What about services like NetFlix and Hulu Plus which require a PSN login? There were many people unable to access these services over the past few days (from their consoles). What do they do? Go after the service provider for a refund? Go after Sony for a refund?
When services are daisy-chained like this, I feel the bottom services carries a lot more liability than they may think.
Blu-rays are less useful to me. I only have one blu-ray player, while I've lost count of my devices that can read DVDs. But most importantly-
I can't (yet) format shift my Blu-rays. I have devices I like to watch my movies on... like, say. my PSP. I can't do that with a Blu-Ray yet, because I don't have the technology to boil all that HD goodness down to the small screen.
As such, yes, Blu-rays are cool and all, but at least when it comes to movies, less useful to me. Games? I like my PS3 games on Blu-Ray.
>>AM Radio could interfere with aircraft beacons, since they're right next to each other!
These intentionally overlap. Back in the day, AM radio stations were just as useful at navigation as proper NDBs. You can tune in and listen to most of the AM band using your aircraft's (very old) ADF.
The only reasonable explaination I've heard for everyone having the cells off while in flight is load on the network below- 100+ phones changing towers at 500 mph can't be good for the network.
It is Never a good idea to buy anything new. The only reason to do it is to placate emotion. This applies to Furniture, cars, and for god's sake yes, electronics.
The iPhone 4 is awesome and I will likely have one someday. But problems like these, founded or not, are the kind of thing you sign up for if you want to be an early adopter. That, and spending way too much money.
I can't help but to think that this bug has more to do with dropped calls than the antenna- Screen doesn't go off, so your face hits "End"... I can see how people would see that as a drop.
"How obvious—how necessary—was that mathematical ratio of its sides, the quadratic sequence 1:4:9! And how naive to have imagined that the series ended at this point, in only three dimensions!"
I still believe that host level security is lacking and should be addressed, because problems can arise from the outside world or within the firewalled subnet.
The assumptions that the outside world is 'big, bad, and evil' and 'my subnet is cookies and cream' is a very bad one and very detrimental to security IMHO. That's why I say security is primarily a host-level concern, because the *real* mindset should be 'everything off my machine is potentially big, bad and evil.'
I don't want to discount the niceties of centralized rules and reporting, or as you point out, potential performance impact. I'm just trying to point out that the security model we've settled into is a result of the hosts being insecure (mostly due to legacy OS's suddenly getting worldwide internet access). Adding a new piece of hardware doesn't fix the core problem, it just patches it- and it still leaves you open to attacks from within your subnet.
Accountability for security should be at the host level.
No, I'm saying the task of security is misplaced and IPv6 will enable it to be placed properly.
I also said that corporations can still use firewalls to enforce policy, quite often those policies are going to disallow services which could pose a security risk.
Firewalls still have a place in the world. They are still of good use, I'm just saying that there will be much more flexibility as the rules can be placed On The Host Itself as opposed to on an external device that has to be configured to do the firewalling, since it's already doing the routing.
Particularly if its a choice between that and letting machines (more specifically a particular OS) handle their own security. That would be a terrifying thought.
Accountability will be where it needs to be.
Security is the Host's Problem, not a problem that should be seen as solvable by using an external device.
I hope firewalls (well, specifically, NAT routers, DMZs, port forwarding, etc- which all seem to get grouped in 'firewalls') in general will become much LESS of an issue in the future thanks to IPv6. In that world, everything's got a unique address so there's really no need for NAT, private subnets, or the routing issues associated with those.
IMHO, the task of firewalling has been (somewhat incorrectly) pushed on the device doing the routing, when it should be handled on the device itself. Hosts, actual end points, should be able to decided what they will do with the traffic that gets to them, not something in the middle. It's been placed on the router because in our current IPv4 / NAT world, it has to be put there, so the traffic can even *make it to* said end point host. That's not the case with the worldwide-unique addresses of IPv6.
As such, in the IPv6 world of the eventual future, firewalls will exist more due to policy than security (i.e. access to certain services will be disallowed if you're on a corporate network). The security firewalling will need to be done on the device itself, which makes good sense- don't want people ssh hammering your laptop? Well, don't run that service, or restrict it to only devices you trust.
Slashdot Mirror
One of the few reasons I'm willing to pay so much for a new game is the fact I can trade it someday.
There's no way games with these kinds of restrictions are worth their asking price.
Minecraft.
Embrace, Extend, Extinguish doesn't work with Open Source.
Wouldn't more reasonable prices for new games take the wind out of the huge second-hand games business?
And all I found was Burka Porn.
If we're going to talk about coincidences, I think it's more interesting that Amazon EC2 fell down at the same time.
What about services like NetFlix and Hulu Plus which require a PSN login? There were many people unable to access these services over the past few days (from their consoles). What do they do? Go after the service provider for a refund? Go after Sony for a refund?
When services are daisy-chained like this, I feel the bottom services carries a lot more liability than they may think.
Blu-rays are less useful to me. I only have one blu-ray player, while I've lost count of my devices that can read DVDs. But most importantly-
I can't (yet) format shift my Blu-rays. I have devices I like to watch my movies on... like, say. my PSP. I can't do that with a Blu-Ray yet, because I don't have the technology to boil all that HD goodness down to the small screen.
As such, yes, Blu-rays are cool and all, but at least when it comes to movies, less useful to me. Games? I like my PS3 games on Blu-Ray.
>>AM Radio could interfere with aircraft beacons, since they're right next to each other!
These intentionally overlap. Back in the day, AM radio stations were just as useful at navigation as proper NDBs. You can tune in and listen to most of the AM band using your aircraft's (very old) ADF.
The only reasonable explaination I've heard for everyone having the cells off while in flight is load on the network below- 100+ phones changing towers at 500 mph can't be good for the network.
Robots!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFYA0hppyq0
Fail.
It is Never a good idea to buy anything new. The only reason to do it is to placate emotion. This applies to Furniture, cars, and for god's sake yes, electronics.
The iPhone 4 is awesome and I will likely have one someday. But problems like these, founded or not, are the kind of thing you sign up for if you want to be an early adopter. That, and spending way too much money.
I can't help but to think that this bug has more to do with dropped calls than the antenna- Screen doesn't go off, so your face hits "End" ... I can see how people would see that as a drop.
I wonder if it took Apple's Three New Antenna Guys to find out that they fail at logarithms.
"How obvious—how necessary—was that mathematical ratio of its sides, the quadratic sequence 1:4:9! And how naive to have imagined that the series ended at this point, in only three dimensions!"
1:4:9 . . . or perhaps (1:2:3). It's the ratio the Monoliths are built to, and it's perfect.
You burn the building down AFTER you get fired.
Just ask Milton or Dr. Steel
The Bill explanation that was eventually copied to Wikipedia, or the Wikipedia explanation that was eventually copied to the bill?
No old school Half Life or Counter-Strike. I hope they get brought over, I like my CS 1.6
Thanks, well stated. Very constructive and kind.
I still believe that host level security is lacking and should be addressed, because problems can arise from the outside world or within the firewalled subnet.
The assumptions that the outside world is 'big, bad, and evil' and 'my subnet is cookies and cream' is a very bad one and very detrimental to security IMHO. That's why I say security is primarily a host-level concern, because the *real* mindset should be 'everything off my machine is potentially big, bad and evil.'
I don't want to discount the niceties of centralized rules and reporting, or as you point out, potential performance impact. I'm just trying to point out that the security model we've settled into is a result of the hosts being insecure (mostly due to legacy OS's suddenly getting worldwide internet access). Adding a new piece of hardware doesn't fix the core problem, it just patches it- and it still leaves you open to attacks from within your subnet.
Accountability for security should be at the host level.
No, I'm saying the task of security is misplaced and IPv6 will enable it to be placed properly.
I also said that corporations can still use firewalls to enforce policy, quite often those policies are going to disallow services which could pose a security risk.
Firewalls still have a place in the world. They are still of good use, I'm just saying that there will be much more flexibility as the rules can be placed On The Host Itself as opposed to on an external device that has to be configured to do the firewalling, since it's already doing the routing.
Thanks for the input though.
Particularly if its a choice between that and letting machines (more specifically a particular OS) handle their own security. That would be a terrifying thought.
Accountability will be where it needs to be.
Security is the Host's Problem, not a problem that should be seen as solvable by using an external device.
I hope firewalls (well, specifically, NAT routers, DMZs, port forwarding, etc- which all seem to get grouped in 'firewalls') in general will become much LESS of an issue in the future thanks to IPv6. In that world, everything's got a unique address so there's really no need for NAT, private subnets, or the routing issues associated with those.
IMHO, the task of firewalling has been (somewhat incorrectly) pushed on the device doing the routing, when it should be handled on the device itself. Hosts, actual end points, should be able to decided what they will do with the traffic that gets to them, not something in the middle. It's been placed on the router because in our current IPv4 / NAT world, it has to be put there, so the traffic can even *make it to* said end point host. That's not the case with the worldwide-unique addresses of IPv6.
As such, in the IPv6 world of the eventual future, firewalls will exist more due to policy than security (i.e. access to certain services will be disallowed if you're on a corporate network). The security firewalling will need to be done on the device itself, which makes good sense- don't want people ssh hammering your laptop? Well, don't run that service, or restrict it to only devices you trust.
Maybe this time the Pie will be a Lie.