Yes, this. Read the article, they are talking about 400Mbps microwave links. That's a drop in the bucket compared with fiber bandwidth. This paper is all about latency above all else. First, I remain unconvinced that RF links are really different than fiber for latency. Second, I'm unconvinced very many people care about the difference of ~5ms in latency (using their numbers) and would consider bandwidth much more important. They point out one particular use case for low-latency, low-bandwidth links like this (high frequency trading) but for anything involving human interaction it seems like a non-issue.
I always smile when passing old long-lines towers on the road (or seeing them on top of central office buildings in large cities). You can get an idea of the size and scope of the network at http://long-lines.net/ which has some excellent maps such as http://i.imgur.com/HI0cMJ1.jpg showing the network.
I have given up trying to educate Slashdot readers about IPv6. Like most IT people they have stuck their heads in the sand and think NAT is the end-all-be-all. As an professor of IT I keep preaching knowing IPv6 to my students because someday IT management is going to wakeup to the fact that Asia (and other places) has moved on to IPv6 and if you want to do business with them you better be running it too. Then there will a rush to get everyone on IPv6 and people with experience will be in demand. So let them stick their heads in the sand, those of us who actually know the substantial advantages of IPv6 and are familiar with deploying and operating IPv6 networks will gladly be your highly compensated consultants when the day comes.
I don't know that it's really any more obscure than 3D modelling, desktop publishing, or any of the many other projects that get discussed on
And if I want to cause you to have an accident in your pre-ECU car I can cause substantial damage with some wrenches and a minute. What's your real point? I want to maintain the ability to hack/modify my own vehicles. Encrypting bus communication would pretty much kill that unless their was a mandate to release the encryption keys to the vehicle owner (and then what about leased cars, financed cars, etc.) which is unlikely to happen. As long as it's not fully remotely exploitable (meaning you never have to have physical contact with my car) I'm not concerned.
This is exactly my own viewpoint. All of this is a bunch of stirred up nonsense. Yes, systems like OnStar which bridge between the CAN bus and the phone network need protection. What I absolutely do NOT want is to see encrypted communications that I as the owner cannot see in plaintext on a wired bus. This will put non-dealer mechanics out of business pretty quickly and/or drive up repair costs tremendously including effectively preventing me from working on my own car. I think it's a dream come true for dealers and manufacturers.
Yes, we need to prevent remote exploitation but I absolutely want to be able to hack and modify my own vehicle to my heart's content.
The requirement for physical access makes these so-called hacks against cars a non-starter for me. People have been cutting brake lines, loosening bolts, etc. on cars to harm people for a long time but we don't require hardened physical access to the car. This whole thing is way overblown by people trying to make headlines.
This, x1000. I would like to hear what use case this product has that is not already served by the many existing MIDI controllers. No serious keyboardist is going to play on a keyboard with a design like this.
Even my $20 basic D-Link (DCS-930L) IP enabled camera has FTP upload capability. I'm pretty sure the very similar TP-Link one does as well. These are not really as hard to find as the OP suggests. If you spend a few minutes looking at most of the companies that have been doing cameras for more than a couple of years you'll find plenty with FTP upload capability. Just stay away from the overpriced ones with clever names e.g. "Dropcam" and stick to something more basic. If you do want to spend some money and get a much better camera go for a commercial one like an Axis.
I'm guessing that you do not live in a location which regularly sees substantial snowfall. If you did you would realize that, at least with current models, this would be pretty much impossible. Snowfall amounts are one of the most difficult things to model and are notoriously incorrect.
Unlike precipitation like rain, where the density is always the same, with snow the ambient temperature and humidity level play a huge role in determining how dense the snowfall is (heavy wet snow vs light fluffy snow). We can predict the amount of water which will fall from the sky during a snowfall with the same probabilities, amounts, and accuracy as with summer rains (which we're reasonably good at). The problem is that depending on the density of the snow (which is much harder to predict) that same amount of water can give a snowfall of between 5 and 20 inches.
I run four heads on one of my PCs plus keep a laptop open next to one of those, so effectively 5 screens. One reason for this is if you run several VMs simultaneously it's helpful to have a screen for each to run on. It's also quite helpful to have at lease one or two screens dedicated to email/web reference, I use another for network monitoring, and then a primary screen for whatever I'm actively working on.
Many more recent certs are no longer relying solely on multiple choice. For example, the past several revisions of the CCNA exam have become more and more focused on network simulator questions and multiple choice has been relegated to checking for things best asked through multiple choice. The multiple-choice only cert test is a relic which is well on the way to being gone (at least in the networking area).
Yes. Governmental employer HR departments tend to take position requirements very seriously.
As far as I know there aren't any well known (or even up and coming) certifications specifically geared towards IPv6...yet. I suspect they will start coming once consulting on IPv6 transitions becomes a thing...and I'm pretty sure it will. Some day CIOs will wake up and decide they want IPv6 because they read about it somewhere, or their buddy CIO is doing it, or their competitor is doing it, or a supplier is requiring it, or a customer is requiring it, or any one of a million other reasons.
When that day comes there will be demand for a good number of IPv6 transition consultants because:
1) Most IT people are too busy doing their job as it is to learn IPv6, especially IPv6 transition strategies. It's not something you can learn in a couple of afternoon workshops.
2) IPv6, especially transition strategies, is complicated enough and foreign enough that it can be confusing at first to get your head around it.
3) If you do it wrong you can cause lots of problems
4) The transition and planning part, which is the trickiest part, is a one-time thing so it will likely make sense to bring in a consultant.
The demand for consultants with a fairly new technology (well, sort of new, new to most people anyway), meaning that experience is hard to come by, will likely encourage some sort of IPv6 certification movement to substitute for experience in verifying skills.
All that said...take another look at the CCNA. You're likely to need this if you want to be taken seriously in networking anyway and Cisco has consistently been adding more and more IPv6 to it in each of the last several revisions.
If it was for base connectivity I would be very surprised if fiber wasn't laid. I am more likely to believe the military use for this was designed for something which can be setup quickly in forward operating locations. Fiber takes time and substantially more infrastructure to install. Theoretically this could be run off a steerable pop-up mast which could be setup in minutes.