It may give an explanation why there is so much malware, but it doesn't help you.
I wasn't aware this was an issue of "help". I think it's more like when you look at every other case where a given piece of software or technology was used by the overwhelming majority (above 67%), and there was the potential for profit if it could be exploited, the majority of exploits targeted that piece of technology.
It's basic economics; Malware isn't any different than game development. Why is everyone going for the PS4 instead of the XBone One? Economics. Why did the PS2 curb stomp all the others? Economics. Developers go with wherever the most sales are going to be, and it doesn't matter whether you're making a legitimate or illegitimate product.
That's my point here. Android has the majority marketshare. And it has almost the exact same amount of malware. Android is the average case. Outliers have more flexibility -- the XBone maybe easier to develop for. Macintosh might be easier to use. Outliers need niche markets -- so they build on whatever happens their way.
To say that this universal statistical truth bestows upon IOS some intrinsic extra security is stupid. It's not intrinsically better... it's accidentally better. And if IOS had the majority marketshare, then it would be Android hawking ease of use, or better security, or whatever. This isn't a case of the design being better (or worse)... it's a case of the design not being popular. That's the only variable here that's really meaningful.
I can provide case study after case study showing that as the popularity of the platform reaches a critical mass, the number of exploits jumps. In fact, the rate of exploits being generated on a platform almost always follows the number of applications being developed over the same time frame.
You're trying to argue that technology is the reason for this difference, when the reality is it is economics. Just like everyone else here. The iPhone isn't special in any way; It follows the same trends, the same economic forces, etc., as everything else in IT. Sorry.
Holy cow, your fanboy hat must be cutting off the flow of blood to your brain. Explain again why an OS with 4x the market share garners 100x the exploits?
You're reading the statistics wrong. But whatever, you get +1, I get -1, because you're not a fanboy who made a personal attack, and apparently my quoting statistics was too inflammatory. Ah well.. yet more proof slashdot has gone to the dogs. Let's burn some more karma in a fruitless endeavor to explain to the fanboys statistics 101... because I'm bored and it's my lunch hour.
The dominant operating system with the largest marketshare has almost the same amount of malware being produced for it relative to its marketshare. This is precisely what you'd expect. It'd be like saying "A car that is driven by 80% of people also gets in 80% of accidents."
It does not have "100x" the exploits. It has "1x" the exploits. It has exactly the number of exploits you'd expect.
iPhone sales ALWAYS drop this time of year because
... irrelevant. Whether iPhone sales drop this month by 3% or not, they're still only clocking a 1:4.7 ratio of iphones to android phones. a 3% fluxuation means very little compared to the massive trend downward over the past several years. And that's what the malware authors are looking at.
So don't give me this "you must be a fanboy!" crap and then get all your hipster friends to downmod me... the facts are staring you in the face: The reason it has fewer exploits is because it has a small (and shrinking) marketshare, just like DOS, OS/2, etc. This is no different than the argument that Linux is more secure because nobody develops malware for it... yeah, sure, okay... but nobody uses Linux. Not as a desktop anyway. Malware authors go for the lion's share, not the outliers, and any security expert will tell you that Linux has had plenty of exploitable conditions in the past... but they weren't exploited because it wasn't as valuable to spend time developing one for Linux as it would be for the dominant OS -- Windows.
That doesn't excuse the fact that it's totally unnecessary. They've created an entire virtual machine for the sole purpose of font rendering. Doesn't that strike you as just a little bit over the top? Text is just symbols arranged on the screen -- I'm certain better ways of doing this could be imagined that wouldn't require an exploitable VM with root permissions.
I don't care if it's turing complete or not, it's irrelevant. They've taken one of the most basic functions of a computer and managed to overly-complexify it to the point that it needed administrative permissions to do its job. This is like using a nuclear-powered hand drill! It's completely retarded, and when it melts down, it takes the entire city with you, instead of just a 2x4 and a nail.
"Android was targeted by an astonishing 79 percent of all smartphone malware that year... iOS was targeted by 0.7 percent of malware attacks."
Oh wow! That must mean iOS is much more secure! That's what I was supposed to say, right? Not maybe the iphone isn't very popular, and people aren't designing malware for it because they want to go for Fort Knox instead of a piggy bank.
Android: 79.3% marketshare. 80% of malware.
Ordinarily, I wouldn't need to explain this, but given that it seems I'm one of the few people left on Slashdot with any understanding of statistics, I'll make this simple: Your "secure" operating system's only only real security is that it's too small to matter. This is like saying "DOS has the lowest rate of new malware infections of any OS on the market!" Well yeah. Nobody uses DOS anymore. And in a few years, nobody will use iPhone anymore either... it fell 3% in marketshare in just the last three months. Even malware authors are abandoning it because it costs too much to develop for such a small rate of return.
Okay, am I the only one that thinks that if you can't design something that renders text onto a screen without it turning into the Ocean's Eleven of computer security, you're doing it wrong? Be honest now guys. I can understand this in something that needs to interpret complex animations of dancing toilet paper flying across my screen screaming "Buy meeeee, pleeeeeeease!" -- I don't approve, but I can see how someone could screw it up.
Knowledge of the gun has absolutely nothing to do with it -- just willing participation in a conspiracy to commit or in the commission of a dangerous felony.
Yes, but it's a separate (but related) issue. Flip back a page and you'll see the exact example I used; a plate being thrown at someone and then them falling on it and dying. It was manslaughter by that definition.
But we're getting off topic; the judge didn't rule this applies if you have NO prior knowledge; He said it was a crime if you did. And that's pretty solid, legally speaking. There's no controversy there; If you can prove that the defendant had good cause to believe the text message would be read by someone while operating a motor vehicle, you're not getting out of it. The key facts here are immediacy, and prior knowledge. The chance that someone might be operating a motor vehicle isn't sufficient -- I think the judge is right here. That's reasonable. But if it's not just possible, but would be found to be likely by a reasonable person, you're screwed.
You simply can not know without evidence, and a no law will change that fact.
The law doesn't hold itself to an 'absolute proof' standard, which is unattainable and if that's your standard we should set everyone who has been committed of a crime free. Ever. The law does, however, go to great lengths to figure out what a reasonable person would have done. And the question that your guilt or innocence hinges on here is whether you could have reasonably expected someone who has just indicated they were operating a motor vehicle immediately prior to the communication, may still be doing so at the time of your reply.
Any distraction to the driver puts some responsibility on the person causing the distraction, should as a direct result of their action, another person or persons becomes injured. It doesn't matter whether the instrument was a text message, a beer, a gun, or a flying cow. It doesn't matter if it was in a car, a bicycle, an airplane, or a flying dragon. What matters is that you knew you could cause a distraction, and any reasonable person would conclude that such a distraction could cause an accident.
What you and so many others are arguing is based on an emotional argument; You yourself likely text and drive. And very possibly nothing bad has happened to you. And so, you reason, what's the harm? It's convenient, and it isn't hurting anyone. But this is like continuing to smoke because your grandpa smoked four packs a day and he lived until the age of 92. You're ignoring the evidence that contradicts your position: Namely the fact that the majority of all automobile accidents are caused by distracted driving. You're giving unwarranted weight to your own personal experience.
And that's what's in play all across this forum; A common, readily identifiable, error in cognitive reasoning. And you, like everyone else, will continue to throw rationalization after rationalization after it, coming up with new arguments, ignoring key facts, etc., etc. And the more you're pressed on it, the more defensive you'll get. This is human nature. It's not you personally, it's everyone here. Even me. I've been guilty of this more times than I can count!
But the judge isn't wrong. If you know someone is operating a motor vehicle and you take action that causes that person to become distracted, you've committed a crime. Maybe a small one. Maybe even one nobody really cares about. But by the letter of the law, you're a criminal because somebody got hurt or property was damaged or destroyed as a direct consequence of your action, which you could reasonably have been expected to have foreseen (and thus avoided).
I've never met a guilty man in prison, and 89% of Americans think they're "above average" drivers, but I'm sure that in your specific case, you really didn't know, you're totally innocent, and you really are an above average driver. Be sure to tell the judge that. I bet he'll admire your flawless logic and drop all the charges.
"Hello? Yes, someone on the internet is wrong. You're sending over an illustrated guide to why they're wrong? Thanks, I'll hold."
An example that would fit is that you know your friend bought a gun legally. That is the end of your knowledge. Suddenly the Police show up because your friend committed armed robbery. You were implicated because you had knowledge of the gun, and no knowledge of the crime.
Very. Different. Things. Gun ownership isn't the problem. Gun possession during the commission of a crime is.
An even better example would be this. You know your friend bought a motorcycle. The police show up and arrest you because your friend committed vehicular homicide.
The sky is cloudy. Therefore the police show up and arrest you. Then the price of tea in china doubles. And I saw a kitty walking by my window just now. This all proves you're wrong, as anyone can see! -_- Again... context... you really need to work on this concept.
There is a huge difference between knowing someone owns a legal device (in which a car can be a murder weapon) and knowing that they intent to use it for criminal purposes at some point in the future.
Yeah, just as there's a huge difference between looking at the entire argument, instead of intentionally ignoring a crucial piece of it, then blubbering on about what an idiot the other guy is because 1+ [omitted] = 2, when clearly it should have equalled 1.
Don't confuse my example with your friend buying a gun and telling you he was going to rob a bank.
If your friend buys a gun and tells me he's going to rob a bank, I'm calling the FBI and telling them they need to send an investigator to his house. There's nothing confusing about that. I don't want a bunch of dead people in a bank on my conscience.
Too much access to large amounts of cheap energy would mean that we don't continue to buy it from current sources. We can't have that.
Well, to a point. Even if one eliminated all the environmental aspects of creating energy... say we just invented a zero-point energy extractor that ran on dreams and produced infinite electricity, there is still the other side of the equation: Its use.
I'm not aware of any electronic device that doesn't produce heat, and if we suddenly increased energy consumption by a few orders of magnitude, that might not be negligible in the grand scheme of things. Whenever you put an infinity symbol in any equation, mathematicians everywhere groan... because it means that you've just made any comparison anywhere else in the equation meaningless. Infinite energy would mean the entire universe would uncermoniously melt. Goodbye Earth. This would, as this academic says, probably be bad for the environment.
But practically speaking, the benefits far outweigh the consequences. With abundant energy, we can devote considerable resources to industrial-scale production of technology that could offset such problems. Extracting pollutants from the atmosphere, or the ocean, is a challenging task right now because it would require massive amounts of energy. If we now have access to a hundred nuclear reactors sitting somewhere we can just hook whatever up to... it opens a lot of possibilities for environmental cleanup.
Now, politically speaking, which is where this academic is actually coming from, the "green" movement is dogmatic. For every green person out there, there's someone who thinks that person isn't green enough. It leads to extremism over time, and I've already been reading screeds out of academia by these 'green' people that makes what Orwell wrote look downright germane. We should go back to a 'paleo' diet... we should abandon modern agricultural practice, leave our cities, stop using anything made from oil, and the list goes on. Say you attended a convention of these people... By the time you go through the full list of suggestions (any one of which generally have majority approval) collected by them, you'd be left with, like, ten people left on the planet, huddled in a cave somewhere, holding their noses and looking at the other nine while holding up a sign saying "Last one to kark proves they left the smallest carbon footprint!"
In other words... the drive for "sustainable green energy" leads to extinction of the human race if you approach it in the dogmatic method that's currently politically vogue. As someone who values my continued existance and believes in reasonable management of current problems... the moon looks pretty tasty. Everyone on bicycles and trying to grow a year's worth of food in their suburban backyard doesn't.
'...a person sending text messages has a duty not to text someone who is driving if the texter knows, or has special reason to know, the recipient will view the text while driving.'"
Texting someone while they're driving is one of the best times to do it because it means they can get back to you whenever they're done. It's the driver's fault completely for looking at the text.
The law doesn't look at this that way, and the judge is basing his opinion squarely within long-standing legal precident. However you want to classify the behavior, the judge still has a strongly defensible position, legally.
Let's say that you're robbing a store after hours and you know your friend brought a gun. You didn't though, for whatever reason. During the robbery, a security guard shows up. He shoots at you and your friend -- your friend shoots back, killing the guard. You are liable for his death. Yet you weren't armed and in fact, were only shot at. The courts reason that because you had knowledge of the gun ahead of time, you could reasonably foresee its use, and by not stopping your friend you were complicit in allowing it to happen. Say hello to thirty years. Look up felony manslaughter for a more detailed description. Your mere knowledge of that gun is what turned simple robbery into felony manslaughter. If you hadn't known, you wouldn't be ordinarily liable in most jurisdictions.
The law is quite clear on this point: If you have knowledge of illegal activity, regardless of your own intent, etc. and fail to act you're just as guilty as the person who did it. In fact, if the other person has diminished capacity, or extenuating circumstances, you could even face a harsher penalty than they will -- simply by knowing what's going on! You weren't involved at all, but you're the one heading to the slammer.
Yes, this is "just" a cell phone, but legally, it's no different than it being "just" a beer. If you let someone drive home drunk, and they kill someone, there's some guys in blue uniforms outside that want to talk to you. This judge is saying a cell phone is no different, as a legal instrument.
First, let me just say... when I saw "cheerleading" in the title, like most people, I just clicked the link to see pictures of nerdy girls with pom poms.... and let me say, it was a grave disappointment. Instead we get some hyperbole about a guy who equates failed business-types trying to hawk their latest get rich scheme as equal to that of mass murderers and warlords, and some half-assed rant about the power of picture sharing.
I applaud your efforts to turn what is effectively a king sized bitch fest by a reporter who feels that these guys' failures are still better than his greatest successes, and wonders why people with real talent can't get ahead... and turned it into something that was actually marginally interesting to read. Bravo!
Now... to hell with "soft power" and whinging about people wasting money... get me some nerdy cheerleaders Slashdot!
Couldn't you just do it the Department of Defense way and buy a $20,000 hammer from an open-source project?
That $20,000 hammer is made to very exacting specifications!
But I digress...
It really annoys me to see articles like this about money. We've been over this so often here it's Slashdot's version of "Summer is coming! What are the latest dieting fads? Find out more on our regurgitated-from-last-year news segment at nine!" I won't even bother digging back through years and years of older postings; the answer is always the same... SUPPORT. They pay you to support your program. You know, with technicians, and bug fixes, and the expertise to solve break/fix issues. Redhat, the first open source project to have an IPO, still lives... it doesn't sell linux, it sells support for Linux.
It's depressing how Slashdot has rapidly descended into the Huffington Post of tech news sites... it's repost after repost, no real editorial control (or even understanding of content). Somewhere in the old offices where Malda lived is now a giant spinning turbine connected to fiber optic lines... and data spews out the top and into this mulching machine, compressing and distorting news from all other sites and then aggregating it into hipster-approved bite-sized pieces of 'content'. Earlier this year one of the maintenance engineers fell in. They didn't stop the machine... they just had to deal with a few weeks of obsessing about the latest gadgets posted to ThinkGeek... until the gunk that was that engineer worked its way out of the system... -_-
-- Go ahead now, mod me overrated... we all know there are dozens of paid shills now on Slashdot, and they hate me because I bring down their advertising revenue. Commencing -1 land in 5...4...3... (post)
Take abortion--nobody in that debate thinks he's the bad guy.
Firstly, that's not a debate about principles, it's a debate about beliefs. Principles are what you do for yourself. Beliefs are what make you do things to others. Secondly, the resolution is easy --
Killing other people is wrong. The only justification I've found that has any moral weight is when another's life is in clear and imminent danger. For example, if I'm walking down the alley minding my own business and I turn the corner and there's a guy pointing a gun at some woman who's been beaten to a pulp, has her hands in the air, and is begging for her life... I'm perfectly justified in ventilating said asshole. The police aren't there, I am, and someone's life is in jeopardy. Whatever the argument the attacker could use -- he didn't call the police. He didn't opt to settle the matter in a civil fashion. He's taking the big goodbye, starting now.
As far as rights; You only have the rights you can excercise. And the thing about them is, there's always gonna be some asshole trying to stop you. So what? As long as they don't escalate the attempt to stop you to violence, I don't really see the problem. Opinions are like assholes -- everybody's got one.
There's no need to "resolve" the abortion debate. There is a need to keep the peace, and that's where principles come in. You are welcome to say whatever you want about abortions; But the moment you turn violent, you've lost any high ground you might have had. And if you threaten someone's life when I'm around, then my principles are going to be copper-jacketed lead fuck yous. But if you want to just stand there and scream about going to hell and being a baby killer or whatever... hey man, whatever gets you hard. -_-
Good people do not have a need for rules. They have integrity -- they know what they stand for, and they know their right from their wrong. If a law gets in the way of that, it's a bad law.
There's another application that is being overlooked: Porn videos. Now you can have an "in another body" experience. -_- And to think, we thought we'd have to wait for holodecks....
If a photographer on museum property can show conspicuous black tape over the camera's flash, the only reason I can think of to restrict photography is monopoly protection.
... Or that the tape can be just as quickly removed as it was put on. They're being asked to protect a product that is slowly degrading with time, that is worth many millions, is a cultural and national treasure, and which can be damaged by the device you mentioned.
Look at this another way -- would you want someone carrying a loaded gun past airport security because a plastic tie-down was run through the trigger? I mean, he can't just pull it out and shoot... so no problem, right?
Unless you want to simultaneously use multiple frequencies so as to increase throughput even more.
Now now, be nice. He probably still thinks that if we do morse code fast enough, we can transmit the whole internet on 1hz of spectrum.:\ I'd enlighten him about shannon's law, and the relationship between SNR, bandwidth, and how to go about encoding information using phase, amplitude, frequency, etc., but at some point you just have to tell him to stay in school, read a few more books... you get the idea. The worst part is, he probably doesn't realize that lasers don't operate on a single frequency, but in a range. Admittedly, it's a limited range, but there is a spread -- it's not just 'off on off on off on'...
Rain is in the forcast for the area, it should put out the fire just before the mud-slides start.
One is forced to wonder what compels people to live on a slab of land that is destined to roll into the ocean, that the Mexicans quickly gave up any claim to because they felt it was worthless, regularly tries to kill people who live there with fire, mud, water, earthquakes, and tsunamis... I mean, when the land itself is saying "Go away" so loudly, why aren't you listening? o_O
But what would I know; I live in one of the "flyover" states that never makes the news... all we have here is low unemployment rates, a solid socioeconomic base, good education, and a decided lack of regular natural catastrophes. The only catastrophe in recent memory out here was when Ohio was declared to be crucial to the Presidential campaign and the poor bastards had to hide in bunkers away from their TVs and phones for a month. We sent generators and bottled water. And snuggies. That's totally a thing up here... but beyond that, nothing of interest happens.
Maybe they like the excitement of nearly dying every year... Californians always did strike me as a bit... weird.
Often imitated never equaled. Abstract expressionism was, and often remains, a high-brow art con game. That much is obvious. But many critics who were otherwise unimpressed by the 'abstract movement' felt that its founder...
Okay, look. I did a term paper on him. I'm not dismissing him out of hand, I'm dismissing him after a detailed analysis of his work. 25% of my grade for Art History depended on me being able to offer a detailed analysis of his work. Ignoring the fact that of all the artists that we drew straws for (well, strips of paper), and I got the short one... I think I can speak authoritatively on Pollock's work.
Anyway, I don't feel what Pollock was doing constituted high art. While you're right in that the process itself introduces design elements, intended or not, I consider the will of the artists and the technical proficiency by which he (or she) goes about realizing that vision to be the primary elements of artistic merit. Pollock was "on to something", sure, but he never developed it to a usable and proficient level... and neither has anyone else.
I'll tell you the same thing I told my professor (who begrudgingly gave me a 'B' on the paper, and asked me and only me to defend my essay in front of the whole class!), which is that if I were to show Pollock's work side by side with the paint drizzlings of a 5 year old with a brush asked to run back and forth across the canvas... how many laypeople could tell the difference? I argued that everyone has an innate sense of design, and while people's tastes may differ, almost all pieces of art display some level of consideration -- that is, the will of the artist. It isn't just a random hodge-podge of work. Even the Dadaists were very deliberate in their choice of "anti art", and it is this will, this force of personality, which I feel Pollock lacked. He was engaging in method without vision, and that, I feel, isn't art. Several of my classmates agreed. For something to truly meet the standard of artistic expression and to have artistic merit, academically or otherwise, there needs to be a clear expression of the artist's desire in the work. Other than perhaps the choice of color for the paint, I do not feel the layperson could find this expression in any of Pollock's exhaulted works.
As I concluded at the end of my Q&A with the professor (did I mention how unhappy he was with me?), one does not necessarily have to be a success in the art world to be famous... the Titanic is a very famous ship precisely because it sank. And if you ask me, Pollock is that era of American art's Titanic. There is perhaps merit in his work, but only in how miserably it failed; If you ask me, his work should be used as a warning to other artists not to get so lost in the abstract that your work becomes a random jumble of design elements.
I suppose I could make a crack about them trying this with a Pollock, but I personally consider slopping paint on the floor over and over again to not be art. My art history professor of course vehemently disagreed. But I digress (and I know you googled Pollock and didn't actually know who he was before now, but I forgive you)...
3D printing can indeed reproduce the topology of the painting; This isn't news. Fakes have been being produced for years with close attention to how each stroke was made, layered, etc. Some of them have even been computer-assisted, in much the same way signatures have been duplicated by recording and modulating the pressure of a pen on the paper. However, while they may look pretty authentic, anyone doing a proper forensic analysis on the work would very quickly uncover it. The fact is that 3D printers laying down paint do so at a very, achem, mechanical speed. Which means it doesn't form the same pattern of bubbling and whatnot that would happen if it was laid down by a brush, by a human. There's other physics involved as well; Carbon dating, pigmentation, humidity, temperature... all of these effect how the final work appears forensically. The best forgeries are still done by humans. Until a 3D printer is able to print in parallel, with each 'head' at varying speed and direction, it will be easy to detect.
And I don't care how limited the run is, or who it's signed by... it's xeroxing. Sure, it's in 3D -- good for you! It's still no different than buying a postcard in the art shop, and I wouldn't spend anything on that either. If I want to experience a painting in a real and viceral way... I pay for a museum membership (or befriend someone who has one) and arrange for a sitting with the painting.
Something not generally known to the public -- you can arrange for some one-on-one time with most paintings at most museums (except for the most famous ones... which tend to be more, ah, burgouise). Many fine arts majors do this in order to sit down paint with the real thing right next to them, under controlled lighting and such... in order to perfect their technique. But in case you're wondering... yes, a guard is in the room with you, so don't get any ideas. But for the true art lover... an after-hours viewing is worth far more than a 3D replicated version. And then there's the emotional presence of knowing you are sitting by yourself with a famous painting... not in some busy museum gallery, but in a quiet back room in a warehouse.
But for decorating my bathroom... I might consider something like this. As long as it isn't a replica of a Pollock... which if one were ever gifted to me, I'd promptly reach for the lighter fluid and see how well it burned.
I don't get it; If your water heater was leaky, you'd notice it right away. Same if your gas tank, radiator, or brake fluid reservoir on your car was. In fact, the main way people figure out something is leaking is because something is present where it shouldn't be, and a supposedly-contained source is nearby.
You don't need complex wizz-bang devices to figure this out. You need the Mark I Human Eyeball. TEPCO knew, okay? They didn't want to know, so they ignored evidence that it was leaking. "Well, the tanks emptied out... but it must have just been normal evaporation", or "we expected a certain amount of leakage", or "we were understaffed," or "it was the contractor's fault," or any other rationalization you can think of. The problem here is not technology and it won't be solved by technology.
The problem is management didn't want to know it had a problem, because plausible deniability means no responsibility. So they will go to incredible lengths to avoid noticing the problem. You can't slashvertise your way into a solution here... "wifi sensors! That'll fix it!" Okay... who's going to monitor the sensors? What are the sensors actually sensing? Mind you... sensors being improperly read is what led to the Three Mile Island disaster. Do you trust your $12 wizz-bang to do the job of a trained nuclear engineer? This is what it all comes down to: The tanks were leaking, and somebody noticed. I don't know who that somebody is, but somebody knew enough to look. Whether they did or not...
TEPCO management needs to be dragged to Geneva and held for crimes against humanity. No, I'm dead-serious about this... Japan has a long an inglorious history of allowing epic amounts of corporate failure because it's not in their culture to admit wrongdoing. Trains fly off tracks and crash into apartment complexes and outside investigators conclude that a punitive and stress-inducing corporate culture was what primed the young train conductor to race around the bend too fast to stay on the tight schedule... and the corporation, faced with dozens of fatalities... says everything is fine and keeps the policy as-is: It was the conductor's fault. He couldn't handle our "high standards". This is a prime example of Japanese culture people. It's toxic and it needs international attention and condemnation.
It does not need a wiz-bang sensor monitor. It needs a gun to the head and a "come with us, we're taking a long flight to your trial, asshole".
Probably the laser will probably in a wavelength of light that clouds don't absorb. There are a few "infra-red windows" that can be used.
Ah, this link might be a bit more useful in explaining the phenomenon to which you're referring.
The thing is, these windows are not very big, and there are only two big ones. What's worse, clouds still scatter and mush up the signal... it may not be absorbed, but that doesn't mean it won't go all over the place. It'd be like trying to piss in a hurricane... good luck getting a straight stream into the toilet in wind gusts that'll get you my pretties (and your little dog too).
It's only useful in dry atmosphere. Fortunately... guess where they put the communications array.:) I'll give you a hint: Not Seattle.
Slashdot Mirror
It may give an explanation why there is so much malware, but it doesn't help you.
I wasn't aware this was an issue of "help". I think it's more like when you look at every other case where a given piece of software or technology was used by the overwhelming majority (above 67%), and there was the potential for profit if it could be exploited, the majority of exploits targeted that piece of technology.
It's basic economics; Malware isn't any different than game development. Why is everyone going for the PS4 instead of the XBone One? Economics. Why did the PS2 curb stomp all the others? Economics. Developers go with wherever the most sales are going to be, and it doesn't matter whether you're making a legitimate or illegitimate product.
That's my point here. Android has the majority marketshare. And it has almost the exact same amount of malware. Android is the average case. Outliers have more flexibility -- the XBone maybe easier to develop for. Macintosh might be easier to use. Outliers need niche markets -- so they build on whatever happens their way.
To say that this universal statistical truth bestows upon IOS some intrinsic extra security is stupid. It's not intrinsically better... it's accidentally better. And if IOS had the majority marketshare, then it would be Android hawking ease of use, or better security, or whatever. This isn't a case of the design being better (or worse)... it's a case of the design not being popular. That's the only variable here that's really meaningful.
I can provide case study after case study showing that as the popularity of the platform reaches a critical mass, the number of exploits jumps. In fact, the rate of exploits being generated on a platform almost always follows the number of applications being developed over the same time frame.
You're trying to argue that technology is the reason for this difference, when the reality is it is economics. Just like everyone else here. The iPhone isn't special in any way; It follows the same trends, the same economic forces, etc., as everything else in IT. Sorry.
Holy cow, your fanboy hat must be cutting off the flow of blood to your brain. Explain again why an OS with 4x the market share garners 100x the exploits?
You're reading the statistics wrong. But whatever, you get +1, I get -1, because you're not a fanboy who made a personal attack, and apparently my quoting statistics was too inflammatory. Ah well.. yet more proof slashdot has gone to the dogs. Let's burn some more karma in a fruitless endeavor to explain to the fanboys statistics 101... because I'm bored and it's my lunch hour.
The dominant operating system with the largest marketshare has almost the same amount of malware being produced for it relative to its marketshare. This is precisely what you'd expect. It'd be like saying "A car that is driven by 80% of people also gets in 80% of accidents."
It does not have "100x" the exploits. It has "1x" the exploits. It has exactly the number of exploits you'd expect.
iPhone sales ALWAYS drop this time of year because
... irrelevant. Whether iPhone sales drop this month by 3% or not, they're still only clocking a 1:4.7 ratio of iphones to android phones. a 3% fluxuation means very little compared to the massive trend downward over the past several years. And that's what the malware authors are looking at.
So don't give me this "you must be a fanboy!" crap and then get all your hipster friends to downmod me... the facts are staring you in the face: The reason it has fewer exploits is because it has a small (and shrinking) marketshare, just like DOS, OS/2, etc. This is no different than the argument that Linux is more secure because nobody develops malware for it... yeah, sure, okay... but nobody uses Linux. Not as a desktop anyway. Malware authors go for the lion's share, not the outliers, and any security expert will tell you that Linux has had plenty of exploitable conditions in the past... but they weren't exploited because it wasn't as valuable to spend time developing one for Linux as it would be for the dominant OS -- Windows.
Did you know that TTF fonts are turing complete?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_Type_Font#Hinting_language
That doesn't excuse the fact that it's totally unnecessary. They've created an entire virtual machine for the sole purpose of font rendering. Doesn't that strike you as just a little bit over the top? Text is just symbols arranged on the screen -- I'm certain better ways of doing this could be imagined that wouldn't require an exploitable VM with root permissions.
I don't care if it's turing complete or not, it's irrelevant. They've taken one of the most basic functions of a computer and managed to overly-complexify it to the point that it needed administrative permissions to do its job. This is like using a nuclear-powered hand drill! It's completely retarded, and when it melts down, it takes the entire city with you, instead of just a 2x4 and a nail.
"Android was targeted by an astonishing 79 percent of all smartphone malware that year... iOS was targeted by 0.7 percent of malware attacks."
Oh wow! That must mean iOS is much more secure! That's what I was supposed to say, right? Not maybe the iphone isn't very popular, and people aren't designing malware for it because they want to go for Fort Knox instead of a piggy bank.
Android:
79.3% marketshare.
80% of malware.
Ordinarily, I wouldn't need to explain this, but given that it seems I'm one of the few people left on Slashdot with any understanding of statistics, I'll make this simple: Your "secure" operating system's only only real security is that it's too small to matter. This is like saying "DOS has the lowest rate of new malware infections of any OS on the market!" Well yeah. Nobody uses DOS anymore. And in a few years, nobody will use iPhone anymore either... it fell 3% in marketshare in just the last three months. Even malware authors are abandoning it because it costs too much to develop for such a small rate of return.
Okay, am I the only one that thinks that if you can't design something that renders text onto a screen without it turning into the Ocean's Eleven of computer security, you're doing it wrong? Be honest now guys. I can understand this in something that needs to interpret complex animations of dancing toilet paper flying across my screen screaming "Buy meeeee, pleeeeeeease!" -- I don't approve, but I can see how someone could screw it up.
But text... really guys, I mean, really?
What the GP roughly paraphrases (but gets key details of wrong), is the basic principles of felony murder.
I see your wikipedia link, and raise you a illustrated guide.
Knowledge of the gun has absolutely nothing to do with it -- just willing participation in a conspiracy to commit or in the commission of a dangerous felony.
Yes, but it's a separate (but related) issue. Flip back a page and you'll see the exact example I used; a plate being thrown at someone and then them falling on it and dying. It was manslaughter by that definition.
But we're getting off topic; the judge didn't rule this applies if you have NO prior knowledge; He said it was a crime if you did. And that's pretty solid, legally speaking. There's no controversy there; If you can prove that the defendant had good cause to believe the text message would be read by someone while operating a motor vehicle, you're not getting out of it. The key facts here are immediacy, and prior knowledge. The chance that someone might be operating a motor vehicle isn't sufficient -- I think the judge is right here. That's reasonable. But if it's not just possible, but would be found to be likely by a reasonable person, you're screwed.
You simply can not know without evidence, and a no law will change that fact.
The law doesn't hold itself to an 'absolute proof' standard, which is unattainable and if that's your standard we should set everyone who has been committed of a crime free. Ever. The law does, however, go to great lengths to figure out what a reasonable person would have done. And the question that your guilt or innocence hinges on here is whether you could have reasonably expected someone who has just indicated they were operating a motor vehicle immediately prior to the communication, may still be doing so at the time of your reply.
Any distraction to the driver puts some responsibility on the person causing the distraction, should as a direct result of their action, another person or persons becomes injured. It doesn't matter whether the instrument was a text message, a beer, a gun, or a flying cow. It doesn't matter if it was in a car, a bicycle, an airplane, or a flying dragon. What matters is that you knew you could cause a distraction, and any reasonable person would conclude that such a distraction could cause an accident.
What you and so many others are arguing is based on an emotional argument; You yourself likely text and drive. And very possibly nothing bad has happened to you. And so, you reason, what's the harm? It's convenient, and it isn't hurting anyone. But this is like continuing to smoke because your grandpa smoked four packs a day and he lived until the age of 92. You're ignoring the evidence that contradicts your position: Namely the fact that the majority of all automobile accidents are caused by distracted driving. You're giving unwarranted weight to your own personal experience.
And that's what's in play all across this forum; A common, readily identifiable, error in cognitive reasoning. And you, like everyone else, will continue to throw rationalization after rationalization after it, coming up with new arguments, ignoring key facts, etc., etc. And the more you're pressed on it, the more defensive you'll get. This is human nature. It's not you personally, it's everyone here. Even me. I've been guilty of this more times than I can count!
But the judge isn't wrong. If you know someone is operating a motor vehicle and you take action that causes that person to become distracted, you've committed a crime. Maybe a small one. Maybe even one nobody really cares about. But by the letter of the law, you're a criminal because somebody got hurt or property was damaged or destroyed as a direct consequence of your action, which you could reasonably have been expected to have foreseen (and thus avoided).
I've never met a guilty man in prison, and 89% of Americans think they're "above average" drivers, but I'm sure that in your specific case, you really didn't know, you're totally innocent, and you really are an above average driver. Be sure to tell the judge that. I bet he'll admire your flawless logic and drop all the charges.
If only.
Your example is absolutely wrong.
"Hello? Yes, someone on the internet is wrong. You're sending over an illustrated guide to why they're wrong? Thanks, I'll hold."
An example that would fit is that you know your friend bought a gun legally. That is the end of your knowledge. Suddenly the Police show up because your friend committed armed robbery. You were implicated because you had knowledge of the gun, and no knowledge of the crime.
Very. Different. Things. Gun ownership isn't the problem. Gun possession during the commission of a crime is.
An even better example would be this. You know your friend bought a motorcycle. The police show up and arrest you because your friend committed vehicular homicide.
The sky is cloudy. Therefore the police show up and arrest you. Then the price of tea in china doubles. And I saw a kitty walking by my window just now. This all proves you're wrong, as anyone can see! -_- Again... context... you really need to work on this concept.
There is a huge difference between knowing someone owns a legal device (in which a car can be a murder weapon) and knowing that they intent to use it for criminal purposes at some point in the future.
Yeah, just as there's a huge difference between looking at the entire argument, instead of intentionally ignoring a crucial piece of it, then blubbering on about what an idiot the other guy is because 1+ [omitted] = 2, when clearly it should have equalled 1.
Don't confuse my example with your friend buying a gun and telling you he was going to rob a bank.
If your friend buys a gun and tells me he's going to rob a bank, I'm calling the FBI and telling them they need to send an investigator to his house. There's nothing confusing about that. I don't want a bunch of dead people in a bank on my conscience.
Too much access to large amounts of cheap energy would mean that we don't continue to buy it from current sources. We can't have that.
Well, to a point. Even if one eliminated all the environmental aspects of creating energy... say we just invented a zero-point energy extractor that ran on dreams and produced infinite electricity, there is still the other side of the equation: Its use.
I'm not aware of any electronic device that doesn't produce heat, and if we suddenly increased energy consumption by a few orders of magnitude, that might not be negligible in the grand scheme of things. Whenever you put an infinity symbol in any equation, mathematicians everywhere groan... because it means that you've just made any comparison anywhere else in the equation meaningless. Infinite energy would mean the entire universe would uncermoniously melt. Goodbye Earth. This would, as this academic says, probably be bad for the environment.
But practically speaking, the benefits far outweigh the consequences. With abundant energy, we can devote considerable resources to industrial-scale production of technology that could offset such problems. Extracting pollutants from the atmosphere, or the ocean, is a challenging task right now because it would require massive amounts of energy. If we now have access to a hundred nuclear reactors sitting somewhere we can just hook whatever up to... it opens a lot of possibilities for environmental cleanup.
Now, politically speaking, which is where this academic is actually coming from, the "green" movement is dogmatic. For every green person out there, there's someone who thinks that person isn't green enough. It leads to extremism over time, and I've already been reading screeds out of academia by these 'green' people that makes what Orwell wrote look downright germane. We should go back to a 'paleo' diet... we should abandon modern agricultural practice, leave our cities, stop using anything made from oil, and the list goes on. Say you attended a convention of these people... By the time you go through the full list of suggestions (any one of which generally have majority approval) collected by them, you'd be left with, like, ten people left on the planet, huddled in a cave somewhere, holding their noses and looking at the other nine while holding up a sign saying "Last one to kark proves they left the smallest carbon footprint!"
In other words... the drive for "sustainable green energy" leads to extinction of the human race if you approach it in the dogmatic method that's currently politically vogue. As someone who values my continued existance and believes in reasonable management of current problems... the moon looks pretty tasty. Everyone on bicycles and trying to grow a year's worth of food in their suburban backyard doesn't.
'...a person sending text messages has a duty not to text someone who is driving if the texter knows, or has special reason to know, the recipient will view the text while driving.'"
Texting someone while they're driving is one of the best times to do it because it means they can get back to you whenever they're done. It's the driver's fault completely for looking at the text.
The law doesn't look at this that way, and the judge is basing his opinion squarely within long-standing legal precident. However you want to classify the behavior, the judge still has a strongly defensible position, legally.
Let's say that you're robbing a store after hours and you know your friend brought a gun. You didn't though, for whatever reason. During the robbery, a security guard shows up. He shoots at you and your friend -- your friend shoots back, killing the guard. You are liable for his death. Yet you weren't armed and in fact, were only shot at. The courts reason that because you had knowledge of the gun ahead of time, you could reasonably foresee its use, and by not stopping your friend you were complicit in allowing it to happen. Say hello to thirty years. Look up felony manslaughter for a more detailed description. Your mere knowledge of that gun is what turned simple robbery into felony manslaughter. If you hadn't known, you wouldn't be ordinarily liable in most jurisdictions.
The law is quite clear on this point: If you have knowledge of illegal activity, regardless of your own intent, etc. and fail to act you're just as guilty as the person who did it. In fact, if the other person has diminished capacity, or extenuating circumstances, you could even face a harsher penalty than they will -- simply by knowing what's going on! You weren't involved at all, but you're the one heading to the slammer.
Yes, this is "just" a cell phone, but legally, it's no different than it being "just" a beer. If you let someone drive home drunk, and they kill someone, there's some guys in blue uniforms outside that want to talk to you. This judge is saying a cell phone is no different, as a legal instrument.
And he's right.
First, let me just say... when I saw "cheerleading" in the title, like most people, I just clicked the link to see pictures of nerdy girls with pom poms.... and let me say, it was a grave disappointment. Instead we get some hyperbole about a guy who equates failed business-types trying to hawk their latest get rich scheme as equal to that of mass murderers and warlords, and some half-assed rant about the power of picture sharing.
I applaud your efforts to turn what is effectively a king sized bitch fest by a reporter who feels that these guys' failures are still better than his greatest successes, and wonders why people with real talent can't get ahead... and turned it into something that was actually marginally interesting to read. Bravo!
Now... to hell with "soft power" and whinging about people wasting money... get me some nerdy cheerleaders Slashdot!
Couldn't you just do it the Department of Defense way and buy a $20,000 hammer from an open-source project?
That $20,000 hammer is made to very exacting specifications!
But I digress...
It really annoys me to see articles like this about money. We've been over this so often here it's Slashdot's version of "Summer is coming! What are the latest dieting fads? Find out more on our regurgitated-from-last-year news segment at nine!" I won't even bother digging back through years and years of older postings; the answer is always the same ... SUPPORT. They pay you to support your program. You know, with technicians, and bug fixes, and the expertise to solve break/fix issues. Redhat, the first open source project to have an IPO, still lives... it doesn't sell linux, it sells support for Linux.
It's depressing how Slashdot has rapidly descended into the Huffington Post of tech news sites... it's repost after repost, no real editorial control (or even understanding of content). Somewhere in the old offices where Malda lived is now a giant spinning turbine connected to fiber optic lines... and data spews out the top and into this mulching machine, compressing and distorting news from all other sites and then aggregating it into hipster-approved bite-sized pieces of 'content'. Earlier this year one of the maintenance engineers fell in. They didn't stop the machine... they just had to deal with a few weeks of obsessing about the latest gadgets posted to ThinkGeek... until the gunk that was that engineer worked its way out of the system... -_-
--
Go ahead now, mod me overrated... we all know there are dozens of paid shills now on Slashdot, and they hate me because I bring down their advertising revenue. Commencing -1 land in 5...4...3... (post)
Take abortion--nobody in that debate thinks he's the bad guy.
Firstly, that's not a debate about principles, it's a debate about beliefs. Principles are what you do for yourself. Beliefs are what make you do things to others. Secondly, the resolution is easy --
Killing other people is wrong. The only justification I've found that has any moral weight is when another's life is in clear and imminent danger. For example, if I'm walking down the alley minding my own business and I turn the corner and there's a guy pointing a gun at some woman who's been beaten to a pulp, has her hands in the air, and is begging for her life... I'm perfectly justified in ventilating said asshole. The police aren't there, I am, and someone's life is in jeopardy. Whatever the argument the attacker could use -- he didn't call the police. He didn't opt to settle the matter in a civil fashion. He's taking the big goodbye, starting now.
As far as rights; You only have the rights you can excercise. And the thing about them is, there's always gonna be some asshole trying to stop you. So what? As long as they don't escalate the attempt to stop you to violence, I don't really see the problem. Opinions are like assholes -- everybody's got one.
There's no need to "resolve" the abortion debate. There is a need to keep the peace, and that's where principles come in. You are welcome to say whatever you want about abortions; But the moment you turn violent, you've lost any high ground you might have had. And if you threaten someone's life when I'm around, then my principles are going to be copper-jacketed lead fuck yous. But if you want to just stand there and scream about going to hell and being a baby killer or whatever... hey man, whatever gets you hard. -_-
Good people do not have a need for rules. They have integrity -- they know what they stand for, and they know their right from their wrong. If a law gets in the way of that, it's a bad law.
I wonder why he needs so many rules...
There's another application that is being overlooked: Porn videos. Now you can have an "in another body" experience. -_- And to think, we thought we'd have to wait for holodecks....
"Flyover" -- that's when the tornadoes sweep through and double-wides blot out the sun?
No, it's where NFL teams come from that repeatedly make it to the Superbowl, and then choke.
If a photographer on museum property can show conspicuous black tape over the camera's flash, the only reason I can think of to restrict photography is monopoly protection.
... Or that the tape can be just as quickly removed as it was put on. They're being asked to protect a product that is slowly degrading with time, that is worth many millions, is a cultural and national treasure, and which can be damaged by the device you mentioned.
Look at this another way -- would you want someone carrying a loaded gun past airport security because a plastic tie-down was run through the trigger? I mean, he can't just pull it out and shoot... so no problem, right?
Unless you want to simultaneously use multiple frequencies so as to increase throughput even more.
Now now, be nice. He probably still thinks that if we do morse code fast enough, we can transmit the whole internet on 1hz of spectrum. :\ I'd enlighten him about shannon's law, and the relationship between SNR, bandwidth, and how to go about encoding information using phase, amplitude, frequency, etc., but at some point you just have to tell him to stay in school, read a few more books... you get the idea. The worst part is, he probably doesn't realize that lasers don't operate on a single frequency, but in a range. Admittedly, it's a limited range, but there is a spread -- it's not just 'off on off on off on'...
What makes you think no one is bothering to look?
Decades of experience dealing with middle managers.
Rain is in the forcast for the area, it should put out the fire just before the mud-slides start.
One is forced to wonder what compels people to live on a slab of land that is destined to roll into the ocean, that the Mexicans quickly gave up any claim to because they felt it was worthless, regularly tries to kill people who live there with fire, mud, water, earthquakes, and tsunamis... I mean, when the land itself is saying "Go away" so loudly, why aren't you listening? o_O
But what would I know; I live in one of the "flyover" states that never makes the news... all we have here is low unemployment rates, a solid socioeconomic base, good education, and a decided lack of regular natural catastrophes. The only catastrophe in recent memory out here was when Ohio was declared to be crucial to the Presidential campaign and the poor bastards had to hide in bunkers away from their TVs and phones for a month. We sent generators and bottled water. And snuggies. That's totally a thing up here... but beyond that, nothing of interest happens.
Maybe they like the excitement of nearly dying every year... Californians always did strike me as a bit... weird.
Often imitated never equaled. Abstract expressionism was, and often remains, a high-brow art con game. That much is obvious. But many critics who were otherwise unimpressed by the 'abstract movement' felt that its founder...
Okay, look. I did a term paper on him. I'm not dismissing him out of hand, I'm dismissing him after a detailed analysis of his work. 25% of my grade for Art History depended on me being able to offer a detailed analysis of his work. Ignoring the fact that of all the artists that we drew straws for (well, strips of paper), and I got the short one... I think I can speak authoritatively on Pollock's work.
Anyway, I don't feel what Pollock was doing constituted high art. While you're right in that the process itself introduces design elements, intended or not, I consider the will of the artists and the technical proficiency by which he (or she) goes about realizing that vision to be the primary elements of artistic merit. Pollock was "on to something", sure, but he never developed it to a usable and proficient level... and neither has anyone else.
I'll tell you the same thing I told my professor (who begrudgingly gave me a 'B' on the paper, and asked me and only me to defend my essay in front of the whole class!), which is that if I were to show Pollock's work side by side with the paint drizzlings of a 5 year old with a brush asked to run back and forth across the canvas... how many laypeople could tell the difference? I argued that everyone has an innate sense of design, and while people's tastes may differ, almost all pieces of art display some level of consideration -- that is, the will of the artist. It isn't just a random hodge-podge of work. Even the Dadaists were very deliberate in their choice of "anti art", and it is this will, this force of personality, which I feel Pollock lacked. He was engaging in method without vision, and that, I feel, isn't art. Several of my classmates agreed. For something to truly meet the standard of artistic expression and to have artistic merit, academically or otherwise, there needs to be a clear expression of the artist's desire in the work. Other than perhaps the choice of color for the paint, I do not feel the layperson could find this expression in any of Pollock's exhaulted works.
As I concluded at the end of my Q&A with the professor (did I mention how unhappy he was with me?), one does not necessarily have to be a success in the art world to be famous... the Titanic is a very famous ship precisely because it sank. And if you ask me, Pollock is that era of American art's Titanic. There is perhaps merit in his work, but only in how miserably it failed; If you ask me, his work should be used as a warning to other artists not to get so lost in the abstract that your work becomes a random jumble of design elements.
I suppose I could make a crack about them trying this with a Pollock, but I personally consider slopping paint on the floor over and over again to not be art. My art history professor of course vehemently disagreed. But I digress (and I know you googled Pollock and didn't actually know who he was before now, but I forgive you)...
3D printing can indeed reproduce the topology of the painting; This isn't news. Fakes have been being produced for years with close attention to how each stroke was made, layered, etc. Some of them have even been computer-assisted, in much the same way signatures have been duplicated by recording and modulating the pressure of a pen on the paper. However, while they may look pretty authentic, anyone doing a proper forensic analysis on the work would very quickly uncover it. The fact is that 3D printers laying down paint do so at a very, achem, mechanical speed. Which means it doesn't form the same pattern of bubbling and whatnot that would happen if it was laid down by a brush, by a human. There's other physics involved as well; Carbon dating, pigmentation, humidity, temperature... all of these effect how the final work appears forensically. The best forgeries are still done by humans. Until a 3D printer is able to print in parallel, with each 'head' at varying speed and direction, it will be easy to detect.
And I don't care how limited the run is, or who it's signed by... it's xeroxing. Sure, it's in 3D -- good for you! It's still no different than buying a postcard in the art shop, and I wouldn't spend anything on that either. If I want to experience a painting in a real and viceral way... I pay for a museum membership (or befriend someone who has one) and arrange for a sitting with the painting.
Something not generally known to the public -- you can arrange for some one-on-one time with most paintings at most museums (except for the most famous ones... which tend to be more, ah, burgouise). Many fine arts majors do this in order to sit down paint with the real thing right next to them, under controlled lighting and such... in order to perfect their technique. But in case you're wondering... yes, a guard is in the room with you, so don't get any ideas. But for the true art lover... an after-hours viewing is worth far more than a 3D replicated version. And then there's the emotional presence of knowing you are sitting by yourself with a famous painting... not in some busy museum gallery, but in a quiet back room in a warehouse.
But for decorating my bathroom... I might consider something like this. As long as it isn't a replica of a Pollock... which if one were ever gifted to me, I'd promptly reach for the lighter fluid and see how well it burned.
These amounts may sound like a lot, but for individual leaks, they may be tiny compared to the amount of water they have.
True, but it doesn't matter what the amount is if nobody's bothering to look.
I don't get it; If your water heater was leaky, you'd notice it right away. Same if your gas tank, radiator, or brake fluid reservoir on your car was. In fact, the main way people figure out something is leaking is because something is present where it shouldn't be, and a supposedly-contained source is nearby.
You don't need complex wizz-bang devices to figure this out. You need the Mark I Human Eyeball. TEPCO knew, okay? They didn't want to know, so they ignored evidence that it was leaking. "Well, the tanks emptied out... but it must have just been normal evaporation", or "we expected a certain amount of leakage", or "we were understaffed," or "it was the contractor's fault," or any other rationalization you can think of. The problem here is not technology and it won't be solved by technology.
The problem is management didn't want to know it had a problem, because plausible deniability means no responsibility. So they will go to incredible lengths to avoid noticing the problem. You can't slashvertise your way into a solution here... "wifi sensors! That'll fix it!" Okay... who's going to monitor the sensors? What are the sensors actually sensing? Mind you... sensors being improperly read is what led to the Three Mile Island disaster. Do you trust your $12 wizz-bang to do the job of a trained nuclear engineer? This is what it all comes down to: The tanks were leaking, and somebody noticed. I don't know who that somebody is, but somebody knew enough to look. Whether they did or not...
TEPCO management needs to be dragged to Geneva and held for crimes against humanity. No, I'm dead-serious about this... Japan has a long an inglorious history of allowing epic amounts of corporate failure because it's not in their culture to admit wrongdoing. Trains fly off tracks and crash into apartment complexes and outside investigators conclude that a punitive and stress-inducing corporate culture was what primed the young train conductor to race around the bend too fast to stay on the tight schedule... and the corporation, faced with dozens of fatalities... says everything is fine and keeps the policy as-is: It was the conductor's fault. He couldn't handle our "high standards". This is a prime example of Japanese culture people. It's toxic and it needs international attention and condemnation.
It does not need a wiz-bang sensor monitor. It needs a gun to the head and a "come with us, we're taking a long flight to your trial, asshole".
Probably the laser will probably in a wavelength of light that clouds don't absorb. There are a few "infra-red windows" that can be used.
Ah, this link might be a bit more useful in explaining the phenomenon to which you're referring.
The thing is, these windows are not very big, and there are only two big ones. What's worse, clouds still scatter and mush up the signal... it may not be absorbed, but that doesn't mean it won't go all over the place. It'd be like trying to piss in a hurricane... good luck getting a straight stream into the toilet in wind gusts that'll get you my pretties (and your little dog too).
It's only useful in dry atmosphere. Fortunately... guess where they put the communications array. :) I'll give you a hint: Not Seattle.