You can already use blade servers/chassis which have two fans on IBM BladeCenter H models, and a larger number of smaller fans (8) on the HP C7000 blade chassis (incidentally I believe the C7000 is more efficient than IBM H chassis on average, but it's been a while since I've specced full chassis out). You can jam 14/16 blades (hp/ibm respectively) into 4 chassis per rack. The servers have an extremely dense footprint and the newer blades Nehalem procs will virtualize the vast majority of workloads. Put these chassis into a datacenter with a pressurized cold row (still use existing cooling and raised floor ideas, just put a door preventing cold row from mixing with hot row) and all of the cooled air will have to go through the server and the fan can spin at lower RPMs to cool, but is still there in case of adverse conditions. You can build extremely efficient racks this way without need for all of the cooperation between vendors that your solution requires. Lastly, for all of the workloads that you can't virtualize with bladecenters and external storage, you can get large boxen that have large fans in them anyhow, and you wouldn't need too many of these.
I just don't see the need to make the solution particularly complex when there are already very viable and dependable/reliable strategies to deal with this.
You are authorized by the web server which is providing a public facing service. The law for unauthorized acces is intended to cover services which are not public, e.g. I gain access to the shell via an exploit of your web service. If I break your TOS, you're more then welcome to ban me from your public facing service. Simply saying that I'm breaking your TOS while your server happily performs the function that you specifically designed it to do (serve up web pages) and trying to have me prosecuted is ludicrous.
Actually, you'd just wind up under arrest if you refused to comply when the officer had probable cause. PC is all that is needed to search your car. This is known as the "Motor Vehicle Exception"
The iPhone (and iPod Touch) seemed to have a significant number of third-party apps already available at launch, so marketshare can't explain it all away.
The iPhone was released on June 29, 2007 in the US. The SDK allowing third party applications was released for version 2 a year later.
"The App Store opened early in the morning on July 10, 2008 via an update to iTunes. Applications were immediately available for download at that time. However, iPhone and iPod Touch software version 2.0 was not yet available through Software Update, making the applications unusable. The iPhone OS 2.0 was released on July 11, 2008, and applications were able to be transferred onto the newly updated devices"
Your statement that there was no market before third party app development took place is patently false.
The OTAP is going to be used only in a WLAN controller/lightweight AP environment. "central management" is a prerequisite to even start thinking about using OTAP.
In this case, I don't particularly feel that there is hypocrisy, any more than the GPL is hypocrisy.
Issues of the actual legality of this aside (which looks flimsy), everyone involved seems fairly offended at the idea or concept of keeping people from publishing pictures that they've taken themselves, and the taking of copyright of them. The taking of copyright is the only mechanism that would allow fast takedown of the pictures from news outlets, websites, etc due to DMCA clauses. I may be giving the organization too much credit, but I would imagine that this is actually to ensure more freedom by sacrificing the freedom to do as you please with your pictures: if you know that you can do what you want without being photographed by arbitrary third parties, you have more freedom to do as you please. Individuals can still take and enjoy pictures on their own for their own consumption, but the pictures won't be published without the consent of the organization.
The GPL is formulated in nearly the exact same way: it works within the copyright framework to take away some freedoms (the freedom to redistribute however you damn well please), but it gives the work itself more freedom since it can't be closed by arbitrary third parties and resold for profit without the freedoms of the license coming along with it.
Once again in summary: I fail to see the philosophical problem with attempting to take away a smaller subset of freedoms to guarantee larger ones. That is hardly hypocrisy. I do however agree with most of the other posts though that state that the method of implementing this doesn't look like it is particularly viable.
I would kill for intelligent stoplights that are networked with each other, but I don't foresee being able to have cars transmit their intentions to allow intelligent decisions. I think that optical or other sensor-based decision making will occur that is difficult to spoof.
In the short term at least, having cars signal their intentions in order to start moving traffic a certain way would be rather prone to malicious/DoS behavior. Eventually you could probably corroborate that data with evidence that the car is following the instructions to the destination that you filed, but I really don't appreciate the privacy implications thereof.
I think that a system that doesn't rely on two-way comms or identifying individual cars is the way to go, which would mean simply providing direction for an aggregate and letting the intelligence happen on the device that is trying to go places, rather than any centralized effort to guide individual cars in traffic. You could provide the metrics and that would be good enough. Dealing with two-way communication and all of the implications thereof may eventually happen, but I personally wouldn't want to have it
I think that's a pretty narrow vision of how navigational aids will work...
I'd wager that eventually navigational aids will work like routing protocols do, favoring links with more bandwidth updated in real-time with actual road conditions. Imagine being able to seamlessly route around wrecks in real-time with the route that the city itself wanted to fail over to.
Currently, we have self-routing going on, to the detriment of overall traffic patterns. If there was a centralized decision, as long as it was honest traffic patterns would improve as people started using it. Cities could direct traffic to larger links and throughput concentrated into those, instead of side links that intersect with them becoming clogged as well. When people route themselves, they make really stupid/belligerent decisions sometime, causing havoc on the road in general. You'll never get rid of selfishness, but you could make the official paths far more rewarding than non-official paths. Currently this is hard to do because there's no way to broadcast or indicate the "correct" way to route yourself.
I personally look forward to the day that there is real-time routing information. Currently I do flat-out refuse to use GPS as I'd rather keep my personal navigational intuition honed, but I'd trade that in a heartbeat for real-time conditions and an actual calculation of the fastest route.
Actually, furthering your analogy....
It would be more like Ford put an engine kill in the car if you decided you want to drive on a dirt road. Yeah, there's plenty of cool shit attached to dirt roads, but you know what not everyone needs to go there and there might be potholes and stuff, we'd better make sure that you can't. So if you want to do that, you have to replace the engine and ECU. Too bad we just recalled something else on the car and can't work on it now!
Will a resolution decreed by some arbitrary robot be able to change the fact that sometimes two parties want mutually exclusive things and are willing to fight to the death for it?
In a hostage situation, coordination/communication is punished with force if the individual has any common sense. Without coordination, the only way to indicate that any given person wants a fight is to start the rush, and have others join in. There will always be enough bullets for the first person in the rush.
So the first person will always have to be an outlier in terms of humans. We all have a very large drive to stay alive. The first person would have to be resigned to the fact that they're going to die, or have some other edge that gives reasonable hope of success. A simple bum-rush is not that edge.
It's pretty simple common sense that if there are more of you than there are bullets, that you have a greater than zero chance of surviving no matter what, whereas if you're the one to start the rush you're far more likely than not living. Call it cowardice, but it's instinct at its most basic level.
"2. They mix 568A and 568B - usually wiring A in the wall, and using premade B patch cables. Instant crosstalk. OK on very short runs, but anything longer than 80' to 100' will become problematic with many NICs."
The color on the jacket of the cable is the only difference. T568A and T568B are completely compatible. Best practice is to adopt one or the other for clarity of process to reduce human error when cabling, e.g. "Is this a crossover or not?"
Even having a user that can only update (say, sudo and yum) is dangerous. If you're not careful about how your sudo is set up, you'll introduce the possibility of installing malicious software or the attacker getting a root shell anyhow. For example, I could make a evil.rpm containing a setuid root bash shell that it installs as root.
The safest implementation then would likely be to lock yum down, only allowing update/install from trusted repositories. You would have to set sudo up to not allow commands like "yum localinstall evil.rpm"
I don't think that a game console (which users physically have and manufacturers can't patch/change after the fact) is anywhere near analogous to a satellite controlled by a single entity. The satellite could be upgraded software-wise if we cared, which apparently we don't. It's the Brazilian gov't intervening here, not the United States. The US gov't apparently has absolutely zero interest in what happens with those satellites.
If the chick is responding to the stimulus of objects disappearing behind a screen, and the effect of the stimulus is cumulative as more objects disappear behind the screen and the effect of this stimulus is strongest for the most recent stimuli and decreases over time I think that the result would be what is observed in the experiment.
That sounds like an innate ability to do math to me... Whether or not they're consciously counting or whether an underlying mechanism is responsible, an event would be occurring that only math can account for.
Once people get used to this, what keeps naughty people from sending out legitimate looking upgrade disks that scramble your player or install software that lets them use your network connected player as a spam server? Urgh, basically virus laden spam for snail mail.
This would be a legitimate concern if this was targeting high-profile devices like corporate servers and the like, but with end-user devices you're just trying to make bots. High-profile stuff would be worth the following risks in terms of risk to yourself vs. the value of the target being hacked:
#1: Risk of getting caught increases when you're dealing with physical things (fingerprints, knowing the origin of the CD due to postmarks, etc)
#2: You're probably dealing with felony-level charges if you do malicious shit via USPS.
#3: The cost per CD to do bulk mailing would be shouldered by you directly, rather than being shouldered by zombie machines in terms of CPU time.
Those issues aside, you'll also note that someone would also have to identify the model of device that you're upgrading the firmware for. Additionally, if this vector was worthwhile, you'd already see people distributing malware via mail CDs that installed during autorun, and you'd get far more people putting them in their machines than you would the firmware CDs (which would be highly targeted)
I think Microsoft needs to stop worrying about trying to make too much money off of their web-based applications and continue to focus on their bread-winners, Microsoft Windows (TM) and the Office series.
The problem with playing Ostrich is that Google is going to come at microsoft with guns blazing in a few years. You can bet your ass that Google is going to put some of its web application brainpower towards online office applications. I would use it in a heartbeat over any MS office application. Web applications are going to be the future as you see more and more users with more than one computer.
I would much rather be able to exchange open formats (the practice of which google has been backing profusely) on a web app, especially when I could use the exact same application on Linux, OSX, and Windows (shudder.)
As soon as Office and other key microsoft strongholds have powerful, innovative web-based counterparts offered by google, your platform is no longer a concern. You can migrate to Linux with impunity. D'oh.
Public Key encryption would solve this problem. Preshared keys would stop you from pretending to be the server. This would work along the same lines as a SSH or SSL connection. You would have to figure out how to exploit the software into accepting your key instead.
It sounds like they've actually implemented that kind of thing, due to the encryption reference in the article.
Not adhering to standards IMO is only a problem when you are also not supporting other browsers in the process. You'll notice that they use.pngs with their firefox implementation of their maps. You will probably also notice that.png support with an alpha layer is spotty at best with IE. So what is google to do? Ignore 90% of their market? Hell no.
They are going ahead with the best option that they have available, given IE's non-standards compliance: Make It Work With Everything. Where's the problem? People who want to adopt FireFox will see that google maps works beautifully with it. How is google contributing to the downfall of standards? It's not like people are going to be saying "wow, I really want to use firefox, but it won't work with google maps!" That scenario is the problem with non-standards-compliance if you only program for non-standardized browsers. If you're making sure that doesn't become an issue, who are you hurting by supporting both standards and non-standards?
Bottom line: If you're a huge business, you can't ignore 90% of your customers over a standards argument presented by some purist. If you were a web developer at google, and you had this fancy new app that you spent a year on and then subsequently told your boss that it's the most amazing thing ever but only works on 10% of browsers, you would be fired. Yes, standards are beautiful. Yes, you should support them. But you can really do both, and that's what google is doing.
I think you hit slightly upon why I would never get rid of my border firewall in your last paragraph.
Sure, it's all well and good to have your individual servers firewalled instead of a border firewall. But what happens when one of them gets cracked? I enjoy my egress filtering, and it will limit the amount of damage that an attacker can do with a proper ruleset. My network will not become a staging point for attacks on other networks. His will.
Slashdot Mirror
I have a few problems with this strategy...
You can already use blade servers/chassis which have two fans on IBM BladeCenter H models, and a larger number of smaller fans (8) on the HP C7000 blade chassis (incidentally I believe the C7000 is more efficient than IBM H chassis on average, but it's been a while since I've specced full chassis out). You can jam 14/16 blades (hp/ibm respectively) into 4 chassis per rack. The servers have an extremely dense footprint and the newer blades Nehalem procs will virtualize the vast majority of workloads. Put these chassis into a datacenter with a pressurized cold row (still use existing cooling and raised floor ideas, just put a door preventing cold row from mixing with hot row) and all of the cooled air will have to go through the server and the fan can spin at lower RPMs to cool, but is still there in case of adverse conditions. You can build extremely efficient racks this way without need for all of the cooperation between vendors that your solution requires. Lastly, for all of the workloads that you can't virtualize with bladecenters and external storage, you can get large boxen that have large fans in them anyhow, and you wouldn't need too many of these.
I just don't see the need to make the solution particularly complex when there are already very viable and dependable/reliable strategies to deal with this.
You are authorized by the web server which is providing a public facing service. The law for unauthorized acces is intended to cover services which are not public, e.g. I gain access to the shell via an exploit of your web service. If I break your TOS, you're more then welcome to ban me from your public facing service. Simply saying that I'm breaking your TOS while your server happily performs the function that you specifically designed it to do (serve up web pages) and trying to have me prosecuted is ludicrous.
Actually, you'd just wind up under arrest if you refused to comply when the officer had probable cause. PC is all that is needed to search your car. This is known as the "Motor Vehicle Exception"
The iPhone (and iPod Touch) seemed to have a significant number of third-party apps already available at launch, so marketshare can't explain it all away.
The iPhone was released on June 29, 2007 in the US. The SDK allowing third party applications was released for version 2 a year later.
Wikipedia:
"The App Store opened early in the morning on July 10, 2008 via an update to iTunes. Applications were immediately available for download at that time. However, iPhone and iPod Touch software version 2.0 was not yet available through Software Update, making the applications unusable. The iPhone OS 2.0 was released on July 11, 2008, and applications were able to be transferred onto the newly updated devices"
Your statement that there was no market before third party app development took place is patently false.
The OTAP is going to be used only in a WLAN controller /lightweight AP environment. "central management" is a prerequisite to even start thinking about using OTAP.
In this case, I don't particularly feel that there is hypocrisy, any more than the GPL is hypocrisy.
Issues of the actual legality of this aside (which looks flimsy), everyone involved seems fairly offended at the idea or concept of keeping people from publishing pictures that they've taken themselves, and the taking of copyright of them. The taking of copyright is the only mechanism that would allow fast takedown of the pictures from news outlets, websites, etc due to DMCA clauses. I may be giving the organization too much credit, but I would imagine that this is actually to ensure more freedom by sacrificing the freedom to do as you please with your pictures: if you know that you can do what you want without being photographed by arbitrary third parties, you have more freedom to do as you please. Individuals can still take and enjoy pictures on their own for their own consumption, but the pictures won't be published without the consent of the organization.
The GPL is formulated in nearly the exact same way: it works within the copyright framework to take away some freedoms (the freedom to redistribute however you damn well please), but it gives the work itself more freedom since it can't be closed by arbitrary third parties and resold for profit without the freedoms of the license coming along with it.
Once again in summary: I fail to see the philosophical problem with attempting to take away a smaller subset of freedoms to guarantee larger ones. That is hardly hypocrisy. I do however agree with most of the other posts though that state that the method of implementing this doesn't look like it is particularly viable.
I would kill for intelligent stoplights that are networked with each other, but I don't foresee being able to have cars transmit their intentions to allow intelligent decisions. I think that optical or other sensor-based decision making will occur that is difficult to spoof.
In the short term at least, having cars signal their intentions in order to start moving traffic a certain way would be rather prone to malicious/DoS behavior. Eventually you could probably corroborate that data with evidence that the car is following the instructions to the destination that you filed, but I really don't appreciate the privacy implications thereof.
I think that a system that doesn't rely on two-way comms or identifying individual cars is the way to go, which would mean simply providing direction for an aggregate and letting the intelligence happen on the device that is trying to go places, rather than any centralized effort to guide individual cars in traffic. You could provide the metrics and that would be good enough. Dealing with two-way communication and all of the implications thereof may eventually happen, but I personally wouldn't want to have it
I think that's a pretty narrow vision of how navigational aids will work...
I'd wager that eventually navigational aids will work like routing protocols do, favoring links with more bandwidth updated in real-time with actual road conditions. Imagine being able to seamlessly route around wrecks in real-time with the route that the city itself wanted to fail over to.
Currently, we have self-routing going on, to the detriment of overall traffic patterns. If there was a centralized decision, as long as it was honest traffic patterns would improve as people started using it. Cities could direct traffic to larger links and throughput concentrated into those, instead of side links that intersect with them becoming clogged as well. When people route themselves, they make really stupid/belligerent decisions sometime, causing havoc on the road in general. You'll never get rid of selfishness, but you could make the official paths far more rewarding than non-official paths. Currently this is hard to do because there's no way to broadcast or indicate the "correct" way to route yourself.
I personally look forward to the day that there is real-time routing information. Currently I do flat-out refuse to use GPS as I'd rather keep my personal navigational intuition honed, but I'd trade that in a heartbeat for real-time conditions and an actual calculation of the fastest route.
Actually, furthering your analogy.... It would be more like Ford put an engine kill in the car if you decided you want to drive on a dirt road. Yeah, there's plenty of cool shit attached to dirt roads, but you know what not everyone needs to go there and there might be potholes and stuff, we'd better make sure that you can't. So if you want to do that, you have to replace the engine and ECU. Too bad we just recalled something else on the car and can't work on it now!
Not to mention the fact that they're more than happy to sell you the actual NWA song "fuck tha police"
Will a resolution decreed by some arbitrary robot be able to change the fact that sometimes two parties want mutually exclusive things and are willing to fight to the death for it?
I too pray that teachers never have to learn anything new to teach children.
Far more likely than not dying, also. I need to learn to proofread, apparently.
In a hostage situation, coordination/communication is punished with force if the individual has any common sense. Without coordination, the only way to indicate that any given person wants a fight is to start the rush, and have others join in. There will always be enough bullets for the first person in the rush.
So the first person will always have to be an outlier in terms of humans. We all have a very large drive to stay alive. The first person would have to be resigned to the fact that they're going to die, or have some other edge that gives reasonable hope of success. A simple bum-rush is not that edge.
It's pretty simple common sense that if there are more of you than there are bullets, that you have a greater than zero chance of surviving no matter what, whereas if you're the one to start the rush you're far more likely than not living. Call it cowardice, but it's instinct at its most basic level.
"2. They mix 568A and 568B - usually wiring A in the wall, and using premade B patch cables. Instant crosstalk. OK on very short runs, but anything longer than 80' to 100' will become problematic with many NICs."
The color on the jacket of the cable is the only difference. T568A and T568B are completely compatible. Best practice is to adopt one or the other for clarity of process to reduce human error when cabling, e.g. "Is this a crossover or not?"
Even having a user that can only update (say, sudo and yum) is dangerous. If you're not careful about how your sudo is set up, you'll introduce the possibility of installing malicious software or the attacker getting a root shell anyhow. For example, I could make a evil.rpm containing a setuid root bash shell that it installs as root.
The safest implementation then would likely be to lock yum down, only allowing update/install from trusted repositories. You would have to set sudo up to not allow commands like "yum localinstall evil.rpm"
I don't think that a game console (which users physically have and manufacturers can't patch/change after the fact) is anywhere near analogous to a satellite controlled by a single entity. The satellite could be upgraded software-wise if we cared, which apparently we don't. It's the Brazilian gov't intervening here, not the United States. The US gov't apparently has absolutely zero interest in what happens with those satellites.
I think you missed the part where the United States is not the government cracking down on the pirates.
If the chick is responding to the stimulus of objects disappearing behind a screen, and the effect of the stimulus is cumulative as more objects disappear behind the screen and the effect of this stimulus is strongest for the most recent stimuli and decreases over time I think that the result would be what is observed in the experiment.
That sounds like an innate ability to do math to me... Whether or not they're consciously counting or whether an underlying mechanism is responsible, an event would be occurring that only math can account for.
It's already been done for years:
CompuTrace LoJack for Laptops
Once people get used to this, what keeps naughty people from sending out legitimate looking upgrade disks that scramble your player or install software that lets them use your network connected player as a spam server? Urgh, basically virus laden spam for snail mail.
This would be a legitimate concern if this was targeting high-profile devices like corporate servers and the like, but with end-user devices you're just trying to make bots. High-profile stuff would be worth the following risks in terms of risk to yourself vs. the value of the target being hacked:
#1: Risk of getting caught increases when you're dealing with physical things (fingerprints, knowing the origin of the CD due to postmarks, etc)
#2: You're probably dealing with felony-level charges if you do malicious shit via USPS.
#3: The cost per CD to do bulk mailing would be shouldered by you directly, rather than being shouldered by zombie machines in terms of CPU time.
Those issues aside, you'll also note that someone would also have to identify the model of device that you're upgrading the firmware for. Additionally, if this vector was worthwhile, you'd already see people distributing malware via mail CDs that installed during autorun, and you'd get far more people putting them in their machines than you would the firmware CDs (which would be highly targeted)
I think Microsoft needs to stop worrying about trying to make too much money off of their web-based applications and continue to focus on their bread-winners, Microsoft Windows (TM) and the Office series.
The problem with playing Ostrich is that Google is going to come at microsoft with guns blazing in a few years. You can bet your ass that Google is going to put some of its web application brainpower towards online office applications. I would use it in a heartbeat over any MS office application. Web applications are going to be the future as you see more and more users with more than one computer.
I would much rather be able to exchange open formats (the practice of which google has been backing profusely) on a web app, especially when I could use the exact same application on Linux, OSX, and Windows (shudder.)
As soon as Office and other key microsoft strongholds have powerful, innovative web-based counterparts offered by google, your platform is no longer a concern. You can migrate to Linux with impunity. D'oh.
Public Key encryption would solve this problem. Preshared keys would stop you from pretending to be the server. This would work along the same lines as a SSH or SSL connection. You would have to figure out how to exploit the software into accepting your key instead.
It sounds like they've actually implemented that kind of thing, due to the encryption reference in the article.
Not adhering to standards IMO is only a problem when you are also not supporting other browsers in the process. You'll notice that they use .pngs with their firefox implementation of their maps. You will probably also notice that .png support with an alpha layer is spotty at best with IE. So what is google to do? Ignore 90% of their market? Hell no.
They are going ahead with the best option that they have available, given IE's non-standards compliance: Make It Work With Everything. Where's the problem? People who want to adopt FireFox will see that google maps works beautifully with it. How is google contributing to the downfall of standards? It's not like people are going to be saying "wow, I really want to use firefox, but it won't work with google maps!" That scenario is the problem with non-standards-compliance if you only program for non-standardized browsers. If you're making sure that doesn't become an issue, who are you hurting by supporting both standards and non-standards?
Bottom line: If you're a huge business, you can't ignore 90% of your customers over a standards argument presented by some purist. If you were a web developer at google, and you had this fancy new app that you spent a year on and then subsequently told your boss that it's the most amazing thing ever but only works on 10% of browsers, you would be fired. Yes, standards are beautiful. Yes, you should support them. But you can really do both, and that's what google is doing.
I think you hit slightly upon why I would never get rid of my border firewall in your last paragraph.
Sure, it's all well and good to have your individual servers firewalled instead of a border firewall. But what happens when one of them gets cracked? I enjoy my egress filtering, and it will limit the amount of damage that an attacker can do with a proper ruleset. My network will not become a staging point for attacks on other networks. His will.