"The LEO environment is becoming congested, not least with space debris. The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) tracks more than 8,000 objects larger than 10cm in LEO."
who the hell actually believes open source is MORE secure simply because they publish their millions of lines of code? Like ANY customer is actually going to look at the code.
Apparently everyone else but you...
The keyword you missed is 'inherently'. Having a lot of independent eyeballs on the code is essential priciple for locating bugs and avoiding backdoors. That's why even proprietary software companies pay for 'verification' by 'independent' certifiers. And there is not a single closed encryption algorithm in the world that is considered secure. There is simply no security in obscurity.
Your disclaimer is no excuse for this FUD where you imply that somehow adversaries could slip compromising code into open source projects used in government contracts. The chances of such code remaining unnoticed is much less than in proprietary projects where you merely have to bribe one key developer. And nobody runs mission critical things off latest source trees anyway. The blanket ban on all 'open source' software is likely a kneejerk reaction by uninformed byrocrats. Or perhaps they're already owned by the vendors and private companies the contracts predictably go to.
AT&T did its bit to puncture the WiMAX hype today, while providing an update on three of its trial WiMAX deployments. Behzed Nadji, AT&T's Chief Architect, debunked stories about 70 Mbit/s throughput over distances of 70 miles for WiMAX. "There's little reality to that," he said. A range of 3 to 5 miles and 2 Mbit/s was closer to reality. In fact, one of AT&T's three deployments rarely saw throughput rise above 500 kbit/s, he said.Source
I can already provide point-to-multipoint 360 coverage with megabit connections simultaniously to over a hundred customers with 802.11g using three channel sector antennas. The range depends on how big a receiving antenna they have. WiMAX isn't about revolutionizing speed and coverage. It's about intellegent contention, load control and QoS, which the existing 802s are lacking. Better for real mesh networking and reliable VoIP.
what today's geek thinks about amateur radio?... Do you think that we could see a renaissance of Ham Radio among 21st century techies?
Well such renaissance is already happening with Wifi: people doing COTS ad-hoc networks, wardriving etc. Many of these people are radio amateurs and the opening of the ISM band has just made it much cheaper to buy the equipment. The experimental frontier spirit is still strong. More traditional RA stuff has also benefited from the internet. People are hooking up VHF/UHF repeaters via IP over long distances, even worldwide.
If there's a downside, its the deterioration of the traditional ham. Before people had to take an interest in electronics and build a lot of stuff by themselves. And as people move to digi-modes or even start their hobby from them and the old ham skills, morse and SSB, will be forgotten. When disaster strikes, radio amateurs are the ones left standing. They're able to quickly setup flexible efficient communications networks from whatever equipment is at hand. However what you still need is experienced operators who are able to handle such communications and you cannot learn that by just sitting on your computer.
For example here in Finland we have a close-knit relationship between hams and the authorities, both emergency and the military. Time and time again we have demonstrated that in the absence of any support or infrastructure, hams are able to independently organize, setup and operate a nationwide communications network and provide the authorities with all the communications services they need.
What we need are geeks who are interested in everything, not just a narrow peak of the latest technology.
it doesn't tell you who you are talking to. GSM calls are never point to point, so there is always a "man in the middle".
ah, but this point was made well with Zimmerman's Zfone - you do the authentication yourself by having a conversation with the person on the other end and determining if he is the person he claims he is. Relying on complex certificate authorities and key management schemes makes most secure communications systems unfeasable - the old usability vs. security paradox.
Additional security and integrity is ensured by a calculated HASH checksum that is indicated on the display
and it seems you also stop Man-in-the-Middle attack similarly as in Zfone, by being able to read and confirm the hash checksum with the person you're talking to...
The pin number is something you input on the phoneset to get physical access to the crypto software. It has nothing to do with the over-the-air encryption.
This could become a case of chickens coming home to roost with China and other U.S competitors and adversaries using the TCP (Trusted Computing Platform) to have a back door to computers they produce and which are sold to businesses and governments all over the world.
All they need to do is to make note of the keys or signatures from the TPMs(Trusted Platform Module) that are embedded in every modern PC.
In fact this illustrates the greatest challenge of TCP based DRM. Who will be the key escrow / signing authority in a world where China, Russia and India increasingly shun away from U.S centered IT solutions.
"nanotechnology" encompases a whole load of things that have absolutely nothing to do with the FDA,... why not ask the FCC to regulate nanotechnology.
What an idiotic statement - nanotechnology has everything to do with FDA - the products of nanotechnology are active chemicals with potentially toxic effects just like food and drugs etc. FCC regulates the electromagnetic spectrum and has absolutely no expertise in biochemistry.
This is probably going to end up as an excellent way to make sure that no one bothers to do nanotechnology research in the United States.
Just like all the existing drug/food/chemical/environmental/health regulations have kept these technology research out of the United States, you moron!
Personally, I'll take a pass on any pseudoscience that comes from the "Friends of the Earth"...
Just like you'd pass on a 'bridge out' warning sign set up by hitler, rednecks and the illuminati. Meanwhile there are people who are able to think for themselves and reach their own conclusions without appeals to authority.
If you want to kill off an industry, the best way to do so is to regulate it the way the medical industry and the aviation industry are regulated.
As can be logically concluded from the current state of the medical and aviation industries.
EVERYTHING is nanoparticulate in nature, including you.
oh, here we go again - the 'all chemicals are from nature' argument - like dioxin and thalidomide - and therefore just as harmless as rainbows and kitten paws.
And what are all these anti-regulation comments implying then? That public regulation is always bad? That industry self-regulation is the solution because industry knows best and they have our interest and health at heart, don't they? I'd rather have incompetent, over-zealous, fear-mongering public interest groups raise these issues so that the industry and government have to at least pay cursory lip-service to my safety and rights rather than leave me to fend for myself alone against them. It's the way the system works - both extremes give their best shot - and usually meet in the middle with a compromise everyone can live with (pun intended)...
All that was needed was to make a fair comparison between a genuine alternative and the advocate zombies come out of their caves and mod it down to a Troll.
First of all, the point about the price is perfectly valid, considering the claims on this thread that this Macbook is cheap based on custom Dells people have cobbled together on their website.
Nor is the reference to the thermal paste issue uncalled for since the Pro models have a history of shoddy quality. One is therefore justified in speculating what kind of build quality the cheaper and consumer oriented Macbook will have.
And finally, it is no wonder that mac people get hyper when you mention ports. They want to deny the reality that it is better to have the option of a certain port or interface, however obscure, than not.
I'm sure the people here can think of tons of fun with serial and parellal ports. I myself use a serial port to program various microcontrollers and a parellal port for an old reliable dot matrix printer to log events 24/7 on my instruments racks. And have you ever had your telco or a lightning take out your card from the local DSLAM. It's nice to be able to dial-up for your essential email.
However for me the PCMCIA card slot is perhaps the most important shortcoming in mac portables since expansion is impossible without it. What if you need a portable sampling interface or an extra wireless card (GPRS, WCDMA). What if you wanna do music on the road and want a better sound card or need a faster firewire for multitrack recording? The lack of PCMCIA limits your choices to inferior quality external and bulky USB peripherals.
In the past I've had PB1400 and G3 portables from Apple and they've been nice. However now that I'm doing serious work I have had to opt for a HP business notebook with a dual boot w2k/linux. I might consider buying a Macbook for the kids though.
Airgo's "True MIMO" is a pre-standard interpretation of the future 802.11blah (TGnSync vs. WWiSE) and will most likely not be compatible with the final 802.11n.
The MIMO concept itself offers to double the throughput at the expense of increasing bandwidth from 20 to 40MHz as well as spreading multipath garbage on the spectrum. If you've had fun with congestion on 802.11b/g channels, this 802.11n will really make your day.
Ok, so it might have marginally better spectral efficiency per Mbps but really, what we want to see is true beamforming dynamic-arrays that will properly 'point' the RF where it's supposed to go in real-time.
Meanwhile one of these 'gaming' laptops will just screwup the spectrum and slowdown existing b/g channels.
Installing Linux is complex and difficult. Distros are halfbaked and unpredictable. Many books have been written about these dangers, and there's no way we can list them all here. Read the books.
The install process is covered in steep learning curves, slippery catches and unstable automated functions. Having a non-standard set of hardware will make matters worse. Mindbogling jargon is everywhere. You may fail, crash or otherwise fail catastrophically at any time. You could break your multi-boot partitions. There are hidden rules and things to know. Carry install disks, backups and a spare windows machine at all times.
Asking for help won't work. The wild linux-know-it-all snobs are ready to bounce at your pitiful requests for explanations, with vicious, poisonous comments about newbies and reading the man pages. We don't do anything to protect you from any of this. By using a free open source operating system, you are agreeing that we owe you no hint of advice or any other care. We promise you nothing. We do not and will not even try to keep the premises safe for any purpose. This is no joke.
We won't even try to warn you about any dangerous or hazardous condition, specially if we know about it. We may or may not make an effort to fix an unsafe condition, and we may make matters worse! Sorry, we're not responsible. We may give you bad advice just for fun. So don't listen to us. In short, ENTER AND USE LINUX AT YOUR OWN RISK. And have fun!
PS: Here is the original disclaimer which is way more funnier and actually quite true considering the dangers at that Preserve.
---
www.tribalnetworks.org
Your points raised a number of things worth mentioning.
I think using W2K/FF/Eudora/Pegasus instead of XP/IE/Outlook has benefitted me greatly over the years. First of all a virus arriving at my email client doesn't have a chance since it's so old it cannot even open attachments or view complex html. W2K has been patched up pretty well with SP4+SR2. IE on my machine is disabled as far as possible and its internet connection is banned. A small program sits on the registry and notifies me if some process wants to change it. And finally a software firewall, and in the end my hardware firewall on the router will block any attempts by unknown software doing anything I don't like.
So as you can see, I'm not just complacent about not using anti-virus software but I've actually found a better alternative. This way I'm in control and don't overburden or impede the machine's daily functions. BTW: I do also run an Apache/SSL and SSH servers on this same machine so those firewalls are there for a reason.
I would comment on your doubt as to the security of Firefox. Indeed it is very likely that vurnerabilities will be found in it. However this does not make it unusable. Any kind of virus software won't protect you against birthday viruses so as long as you keep uptodate with news on the current vurnerability situation out there while keeping your nose clean of unrealiable sites you're very unlikely to be the first one hit by it and consequently will have warning in advance to avoid and patch up any such vurnerabilities.
At the end of the day you have to balance your needs and requirements in the altar of security vs. usability. I've found that virus-software impedes usability too much without giving me much security in return. But taking regular backups and having a spare machine also helps.:P
Seriously, why must we have to read on every populist or pseudo-science story out there? Are we competing with the New / American Scientist and Fortean Times? This guy is a nutter and his 'research' has been widely criticised and discredited.
Is it too much to ask for the submitters and editors to do a simple Google/Wikipedia search on the articles and maybe include a hint of criticism and doubt when faced with such BS stories.
Seriously, it's way too easy to have a go at this MSNBC BS. What is more worthy to note is the frequency and desperation with which these articles keep appearing, claiming sleeping beauty mac-users are in imminent danger if they continue to refuse to take part in the virus paranoia of the Windows world.
I have been using W2K with no anti-virus software for years with no side effects. Sadly and with amusement do I follow the antics of my fellow XP users with their shiny anti-virus crapware popping up redundant warnings and notifications and slowing the machine to a crawl. And to top the irony they have to turn off anti-virus whenever they install anything or run certain software. And when you go to your workplace or school the machines there have been made almost entirely useless by over zealous protection software.
Having a go at Macs for security is either stupidity or plain propaganda. Security doesn't come from anti-virus programs. It comes from the underlying architecture of the OS and the third-party software having to comply with the security principles of the underlying architecture. Anti-virus software only protects the computer against clueless users and thus it can be claimed that any computer/OS architecture requires some.
And as for the age old user base threshold argument I'm still waiting. OSX has been for some time the most common UNIX based OS. It is remarkable how little vulnerabilities have been found considering the amount of software and services running on OSX by default. Thus, comparatively, statements involving OSX and poor security continue to be plain ludicrous.
As for me I'll merrily continue running my apparently 'immune' W2K box (behind two tailor made firewalls) and wave my greetings and encouragement to my fellow mac users.
Just an observation: Apple's website's frontpage ad for the new 17" MacBookPro has Aperture on it's screen. If Aperture was so crap and dead as some are suggesting Apple woundn't use it in their advertising for their latest flagship product.
As I understand it, one of central features of EFI was the hardware level encryption and digital signing happening between core motherboard components, an intergral part of the Trusted Computing Platform implementation - which Windows Vista was supposed to fully support? If Vista has to use the old BIOS architecture is there hope still for freedom or is there another way to tie us onto the TC-shackles?
And does this mean Apple's products will be the only ones that fully implement the TC platform idea both in hardware and operating system level. I seem to remember the Macintosh launch involved an ad related to the year 1984, can't seem to remember exactly what it was about (mind blanked out)...
> Would be nice to see something like this for all platforms.
Well, huh! Here's a challenge! I've got a Windows box which you can attack at IP 124.235.13... [silence]
PS: What's even funnier is I've actually got a W2K webserver/SSH/SFTP server running here but I dare not give the IP away at slashdot - if OSX has 'an unpublished vulnerability' I wonder how many Windows does... Which is double funny again since supposedly OSX weaknesses haven't been exposed cause of small user base whereas my only defence against horders of hackers here is to keep my website as unpopular as possible!:P
> Would be nice to see something like this for all platforms.
Well, huh! Here's a challenge! I've got a Windows box which you can attack at IP 124.235.13... [silence]
PS: What's even funnier is I've actually got a W2K webserver/SSH/SFTP server running here but I dare not give the IP away at slashdot - if OSX has 'an unpublished vulnerability' I wonder how many Windows does... Which is double funny again since supposedly OSX weaknesses haven't been exposed cause of small user base whereas my only defence against horders of hackers here is to keep my website as unpopular as possible!
> Would be nice to see something like this for all platforms.
Well, huh! Here's a challenge! I've got a Windows box which you can attack at IP 124.235.13... [silence]
PS: What's even funnier is I've actually got a W2K webserver/SSH/SFTP server running here but I dare not give the IP away at slashdot - if OSX has 'an unpublished vulnerability' I wonder how many Windows does..
Passenger airliner avionics equipment is contained in a avionics hold in racks and connected up with the cockpit, variety sensors and antennas via cable harnesses. This is as much as people usually understand of avionics. Where their understanding ends is the signalling and systems architecture.
Flight critical avionics equipment, mainly things like engine control, autopilot and navigation systems are the result of DECADES of R&D. A very foreign concept for today's tech generation. These units have been tested and proven to work with countless flight hours under much more demanding interference conditions than what consumer electronics can produce - in fact many civil avionics are used 'as is' by military aircraft.
But lets talk about interference first. You can talk about backdoor and front door. Backdoor is where you get your signal directly to the system circuit either board level or interconnecting wiring. And surprise surprise this indeed happens! Those racks of equipment actually interfere with each other all the time causing both intermittent problems impossible to track or more fundamental conflicts which sometimes can be solved with special engineering: extra filters, shielding, special positioning etc. This happens all the time and with every model of passenger aircraft our there. And guess what - number one cause of accidents: pilot error.
So how is this possible. Lets look at the innards of a typical autopilot. First of all, almost all signalling is differential or digital so interference doesn't have a fucking chance there. But lets give it a chance and see what the autopilot does when it receives interference. All data is tested and compared and bad data is ignored and flags up the pilot display if deemed necessary. If the interference is somehow able to simulate valid data with an improbability straight out of HHGTTG, the rate change test will catch it so it will have to be both valid, consistent with current flight profile and have a consistent and valid rate of change - a steep requirement since most interference is erratic and intermittent.
Ok, so lets settle for just plain DOS attack here. We can't fool the AP so lets make it's life impossible. What does the AP do then? It resets itself, releases it's hold on the servos and notifies the pilot to go manual. And even if you fry the whole AP with an EMP, the watchdog circuit and finally the purely mechanical/hydrodynamic backup system will instantly release the AP from the servos and notify the pilot to go manual.
So are AP's never at fault? Are they immortal? Of course not. There are design faults in software, careless avionics technicians that install bad wiring or fries the thing with static. In the end all AP's fail due to heat, vibration and aging of semiconductors. So why aren't these millions of aircraft that are flying on full AP dropping out of the sky like flies? That's why you have the pilot there. So the chance of a cellphone interfering with the AP to down an aircraft is pretty zero.
I'm not even gonna go into the navigation systems dating back to WW2 still being used to today NAV (VOR/ILS). Enough said that their circuits and architecture is at least as reliable as AP's.
So what we have left is front door interference - going through the sensor or antenna. I guess this is what most people would consider the biggest danger and sure it's easier to understand since every one has seen it's effect on their TV when the neighbour uses his power tools. However this does not change the scenario seen above. Good luck making a consumer device malfunction in a way that produces a valid and consistent GPS signal. Sure you can block the GPS, you can block any navigation signal, hell you can even take the power off the whole fucking plane. It's called a thunderstorm and you see them if you'd leave your computer and go outside. However thunderstorms rarely bring down aircraft. And when they do more often because they blow the e
Can anyone imagine Steve Jobs giving one of his famous presentation explaining Apple's adoption of Trusted Computing? Would you be convinced? Why are Apple fans (of which I'm one) so unintested in Apple adopting this technology? What features of Trusted Computing does Apple's MacBookPro chipset support and how could they be utilized in future versions of OSX? Which Trusted Computing features does the current X86 port of OSX already use? This is not about tinfoil hats anymore - TC will be the end of hacking.
PS: This submission to/. was rejected so I'm posting it here - f*ck them and f'u if you think it's 'off-topic'...
Files can be backed up! I've never figured that one out. Yes FILES can be backed up - but what files? - Anything under Documents and Settings? / Program Files? / WINNT? with proper links and everything working afterwards? I can back up my files allright - its the Windows 2000 installtion + settings + installed programs and their setting + updates and modifications - that I'd like to backup completely. Currenlty the only way I can see doing that is somesort of RAID mirroring operation...
And another thing offtopic - I have word (MS Office 2000) crashing on me every time I try to use Tools - Options - Edit, as well as whenever I exit Word (presumably because that's when it tries to save the Options, including the Edit Options. I've uninstalled and completely wiped everything related to Word and Office and then reinstalled from different CDs (and versions: Small Business and Professional) and still the problem persists ?!?
I know when I reinstall that the installation 'magically' remembers all my settings including the Options/Edit -things, ie. there is some file somewhere I'm missing that needs deleting but I can't find it (yes I've deleted everything Office related under Local Settings and Application Data etc. and still doesn't help). Does Office have some settings files somewhere under WINNT and does it write to something like win.ini or similar.ini its options...???
According to DRWatson its WINWORD.exe allright that's doing an Application Exception - c00000005 access violation - but sadly that is where my expertise ends regarding the log files...
Slashdot Mirror
And then there were thirteen more...
who the hell actually believes open source is MORE secure simply because they publish their millions of lines of code? Like ANY customer is actually going to look at the code.
Apparently everyone else but you...
The keyword you missed is 'inherently'. Having a lot of independent eyeballs on the code is essential priciple for locating bugs and avoiding backdoors. That's why even proprietary software companies pay for 'verification' by 'independent' certifiers. And there is not a single closed encryption algorithm in the world that is considered secure. There is simply no security in obscurity.
Your disclaimer is no excuse for this FUD where you imply that somehow adversaries could slip compromising code into open source projects used in government contracts. The chances of such code remaining unnoticed is much less than in proprietary projects where you merely have to bribe one key developer. And nobody runs mission critical things off latest source trees anyway. The blanket ban on all 'open source' software is likely a kneejerk reaction by uninformed byrocrats. Or perhaps they're already owned by the vendors and private companies the contracts predictably go to.
What about support for wireless and ACPI and external monitor output ???
I've got a HP NX6125 with Broadcom 4318, AMD Turion, Radeon XPress 200M...
Anyone tried those?
AT&T did its bit to puncture the WiMAX hype today, while providing an update on three of its trial WiMAX deployments. Behzed Nadji, AT&T's Chief Architect, debunked stories about 70 Mbit/s throughput over distances of 70 miles for WiMAX. "There's little reality to that," he said. A range of 3 to 5 miles and 2 Mbit/s was closer to reality. In fact, one of AT&T's three deployments rarely saw throughput rise above 500 kbit/s, he said. Source
I can already provide point-to-multipoint 360 coverage with megabit connections simultaniously to over a hundred customers with 802.11g using three channel sector antennas. The range depends on how big a receiving antenna they have. WiMAX isn't about revolutionizing speed and coverage. It's about intellegent contention, load control and QoS, which the existing 802s are lacking. Better for real mesh networking and reliable VoIP.
what today's geek thinks about amateur radio? ... Do you think that we could see a renaissance of Ham Radio among 21st century techies?
Well such renaissance is already happening with Wifi: people doing COTS ad-hoc networks, wardriving etc. Many of these people are radio amateurs and the opening of the ISM band has just made it much cheaper to buy the equipment. The experimental frontier spirit is still strong. More traditional RA stuff has also benefited from the internet. People are hooking up VHF/UHF repeaters via IP over long distances, even worldwide.
If there's a downside, its the deterioration of the traditional ham. Before people had to take an interest in electronics and build a lot of stuff by themselves. And as people move to digi-modes or even start their hobby from them and the old ham skills, morse and SSB, will be forgotten. When disaster strikes, radio amateurs are the ones left standing. They're able to quickly setup flexible efficient communications networks from whatever equipment is at hand. However what you still need is experienced operators who are able to handle such communications and you cannot learn that by just sitting on your computer.
For example here in Finland we have a close-knit relationship between hams and the authorities, both emergency and the military. Time and time again we have demonstrated that in the absence of any support or infrastructure, hams are able to independently organize, setup and operate a nationwide communications network and provide the authorities with all the communications services they need.
What we need are geeks who are interested in everything, not just a narrow peak of the latest technology.
oh3gpj
it doesn't tell you who you are talking to. GSM calls are never point to point, so there is always a "man in the middle".
ah, but this point was made well with Zimmerman's Zfone - you do the authentication yourself by having a conversation with the person on the other end and determining if he is the person he claims he is. Relying on complex certificate authorities and key management schemes makes most secure communications systems unfeasable - the old usability vs. security paradox.
Additional security and integrity is ensured by a calculated HASH checksum that is indicated on the display
and it seems you also stop Man-in-the-Middle attack similarly as in Zfone, by being able to read and confirm the hash checksum with the person you're talking to...
The pin number is something you input on the phoneset to get physical access to the crypto software. It has nothing to do with the over-the-air encryption.
This could become a case of chickens coming home to roost with China and other U.S competitors and adversaries using the TCP (Trusted Computing Platform) to have a back door to computers they produce and which are sold to businesses and governments all over the world.
All they need to do is to make note of the keys or signatures from the TPMs(Trusted Platform Module) that are embedded in every modern PC.
In fact this illustrates the greatest challenge of TCP based DRM. Who will be the key escrow / signing authority in a world where China, Russia and India increasingly shun away from U.S centered IT solutions.
Its all about your right to read.
What an idiotic statement - nanotechnology has everything to do with FDA - the products of nanotechnology are active chemicals with potentially toxic effects just like food and drugs etc. FCC regulates the electromagnetic spectrum and has absolutely no expertise in biochemistry.
Just like all the existing drug/food/chemical/environmental/health regulations have kept these technology research out of the United States, you moron!
Just like you'd pass on a 'bridge out' warning sign set up by hitler, rednecks and the illuminati. Meanwhile there are people who are able to think for themselves and reach their own conclusions without appeals to authority.
As can be logically concluded from the current state of the medical and aviation industries.
oh, here we go again - the 'all chemicals are from nature' argument - like dioxin and thalidomide - and therefore just as harmless as rainbows and kitten paws.
And what are all these anti-regulation comments implying then? That public regulation is always bad? That industry self-regulation is the solution because industry knows best and they have our interest and health at heart, don't they? I'd rather have incompetent, over-zealous, fear-mongering public interest groups raise these issues so that the industry and government have to at least pay cursory lip-service to my safety and rights rather than leave me to fend for myself alone against them. It's the way the system works - both extremes give their best shot - and usually meet in the middle with a compromise everyone can live with (pun intended)...
All that was needed was to make a fair comparison between a genuine alternative and the advocate zombies come out of their caves and mod it down to a Troll.
First of all, the point about the price is perfectly valid, considering the claims on this thread that this Macbook is cheap based on custom Dells people have cobbled together on their website.
Nor is the reference to the thermal paste issue uncalled for since the Pro models have a history of shoddy quality. One is therefore justified in speculating what kind of build quality the cheaper and consumer oriented Macbook will have.
And finally, it is no wonder that mac people get hyper when you mention ports. They want to deny the reality that it is better to have the option of a certain port or interface, however obscure, than not.
I'm sure the people here can think of tons of fun with serial and parellal ports. I myself use a serial port to program various microcontrollers and a parellal port for an old reliable dot matrix printer to log events 24/7 on my instruments racks. And have you ever had your telco or a lightning take out your card from the local DSLAM. It's nice to be able to dial-up for your essential email.
However for me the PCMCIA card slot is perhaps the most important shortcoming in mac portables since expansion is impossible without it. What if you need a portable sampling interface or an extra wireless card (GPRS, WCDMA). What if you wanna do music on the road and want a better sound card or need a faster firewire for multitrack recording? The lack of PCMCIA limits your choices to inferior quality external and bulky USB peripherals.
In the past I've had PB1400 and G3 portables from Apple and they've been nice. However now that I'm doing serious work I have had to opt for a HP business notebook with a dual boot w2k/linux. I might consider buying a Macbook for the kids though.
Sincerely - Disgruntled ex-mac user
Let's see...
In Ireland I'd pay 1438 euros for the white 2GHz model with 1Gb of RAM and a VGA-adapter
alternatively I could buy HP/Compaq's business line:
Core Duo T2300
15.0 TFT
1GBMB RAM, 80GB HD
DVDRW DL, WLAN, GBLAN
FW 400, 4xUSB
for just under 1400 euros
which also includes a built-in microphone, serial and parellal ports, VGA and S-video outputs, 56k modem, I/II PCMCIA and a 7-in-1 card reader.
AND it's build by people who know how to apply thermal paste!
so quit babbling about how 'reasonably priced' the macbook is!
Airgo's "True MIMO" is a pre-standard interpretation of the future 802.11blah (TGnSync vs. WWiSE) and will most likely not be compatible with the final 802.11n.
The MIMO concept itself offers to double the throughput at the expense of increasing bandwidth from 20 to 40MHz as well as spreading multipath garbage on the spectrum. If you've had fun with congestion on 802.11b/g channels, this 802.11n will really make your day.
Ok, so it might have marginally better spectral efficiency per Mbps but really, what we want to see is true beamforming dynamic-arrays that will properly 'point' the RF where it's supposed to go in real-time.
Meanwhile one of these 'gaming' laptops will just screwup the spectrum and slowdown existing b/g channels.
The install process is covered in steep learning curves, slippery catches and unstable automated functions. Having a non-standard set of hardware will make matters worse. Mindbogling jargon is everywhere. You may fail, crash or otherwise fail catastrophically at any time. You could break your multi-boot partitions. There are hidden rules and things to know. Carry install disks, backups and a spare windows machine at all times.
Asking for help won't work. The wild linux-know-it-all snobs are ready to bounce at your pitiful requests for explanations, with vicious, poisonous comments about newbies and reading the man pages. We don't do anything to protect you from any of this. By using a free open source operating system, you are agreeing that we owe you no hint of advice or any other care. We promise you nothing. We do not and will not even try to keep the premises safe for any purpose. This is no joke.
We won't even try to warn you about any dangerous or hazardous condition, specially if we know about it. We may or may not make an effort to fix an unsafe condition, and we may make matters worse! Sorry, we're not responsible. We may give you bad advice just for fun. So don't listen to us. In short, ENTER AND USE LINUX AT YOUR OWN RISK. And have fun!
PS: Here is the original disclaimer which is way more funnier and actually quite true considering the dangers at that Preserve. --- www.tribalnetworks.org
Your points raised a number of things worth mentioning.
:P
I think using W2K/FF/Eudora/Pegasus instead of XP/IE/Outlook has benefitted me greatly over the years. First of all a virus arriving at my email client doesn't have a chance since it's so old it cannot even open attachments or view complex html. W2K has been patched up pretty well with SP4+SR2. IE on my machine is disabled as far as possible and its internet connection is banned. A small program sits on the registry and notifies me if some process wants to change it. And finally a software firewall, and in the end my hardware firewall on the router will block any attempts by unknown software doing anything I don't like.
So as you can see, I'm not just complacent about not using anti-virus software but I've actually found a better alternative. This way I'm in control and don't overburden or impede the machine's daily functions. BTW: I do also run an Apache/SSL and SSH servers on this same machine so those firewalls are there for a reason.
I would comment on your doubt as to the security of Firefox. Indeed it is very likely that vurnerabilities will be found in it. However this does not make it unusable. Any kind of virus software won't protect you against birthday viruses so as long as you keep uptodate with news on the current vurnerability situation out there while keeping your nose clean of unrealiable sites you're very unlikely to be the first one hit by it and consequently will have warning in advance to avoid and patch up any such vurnerabilities.
At the end of the day you have to balance your needs and requirements in the altar of security vs. usability. I've found that virus-software impedes usability too much without giving me much security in return. But taking regular backups and having a spare machine also helps.
Seriously, why must we have to read on every populist or pseudo-science story out there? Are we competing with the New / American Scientist and Fortean Times? This guy is a nutter and his 'research' has been widely criticised and discredited.
Is it too much to ask for the submitters and editors to do a simple Google/Wikipedia search on the articles and maybe include a hint of criticism and doubt when faced with such BS stories.
Seriously, it's way too easy to have a go at this MSNBC BS. What is more worthy to note is the frequency and desperation with which these articles keep appearing, claiming sleeping beauty mac-users are in imminent danger if they continue to refuse to take part in the virus paranoia of the Windows world.
I have been using W2K with no anti-virus software for years with no side effects. Sadly and with amusement do I follow the antics of my fellow XP users with their shiny anti-virus crapware popping up redundant warnings and notifications and slowing the machine to a crawl. And to top the irony they have to turn off anti-virus whenever they install anything or run certain software. And when you go to your workplace or school the machines there have been made almost entirely useless by over zealous protection software.
Having a go at Macs for security is either stupidity or plain propaganda. Security doesn't come from anti-virus programs. It comes from the underlying architecture of the OS and the third-party software having to comply with the security principles of the underlying architecture. Anti-virus software only protects the computer against clueless users and thus it can be claimed that any computer/OS architecture requires some.
And as for the age old user base threshold argument I'm still waiting. OSX has been for some time the most common UNIX based OS. It is remarkable how little vulnerabilities have been found considering the amount of software and services running on OSX by default. Thus, comparatively, statements involving OSX and poor security continue to be plain ludicrous.
As for me I'll merrily continue running my apparently 'immune' W2K box (behind two tailor made firewalls) and wave my greetings and encouragement to my fellow mac users.
Just an observation: Apple's website's frontpage ad for the new 17" MacBookPro has Aperture on it's screen. If Aperture was so crap and dead as some are suggesting Apple woundn't use it in their advertising for their latest flagship product.
As I understand it, one of central features of EFI was the hardware level encryption and digital signing happening between core motherboard components, an intergral part of the Trusted Computing Platform implementation - which Windows Vista was supposed to fully support? If Vista has to use the old BIOS architecture is there hope still for freedom or is there another way to tie us onto the TC-shackles?
And does this mean Apple's products will be the only ones that fully implement the TC platform idea both in hardware and operating system level. I seem to remember the Macintosh launch involved an ad related to the year 1984, can't seem to remember exactly what it was about (mind blanked out)...
> Would be nice to see something like this for all platforms.
:P
Well, huh! Here's a challenge! I've got a Windows box which you can attack at IP 124.235.13... [silence]
PS: What's even funnier is I've actually got a W2K webserver/SSH/SFTP server running here but I dare not give the IP away at slashdot - if OSX has 'an unpublished vulnerability' I wonder how many Windows does... Which is double funny again since supposedly OSX weaknesses haven't been exposed cause of small user base whereas my only defence against horders of hackers here is to keep my website as unpopular as possible!
> Would be nice to see something like this for all platforms.
Well, huh! Here's a challenge! I've got a Windows box which you can attack at IP 124.235.13... [silence]
PS: What's even funnier is I've actually got a W2K webserver/SSH/SFTP server running here but I dare not give the IP away at slashdot - if OSX has 'an unpublished vulnerability' I wonder how many Windows does... Which is double funny again since supposedly OSX weaknesses haven't been exposed cause of small user base whereas my only defence against horders of hackers here is to keep my website as unpopular as possible!
> Would be nice to see something like this for all platforms.
Well, huh! Here's a challenge! I've got a Windows box which you can attack at IP 124.235.13... [silence]
PS: What's even funnier is I've actually got a W2K webserver/SSH/SFTP server running here but I dare not give the IP away at slashdot - if OSX has 'an unpublished vulnerability' I wonder how many Windows does..
I give this whole thread 5 for uninformed.
So let me inform you.
Passenger airliner avionics equipment is contained in a avionics hold in racks and connected up with the cockpit, variety sensors and antennas via cable harnesses. This is as much as people usually understand of avionics. Where their understanding ends is the signalling and systems architecture.
Flight critical avionics equipment, mainly things like engine control, autopilot and navigation systems are the result of DECADES of R&D. A very foreign concept for today's tech generation. These units have been tested and proven to work with countless flight hours under much more demanding interference conditions than what consumer electronics can produce - in fact many civil avionics are used 'as is' by military aircraft.
But lets talk about interference first. You can talk about backdoor and front door. Backdoor is where you get your signal directly to the system circuit either board level or interconnecting wiring. And surprise surprise this indeed happens! Those racks of equipment actually interfere with each other all the time causing both intermittent problems impossible to track or more fundamental conflicts which sometimes can be solved with special engineering: extra filters, shielding, special positioning etc. This happens all the time and with every model of passenger aircraft our there. And guess what - number one cause of accidents: pilot error.
So how is this possible. Lets look at the innards of a typical autopilot. First of all, almost all signalling is differential or digital so interference doesn't have a fucking chance there. But lets give it a chance and see what the autopilot does when it receives interference. All data is tested and compared and bad data is ignored and flags up the pilot display if deemed necessary. If the interference is somehow able to simulate valid data with an improbability straight out of HHGTTG, the rate change test will catch it so it will have to be both valid, consistent with current flight profile and have a consistent and valid rate of change - a steep requirement since most interference is erratic and intermittent.
Ok, so lets settle for just plain DOS attack here. We can't fool the AP so lets make it's life impossible. What does the AP do then? It resets itself, releases it's hold on the servos and notifies the pilot to go manual. And even if you fry the whole AP with an EMP, the watchdog circuit and finally the purely mechanical/hydrodynamic backup system will instantly release the AP from the servos and notify the pilot to go manual.
So are AP's never at fault? Are they immortal? Of course not. There are design faults in software, careless avionics technicians that install bad wiring or fries the thing with static. In the end all AP's fail due to heat, vibration and aging of semiconductors. So why aren't these millions of aircraft that are flying on full AP dropping out of the sky like flies? That's why you have the pilot there. So the chance of a cellphone interfering with the AP to down an aircraft is pretty zero.
I'm not even gonna go into the navigation systems dating back to WW2 still being used to today NAV (VOR/ILS). Enough said that their circuits and architecture is at least as reliable as AP's.
So what we have left is front door interference - going through the sensor or antenna. I guess this is what most people would consider the biggest danger and sure it's easier to understand since every one has seen it's effect on their TV when the neighbour uses his power tools. However this does not change the scenario seen above. Good luck making a consumer device malfunction in a way that produces a valid and consistent GPS signal. Sure you can block the GPS, you can block any navigation signal, hell you can even take the power off the whole fucking plane. It's called a thunderstorm and you see them if you'd leave your computer and go outside. However thunderstorms rarely bring down aircraft. And when they do more often because they blow the e
PS: This submission to /. was rejected so I'm posting it here - f*ck them and f'u if you think it's 'off-topic'...
Sincerely - Ransu, Finland
Sincerely
Me
And another thing offtopic - I have word (MS Office 2000) crashing on me every time I try to use Tools - Options - Edit, as well as whenever I exit Word (presumably because that's when it tries to save the Options, including the Edit Options. I've uninstalled and completely wiped everything related to Word and Office and then reinstalled from different CDs (and versions: Small Business and Professional) and still the problem persists ?!?
I know when I reinstall that the installation 'magically' remembers all my settings including the Options/Edit -things, ie. there is some file somewhere I'm missing that needs deleting but I can't find it (yes I've deleted everything Office related under Local Settings and Application Data etc. and still doesn't help). Does Office have some settings files somewhere under WINNT and does it write to something like win.ini or similar .ini its options...???
According to DRWatson its WINWORD.exe allright that's doing an Application Exception - c00000005 access violation - but sadly that is where my expertise ends regarding the log files...