In it's gaseous phase, it's fairly harmless, and can be found in minute quantities in the air you breathe
Furthermore, even if one is to inhale and fill it's lung with the foul substance, one may eventually be saved by allowing one to breathe again normally - assuming it is within a reasonable amount of time, then it is not fatal.
Oh.. And Blog!=Facebook!=Twitter!= THE INTERNET (which is nothing but a loosely set of protocole routing rules by IANA - the self appointed Inernet Keeper, that delegated said routing to RIRs then to LIRs)..
(I don't know how this fares - probably going to get modded off-topic.. Oh well - had to get this off my chest).
The confusion might have come from the fact that when I looked, there seemed to also be some DNS problem.
Basically, when asking directly, the servers that are authoritative for the zone were giving me a CNAME for the 'ANY' query, but not the associated A records, which it should, since the CNAME was pointing to a host name within the same authority. At this point, any sensible resolver stops asking !
This only lasted for a little while though - so it might have been a glitch or possibly a deliberate action related to how they were trying to fix the underlying issue itself - possibly averting traffic until they actually solved the actual problem.
Except theory says that once you've measured one, the wave function collapses and the 2 particles are no longer entangled.
Because this seems to indicate that information has traveled at a velocity greater than the speed of light, Einstein (and others) weren't too happy with it.. Hence the EPR paradox.
Einstein believed there was a locally hidden variable. However that was dismissed by Bell's inequality theorem.
Mainstream games *DO* need exposure (just like any product to be sold).
However, they use another venue for this : commercial advertisement.
Just 2 different angles to address the same problem. One is going for the upfront lump sum approach (mainstream), the other one is going for the progressive scheme : If the product is a flop, nothing lost - if it's a hit - then the revenue is probably less than if it would have been a mainstream company.
It's possible the "internal" cost is simply some form of rudimentary metric to measure the relative usage that is made of the IT dept by each of the other depts (so each dept is charged accordingly).
I thought this was a basic principle in the U.S. legal system.. Whereas, a person could not be held in custody without a court order - and I can't think how a court order can go beyond the age of a sentence of imprisonment.
Does this also mean that peeing in the improper place can now be turned into a lifelong sentence without parole ?
You switched off the SSID broadcast. You locked the door of your house. By doing both, you made a pro-active attempt to secure your network. Do those, and no judge in their right mind is going to say you were facilitating.
Well - at least we seem to agree on that;) (I was just saying it differently).
The only difference, is that - imho, once the judge agrees that you weren't facilitating, then the "security device" performed its function - at which point - whether the villain went around it or through it is moot.
And I hear you.. Yes, there is sometimes a way "around" (but not necessarily "through"). But that's independent of the "security device" - it's dependent on the "security system".
What I am saying here is that the statement "all security devices can be circumvented" is a tautology, and not necessarily a bad one though - it serves as a reminder that a security device within a poorly designed security system is useless - or rather - a security system is only as good as the weakest device that comprise the system.
And what I am saying, with all due respect, is that the notion that "virtually all security devices can be circumvented" is misleading.
If you take it into a broad and global sense, that's of course true - but becomes very impractical after a bit. If you can't break the Wifi, you break the house. If you can't break the house, you break the ISP's premise. If you can't do that, you start a revolution and take over the country, then nuke the country, start an intergalactic war, etc..
However, you can only talk about the validity of a security device by the scope of the resource it is protecting. And in that respect, a Secured Wifi setup can only secure *ONE* thing : your wifi connection (but not any underlying resource - your house, your DSL modem - or your kitchen stove).
The whole point of a security device is to make it so that it is not economically viable to go *through*.
And in the respect of the OP context, the proper setup of the WiFi as a security device would seem to have been enough to secure both his WiFi and his internet connection and thus is liability with regard to German law. IANAL, but if someone broke in (thus - in your term - circumvented the security device(s) - the WiFi protection, the door lock, the window glass, whatever) and downloaded whatnot from the DSL line - he would have not have been liable since he would have put reasonable effort to prevent the misdeed from happening - and thus, the security device would have performed its function.
The security device in itself wasn't circumvented.
The security device in this case is used to prevent unauthorized access to the WiFi - NOT to prevent access to your Internet Connection. The WiFi access in itself was never broken in - and if this is what you are trying to protect - then it has performed its duty - and was never circumvented.
Now, unfortunately for your hacker, my house is protected by flying sharks with friggin' lasers - so once you enter my house, you are blown to smithereens (Humm.. is that a word ?) by my *secondary* security device !
But I hear what you are saying. Unfortunately, your post seemed to infer that proper securing of WiFi access points is moot to start with (and can be easily bypassed) - when I believe it is not. Breaking sufficiently large symmetric ciphers is NOT trivial (like you'd see on TV shows).
Also - on a side point - Mr "Elite Hacker", not wanting to be indicted for larceny, will probably just go do his road warrior thing a bit more until he finds a more accessible access point to perform his mischief.
When I was 12, my buddy swashed me with a flashlight, which resulted me in being abducted by aliens.
I therefore sue the company that extracted the minerals necessary to build the metals that subsequently were turned into the casing of the very flashlight that caused me to be abducted.
Slashdot Mirror
Not really..
In it's gaseous phase, it's fairly harmless, and can be found in minute quantities in the air you breathe
Furthermore, even if one is to inhale and fill it's lung with the foul substance, one may eventually be saved by allowing one to breathe again normally - assuming it is within a reasonable amount of time, then it is not fatal.
So no : Not 100% lethal !
(I must be new here!)
--Ivan
I stand corrected (might because of reading something wrong - or a mispelling)..
Thanks
--Ivan
Maybe look for hexane, or hydroxilic acid or Oxygen dihydride or something as such
--Ivan
This figure reflects pretty much measures the energy released during the event.
For effects, you want to use the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale - which is a closed scale - ranging from 0 (not felt) to 10 (everything leveled).
Or maybe you referring to IBM's i OS (aka OS/400)
IOS ?
Isn't that CISCO's router OS ?
(I remember IBM having to rebrand their own (formally OS/400) own OS for IBM i systems from i/OS to IBM i5 OS because they feared a CISCO suit)..
enable
conf term
interface eth0
no shutdown
exit
write
exit
--Ivan
Oh.. And Blog!=Facebook!=Twitter!= THE INTERNET (which is nothing but a loosely set of protocole routing rules by IANA - the self appointed Inernet Keeper, that delegated said routing to RIRs then to LIRs)..
(I don't know how this fares - probably going to get modded off-topic.. Oh well - had to get this off my chest).
--Ivan
The confusion might have come from the fact that when I looked, there seemed to also be some DNS problem.
Basically, when asking directly, the servers that are authoritative for the zone were giving me a CNAME for the 'ANY' query, but not the associated A records, which it should, since the CNAME was pointing to a host name within the same authority. At this point, any sensible resolver stops asking !
This only lasted for a little while though - so it might have been a glitch or possibly a deliberate action related to how they were trying to fix the underlying issue itself - possibly averting traffic until they actually solved the actual problem.
--Ivan
Forget it..
Of course..
Not Guilty "Implies" Innocent
Innocent "Does NOT imply" Not Guilty
Duh !
--Ivan
I was under the impression that for a correct application of common law and/or civil law, you were innocent until proven guilty..
So to me, "innocent" is true unless a "guilty" status is achieved. Therefore "Not Guilty" is a sufficient condition to name the defendant "innocent".
Of course, "not guilty" doesn't mean acquitted, so a retrial is possible without risking double jeopardy. (but he still has an "Innocent" status).
But IANAL of course.
--Ivan
Release the Kraken
It's cognitively not that obvious.
Parsing "4+3+2=()+2" is actually not a trivial process. It may become trivial after some time, but it's not intuitive.
This could easily be parsed as (4+3+2=x)+2 and therefore, as ((4+3+2=9)+2)=11 because () is usually meant to change the precedence of a statement.
Now this could easily be read as :
"There are four red apples, three green apples and two yellow apples in a (nice little red basket) and two brown apples".. How many apples ?
Except theory says that once you've measured one, the wave function collapses and the 2 particles are no longer entangled.
Because this seems to indicate that information has traveled at a velocity greater than the speed of light, Einstein (and others) weren't too happy with it.. Hence the EPR paradox.
Einstein believed there was a locally hidden variable. However that was dismissed by Bell's inequality theorem.
I have to disagree here..
Mainstream games *DO* need exposure (just like any product to be sold).
However, they use another venue for this : commercial advertisement.
Just 2 different angles to address the same problem. One is going for the upfront lump sum approach (mainstream), the other one is going for the progressive scheme : If the product is a flop, nothing lost - if it's a hit - then the revenue is probably less than if it would have been a mainstream company.
Just my .02 (of whatever you currency is)
--Ivan
It's possible the "internal" cost is simply some form of rudimentary metric to measure the relative usage that is made of the IT dept by each of the other depts (so each dept is charged accordingly).
--Ivan
Whatever happened to Habeas Corpus ?
I thought this was a basic principle in the U.S. legal system.. Whereas, a person could not be held in custody without a court order - and I can't think how a court order can go beyond the age of a sentence of imprisonment.
Does this also mean that peeing in the improper place can now be turned into a lifelong sentence without parole ?
You switched off the SSID broadcast. You locked the door of your house. By doing both, you made a pro-active attempt to secure your network. Do those, and no judge in their right mind is going to say you were facilitating.
Well - at least we seem to agree on that ;) (I was just saying it differently).
The only difference, is that - imho, once the judge agrees that you weren't facilitating, then the "security device" performed its function - at which point - whether the villain went around it or through it is moot.
And I hear you.. Yes, there is sometimes a way "around" (but not necessarily "through"). But that's independent of the "security device" - it's dependent on the "security system".
What I am saying here is that the statement "all security devices can be circumvented" is a tautology, and not necessarily a bad one though - it serves as a reminder that a security device within a poorly designed security system is useless - or rather - a security system is only as good as the weakest device that comprise the system.
And what I am saying, with all due respect, is that the notion that "virtually all security devices can be circumvented" is misleading.
If you take it into a broad and global sense, that's of course true - but becomes very impractical after a bit. If you can't break the Wifi, you break the house. If you can't break the house, you break the ISP's premise. If you can't do that, you start a revolution and take over the country, then nuke the country, start an intergalactic war, etc..
However, you can only talk about the validity of a security device by the scope of the resource it is protecting. And in that respect, a Secured Wifi setup can only secure *ONE* thing : your wifi connection (but not any underlying resource - your house, your DSL modem - or your kitchen stove).
The whole point of a security device is to make it so that it is not economically viable to go *through*.
And in the respect of the OP context, the proper setup of the WiFi as a security device would seem to have been enough to secure both his WiFi and his internet connection and thus is liability with regard to German law. IANAL, but if someone broke in (thus - in your term - circumvented the security device(s) - the WiFi protection, the door lock, the window glass, whatever) and downloaded whatnot from the DSL line - he would have not have been liable since he would have put reasonable effort to prevent the misdeed from happening - and thus, the security device would have performed its function.
The security device in itself wasn't circumvented.
The security device in this case is used to prevent unauthorized access to the WiFi - NOT to prevent access to your Internet Connection. The WiFi access in itself was never broken in - and if this is what you are trying to protect - then it has performed its duty - and was never circumvented.
Now, unfortunately for your hacker, my house is protected by flying sharks with friggin' lasers - so once you enter my house, you are blown to smithereens (Humm.. is that a word ?) by my *secondary* security device !
But I hear what you are saying. Unfortunately, your post seemed to infer that proper securing of WiFi access points is moot to start with (and can be easily bypassed) - when I believe it is not. Breaking sufficiently large symmetric ciphers is NOT trivial (like you'd see on TV shows).
Also - on a side point - Mr "Elite Hacker", not wanting to be indicted for larceny, will probably just go do his road warrior thing a bit more until he finds a more accessible access point to perform his mischief.
Virtually every security device can be circumvented
Citation needed...
Don't you think a 'random bot' would post AC ?
I'm going for the browser - or more likely - an issue with the entity between the chair and keyboard.. (never happened to you eh ?)
--Ivan
Yup.. Apparently I commented on the wrong thread indeed.. (blast ye Ajax - or my recklessness)..
So my -1 off topic is commended for my comment.
Oh well, I'll survive ;)
When I was 12, my buddy swashed me with a flashlight, which resulted me in being abducted by aliens.
I therefore sue the company that extracted the minerals necessary to build the metals that subsequently were turned into the casing of the very flashlight that caused me to be abducted.
--Ivan
Do you mean *Bing* it on ?
(I know.. sorry.. you may mod me down as appropriate).
After all, the initial singularity from which the universe sprung had to come from somewhere.
Says WHO ?
--Ivan