Researchers also say that amber on black, or green on black are optimal. Researchers have also said white on black is optimal. I wonder which it is... maybe one day they will make up their minds.
So... what was your point again?;-)
Mine was there are a lot of easy ways to alleviate eye strain that should be taken that are all external (or in addition to) your color selection in your text editor.
Folks, if you've read all of this and followed this, I am amazed you all have not come to the same inferences as me (or perhaps I am just so stupid that I have come to those inferences)... but this to me smells of a variety of things I have yet to see mentioned...
First, Google is going above and beyond their legal requirements to battle online copyright infringement... Viacom knows this... thus they are taking this to the next level.
Second, Viacom (and similar companies and organizations, such as the **AA) are more interested in control of such content. To do so, they must take a different route (which this is), that allows them to push for new (or updated) laws giving control of such content delivery to them exclusively. If you think it cant happen, then ask all the people who used to have Internet Radio Stations... it's now too expensive for most - and royalties now never (or rarely) make it to the artists (and instead make it to SoundExchange who has nothing to do with indie labels).
With this data, they have the perfect "evidence" to make online video sharing illegal (except when done by them or similar companies), and/or provide harsher penalties, and/or create contributory infringement statutes even if "takedown notices" are honored.
While all of that may seem absurd, look at the proposed laws that would make all P2P software and servers illegal regardless of their legitimate, legal uses.
Of course... there is also the possibility that this data will be turned over to the MPAA or whatever similar group exists in Viacom to try to find people sharing such videos (whether obtained from YouTube or not) for further direct infringement suits - after all, if they are watching copyrighted videos on YouTube, surely they must be sharing such videos (from whatever sources they obtained them) using other methods such as P2P clients... (while that is a big inference, I betcha Viacom has made such a leap in logic).
Actually, colors do make a difference... though I dont know enough to know which ones are better. Also, true flicker free lights help as well - even though LCDs are almost flicker free.
I would guess the optimal colors would be determined by the color temp setting used on the LCDs. Personally, I prefer warmer lighting (warm white flicker free flourescents or warm white halogens), though the color temps on my monitors are pretty high.
Possibly more important is light placing and intensity. Studies (on/. a long time ago, at the link above and elsewhere here; and on the web of course) shows that less light is easier on the eyes for coders and data entry people. It (if memory serves) helps reduce eye strain and distraction. Inotherwords, use enough light to see your workspace, illuminate your keyboard - and not much else. Upward facing lights (ie: "torch" lights, wall sconces, etc) help with this because they bring up the ambient light in the room without the eye-strain issues direct lighting cause for those who code or do data entry. To that, one would add task lighting appropriate to the job they are doing (like a desk lamp over their reading area where they browse their programming guide or stack of papers they are entering into the computer).
Cheaper CRTs (or CRTs in general) have a flicker to them which can make one's eyes hurt. Cheaper LCDs sometimes have slower refresh and response rates that can cause a similar effect - contrary to some people's beliefs that an LCD is an LCD is an LCD. Also, if you compare a high quality LCD to a cheapo one, you can often notice the difference in quality - especially on text rendering... text is often "smoother" looking on the better one - which also helps reduce eye strain.
Generally, for an LCD, one that (accurately) claims it is great for gaming - and has good pixel representation - is an ideal choice. It means it should have a very low response time, and good clarity and contrast. Skip CRTs... they may make pretty images - but as resolutions climb, LCDs beat them in text display.
Keep in mind, much "eye" strain is due to data your mind is filling in and your eyes are trying to follow (or external visual distractions your mind or eyes are trying to absorb).
Relevance? Perhaps EMS Techs should have Class C or emergency vehicle drivers licenses? Now of course, EMTs who are ambulance drivers... well, that is a different story.
You see, unless I am reading all the links wrong, technicians (in general) will not be required to get a PI license. Technicians who do disk forensics will be required to do so... totally different thing - as my example simplifies for those who didnt bother to read past the over-sensationalized articles linked to in the/. story.
Well, considering how infected the old PC must be (from opening, clicking on, and responding to all that spam), and the effort (short of wipe and restore) to fix it, I guess they are kinda due new PCs...
I could be wrong... but I thought they had already done tons of studies of this nature in the past... hence the creation of a system to allow the building of large scale solar (and the incentives that went with it)...
This is a great way of nipping a large scale solar expansion in the butt though - before it adversely affects other power generation methods... not that such is the reason why... of course... it's just a "beneficial" side-effect.
To be fair IE7Pro (a plugin for IE7) adds most of those features. Now if only it could actually make it run well on Vista. You know, like every other current browser seems capable of doing without issue, out of the box.
"To be fair IE7Pro (a plugin for IE7) adds most (but not all) of these features. Now, sadly since most IE7 users are running Vista, it would be nice if it actually ran well on Vista, since currently it is useless to most IE7 users since they are running Vista".
Fixed that for you... and of course, the example given that you are responding about, is just one of many - most of the rest of which do not have IE7 counterparts.
Firefox used to be better than IE, mostly because it had tabs. Now IE has tabs, and the playing field is level again.
I think you meant to say "ONE reason Firefox used to be better than IE..." - or if that wasnt what you meant to say, that is simply reality, regardless of what you believe.
Firefox used to be (and STILL is) better than IE because it conforms to standards better; is more secure; is fixed more quickly; doesnt obsfucate issues ("Ummm... we arent aware of that problem"); is easier to configure; is easier to write and install plugins; is easier to find, write and install themes; isn't limited to one OS; isn't tied to one OS's DLLs; can be updated by anyone for their own needs; is highly extensible in other fashions; is easier to code to without worrying about new code breaking older versions; and allows core components to be used in other software very easily and freely...
Just to mention a few reasons...
What you believe is irrelevant... reality doesnt care what you or I or anyone else believes...
The beauty of the Model M keyboards is that if used properly, people only complain about the noise once... then you clean the evidence off the keyboard and continue clicking away... the rest of your co-workers learn very quickly by the "example" set of the first one who complains.
Or a band printer... we had an IBM "band" printer at one place I worked. Well, they weren't that noisy, unless you printed with one of the covers open... but then... WOW!!!! The insides had enough foam padding/soundproofing to make a mattress out of.
You'll "safely stop" it from flying - you just wont be able to safely stop it from hitting the ground and crash landing.
All semantics... it's no longer in flight when it's bursting into pieces on the ground due to impact. The flight portion though, remains quite safe (if scary) right up until that point.
Not just is it cheaper than firing a missile... but if a plane has to be "disabled" while in flight, it can always be called an "accident" due to a "mechanical failure"
Not that anyone in the govt would ever consider doing something like that... but they could if they wanted (and felt they needed) to.
As an agent of the RIAA, I do not believe they would be in violation of the copyright. The copyright holder can assign whatever rights they want to anyone (unless it violates a contract with the artist - which is unlikely, as I am sure their contracts give the copyright holders near exclusive control). Keep in mind, they've already apparently been given permission to seed various torrents with songs to use to later catch people distributing them.
Now, as for MediaSentry simply being able to d/l stuff to prove distribution, I dont think that would fly for a couple reasons... they are not cops (*they* cant put together a sting operation), and since they would have to have already been given permission from the RIAA so as to not violate copyrights, then there were no songs in that evidence that was downloaded by anyone who isnt allowed to download such.
And most importantly, I am neither a cop nor a lawyer, so these are all just my guesses... whether reality - or the law (or both, where they coincide) agrees, I dont know.;-)
Add to that, they expect to be able to out-lawyer those they sue (gaining a win) or win by default judgement (the previous norm).
Sadly, they seem yet to have realized that such a scenario isnt working anymore as more people are actually fighting them, and more lawyers are willing to step up to defend them.
The problem is that Bush is only guilty of incompetence the real ringleader is Cheney who keeps telling him what to do and what to sign or not sign.
Actually, since he is accountable, he can be found guilty.
And regardless, incompetence, stupidity, or any other fault claimed of him are not valid defenses for his participation in the heinous acts he has helped commit.
Can you imagine if they were? "Gee, yer honor, due to my general incompetence, I was too stupid to know that driving my car over Mr. Smith might kill or harm him." Doesnt work that way. And sadly for him, neither would an insanity defense - even though it could be argued that numerous things he has signed off on have been quite insane.
Preventive detention is not a punishment? Would you mind being detained in such a matter because someone thinks you might do something? Not trying to troll, I'm honestly interested in your opinion.
I think you misunderstand the point he is trying to make. And he is correct.
"Except that preventive detention is not punishment. Which only makes it more evil..."
By it's (punishment) definition, "preventive detention" is not punishment - like he said, it's more evil. Punishment are actions or sanctions or similar against a party for something they have (already) done wrong.
So, I really think you both are on the same page here, as I think what he is trying to say is punishment for doing something wrong is one thing... punishment of various sort fors doing something wrong may be a bad thing (punishment needing to fit the crime). Actions taken against someone who has not committed a crime are worse ("more evil") - because while excessive punishment for a crime is bad, "punishment" when no crime was committed is thus orders of magnitude worse. I can see many reasons why, including the fact that it sets a neat precedent (which has also been complained about) that the government can choose to "punish" people for simply disagreeing.
I guess, technically though, those people did something wrong... various forms of simply disagreeing with our government has indeed become a crime of terror. So, maybe punishment is the correct word - even if the basis of the crime is flawed and ridiculous.
Well, it will affect him, as a person - I think this should go through on that basis alone.
The things I think are really "funny" (sad) are:
- Clinton's impeachment trials went through, over a bj and lying about it.
- Every poll I have seen for the last 3 years says the populace responding is highly supportive of Bush's impeachment (70% give or take) - yet those who represent the will of the public seem to have no interest in... well, following the will of the public.
- Even if this was to go through, he'll probably be pardoned by some future president.
- Even if he is not pardoned, the repercussions to him will probably be minimal - yet if an "average Joe" did any of this, they would face massive jail time and fines. The oddest part about this is, he should be held to a higher level of accountability - not the lower one that would result after being impeached.
Just my thoughts. Doubt this really matters much, except to prove that eventually, sometimes, the will of the people actually wins over the will of those who are supposed to (but dont) enforce and follow the will of the people.
I couldnt find Ironwood listed sadly. Especially since there are so many different species with different properties (finding the one that is used for building isn't very easy).
I did have a cane made of it that I picked up in Jamaica a while back (dunno what happened to it).
I seem to recall a tale about it being used to make bearings at one time as well - but that could just be an "old wives tale"
Some species are so hard (and more dense than water) that metal working tools (saws, drills, etc) are actually used to process the wood (instead of using conventional wood tools).
Some wood is a lot stronger (even some types of pine) and have tensile strengths upwards of 130.
I think what the gp was trying to say is by weight it may (depending on wood type) have a higher tensile strength.
It's one of the reasons we are so interested in kevlar and spider silk and carbon nanotubes for various things... lighter for similar strength of created object - regardless of it's tensile strength for the same size object.
In a way it is (caused by) SP3... (because) of something the router cannot handle.
So, it raises a few better questions than the ones being raised here (the blame game):
- (ROUTER'S FAULT) Why can't the router handle whatever type of traffic - and should it? At the very least, as a possible attack vector for routers, shouldn't it?
- (NOT NECESSARILY SP3's FAULT, BUT STILL AN ISSUE) Why is SP3 generating such traffic? What type of traffic is it generating? Could this traffic be considered (or detected elsewhere as) a DOS attack of some sort? (We do know that enough SYN packets will crash various routers - even high end ones). What is SP3 actually attempting to do (regardless of HOW, the more important questions are WHAT and WHY).
So, while the router may be at fault for the behavior due to the type of traffic, SP3 is at fault for generating traffic of a nature that is not needed (in any way I can think of) to utilize the Internet... and considering some of the new ad and update and spyware and DRM technologies that MS is trying to bring over to XP (see previous/. articles, various MS patents and more regarding their search plans, "Live" product plans and more)... is this traffic not just flawed, but totally unwanted and intrusive? Or is it simply a screw-up on MS's part that happened to indicate vulnerabilities in various routers?
See the thing is, the reasons MS has such code creating such traffic may be important (or simply a screw-up)... but regardless of that, it showed vulnerabilities in various routers... but regardless of that, it also showed some sort of traffic that SP3 generates that may also be the cause of other routers (that arent affected adversely by such traffic) detecting as an attack of some sort, causing all sorts of other issues (for instance, a subnet or port being shut down to block the traffic).
Think how wonderful that would be if it was at a large company, medical institution, school, EMS station, etc... where all their machines were on a NAT network, and one of them that got upgraded to SP3 suddenly got their single shared IP blocked from the Internet.
So, I think there may be plenty of blame to point at both MS and the router manufacturers...
But the sad thing is, (and I am loathe to say this on/. where I am expected to make judgements based off little or no facts), until enough facts come out (showing what type of traffic, why the traffic is being generated, and what unaffected routers do when they receive the traffic), the only blame so far is: - MS for doing something (traffic wise) that no other device or OS manufacturer seems to have ever done before.
- The router manufacturers in question for having an implementation that is not robust enough to survive such traffic without crashing.
I'd say 100% seeing as that it is the router that is crashing.
Hmmm... what is the margin of error on that statistic?
Oh, nevermind... I came up with the same figure anyway.;-)
Think of it this way, if writing this post made your computer crash, would it be my computers fault, or would it be yours?
Well, I'd like to blame it on your computer... and wonderfully, I can - and not be deemed insane. Things like that happen on/. all the time (like the guy I was responding to).
Lets not jump to blame this on Windows. It could be that Windows isn't doing anything wrong, just something the router should be able to handle, but can't. We can point fingers when we know what the actual issue causing the router problems is.
Yes, lets not blame Windows XP SP3... after all, this has happened with other OS's and other versions of Windows, right?
Oh, wait, this has only happened with XP SP3 machines....
And other OS's (Linux, OS/2, eComStation, MacOSX) can handle more Internet traffic of more different types/protocols than Windows XP SP3 - so there technically shouldnt be anything "more" or "unhandlable" that an XP SP3 machine could possibly do that hasnt already been done on another OS without causing such problems.
So, again, what's the probability that it isn't Windows XP SP3 doing something wrong?
Really? I am pretty sure that (much more recently than that) there are still a couple left. Both either in Maryland or one in Maryland and one in Delaware. Right along Route 40. Greyhound station near one of them in MD.
Slashdot Mirror
Researchers also say that amber on black, or green on black are optimal. Researchers have also said white on black is optimal. I wonder which it is... maybe one day they will make up their minds.
So... what was your point again? ;-)
Mine was there are a lot of easy ways to alleviate eye strain that should be taken that are all external (or in addition to) your color selection in your text editor.
Folks, if you've read all of this and followed this, I am amazed you all have not come to the same inferences as me (or perhaps I am just so stupid that I have come to those inferences)... but this to me smells of a variety of things I have yet to see mentioned...
First, Google is going above and beyond their legal requirements to battle online copyright infringement... Viacom knows this... thus they are taking this to the next level.
Second, Viacom (and similar companies and organizations, such as the **AA) are more interested in control of such content. To do so, they must take a different route (which this is), that allows them to push for new (or updated) laws giving control of such content delivery to them exclusively. If you think it cant happen, then ask all the people who used to have Internet Radio Stations... it's now too expensive for most - and royalties now never (or rarely) make it to the artists (and instead make it to SoundExchange who has nothing to do with indie labels).
With this data, they have the perfect "evidence" to make online video sharing illegal (except when done by them or similar companies), and/or provide harsher penalties, and/or create contributory infringement statutes even if "takedown notices" are honored.
While all of that may seem absurd, look at the proposed laws that would make all P2P software and servers illegal regardless of their legitimate, legal uses.
Of course... there is also the possibility that this data will be turned over to the MPAA or whatever similar group exists in Viacom to try to find people sharing such videos (whether obtained from YouTube or not) for further direct infringement suits - after all, if they are watching copyrighted videos on YouTube, surely they must be sharing such videos (from whatever sources they obtained them) using other methods such as P2P clients... (while that is a big inference, I betcha Viacom has made such a leap in logic).
Just my thoughts... now back to my cup o joe.
Actually, colors do make a difference... though I dont know enough to know which ones are better. Also, true flicker free lights help as well - even though LCDs are almost flicker free.
I would guess the optimal colors would be determined by the color temp setting used on the LCDs. Personally, I prefer warmer lighting (warm white flicker free flourescents or warm white halogens), though the color temps on my monitors are pretty high.
Possibly more important is light placing and intensity. Studies (on /. a long time ago, at the link above and elsewhere here; and on the web of course) shows that less light is easier on the eyes for coders and data entry people. It (if memory serves) helps reduce eye strain and distraction. Inotherwords, use enough light to see your workspace, illuminate your keyboard - and not much else. Upward facing lights (ie: "torch" lights, wall sconces, etc) help with this because they bring up the ambient light in the room without the eye-strain issues direct lighting cause for those who code or do data entry. To that, one would add task lighting appropriate to the job they are doing (like a desk lamp over their reading area where they browse their programming guide or stack of papers they are entering into the computer).
Cheaper CRTs (or CRTs in general) have a flicker to them which can make one's eyes hurt. Cheaper LCDs sometimes have slower refresh and response rates that can cause a similar effect - contrary to some people's beliefs that an LCD is an LCD is an LCD. Also, if you compare a high quality LCD to a cheapo one, you can often notice the difference in quality - especially on text rendering... text is often "smoother" looking on the better one - which also helps reduce eye strain.
Generally, for an LCD, one that (accurately) claims it is great for gaming - and has good pixel representation - is an ideal choice. It means it should have a very low response time, and good clarity and contrast. Skip CRTs... they may make pretty images - but as resolutions climb, LCDs beat them in text display.
Keep in mind, much "eye" strain is due to data your mind is filling in and your eyes are trying to follow (or external visual distractions your mind or eyes are trying to absorb).
Relevance? Perhaps EMS Techs should have Class C or emergency vehicle drivers licenses? Now of course, EMTs who are ambulance drivers... well, that is a different story.
You see, unless I am reading all the links wrong, technicians (in general) will not be required to get a PI license. Technicians who do disk forensics will be required to do so... totally different thing - as my example simplifies for those who didnt bother to read past the over-sensationalized articles linked to in the /. story.
Well, considering how infected the old PC must be (from opening, clicking on, and responding to all that spam), and the effort (short of wipe and restore) to fix it, I guess they are kinda due new PCs...
I could be wrong... but I thought they had already done tons of studies of this nature in the past... hence the creation of a system to allow the building of large scale solar (and the incentives that went with it)...
This is a great way of nipping a large scale solar expansion in the butt though - before it adversely affects other power generation methods... not that such is the reason why... of course... it's just a "beneficial" side-effect.
To be fair IE7Pro (a plugin for IE7) adds most of those features. Now if only it could actually make it run well on Vista. You know, like every other current browser seems capable of doing without issue, out of the box.
"To be fair IE7Pro (a plugin for IE7) adds most (but not all) of these features. Now, sadly since most IE7 users are running Vista, it would be nice if it actually ran well on Vista, since currently it is useless to most IE7 users since they are running Vista".
Fixed that for you... and of course, the example given that you are responding about, is just one of many - most of the rest of which do not have IE7 counterparts.
Firefox used to be better than IE, mostly because it had tabs. Now IE has tabs, and the playing field is level again.
I think you meant to say "ONE reason Firefox used to be better than IE..." - or if that wasnt what you meant to say, that is simply reality, regardless of what you believe.
Firefox used to be (and STILL is) better than IE because it conforms to standards better; is more secure; is fixed more quickly; doesnt obsfucate issues ("Ummm... we arent aware of that problem"); is easier to configure; is easier to write and install plugins; is easier to find, write and install themes; isn't limited to one OS; isn't tied to one OS's DLLs; can be updated by anyone for their own needs; is highly extensible in other fashions; is easier to code to without worrying about new code breaking older versions; and allows core components to be used in other software very easily and freely...
Just to mention a few reasons...
What you believe is irrelevant... reality doesnt care what you or I or anyone else believes...
The beauty of the Model M keyboards is that if used properly, people only complain about the noise once... then you clean the evidence off the keyboard and continue clicking away... the rest of your co-workers learn very quickly by the "example" set of the first one who complains.
;-)
Or a band printer... we had an IBM "band" printer at one place I worked. Well, they weren't that noisy, unless you printed with one of the covers open... but then... WOW!!!! The insides had enough foam padding/soundproofing to make a mattress out of.
You'll "safely stop" it from flying - you just wont be able to safely stop it from hitting the ground and crash landing.
All semantics... it's no longer in flight when it's bursting into pieces on the ground due to impact. The flight portion though, remains quite safe (if scary) right up until that point.
:-)
Not just is it cheaper than firing a missile... but if a plane has to be "disabled" while in flight, it can always be called an "accident" due to a "mechanical failure"
Not that anyone in the govt would ever consider doing something like that... but they could if they wanted (and felt they needed) to.
As an agent of the RIAA, I do not believe they would be in violation of the copyright. The copyright holder can assign whatever rights they want to anyone (unless it violates a contract with the artist - which is unlikely, as I am sure their contracts give the copyright holders near exclusive control). Keep in mind, they've already apparently been given permission to seed various torrents with songs to use to later catch people distributing them.
Now, as for MediaSentry simply being able to d/l stuff to prove distribution, I dont think that would fly for a couple reasons... they are not cops (*they* cant put together a sting operation), and since they would have to have already been given permission from the RIAA so as to not violate copyrights, then there were no songs in that evidence that was downloaded by anyone who isnt allowed to download such.
And most importantly, I am neither a cop nor a lawyer, so these are all just my guesses... whether reality - or the law (or both, where they coincide) agrees, I dont know. ;-)
Add to that, they expect to be able to out-lawyer those they sue (gaining a win) or win by default judgement (the previous norm).
Sadly, they seem yet to have realized that such a scenario isnt working anymore as more people are actually fighting them, and more lawyers are willing to step up to defend them.
Actually, since he is accountable, he can be found guilty.
And regardless, incompetence, stupidity, or any other fault claimed of him are not valid defenses for his participation in the heinous acts he has helped commit.
Can you imagine if they were? "Gee, yer honor, due to my general incompetence, I was too stupid to know that driving my car over Mr. Smith might kill or harm him." Doesnt work that way. And sadly for him, neither would an insanity defense - even though it could be argued that numerous things he has signed off on have been quite insane.
I think you misunderstand the point he is trying to make. And he is correct.
"Except that preventive detention is not punishment. Which only makes it more evil..."
By it's (punishment) definition, "preventive detention" is not punishment - like he said, it's more evil. Punishment are actions or sanctions or similar against a party for something they have (already) done wrong.
So, I really think you both are on the same page here, as I think what he is trying to say is punishment for doing something wrong is one thing... punishment of various sort fors doing something wrong may be a bad thing (punishment needing to fit the crime). Actions taken against someone who has not committed a crime are worse ("more evil") - because while excessive punishment for a crime is bad, "punishment" when no crime was committed is thus orders of magnitude worse. I can see many reasons why, including the fact that it sets a neat precedent (which has also been complained about) that the government can choose to "punish" people for simply disagreeing.
I guess, technically though, those people did something wrong... various forms of simply disagreeing with our government has indeed become a crime of terror. So, maybe punishment is the correct word - even if the basis of the crime is flawed and ridiculous.
Waiting for the knock on my door... ;-)
Well, it will affect him, as a person - I think this should go through on that basis alone.
The things I think are really "funny" (sad) are:
- Clinton's impeachment trials went through, over a bj and lying about it.
- Every poll I have seen for the last 3 years says the populace responding is highly supportive of Bush's impeachment (70% give or take) - yet those who represent the will of the public seem to have no interest in... well, following the will of the public.
- Even if this was to go through, he'll probably be pardoned by some future president.
- Even if he is not pardoned, the repercussions to him will probably be minimal - yet if an "average Joe" did any of this, they would face massive jail time and fines. The oddest part about this is, he should be held to a higher level of accountability - not the lower one that would result after being impeached.
Just my thoughts. Doubt this really matters much, except to prove that eventually, sometimes, the will of the people actually wins over the will of those who are supposed to (but dont) enforce and follow the will of the people.
I couldnt find Ironwood listed sadly. Especially since there are so many different species with different properties (finding the one that is used for building isn't very easy).
I did have a cane made of it that I picked up in Jamaica a while back (dunno what happened to it).
I seem to recall a tale about it being used to make bearings at one time as well - but that could just be an "old wives tale"
Some species are so hard (and more dense than water) that metal working tools (saws, drills, etc) are actually used to process the wood (instead of using conventional wood tools).
Some wood is a lot stronger (even some types of pine) and have tensile strengths upwards of 130.
I think what the gp was trying to say is by weight it may (depending on wood type) have a higher tensile strength.
It's one of the reasons we are so interested in kevlar and spider silk and carbon nanotubes for various things... lighter for similar strength of created object - regardless of it's tensile strength for the same size object.
Set up a moonbase... call it Alpha, let the atomic piles blow up on it launching the moon out of orbit, and go on a galaxy spanning adventure...
See though, here's the thing... who do you blame?
In a way it is (caused by) SP3... (because) of something the router cannot handle.
So, it raises a few better questions than the ones being raised here (the blame game):
- (ROUTER'S FAULT) Why can't the router handle whatever type of traffic - and should it? At the very least, as a possible attack vector for routers, shouldn't it?
- (NOT NECESSARILY SP3's FAULT, BUT STILL AN ISSUE) Why is SP3 generating such traffic? What type of traffic is it generating? Could this traffic be considered (or detected elsewhere as) a DOS attack of some sort? (We do know that enough SYN packets will crash various routers - even high end ones). What is SP3 actually attempting to do (regardless of HOW, the more important questions are WHAT and WHY).
So, while the router may be at fault for the behavior due to the type of traffic, SP3 is at fault for generating traffic of a nature that is not needed (in any way I can think of) to utilize the Internet... and considering some of the new ad and update and spyware and DRM technologies that MS is trying to bring over to XP (see previous /. articles, various MS patents and more regarding their search plans, "Live" product plans and more)... is this traffic not just flawed, but totally unwanted and intrusive? Or is it simply a screw-up on MS's part that happened to indicate vulnerabilities in various routers?
See the thing is, the reasons MS has such code creating such traffic may be important (or simply a screw-up)... but regardless of that, it showed vulnerabilities in various routers... but regardless of that, it also showed some sort of traffic that SP3 generates that may also be the cause of other routers (that arent affected adversely by such traffic) detecting as an attack of some sort, causing all sorts of other issues (for instance, a subnet or port being shut down to block the traffic).
Think how wonderful that would be if it was at a large company, medical institution, school, EMS station, etc... where all their machines were on a NAT network, and one of them that got upgraded to SP3 suddenly got their single shared IP blocked from the Internet.
So, I think there may be plenty of blame to point at both MS and the router manufacturers...
But the sad thing is, (and I am loathe to say this on /. where I am expected to make judgements based off little or no facts), until enough facts come out (showing what type of traffic, why the traffic is being generated, and what unaffected routers do when they receive the traffic), the only blame so far is:
- MS for doing something (traffic wise) that no other device or OS manufacturer seems to have ever done before.
- The router manufacturers in question for having an implementation that is not robust enough to survive such traffic without crashing.
Hmmm... what is the margin of error on that statistic?
Oh, nevermind... I came up with the same figure anyway. ;-)
Think of it this way, if writing this post made your computer crash, would it be my computers fault, or would it be yours?Well, I'd like to blame it on your computer... and wonderfully, I can - and not be deemed insane. Things like that happen on /. all the time (like the guy I was responding to).
=)
Yes, lets not blame Windows XP SP3... after all, this has happened with other OS's and other versions of Windows, right?
Oh, wait, this has only happened with XP SP3 machines....
And other OS's (Linux, OS/2, eComStation, MacOSX) can handle more Internet traffic of more different types/protocols than Windows XP SP3 - so there technically shouldnt be anything "more" or "unhandlable" that an XP SP3 machine could possibly do that hasnt already been done on another OS without causing such problems.
So, again, what's the probability that it isn't Windows XP SP3 doing something wrong?
Here's one such:
Google Maps for:
Mountain Hill Rd @39.572508, -76.023236
There are still more (this wasnt even one of the ones I was talking about)... dont believe everything you read.
Really? I am pretty sure that (much more recently than that) there are still a couple left. Both either in Maryland or one in Maryland and one in Delaware. Right along Route 40. Greyhound station near one of them in MD.