be completely unlikely either.
We've had it before, I believe it was called trusted computing. Boy do people love how that has turned out, if I recall correctly.
I understand that a processor blueprint is not something that people want compromised. Throwing a technical attempt to solve the problem rather than dealing with human error is just putting the blame in the wrong places and throwing stuff at the wall hoping things will stick.
Give it a month after it comes out tops and someone will find a way to get it on the touch. There's no way a more open system like the Iphone can contain software exclusive to it, even if they try to verify it over the internet.
I suspect it will be so quickly cracked apple won't be able to keep up with patches for months at a minimum.
Time based encryption?
I seem to recall some dude who had encryption on his drive, notably a porn situation, where the crypto had some kind of time component where after a week the key rotated or something? Anyone have the links for it? I think that would cause some issues on this one too.
Just a FYI, this deal has not been approved. So all this "SCO is going to be saved" stuff, has no factual basis whatsoever. Bankruptcy court would have to approve of it, and that is not likely at all. So the slashdot article here = incorrect.
With all the details I can surmise:
Firefox with the following addons:
Noscript
NukeAnything Enhanced
Restarter
ShowIP
IE Tab
Gmail Manager
Ebay Toolbar (the one those college kids made)
DOM inspector
All In One Gestures
Adblock
I as well had to let noscript through on the site and then refresh.
options :
advanced tab:
advanced encryption - SSL3 and TLS 1 checked
security tab: warn about addons
site forgery - using downloaded list
remember passwords (my own preference ofc, I only use it for ones I can afford to compromise)
Only warning on: when viewing a page with low grade encryption
content tab: all 4 boxes checked, all advanced things checked under enable JS
and that it I think. I don't think I've changed the default that much on everything.
Oddly, at home on this config I cannot install addons, I get that undefined error shit. So no idea what the diff is, but this one runs a-okay.
I get a 51/100 with firefox 2....wonder how 3 will do.
I thank you for a well formed response.
;) driving slow in front of ya) is not something that reflects on maturity or not. Any person can try to make themselves sound like the most "well restrained" and most mature person in the world but it doesn't work that way over time. Everyone has good and bad days, and on some days an individual is more short than others. If that is wrong or abnormal, then supposedly the entire world is wrong or abnormal.
First off I'd like to say, that simply being frustrated by a condition that is out of your control (dumbass - or dumas
Violence may be a pretty stupid thing, but I think that would go far beyond the definition of "road rage" and more into the definition of Violence.
I was also talking about avoiding collisions. What is your point there? (confused)
Also, driving faster does not risk other people's lives. If you are driving faster and others are not, then your braking will not affect anyone. If you are traveling faster than the speed of traffic then where is this magic shockwave? what is wrong with people driving faster for their own benefit? Are you saying all lanes would go faster if they all go the same speed (because such a concept is impossible at best anyway).
Example of the shockwave in real affect is a railroad track by me....busses stop before they go over the tracks and for some stupid reason when the bus opens its door, people often stop as well (sheeple as always). This causes traffic to back up as far back as 2 miles, as observed by myself and someone coordinated on the other side. Is this safer? no. Numerous people have gotten into accidents from sudden braking going over the tracks as well as vehicle damage from going too slow over the tracks, in fact.
Driving at a steady speed is at best, unrealistic. Nobody can drive at the same speed all the time or we wouldn't have stoplights/stop signs, or turns for that matter. 6billion commuters are not flying airplanes to beeline to their destination. Lets be real here.
Commuter trains go 100MPH? What trains (maglev excluded) are you thinking of? Mass and velocity concerns come to mind here.
I think the rail idea like you're thinking is likely hard to implement but I am not qualified enough nor do I hold an opinion on whether its viable or not. I would say you're looking a bit too much into a certain Tom Cruise movie with that one, however.
In a corporate environment as others stated, you probably won't see it. It isn't seen as "needed/etc". In a home environment, it's almost guaranteed. In any form of development environment...
I see no reason for a server to have it. I would expect to see more servers with ESata than with firewire, perhaps I should have specified I meant for home use. Every PC I've built for my customers has had it on the case or on the motherboard whether I require or like it or not really. Considering this error sounds like a windows scenario, it's never been an issue (they mostly use Ubuntu anyway).
Umm? Since when were speed limits in the interest of safety? People don't even test things for safety up to the speeds we drive let alone a false feeling of safety people have.
Yes, not accurate is exactly what I mean. However, I for one, do not need to be screwed over by traffic because some douche wants to drive just the speed limit which caused the last 3 miles of cars after him to slow to a crawl....causing me to be held up another 10-20 minutes. This same behavior incites road rage, and creates more traffic on the roads.
So yeah, get rid of the bottleneck of the feedback, and offer a method to increase performance (speed) and the issue will be gone. problem solved. Don't like driving 80+ on a 55mph highway? Get off the road/out of the way. Instead, we have people driving in the passing lane like that. This article highlights that pretty well as does the last time such a solution was shown. Simple example that has existed for a while is the autobahn. You ever seen traffic on it? I haven't.
Just about every new PC that is released with USB ports has an IEEE connection (Firewire) on the front of the case, which the motherboard supports. You seem to have forgotten that the motherboard doesn't need to have a firewire port on it, it already supports it externally (unless you have a PC that doesn't have extra USB slots except on the motherboard itself....and I guarantee you in the last 10 years no PCs have been made like that). I remember 600 mhz systems that had firewire.
Every HP, Dell, and others from more than 5 years ago still had some form of firewire from the beginning of the XP days and possibly even further back.
You do realize that speed limits are not accurate, right? The only reason they are there is to monetize away your driving privileges that they granted to you in the first place. In reality, the minute you have a drivers license, you just lost a ton of rights on the US.
If people realize that the reason the world goes 80 instead because that is the natural point that people feel safe to drive given current conditions and someone wasn't driving in the fast lane (going excessively slow and causing the feedback), such a situation wouldn't occur.
Exactly as someone else said, this is not automotive specific, and the only solution to excess feedback is to reduce whatever is slowing things down, not to "slow things down further". If roads were unrestricted for speeds and had more lanes people would go 100+ more frequently (and more safely), of course roads would wear faster among other things like that.
Additionally, this feedback driving creates a "safety-minded" driver, aka someone who drives so slow in the snow/rain/etc that it creates pileups for hours. "I see a drop of rain on my windshield = lets drive 15 under the limit (as if the limit wasnt bad enough)" = feedback at its finest.
2 girls 1 corn? Is that the newest video?
The reason we call it FUD is because for Microsoft it's pronounced "food". After all, gotta feed those starving kids in Africa something right?
All flames aside, I thought Microsoft beating Linux was an oxymoron?
By biased individuals or neutral opinions? I'd be willing to bet it was the former. I personally prefer open office but honestly can't say that I would expect there to be a difference between the two applications. This is in fact, one of the reasons why people have such an issue with OOXML trying to become a standard.
As previous, that was a skeptical question, not an attack on the GP. Doesn't mean I don't want to hear an honest answer as opposed to "answers are out there". So yeah, when has there ever been anything office does better than open office, that is not something that can be done in open office? Compatibility between formats issue being left aside in that question. I'm still waiting for a response to this.