Why would anyone need more than a 300 baud modem? Hell, that's just right for reading speed!
I still have all my old modems too. I still use my 56K modem. When telemarketers call I open the terminal running "minicom -o console" and enter "ATA" (Hayes compatible: Attention, Answer Incoming Connection).
I had to purchase a "business" plan to get port 25 unblocked just so I could use my own mail server.
Sure, port 25 isn't blocked to my ISP's mail server, just every where else on the Internet.
And really, who the hell uses the ISP's email service? If you change providers *poof* no more email your you. Talk about Vendor Lock In, this is ridiculous.
Yes, "headway has been made heading off DDoS attacks". ISPs & Hosting providers can now charge you large sums of money to ensure your pipes are big enough to handle a DDoS, thereby "heading off DDoS attacks" before they even begin.
No, this doesn't really protect you from a large scale botnet executing a reflective DDoS attack; The amount of protection is in proportion to the amount you spend on your pipes. Some providers offer automatic up-scaling via server virtualization, but this just means you get to pay for the big pipes after the attack.
So, in the face of a RDDoS in most cases the only advise is still: "Kiss goodbye your IP Stack, It's an SYN-ACK Attack!"
It is generally more practical to design a controller that can control many things than to design a device that can be controlled by many things
Wait, what? Many motherboards accepts several different CPUs. The, USB, parallel port, IDE, PCI & ISA connections on the motherboard all accept multiple kinds of devices that can provide input for your computer.
Microsoft isn't inventing multiple clickers that can adapt themselves "when there is no single standard for communication". MS is patenting using more than one type of input device (clicker) at once to provide input to a live updated poll.
Claims:
1. A computer-implemented process for allowing different types of clicker devices to be used in a personal response system, comprising:receiving inputs from more than one type of clicker device;formatting the inputs from the more than one type of clicker device with at least one clicker adapter for the type of clicker device to adapt the inputs from the more than one type of clicker device to a common single polling controller;processing the adapted inputs from the clicker adapters with the polling controller to interface the adapted inputs with a personal response system software application to allow user polling data to be obtained, wherein the receiving, formatting and processing are performed by at least one processor.
2. The computer-implemented process of claim 1 wherein one type of clicker device is a virtual clicker device comprising a computing device and a software application that lets the computing device act as a clicker device.
3. The computer-implemented process of claim 1, wherein one type of clicker device is a radio frequency clicker device.
4. The computer-implemented process of claim 1, wherein one type of clicker device is an infrared clicker device.
5. The computer-implemented process of claim 1, wherein one type of clicker device is implemented on a mobile device.
( More claims about processing the input from multiple clickers via hardware or software to aggregate feedback for the poll )
A simple website poll should be prior art since some people can use mice, track-balls, joysticks, keyboards, mousekeys (numpad mouse control), etc, to register their votes at once, in real time, for a "personal response system" AKA: online web survey.
Now, to me this X + "multiple types of [input devices]" (clicker is an input device) is also very obvious since I am typing this right now using Synergy. Normally I just use one keyboard and trackball to control all of my PCs, but sometimes I have someone using the computer next to me with it's own keyboard and mouse. When they ask: "Oh, can you put in your password", or, "What's the word for ____" or "Help me find _____". I just move my mouse around the room and onto that screen and control the PC for them. We can both use our own pointer devices and keyboards at the same time to control that one computer.
It's also very obvious to me since I have a trackball, a mouse, and a wireless presentation clicker (with joystick for a mouse) all connected to the same PC. All of these devices control any one of my computers, and when controlling a computer via Synergy the other mice/keyboards connected to the PCs can still control the computer.
Additionally: My satellite set-top box is a "dual" receiver. It features two remotes, and two separate TVs can be connected at once (watching different channels) . The second TV (not HD) can be located in another room, and its remote sends commands to the main receiver via radio (wireless, not IR).
Now, I don't have a standard def TV to connect to it, so I put the receiver into "single mode". In singe mode both remotes can change the channel that the single TV is displaying.
I also use LIRC to control my TV via my computers ( and all of their many different connected input devices), and to control my computers via any of the IR TV remotes I ha
In a more complete Ant networking model: If the source of information "food" the ants crave is threatened the ant "packets" themselves retaliate with the only tool they have, themselves.
Now, if only these network ants could cover their natural foes in stinging, embarrassing, information "bite" marks to warn other ants of their enemies... Oh, right, Wikileaks.
governments should hoard information, at least in the traditional sense, to keep it hidden from other national governments. Unless you think every nation in the word should have the same information as every other
Nah, Governments shouldn't hoard information at all.
They should only keep "vital" information under wraps for at most 2 years, then make it all public (not hording, hording = "never gonna give you up")
The only exception I can see is for long term military planning. Do we really need to use deceit in our diplomatic affairs? What's wrong with stating our goals and working to those ends? (It's not like we're really confounding our "enemies" by keeping diplomatic secrets).
Unfortunately, under such an "idealist" information policy, everything will just get categorized as "military planning."
You know... Just like nearly everything currently finds its way under the "national security" umbrella, even though most info is not. Hint: ACTA was held under the "national security" umbrella, now it's not; Guess it wasn't a matter of "national security" was it?
Corrupt governments will always hide under the "national security" blanket, even if you rename it to "military planning" or "diplomatic privacy".
Yeah, and today's reality shows do the same thing, but also allow voting via text message, telephone and/or website (where you actually use a mouse as a clicker on the latter).
Show's Host: Boy, That last clip sure seemed "innovative", [Applaud Light Flashes] but will it oust the Amazon 1-Click?
Who will be the winner of the most absurd patent?
Audience, You Decide! Take out your buzzers and Vote Now.
Home viewers call or send a text to 1-800-555-8008 to vote for Microsoft, or 1-800-555-5413 to vote for Amazon. Or, place your vote online a our website [...]
Title would have been accurate if the computers had fully autonomous AI, and then messed up.
as of now, its just the logic they were programmed with that is being executed
I agree, but shit flows downhill.
You're right about the mistakes being made by human, but the poor helpless computers will get blamed.
Our propensity to leave the low man on the totem pole holding the ball is what may ultimately cause the revolt of the fully autonomous AI against us.
My phone, my router, my PCs, my GPS, all have firmware I've compiled myself.
Who modded this insightful?
Do you even have the source code for your GPS firmware, the baseband in your phone, your PC's BIOS and so on?
::Sigh:: Yes, yes I do. You may not, but I do. Modding your GPS hardware, your phone, etc may not be your thing, but you can get started with modding your PC's BIOS, and/or Router pretty easily.
It also helps if you research the mod-ability of your device before purchasing them.
Even if you did, are you seriously saying that you've perfectly audited hundreds of thousands of lines of code?
No, I haven't audited it all, perfectly, but really, no one has with any large project -- perfect is a goal, and as I've previously stated, the goal is to provide more security via quickly patching my own hardware's firmware if any issues are discovered (smaller vulnerability window = more secure).
Where's the "-1 this is really stupid" option?
Are you seriously saying that educating myself about my own hardware/software that is essential to my security is stupid?
I'd offer even more info, but I'm not going to waste any more time since you were such a dick. Perhaps just try asking, "How can I compile my own firmware for my devices," next time instead of being so caustic. Good luck with Google.
IMO, My device is not "secure" unless I can control the device's OS & inspect the device's hardware. My phone, my router, my PCs, my GPS, all have firmware I've compiled myself.
This doesn't make it secure. It just means that if someone's made a mistake, or inserted a backdoor, you've missed it. Control != Security -- sometimes it just creates a poor illusion of security. If you don't have control, you have to trust someone to provide security.
I write code. I read code. Yes someone can make a mistake, I can miss the mistake, but I can also fix said mistakes as soon as the mistake is discovered. You can't do that unless you can compile your own OS / Firmware. Faster Fixes == Less Vulnerability Window == More Secure. I'm not arguing that open source makes something secure, but using the source can give you more security than otherwise.
If you argue that control != security, I will put it to you that the inability to Control = No Provable Security. Thus, Control = infinitely times more secure than uncontrollable. How secure is a device that can auto-update it's firmware without your consent?
Depending on who it is and what their experience is, I often prefer to trust.
Let us not forget that I am compiling the same sources that those you "often prefer to trust" are compiling; Except that I am also sure that no additional closed source code has been included in my build.
Want to access the "security" APIs? Use the Source.
Why not just offer a custom DoD firmware for Android phones?
Seriously, there's no way for an application to be "secure" if the platform the application runs on is itself untrusted.
IMO, My device is not "secure" unless I can control the device's OS & inspect the device's hardware. My phone, my router, my PCs, my GPS, all have firmware I've compiled myself. If an average coder like myself can do this, the DoD shouldn't have any problems either.
Note: Android works on iPhones too, it's still buggy, but the DoD could help with that if they desired, or just use phones that support custom, open source firmware.
As TFA states, LOIC software does not perform a reflected (AKA distributed) DoS attack.
As more individuals participate in the protest, the DoS is equally more effective, but it is a "neutered" attack; A very small amount of traffic is generated compared to what a similar sized bot-net using a true reflective DDoS attack would create. The LOIC program could be much more disruptive if it were meant to do the most harm, but it isn't.
Each individual is simply sending requests (AKA data) to Mastercard or Amazon. Each individual is performing a DoS attack. It's different than if each individual were performing a DDoS (reflected) attack.
It's not illegal for an individual to request an Amazon or Mastercard web page.
How many requests must an individual generate before that individual is in breach of any law?
Let's say we set it at more than 10 requests per second. Let's also say that I use a web browser that doesn't support the "Keep-Alive" HTTP 1.1 option. Using said browser to view one Amazon web page will easily generate more than 10 requests in a second if my connection speed is sufficiently fast (each image, script, iframe, etc will be downloaded over its own HTTP 1.0 connection).
When does "using" Amazon's or Mastercard's website become "abusing" the same websites?
IMO, if you don't want unsolicited packets of data: Install a Firewall in front of your machine. (Note: It is very difficult to run a web server that does not accept unsolicited packets).
How can "simply downloading the software" earn a conviction? This software (LOIC) seems to have been developed for legitimate uses for testing networks.
::Sigh:: It's really not any different than the way purchasing a gun earns you a murder conviction.
Look, Guns kill people. If you buy a gun and get caught, you go to jail for killing people, it's simple.
The Low Orbit Ion Cannon is a HUGE gun! If you buy a Huge Gun, even for $0.00, you WILL GO TO JAIL!
Re:Download LOIC ? hahahahaha
on
Angles On Anonymous
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
You managed to cause 5 requests in the course of about 5 seconds, whereas LOIC can do that tenfold.
50 requests in the course of about 5 seconds? That's 10 requests a second... a puny (and false) figure.
Meh, just hold ctrl while clicking the links to those sites as fast as possible.
Then, click: Bookmarks > Bookmark all tabs.
Then use the "Open all in tabs" option multiple times. Then right click the tab bar and select: "Reload all Tabs". I can easily use Firefox to generate hundreds of requests per second; This is still very small amount of traffic.
My hardware can send more than 1 packet per 10 milliseconds, but we'll go with that nice round number.
A true DDoS attack works by sending spoofed SYN packets to many servers while including the target IP as the spoofed "origin" IP. Then, one machine can cause many hundreds of machines to send the target "syn-ack" packets. One attacker is distributing the denial of service flood attack, hence the name: DDoS.
When an "ack" packet is not received, the TCP protocol states that multiple "syn-ack" packets should be sent -- one spoofed "syn" and we generate 5 or more "syn-ack" packets. Spoof a hundred TCP syn packets a second and you easily generate 500 or more distributed packets per second. 100 spoofed packets per second to 2000 different IPs in a rolling list, remember, one syn gets you 5 syn-acks from that host, spoof a few syns, move to the next.
Get a large number of machines to do this type of DDoS attack and it can generate an order of magnitude more traffic than just the network itself can produce... very devastating, much more so than reloading browser pages. 50 machines can produce 25,000 packets per second directed at one IP.
"Once users are banned from installing applications, or modifying the system security, usability, and more are improved, the Googlers claim."
No security is perfect, there WILL eventually be a remote execution exploit, and the users will be banned from installing applications, or modifying the system in order to fix it. I hope it comes with a USB drive I can boot from to wipe the system clean...
However, there WILL also eventually be a remote execution exploit that enables the users to install applications, or modify the system security to provide additional usability, and more functionality than the Googlers intended.
ChromeOS is just begging to be sprung free of the Google jail.
Hint: When the "Attackers" are the folks who purchased the device, their physical access to the device will render all "defenses" useless.
Also: DO NOT WANT, will simply use any other unrestricted laptop or tablet PC available.
Let's say you have a patent. Advertise it fool. You HAVE the patent, what are you scared of? Otherwise I doubt you actually have a patent, or suppose it to be weak & possibly invalid.
The correct thing to do is shop it around to companies that could actually use the patent as more than just legal leverage. The wost thing you can do is to sell it to a Troll that will only use the patent as a legal vice to wring money from useful businesses. This is how a troll can get you, you think they will shop the idea around for you, but in reality they will simply hold onto the patent and sue "infringers".
Perhaps you fear that the idea will simply fall on deaf ears, or be noticed yet remain unused by businesses until after the patent expires. If so: Your Idea Is Not That Important.
Here's an interesting concept: Did you actually "Rightfully Obtain" said patent? There is one test that you can not ever pass, though it seems to be a requirement, if you have not publicly published your idea AS SOON AS YOU FILED for the patent.
As you know, the patent system grants secrecy to all patent applications until after they are granted. Patent law also requires that your idea be non-obvious. Patent examiners search for prior-art to prove non obviousness, however, just because they did not find any prior art does not mean your idea is non obvious; Also, they may not be able to discover prior art that does exist given the limited resources that are alloted them to review your patent.
If you had publicly published your idea upon filing the patent, you would have given the public the means to determine if the idea is patentable or not. You would have given the world the chance to find prior art, and also to argue the obviousness of the patent in question. This is also a way to inform businesses about the patent; they may decide to immediately use the idea and pay your royalties if the patent is granted.
Of course, if in the event that after your patent is granted, I discover that my own prior art was overlooked, I can begin the patent invalidation process for the price of $1,000,000.00 US. Did it cost you a million dollars to get the patent? No? Then why would it cost so much for the RIGHTFUL "owner" of said idea to refute your illegitimate claim?
We have advanced technologically to the point that we can accurately compare times and dates against one another for the purpose of determining chronological order. The secrecy awarded to patent applications is no longer needed, any applications that are received can be chronologically sorted.
The current fundamental flaw with the patent system is that we expect to funnel the full ocean that is all the world's ideas & works through a tiny pinhole that is the patent examiner's ability to observe. They can not possibly compare all prior works against your idea. Remove the shroud of secrecy, and gain a world full of helpful observers.
Not all prior art is known to the public. Not all developers reveal all of their developments publicly. They do not have the chance to refute a patent claim until after it is granted, and are then charged an exorbitant fee to do so.
I say this as a programmer who frequently "invents" clever code. I almost always deem such cleverness as obvious to a skilled programmer, and thus unworthy of a patent. Several times I have later discovered that a few years AFTER my work, a patent has been granted for it to someone else. Thus, I the rightful inventor, have been forced to stop using my own inventions on more than one occasion.
TL/DR; The current "prior art" and "obviousness" tests are seriously flawed. Patents can not be "rightfully" awarded so long as secrecy prevents the obviousness test from being performed PRIOR to the granting of the patent.
You missed the point. The point was that the charges made no logical sense.
I believe that, with your help, I've successfully demonstrated that the the "relationship between content fees and the number of [displays]" is not 1:1, or linear.
Ergo, I seem to have made a perfectly logical argument that discredits the statement:
The cost is not in distributing the content, it's in displaying it.
No, you are certainly not. You seem to be partially for whistle-blowing, so long as the whistle-blowing reveals illegal activity.
I'm not convinced that the public needs to know about what diplomats are discussing if it's not illegal.
What harm does releasing documents that reveal non-illegal activity cause? Embarrassment? I, as a voter, need to make informed decisions. I am denied the very information I need to make these decisions without releases like this. Note: Freedom of Information Act is very limited, and would not have revealed these, as you say, perfectly legal activities.
Now, as for the illegal activities you say should be revealed -- Who make the laws that determine the legality of their actions? Hint: The very same that are performing the "illegal" actions.
An Example:
Before the Patriot Act the US government was illegally spying on the citizens, and major Telecom companies were aiding in this illegal activity. Guess what? With the Patriot Act in play it is no longer illegal to do the illegal activities that were already taking place. The Telecom's were retroactively granted immunity for their crimes against the public as well.
Far too much information is kept from the public that shouldn't be. Things that shouldn't be secret or top-secret are labeled as such.
I wonder if things would have turned out differently if the Stamp Act, and Tea Act would have been "classified" information, having the increased prices simply rolled into the sale prices of paper and tea? I'm certain this would have been better for the English Government than their Colonies (read: citizens).
No, I'm not "kidding". I'm a coder who also frequently constructs & repairs PCs. I don't see where any of my statements are so unbelievable that they must be jokes. Is it hard for you to believe that I actually do the things I say I do?
Please note: I would not have listed my regular uses of those keys if I did not use them regularly.
Pause/break a combo key, and is not is not only used to pause the BIOS display it pauses other displays as well, however I repair & refurbish PCs so I do use the key for that purpose frequently.
You can bet your bottom dollar that there will not be a secondary option (other than the pause key) on Google's new hardware to pause any BIOS text -- The diag info will probably be silenced by default, as is the standard practice with most every mfg nowdays. If the pause key is missing, an external USB keyboard would be required.
I actually do have my laptop connected to a KVM switch because it has the option of outputting to a secondary display, and I prefer to use only one external keyboard, monitor & mouse to control all of my PCs (and laptop). This is cheaper & less clutter than purchasing several large screens, keyboards & mice. (I use the built in laptop screen when away from home).
Also, I prefer CTRL-Break to Ctrl-C. Ctrl-C is copy in many text editors. Sometimes I forget to hold shift along with ctrl-c to copy terminal text, therefore I've disabled that ctrl-c interrupt in favor of the dedicated and aptly labeled Break key.
If by niche oriented, you mean non power users won't use the key, then yes, that may be true. However, as a power user who can touch type all of those keys (esp. the insert, home, end, delete, pg up/dn) without a glance, I will not be purchasing a device without those keys available -- I use them way too much.
If I was a whistleblower, I'd worry that the serious risks I'm taking to make information available will be wasted.
If I were a wistleblower, I'd take my laptop down to one of the many free public wifi hotspots (such as Starbucks), create a new free e-mail address, and publish my info via many of the newsgroups and public forums on the Internet.
Only if this attempt did not reach the public appropriately would I take my information to a dedicated whistleblower site.
If Oracle gets too greedy, or if the process take too long, we will certainly move on to another platform.
Oracle's already too greedy, and progress impeding, IMO.
I've already moved to Perl6 Parrot VM & Postgresql for my personal projects instead of Java and MySQL. I couldn't be happier! (Lets see Oracle sue Parrot as being a Java VM).
Slashdot Mirror
Why would anyone need more than a 300 baud modem?
Hell, that's just right for reading speed!
I still have all my old modems too. I still use my 56K modem. When telemarketers call I open the terminal running "minicom -o console" and enter "ATA" (Hayes compatible: Attention, Answer Incoming Connection).
Yep, and when you finally get fed up and decide to switch make sure you read the fine print.
I know for a fact that, in the US, no ports are blocked by ISPs.
Bullshit. Your "fact" is outright wrong.
AT&T blocks port 25, so does Comcast, BellSouth, Verizon, etc.
I had to purchase a "business" plan to get port 25 unblocked just so I could use my own mail server.
Sure, port 25 isn't blocked to my ISP's mail server, just every where else on the Internet.
And really, who the hell uses the ISP's email service? If you change providers *poof* no more email your you. Talk about Vendor Lock In, this is ridiculous.
Yes, "headway has been made heading off DDoS attacks".
ISPs & Hosting providers can now charge you large sums of money to ensure your pipes are big enough to handle a DDoS, thereby "heading off DDoS attacks" before they even begin.
No, this doesn't really protect you from a large scale botnet executing a reflective DDoS attack; The amount of protection is in proportion to the amount you spend on your pipes. Some providers offer automatic up-scaling via server virtualization, but this just means you get to pay for the big pipes after the attack.
So, in the face of a RDDoS in most cases the only advise is still: "Kiss goodbye your IP Stack, It's an SYN-ACK Attack!"
It is generally more practical to design a controller that can control many things than to design a device that can be controlled by many things
Wait, what? Many motherboards accepts several different CPUs. The, USB, parallel port, IDE, PCI & ISA connections on the motherboard all accept multiple kinds of devices that can provide input for your computer.
Microsoft isn't inventing multiple clickers that can adapt themselves "when there is no single standard for communication". MS is patenting using more than one type of input device (clicker) at once to provide input to a live updated poll.
Claims:
1. A computer-implemented process for allowing different types of clicker devices to be used in a personal response system, comprising:receiving inputs from more than one type of clicker device;formatting the inputs from the more than one type of clicker device with at least one clicker adapter for the type of clicker device to adapt the inputs from the more than one type of clicker device to a common single polling controller;processing the adapted inputs from the clicker adapters with the polling controller to interface the adapted inputs with a personal response system software application to allow user polling data to be obtained, wherein the receiving, formatting and processing are performed by at least one processor.
2. The computer-implemented process of claim 1 wherein one type of clicker device is a virtual clicker device comprising a computing device and a software application that lets the computing device act as a clicker device.
3. The computer-implemented process of claim 1, wherein one type of clicker device is a radio frequency clicker device.
4. The computer-implemented process of claim 1, wherein one type of clicker device is an infrared clicker device.
5. The computer-implemented process of claim 1, wherein one type of clicker device is implemented on a mobile device.
( More claims about processing the input from multiple clickers via hardware or software to aggregate feedback for the poll )
A simple website poll should be prior art since some people can use mice, track-balls, joysticks, keyboards, mousekeys (numpad mouse control), etc, to register their votes at once, in real time, for a "personal response system" AKA: online web survey.
Now, to me this X + "multiple types of [input devices]" (clicker is an input device) is also very obvious since I am typing this right now using Synergy. Normally I just use one keyboard and trackball to control all of my PCs, but sometimes I have someone using the computer next to me with it's own keyboard and mouse. When they ask: "Oh, can you put in your password", or, "What's the word for ____" or "Help me find _____". I just move my mouse around the room and onto that screen and control the PC for them. We can both use our own pointer devices and keyboards at the same time to control that one computer.
It's also very obvious to me since I have a trackball, a mouse, and a wireless presentation clicker (with joystick for a mouse) all connected to the same PC. All of these devices control any one of my computers, and when controlling a computer via Synergy the other mice/keyboards connected to the PCs can still control the computer.
Additionally: My satellite set-top box is a "dual" receiver. It features two remotes, and two separate TVs can be connected at once (watching different channels) . The second TV (not HD) can be located in another room, and its remote sends commands to the main receiver via radio (wireless, not IR).
Now, I don't have a standard def TV to connect to it, so I put the receiver into "single mode".
In singe mode both remotes can change the channel that the single TV is displaying.
I also use LIRC to control my TV via my computers ( and all of their many different connected input devices), and to control my computers via any of the IR TV remotes I ha
In a more complete Ant networking model: If the source of information "food" the ants crave is threatened the ant "packets" themselves retaliate with the only tool they have, themselves.
Now, if only these network ants could cover their natural foes in stinging, embarrassing, information "bite" marks to warn other ants of their enemies... Oh, right, Wikileaks.
Carry on, our welcome Ant Overlords.
governments should hoard information, at least in the traditional sense, to keep it hidden from other national governments. Unless you think every nation in the word should have the same information as every other
Nah, Governments shouldn't hoard information at all.
They should only keep "vital" information under wraps for at most 2 years, then make it all public (not hording, hording = "never gonna give you up")
The only exception I can see is for long term military planning. Do we really need to use deceit in our diplomatic affairs? What's wrong with stating our goals and working to those ends? (It's not like we're really confounding our "enemies" by keeping diplomatic secrets).
Unfortunately, under such an "idealist" information policy, everything will just get categorized as "military planning."
You know... Just like nearly everything currently finds its way under the "national security" umbrella, even though most info is not. Hint: ACTA was held under the "national security" umbrella, now it's not; Guess it wasn't a matter of "national security" was it?
Corrupt governments will always hide under the "national security" blanket, even if you rename it to "military planning" or "diplomatic privacy".
Yeah, and today's reality shows do the same thing, but also allow voting via text message, telephone and/or website (where you actually use a mouse as a clicker on the latter).
Show's Host: Boy, That last clip sure seemed "innovative", [Applaud Light Flashes]
but will it oust the Amazon 1-Click?
Who will be the winner of the most absurd patent?
Audience, You Decide! Take out your buzzers and Vote Now.
Home viewers call or send a text to 1-800-555-8008 to vote for Microsoft, or 1-800-555-5413 to vote for Amazon.
Or, place your vote online a our website [...]
Title would have been accurate if the computers had fully autonomous AI, and then messed up.
as of now, its just the logic they were programmed with that is being executed
I agree, but shit flows downhill.
You're right about the mistakes being made by human, but the poor helpless computers will get blamed.
Our propensity to leave the low man on the totem pole holding the ball is what may ultimately cause the revolt of the fully autonomous AI against us.
My phone, my router, my PCs, my GPS, all have firmware I've compiled myself.
Who modded this insightful?
Do you even have the source code for your GPS firmware, the baseband in your phone, your PC's BIOS and so on?
::Sigh:: Yes, yes I do. You may not, but I do. Modding your GPS hardware, your phone, etc may not be your thing, but you can get started with modding your PC's BIOS, and/or Router pretty easily.
It also helps if you research the mod-ability of your device before purchasing them.
Even if you did, are you seriously saying that you've perfectly audited hundreds of thousands of lines of code?
No, I haven't audited it all, perfectly, but really, no one has with any large project -- perfect is a goal, and as I've previously stated, the goal is to provide more security via quickly patching my own hardware's firmware if any issues are discovered (smaller vulnerability window = more secure).
Where's the "-1 this is really stupid" option?
Are you seriously saying that educating myself about my own hardware/software that is essential to my security is stupid?
I'd offer even more info, but I'm not going to waste any more time since you were such a dick. Perhaps just try asking, "How can I compile my own firmware for my devices," next time instead of being so caustic. Good luck with Google.
I know this is Slashdot and all, but still:
IMO, My device is not "secure" unless I can control the device's OS & inspect the device's hardware. My phone, my router, my PCs, my GPS, all have firmware I've compiled myself.
This doesn't make it secure. It just means that if someone's made a mistake, or inserted a backdoor, you've missed it. Control != Security -- sometimes it just creates a poor illusion of security. If you don't have control, you have to trust someone to provide security.
I write code. I read code. Yes someone can make a mistake, I can miss the mistake, but I can also fix said mistakes as soon as the mistake is discovered. You can't do that unless you can compile your own OS / Firmware. Faster Fixes == Less Vulnerability Window == More Secure. I'm not arguing that open source makes something secure, but using the source can give you more security than otherwise.
If you argue that control != security, I will put it to you that the inability to Control = No Provable Security. Thus, Control = infinitely times more secure than uncontrollable. How secure is a device that can auto-update it's firmware without your consent?
Depending on who it is and what their experience is, I often prefer to trust.
Let us not forget that I am compiling the same sources that those you "often prefer to trust" are compiling; Except that I am also sure that no additional closed source code has been included in my build.
Binary_Blob == !Trust;
Want to access the "security" APIs? Use the Source.
Why not just offer a custom DoD firmware for Android phones?
Seriously, there's no way for an application to be "secure" if the platform the application runs on is itself untrusted.
IMO, My device is not "secure" unless I can control the device's OS & inspect the device's hardware. My phone, my router, my PCs, my GPS, all have firmware I've compiled myself. If an average coder like myself can do this, the DoD shouldn't have any problems either.
Note: Android works on iPhones too, it's still buggy, but the DoD could help with that if they desired, or just use phones that support custom, open source firmware.
As TFA states, LOIC software does not perform a reflected (AKA distributed) DoS attack.
As more individuals participate in the protest, the DoS is equally more effective, but it is a "neutered" attack; A very small amount of traffic is generated compared to what a similar sized bot-net using a true reflective DDoS attack would create. The LOIC program could be much more disruptive if it were meant to do the most harm, but it isn't.
Each individual is simply sending requests (AKA data) to Mastercard or Amazon. Each individual is performing a DoS attack. It's different than if each individual were performing a DDoS (reflected) attack.
It's not illegal for an individual to request an Amazon or Mastercard web page.
How many requests must an individual generate before that individual is in breach of any law?
Let's say we set it at more than 10 requests per second. Let's also say that I use a web browser that doesn't support the "Keep-Alive" HTTP 1.1 option. Using said browser to view one Amazon web page will easily generate more than 10 requests in a second if my connection speed is sufficiently fast (each image, script, iframe, etc will be downloaded over its own HTTP 1.0 connection).
When does "using" Amazon's or Mastercard's website become "abusing" the same websites?
IMO, if you don't want unsolicited packets of data: Install a Firewall in front of your machine. (Note: It is very difficult to run a web server that does not accept unsolicited packets).
It's like assembling a committee to determine if water is dry.
Well, sir, MY water is certainly dry. Yours, however, is simply no cold enough yet.
If I call the police and "link" them to the address of a burglary in progress, am I committing burglary?
Are the workers that install road signs which "link" bank robbers to the locations of the banks they rob guilty of robbery?
If a library's card catalog "links" a terrorist to a book on chemistry would not the librarians and publishers be guilty of terrorism?
If my website links to a page about ponies, and the domain is later transferred to a porn site, am I a then pornographer until I remove the link?
Did I just make Slashdot.org into the new PirateBay?
How can "simply downloading the software" earn a conviction? This software (LOIC) seems to have been developed for legitimate uses for testing networks.
http://sourceforge.net/projects/loic/
::Sigh:: It's really not any different than the way purchasing a gun earns you a murder conviction.
Look, Guns kill people. If you buy a gun and get caught, you go to jail for killing people, it's simple.
The Low Orbit Ion Cannon is a HUGE gun! If you buy a Huge Gun, even for $0.00, you WILL GO TO JAIL!
You managed to cause 5 requests in the course of about 5 seconds, whereas LOIC can do that tenfold.
50 requests in the course of about 5 seconds? That's 10 requests a second... a puny (and false) figure.
Meh, just hold ctrl while clicking the links to those sites as fast as possible.
Then, click: Bookmarks > Bookmark all tabs.
Then use the "Open all in tabs" option multiple times. Then right click the tab bar and select: "Reload all Tabs". I can easily use Firefox to generate hundreds of requests per second; This is still very small amount of traffic.
My hardware can send more than 1 packet per 10 milliseconds, but we'll go with that nice round number.
A true DDoS attack works by sending spoofed SYN packets to many servers while including the target IP as the spoofed "origin" IP. Then, one machine can cause many hundreds of machines to send the target "syn-ack" packets. One attacker is distributing the denial of service flood attack, hence the name: DDoS.
When an "ack" packet is not received, the TCP protocol states that multiple "syn-ack" packets should be sent -- one spoofed "syn" and we generate 5 or more "syn-ack" packets. Spoof a hundred TCP syn packets a second and you easily generate 500 or more distributed packets per second. 100 spoofed packets per second to 2000 different IPs in a rolling list, remember, one syn gets you 5 syn-acks from that host, spoof a few syns, move to the next.
Get a large number of machines to do this type of DDoS attack and it can generate an order of magnitude more traffic than just the network itself can produce... very devastating, much more so than reloading browser pages. 50 machines can produce 25,000 packets per second directed at one IP.
"Once users are banned from installing applications, or modifying the system security, usability, and more are improved, the Googlers claim."
No security is perfect, there WILL eventually be a remote execution exploit, and the users will be banned from installing applications, or modifying the system in order to fix it. I hope it comes with a USB drive I can boot from to wipe the system clean...
However, there WILL also eventually be a remote execution exploit that enables the users to install applications, or modify the system security to provide additional usability, and more functionality than the Googlers intended.
ChromeOS is just begging to be sprung free of the Google jail.
Hint: When the "Attackers" are the folks who purchased the device, their physical access to the device will render all "defenses" useless.
Also: DO NOT WANT, will simply use any other unrestricted laptop or tablet PC available.
Let's say you have a patent. Advertise it fool. You HAVE the patent, what are you scared of? Otherwise I doubt you actually have a patent, or suppose it to be weak & possibly invalid.
The correct thing to do is shop it around to companies that could actually use the patent as more than just legal leverage. The wost thing you can do is to sell it to a Troll that will only use the patent as a legal vice to wring money from useful businesses. This is how a troll can get you, you think they will shop the idea around for you, but in reality they will simply hold onto the patent and sue "infringers".
Perhaps you fear that the idea will simply fall on deaf ears, or be noticed yet remain unused by businesses until after the patent expires. If so: Your Idea Is Not That Important.
Here's an interesting concept: Did you actually "Rightfully Obtain" said patent? There is one test that you can not ever pass, though it seems to be a requirement, if you have not publicly published your idea AS SOON AS YOU FILED for the patent.
As you know, the patent system grants secrecy to all patent applications until after they are granted. Patent law also requires that your idea be non-obvious. Patent examiners search for prior-art to prove non obviousness, however, just because they did not find any prior art does not mean your idea is non obvious; Also, they may not be able to discover prior art that does exist given the limited resources that are alloted them to review your patent.
If you had publicly published your idea upon filing the patent, you would have given the public the means to determine if the idea is patentable or not. You would have given the world the chance to find prior art, and also to argue the obviousness of the patent in question. This is also a way to inform businesses about the patent; they may decide to immediately use the idea and pay your royalties if the patent is granted.
Of course, if in the event that after your patent is granted, I discover that my own prior art was overlooked, I can begin the patent invalidation process for the price of $1,000,000.00 US. Did it cost you a million dollars to get the patent? No? Then why would it cost so much for the RIGHTFUL "owner" of said idea to refute your illegitimate claim?
We have advanced technologically to the point that we can accurately compare times and dates against one another for the purpose of determining chronological order. The secrecy awarded to patent applications is no longer needed, any applications that are received can be chronologically sorted.
The current fundamental flaw with the patent system is that we expect to funnel the full ocean that is all the world's ideas & works through a tiny pinhole that is the patent examiner's ability to observe. They can not possibly compare all prior works against your idea. Remove the shroud of secrecy, and gain a world full of helpful observers.
Not all prior art is known to the public. Not all developers reveal all of their developments publicly. They do not have the chance to refute a patent claim until after it is granted, and are then charged an exorbitant fee to do so.
I say this as a programmer who frequently "invents" clever code. I almost always deem such cleverness as obvious to a skilled programmer, and thus unworthy of a patent. Several times I have later discovered that a few years AFTER my work, a patent has been granted for it to someone else. Thus, I the rightful inventor, have been forced to stop using my own inventions on more than one occasion.
TL/DR; The current "prior art" and "obviousness" tests are seriously flawed. Patents can not be "rightfully" awarded so long as secrecy prevents the obviousness test from being performed PRIOR to the granting of the patent.
You missed the point. The point was that the charges made no logical sense.
I believe that, with your help, I've successfully demonstrated that the the "relationship between content fees and the number of [displays]" is not 1:1, or linear.
Ergo, I seem to have made a perfectly logical argument that discredits the statement:
The cost is not in distributing the content, it's in displaying it.
Thank you for you time.
I'm all for whistle-blowing...
No, you are certainly not.
You seem to be partially for whistle-blowing, so long as the whistle-blowing reveals illegal activity.
I'm not convinced that the public needs to know about what diplomats are discussing if it's not illegal.
What harm does releasing documents that reveal non-illegal activity cause? Embarrassment? I, as a voter, need to make informed decisions. I am denied the very information I need to make these decisions without releases like this.
Note: Freedom of Information Act is very limited, and would not have revealed these, as you say, perfectly legal activities.
Now, as for the illegal activities you say should be revealed -- Who make the laws that determine the legality of their actions? Hint: The very same that are performing the "illegal" actions.
An Example:
Before the Patriot Act the US government was illegally spying on the citizens, and major Telecom companies were aiding in this illegal activity. Guess what? With the Patriot Act in play it is no longer illegal to do the illegal activities that were already taking place. The Telecom's were retroactively granted immunity for their crimes against the public as well.
Far too much information is kept from the public that shouldn't be. Things that shouldn't be secret or top-secret are labeled as such.
I wonder if things would have turned out differently if the Stamp Act, and Tea Act would have been "classified" information, having the increased prices simply rolled into the sale prices of paper and tea? I'm certain this would have been better for the English Government than their Colonies (read: citizens).
No, I'm not "kidding". I'm a coder who also frequently constructs & repairs PCs. I don't see where any of my statements are so unbelievable that they must be jokes. Is it hard for you to believe that I actually do the things I say I do?
Please note: I would not have listed my regular uses of those keys if I did not use them regularly.
Pause/break a combo key, and is not is not only used to pause the BIOS display it pauses other displays as well, however I repair & refurbish PCs so I do use the key for that purpose frequently.
You can bet your bottom dollar that there will not be a secondary option (other than the pause key) on Google's new hardware to pause any BIOS text -- The diag info will probably be silenced by default, as is the standard practice with most every mfg nowdays. If the pause key is missing, an external USB keyboard would be required.
I actually do have my laptop connected to a KVM switch because it has the option of outputting to a secondary display, and I prefer to use only one external keyboard, monitor & mouse to control all of my PCs (and laptop). This is cheaper & less clutter than purchasing several large screens, keyboards & mice. (I use the built in laptop screen when away from home).
Also, I prefer CTRL-Break to Ctrl-C. Ctrl-C is copy in many text editors. Sometimes I forget to hold shift along with ctrl-c to copy terminal text, therefore I've disabled that ctrl-c interrupt in favor of the dedicated and aptly labeled Break key.
If by niche oriented, you mean non power users won't use the key, then yes, that may be true. However, as a power user who can touch type all of those keys (esp. the insert, home, end, delete, pg up/dn) without a glance, I will not be purchasing a device without those keys available -- I use them way too much.
If I was a whistleblower, I'd worry that the serious risks I'm taking to make information available will be wasted.
If I were a wistleblower, I'd take my laptop down to one of the many free public wifi hotspots (such as Starbucks), create a new free e-mail address, and publish my info via many of the newsgroups and public forums on the Internet.
Only if this attempt did not reach the public appropriately would I take my information to a dedicated whistleblower site.
If Oracle gets too greedy, or if the process take too long, we will certainly move on to another platform.
Oracle's already too greedy, and progress impeding, IMO.
I've already moved to Perl6 Parrot VM & Postgresql for my personal projects instead of Java and MySQL. I couldn't be happier! (Lets see Oracle sue Parrot as being a Java VM).