Re: will do methinks for a new Mac Pro
you can never have enough cores!
325 posts • joined 20 Sep 2011
you can never have enough cores!
Quote: "while teasing developers with goodies like posted interrupts, working TSX,"
Surely that should be
"while teasing developers with goodies like posted interrupts, allegedly working TSX,"
Pretty much every Intel chip product of the last decade (and probably longer) has had multiple errata, I suspect most of them found after release. I think claiming TSX is working is a bit premature until it's seen in the wild for a while.
I'm curious, what telecoms companies rely on GPS for any timekeeping? Muxes and the like (at least the ones I saw) had no external clock/timing source, and POTS exchanges (even digital ones) have been around long enough to pre-date such clock sources so I can't see them relying on that either (I've seen a few 5ESS systems in the USA, didn't go into the details of the different inputs)
Mobile phone companies maybe?
Quote: "It's supposed to help employees who are bad at remembering complex passwords"
It will do, until they lose their phone, or the system breaks and goes into some failsafe mode that needs the password, and they then need to remember their long and complex password, which they haven't used at all so they have no hope of remembering it
Wait until the system breaks for everyone at the same time and then watch the helpdesk melt.
secunia PSI warns you (and also scans once a week by default) about out of date software. So I'm puzzled by people who have PSI installed and don't keep up-to-date. They clearly had/have an interest in patching their systems, else why install PSI in the first place? Maybe the Windows habit of hiding tray icons by default contributes to delinquency?
orange.co.uk, t-mobile.co.uk, ee.co.uk, etc, all expire in 2016. guess they're short of money.
Maybe Sky will also quit using 50i outputs and give decent data rates for their encoding so the picture doesn't look so crap
Who am I kidding. Never happen.
anyone know how this is "hard coded"? Would blocking it on the DNS server work?
CIO is probably not the problem. The CIO on their own is likely not sufficient to enact change as they still need to rely on budget approvals from other people. The CEO and the entire board of directors (including the chairman) need to be liable. Only then will START to change.
I am starting to think that people that say antivirus/antimalware/IDS and IPS are the wrong solution are correct. Antivirus/antimailware only work once the signature of an attack is known. Most IDS and IPS are set up the same way, look for known attack traffic and then respond.
No, you need to set up your systems to allow known legitimate traffic/files/applications and block everything else (i.e. whitelist good stuff, not blacklist known bad stuff). Only then will security start becoming effective.
Recently read somewhere else a story about the Network Rail plan to switch the East Coast Main Line (between Kings Cross and Edinburgh) over to ERTMS, at least in the southern part of the route, due to European compatibility regulations
They specifically call out 2G based GSM-R as a problem. What's the bet that the Germans upgrade to 4G based radios and the UK subsequently installs a 2G based solution because we're idiots?
"Apparently you need to have BT Internet service to take their TV!"
Not exactly a surprise. They can properly manage delivery of the service over their network (anything not picked up off Freeview is sent over IP). QoS and other stuff which allow you to prioritise delivery stops the second a packet leaves your network. Plus paying other broadband customers to deliver your TV service probably isn't in their model.
I have a sky box and it's plugged in to my home network, but I only let it through the firewall when I want to download a program. I don't want the damned thing sending/receiving data when I'm trying to do other stuff on my crappy bandwidth (the service itself is excellent, for a 10 year old tech, i.e. ADSL2+. pity NeverReach don't want to extend FTTC or FTTP to my street, and I'm not holding my breath for G.Fast to appear any time soon)
I know of a company which laid high speed Internet cables through some of the poorest areas of a given city just to pump up the "homes passed" figures. The people couldn't afford the basic service, let alone all the other stuff they were selling. It was mostly a waste of money, but it appeared good to investors.
The metric needs to be retired and replaced with something more meaningful which indicates the ability of the residents in the premises passed by a cable to actually afford one or more of the services provided.
To a degree it probably depends on the controller driving the chips. It looks like it could be more like RAM, but initial implementations may present it as a block device to aid adoption before trying to create new places in the storage stack for it.
If that's true, then they don't appear to have much slack in the system. It should surely be able to process more than another 150k transactions per window without melting?
I've yet to meet a piece of software that has no bugs. You can put in DR and backup systems to your hearts content, but a single line of code can bring the entire lot crashing down around your head.
1) free (basic, i.e. not the EV ones that give the green flag on the address bar) are already available and honestly not that complicated to get (installation can still be a pain)
2) so far no-one seems to have solved the underlying trust issue (i.e. can we trust that the CA issued that cert to the entity you think you're connecting to), other than relying on dnssec, which isn't widespread enough yet to make a noticeable difference (RFC 6698). Even DANE is not without potential issues, since it can be used to make phishing sites look legitimate ( see https://www.imperialviolet.org/2011/06/16/dnssecchrome.html )
Unless my calculations are out:
743,000 x 4k read ops/sec = 2,972,000 kb/sec = a shave under 3GBytes/sec
160,000 x 4k write ops/sec = 640,000 kb/sec = 625 MBytes/sec write
Without pondering PCIe bus saturation problems (only using 4 lanes of PCIe so there should still be capacity, in theory) I've definitely seen applications that could chew through those throughputs, or make a pretty sizeable dent in them anyway. Netflix Open Connect comes to mind as one of the more obvious applications.
Plus, it's not just the IOPS you need to consider. It's the latency. Even if you can't hit the IOPS, if you reduce the latency of your application 5x or more, the cost could be justified in various situations where the read or write of that piece of data is a blocking action for something else, e.g. a database. If you have to hit the DB 20x to do one action, you just sped that action up tremendously.
There is little incentive to lay competing cable to reach consumers in the UK. The logical choice would be cable companies, but despite a large number of cable companies springing up in the UK during my lifetime, Sky drove most of them out of business, and the few that remained went to Virgin Media which hasn't really done much to invest in reaching more homes.
A large factor in that is the cost of laying cables, because that involves digging up streets to put in new ducting.
Perhaps separating ducting from the rest of the infrastructure would help so companies can rent/buy duct access to run their own cable if they wanted to, thereby providing true competition for the last mile instead of just letting OpenReach dictate what the UK should be offered.
So the real reason is revealed. The NSA lobbied the FCC to make sure that the companies that they scrape their data from are able to get the data to their warehouses from the consumers.
“Sophisticated terrorists could even steer planes into one another”
Really? Guess the Senator has never heard of TCAS then. You could probably try to get Cessna 152 and 172s to collide (no more than 4 people on board each plane), however they go slow enough that VFR visual scanning would normally catch the collision. Every scheduled passenger flight has TCAS by FAA mandate (and CAA in the UK, etc) which prevents that exact situation from happening.
You'd stand a better chance of CFIT (Controlled Flight Into Terrain) because there ARE some weaknesses in the prevention systems there, but you'd have to be in IFR conditions with no visibility and find a suitably steep mountain that wouldn't trigger the "Too low, terrain" warning until it's too late, at least until the GPS based terrain warning systems are available and generally used.
It is definitely LHR. You can see the T5 toast-rack configuration at the left and the T4 oddity at the bottom right. Must be an old pic because the new toast-rack for T2 is missing. I think the pic pre-dates T5C coming online actually.
As far as I am aware, there is already legal precedence for the wiretap laws to be used for Internet traffic, and it doesn't have to be for SSL traffic, *all* IP traffic counts.
The trouble comes from the license agreement. As far as I understand it, enterprises can put fake SSL signing certs onto their computers so that they can intercept SSL connections at their IDS/IPS/filtering gateways so they can make sure that no malicious traffic is found because you likely agreed to it as part of the conditions of employment.
If Lenovo put that in the license agreement (that no-one ever reads) then they *may* have a get out of jail free card.
In theory direct debits should be secure as the signature on the authorisation form should be compared to what is on record at the bank. In practice I suspect that was never done.
Also, as far as I know there are now 100% electronic direct debit instructions, so in theory yes, a DD could be made just on sort code, account number and the name of the account holder.
SSD manufacturers warn that FW upgrades MAY lose data, but only occasionally do they say a particular upgrade WILL lose data, and they tend to put big warnings around that.
I suspect the "MAY" comes from the fact it's difficult to prove a negative. You can't prove all SSDs in all systems will upgrade correctly without data loss, so the CYA option is to put the "we may wipe your drive" line in there.
I'd be curious why RAID with SSD is "really hard"? I've seen people claim that identical SSDs in RAID are a bad idea as they tend to fail (i.e. write lifetime expire) around the same time, but beyond that I'm not sure what you mean.
Also ZFS works with SSDs as a L2ARC or ZIL without a SAN and while it'll never fit on a laptop in that configuration, it'll work quite happily in a desktop without a big SAN.
@Voland's right hand
Where does the dealer get the data from? It would have to be stored in the car. So the missing data source is still missing,unless I'm being dumb (always a possibility)
Quote: "On the privacy side, all of the 2014 models put out by car makers that responded to the survey collect some form of information from their customers, with 25 per cent storing it on the car and half transmitting it back to corporate servers, where it is kept for up to ten years in one case."
So if I am reading it correctly, all the 2014 models collect data, but 75% or less store it on the car and/or transmit it back to corporate servers. What do the rest do?
"37,000 European Arrest Warrants and 60,000 missing children and vulnerable adults" - shouldn't that be in a police database that we already have access to?
Likewise the identity document alert we should have had access to when it's checked with the country of issue (which I hope we do for all the time people stand waiting at the border for the border computer to process the document). if not, wtf are we waiting for?
I like the bit at the end of the article that implies the BBC thinks that it is up to device manufacturers to support the way they are delivering content, rather than the BBC selecting already widely supported formats and distribution mechanisms.
quote article: questioning the official FBI narrative was “counterproductive,"
yes, because blindly trusting everything the government says works so well?
Oppressive regimes, say like North Korea, would LOVE it if people just blindly believed the government. Are the Feds really trying to say they're somehow better?
"Why did Microsoft ever think that two different cloud storage services with nearly the same name, but different clients, was a sensible idea?"
I guess you've never worked in marketing. Who cares what the technology is, must have a good name that people will recognise!
Which is, of course, why the marketing people will be first to be shot when the revolution comes.
The Americans will simply say "your airlines will share their PNR data or they won't be allowed over our airspace" and the EU will fall over itself to comply (again). I strongly suspect if you buy a ticket from a US airline (or on a US airline via a code share with an EU airline) your PNR data is already shared and there probably isn't much the EU can do there since you're dealing with a US entity, so it creates a situation where the US wins anyway - either the EU airlines share their PNR data, or they stop EU airlines flying to the USA and force people to buy tickets with airlines that DO comply.
I seem to remember the EU negotiated (allegedly) tougher set of restrictions on PNR sharing, and the US thanked the EU and then pointed out that nothing changed because of some get-out-clause, and in fact the "tougher" restrictions may have ended up being less restrictive as a result.
Some of the late 80's/early 90's legislation opened the doors to having more than one provider in an area, e.g. if Comcast was the incumbent cable company then someone else could come along and build out a cable network and compete with Comcast (or VZ, or Cox, or AT&T, or SBC, etc).
This, in theory, was a great idea
In practice it had major issues because while the FCC let it happen at a national level, it could fail at a local level (but not always)
A company I know of tried to get permission to build out a competing network in Baltimore, MD. Despite multiple submissions to the city leaders, the decision got repeatedly delayed. And delayed. And delayed more. They were never explicitly told "no" from what I understand, but they were never told "yes" either. Why? The Comcast head office at the time was literally *across the street* from the city offices.
End result? Baltimore never got competing services.
There are other stories I've heard too about local interference for petty political reasons, ultimately to the detriment of consumers. Such as the incumbent cableco in another area didn't have an obligation to provide service to the entire county, but when a competing provider applied to build out service they were told they had to run cable to every property in the county. Fair? Don't think so.
Light regulation only works when everyone plays nicely together and has equally big bank accounts. When one provider is significantly bigger than another, regulation is needed to stop the big guy squishing the little guy like a bug on a window of a high speed train.
The last mile providers think they own the eyeballs and that since there tends to be no effective local competition they can do what they like to protect the revenue/profit stream they've set up. They need to be shown the error of their ways.
it will make a difference to consumption when the govt (or energy company or national grid) decide you're using too much electricity at a peak demand time and turn your supply off the "manage grid load", of course since this is done in the National Interest(TM) you have no choice but to accept it and no recourse for compensation, etc.
It's the only way that this can play out which will make any significant difference to energy usage.
"Demand-side response involves electricity users shifting (or reducing) demand usually prompted by price"
the worrying thing is what the "unusual" methods are. I suspect "load shedding", in other words rolling blackouts to reduce grid load, probably using the smart meters to turn off your supply. possibly based on which tariff you are on (more expensive tariff = less likely to be turned off or something)
I'm sure the government will tout this as being green, but all that will happen is it will drive the sale of inefficient petrol, diesel or natural gas based generators to homes/business keep the lights on.
"Licence conditions allow suppliers to access monthly (or ‘less granular’ i.e. less frequent) consumption data for billing and other regulatory purposes without needing consent. There will be a clear opt-out for daily collection of data, and an opt-in will be required for use of the most detailed half-hourly consumption data"
How can a consumer prove one way or the other? if the meter reports hourly data no matter what, the provider can use that data and mask it behind something else.
Quote: "There is an ongoing battle between those who desire to capture information and those who desire to communicate without surveillance."
That's not limited to just China
I honestly can't remember what the original BSD distributions from UCB CSRG used, but the F/OSS BSDs have traditionally used gcc.
If Stallman didn't write GCC, the probability is someone else would have written another open source compiler instead. I suspect an argument could be made that it would have been better done another way - for the last 20 years or so I've frequently run into bugs that turned out to be gcc bugs, not bugs in the code compiled by gcc. A compiler developed by someone else may have been able to do a better job if not shackled to someone going around with a hard disk platter on his head.
Right now there is still some public resentment about the NSA stories coming out post-Snowden. Wait a few months or maybe 1-2 years and then the Feds will be able to sneak anti-crypto legislation in without hitting the headlines.
The reason I say that is that it will give them enough time to invent some cases that prove that crypto that the Feds can't crack through a subpoena are causing people to be killed by kidnappers or causing children to be sold into prostitution (or whatever). The fact is right now the Feds cannot point out a SINGLE case where crypto prevented them from solving it, and the 3 cases Mr Comey (FBI Director) highlighted in a recent speech had nothing to do with crypto AT ALL ( see https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/10/more_crypto_war.html )
unfortunately, a large percentage of businesses still think that unless you park your bum on your seat in an office with all your co-workers then you're not working. I suspect the opposite is quite often true - you get more work done at home as co-workers aren't popping over to you to talk about yesterdays football/rugby/cricket/whatever.
I'm still in awe of Google, perhaps the biggest purveyor of cloudy infrastructure, insisting on staff being in an office (which is the primary reason I'll never work at Google or Facebook or a host of other companies - I refuse to move to a big metro area like London and sit in traffic for hours a day). If there was one company that should be promoting telecommuting it should be Google. (yes, I am aware of the "unplanned collaboration" idea). The fact that companies like Google are encouraging people to move to London, which is already creaking under the strain of the existing population, is just plain daft and they should be shot (or at least heavily fined) for encouraging that. Probably a new tax should be levied for each person a company encourages to move to London to pay for the infrastructure needed for that person (power, water, public transport, etc)
The reality is that better networking at home probably means Netflix/Amazon/Sky sell more PPV movies.
she didn't claim to be protecting children!??!!?
which always struck me as interesting - in the Amazon tablet advert, the punter calls up amazon support to ask how to play his movie on the big tv as he has some friends over. Was amazon just encouraging people to violate the public performance clause? seems to be a grey area to me.
I can't confirm if this is still the case, but cable companies in the USA used to have to carry the free-to-air broadcasts in the clear on the cable plant. No encryption, no compression, so that unmodified TVs without set top boxes could pick them up. You still needed to pay the cableco for the connection to their plant, but IN THEORY you didn't need extra kit to get those channels that you could have got with an aerial in the roof.
Of course the cableco's loved to hide this fact and push set top boxes and other stuff to you to bump up their MRC and make some money. And with channel bundles they probably made it so that you had to buy other stuff anyway. I'm honestly not sure what revenue the local free-OTA broadcasters saw from cable companies. I would tend to suspect that the cableco's pushed them to let them get the content for free and in return the broadcasters got more eyeballs for their ads and made their money that way, especially today with the mega-cablecos and their muscle.
With the push to digital broadcasting and HD content, the above may no longer be true as you can't stuff a HD channel in a 6MHz cable frequency band without compression.
That depends on the problem you are trying to solve
STARTTLS for MX records may not deliver perfect secrecy (or security), but it does provide a layer of protection. e.g. it stops someone from using Carnivore (or whatever it is called this week) to get the sender and recipient information, since the session is encrypted. PGP or S/MIME (the encryption option, not the signature option) cannot mask the envelope and headers, they have to be plain text, hence channel encryption becomes interesting.
Also, if you are doing Authenticated SMTP, STARTTLS should be required, not optional.
Without a valid certificate you're not proving that you are delivering to the right server, all you are doing is stopping people from being able to decode the content just by sniffing the packets.
Encryption without authentication doesn't protect your content.
Netflix *is* paying for bandwidth. They pay their upstream to carry the data to an IXP, where it is handed off, most likely to the subscribers ISP.
The subscriber then pays the ISP to carry it to their location.
I fail to see where the problem is. Despite their claims to the contrary, the ISPs *are* being paid for carrying the traffic. I, as the consumer, pay my ISP to deliver the content I request. It is up to the ISP to charge enough to recover costs and to maintain/upgrade the network.
What is happening here is anti-competitive behaviour, pure and simple. The big carriers (Comcast, Cox, BT, whomever) figure they can get paid at both ends of the deal - by the content generators and the content consumers. Then they can simply squeeze everyone else out of the market because they don't have the clout to negotiate those deals, so the cost to the consumer will be higher. Most consumers only look at their MRC, so they'll move to the ISPs that are having their cake and eating it too.
Cable has problems because the incumbents in the USA built their cable plants to broadcast TV, with high numbers of subscribers per node. As Internet (and other services such as Video On Demand, Set Top Boxes that do more than just decode encrypted broadcast signals, telephones, etc) became more popular this showed a problem - you can go from DOCSIS 1 to DOCSIS 2 to whatever the latest is and push more bits per MHz, but unless you go from 500 subscribers per node to 100 subscribers per node (or less), you're going to run out of bandwidth. Increasing the number of nodes is difficult because you have to run a ton of new fibre, and then rebalance the plant (which is easier said than done - HFC networks are twitchy)
It's easier to blame Netflix than it is to fix the problem.
The number of subscribers per node (and therefore are sharing the same spectrum allocation for their upstream and downstream) is always the weak point for cable. You can throw all the bandwidth into the head end or hub site you like, but it won't help. DSL is has an easier time of it because you can more easily increase the backhaul.
Until this latest update, you could swipe over promoted tweets and get rid of them. That feature has mysteriously vanished in the new version.
Customers win from a race-to-the-bottom in the short term, but long term? I'm not so sure. To many other industries have suffered from consolidation and significant supplier failure rates in the race to the bottom, leading (in the end) to only a few big suppliers and less competition.
The entire motive behind this isn't innovation, it's a push to race to the bottom on *perceived* costs to the end user, by moving the costs elsewhere and hiding them (by making other companies pay). I fail to see how creating an unequal market place fosters innovation. If Youtube or Flickr had to pay for access to ISP subscribers from day one they never would have got off the ground.
The US telco market used to have something called reciprocal compensation. It was brought in after the Ma Bell breakup because the telco terminating an inter-LATA call received no compensation from the billing agency (the long distance carrier) for using their network. The originating carrier was compensated by the user in the form of their subscription. (why the terminating carrier didn't count the revenue from their subscriber I have no idea. Clearly the money they were charging for their line rental was too low. It's the same B.S. the ISPs are pulling now).
This lasted until the CLECs came along and figured out they could put dial up modem pools behind their switches and suddenly they were receiving millions of dollars a year from the ILEC for terminating dial-up calls to ISPs. Some CLECs initially built their business model on receiving those revenues.
The minute the tide turned against them the ILECs started screaming that it was unfair.
Of course it was - they rule they fought for was suddenly being used against them. To be honest, it probably was unfair. However the ILECs built themselves a nice little empire with access to millions of subscribers that they thought they controlled and that they could milk for all they were worth, including basically demanding other carriers pay them to make calls to their subscribers.
I'm waiting for someone to do the same to these greedy ISPs (most of whom are legacy telco's - go figure) who demanding money for access to their customers.