The bigger the upload available, the more tightly those servers will be managed. Making not only infection harder, but also detection and losing the bot-server more likely.
If I were a botnet owner I'd be reluctant to use more than say 10% of available upstream, especially where you're on 1 Gb/s you're sure to be noticed if you're using 1 Gb/s but you may get away with 100 Mb/s for a while (that shouldn't affect other services on that network too much). People that have this much bandwidth have it for a reason, the reason typically being that they want to use it for themselves.
Home networks are probably still the best target. Easy to get on ((unpatched) Windows), poorly managed ("I run Windows Update now and then, and I have a virus scanner - came with the system when I bought it last year - should be enough!"), so likely to hold on for long time. But upstream bandwidth is often low, and system is not always on.
So the Government can send a few billion on a server farm in Utah for the NSA, but heaven help they send money on servers to handle 3 million people trying to log in at once.
NSA is part of "national security" so of course they get priority.
This must be exactly how "small government" feels like, exactly what they're always asking for. Only absolute essential government tasks (running wars in faraway countries and spying on civilians are notable examples) are still being performed.
In which case maybe the schools should take a small step back, and teach those paradigms first. After that kids can not only easily find their way around the current applications they have to use, but also anything they may encounter in the future.
Computer labs are to teach children to use a computer. That includes learning to type, and maybe basics of word processing, spread sheets, etc. For those that like it, maybe some advanced classes that do programming and databases and so.
Tablets are book-replacements/enhancements. Devices that provide information to the children to learn from.
Open only certain ports, that what students really need, like port 80 for www. They may even consider a whitelist of sites students can visit from the school network.
The students are getting around software that lets school district officials know where the iPads are, what the students are doing with them at all times and lets the district block certain sites, such as social media favorites like Facebook.
Emphasis mine.
The fact they have such software installed implies the school intends to spy on their students, to be able to see what they're doing.
That they want to restrict what a student can do is acceptable imo as it's a school issued device. The alternative would be to ask students to get one by themselves. The spying part however, not so good.
It's DRM, it'll be circumvented. Surprises me it took them that long (as in, more than a day).
I recall getting WAP-enabled phones in my university (WAP was a subset of www, a primitive mobile web in a way. Never took on; phones were slow; displays monochrome; very few sites that offered a WAP version; well basically the whole thing sucked). Everyone could get such a phone for cheap, but they were SIM-locked to a network, of the sponsoring provider.
When I got mine, first stop was a friend who plugged in a cable, ran some software, and SIM-lock gone. Everyone did this.
This is not really different; just a different technology. They shouldn't be surprised it happened.
It is also the question of "what do you want to teach them, really?".
Spending a lot of time teaching a third-grader to us a tablet means only one thing to me: the software they have to use is bad. Tablets are so easy to use, so easy to figure out, that if you have to spend significant time teaching, there's something really bad in the software they have to use.
iPads and other tablets are not for teaching about computers. They can be really useful for presentation of teaching materials, or as e-book readers, and stuff like that.
They're not for teaching how to use a computer. If you want to use them to teach computer stuff, like typing or programming, you've got the wrong tool.
Dunno in what kind of backwards country you live, but where I live I have seen employees getting harsher sentences as breach of trust of an employer was involved.
Here there is the expectation of honesty of an employee. So that you can e.g. have an employee work with customers, without expectation that said employee is trying to cheat the company using their position. Or that you can expect that a casino employee is not out to help customers cheat on the casino.
Well I read the article, which mentions at least two people on the floor (the player and an accomplice giving signals), plus two casino employees. Total four people. Summary involves only two.
It must not be forgotten that two casino employees were involved as well. That were the people who arranged for the cards to be marked, so the cheats could play their game.
No mention on punishment for those two. Not only were they accomplices, without whom the scheme would not have worked to begin with, they also breached the trust their employer placed in them. The latter is also a serious issue.
It was not the croupier, but some casino lawyer who got suspicious. For all we know this lawyer could have been in the audience, just standing behind the player looking at the player's cards.
Besides, the casino's play is usually bound to fixed rules, and the croupier has no influence on it.
It is pretty bad that the web browsers themselves don't do that.
If I change the key on my server, ssh refuses to connect until I remove the old key from my configuration. That's proper behaviour. That browsers don't even warn a key has changed is of course pretty bad.
As far as that goes, there are an awful lot of "trusted" signing authorities that come with any browser. I know we should probably trust them, because the authors of the browsers trust them. There's no really good reason to do so, other than if you don't, all SSL sites will warn that they may not be trustworthy.
The one and only reason you can trust them, is because if their trust is broken, the company is out of business really soon. Prime example of course is DigiNotar which was declared bankrupt a month after a breach of its certificates came to light.
As soon as such a breach happens, browser vendors very quickly remove the offending certificate and push out a new update. Anyone using certificates from that vendor is forced to change almost instantly or people have issues accessing their web sites.
And that's the one and only reason you can trust them - and why that trust is fairly worthwhile.
What this makes me wonder suddenly: will we see an increase in people applying to change their name in the future? That's after all the main search key used to look up a person's online behaviours. Provided companies don't get to ask for login names and so (which may be illegal anyway).
I caved. I bought a Mac a few weeks ago, a 13" Air. Wow. What a beast! It's fun to use, easy to use, I can get work done without pain. LibreOffice on this thing screams!
Sure, I don't power use much anymore, but you know what? That fun is gone. Life is too short to spend so much time tweaking config files, and too short to use ugly, obtuse, opaque systems like Unity. I never thought I'd ever say this, but I love OSX.
The main power-use for me would be occasional command line stuff to automate things. Like I have several cron jobs to get stuff done on a regular basis. Should work similar on OS-X. But surely wouldn't want to miss that option.
It showed a limited selection of applications - not always the ones that I wanted. Searching for an application was hard (needed typing or so - forgot how it was exactly - other than that it was much harder than the standard Gnome menu).
Application chooser was huge, taking up the whole screen. Lots of extra mouse movement involved, all the time left to right, top to bottom - very irritating.
All applications tried to go full screen. No way to change that (at least not easily). Highly irritating. I recall ALT-TAB even didn't work out of the box, all making it hard to switch between windows.
Well it's been a few years, yet the bad taste remains.
You could be right - but canonical's bet is that there are a lot of people who just want something free and easy to use.
And if so, indeed I think Canonical is absolutely right there.
For me there are two key reasons to use Linux (besides being much more familiar with it than Windows): it is free, and gives you heaps of very powerful options - all those command line tools, the many packages that are available, etc.
However after installation it's supposed to just work. Most of the time I am in the GUI, running Firefox, e-mail, Gimp, playing some movie, managing my photos and files - that kind of stuff. And my first experience with Unity was that it got so much in the way of doing that, I'm not even interested to try it again, even though it's said to be much better now (hard to make it worse, imho). It just left such a bad taste.
I still miss good old Mandriva. Dropped that for Ubuntu, which before Unity was a great Gnome2 desktop. Gnome3 came (can't blame Ubuntu there, really). Then Unity. I'm still on Ubuntu 12.04 (Gnome desktop) mostly because it pretty much works and I don't want to mess with it too much... should have a good look at Mint. Or maybe Xubuntu.
Basically, I'm looking for a system that's free and easy to use for daily tasks (most OSes nowadays fit the bill, including Windows and OS-X - Linux distros should make sure they at least cover this part), but that also allows me to get down and dirty with it. I don't have to; most of the time I won't; but if I want to or feel the need to, I can.
Mandriva was great; Ubuntu was great for that too. Unfortunately Mandriva the company went bust, and Ubuntu lost direction in the UI realm.
I don't have the feeling that the outsourcing of development to India was the key to Nokia's demise. It may certainly have been a factor, hard to say as outsider.
There is much more to Nokia's failure to keep up with the rest of the market in the smart phone business. Such as the decision to go for experimental Windows Mobile over proven market leader Android, in the process dropping their own Symbian which was fairly popular at the time, and then taking a year or more to bring a new model smart phone to the market.
In case of a publicly traded company, shareholders (at least theoretically) have a say in how the company is run. That includes the power to remove current directors, if the shareholders think they do a bad job or make the wrong decisions.
One issue that has yet to arise is whether offshoring the utility's IT services would create long-term security risks, particularly if work is moved offshore.
Of course it does.
You could probably use Edward Snowden as example on how off-shoring to even some off-shore location within your own territory (Hawaii) is a serious risk.
Slashdot Mirror
The bigger the upload available, the more tightly those servers will be managed. Making not only infection harder, but also detection and losing the bot-server more likely.
If I were a botnet owner I'd be reluctant to use more than say 10% of available upstream, especially where you're on 1 Gb/s you're sure to be noticed if you're using 1 Gb/s but you may get away with 100 Mb/s for a while (that shouldn't affect other services on that network too much). People that have this much bandwidth have it for a reason, the reason typically being that they want to use it for themselves.
Home networks are probably still the best target. Easy to get on ((unpatched) Windows), poorly managed ("I run Windows Update now and then, and I have a virus scanner - came with the system when I bought it last year - should be enough!"), so likely to hold on for long time. But upstream bandwidth is often low, and system is not always on.
So the Government can send a few billion on a server farm in Utah for the NSA, but heaven help they send money on servers to handle 3 million people trying to log in at once.
NSA is part of "national security" so of course they get priority.
This must be exactly how "small government" feels like, exactly what they're always asking for. Only absolute essential government tasks (running wars in faraway countries and spying on civilians are notable examples) are still being performed.
In which case maybe the schools should take a small step back, and teach those paradigms first. After that kids can not only easily find their way around the current applications they have to use, but also anything they may encounter in the future.
Computer labs are to teach children to use a computer. That includes learning to type, and maybe basics of word processing, spread sheets, etc. For those that like it, maybe some advanced classes that do programming and databases and so.
Tablets are book-replacements/enhancements. Devices that provide information to the children to learn from.
Block vpn at proxy level.
Open only certain ports, that what students really need, like port 80 for www. They may even consider a whitelist of sites students can visit from the school network.
FTS:
The students are getting around software that lets school district officials know where the iPads are, what the students are doing with them at all times and lets the district block certain sites, such as social media favorites like Facebook.
Emphasis mine.
The fact they have such software installed implies the school intends to spy on their students, to be able to see what they're doing.
That they want to restrict what a student can do is acceptable imo as it's a school issued device. The alternative would be to ask students to get one by themselves. The spying part however, not so good.
It's DRM, it'll be circumvented. Surprises me it took them that long (as in, more than a day).
I recall getting WAP-enabled phones in my university (WAP was a subset of www, a primitive mobile web in a way. Never took on; phones were slow; displays monochrome; very few sites that offered a WAP version; well basically the whole thing sucked). Everyone could get such a phone for cheap, but they were SIM-locked to a network, of the sponsoring provider.
When I got mine, first stop was a friend who plugged in a cable, ran some software, and SIM-lock gone. Everyone did this.
This is not really different; just a different technology. They shouldn't be surprised it happened.
It is also the question of "what do you want to teach them, really?".
Spending a lot of time teaching a third-grader to us a tablet means only one thing to me: the software they have to use is bad. Tablets are so easy to use, so easy to figure out, that if you have to spend significant time teaching, there's something really bad in the software they have to use.
iPads and other tablets are not for teaching about computers. They can be really useful for presentation of teaching materials, or as e-book readers, and stuff like that.
They're not for teaching how to use a computer. If you want to use them to teach computer stuff, like typing or programming, you've got the wrong tool.
Dunno in what kind of backwards country you live, but where I live I have seen employees getting harsher sentences as breach of trust of an employer was involved.
Here there is the expectation of honesty of an employee. So that you can e.g. have an employee work with customers, without expectation that said employee is trying to cheat the company using their position. Or that you can expect that a casino employee is not out to help customers cheat on the casino.
Well I read the article, which mentions at least two people on the floor (the player and an accomplice giving signals), plus two casino employees. Total four people. Summary involves only two.
It must not be forgotten that two casino employees were involved as well. That were the people who arranged for the cards to be marked, so the cheats could play their game.
No mention on punishment for those two. Not only were they accomplices, without whom the scheme would not have worked to begin with, they also breached the trust their employer placed in them. The latter is also a serious issue.
It was not the croupier, but some casino lawyer who got suspicious. For all we know this lawyer could have been in the audience, just standing behind the player looking at the player's cards.
Besides, the casino's play is usually bound to fixed rules, and the croupier has no influence on it.
And to fulfil that greediness (i.e. make more money) they'll have to make sure they keep the trust.
Animals that have a mating season, usually have no sex drive outside that season (that accounts for males and females).
Big difference with humans and certain other primates, where both sexes are always interested in sex.
Conclusion is a bit odd. As if it'd be a surprise.
First that comes to mind is indeed the human female menstual cycle.
Another is the yearly breeding cycle in most other animals, where they follow some yearly cycle (though that may not be a biological clock indeed).
I also wonder how animals that live their life underground, or in the deep sea (no sunlight) do. Do they also have a "day" rhythm, for example?
It is pretty bad that the web browsers themselves don't do that.
If I change the key on my server, ssh refuses to connect until I remove the old key from my configuration. That's proper behaviour. That browsers don't even warn a key has changed is of course pretty bad.
As far as that goes, there are an awful lot of "trusted" signing authorities that come with any browser. I know we should probably trust them, because the authors of the browsers trust them. There's no really good reason to do so, other than if you don't, all SSL sites will warn that they may not be trustworthy.
The one and only reason you can trust them, is because if their trust is broken, the company is out of business really soon. Prime example of course is DigiNotar which was declared bankrupt a month after a breach of its certificates came to light.
As soon as such a breach happens, browser vendors very quickly remove the offending certificate and push out a new update. Anyone using certificates from that vendor is forced to change almost instantly or people have issues accessing their web sites.
And that's the one and only reason you can trust them - and why that trust is fairly worthwhile.
What this makes me wonder suddenly: will we see an increase in people applying to change their name in the future? That's after all the main search key used to look up a person's online behaviours. Provided companies don't get to ask for login names and so (which may be illegal anyway).
I caved. I bought a Mac a few weeks ago, a 13" Air. Wow. What a beast! It's fun to use, easy to use, I can get work done without pain. LibreOffice on this thing screams!
Sure, I don't power use much anymore, but you know what? That fun is gone. Life is too short to spend so much time tweaking config files, and too short to use ugly, obtuse, opaque systems like Unity. I never thought I'd ever say this, but I love OSX.
The main power-use for me would be occasional command line stuff to automate things. Like I have several cron jobs to get stuff done on a regular basis. Should work similar on OS-X. But surely wouldn't want to miss that option.
Apt works great (aptitude, synaptic, apt-get, etc). Rarely if ever have issues with that. Don't want to do without.
It showed a limited selection of applications - not always the ones that I wanted. Searching for an application was hard (needed typing or so - forgot how it was exactly - other than that it was much harder than the standard Gnome menu).
Application chooser was huge, taking up the whole screen. Lots of extra mouse movement involved, all the time left to right, top to bottom - very irritating.
All applications tried to go full screen. No way to change that (at least not easily). Highly irritating. I recall ALT-TAB even didn't work out of the box, all making it hard to switch between windows.
Well it's been a few years, yet the bad taste remains.
You could be right - but canonical's bet is that there are a lot of people who just want something free and easy to use.
And if so, indeed I think Canonical is absolutely right there.
For me there are two key reasons to use Linux (besides being much more familiar with it than Windows): it is free, and gives you heaps of very powerful options - all those command line tools, the many packages that are available, etc.
However after installation it's supposed to just work. Most of the time I am in the GUI, running Firefox, e-mail, Gimp, playing some movie, managing my photos and files - that kind of stuff. And my first experience with Unity was that it got so much in the way of doing that, I'm not even interested to try it again, even though it's said to be much better now (hard to make it worse, imho). It just left such a bad taste.
I still miss good old Mandriva. Dropped that for Ubuntu, which before Unity was a great Gnome2 desktop. Gnome3 came (can't blame Ubuntu there, really). Then Unity. I'm still on Ubuntu 12.04 (Gnome desktop) mostly because it pretty much works and I don't want to mess with it too much... should have a good look at Mint. Or maybe Xubuntu.
Basically, I'm looking for a system that's free and easy to use for daily tasks (most OSes nowadays fit the bill, including Windows and OS-X - Linux distros should make sure they at least cover this part), but that also allows me to get down and dirty with it. I don't have to; most of the time I won't; but if I want to or feel the need to, I can.
Mandriva was great; Ubuntu was great for that too. Unfortunately Mandriva the company went bust, and Ubuntu lost direction in the UI realm.
I don't have the feeling that the outsourcing of development to India was the key to Nokia's demise. It may certainly have been a factor, hard to say as outsider.
There is much more to Nokia's failure to keep up with the rest of the market in the smart phone business. Such as the decision to go for experimental Windows Mobile over proven market leader Android, in the process dropping their own Symbian which was fairly popular at the time, and then taking a year or more to bring a new model smart phone to the market.
In case of a publicly traded company, shareholders (at least theoretically) have a say in how the company is run. That includes the power to remove current directors, if the shareholders think they do a bad job or make the wrong decisions.
Why did this part only make it to page 3?
Of course it does.
You could probably use Edward Snowden as example on how off-shoring to even some off-shore location within your own territory (Hawaii) is a serious risk.