Example twitter usage (Garcia):
Taking a dump in the Superior National Forest. Wiped with McDs napkins. Waved to Craig and Chuck. about 23 hours ago from web
I'm not sure how I like how the summary contrasts "Do you like domestic spying?" with "Do you think federal government is very secretive?". You can clearly think the government is very secretive and still not care about the spying. That isn't to say that people do or do not care, I just don't like the summary's cheap attempt at swaying people.
I agree. Strange thing is, there are two extra bold tags, I don't remember adding, and I did close the other ones. Oh well. (Strange thing to post as anonymous though)
Sorry. I realize I came across a little vague. It says (something to the effect of) "the average viewer would have to watch 5 hours of news to get a minute of science".
The AVERAGE person does NOT watch 5 hours of news a day, or possibly even a week. They tend to watch other things. From personal experience, people who like sport, for example, channel hop until towards the end of the news, catch sport and weather. I also know family with digital TV who will filter news themselves and only catch the bits the want. Mostly regional, rarely National. I don't know of much science that would appear in the regional news rather than the national news, so these people miss it.
The article doesn't quite account for how much science is happening and it could be assumed that 1 minute per 5 hours, is all the science that is happening anyway.
I think the average slashdot user can spend as much time on slashdot and read even less than a minutes worth of science.The articles are traps anyway.
That aside, people tend to watch drama and reality TV, are we surprised there isn't any science there?
....
at the University of Vienna and colleagues have taken an important step fowards by bouncing this individual
Anton Zeilinger off the Ajisai geodetic satellite
...
If they are connecting to the server legitimately, it's probably better they don't visit the website while it's on the blacklist anyway. If it's clean, blacklist removal should be swift so to avoid false positives.
If they are a researcher, deliberately connecting to things that are possibly infectious, the ISP should probably know in advance, that may come under the "thou shalt not harm our network", if you are actively seeking botnets, even if only so that the researcher can be added to a list of users to allow to connect to the botnet. Besides, you don't keep the doors to real labs where viruses are stored in case someone wants to research it. There are mechanisms to keep everyone else away and let a select few in. Really, this could apply to your "what if they just surf that website regularly", if they normally go to a bar and that bar goes under quarantine, you don't let them go in until the quarantine is over. You may want to conduct tests.
I would hate to think that 100,00 people need to be part of a botnet so that one researcher can examine the server.
Normal users do not go to forums, do not google. Again, I'm going with a whitelist on this one. Whitelist search engines, forums. Keep both lists very up to date.
They update their virus and scan if your lucky. It would be much easier white listing all the antivirus sites, at least the ones 99% of people use, than compiling the blacklist of sites to prevent people seeing.
It is a valid argument that both white and black lists can fall into disrepair, but that is more an argument for investing in IT than it is against my, very brief and far from original, idea.
Online, I can't think of anything I could possibly need or have needed that I couldn't have found somewhere else.
Capitalism, done right, feet voting.
If they asked for DNA samples, would you say sure? Course not, there is a line, probably somewhere in between the current state of things and DNA sampling that is a reasonable compromise. If they thought they could get away with pushing for DNA samples, they would do it. Why shouldn't we push our end?
I will allow you to track it and to use it in house, but the moment a third party touches it or you attempt to sell it, I want a share of the profits.
Also, if you make me pay a subscription fee (or like slashdot, if I was to choose to), and you STILL sell want to sell my data, I also want a share of the profits.
I also want a list of all the organisations you supply my information to and I also do not want them to be able to resell it without observing the above conditions: I get a share in the profits, I get to see who the sell it to, people they sell it to have to... etc
This is the only way I would be happy to allow tracking.
These botnets have "Control Servers" and we haven't managed to isolate them? Surely such centralization is a weak core that could be exploited?
If I was building a botnet, every host would be preloaded with the address of every other host that was known about by whatever was doing the infecting. Once established, each host would go about randomly informing the whole list that it now existed, as well as starting to receive notices about newly established hosts so it can keep it's own list of hosts up to date. This way there would be no single point of failure.
It surprises me that botnets using even a large amount of central servers can't be isolated off networks. If ipX is a known Russian Control Server, and ISP finds Client Y connecting to it, it makes sense Client Y needs to be disconnected and contacted, or say, have access restricted to antivirus update / download sites for say an hour (arbitrary) and then full access restored. If the client then tries to reconnect to ipX again, it should have it's access restricted for longer.
I would imagine, that even a few ISPs doing this could at least make a reasonable dent on spam. They are always complaining about bandwidth, after they remove the spam from it they will have more for legitimate customers, which will mean they can give better allowances to people who like to download, making them a more attractive ISP, profit!
Never mind, the current solution seems to be working perfectly.
Around these parts, "broken business model" is normally found in proximity to **aa, mostly so because the **aa could be doing things better and making more money and if they continue on the path they are, they are on the way out.
Charities however, that routinely beg (even more often than every 6 months) have been around for a while and will continue to be around for quite a while I imagine.
I do however think your idea about an independent organization would a close runner for the best way to approach advertising if it was needed, but that is assuming that charity is on it's way out.
Slashdot Mirror
Watch movie?
Example twitter usage (Garcia): Taking a dump in the Superior National Forest. Wiped with McDs napkins. Waved to Craig and Chuck. about 23 hours ago from web
I'm not sure how I like how the summary contrasts "Do you like domestic spying?" with "Do you think federal government is very secretive?". You can clearly think the government is very secretive and still not care about the spying. That isn't to say that people do or do not care, I just don't like the summary's cheap attempt at swaying people.
I agree. Strange thing is, there are two extra bold tags, I don't remember adding, and I did close the other ones. Oh well. (Strange thing to post as anonymous though)
Sorry. I realize I came across a little vague. It says (something to the effect of) "the average viewer would have to watch 5 hours of news to get a minute of science". The AVERAGE person does NOT watch 5 hours of news a day, or possibly even a week. They tend to watch other things. From personal experience, people who like sport, for example, channel hop until towards the end of the news, catch sport and weather. I also know family with digital TV who will filter news themselves and only catch the bits the want. Mostly regional, rarely National. I don't know of much science that would appear in the regional news rather than the national news, so these people miss it. The article doesn't quite account for how much science is happening and it could be assumed that 1 minute per 5 hours, is all the science that is happening anyway.
I think the average slashdot user can spend as much time on slashdot and read even less than a minutes worth of science. The articles are traps anyway. That aside, people tend to watch drama and reality TV, are we surprised there isn't any science there?
I misread both the title and the summary. I got:
....
Simpletons bounced off orbiting satellite.
at the University of Vienna and colleagues have taken an important step fowards by bouncing this individual Anton Zeilinger off the Ajisai geodetic satellite
...
It's been a long Monday.
If they are connecting to the server legitimately, it's probably better they don't visit the website while it's on the blacklist anyway. If it's clean, blacklist removal should be swift so to avoid false positives.
If they are a researcher, deliberately connecting to things that are possibly infectious, the ISP should probably know in advance, that may come under the "thou shalt not harm our network", if you are actively seeking botnets, even if only so that the researcher can be added to a list of users to allow to connect to the botnet. Besides, you don't keep the doors to real labs where viruses are stored in case someone wants to research it. There are mechanisms to keep everyone else away and let a select few in. Really, this could apply to your "what if they just surf that website regularly", if they normally go to a bar and that bar goes under quarantine, you don't let them go in until the quarantine is over. You may want to conduct tests.
I would hate to think that 100,00 people need to be part of a botnet so that one researcher can examine the server.
Normal users do not go to forums, do not google. Again, I'm going with a whitelist on this one. Whitelist search engines, forums. Keep both lists very up to date.
They update their virus and scan if your lucky. It would be much easier white listing all the antivirus sites, at least the ones 99% of people use, than compiling the blacklist of sites to prevent people seeing.
It is a valid argument that both white and black lists can fall into disrepair, but that is more an argument for investing in IT than it is against my, very brief and far from original, idea.
Don't use them. Go somewhere else. You do not need to defeat a technology, just make it unprofitable by not using websites that employ it.
Online, I can't think of anything I could possibly need or have needed that I couldn't have found somewhere else.
Capitalism, done right, feet voting.
If they asked for DNA samples, would you say sure? Course not, there is a line, probably somewhere in between the current state of things and DNA sampling that is a reasonable compromise. If they thought they could get away with pushing for DNA samples, they would do it. Why shouldn't we push our end?
I will allow you to track it and to use it in house, but the moment a third party touches it or you attempt to sell it, I want a share of the profits.
Also, if you make me pay a subscription fee (or like slashdot, if I was to choose to), and you STILL sell want to sell my data, I also want a share of the profits.
I also want a list of all the organisations you supply my information to and I also do not want them to be able to resell it without observing the above conditions: I get a share in the profits, I get to see who the sell it to, people they sell it to have to... etc
This is the only way I would be happy to allow tracking.
These botnets have "Control Servers" and we haven't managed to isolate them? Surely such centralization is a weak core that could be exploited?
If I was building a botnet, every host would be preloaded with the address of every other host that was known about by whatever was doing the infecting. Once established, each host would go about randomly informing the whole list that it now existed, as well as starting to receive notices about newly established hosts so it can keep it's own list of hosts up to date. This way there would be no single point of failure.
It surprises me that botnets using even a large amount of central servers can't be isolated off networks. If ipX is a known Russian Control Server, and ISP finds Client Y connecting to it, it makes sense Client Y needs to be disconnected and contacted, or say, have access restricted to antivirus update / download sites for say an hour (arbitrary) and then full access restored. If the client then tries to reconnect to ipX again, it should have it's access restricted for longer.
I would imagine, that even a few ISPs doing this could at least make a reasonable dent on spam. They are always complaining about bandwidth, after they remove the spam from it they will have more for legitimate customers, which will mean they can give better allowances to people who like to download, making them a more attractive ISP, profit!
Never mind, the current solution seems to be working perfectly.
How many people need to follow your business model before you become a Web Pundit?
Around these parts, "broken business model" is normally found in proximity to **aa, mostly so because the **aa could be doing things better and making more money and if they continue on the path they are, they are on the way out. Charities however, that routinely beg (even more often than every 6 months) have been around for a while and will continue to be around for quite a while I imagine. I do however think your idea about an independent organization would a close runner for the best way to approach advertising if it was needed, but that is assuming that charity is on it's way out.
I'm more concerned about the ads on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goatse.cx.
Okay! That's it. A show of hands please, who wants cake they can't eat?