considering they are moving boundaries to cover their asses it is not a stretch to think they would look for proxies too. If they ignore a known hole they are not covering their asses.
There is a bigger profit incentive to not let it slide; the commision may shut the gambling down completely(that is the reason for this article). One would also have to own those IP addresses to be able to allocate them. IP addresses are not free.
That might be considered incitement but when monetary rewards come into it then it crosses the line into conspiracy.I doubt any politician or reporter ever said "I will pay someone $X to kill Assange."
There is a type of exercise called a tracking exercise that is designed to test how well the radar tracks the target and how well the crew responds. All the weapons are locked down so they do not accidentally destroy the drone. Several of these tracking exercises can be run with the same drone. Notice that some drones are recoverable and not meant to always be shot down.
What I was trying to say was the weapons themselves are slow to deploy. For example the "re-loadable gun" takes seconds from the time the trigger is pulled to when it goes off. The other issue is that taking one aspect in isolation is not a valid way of evaluating a process, Sure one may be able to prep these "weapons" in a batroom but when the idiots attempt to deploy them they will be subdued by other passengers very quickly.
None of the proposed weapons have the ability to take down a plane anyway.
So you agree with me that these items are crap weapons.
What you are railing at is auto blocking. What I am talking about is flagging for investigation. Lets look at this scenario; 1. 200 accounts accessing the NJ gambling servers from the same address in one day. 2. They look into the address and it is a hotel. If it is not a hotel and the investigation finds no legitimate reason for those connections they blacklist it. 3.a A 500 room hotel may be legit. 3.b A 20 room hotel, probably not so they investigate further.
For a proxy service to be profitable it would have to have hundreds of customers per day. It would be pretty easy to notice it. A proxy server is very different than a wireless router.
I wish people would figure that out one of these days. IP address != identity. Not by a long shot.
The objective is not to identify a person but to identify a server as being a proxy server. When an investigation is done and it is found that there is no way that the people gambling through that IP are on premises it is easy to prove it is a proxy. There is probably a rule banning gambling through a proxy and blacklisting a proxy is a reasonable remedy.
There is a saying; "the perfect is the enemy of the good". All there needs to be is a method that works some of the time and sufficient penalties to make the risk not worth it. They would not go after the account holders but the proxy service so individuals would not need to be identified.
A proxy server would be known as a service by their ISP and probably assigned a static IP. Even DHCPs are not renewed that often. It causes problems with web sites that authenticate based on IP. They are usually renewed on power up. Most cable or DSL modems don't power cycle very often. I am not saying that it is foolproof but will probably be noticed and investigated.
So you could have 200 people using the same one over a week or so.
They would all have to attempt to gamble in NJ. Two hundred people trying to gamble from the same IP is not normal even if it changed hands every day.
That would be more difficult to weed out but still not impossible. A 20 room hotel with 100 simultaneous connections might be spotted. Most web pages don't care about proxies; gambling web sites do. Then there is the risk to the hotel of being charged with something like facilitating illegal gambling.
You were wrong the first time you said it, I told you why you were wrong, so why are you wasting everyone's time repeating it?
You sure have a high opinion about your opinions. Anyone who has a different opinion is wring? Are you an infallible god? Also, while you may have read th original post other may not therefore the repeat.
Can anyone remember the shoebomber's name without looking it up?
While don't know names we still know "the shoe bomber".
Perhaps you frighten easily.
The point you seemed to miss was that I was saying the these "weapons" may cause local fear, exploding cans of Axe are frightening, they will not cause effective terror. By the way, I was responding to xOra and not you unless you are sock puppeting two accounts.
Discharging the weapons alone in the bathroom would just make some smoke/noise and injure the terrorist but would not bring the aircraft down. The worst that would happen would be the aircraft would make a quick landing but everyone would survive.
So some people on the aircraft are frightened and then beat the crap out of the terrorist. The aircraft does not go down. No one dies and everyone laughs at the stupid terrorist.
This is all about terror, you just need to frighten people, not kill them.
For terrorism to be effective one needs to make everyone who flies on aircraft afraid that they could die. Reports of a few people injured and the terrorist in jail just won't do that.
All the weapons would be notices and the shooter disarmed before they went off. Even if they could get one shot off reload time would allow other passengers to take the hijacker down before he re-loaded. After 911 passengers are more proactive in dealing with hijackers. These things are toys at best. Sure one may be able to start a fire in a luggage compartment but even they have fire suppression equipment. Even if the aerosol cans went off it would not bring down an aircraft. The ones that explode are a lot of flash and sound without much damage. Even of a couple of people are hurt the hijacker would have to deal with the remaining passengers.
Prison is for people who break laws that have been enacted by duly elected people and have a prison tern attached to those laws. There is an very of saying "don't do the crime if you can't do the time".
Millions of Millions of cells in your body now are not the same cells as three months ago. Yet "you" as a system persist.
Are you the same person as you were when you were 4 years old? 10 years old? 15 years old? You may be labelled the same person but your thought processes and decisions are very different. You as a person are different every year.
they recognized a group of people in control is a system which has certain inherent tendencies that lead to bad ends, and therefore we must build in limits to those tendencies.
FTFY The question is "would today's government make the same decisions as the one 30 years ago? The answer is "probably not".
No because there are very few people currently working for the government that were working when those films and campaigns were created. The "government" is not a monolithic consistent sentient entity. It is made of the people elected to control it and hired to work for it therefore it constantly changes. The current government is not the "same" as one 30 years ago.
The point is, they can use this while you have a dispute with them.
To have the reward of the ability to swap a drained battery for a charged battery that is the risk. If the reward does not exceed the risk then don't buy the vehicle.
Basically giving them a choke-hold on you regardless of you being wrongly treated and them violating agreements.
That works both ways. Without it the lessee has a choke-hold on the battery company regardless of battery company being treated wrongly and the lessee violating agreements. The difference is in the consequences. For a lessee the consequences are, if the batter company can shut off the battery, the inability to use their vehicle. While annoying and inconvenient there are usually alternatives. The lessee will probably write many negative reviews of the vehicle. If this happens too many times vehicle sales will drop. That is not something the car company wants to happen. For the battery company, if they could not control the battery, the consequences are the loss of a battery in which they have invested thousands of dollars. If that happens too many times the company will go out of business.
How did everyone miss this? The ZOE has a swappable battery. There are or will be stations where one can drive up and swap the discharged battery for a different charged battery. This is why the battery is leased and not sold. The infrastructure to do this swapping and the spare batteries that must be kept at the swap stations need to be paid for somehow. The lease is how it is paid for. Lets look at a couple of scenarios; 1. Purchase battery Worst case scenario. A user charges the battery until it degrades to an unacceptable point and then goes to a swap station and swaps it. The problem is that the swap station will now only get fees when the swap is done and the owner could be shocked at how high the battery fee is (It could be thousands of dollars if there is a problem with the battery). It is very difficult to run a business when revenue can fluctuate widely 2. Lease battery The revenue stream is known for the company so they can budget how may batteries to buy and stock. It is a easy to budget for a customer as they know the monthly charge for having a reliable swappable battery. The downside is that there needs to be a way of ensuring that the owner pays the monthly fee. The ability to turn of charging is one way to do that. It would be a huge issue to attempt to repossess batteries from people who stop paying the lease.
It comes down to this; because the battery is swappable it is not your battery. It might be an idea to outright sell batteries to people who will never swap them but that makes it difficult to finance swap station if everyone who can swap does not pay for it. Maybe after they get enough vehicles on the road to finance the swap station they may allow outright sale of batteries.
Sure, and if I write a script that sends millions of requests to slashdot.org, from "http://slashdot.org/~a" to "http://slashdot.org/~ZZZZZZZZ", so what?
Nothing and it should be prosecuted as well.
How is that any different from me accessing "http://slashdot.org/~jklovanc"?
It is different because that information is readily available to anyone who reads this site. An IMEI on the other hand is not widely known. There are billions of possible IMEIs and guessing at them was seen as a deliberate attempt to circumvent security. It is very similar to brute force cracking a password.
Slashdot Mirror
considering they are moving boundaries to cover their asses it is not a stretch to think they would look for proxies too. If they ignore a known hole they are not covering their asses.
There is a bigger profit incentive to not let it slide; the commision may shut the gambling down completely(that is the reason for this article). One would also have to own those IP addresses to be able to allocate them. IP addresses are not free.
I think you confuse "ineffectual" with "not completely 100% effective".
That might be considered incitement but when monetary rewards come into it then it crosses the line into conspiracy.I doubt any politician or reporter ever said "I will pay someone $X to kill Assange."
I bet that the owner of the site could be charged with "conspiracy to commit murder".
There is a type of exercise called a tracking exercise that is designed to test how well the radar tracks the target and how well the crew responds. All the weapons are locked down so they do not accidentally destroy the drone. Several of these tracking exercises can be run with the same drone. Notice that some drones are recoverable and not meant to always be shot down.
What I was trying to say was the weapons themselves are slow to deploy. For example the "re-loadable gun" takes seconds from the time the trigger is pulled to when it goes off.
The other issue is that taking one aspect in isolation is not a valid way of evaluating a process, Sure one may be able to prep these "weapons" in a batroom but when the idiots attempt to deploy them they will be subdued by other passengers very quickly.
None of the proposed weapons have the ability to take down a plane anyway.
So you agree with me that these items are crap weapons.
Read the other posts under this comment as I don't see the need to repeat myself.
What you are railing at is auto blocking. What I am talking about is flagging for investigation. Lets look at this scenario;
1. 200 accounts accessing the NJ gambling servers from the same address in one day.
2. They look into the address and it is a hotel. If it is not a hotel and the investigation finds no legitimate reason for those connections they blacklist it.
3.a A 500 room hotel may be legit.
3.b A 20 room hotel, probably not so they investigate further.
For a proxy service to be profitable it would have to have hundreds of customers per day. It would be pretty easy to notice it. A proxy server is very different than a wireless router.
I wish people would figure that out one of these days. IP address != identity. Not by a long shot.
The objective is not to identify a person but to identify a server as being a proxy server. When an investigation is done and it is found that there is no way that the people gambling through that IP are on premises it is easy to prove it is a proxy. There is probably a rule banning gambling through a proxy and blacklisting a proxy is a reasonable remedy.
There is a saying; "the perfect is the enemy of the good". All there needs to be is a method that works some of the time and sufficient penalties to make the risk not worth it. They would not go after the account holders but the proxy service so individuals would not need to be identified.
Posting AC and probably replying to your own post; talk to me when you get a backbone.
A proxy server would be known as a service by their ISP and probably assigned a static IP. Even DHCPs are not renewed that often. It causes problems with web sites that authenticate based on IP. They are usually renewed on power up. Most cable or DSL modems don't power cycle very often. I am not saying that it is foolproof but will probably be noticed and investigated.
So you could have 200 people using the same one over a week or so.
They would all have to attempt to gamble in NJ. Two hundred people trying to gamble from the same IP is not normal even if it changed hands every day.
That would be more difficult to weed out but still not impossible. A 20 room hotel with 100 simultaneous connections might be spotted. Most web pages don't care about proxies; gambling web sites do. Then there is the risk to the hotel of being charged with something like facilitating illegal gambling.
Less than ten may get by but 50+ is probably not going to fly.
A proxy would be pretty easy to spot and block. Many different accounts logging on from the same IP sticks out quite a bit.
You were wrong the first time you said it, I told you why you were wrong, so why are you wasting everyone's time repeating it?
You sure have a high opinion about your opinions. Anyone who has a different opinion is wring? Are you an infallible god? Also, while you may have read th original post other may not therefore the repeat.
Can anyone remember the shoebomber's name without looking it up?
While don't know names we still know "the shoe bomber".
Perhaps you frighten easily.
The point you seemed to miss was that I was saying the these "weapons" may cause local fear, exploding cans of Axe are frightening, they will not cause effective terror.
By the way, I was responding to xOra and not you unless you are sock puppeting two accounts.
Discharging the weapons alone in the bathroom would just make some smoke/noise and injure the terrorist but would not bring the aircraft down. The worst that would happen would be the aircraft would make a quick landing but everyone would survive.
Ceramic gun. Liquid binary explosive, carbon fiber or reinforced plastic knife, explosives in general if the blasting cap is aluminum.
So some people on the aircraft are frightened and then beat the crap out of the terrorist. The aircraft does not go down. No one dies and everyone laughs at the stupid terrorist.
This is all about terror, you just need to frighten people, not kill them.
For terrorism to be effective one needs to make everyone who flies on aircraft afraid that they could die. Reports of a few people injured and the terrorist in jail just won't do that.
All the weapons would be notices and the shooter disarmed before they went off. Even if they could get one shot off reload time would allow other passengers to take the hijacker down before he re-loaded. After 911 passengers are more proactive in dealing with hijackers. These things are toys at best. Sure one may be able to start a fire in a luggage compartment but even they have fire suppression equipment. Even if the aerosol cans went off it would not bring down an aircraft. The ones that explode are a lot of flash and sound without much damage. Even of a couple of people are hurt the hijacker would have to deal with the remaining passengers.
Prison is for people who break laws that have been enacted by duly elected people and have a prison tern attached to those laws. There is an very of saying "don't do the crime if you can't do the time".
Millions of Millions of cells in your body now are not the same cells as three months ago. Yet "you" as a system persist.
Are you the same person as you were when you were 4 years old? 10 years old? 15 years old? You may be labelled the same person but your thought processes and decisions are very different. You as a person are different every year.
they recognized a group of people in control is a system which has certain inherent tendencies that lead to bad ends, and therefore we must build in limits to those tendencies.
FTFY
The question is "would today's government make the same decisions as the one 30 years ago? The answer is "probably not".
No because there are very few people currently working for the government that were working when those films and campaigns were created. The "government" is not a monolithic consistent sentient entity. It is made of the people elected to control it and hired to work for it therefore it constantly changes. The current government is not the "same" as one 30 years ago.
The point is, they can use this while you have a dispute with them.
To have the reward of the ability to swap a drained battery for a charged battery that is the risk. If the reward does not exceed the risk then don't buy the vehicle.
Basically giving them a choke-hold on you regardless of you being wrongly treated and them violating agreements.
That works both ways. Without it the lessee has a choke-hold on the battery company regardless of battery company being treated wrongly and the lessee violating agreements. The difference is in the consequences. For a lessee the consequences are, if the batter company can shut off the battery, the inability to use their vehicle. While annoying and inconvenient there are usually alternatives. The lessee will probably write many negative reviews of the vehicle. If this happens too many times vehicle sales will drop. That is not something the car company wants to happen. For the battery company, if they could not control the battery, the consequences are the loss of a battery in which they have invested thousands of dollars. If that happens too many times the company will go out of business.
How did everyone miss this?
The ZOE has a swappable battery. There are or will be stations where one can drive up and swap the discharged battery for a different charged battery. This is why the battery is leased and not sold. The infrastructure to do this swapping and the spare batteries that must be kept at the swap stations need to be paid for somehow. The lease is how it is paid for.
Lets look at a couple of scenarios;
1. Purchase battery
Worst case scenario. A user charges the battery until it degrades to an unacceptable point and then goes to a swap station and swaps it. The problem is that the swap station will now only get fees when the swap is done and the owner could be shocked at how high the battery fee is (It could be thousands of dollars if there is a problem with the battery). It is very difficult to run a business when revenue can fluctuate widely
2. Lease battery
The revenue stream is known for the company so they can budget how may batteries to buy and stock. It is a easy to budget for a customer as they know the monthly charge for having a reliable swappable battery. The downside is that there needs to be a way of ensuring that the owner pays the monthly fee. The ability to turn of charging is one way to do that. It would be a huge issue to attempt to repossess batteries from people who stop paying the lease.
It comes down to this; because the battery is swappable it is not your battery. It might be an idea to outright sell batteries to people who will never swap them but that makes it difficult to finance swap station if everyone who can swap does not pay for it. Maybe after they get enough vehicles on the road to finance the swap station they may allow outright sale of batteries.
Sure, and if I write a script that sends millions of requests to slashdot.org, from "http://slashdot.org/~a" to "http://slashdot.org/~ZZZZZZZZ", so what?
Nothing and it should be prosecuted as well.
How is that any different from me accessing "http://slashdot.org/~jklovanc"?
It is different because that information is readily available to anyone who reads this site. An IMEI on the other hand is not widely known. There are billions of possible IMEIs and guessing at them was seen as a deliberate attempt to circumvent security. It is very similar to brute force cracking a password.