Facebook *does* monitor "private" communications (probably with automated keyword searching and the like) and will proactively contact law enforcement if it's deemed appropriate... The following story broke locally about a week ago -- http://www.cjob.com/news/winnipeg/story.aspx?ID=1757654 (tl;dr - Local PD got a call from FB about the sexual assault of a 13 year old by a 25 yo.)
It is entirely possible that something similar happened here, no matter how private his postings were.
It'll need to be some rocket to get to the mission altitude of 20,000 feet. And it's got enough range that it will most likely be launched from a friendly base.
Well, except for the fact that Mt. Gox's current 30 day volume is a little over 2 million *coins* valued at between US$7 and $10 (Average value of $8.77.).
So $2 million per month through Silk Road is not unreasonable if Gox is doing $17 million per month in transactions....
The difference being that 5.25 drives were in millions of devices (and that's grouping the incompatible drives together -- Apple, IBM and Commodore to name a few...
USB is in billions of devices. There's probably 3 or 4 in your laptop, 4 to 8 in your pc, a few in your TV, one in your phone. Your monitor probably has a hub built into it. And they are all the same "USB". There are probably more USB interfaces in Android phones alone today than there ever was of 5.25" drives.
Yes, the media companies and publishers have draconian DRM policies, and charge far more than most people would consider reasonable for their content. They're going to have to change, or die. But just because they're stupid and evil doesn't make everything done with their stuff right.
Hosting a site that provides tools to strip that DRM off? I can see why the media companies don't like that, but tough shit for them.
Using tools to strip DRM from content you've paid for, for your own use? No problem. Sharing that content with a friend (ie: Someone you actually know!)? Grey, but I think it would actually benefit the media companies.
Running a site that provides DRM-stripped content for general download? Frankly, I don't see this as legit, but I'll accept that there are some arguments in favour of it. And I also feel that if most people are given a legal option at a reasonable value (in terms of price/DRM) they'll take that over a free, illegitimate site. (Hence the popularity of iTunes.)
But taking a DRM-stripped item that a publisher is selling for $X through legitimate channels, and selling it for $(X/10)? Screw 'em. Put them in jail, and then sue them for the gross income of their total sales.
including everything you'd expect from a more expensive Android-based tablet: the Android market, GMail, web browser
The Vox is AOSP, and not certified by Google. Out of the box, you're limited to a small, relatively unknown app market with a limited subset of apps, and no Gmail, Talk, or other standard Google Android apps. On the other hand, there will almost certainly be a hack that adds this in shortly, if one does not exist already.
That said, it does look like a nice $200 tablet. Most people who complain about the lack of quality/speed/reliability in a converted Vox, Nook or Kindle are expecting Xoom performance from a $200 investment. A Civic is a nice car, but don't expect it to do everything a Lexus can.
[ ] Crappy [ ] Really crappy [ ] "You've got to be kidding me!" crappy
Even from TFA:
"The thing with cheap tablets is most of them turn out to be unusable," Rajat Agrawal of technology reviewers BGR India told Reuters news agency.
"They don't have a very good touch screen, and they are usually very slow."
You can already get really cheap chinese android tablets on EBay, and they're almost usable. Except for the touchscreens on them. At this price point, you can't get adequate enough quality for real use.
You missed the point -- parent post suggests that self-signed certificates don't prevent MITM attacks.
ssh doesn't even bother to sign the host keys (certificates), and it does quite well in preventing them.
For that matter, even the current implementation of browsers prevents MITM attacks with self-signed certs.... If I connect to a site with a SS cert, I get a warning about it, and whitelist that cert. If I come back some other time, and there is a new self signed cert, I get the warning again. Since I know I already whitelisted that site, I'm going to dig a bit to find out why the cert changed.
The ssh host key for a server is generated automatically by the ssh daemon the first time it runs.
The first time a user connects to that server, they get a fingerprint they can check, and a "This is the first time you've connected to this host, are you sure it's the right one?". Subsequent connections are silent, unless the host key changes. You get a big, scary message if a host you've allowed in the past changes it's key. (As this signals a potential MITM attack.)
SSL certs should be handled the same way by the browser. If you tell the browser you trust CAs, then a new certificate can be automatically approved. Self-signed certs (or all certs if you opt to not trust CAs) get a quiet "Oh, this is a new server. No big deal. Are you sure it's legit?" message. If any cert changes before its expiry date, shout dire warnings. (If a cert changes, but the stored fingerprint has an expiry date that is passed, tell the user in a non-threatening way that they need to be sure of their destination.)
In nearly all cases, the question of who made a certificate is not of any real use to the end-user. All they need to know is that the server they connected to yesterday (their bank, Facebook, GMail, or whoever) is the same server they tried to connect to yesterday.
A clue about making a certificate that's worthless against MITM attacks? Congratulations on identifying yourself as completely fucking clueless.
You better get in touch with all the admins running their ssh daemons with self-generated (and unsigned!) host keys! How could such a gaping vulnerability be missed?!
Standardization is the introverted naturalist's account of rats, cockroaches, raccoons, ravens, seagulls, and urban deer: what's left behind after progressive forces have eradicated the dodo, pillaged the cod fishery, and turned most of the polar bear population into shaggy rugs of bravado.
that the grand FTP sites like Walnut Creek didn't last this long. RIP cdrom.com, RIP gamehead, RIP happypuppy, RIP filefactory, RIP gamesdomain, and RIP sunet.se
What if Zynga had done this, do you think FB would have banned them for months?
"I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened."
Slashdot Mirror
Facebook *does* monitor "private" communications (probably with automated keyword searching and the like) and will proactively contact law enforcement if it's deemed appropriate... The following story broke locally about a week ago -- http://www.cjob.com/news/winnipeg/story.aspx?ID=1757654 (tl;dr - Local PD got a call from FB about the sexual assault of a 13 year old by a 25 yo.)
It is entirely possible that something similar happened here, no matter how private his postings were.
ugh.
well, hey, cheer up everybody, we just landed the most awesomest rover evar on mars!
and all the other sciency stuff we've been accomplishing...
we're doing great.
Nuh uh!
http://www.knowthelies.com/node/8072
:doublefacepalm:
It'll need to be some rocket to get to the mission altitude of 20,000 feet. And it's got enough range that it will most likely be launched from a friendly base.
Why is it bouyed with helium, which is incredibly expensive?
It's unmanned, so why not use hydrogen? Who cares if they lose the odd one to lightening?
You're reading it wrong. The scale at the very bottom of the chart on Mt Gox shows a month, but the default zoom on that scale is 1 day.
Currently showing a volume of about 1200 BTC per hour.
grnbrg.
http://bitcoincharts.com/markets/mtgoxUSD_trades.html
30 day volume: BTC 2,079,763.64, USD$18,314,377.
grnbrg.
Well, except for the fact that Mt. Gox's current 30 day volume is a little over 2 million *coins* valued at between US$7 and $10 (Average value of $8.77.).
So $2 million per month through Silk Road is not unreasonable if Gox is doing $17 million per month in transactions....
grnbrg.
The payment breakdowns for the Humble Bundle packages disagree with you.
The difference being that 5.25 drives were in millions of devices (and that's grouping the incompatible drives together -- Apple, IBM and Commodore to name a few...
USB is in billions of devices. There's probably 3 or 4 in your laptop, 4 to 8 in your pc, a few in your TV, one in your phone. Your monitor probably has a hub built into it. And they are all the same "USB". There are probably more USB interfaces in Android phones alone today than there ever was of 5.25" drives.
-- grnbrg
People have been implanting magnetic stuff for a while...
http://www.wired.com/gadgets/mods/news/2006/06/71087
+1 for the Soul Rider series.
Seriously messed up, but a good read.
grnbrg.
Yes, the media companies and publishers have draconian DRM policies, and charge far more than most people would consider reasonable for their content. They're going to have to change, or die. But just because they're stupid and evil doesn't make everything done with their stuff right.
Hosting a site that provides tools to strip that DRM off? I can see why the media companies don't like that, but tough shit for them.
Using tools to strip DRM from content you've paid for, for your own use? No problem. Sharing that content with a friend (ie: Someone you actually know!)? Grey, but I think it would actually benefit the media companies.
Running a site that provides DRM-stripped content for general download? Frankly, I don't see this as legit, but I'll accept that there are some arguments in favour of it. And I also feel that if most people are given a legal option at a reasonable value (in terms of price/DRM) they'll take that over a free, illegitimate site. (Hence the popularity of iTunes.)
But taking a DRM-stripped item that a publisher is selling for $X through legitimate channels, and selling it for $(X/10)? Screw 'em. Put them in jail, and then sue them for the gross income of their total sales.
grnbrg.
The Vox is AOSP, and not certified by Google. Out of the box, you're limited to a small, relatively unknown app market with a limited subset of apps, and no Gmail, Talk, or other standard Google Android apps. On the other hand, there will almost certainly be a hack that adds this in shortly, if one does not exist already.
That said, it does look like a nice $200 tablet. Most people who complain about the lack of quality/speed/reliability in a converted Vox, Nook or Kindle are expecting Xoom performance from a $200 investment. A Civic is a nice car, but don't expect it to do everything a Lexus can.
[ ] Really crappy
[ ] "You've got to be kidding me!" crappy
Even from TFA:
You can already get really cheap chinese android tablets on EBay, and they're almost usable. Except for the touchscreens on them. At this price point, you can't get adequate enough quality for real use.
Dammit.
".... is the same server they're trying to connect to today."
You missed the point -- parent post suggests that self-signed certificates don't prevent MITM attacks.
ssh doesn't even bother to sign the host keys (certificates), and it does quite well in preventing them.
For that matter, even the current implementation of browsers prevents MITM attacks with self-signed certs.... If I connect to a site with a SS cert, I get a warning about it, and whitelist that cert. If I come back some other time, and there is a new self signed cert, I get the warning again. Since I know I already whitelisted that site, I'm going to dig a bit to find out why the cert changed.
The ssh host key for a server is generated automatically by the ssh daemon the first time it runs.
The first time a user connects to that server, they get a fingerprint they can check, and a "This is the first time you've connected to this host, are you sure it's the right one?". Subsequent connections are silent, unless the host key changes. You get a big, scary message if a host you've allowed in the past changes it's key. (As this signals a potential MITM attack.)
SSL certs should be handled the same way by the browser. If you tell the browser you trust CAs, then a new certificate can be automatically approved. Self-signed certs (or all certs if you opt to not trust CAs) get a quiet "Oh, this is a new server. No big deal. Are you sure it's legit?" message. If any cert changes before its expiry date, shout dire warnings. (If a cert changes, but the stored fingerprint has an expiry date that is passed, tell the user in a non-threatening way that they need to be sure of their destination.)
In nearly all cases, the question of who made a certificate is not of any real use to the end-user. All they need to know is that the server they connected to yesterday (their bank, Facebook, GMail, or whoever) is the same server they tried to connect to yesterday.
A clue about making a certificate that's worthless against MITM attacks? Congratulations on identifying yourself as completely fucking clueless.
You better get in touch with all the admins running their ssh daemons with self-generated (and unsigned!) host keys! How could such a gaping vulnerability be missed?!
Standardization is the introverted naturalist's account of rats, cockroaches, raccoons, ravens, seagulls, and urban deer: what's left behind after progressive forces have eradicated the dodo, pillaged the cod fishery, and turned most of the polar bear population into shaggy rugs of bravado.
New .signature!
Who said poetry was dead? :)
grnbrg.
The better explanation is this: That's no sun. It's the moon!
That's no moon! It's a space station!
that the grand FTP sites like Walnut Creek didn't last this long. RIP cdrom.com, RIP gamehead, RIP happypuppy, RIP filefactory, RIP gamesdomain, and RIP sunet.se
n00b.
RIP wsmr-simtel20.army.mil
What if Zynga had done this, do you think FB would have banned them for months?
"I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened."
1985 called. They want their maglev back.
First they ignore you.
Then they ridicule you.
Then they fight you.
Then you win.
-- Ghandi.
Except that the totals currently show otherwise...
- Total raised $55,481
- Average contribution $7.74
- Number of contributions 7169