Slashdot used to cost 4000$ when Taco was running it on an Alpha from under the desk in his dorm and when nobody was looking at the number of digits in your ID. That is how much one of those things used to cost in those days. IIRC that was exactly what it ran on first (surprising it did not barf that often as perl memory management on a 64 bit system in those days leaved a lot to be desired).
It definitely does not cost that now. I would guess that you are off by an order of magnitude at least.
Slashdot is a good old Web 1.0 site where users were not considered a monetiseable item. 10 years ago selling the personal information of your userbase was an anathema. Today selling your user information and extracting maximum value from them is the main and often only business goal of any site. A lot of web 2.0 outfits have no other function and no other business plan but to collect personal preferences (the more intimate the better) and sell them.
The Web 2.0 Marketing has won and the idealism of 1.0 has lost.
Considering the morals in some of the more "brave and advanced" marketing ideas of 2.0, I really do not want to know what 3.0 will be unless they permit the personal ownership of tactical nuclear devices at the same time.
And how many independent hackers have access to SCADA? SCADA systems are not something that ends up just on any hacker's desk just like that.
One thing this incident shows is that SCADA security is inexistent when facing a modern "Internet Style" attack. It has all: buffer overruns, bad coding, idiotic design decision and total lack of security awareness in the admins who set up the networks. However, because it looks secure from the perspective of Joe Average Utility IT manager it is deemed secure.
After this incident this "secure" statement will be questioned quite a lot in most countries.
Exactly. What's next? A game where you can play the role of the crematorium guard at Auschwitz and Treblinka?
No thanks, some portions of history have to be taught without no entertainment involved. Anything else aside, there has to be at least some respect for all those who died.
There has not been a single case when someone has successfully sued Microsoft for "something going wrong". I have not heard of a single case of it settling either.
That is not the reason businesses like Microsoft. Microsoft is extremely good at catering to Joe Average Middle Manager needs. It may be a resource hog, it may be unstable, it may be utterly non-scalable, but it is what the middle management needs and wants. From there on, it does not matter what the top brass want or what the grunts want. There is no way to turn a company around to want something different from powerpoint, microsoft word and most importantly excel and project.
Probably not. Using a fuel with built-in oxidiser is probably outside the design limits of the turbine. It is also pointless as the turbine has excess oxidiser through natural "air breathing".
It has been steadily getting better since 2.4 and most importantly getting faster, not slower (as is the case with MS Office). I would not even try to run 2007 on a netbook while OO runs perfectly fine on anything down to around 400MHz.
The problem with it is that import/export filters still suck bricks through a straw sidewise.
If you want to keep your docs in its original format and produce PDFs and distribute finished docs as PDFs it has long been on par with MSFT office. If you are using low spec machines it has long exceeded it.
I have some doubts about you being able to read russian.
The original article (which is mostly pics) does not refer to any carnival rides. However it is in Moskovskij Komsomolec which is pretty much the Russian equivalent of the UK Sun or the German Build. Classic tabloid stuff.
As far as seeing a rusting hulk of a spaceship on ax Soviet Block scrapyard. Well really - nothing new there. Quite a few other examples come to mind. For example if you drive around Sofia on the ring road there is a fighter jet in a reasonably good condition (much better than the Buran on the picture) parked in one of the laybuys. It is nowdays prime location on the ring road for "truck stop and servicing" by practicioners of the oldest human profession. I can think of at least a couple of examples where there are serviceable tanks, missile launchers and other gear located in similar locations. As the saying goes - welcome to the wild east...
Frankly, I do not quite see how does the data protection act authorise you to give the data in question. With fee or without. If the customer has not signed consent to have their data transferred to a third party (this is usually an opt-out option at sign-up) the ISP is not allowed to do so without a court order or without asking the customer's consent. This means that any evidence obtained this way is likely to be tainted.
UK rules on tainted evidence are not as strong as USA, but even in the UK bringing in the court room evidence that is obtained in violation of the law generally ends up with the case being thrown out.
Fonts had a couple of exploits. I am too lazy to trawl my BUGTRAQ archive at the moment, but I can recall at least a few.
In any case, noscript helps, but it is not enough. You can still get nailed by a payload on a site which is in the whitelist. In addition to that, most sites nowdays make such heavy use of Javascript and Flash that you end up tweaking settings for half an hour before you can browse a site.
I used to run a small computer repair and write-to-order software shop for a living while in the Uni with two more people. One of them had that idea around 1994. In those days it was just to store the code in the video RAM pages which are not directly accessible to a scanner and keep a small polymorphic backstrap routine in main memory.
What goes around comes around. Looks like this is using a similar approach. Even if you compute some stuff on the card you still need a bootstrap within the main system to use it and talk back to the "mothership".
I still remember fondly 1/2KW incadescent quartz bulb reflector heaters we used to use during my childhood and student years. I would not call them terribly inefficient. They had about half of the efficiency of a modern convector or the _SAME_ efficiency as a modern fan heater. The fan heaters are still selling and they are noisy, ugly and they as you say "warm up the ceiling"
Try to take a picture of a male common damselfly or even a dragonfly in different light conditions. Light is not just reflection, it is also refraction (especially on the more "interesting" photographs). That cannot be modelled realistically based on color data from light falling from the wrong direction. You need knowledge of the actual material to model that and even then it is least likely to be realistic.
There are many examples - the colour of the wings is different depending on the angle at which the light falls on it; same for any other insect; same for rocks, crystals, birds (try taking pictures of a common kingfisher or a sunbird from different angles); open water; in fact nearly anything worth taking a picture I can think of. Even human face if done properly. Try taking a portrait in a standard "halo" shot (works best on pretty blonds:-). Try that with flash and/or additional supporting lights and try taking a "plain" shot and try to get the same effect with photoshop afterwards. You will see what I mean - if you do not have the lighting from the right angle in the first place there is no way you can simulate that "gold shimmer" look from a l'Oreal commercial after that.
In photography light is everything. It is what makes the 10000$ difference between a work of art and POS produced by a point-n-shoot. If the light was not there in the first place and _at_ the right angle the necessary colour data will not be there to record.
This is probably for the domestic market in Japan.
There is no "girl who does your hair" left there. Japan's living standard, life expectancy and birth rate make the "girl who does your hair" an extinct species. As a result Sony, Panasonic and the like keep demonstrating robots and augmentations which do these jobs.
In the UK income tax, social security, etc are all taken at source (so is most of EU). In order for money to enter a tax evasion channel it has to come from outside normal payroll. If it is outside normal payroll (let's say investment) there is plenty of ways to tax-avoid which is not a crime. You can register a company which "owns" all of your income sources which are outside payroll (shares, etc) and tax deduce to the point where you pay very little or nothing.
In order for money to be tax evaded in the EU (not tax avoided) it has to be both outside payroll and too "dirty" to allow one to put it into a company or another accounting vehicle. That does not sound like "hard earned" money to me. In fact tracing the source of the money may prove a very interesting exsercise. That happened in the German case. Quite a few VP and board level people found on the Lichtenstein list ended up with fraud and corruption proceedings against them.
Just ignore him. The almighty algorithm is not flagging him as a "risk to leave" yet: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124269038041932531.html Not joking, here is a quote from Google VP of HR: "[Our human resources algorithm helps Google] get inside people's heads even before they know they might leave," In any case, algorithms work on data and the level of spying on your own employees to have the data to back the above claim frankly scares the living world out of me. Do no evil? Some other time...
I do not think the defendant should have been allowed this for completely different reasons.
By refusing to pay they are essentially implying that the claimant has committed insurance fraud and filed a fraudulent claim. That is a felony in nearly any jurisdiction. So they should put their money where their mouth is on this one and sue her accordingly or at least countersue her immediately after she filed a lawsuit.
Then they can subpoena access to her facebook account and a whole lot of other stuff. That is the way this should be done instead of granting the defendant access to material which they should not have to.
No, It is a classic case of conditional probability:
Claims that are litigated fail 90%. This is conditional on not settling and licensing before it goes to court.
Just ask any licensing professional - if you end up litigating it is considered a failure. This means that you have not managed to present a sufficiently good case to the "customer" which shows that it you have good enough IPR and it is worth licensing at the rate you are offering. It is generally more cost effective for any _REAL_ patents than dealing with court for both sides.
So having 90% failure for cases that have actually reached court is not surprising. I am surprised it is not 99%.
In any case, this number speaks very little regarding the general validity of patents as a whole. You need stats on licensed and not litigated ones and these are very hard to come by.
Slashdot Mirror
Slashdot used to cost 4000$ when Taco was running it on an Alpha from under the desk in his dorm and when nobody was looking at the number of digits in your ID. That is how much one of those things used to cost in those days. IIRC that was exactly what it ran on first (surprising it did not barf that often as perl memory management on a 64 bit system in those days leaved a lot to be desired).
It definitely does not cost that now. I would guess that you are off by an order of magnitude at least.
More likely Slashdot does not undersand Web2.0.
Slashdot is a good old Web 1.0 site where users were not considered a monetiseable item. 10 years ago selling the personal information of your userbase was an anathema. Today selling your user information and extracting maximum value from them is the main and often only business goal of any site. A lot of web 2.0 outfits have no other function and no other business plan but to collect personal preferences (the more intimate the better) and sell them.
The Web 2.0 Marketing has won and the idealism of 1.0 has lost.
Considering the morals in some of the more "brave and advanced" marketing ideas of 2.0, I really do not want to know what 3.0 will be unless they permit the personal ownership of tactical nuclear devices at the same time.
Exactly.
The company in posession of one of the best lobbying machines is bitchin' about lobby influence. Gimme a break would ya...
Show me that kid hacker which has access to a SCADA system and can pinch a valid digital certificate.
I have a special deal for you if you can show said kid and the kid. There are quite a few places where I can submit your resume for a nice commission.
And how many independent hackers have access to SCADA? SCADA systems are not something that ends up just on any hacker's desk just like that.
One thing this incident shows is that SCADA security is inexistent when facing a modern "Internet Style" attack. It has all: buffer overruns, bad coding, idiotic design decision and total lack of security awareness in the admins who set up the networks. However, because it looks secure from the perspective of Joe Average Utility IT manager it is deemed secure.
After this incident this "secure" statement will be questioned quite a lot in most countries.
Exactly. What's next? A game where you can play the role of the crematorium guard at Auschwitz and Treblinka?
No thanks, some portions of history have to be taught without no entertainment involved. Anything else aside, there has to be at least some respect for all those who died.
IIRC Motorola _IS_ making WinMo devices. Just not mass market phones available through the retail channel. It is all various vertical market stuff.
Exactly.
There has not been a single case when someone has successfully sued Microsoft for "something going wrong". I have not heard of a single case of it settling either.
That is not the reason businesses like Microsoft. Microsoft is extremely good at catering to Joe Average Middle Manager needs. It may be a resource hog, it may be unstable, it may be utterly non-scalable, but it is what the middle management needs and wants. From there on, it does not matter what the top brass want or what the grunts want. There is no way to turn a company around to want something different from powerpoint, microsoft word and most importantly excel and project.
Probably not. Using a fuel with built-in oxidiser is probably outside the design limits of the turbine. It is also pointless as the turbine has excess oxidiser through natural "air breathing".
It has been steadily getting better since 2.4 and most importantly getting faster, not slower (as is the case with MS Office). I would not even try to run 2007 on a netbook while OO runs perfectly fine on anything down to around 400MHz.
The problem with it is that import/export filters still suck bricks through a straw sidewise.
If you want to keep your docs in its original format and produce PDFs and distribute finished docs as PDFs it has long been on par with MSFT office. If you are using low spec machines it has long exceeded it.
I have some doubts about you being able to read russian.
The original article (which is mostly pics) does not refer to any carnival rides. However it is in Moskovskij Komsomolec which is pretty much the Russian equivalent of the UK Sun or the German Build. Classic tabloid stuff.
As far as seeing a rusting hulk of a spaceship on ax Soviet Block scrapyard. Well really - nothing new there. Quite a few other examples come to mind. For example if you drive around Sofia on the ring road there is a fighter jet in a reasonably good condition (much better than the Buran on the picture) parked in one of the laybuys. It is nowdays prime location on the ring road for "truck stop and servicing" by practicioners of the oldest human profession. I can think of at least a couple of examples where there are serviceable tanks, missile launchers and other gear located in similar locations. As the saying goes - welcome to the wild east...
Probably with the same kill ratio as SDI as well.
The law in question is the data protection act.
Frankly, I do not quite see how does the data protection act authorise you to give the data in question. With fee or without. If the customer has not signed consent to have their data transferred to a third party (this is usually an opt-out option at sign-up) the ISP is not allowed to do so without a court order or without asking the customer's consent. This means that any evidence obtained this way is likely to be tainted.
UK rules on tainted evidence are not as strong as USA, but even in the UK bringing in the court room evidence that is obtained in violation of the law generally ends up with the case being thrown out.
Fonts had a couple of exploits. I am too lazy to trawl my BUGTRAQ archive at the moment, but I can recall at least a few.
In any case, noscript helps, but it is not enough. You can still get nailed by a payload on a site which is in the whitelist. In addition to that, most sites nowdays make such heavy use of Javascript and Flash that you end up tweaking settings for half an hour before you can browse a site.
That is still better than them grokking us. At least according to Michael Valentine Smith and he is probably the ultimate authority on that.
I used to run a small computer repair and write-to-order software shop for a living while in the Uni with two more people. One of them had that idea around 1994. In those days it was just to store the code in the video RAM pages which are not directly accessible to a scanner and keep a small polymorphic backstrap routine in main memory.
What goes around comes around. Looks like this is using a similar approach. Even if you compute some stuff on the card you still need a bootstrap within the main system to use it and talk back to the "mothership".
No, he is the second. The first was GWB aka Dubia.
Really?
I still remember fondly 1/2KW incadescent quartz bulb reflector heaters we used to use during my childhood and student years. I would not call them terribly inefficient. They had about half of the efficiency of a modern convector or the _SAME_ efficiency as a modern fan heater. The fan heaters are still selling and they are noisy, ugly and they as you say "warm up the ceiling"
Try to take a picture of a male common damselfly or even a dragonfly in different light conditions. Light is not just reflection, it is also refraction (especially on the more "interesting" photographs). That cannot be modelled realistically based on color data from light falling from the wrong direction. You need knowledge of the actual material to model that and even then it is least likely to be realistic.
There are many examples - the colour of the wings is different depending on the angle at which the light falls on it; same for any other insect; same for rocks, crystals, birds (try taking pictures of a common kingfisher or a sunbird from different angles); open water; in fact nearly anything worth taking a picture I can think of. Even human face if done properly. Try taking a portrait in a standard "halo" shot (works best on pretty blonds :-). Try that with flash and/or additional supporting lights and try taking a "plain" shot and try to get the same effect with photoshop afterwards. You will see what I mean - if you do not have the lighting from the right angle in the first place there is no way you can simulate that "gold shimmer" look from a l'Oreal commercial after that.
In photography light is everything. It is what makes the 10000$ difference between a work of art and POS produced by a point-n-shoot. If the light was not there in the first place and _at_ the right angle the necessary colour data will not be there to record.
This is probably for the domestic market in Japan.
There is no "girl who does your hair" left there. Japan's living standard, life expectancy and birth rate make the "girl who does your hair" an extinct species. As a result Sony, Panasonic and the like keep demonstrating robots and augmentations which do these jobs.
In the UK income tax, social security, etc are all taken at source (so is most of EU). In order for money to enter a tax evasion channel it has to come from outside normal payroll. If it is outside normal payroll (let's say investment) there is plenty of ways to tax-avoid which is not a crime. You can register a company which "owns" all of your income sources which are outside payroll (shares, etc) and tax deduce to the point where you pay very little or nothing.
In order for money to be tax evaded in the EU (not tax avoided) it has to be both outside payroll and too "dirty" to allow one to put it into a company or another accounting vehicle. That does not sound like "hard earned" money to me. In fact tracing the source of the money may prove a very interesting exsercise. That happened in the German case. Quite a few VP and board level people found on the Lichtenstein list ended up with fraud and corruption proceedings against them.
Just ignore him. The almighty algorithm is not flagging him as a "risk to leave" yet: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124269038041932531.html
Not joking, here is a quote from Google VP of HR: "[Our human resources algorithm helps Google] get inside people's heads even before they know they might leave,"
In any case, algorithms work on data and the level of spying on your own employees to have the data to back the above claim frankly scares the living world out of me. Do no evil? Some other time...
I do not think the defendant should have been allowed this for completely different reasons.
By refusing to pay they are essentially implying that the claimant has committed insurance fraud and filed a fraudulent claim. That is a felony in nearly any jurisdiction. So they should put their money where their mouth is on this one and sue her accordingly or at least countersue her immediately after she filed a lawsuit.
Then they can subpoena access to her facebook account and a whole lot of other stuff. That is the way this should be done instead of granting the defendant access to material which they should not have to.
No, It is a classic case of conditional probability:
Claims that are litigated fail 90%. This is conditional on not settling and licensing before it goes to court.
Just ask any licensing professional - if you end up litigating it is considered a failure. This means that you have not managed to present a sufficiently good case to the "customer" which shows that it you have good enough IPR and it is worth licensing at the rate you are offering. It is generally more cost effective for any _REAL_ patents than dealing with court for both sides.
So having 90% failure for cases that have actually reached court is not surprising. I am surprised it is not 99%.
In any case, this number speaks very little regarding the general validity of patents as a whole. You need stats on licensed and not litigated ones and these are very hard to come by.
If the meter is modern enough it is likely to have mBus over IR or some other IR based interface for automated reading.
As far as the webcam, that may also work. It will not be very precise though.