There were actually two main incidents. 1) the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes 2) the lying and cover up of 1) by the british authorities (which to me is a bigger danger to everyone else in the UK).
While you can try to claim 1) to be an isolated incident, I don't think you can consider 2) to be one since there is no assurance that such lying and cover ups will not happen again, and so that makes incidents like 1) more likely.
There was no repentance, there was no real coming clean. The police continued trying to justify/defend what they did.
It's just like the CxOs of a company getting caught doing the wrong thing, then issuing a statement "Oh, we made a mistake, we're sorry, BUT actually blahblahblah", then later on your find out that blahblahblah was a lie, then they say "oh we're sorry, but actually blahblahblah2". Where blahblahblah2 is also a lie. So on and so forth.
If you do not know the truth about something, you don't make false statements publicly for nothing.
That sure does not bring to mind "isolated incident".
I do have a higher opinion of the UK police than other police forces around the world that I'm aware of, but that's not saying much nowadays. If they continue as is, they'll just be like the cops elsewhere i.e. lesser/necessary _evils_.
To those who are about to defend the other police forces (there are good cops etc etc). Don't waste time trying to convince me, go find and jail the bad cops. Clean your hands or it'll be hard to use those hands to clean other stuff.
Lastly, if your organization's procedure is to pass 22 year old interns the company's "family jewels" to keep overnight and one day they get stolen, it's not the intern's fault at all.
The management is to be blamed for this. That's pretty much a stupid procedure.
The intern isn't being paid enough for such a responsibility, nor should the intern be given such a responsibility in the first place.
Some LCDs have dynamic backlights. So if they are displaying something dark they dim the backlight down.
So when comparing the contrast of LCD displays find out whether contrast ratio are measured the same way. e.g. whether it's dynamic or static.
Whether it's the ratio of the brightest white vs the darkest black AT THE SAME time on about the same part of the screen (some can dim different parts of the screen to try to suit the dark bits of the picture), or it's the ratio of the brightest white now vs darkest black 1 minute ago - no adjustments of brightness levels. or even the ratio of the brightest white the monitor can display, vs the darkest black the monitor can display when on, with adjustments allowed (really cheating:) ).
I would think a nonbright monochromatic colour (say dark/medium green) on black would be better than grey on black. Then you don't get chromatic aberration even if you have crappy eye wear/lenses.
BUT, nowadays lots of things are multicoloured anyway and the text is often next to pictures as the article you linked mentions. Having pictures in a mostly black screen might be more "jarring".
Photos help a lot. Background story so that you know more about the person or even the animal who died help too.
Most people won't think about the millions of pigs being slaughtered to produce food, but they'd care about some little pig if it's highlighted in the media.
2) You have only just so much "bandwidth" for sadness.
One baby dies, you feel sad. One thousand babies die, you don't feel 1000 times sadder.
Lots of people die every day who shouldn't die. But fact is, it's not very helpful to go about constantly crying over that.
Be sad sure. Try and help fix it if possible = even better.
3) Everyone has favourites, we have to have favourites, being finite in this finite world. Seems even God has favourites.
I hear in some farms there are animals that are pets, and animals that are going to be food/"produce". But it's not like Daisy the cow was really different from cow #15534.
Oh yeah, one more thing. If you visit the badsite's webpage, the badsite can also cause you to fetch pages from other sites the badsite wants to "fake". It's not just mybank.com, the webpage could point to any site of the attacker's choice (e.g. www.google.com), it doesn't even have to be visible in the browser.
Yes, with BIND, if an internal user visits the attacker's site there is a higher chance of BIND's cache getting polluted than with a more secure dns server.
This is because BIND tends to use the same udp port for its dns queries when it starts up. e.g. if it start up using 1055, it'll keep using 1055.
So a malicious site that got a DNS request for badsite.com would know: 1) you are about to try to get to mybank.com. 2) the port BIND is using for queries. 3) the transaction number(s) (query id) BIND is using for badsite.com (and other domains under the attacker's control), my guess is the report is about a weakness in BIND where knowing one or more transaction numbers can give you a better idea of knowing what the next transaction number BIND would use for mybank.com.
So the site could send fake replies to that port pretending to be from mybank's DNS servers, with a good chance of one or more of the packets succeeding in being considered valid (matching query id etc) and thus causing BIND to incorrectly believe that mybank.com's IP address is actually the attacker's chosen server's address..
More secure DNS servers such as djbdns use a different port for each request (about 60000 possible different ports). djbdns may or may not use more secure transaction ids, I'm not sure - I haven't checked nor am I aware of any study on them.
Anyway, just using different ports makes things harder since the malicious site in addition to spoofing the right reply (guessing the right transaction/query id etc) it will also have to guess the correct port to send to (out of 60000+ possible ports). You need 60000 times more bandwidth, so someone might just notice, or it might just not work due to dropped packets.
That said, it's nothing really new. AFAIK, it's common opinion in security circles that BIND does the wrong thing, and ISC tends to make insecure or even crappy software.
Uh there is some democracy here in Malaysia, it's not great but at least we don't have Diebolded elections. The opposition party and other observers actually get to watch the votes being counted, sure if people tried they can figure out who I voted. I don't care.
In fact, I'll come out and say: I voted for the incumbent government in the last election. Yes, I actually did.
And you know why? Coz the last time round the idiot opposition parties all teamed up with the crazy "Islamic" party (you know the sort who enforce separate "guys" and "girls" supermarket queues, and would have publicly said in effect that they'll be happy to lead us down the glorious path towards Talibanism).
So given a choice between bad and worse, I picked bad. And guess what, a lot of voters seemed to agree - the incumbent won with a greater margin than before.
Even the USA had better choices than that - after all they actually have the option of something other than Republican/Democrats/Taliban.
And recently one of the opposition party websites has posted doctored images (to try to link some guy with a high profile case), and they just give lame excuses to justify it.
Many of the existing people in power are definitely corrupt or incompetent, but if the best that opposition party can do is post doctored images instead of actually challenging that corruption/incompetence, it's best not to vote them in.
BUT given the excesses, corruption, stupidity and incompetence of the incumbent government, I'd definitely want to vote for an opposition candidate this time, at least just to try to deny the existing gov power to rewrite the Constitution like their personal diary. HOWEVER that changes if that idiot opposition party teams up with the Islamic party again or does something as bad or worse...
"However with world-wide population growth continuing further improvements will be needed."
But GM doesn't solve that problem at all. At best it just postpones it (how long do you think it can postpone it for?), at worst it makes things worse (creates additional problems, farmers lose their farms/livelihoods to Monsanto etc). And what's likely? Go look at the powers backing GM and think[1].
I think education, emancipation of women, reduction of corruption and the judicious application of basic technology (e.g. condoms, sewage systems, piped water, roads) and sound economics will go a long way in dealing with the "problem" of population growth and starving/famine.
The advantage of education etc is you also get benefits in many many other areas.
In so many developed countries the population growth rate is low or even negative, and this is without a harsh "China-style" program.
There really is no need for GM at all.
[1] I can't see why it's not obvious to all of you. Take the drug industry for instance: only Bill & Melinda Gates and a few others are trying to solve the malaria problem and other "poor people" problems. The rest are busy trying to make lots of money from viagra, "slightly improved and patentable versions of old drugs" etc.
As it is, given the status quo, GM will be used for the benefit of rich people.
You and others can keep saying that GM will be used to ensure the poor will be fed, but really who are you kidding?
His safety record isn't very good as it is. He has crashed his cars many more times than I have;). Plus he's rolled over at least one person (ok just the foot).
AFAIK, Michael Schumacher could drive his F1 car and win races while chatting about random stuff with the pit crew (he's been known to do F1 test drives in twilight and still only have his lap times slower by a second).
So, personally I think there should be an extra license grade for people who can drive safely while talking on the phone etc. After all there are different licenses for different sorts of vehicles, so just have licenses for "driving passenger car while using phone of choice" and a more general "able to drive passenger car while using phone of choice and also standard phone".
The tests shouldn't be easy of course - question and answer, comprehension, recall, take phone out of pocket etc. I'd probably fail unless I practiced a lot. But brains get better with practice and training - so it should be possible for a fair proportion to drive safely while using their phones.
Then after 5 years or so, we do a study to see whether those with the licenses are actually doing worse or better than those without, and whether this extra license thing is actually a good idea in practice and should be continued/discontinued.
I'm currently a programmer, and I'd say 7 years is a good figure, but even 5 years is fine with me. Then Microsoft and all software companies would have the incentive to actually make their new products better than their old ones, rather than adding crap.
If you're a programmer and you _haven't_ written anything new in 7 years to get more money AND you still need the extra income, then I think you should be working in a different line.
Whereas even if you only write one or two great things, if you're lucky you could make a lot of money within 7 years and retire. Google's IPO was 6 years after it was incorporated (8 years after initial beginnings). Paul Graham sold Viaweb off to Yahoo after 3 years.
So, you don't need a 50 year copyright to be set for life if you're one of those "rock stars" of programming.
Nowadays given distribution is so cheap, you should be able to make your money pretty quickly. If your stuff isn't as good or as desirable, well why should it get _decades_ of protection? If people would rather wait 7 years than pay you, you're doing something wrong.
Years ago on one April Fool's day, I got a list of ad sites (from the usual/etc/hosts files out there), then got the internal DNS server to resolve them to a server that served up the company logo instead (for all possible url paths).
FWIW, seemed only one person noticed that the forbes page they loaded somehow had the company logos everywhere:). Nope I didn't get fired or even reprimanded - plus even better - I was saving company bandwidth (remember this was years ago)... Nobody complained about the lack of ads from ad.doubleclick.net and gang.
I toyed with the idea of substituting ads with reminders (meeting at 2pm, or "you have been on slashdot for 2 hours!") and other more useful information.
Lastly, I don't think their naive hashing thing checks if you are altering the images - the content may remain unchanged, but linked to contents may change (they aren't checked from what I see), so it doesn't work for my scenario where different ads are substituted for the unaltered URL.
That said, I'm still curious on: 1) How many ISPs would bother modifying traffic from those 7 destinations they are testing. 2) What the various laws around the world say about this. 3) What those laws say about "sponsored internet access" where an ISP gives a cheaper package/plan where the ads are substituted with the ISPs advertisers with the risk of some corrupted info. 4) What those laws say about "streamlined internet access" where an ISP provides a package/plan where ads and other crap are removed (or modified) for their customer.
You need to be inside, or need to bypass the firewall or other controls.
He was talking about a split DNS server configuration.
In my experience this is where you have: 1) External DNS server(s) 2) Internal DNS server(s)
Configuration A (where the internal DNS server is allowed to do DNS queries directly) An External DNS server provides authoritative replies for the domains it is Authoritative for to externals. An External DNS server does NO recursive queries for anyone. An Internal DNS server only does recursive queries for all internal clients. An Internal DNS server does those queries directly. An Internal DNS server may provide authoritative replies to internals for the internal-only domains it is authoritative for.
Configuration B (where the Internal server has no direct access to the outside world - all requests have to be "proxied/forwarded" via an external DNS server) An External DNS server provides authoritative replies for its own names to externals. An External DNS server only does recursive queries for the Internal DNS server. An Internal DNS server does recursive queries for all internal clients. An Internal DNS server forwards the queries to an External DNS server (if paranoid, it may be one just for that purpose that does not even answer external queries). An Internal DNS server may provide authoritative replies to internals for the internal-only domains it is authoritative for.
As you can see, you can't really pollute the External DNS server from outside, especially in Configuration A (where the external server doesn't really care about making queries) or a Paranoid Config B (where it's a different external server involved). And you should not be able to even reach the Internal DNS server from outside.
Note: both the internal and external DNS servers may be authoritative for say www.thecompany.com (and thecompany.com), but resolve those to different IP addresses. So outsiders might get one site. Whereas insiders might see something else. And intranet.thecompany.com and other internal names might only exist on the internal DNS server, and not exist on the external DNS server. I believe this is good practice.
Note #2: In a fairly secure network config, NONE of the clients get direct access out, not even for DNS queries - they all have to use the DNS server or even a proxy. So it will be a lot rarer to have outsiders complain about your malware infested clients "attacking them" even if someone inadvertently brings one in.
Certainly. I never said they should always be doing that. After all they might rather be cheap labourers working on computers all day.
BUT whatever it is, none of what you say shows that GM stuff is mandatory.
I've provided evidence that: 1) Currently enough food is being produced 2) This is even with an immense amount of wastage. 3) It is unlikely that GM tech will solve the "starving masses problem" in practice.
You can easily find evidence that the starving masses around the world starve not because there's not enough food being produced, but because of corrupt/evil people. And given that a fair number of corrupt/evil people appear to be controlling the pro-GM orgs, I can certainly be sure that the starving masses will continue to starve even if the pro-GM people have their way.
I'm actually fine with responsible use of GM tech, but given the untruths the pro-GM lobby uses and the sort of companies backing it (protect our intellectual property and monopolies at all costs), if anyone thinks GM tech will be used to "feed the world", they're either stupid or ignorant. It'll be used to feed the rich.
And so, given it is really unnecessary at the moment, I suggest that we would be much better off waiting till later - when either the "people" problems are fixed _enough_ (there'll always be people problems), or we are actually more desperate.
Meanwhile there are plenty of other technologies/fields/problems to work on.
Like how to get enough decent drinkable water to people (even in not so corrupt places, this can still be a problem).
"with our growing population (world wide) we desperately need more and better genetically modified crops."
Evidence please?
So far the figures indicate that there's more than enough food being produced (some estimates indicate 17%, but you can see here: http://www.fao.org/docrep/x0262e/x0262e05.htm and not everyone needs 2700 calories ), the main problem is corrupt governments and distribution.
There's still plenty of arable land (and ocean) to grow food on if we need to expand.
Organic farms also produce plenty of food in 3rd world countries - they're just not all of one sort of food and labour intensive (but labour is cheap in those places).
Plus the fishing industry has this EXTREMELY wasteful "bycatch" thing: http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/003/T4890E/T4890E03.htm You have a shrimp trawler throwing away > 80% of their catch (which usually die soon) because it isn't shrimp, then you have the crab ones throwing away > 70% because it isn't crab, and then the tuna boats throw away stuff that isn't tuna.
That's TERRIBLE. Heck even if I don't finish all the food on my plate, I sure don't regularly throw away 60-80% of it. Fix that and you'll see there's PLENTY of food to go around.
The corporations like GM stuff because they can patent stuff and get monopolies. You do NOT want to give the likes of Monsanto even more control over stuff.
There is no real need for GM stuff at the moment, and the "popular direction" (led by companies that IMO are evil) sure doesn't look like it's going to be good for the world.
BUT, the attacker needs to be _inside_ his organization in order to talk to the caching server (the inside dns server).
This sort of thing has been done for ages even with BIND.
With djbdns you actually have NO CHOICE and MUST do it that way - it's split into multiple programs e.g. tinydns = authoritative DNS (tell world about names), dnscache = caching server (to make recursive DNS requests for clients and cache them).
Anyway, the ISC has never had a good track record with software (dns, sendmail, dhcpd). Trouble is some alternatives are even worse:).
"this is a non critical item like a datacenter. it's not important to life and safety just some stockholders portfolios."
I kind of agree. BUT we should keep in mind the large number of interdependencies in modern societies.
While there should be "reserves" (food, savings, cash, credit, body fat) to survive a day or two of outage, a lot of things might start unravelling given a sustained outage (e.g. weeks). If companies go bust they can't/won't pay their employees or other companies, who then may do the same and so on, and then critical stuff like "basic necessities" start getting affected.
That's why stuff like "deadly flu" are scary. Lots of specialists nowadays. If the specialists get taken out (hey they may hang about with each other regularly), then there may be nobody left who knows how to fix/run the stuff.
I don't think the Wikipedia is that great for that sort of thing: 1) The admins delete a lot of stuff fairly arbitrarily and sometimes even for false reasons (to paraphrase: it only takes a very small community to delete stuff). 2) There does not appear to be an easily accessible history of deleted stuff.
And what are the odds that the wikipedia will last longer than paper from the 1900s?
Slashdot Mirror
There were actually two main incidents.
1) the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes
2) the lying and cover up of 1) by the british authorities (which to me is a bigger danger to everyone else in the UK).
While you can try to claim 1) to be an isolated incident, I don't think you can consider 2) to be one since there is no assurance that such lying and cover ups will not happen again, and so that makes incidents like 1) more likely.
There was no repentance, there was no real coming clean. The police continued trying to justify/defend what they did.
It's just like the CxOs of a company getting caught doing the wrong thing, then issuing a statement "Oh, we made a mistake, we're sorry, BUT actually blahblahblah", then later on your find out that blahblahblah was a lie, then they say "oh we're sorry, but actually blahblahblah2". Where blahblahblah2 is also a lie. So on and so forth.
If you do not know the truth about something, you don't make false statements publicly for nothing.
That sure does not bring to mind "isolated incident".
I do have a higher opinion of the UK police than other police forces around the world that I'm aware of, but that's not saying much nowadays. If they continue as is, they'll just be like the cops elsewhere i.e. lesser/necessary _evils_.
To those who are about to defend the other police forces (there are good cops etc etc). Don't waste time trying to convince me, go find and jail the bad cops. Clean your hands or it'll be hard to use those hands to clean other stuff.
But what if it isn't actually a war and just a "military action" ;)?
Heh, I tried smith, 1234 and got:
:)
Your assigned activation PIN (personal identity number) is 7655616
smith, 1235 = nada
smith, 1236 = 8966764
Then, I tried:
%, 1236 = 3738028
smit%, 1234 = 7655616
smit, 1234 = 7655616
smoth, 1234 = nada
sm_th, 1234 = 7655616
Lastly, if your organization's procedure is to pass 22 year old interns the company's "family jewels" to keep overnight and one day they get stolen, it's not the intern's fault at all.
The management is to be blamed for this. That's pretty much a stupid procedure.
The intern isn't being paid enough for such a responsibility, nor should the intern be given such a responsibility in the first place.
Some LCDs have dynamic backlights. So if they are displaying something dark they dim the backlight down.
:) ).
So when comparing the contrast of LCD displays find out whether contrast ratio are measured the same way.
e.g. whether it's dynamic or static.
Whether it's the ratio of the brightest white vs the darkest black AT THE SAME time on about the same part of the screen (some can dim different parts of the screen to try to suit the dark bits of the picture),
or it's the ratio of the brightest white now vs darkest black 1 minute ago - no adjustments of brightness levels.
or even the ratio of the brightest white the monitor can display, vs the darkest black the monitor can display when on, with adjustments allowed (really cheating
I would think a nonbright monochromatic colour (say dark/medium green) on black would be better than grey on black. Then you don't get chromatic aberration even if you have crappy eye wear/lenses.
BUT, nowadays lots of things are multicoloured anyway and the text is often next to pictures as the article you linked mentions. Having pictures in a mostly black screen might be more "jarring".
Why? Because:
1) It's highlighted for special attention.
Photos help a lot. Background story so that you know more about the person or even the animal who died help too.
Most people won't think about the millions of pigs being slaughtered to produce food, but they'd care about some little pig if it's highlighted in the media.
2) You have only just so much "bandwidth" for sadness.
One baby dies, you feel sad. One thousand babies die, you don't feel 1000 times sadder.
Lots of people die every day who shouldn't die. But fact is, it's not very helpful to go about constantly crying over that.
Be sad sure. Try and help fix it if possible = even better.
3) Everyone has favourites, we have to have favourites, being finite in this finite world. Seems even God has favourites.
I hear in some farms there are animals that are pets, and animals that are going to be food/"produce". But it's not like Daisy the cow was really different from cow #15534.
Oh yeah, one more thing. If you visit the badsite's webpage, the badsite can also cause you to fetch pages from other sites the badsite wants to "fake". It's not just mybank.com, the webpage could point to any site of the attacker's choice (e.g. www.google.com), it doesn't even have to be visible in the browser.
Yes, with BIND, if an internal user visits the attacker's site there is a higher chance of BIND's cache getting polluted than with a more secure dns server.
This is because BIND tends to use the same udp port for its dns queries when it starts up. e.g. if it start up using 1055, it'll keep using 1055.
So a malicious site that got a DNS request for badsite.com would know:
1) you are about to try to get to mybank.com.
2) the port BIND is using for queries.
3) the transaction number(s) (query id) BIND is using for badsite.com (and other domains under the attacker's control), my guess is the report is about a weakness in BIND where knowing one or more transaction numbers can give you a better idea of knowing what the next transaction number BIND would use for mybank.com.
So the site could send fake replies to that port pretending to be from mybank's DNS servers, with a good chance of one or more of the packets succeeding in being considered valid (matching query id etc) and thus causing BIND to incorrectly believe that mybank.com's IP address is actually the attacker's chosen server's address..
More secure DNS servers such as djbdns use a different port for each request (about 60000 possible different ports). djbdns may or may not use more secure transaction ids, I'm not sure - I haven't checked nor am I aware of any study on them.
Anyway, just using different ports makes things harder since the malicious site in addition to spoofing the right reply (guessing the right transaction/query id etc) it will also have to guess the correct port to send to (out of 60000+ possible ports). You need 60000 times more bandwidth, so someone might just notice, or it might just not work due to dropped packets.
That said, it's nothing really new. AFAIK, it's common opinion in security circles that BIND does the wrong thing, and ISC tends to make insecure or even crappy software.
Uh there is some democracy here in Malaysia, it's not great but at least we don't have Diebolded elections. The opposition party and other observers actually get to watch the votes being counted, sure if people tried they can figure out who I voted. I don't care.
In fact, I'll come out and say: I voted for the incumbent government in the last election. Yes, I actually did.
And you know why? Coz the last time round the idiot opposition parties all teamed up with the crazy "Islamic" party (you know the sort who enforce separate "guys" and "girls" supermarket queues, and would have publicly said in effect that they'll be happy to lead us down the glorious path towards Talibanism).
So given a choice between bad and worse, I picked bad. And guess what, a lot of voters seemed to agree - the incumbent won with a greater margin than before.
Even the USA had better choices than that - after all they actually have the option of something other than Republican/Democrats/Taliban.
And recently one of the opposition party websites has posted doctored images (to try to link some guy with a high profile case), and they just give lame excuses to justify it.
Many of the existing people in power are definitely corrupt or incompetent, but if the best that opposition party can do is post doctored images instead of actually challenging that corruption/incompetence, it's best not to vote them in.
BUT given the excesses, corruption, stupidity and incompetence of the incumbent government, I'd definitely want to vote for an opposition candidate this time, at least just to try to deny the existing gov power to rewrite the Constitution like their personal diary. HOWEVER that changes if that idiot opposition party teams up with the Islamic party again or does something as bad or worse...
"However with world-wide population growth continuing further improvements will be needed."
But GM doesn't solve that problem at all. At best it just postpones it (how long do you think it can postpone it for?), at worst it makes things worse (creates additional problems, farmers lose their farms/livelihoods to Monsanto etc). And what's likely? Go look at the powers backing GM and think[1].
I think education, emancipation of women, reduction of corruption and the judicious application of basic technology (e.g. condoms, sewage systems, piped water, roads) and sound economics will go a long way in dealing with the "problem" of population growth and starving/famine.
The advantage of education etc is you also get benefits in many many other areas.
In so many developed countries the population growth rate is low or even negative, and this is without a harsh "China-style" program.
There really is no need for GM at all.
[1] I can't see why it's not obvious to all of you. Take the drug industry for instance: only Bill & Melinda Gates and a few others are trying to solve the malaria problem and other "poor people" problems. The rest are busy trying to make lots of money from viagra, "slightly improved and patentable versions of old drugs" etc.
As it is, given the status quo, GM will be used for the benefit of rich people.
You and others can keep saying that GM will be used to ensure the poor will be fed, but really who are you kidding?
Don't see the point.
;). Plus he's rolled over at least one person (ok just the foot).
His safety record isn't very good as it is. He has crashed his cars many more times than I have
AFAIK, Michael Schumacher could drive his F1 car and win races while chatting about random stuff with the pit crew (he's been known to do F1 test drives in twilight and still only have his lap times slower by a second).
So, personally I think there should be an extra license grade for people who can drive safely while talking on the phone etc. After all there are different licenses for different sorts of vehicles, so just have licenses for "driving passenger car while using phone of choice" and a more general "able to drive passenger car while using phone of choice and also standard phone".
The tests shouldn't be easy of course - question and answer, comprehension, recall, take phone out of pocket etc. I'd probably fail unless I practiced a lot. But brains get better with practice and training - so it should be possible for a fair proportion to drive safely while using their phones.
Then after 5 years or so, we do a study to see whether those with the licenses are actually doing worse or better than those without, and whether this extra license thing is actually a good idea in practice and should be continued/discontinued.
I'm currently a programmer, and I'd say 7 years is a good figure, but even 5 years is fine with me. Then Microsoft and all software companies would have the incentive to actually make their new products better than their old ones, rather than adding crap.
If you're a programmer and you _haven't_ written anything new in 7 years to get more money AND you still need the extra income, then I think you should be working in a different line.
Whereas even if you only write one or two great things, if you're lucky you could make a lot of money within 7 years and retire. Google's IPO was 6 years after it was incorporated (8 years after initial beginnings). Paul Graham sold Viaweb off to Yahoo after 3 years.
So, you don't need a 50 year copyright to be set for life if you're one of those "rock stars" of programming.
Nowadays given distribution is so cheap, you should be able to make your money pretty quickly. If your stuff isn't as good or as desirable, well why should it get _decades_ of protection? If people would rather wait 7 years than pay you, you're doing something wrong.
Mod parent up.
Years ago on one April Fool's day, I got a list of ad sites (from the usual /etc/hosts files out there), then got the internal DNS server to resolve them to a server that served up the company logo instead (for all possible url paths).
:). Nope I didn't get fired or even reprimanded - plus even better - I was saving company bandwidth (remember this was years ago)... Nobody complained about the lack of ads from ad.doubleclick.net and gang.
FWIW, seemed only one person noticed that the forbes page they loaded somehow had the company logos everywhere
I toyed with the idea of substituting ads with reminders (meeting at 2pm, or "you have been on slashdot for 2 hours!") and other more useful information.
Lastly, I don't think their naive hashing thing checks if you are altering the images - the content may remain unchanged, but linked to contents may change (they aren't checked from what I see), so it doesn't work for my scenario where different ads are substituted for the unaltered URL.
That said, I'm still curious on:
1) How many ISPs would bother modifying traffic from those 7 destinations they are testing.
2) What the various laws around the world say about this.
3) What those laws say about "sponsored internet access" where an ISP gives a cheaper package/plan where the ads are substituted with the ISPs advertisers with the risk of some corrupted info.
4) What those laws say about "streamlined internet access" where an ISP provides a package/plan where ads and other crap are removed (or modified) for their customer.
You need to be inside, or need to bypass the firewall or other controls.
He was talking about a split DNS server configuration.
In my experience this is where you have:
1) External DNS server(s)
2) Internal DNS server(s)
Configuration A
(where the internal DNS server is allowed to do DNS queries directly)
An External DNS server provides authoritative replies for the domains it is Authoritative for to externals.
An External DNS server does NO recursive queries for anyone.
An Internal DNS server only does recursive queries for all internal clients.
An Internal DNS server does those queries directly.
An Internal DNS server may provide authoritative replies to internals for the internal-only domains it is authoritative for.
Configuration B
(where the Internal server has no direct access to the outside world - all requests have to be "proxied/forwarded" via an external DNS server)
An External DNS server provides authoritative replies for its own names to externals.
An External DNS server only does recursive queries for the Internal DNS server.
An Internal DNS server does recursive queries for all internal clients.
An Internal DNS server forwards the queries to an External DNS server (if paranoid, it may be one just for that purpose that does not even answer external queries).
An Internal DNS server may provide authoritative replies to internals for the internal-only domains it is authoritative for.
As you can see, you can't really pollute the External DNS server from outside, especially in Configuration A (where the external server doesn't really care about making queries) or a Paranoid Config B (where it's a different external server involved). And you should not be able to even reach the Internal DNS server from outside.
Note: both the internal and external DNS servers may be authoritative for say www.thecompany.com (and thecompany.com), but resolve those to different IP addresses. So outsiders might get one site. Whereas insiders might see something else. And intranet.thecompany.com and other internal names might only exist on the internal DNS server, and not exist on the external DNS server. I believe this is good practice.
Note #2: In a fairly secure network config, NONE of the clients get direct access out, not even for DNS queries - they all have to use the DNS server or even a proxy. So it will be a lot rarer to have outsiders complain about your malware infested clients "attacking them" even if someone inadvertently brings one in.
Certainly. I never said they should always be doing that. After all they might rather be cheap labourers working on computers all day.
BUT whatever it is, none of what you say shows that GM stuff is mandatory.
I've provided evidence that:
1) Currently enough food is being produced
2) This is even with an immense amount of wastage.
3) It is unlikely that GM tech will solve the "starving masses problem" in practice.
You can easily find evidence that the starving masses around the world starve not because there's not enough food being produced, but because of corrupt/evil people. And given that a fair number of corrupt/evil people appear to be controlling the pro-GM orgs, I can certainly be sure that the starving masses will continue to starve even if the pro-GM people have their way.
I'm actually fine with responsible use of GM tech, but given the untruths the pro-GM lobby uses and the sort of companies backing it (protect our intellectual property and monopolies at all costs), if anyone thinks GM tech will be used to "feed the world", they're either stupid or ignorant. It'll be used to feed the rich.
And so, given it is really unnecessary at the moment, I suggest that we would be much better off waiting till later - when either the "people" problems are fixed _enough_ (there'll always be people problems), or we are actually more desperate.
Meanwhile there are plenty of other technologies/fields/problems to work on.
Like how to get enough decent drinkable water to people (even in not so corrupt places, this can still be a problem).
"with our growing population (world wide) we desperately need more and better genetically modified crops."
Evidence please?
So far the figures indicate that there's more than enough food being produced (some estimates indicate 17%, but you can see here: http://www.fao.org/docrep/x0262e/x0262e05.htm and not everyone needs 2700 calories ), the main problem is corrupt governments and distribution.
There's still plenty of arable land (and ocean) to grow food on if we need to expand.
Organic farms also produce plenty of food in 3rd world countries - they're just not all of one sort of food and labour intensive (but labour is cheap in those places).
Plus the fishing industry has this EXTREMELY wasteful "bycatch" thing: http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/003/T4890E/T4890E03.htm
You have a shrimp trawler throwing away > 80% of their catch (which usually die soon) because it isn't shrimp, then you have the crab ones throwing away > 70% because it isn't crab, and then the tuna boats throw away stuff that isn't tuna.
That's TERRIBLE. Heck even if I don't finish all the food on my plate, I sure don't regularly throw away 60-80% of it. Fix that and you'll see there's PLENTY of food to go around.
The corporations like GM stuff because they can patent stuff and get monopolies. You do NOT want to give the likes of Monsanto even more control over stuff.
There is no real need for GM stuff at the moment, and the "popular direction" (led by companies that IMO are evil) sure doesn't look like it's going to be good for the world.
Yeah you need proper counter-insurgency measures like the one in Malaya against the communists.
BUT, the attacker needs to be _inside_ his organization in order to talk to the caching server (the inside dns server).
:).
This sort of thing has been done for ages even with BIND.
With djbdns you actually have NO CHOICE and MUST do it that way - it's split into multiple programs e.g. tinydns = authoritative DNS (tell world about names), dnscache = caching server (to make recursive DNS requests for clients and cache them).
Anyway, the ISC has never had a good track record with software (dns, sendmail, dhcpd). Trouble is some alternatives are even worse
Wasn't sun.com down? Hope Sun wasn't paying too much for rack space ;).
Or Sun's version of Lights Out Management involves even the power LEDs being out...
"this is a non critical item like a datacenter. it's not important to life and safety just some stockholders portfolios."
I kind of agree. BUT we should keep in mind the large number of interdependencies in modern societies.
While there should be "reserves" (food, savings, cash, credit, body fat) to survive a day or two of outage, a lot of things might start unravelling given a sustained outage (e.g. weeks). If companies go bust they can't/won't pay their employees or other companies, who then may do the same and so on, and then critical stuff like "basic necessities" start getting affected.
That's why stuff like "deadly flu" are scary. Lots of specialists nowadays. If the specialists get taken out (hey they may hang about with each other regularly), then there may be nobody left who knows how to fix/run the stuff.
Inflation is a way for those allowed to print money (or IOUs) to "tax" those who aren't allowed (or don't).
I classify games as games :).
I don't think the Wikipedia is that great for that sort of thing:
1) The admins delete a lot of stuff fairly arbitrarily and sometimes even for false reasons (to paraphrase: it only takes a very small community to delete stuff).
2) There does not appear to be an easily accessible history of deleted stuff.
And what are the odds that the wikipedia will last longer than paper from the 1900s?