If foo works on one system, and foo is adaptable, then foo + bar might work on another system.
We can make jokes about the Windows OS and giving vital machines an active presence on the Internet all day long (and it seems we have), but that would be missing the point. What we have here is a virus which has been proven to work, and which like many viruses, can be altered to infect other systems. People who say these organizations should run OSX or Linux, who's to say this virus can't be recoded to work on those systems (yes, I realize time required). People who say steer clear of the Internet, direct contact is always a potential vector for infection.
At the risk of having to put on my tin foil hat, I'd say the whole Iran infection is a proof of concept. The virus works, and it's possible to get into proper positioning to release it. All this talk about government regulation isn't going to change that fact either, if anything, the bureaucracy might cripple response times. It falls on security professionals to figure out how to head this virus off. Identify it, reverse engineer it, kill it, and figure out a way to detect new variations before they can cause too much damage. But if all of us are too busy shooting for +5 Funny/Insightful by bashing Microsoft, well, we're certainly not getting anything done, are we?
I'm not going to say knocking on the door of everyone you know is a good thing when you're a month or two overdue on a bill. But if you're six months overdue, you know, maybe a family member or two should know about it. Yes, I know, breach of privacy, but hear me out. There's a lot of people out there who don't want to tell anyone about their financial difficulties, even the people closest to them. They don't want to be a burden, or they're too embarassed, or they have too much pride to admit there's a problem. If a debt agency contacts your brother or something, well, now someone knows. He can at least try to tactfully approach the problem and offer assistance.
While I'm at it, I'd ask that debt collectors find some tact themselves and stop being judgemental pricks, but I imagine that might be asking a little too much.
Well, I'm certainly not getting paid to put up with these shenanigans.
To be a little more serious though, ISPs have it in their head that they can get more money if they come up with a scheme to double-bill people or corporate entities. They're looking to governments to allow it, and it looks like someone high up in the UK wants to support it. Once in effect, they can make even more money that they can continue to not spend on improvements.
Arguably (because no one seems to pin a definition down), making a disparaging remark about a race or ethnic group constitutes racism. So, implying Myanmar is a technologically inept state is a disparaging remark against an ethnic group, and therefore racism.
The amount she owes has changed on every decision. The first time the judge asked for a retrial, the second time Jammie asked for a retrial, and now they'll probably appeal the decision.
If this is indeed the endgame, it's not just coming up with absurd decisions. It's also getting the much smaller amounts in the middle. The situation looks even more ridiculous when the jury and the judges come up with polar opposite amounts for damages. A yo-yo of decisions on the same case does not make sense in the record books.
Being a joke doesn't preclude people from reacting negatively to it. I mean, haven't you told a racist joke before? You just read one, after all.
That said, I'd like to personally apologize to the people of Myanmar. I know you're trying really hard for that third computer. You're almost there, just a bit more!
Yes, it says Burma for the article title. Then directly after it, on the first line, it says it is officially the "Republic of the Union of Myanmar." Not to mention Myanmar redirects to the article.
Now, obviously a relationship that is already long distance has its own challenges involved, but I'm curious how the data would apply to it. The latter two breakup events are probably due to breaks which would separate two people for a week or more. What if you're already in separate places? Does it happen as often, or is the occurance noticably diminished?
But that would still expose the isolated VMs and whatever data might be on them, correct? I mean, if the program on the VM is collecting data, which seems to be the case, then even with an isolated uplink, that data is still available.
Well, I see them with an obvious problem in this case. You'd definitely want to gather information on this in a closed environment. Unfortunately, unless you can manage to create a botnet of your own, you're going to have to connect to the Internet eventually to try to harvest data, especially practical data. Bang. You're done.
Of course, I'm no security expert, but that's just the way I see it.
Well, in a way, yes. You see, the timing is key in something like this. We haven't heard of other botnets doing this in the past. A solid reason for this is you lose the element of surprise. Once you recognize something can occur, you tend to plan for its occurance better. Because this reverse honeypot hasn't really been done before, the Zeus authors managed to gather a quantity of data from researchers that they can use to further improve their botnet, not to mention rival botnets. Had it been done before, the trap would have been much less successful, if it wasn't just at the top of the list of things to check for and circumvent.
It's also because when you start talking about a "kill-switch" or similar function, the average consumer gets antsy. People want to have control over goods they purchase and what is done with them. They don't like to think of other people making the decision for them, whether or not the decision is made out of benevolence.
Why not just make it an option? Not an option you'd just randomly stumble across and disable, mind you. I mean it's in a very specific place in the configuration, and when you toggle it, it pops up a disclaimer explaining what you are going to do and asking you if you are sure you want to accept the risk. Once you agree, anything that happens to your phone is on you.
Note, I'm not talking about a "Jailbreak" option, because that'll never happen. I'm talking about a "Disable Killswitch" option.
Am I the only person who envisions some mad scientist in a far off laboratory cackling with glee as he throws the switch to remove a program from your phone, all while lightning flashes and thunder crashes in the background?
Look at it a different way, without flat statistics. Convoys which posess fuel are attractive targets for two reasons:
1) Fuel is valuable to the military because they need it to realistically operate.
2) Fuel makes a nice explosion and fireball, causing collateral damage.
So, they've shown that by using this tech, they need less fuel supplies to properly operate a base of operations. That means convoys can be sent out without fuel trucks, or with less fuel trucks. This decreases the value of each individual convoy, and also will lower the amount of collateral damage. Ergo, lives are saved.
Actually, if you typed in Dell and got nothing but complaints, that in itself would be a bias against Dell. You'd be discluding the people out there who do like their Dell products.
Now then, specifically searching for a bias can be useful for research, especially in the realm of argumentative writing. Even when you're representing one platform, you should acknowledge the existance of other ideologies and attempt to counter their claims. What better way to do this than to specifically look for the bias?
Of course, the algorithm and how the results are tagged might be a problem, but I can definitely see a use for it. Unfortunately, the more likely conclusion is people would use it to simply feed themselves more of their own bias.
This seems like a really complex solution to a simple problem. It seems to me the premise for this is it's hard to type on a touch screen with your fingers. If only we could decrease the area of contact with the phone. Maybe a short, thin, plastic rod you could use to tap the screen...
IE9 might not be gaining market share, but thank the diety of your choosing that IE6 is losing market share. Microsoft should probably throw an office party for the occasion.
Whose fault, whose fault?
It's San Andreas' Fault!
'Cause Mister Richter
Can't predict her
Kicking our asphalt!
To be a bit more serious though, it probably didn't even come up. At the time, I imagine Microsoft was thinking, "We want our browser to do this." So they did it, even if it broke the standards. Of course, a few years down the line that mentality became a problem.
I actually mentioned this just a couple threads up, but I might be below your reading threshold. I agree with you on this one, and that's exactly how I used the Wall to Wall tool before. I would remember I wanted to look at something a friend posted to me in the past, but I didn't want to have to scour the timeline for it. Since I knew who gave it to me, I could just Wall to Wall and there it is! Facebook's interface is optimized for "present" browsing, and it has very little support for "past" browsing. Honestly, just a search box that shows up for you on your own profile would be amazing.
Slashdot Mirror
If foo works on one system, and foo is adaptable, then foo + bar might work on another system.
We can make jokes about the Windows OS and giving vital machines an active presence on the Internet all day long (and it seems we have), but that would be missing the point. What we have here is a virus which has been proven to work, and which like many viruses, can be altered to infect other systems. People who say these organizations should run OSX or Linux, who's to say this virus can't be recoded to work on those systems (yes, I realize time required). People who say steer clear of the Internet, direct contact is always a potential vector for infection.
At the risk of having to put on my tin foil hat, I'd say the whole Iran infection is a proof of concept. The virus works, and it's possible to get into proper positioning to release it. All this talk about government regulation isn't going to change that fact either, if anything, the bureaucracy might cripple response times. It falls on security professionals to figure out how to head this virus off. Identify it, reverse engineer it, kill it, and figure out a way to detect new variations before they can cause too much damage. But if all of us are too busy shooting for +5 Funny/Insightful by bashing Microsoft, well, we're certainly not getting anything done, are we?
I'm not going to say knocking on the door of everyone you know is a good thing when you're a month or two overdue on a bill. But if you're six months overdue, you know, maybe a family member or two should know about it. Yes, I know, breach of privacy, but hear me out. There's a lot of people out there who don't want to tell anyone about their financial difficulties, even the people closest to them. They don't want to be a burden, or they're too embarassed, or they have too much pride to admit there's a problem. If a debt agency contacts your brother or something, well, now someone knows. He can at least try to tactfully approach the problem and offer assistance.
While I'm at it, I'd ask that debt collectors find some tact themselves and stop being judgemental pricks, but I imagine that might be asking a little too much.
Well, I'm certainly not getting paid to put up with these shenanigans.
To be a little more serious though, ISPs have it in their head that they can get more money if they come up with a scheme to double-bill people or corporate entities. They're looking to governments to allow it, and it looks like someone high up in the UK wants to support it. Once in effect, they can make even more money that they can continue to not spend on improvements.
Arguably (because no one seems to pin a definition down), making a disparaging remark about a race or ethnic group constitutes racism. So, implying Myanmar is a technologically inept state is a disparaging remark against an ethnic group, and therefore racism.
The amount she owes has changed on every decision. The first time the judge asked for a retrial, the second time Jammie asked for a retrial, and now they'll probably appeal the decision.
If this is indeed the endgame, it's not just coming up with absurd decisions. It's also getting the much smaller amounts in the middle. The situation looks even more ridiculous when the jury and the judges come up with polar opposite amounts for damages. A yo-yo of decisions on the same case does not make sense in the record books.
Being a joke doesn't preclude people from reacting negatively to it. I mean, haven't you told a racist joke before? You just read one, after all.
That said, I'd like to personally apologize to the people of Myanmar. I know you're trying really hard for that third computer. You're almost there, just a bit more!
Yes, it says Burma for the article title. Then directly after it, on the first line, it says it is officially the "Republic of the Union of Myanmar." Not to mention Myanmar redirects to the article.
Now, obviously a relationship that is already long distance has its own challenges involved, but I'm curious how the data would apply to it. The latter two breakup events are probably due to breaks which would separate two people for a week or more. What if you're already in separate places? Does it happen as often, or is the occurance noticably diminished?
There's a second girl. Unfortunately, she's already taken. Sorry bro, my bad.
But that would still expose the isolated VMs and whatever data might be on them, correct? I mean, if the program on the VM is collecting data, which seems to be the case, then even with an isolated uplink, that data is still available.
Well, I see them with an obvious problem in this case. You'd definitely want to gather information on this in a closed environment. Unfortunately, unless you can manage to create a botnet of your own, you're going to have to connect to the Internet eventually to try to harvest data, especially practical data. Bang. You're done.
Of course, I'm no security expert, but that's just the way I see it.
Did anyone check the dumpster out back? That's where I'd hide the body, I mean, hide a CEO from the law.
Well, in a way, yes. You see, the timing is key in something like this. We haven't heard of other botnets doing this in the past. A solid reason for this is you lose the element of surprise. Once you recognize something can occur, you tend to plan for its occurance better. Because this reverse honeypot hasn't really been done before, the Zeus authors managed to gather a quantity of data from researchers that they can use to further improve their botnet, not to mention rival botnets. Had it been done before, the trap would have been much less successful, if it wasn't just at the top of the list of things to check for and circumvent.
It's also because when you start talking about a "kill-switch" or similar function, the average consumer gets antsy. People want to have control over goods they purchase and what is done with them. They don't like to think of other people making the decision for them, whether or not the decision is made out of benevolence.
Why not just make it an option? Not an option you'd just randomly stumble across and disable, mind you. I mean it's in a very specific place in the configuration, and when you toggle it, it pops up a disclaimer explaining what you are going to do and asking you if you are sure you want to accept the risk. Once you agree, anything that happens to your phone is on you.
Note, I'm not talking about a "Jailbreak" option, because that'll never happen. I'm talking about a "Disable Killswitch" option.
Am I the only person who envisions some mad scientist in a far off laboratory cackling with glee as he throws the switch to remove a program from your phone, all while lightning flashes and thunder crashes in the background?
In fact it would even get faster if you threw it.
*rimshot*
Look at it a different way, without flat statistics. Convoys which posess fuel are attractive targets for two reasons:
1) Fuel is valuable to the military because they need it to realistically operate.
2) Fuel makes a nice explosion and fireball, causing collateral damage.
So, they've shown that by using this tech, they need less fuel supplies to properly operate a base of operations. That means convoys can be sent out without fuel trucks, or with less fuel trucks. This decreases the value of each individual convoy, and also will lower the amount of collateral damage. Ergo, lives are saved.
Actually, if you typed in Dell and got nothing but complaints, that in itself would be a bias against Dell. You'd be discluding the people out there who do like their Dell products.
Now then, specifically searching for a bias can be useful for research, especially in the realm of argumentative writing. Even when you're representing one platform, you should acknowledge the existance of other ideologies and attempt to counter their claims. What better way to do this than to specifically look for the bias?
Of course, the algorithm and how the results are tagged might be a problem, but I can definitely see a use for it. Unfortunately, the more likely conclusion is people would use it to simply feed themselves more of their own bias.
This seems like a really complex solution to a simple problem. It seems to me the premise for this is it's hard to type on a touch screen with your fingers. If only we could decrease the area of contact with the phone. Maybe a short, thin, plastic rod you could use to tap the screen...
IE9 might not be gaining market share, but thank the diety of your choosing that IE6 is losing market share. Microsoft should probably throw an office party for the occasion.
Can I do searches slanted for voltage bias, bias tape, or Bias the brother of Melampus?
Whose fault, whose fault?
It's San Andreas' Fault!
'Cause Mister Richter
Can't predict her
Kicking our asphalt!
To be a bit more serious though, it probably didn't even come up. At the time, I imagine Microsoft was thinking, "We want our browser to do this." So they did it, even if it broke the standards. Of course, a few years down the line that mentality became a problem.
I actually mentioned this just a couple threads up, but I might be below your reading threshold. I agree with you on this one, and that's exactly how I used the Wall to Wall tool before. I would remember I wanted to look at something a friend posted to me in the past, but I didn't want to have to scour the timeline for it. Since I knew who gave it to me, I could just Wall to Wall and there it is! Facebook's interface is optimized for "present" browsing, and it has very little support for "past" browsing. Honestly, just a search box that shows up for you on your own profile would be amazing.