Private trackers cost money, they get it by ads, subscriptions, or voluntary donations. Hence the two-pronged attack -- go after the ad networks to vet sites, and go after the payment processors to vet sites, and you've blocked all three sources.
Until the sites all take donations in bitcoins... Citizens think! Think!
Does it really make a difference if he plants a bug, listens in on the conversation and then transcribes it and he planting a computer? The computer at no point did any "decisions"; it's an algorithm, that was devised by a human programmer.
Guess what even if the HTTPS would not be proxied, IT has access to your machine. Your work machine should not be trusted for anything except work. The least they can do is key logger & screen grabber...
Oh, riiight. It is feel safe security. Let me show you this product I have here. This snake oil can be applied to any computing device. It makes the device totally safe from any intrusion. And for 19.99$ a month I will send you a bottle of this scientifically proven miracle product every month.
Ok kill me if you like. I really do not endorse CP in any form. But sending JPEG or AVI files around does not do any real harm. Cut the balls off the dude who actually took the pictures; do whatever you want.
But there is a good case for strong encryption within legal bounds. Why do we have to hand over all our civil liberties just because someone says Terrorism and Pedophiles?!
The police should do real police work, like infiltrate the organisations, instead of relying on stupid criminals and technological gizmos. I can still use strong stenography and encryption on my open e-mail connection, if I feel like it.
Totally true for a acute fire situation. But they are in the middle of an evacuation, I don't know about the time frame, but there is time for reasonable action to mitigate damage. But I must agree with most posters that actual loss of hardware should not be a priority. But getting the backup tapes and the HDD of any significant Exec should in order here.
RIIIGHT... You know that in most cases that this FORTRAN code runs for days on clusters composed of tens, if not thousands of nodes? You know that they try to shave each little bit of performance out of it and that is the reason why they use FORTRAN, instead of the nicer C. (Yes, it might not be 100% true that FORTRAN is faster.) And then you want to interpret exactly this code... You can argue as much as you like about languages and semantic... but unless an efficient executable falls out at the end, it is not of much use. All scientists I knew where either using special domain applications or knew how to program in more languages than FORTRAN.
Using a latency value for you connection is kind of nonsense, since it makes a big difference if I connect to a server in my country or on the other side of the world. (That is why CDNs even exist.) Especially since your ISP can only influence their end and maybe with with peering partners the operate.
But honestly, I think a basic rating model could be devised, similar like energy efficiency. Something with grades from A-F, based on how much latency they introduce.
I think the safety measures in the 90s where about the point where the cost/effort was balanced. One of the things that went wrong during 9/11 was that they assumed, like any other hijackings before that they would land the plane and demand something. If you add all the real security they added to the plane, like the reinforced cockpit door, you have a mix should strike the right balance. TSA is actually only there for people to feel safe...
Killing an individual would be better for society than letting an individual kill bunches of individuals.
Actually you got it backwards. We are currently seeing more problems (deaths) from TSA than terrorists. The reason why TSA came into being is so "few" are not killed by terrorist and to achieve this the many need to be molested a bit. The security tradeoff used to be biased to the other side where a few deaths by terrorists was an accepted risk. They implemented the basic things to reduce that risk but we are past the point where further gains are only achieved with a significant cost.
I have been reading the comments here and I can agree that research into geoengineering should be a deterrent to political support for global worming efforts. But I think the line of reasoning is that politicians like to take short cuts, so instead of doing the right thing, they trow a few bucks to the people doing the geoengineering. They claim of having done something to alleviate the problem, but they are not around when the geoengineering project pans out...
Wipe out is a relative term. Even the most sever epidemic will have a survival rate of 5-10%. The reason is that pathogens that kill off their host to fast have a strong evolutionary deficit once the population density drops below a certain level. Sure if you reduce the world population 0.5 Billion, it's still devastating.
Depends... The UK are not too far from that. They actually had way more pat downs than the US in the 90s. Security at Frankfurt is quite tight too, but I think the mentality of the screeners is different. When you have Security forces in the US they are very aggressive; they are actually trained like that. In all other countries I know (UK, Germany, France, Netherlands) they treat you nice and ask you polity to do something. In the US if you don't immediately comply they either raise their voice or draw gun... For example in Germany they polity ask you a second time, you might have overheard. Security in the US is not a nice thing to go though...
Slashdot Mirror
Private trackers cost money, they get it by ads, subscriptions, or voluntary donations. Hence the two-pronged attack -- go after the ad networks to vet sites, and go after the payment processors to vet sites, and you've blocked all three sources.
Until the sites all take donations in bitcoins... Citizens think! Think!
Does it really make a difference if he plants a bug, listens in on the conversation and then transcribes it and he planting a computer? The computer at no point did any "decisions"; it's an algorithm, that was devised by a human programmer.
Wait, about that number scheme. Are odd or even numbers the stable release?
Guess what even if the HTTPS would not be proxied, IT has access to your machine. Your work machine should not be trusted for anything except work. The least they can do is key logger & screen grabber...
Oh, riiight. It is feel safe security. Let me show you this product I have here. This snake oil can be applied to any computing device. It makes the device totally safe from any intrusion. And for 19.99$ a month I will send you a bottle of this scientifically proven miracle product every month.
Ok kill me if you like. I really do not endorse CP in any form. But sending JPEG or AVI files around does not do any real harm. Cut the balls off the dude who actually took the pictures; do whatever you want.
But there is a good case for strong encryption within legal bounds. Why do we have to hand over all our civil liberties just because someone says Terrorism and Pedophiles?!
The police should do real police work, like infiltrate the organisations, instead of relying on stupid criminals and technological gizmos. I can still use strong stenography and encryption on my open e-mail connection, if I feel like it.
Bzzzzzzt... Why do I smell burnt plastic. Man I think something was no dry yet.
Totally true for a acute fire situation. But they are in the middle of an evacuation, I don't know about the time frame, but there is time for reasonable action to mitigate damage. But I must agree with most posters that actual loss of hardware should not be a priority. But getting the backup tapes and the HDD of any significant Exec should in order here.
Although it might not be covered by the given policy, my advice would be let it burn down and buy new hardware. But apparently that is the case.
except the censoring proxy server...
Totally what he said and your stomach is totally not acidic...
Fun fact: you stomach secretes hydrochloric acid that has a pH of around 1. You will not eat anything that is that acidic.
return statement?
RIIIGHT... You know that in most cases that this FORTRAN code runs for days on clusters composed of tens, if not thousands of nodes? You know that they try to shave each little bit of performance out of it and that is the reason why they use FORTRAN, instead of the nicer C. (Yes, it might not be 100% true that FORTRAN is faster.) And then you want to interpret exactly this code... You can argue as much as you like about languages and semantic... but unless an efficient executable falls out at the end, it is not of much use. All scientists I knew where either using special domain applications or knew how to program in more languages than FORTRAN.
I worked with mathematicians... doing numeric simulation... I still have nightmares about their code a decade later.
And I thought that Fortran 70 was still dominating in the scientific community...
Using a latency value for you connection is kind of nonsense, since it makes a big difference if I connect to a server in my country or on the other side of the world. (That is why CDNs even exist.) Especially since your ISP can only influence their end and maybe with with peering partners the operate.
But honestly, I think a basic rating model could be devised, similar like energy efficiency. Something with grades from A-F, based on how much latency they introduce.
I think the safety measures in the 90s where about the point where the cost/effort was balanced. One of the things that went wrong during 9/11 was that they assumed, like any other hijackings before that they would land the plane and demand something. If you add all the real security they added to the plane, like the reinforced cockpit door, you have a mix should strike the right balance. TSA is actually only there for people to feel safe...
Killing an individual would be better for society than letting an individual kill bunches of individuals.
Actually you got it backwards. We are currently seeing more problems (deaths) from TSA than terrorists. The reason why TSA came into being is so "few" are not killed by terrorist and to achieve this the many need to be molested a bit. The security tradeoff used to be biased to the other side where a few deaths by terrorists was an accepted risk. They implemented the basic things to reduce that risk but we are past the point where further gains are only achieved with a significant cost.
Like reading THIS site...
"In my humble opinion, in the nuclear world, the true enemy is war itself."
I have been reading the comments here and I can agree that research into geoengineering should be a deterrent to political support for global worming efforts. But I think the line of reasoning is that politicians like to take short cuts, so instead of doing the right thing, they trow a few bucks to the people doing the geoengineering. They claim of having done something to alleviate the problem, but they are not around when the geoengineering project pans out...
Kinetic Bombardment?
Wipe out is a relative term. Even the most sever epidemic will have a survival rate of 5-10%. The reason is that pathogens that kill off their host to fast have a strong evolutionary deficit once the population density drops below a certain level. Sure if you reduce the world population 0.5 Billion, it's still devastating.
Depends... The UK are not too far from that. They actually had way more pat downs than the US in the 90s. Security at Frankfurt is quite tight too, but I think the mentality of the screeners is different. When you have Security forces in the US they are very aggressive; they are actually trained like that. In all other countries I know (UK, Germany, France, Netherlands) they treat you nice and ask you polity to do something. In the US if you don't immediately comply they either raise their voice or draw gun... For example in Germany they polity ask you a second time, you might have overheard. Security in the US is not a nice thing to go though...
Well yes, marketing said that they needed a way to show off the non natural material effects...