I'm wagering that the purchase has to do with the IP that McAfee has. Intel, as far as I know, doesn't have much in the way of R&D in that area. Having those researchers would likely allow them to develop accelerators and such that are useful for anti-virus scanners. They could do it now it just would be a lot more expensive than having the researchers and patents in house. I'm guessing this is more aimed at the enterprise market where they want to integrate that functionality in for servers allowing them to scan files as their uploaded with much greater efficiency.
That was my thought. In the US the DoJ often times allows mergers to go through after being promised that the merger won't end up being anti-competitive. Typically within a year the firm is violating the promise it made and the DoJ doesn't seem to be able to do anything about it.
I'd like to see legislation enacted that all those promises be made in writing and that they be enforceable in court by anybody with something to lose by the agreement being violated.
The same way that the check points prevent suicide bombers from hitting the line. This would enable them to stop planes from departing or people from boarding them and just ensure that the terrorists hit the people waiting to be screened.
This is going to be about as helpful as those scanners are, but less likely to result in sexual assault charges being filed against TSA employees.
Where are you providing service though? I live in Seattle which is one of the best connected cities in the country and I can't get any service that's faster than 5mbps. Supposedly Comcast goes faster but from my experience that's for a burst and you're lucky if you've got any service on any given day. None of the major ISPs are willing to advertise what their speeds are in various places, just that fraudulent up to number.
I have the same problem around here. I'm stuck with Comcast who can't be bothered to provide any service on a reliable basis and Qwest which is reliable but slow. Seattle was planning on doing its own municipal fiber back in 2005, but Qwest pretty much told them not to do it implying that they'd be doing it. To date I have yet to see any evidence that they will ever be bringing faster speeds here as they've stagnated for the last decade. My connection speed has gone from 4mbps to 5mbps over the last decade.
I'd like something faster, but my main complaint is latency and from what I've read Comcast isn't any better in that respect. Right now I'm paying $50 plus tax whereas Qwest charges in other regions $55 plus tax for 40mbps service via fiber.
Citation sorely needed. I've seen this view popping up all over the place. Has it honestly not occurred to you that the information was leaked because that's what the people in general wanted to know about? And that they have a limited capacity to review and redact the information?
Just because you don't like what's been leaked does not mean that there's a political bias involved. It's much more likely that the decisions are being made based upon the levels of interest and an attempt at providing for the common good rather than a vendetta against the US.
Citation necessary. I've seen people make that assertion all over the place and I have yet to see a shred of evidence that it's the case. I find it hard to believe that given the importance of the war effort and the amount of both interest and material that they've been turning down other leaks in order to stick one to the US government on political grounds. It's much more likely that they selected that material because it's relevant to the right of the people to consent to the parties that govern them.
It strikes me as perfectly within the realm of possibility that they just don't have time to release all of the material they have at once without doing just dumping it online without any redaction or consideration for the consequences.
Which officially makes it worthless. People looking to leak can't trust them because they have to have someway of keeping track of where leaks are coming from and if that's not the case the journalists can't trust them because they have no way of verifying the sources are legit.
Either case does not bode well for the organization.
Re:dont leak to the wrong people
on
Openleaks Goes Live
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Assange for all his weaknesses is in some respects a realist. Those complaints weren't particularly valid. He's got a limited number of people that he can trust to do the redactions and other work necessary to release the material. There's a lot of material in the world that can be leaked. I don't think it's a fair criticism of him or the organization that there's a huge backlog. Choosing to prioritize the materials that are the most interest to the general public is hardly unethical. Organizations have to make priorities or they get nothing done.
It's sort of like if Shakespeare or Mark Twain had chosen to write one act or chapter from each work before moving onto the second. Both men almost undoubtedly had a back log of ideas at various points and only a limited amount of resources with which to realize them.
Sounds like you're a flavor aid fan. If you want to have something secure then it's going to be run by a small group. If you're just taking the information from anonymous sources without any way of knowing who it is that's leaking it you're going to fail miserably. The unfortunate reality is that if you don't have direct communication with the parties wishing to leak information you've got no way of knowing what they're leaking and why.
I predict that OpenLeaks goes down hard because the organizational structure they're suggesting just doesn't make any sense.
Doesn't matter if that's there largest revenue stream, they're screwing over their customers and reducing the functionality of hardware they've already sold. If they were incompetent enough to assume that the system couldn't be broken, then they deserve what comes to them.
Some of the Columbian narco gangs actually have used RC cars, and by that I mean the sort that is a real car with a RC steering mechanism. Granted their rare and mostly for bombings, but it does happen. Or at least it has happened.
It depends on your platform. For Windows Putty will do it pretty all for you without having to know much. On Linux the following should help you out: Ssh port forwarding
Once you do it a couple times it gets to be pretty easy, the only hitch is that it can be a pain if their side is on a dynamic IP. But that's easily scripted.
I'd prefer to wait until I see the 3Ds before I weigh in on it. 3D might end up being a gimmick or industrious developers might find a way of making it a valuable feature of a game. At this point, I tend towards it being a gimmick, but I'm going to reserve judgment until I have one in my hands to try.
I take it that tunneling the telnet session via SSH isn't a reasonable option. Telnet at this point is antiquated and anybody that's providing software that requires it needs to be barred from the industry. It hasn't been a reasonable option in my memory, and it wasn't a reasonable option for quite some time when I started picking up FreeBSD in '99 or so.
Yeah right. Around here if you weren't picked out as gifted by age 7, chances are it wasn't going to happen and that you'd be stuck in regular classes for the rest of your schooling. Likewise children who are tagged as unstable or lacking in self control tend to be treated as such and deprived of the opportunities that other students have. I think that you're vastly underestimating the effect that being seen as an outsider has.
Obviously you don't know anything about autism otherwise you wouldn't make those kind of comments. It's typical for autistic people to have that kind of an attachment to something. It might be something like trains or birds or something completely different, but it's hardly uncommon for somebody with autism to have a connection that goes beyond obsession to a particular interest. And no, it's not really realistic to try and tear the person away from it.
The problem is that there usually isn't any proof provided. I remember a while back when a number of people were accused of cheating and the service ended up having to apologize for the mistake and undo the bans, that was with Steam IIRC. Steam doesn't allow for appeals of when their automatic system flags an account. It's not good for a service to have the perception going around that the bans are anything other than reliable. Which is why they should have to prove it to others. A service that can't adequately determine between cheating and a high level of play is unlikely to instill much confidence.
I doubt it. People have been saying that for well over 50 years and it still hasn't come to pass. It took less than 50 years to go from black and white silent films to color talkies. I just don't see it coming anytime soon without a serious advance in technology. Best I can imagine is a sort of TV playbox with the action acted out in the confines of the box. Anything that projects out of a box is going to take a lot longer if ever.
That's why my 5.1 set up got replaced with a 2.1 system when it broke. The effect was amazing, but it was cumbersome and I didn't have an easy way to place the speakers.
I've listened to EAX and A3D, and they don't compare at all to genuine 5.1. I'm sorry, but it's not even close. I'm pretty aware of my auditory surroundings and those two technologies never did much if anything. I have to admit that I never heard a difference at all. Didn't matter whether it was on or off.
I had a 5.1 set up for a while and it was awesome. It really put you into the movie. Your ears are capable of figuring out where sounds are coming from, and it's much easier to implement than 3D TV is. Plus it's a lot easier for the brain to make a 3D image out of a 2D one than it is for the ears to create a 3D soundscape out of 2 speakers. The thing of it is that the sounds coming out of the rear speakers are different than the ones coming out of the front one.
Unless of course you're talking about that horrendous calculated 5.1 that utilizes only the traditional 2 channels.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm wagering that the purchase has to do with the IP that McAfee has. Intel, as far as I know, doesn't have much in the way of R&D in that area. Having those researchers would likely allow them to develop accelerators and such that are useful for anti-virus scanners. They could do it now it just would be a lot more expensive than having the researchers and patents in house. I'm guessing this is more aimed at the enterprise market where they want to integrate that functionality in for servers allowing them to scan files as their uploaded with much greater efficiency.
That was my thought. In the US the DoJ often times allows mergers to go through after being promised that the merger won't end up being anti-competitive. Typically within a year the firm is violating the promise it made and the DoJ doesn't seem to be able to do anything about it.
I'd like to see legislation enacted that all those promises be made in writing and that they be enforceable in court by anybody with something to lose by the agreement being violated.
The same way that the check points prevent suicide bombers from hitting the line. This would enable them to stop planes from departing or people from boarding them and just ensure that the terrorists hit the people waiting to be screened.
This is going to be about as helpful as those scanners are, but less likely to result in sexual assault charges being filed against TSA employees.
Where are you providing service though? I live in Seattle which is one of the best connected cities in the country and I can't get any service that's faster than 5mbps. Supposedly Comcast goes faster but from my experience that's for a burst and you're lucky if you've got any service on any given day. None of the major ISPs are willing to advertise what their speeds are in various places, just that fraudulent up to number.
I have the same problem around here. I'm stuck with Comcast who can't be bothered to provide any service on a reliable basis and Qwest which is reliable but slow. Seattle was planning on doing its own municipal fiber back in 2005, but Qwest pretty much told them not to do it implying that they'd be doing it. To date I have yet to see any evidence that they will ever be bringing faster speeds here as they've stagnated for the last decade. My connection speed has gone from 4mbps to 5mbps over the last decade.
I'd like something faster, but my main complaint is latency and from what I've read Comcast isn't any better in that respect. Right now I'm paying $50 plus tax whereas Qwest charges in other regions $55 plus tax for 40mbps service via fiber.
Citation sorely needed. I've seen this view popping up all over the place. Has it honestly not occurred to you that the information was leaked because that's what the people in general wanted to know about? And that they have a limited capacity to review and redact the information?
Just because you don't like what's been leaked does not mean that there's a political bias involved. It's much more likely that the decisions are being made based upon the levels of interest and an attempt at providing for the common good rather than a vendetta against the US.
Citation necessary. I've seen people make that assertion all over the place and I have yet to see a shred of evidence that it's the case. I find it hard to believe that given the importance of the war effort and the amount of both interest and material that they've been turning down other leaks in order to stick one to the US government on political grounds. It's much more likely that they selected that material because it's relevant to the right of the people to consent to the parties that govern them.
It strikes me as perfectly within the realm of possibility that they just don't have time to release all of the material they have at once without doing just dumping it online without any redaction or consideration for the consequences.
Which officially makes it worthless. People looking to leak can't trust them because they have to have someway of keeping track of where leaks are coming from and if that's not the case the journalists can't trust them because they have no way of verifying the sources are legit.
Either case does not bode well for the organization.
Assange for all his weaknesses is in some respects a realist. Those complaints weren't particularly valid. He's got a limited number of people that he can trust to do the redactions and other work necessary to release the material. There's a lot of material in the world that can be leaked. I don't think it's a fair criticism of him or the organization that there's a huge backlog. Choosing to prioritize the materials that are the most interest to the general public is hardly unethical. Organizations have to make priorities or they get nothing done.
It's sort of like if Shakespeare or Mark Twain had chosen to write one act or chapter from each work before moving onto the second. Both men almost undoubtedly had a back log of ideas at various points and only a limited amount of resources with which to realize them.
Sounds like you're a flavor aid fan. If you want to have something secure then it's going to be run by a small group. If you're just taking the information from anonymous sources without any way of knowing who it is that's leaking it you're going to fail miserably. The unfortunate reality is that if you don't have direct communication with the parties wishing to leak information you've got no way of knowing what they're leaking and why.
I predict that OpenLeaks goes down hard because the organizational structure they're suggesting just doesn't make any sense.
Doesn't matter if that's there largest revenue stream, they're screwing over their customers and reducing the functionality of hardware they've already sold. If they were incompetent enough to assume that the system couldn't be broken, then they deserve what comes to them.
Perhaps they're planning to merge with Oracle?
At this point though the cat is thoroughly out of the barn and quite possibly spilling milk.
What about badgers?
Some of the Columbian narco gangs actually have used RC cars, and by that I mean the sort that is a real car with a RC steering mechanism. Granted their rare and mostly for bombings, but it does happen. Or at least it has happened.
It depends on your platform. For Windows Putty will do it pretty all for you without having to know much. On Linux the following should help you out: Ssh port forwarding
Once you do it a couple times it gets to be pretty easy, the only hitch is that it can be a pain if their side is on a dynamic IP. But that's easily scripted.
I'd prefer to wait until I see the 3Ds before I weigh in on it. 3D might end up being a gimmick or industrious developers might find a way of making it a valuable feature of a game. At this point, I tend towards it being a gimmick, but I'm going to reserve judgment until I have one in my hands to try.
I take it that tunneling the telnet session via SSH isn't a reasonable option. Telnet at this point is antiquated and anybody that's providing software that requires it needs to be barred from the industry. It hasn't been a reasonable option in my memory, and it wasn't a reasonable option for quite some time when I started picking up FreeBSD in '99 or so.
Yeah right. Around here if you weren't picked out as gifted by age 7, chances are it wasn't going to happen and that you'd be stuck in regular classes for the rest of your schooling. Likewise children who are tagged as unstable or lacking in self control tend to be treated as such and deprived of the opportunities that other students have. I think that you're vastly underestimating the effect that being seen as an outsider has.
Obviously you don't know anything about autism otherwise you wouldn't make those kind of comments. It's typical for autistic people to have that kind of an attachment to something. It might be something like trains or birds or something completely different, but it's hardly uncommon for somebody with autism to have a connection that goes beyond obsession to a particular interest. And no, it's not really realistic to try and tear the person away from it.
The problem is that there usually isn't any proof provided. I remember a while back when a number of people were accused of cheating and the service ended up having to apologize for the mistake and undo the bans, that was with Steam IIRC. Steam doesn't allow for appeals of when their automatic system flags an account. It's not good for a service to have the perception going around that the bans are anything other than reliable. Which is why they should have to prove it to others. A service that can't adequately determine between cheating and a high level of play is unlikely to instill much confidence.
I doubt it. People have been saying that for well over 50 years and it still hasn't come to pass. It took less than 50 years to go from black and white silent films to color talkies. I just don't see it coming anytime soon without a serious advance in technology. Best I can imagine is a sort of TV playbox with the action acted out in the confines of the box. Anything that projects out of a box is going to take a lot longer if ever.
That's why my 5.1 set up got replaced with a 2.1 system when it broke. The effect was amazing, but it was cumbersome and I didn't have an easy way to place the speakers.
I've listened to EAX and A3D, and they don't compare at all to genuine 5.1. I'm sorry, but it's not even close. I'm pretty aware of my auditory surroundings and those two technologies never did much if anything. I have to admit that I never heard a difference at all. Didn't matter whether it was on or off.
I had a 5.1 set up for a while and it was awesome. It really put you into the movie. Your ears are capable of figuring out where sounds are coming from, and it's much easier to implement than 3D TV is. Plus it's a lot easier for the brain to make a 3D image out of a 2D one than it is for the ears to create a 3D soundscape out of 2 speakers. The thing of it is that the sounds coming out of the rear speakers are different than the ones coming out of the front one.
Unless of course you're talking about that horrendous calculated 5.1 that utilizes only the traditional 2 channels.