You found out too late that Microsoft doesn't have backups of it's service. I actually had the same issue, employer decided that $25/mailbox/month was 'normal' and then mailboxes corrupted on the O365 servers (because, it's still Exchange after all, the worst e-mail system in the world and it has inherited the same Exchange problems: corrupt data stores). Now we're scrambling to find a 'backup' solution. TCO calculations that were already dodgy suddenly went up 50%.
I would say most stuff requires ACID or at least continuously consistent databases (you don't always need transactions or atomicity) and eventually consistent is a niche. Most 'eventually consistent' systems I've seen have an entire layer on top to make sure the data is consistent.
Anytime you do a financial transaction of any sorts (free or not), you need a consistent system or risk someone being able to manipulate the data. Obviously, some developers don't really care at first since eventually consistent updates are fast enough initially. But once they realize the mistake they made, an entire layer of patchwork gets written to make it behave like a rational database again.
Where in the hell have you seen speeds increase from 1-100Mbps. I still have the same 10Mbps I got in 2005.
Net Neutrality regulation was not about net neutrality, it only legitimized the content prioritization which was unofficially happening even though it was technically illegal for common carriers. The "net neutrality" pretty much guaranteed that providers could prioritize their content simply by zero-rating it and limiting bandwidth to *all* other providers. It's neutral in that they no longer are allowed to discriminate against a particular service, they just discriminate against all of them.
So how is this different than the last 20 years of FCC? Taxpayers are paying to the tune of $8B/y to providers in order to 'expand' their broadband services. When was the last time you saw an increase in bandwidth or reduction in cost?
Wheeler: Professional lobbyist for the CTIA and White House lapdog, the net neutrality regulations were a joke and only stated the obvious: providers can't block or discriminate against lawful content and have to publish a network management policy. It didn't say anything about prioritization of particular content, for some reason the regulations were so "unclear" that as soon as the regulation was published, pretty much every provider started publishing plans that zero-rated their own content and limited bandwidth for services not sourced by them.
Genachowski: Approved Comcast-NBC and after they reneged on their deal not to raise prices 'settled' for an $800k fine. Announced several broadband plans, giving providers billions of dollars from the Universal Service Fund, none of which were followed through, one provider got a fine for $1M.
You mean the infrastructure, primarily paid for by tax payers, which the government has granted to the big players and now we have to pay them exorbitant fees to use it?
The Telecom Act you refer to permitted the Baby Bell's to merge again to the point we now have only a handful of 'competitors'. True access to poles, ask Google Fiber about that. I've inquired about getting access to a fiber for a business location, they quoted me a $12k 'access fee' and we don't even have to interrupt the TWC wiring.
Trump tends to be a constitutionalist, he doesn't like the government overstepping it's boundaries. I think the Justice Department and FTC need to be looking at abolishing all regulations and subsidies that grant these big players monopoly status while keeping small players out of the market and investigate them for past performance (how long have we been paying for broadband buildout, if you are under 20, your parents were already paying for it).
The $15,000 in "cumulative savings" I referred to will probably cost more in the long term. In the router case, the issue did cost them more in the end. I had to bill them for an unscheduled emergency call, troubleshoot what was going wrong, then I had to take out the $50 router and walk around and reboot every terminal. In this instance, they did save the $250 initially quoted ($200 if you count the $50 they gave the bartender's nephew) but ended up paying $400 and the money spent prior was also wasted (because the hardware is now just collecting dust on a shelf).
This is what the customer thinks (almost uniformly): Every time I have to call this guy, it costs me $150, if I can do it myself, it costs me $0 (or $25-50 for cousin IT to do it).
For small-midsize organizations, you're dealing with perhaps a couple or so contractors charging you $50k or more for IT services, still cheaper than hiring a dedicated IT. So one of the HR people "knows about computers" and becomes the "IT guy", they don't have to "pay" the contractors anymore for small stuff because "that guy from HR" knows about computers, right? That "IT guy" can probably "save" the organization $15k over a year, which he obviously makes very clear to his superiors which is technically true, they don't have to call the contractor nearly as often because "that guy from HR" knows about computers.
That is, until things go wrong. Then suddenly, the $15,000 savings last year becomes a mandatory $50,000 PCI or HIPAA (or whatever your regulation is) audit or a huge fine from Microsoft or Adobe. The issues still have to be fixed because the number of 'fixes' accumulates and you're dealing with an extra 100 systems that have never been updated, no patch management etc. That could easily cost $15,000 if not more depending on licensing costs.
Say it with me: Hashing is not Encryption. Hashing is not Encryption. Hashing is not Encryption.
Very high level: Hashing is the irreversible mapping of a set of bits onto a (usually smaller) set of bits in order to obfuscate the original set of bits (one-way) Encryption is the mapping of a set of bits onto another equally sized set of bits where the mapping is reversible through some process (two-way)
Hashing can be done with salts so that using rainbow tables is harder or impossible, but there will always be another set of bits that maps into the same set of bits. It's good enough for hiding a password or for reducing the complexity of finding matches. If you were writing a file system you could use it to do things like de-duplication but when you have a collision, you should ideally still do a bit-by-bit check when a collision occurs.
Calculating a collision with actual useful content - if I want to insert a "return 0" on a particular line somewhere in the Linux kernel) is still as hard if not impossible to do as before without also inserting a load of weird, binary comments. We just know that these collisions can now be calculated faster, but it's not like adding an arbitrary string will break the calculation and produce a predefined hash.
If someone checked in, that means they have permissions to do so. It's not like Git just blindly accepts commits with the same hash but different contents. We know it's possible, it's even possible with SHA256 to create a collision, as long as you're making a hash, you can create a collision as you're mapping an infinite set of bits onto a finite set of bits, there will always be a second set of bits that creates a collision as the number of sets approaches infinity regardless of the hash function you use.
The fact that it's "easier" for a certain definition of "easy" doesn't mean the thing is broken, it just means people should be more careful when accepting particular hashes (eg. if you're using a cloned repo of whatever software you want to use) but even then, a bit-by-bit comparison can easily weed them out.
As far as mainstream repo's a) you would notice someone suddenly inserting a very oddly shaped document into your repo's b) that person would require permission to do so and c) you should never automate a repo to pull in and compile something into production. Not sure if that's what happened here, the summary is very unclear as to what actually happened besides someone intentionally pushing a broken thing and it broke other things.
Depends on your definition of feminism indeed. I'm taking the current "modern" feminists (third wave feminism) which you can see in action on Twitter (eg. the GamerGate instigators). Relying on the dictionary definition of a feminist depends largely on your dictionary and your area, some still say it's about equality between the sexes, more modern definitions leave the equality out of it.
A traditional feminist movement in modern eras would be primarily focused on countries around the world where women don't have the rights yet to run for president, dress how they want or drive a car (or go to school for that matter), but that appears to be lost on modern feminists.
Obviously if you disagree with the definition that these are hate groups, you could just be a part of it and not see the issue of what your group represents (eg. if your definition of feminism comes from AmiMojo or PopeRatzo on these forums) which is the same perspective as being a member of the KKK, they don't see the issue either.
Non-exclusive doesn't mean anyone can get a franchise agreement. The problem is that even with massive complaints, the exclusivity agreements remain in effect. It's simply impossible for any other provider to get an agreement with the same terms TWC gets. And though technically illegal, NY courts only allow for local arbitration of said contracts which are adjudicated by local politicians. By the time this is even permitted to go to a non-local judge you spent a good 10 years in court.
Just because something is mainstream vs fringe doesn't make it any more moral. Feminism and Christianity is relatively mainstream as is BLM but that doesn't make them any less dangerous, hate-groupy or morally superior to the KKK or Black Panthers which both are having a resurgence due to the former. Nazis were pretty mainstream, it was just those crazy SS and Hitlerjugend that were fringe by that definition.
Those foundations are just legal money laundering establishments. There never was any money in the foundation nor did it spend it on charity. The layoffs happen in response to a political need to save face but I you can be assured by the time Chelsey runs for office it will be twice the size to handle the "donations".
It's an accumulation of "little things" that some bozo decides he can do himself resulting in initial savings until the shit hits the fan.
I've gone to plenty of customer sites (I'd say 75% of them) where routers and switches, backup drives and even servers appear all on their own. "Oh yeah we bought that to do x" and often I unplug it and have to tell them "well this is your problem" "but it worked for a couple of weeks" "and then you had a power outage and now there are 2 different DHCP ranges on your network"
As an independent IT specialist myself, you can't believe the boneheaded clients that will either demand an uncomplicated "no password" policy, fail to follow directions or too cheap to update or go in and make these type of setting themselves after the fact.
Could easily be that the IT contractor set it up for a particular IP range and then the customer wanted to do something from home or allow remote workers, saw the bill and said "removing this line makes it work", became the office IT fixer and then at their next employee review "I saved the company $15000/year in consulting cost".
There are plenty of idiots in IT, but the cheap-skate know-it-all customers are way worse. I think computers and "IoT" devices should go back to defaulting to a command prompt only accessible by serial cable or local terminal and bring nothing online unless explicitly configured.
The repricing can happen in minutes. You can abuse it by setting up your own seller account on Amazon, then whenever you want something, make your own listing and set the price a few dollars lower. Oftentimes the prices will go down to match yours.
Most people's "stuff" isn't worth $600, at that price point, perhaps a few companies with dimwitted C-levels. Additionally, most devices backup automatically to iCloud or sync to your computer, so all you have to do is reset it and re-sync it.
There is very little use for this tool, except law enforcement and spy stuff. Which is why it's so expensive.
My question is: how does it actually work. Given all the security on the device, I wouldn't be surprised if this is just a temporary software hack.
Cellebrite is an Israeli company, the DMCA does not apply there. Moreover, the only one having a standing regards the DMCA would be Apple, not the victim, and the DMCA does not apply to the sovereign state of the US and thus by extension, law enforcement.
This makes me feel triggered. I want to be able to continue trampling over people's rights, especially their right to free speech so I don't get emotionally hurt by what they say. This only enforces the ageism and sexism in mainstream media, they are raping these poor actors, rape I tell you.
The paper says 40%-95%. The heat map indicates 95% would be only right around the center of the room and it drops off quite quickly (exponential, because physics).
It practically is a Tesla coil in the middle of the room, except it's not shooting off streamers, the electric seems to be conducted by the walls.
Efficiency is only 95% in a very small portion of the room (around the pole), for the rest it goes down to ~40%. So yeah, you'll be heating it up just like a regular transformer.
Slashdot Mirror
You found out too late that Microsoft doesn't have backups of it's service. I actually had the same issue, employer decided that $25/mailbox/month was 'normal' and then mailboxes corrupted on the O365 servers (because, it's still Exchange after all, the worst e-mail system in the world and it has inherited the same Exchange problems: corrupt data stores). Now we're scrambling to find a 'backup' solution. TCO calculations that were already dodgy suddenly went up 50%.
HA is hard. "Cloud" makes it even harder because in most instances you don't have much control over the lower levels anymore.
I would say most stuff requires ACID or at least continuously consistent databases (you don't always need transactions or atomicity) and eventually consistent is a niche. Most 'eventually consistent' systems I've seen have an entire layer on top to make sure the data is consistent.
Anytime you do a financial transaction of any sorts (free or not), you need a consistent system or risk someone being able to manipulate the data. Obviously, some developers don't really care at first since eventually consistent updates are fast enough initially. But once they realize the mistake they made, an entire layer of patchwork gets written to make it behave like a rational database again.
There's supposed to be chicken in there?
Where in the hell have you seen speeds increase from 1-100Mbps. I still have the same 10Mbps I got in 2005.
Net Neutrality regulation was not about net neutrality, it only legitimized the content prioritization which was unofficially happening even though it was technically illegal for common carriers. The "net neutrality" pretty much guaranteed that providers could prioritize their content simply by zero-rating it and limiting bandwidth to *all* other providers. It's neutral in that they no longer are allowed to discriminate against a particular service, they just discriminate against all of them.
So how is this different than the last 20 years of FCC? Taxpayers are paying to the tune of $8B/y to providers in order to 'expand' their broadband services. When was the last time you saw an increase in bandwidth or reduction in cost?
Wheeler: Professional lobbyist for the CTIA and White House lapdog, the net neutrality regulations were a joke and only stated the obvious: providers can't block or discriminate against lawful content and have to publish a network management policy. It didn't say anything about prioritization of particular content, for some reason the regulations were so "unclear" that as soon as the regulation was published, pretty much every provider started publishing plans that zero-rated their own content and limited bandwidth for services not sourced by them.
Genachowski: Approved Comcast-NBC and after they reneged on their deal not to raise prices 'settled' for an $800k fine. Announced several broadband plans, giving providers billions of dollars from the Universal Service Fund, none of which were followed through, one provider got a fine for $1M.
You mean the infrastructure, primarily paid for by tax payers, which the government has granted to the big players and now we have to pay them exorbitant fees to use it?
The Telecom Act you refer to permitted the Baby Bell's to merge again to the point we now have only a handful of 'competitors'. True access to poles, ask Google Fiber about that. I've inquired about getting access to a fiber for a business location, they quoted me a $12k 'access fee' and we don't even have to interrupt the TWC wiring.
I you make 100k/y and spend 36k on rent you have 60k to "live on". Cry me a river but that's more than entire families make elsewhere in the country.
Trump tends to be a constitutionalist, he doesn't like the government overstepping it's boundaries. I think the Justice Department and FTC need to be looking at abolishing all regulations and subsidies that grant these big players monopoly status while keeping small players out of the market and investigate them for past performance (how long have we been paying for broadband buildout, if you are under 20, your parents were already paying for it).
Here is an already commercialized project if you'd like to avoid the Kickstarter scam which has the same form factor as this project
http://freematics.com/store/in...
Or you know, the hundreds of people that thought about this before and documented it.
https://www.google.com/search?...
-or-
https://learn.sparkfun.com/tut...
I should start a Kickstarter myself to develop some knock-offs.
The $15,000 in "cumulative savings" I referred to will probably cost more in the long term. In the router case, the issue did cost them more in the end. I had to bill them for an unscheduled emergency call, troubleshoot what was going wrong, then I had to take out the $50 router and walk around and reboot every terminal. In this instance, they did save the $250 initially quoted ($200 if you count the $50 they gave the bartender's nephew) but ended up paying $400 and the money spent prior was also wasted (because the hardware is now just collecting dust on a shelf).
This is what the customer thinks (almost uniformly):
Every time I have to call this guy, it costs me $150, if I can do it myself, it costs me $0 (or $25-50 for cousin IT to do it).
For small-midsize organizations, you're dealing with perhaps a couple or so contractors charging you $50k or more for IT services, still cheaper than hiring a dedicated IT. So one of the HR people "knows about computers" and becomes the "IT guy", they don't have to "pay" the contractors anymore for small stuff because "that guy from HR" knows about computers, right? That "IT guy" can probably "save" the organization $15k over a year, which he obviously makes very clear to his superiors which is technically true, they don't have to call the contractor nearly as often because "that guy from HR" knows about computers.
That is, until things go wrong. Then suddenly, the $15,000 savings last year becomes a mandatory $50,000 PCI or HIPAA (or whatever your regulation is) audit or a huge fine from Microsoft or Adobe. The issues still have to be fixed because the number of 'fixes' accumulates and you're dealing with an extra 100 systems that have never been updated, no patch management etc. That could easily cost $15,000 if not more depending on licensing costs.
Say it with me: Hashing is not Encryption. Hashing is not Encryption. Hashing is not Encryption.
Very high level:
Hashing is the irreversible mapping of a set of bits onto a (usually smaller) set of bits in order to obfuscate the original set of bits (one-way)
Encryption is the mapping of a set of bits onto another equally sized set of bits where the mapping is reversible through some process (two-way)
Hashing can be done with salts so that using rainbow tables is harder or impossible, but there will always be another set of bits that maps into the same set of bits. It's good enough for hiding a password or for reducing the complexity of finding matches. If you were writing a file system you could use it to do things like de-duplication but when you have a collision, you should ideally still do a bit-by-bit check when a collision occurs.
Calculating a collision with actual useful content - if I want to insert a "return 0" on a particular line somewhere in the Linux kernel) is still as hard if not impossible to do as before without also inserting a load of weird, binary comments. We just know that these collisions can now be calculated faster, but it's not like adding an arbitrary string will break the calculation and produce a predefined hash.
If someone checked in, that means they have permissions to do so. It's not like Git just blindly accepts commits with the same hash but different contents. We know it's possible, it's even possible with SHA256 to create a collision, as long as you're making a hash, you can create a collision as you're mapping an infinite set of bits onto a finite set of bits, there will always be a second set of bits that creates a collision as the number of sets approaches infinity regardless of the hash function you use.
The fact that it's "easier" for a certain definition of "easy" doesn't mean the thing is broken, it just means people should be more careful when accepting particular hashes (eg. if you're using a cloned repo of whatever software you want to use) but even then, a bit-by-bit comparison can easily weed them out.
As far as mainstream repo's a) you would notice someone suddenly inserting a very oddly shaped document into your repo's b) that person would require permission to do so and c) you should never automate a repo to pull in and compile something into production. Not sure if that's what happened here, the summary is very unclear as to what actually happened besides someone intentionally pushing a broken thing and it broke other things.
Depends on your definition of feminism indeed. I'm taking the current "modern" feminists (third wave feminism) which you can see in action on Twitter (eg. the GamerGate instigators). Relying on the dictionary definition of a feminist depends largely on your dictionary and your area, some still say it's about equality between the sexes, more modern definitions leave the equality out of it.
A traditional feminist movement in modern eras would be primarily focused on countries around the world where women don't have the rights yet to run for president, dress how they want or drive a car (or go to school for that matter), but that appears to be lost on modern feminists.
Obviously if you disagree with the definition that these are hate groups, you could just be a part of it and not see the issue of what your group represents (eg. if your definition of feminism comes from AmiMojo or PopeRatzo on these forums) which is the same perspective as being a member of the KKK, they don't see the issue either.
Non-exclusive doesn't mean anyone can get a franchise agreement. The problem is that even with massive complaints, the exclusivity agreements remain in effect. It's simply impossible for any other provider to get an agreement with the same terms TWC gets. And though technically illegal, NY courts only allow for local arbitration of said contracts which are adjudicated by local politicians. By the time this is even permitted to go to a non-local judge you spent a good 10 years in court.
Just because something is mainstream vs fringe doesn't make it any more moral. Feminism and Christianity is relatively mainstream as is BLM but that doesn't make them any less dangerous, hate-groupy or morally superior to the KKK or Black Panthers which both are having a resurgence due to the former. Nazis were pretty mainstream, it was just those crazy SS and Hitlerjugend that were fringe by that definition.
Those foundations are just legal money laundering establishments. There never was any money in the foundation nor did it spend it on charity. The layoffs happen in response to a political need to save face but I you can be assured by the time Chelsey runs for office it will be twice the size to handle the "donations".
It's an accumulation of "little things" that some bozo decides he can do himself resulting in initial savings until the shit hits the fan.
I've gone to plenty of customer sites (I'd say 75% of them) where routers and switches, backup drives and even servers appear all on their own. "Oh yeah we bought that to do x" and often I unplug it and have to tell them "well this is your problem" "but it worked for a couple of weeks" "and then you had a power outage and now there are 2 different DHCP ranges on your network"
As an independent IT specialist myself, you can't believe the boneheaded clients that will either demand an uncomplicated "no password" policy, fail to follow directions or too cheap to update or go in and make these type of setting themselves after the fact.
Could easily be that the IT contractor set it up for a particular IP range and then the customer wanted to do something from home or allow remote workers, saw the bill and said "removing this line makes it work", became the office IT fixer and then at their next employee review "I saved the company $15000/year in consulting cost".
There are plenty of idiots in IT, but the cheap-skate know-it-all customers are way worse. I think computers and "IoT" devices should go back to defaulting to a command prompt only accessible by serial cable or local terminal and bring nothing online unless explicitly configured.
The repricing can happen in minutes. You can abuse it by setting up your own seller account on Amazon, then whenever you want something, make your own listing and set the price a few dollars lower. Oftentimes the prices will go down to match yours.
Most people's "stuff" isn't worth $600, at that price point, perhaps a few companies with dimwitted C-levels. Additionally, most devices backup automatically to iCloud or sync to your computer, so all you have to do is reset it and re-sync it.
There is very little use for this tool, except law enforcement and spy stuff. Which is why it's so expensive.
My question is: how does it actually work. Given all the security on the device, I wouldn't be surprised if this is just a temporary software hack.
Cellebrite is an Israeli company, the DMCA does not apply there. Moreover, the only one having a standing regards the DMCA would be Apple, not the victim, and the DMCA does not apply to the sovereign state of the US and thus by extension, law enforcement.
This makes me feel triggered. I want to be able to continue trampling over people's rights, especially their right to free speech so I don't get emotionally hurt by what they say. This only enforces the ageism and sexism in mainstream media, they are raping these poor actors, rape I tell you.
The paper says 40%-95%. The heat map indicates 95% would be only right around the center of the room and it drops off quite quickly (exponential, because physics).
It practically is a Tesla coil in the middle of the room, except it's not shooting off streamers, the electric seems to be conducted by the walls.
Efficiency is only 95% in a very small portion of the room (around the pole), for the rest it goes down to ~40%. So yeah, you'll be heating it up just like a regular transformer.