The broken points will be routed around. New peering points will appear etc. Its just as effective as blowing up major highways to stop people from moving around. It doesn't work. Traffic reroutes to minor roads.
IT's not up to BP to use this. Its up to us to make it god damn sure that no matter how big you are skirting around laws and safety procedures is not possible.
Damn... A trip down memory lane... Terminal services at uni, finger on friends what they are up to, making funny plan files and scripts to grep out friends last online time out of who and making it part of your bash profile--- Where has the time gone... all 6 years of it. VT220 terminals FTW.
Sensible safety is never bloaty, its sleek, functional and manageable. Built in safety for every imaginable risk is bloat and risk in itself because your imagination is the limit of your protection and a management nightmare because people keep on thinking up new ways things can go wrong, while the amount of right things stays the same. Data validation is one of the most basic things you can do. But doing it the blacklist way is a slippery slope.
Oh, and just for a little mind-bending, imagine a car seat that has safety for every imaginable thing that can go wrong in a car with just the driver from you spilling hot coffee to having a heart attack and compare what you imagine to what you get in an average car. Bloat point should become obvious.
More excuses for hiring developers who can produce bad code by metric ton without understanding what it actually is what they are doing. And that they don't even need to understand. Sigh... It waould be better to ban your developers off SQL and into an abstraction layer that puts the queries together behind the scenes and hire a competent developer to develop that.
I agree with you on most of what you said. However, people who are just learning have no business writing business critical code for high risk environments, much less without strong supervision.
Also, writing checks for every case imaginable bloats your code and then there are all the cases you didn't imagine but a clever hacker does. the solution is to write checks for everything valid and have a standard procedure for everything invalid.
The sad thing is... the US courts may agree because they are buying into the whole 1 copy = 1 lost sale, at market value and the insane numbers this pseudo evaluation gives. If this spreads outside US with treaties I will indeed lose hope in humanity.
Did the tests for the first cults except apple,I only eat apples not compute on them. Linux 16, Programming 14, and ho surprise, windows 17, I was so certain I was gonna suck on that... I guess some scars from windows admining just don't heal.
You try to make it sound like its a fair game. Its not. Guilty or not, a lot of small people people cant afford to fight these attacks and why would they when everybody that has tried has gotten statutory damages awarded to the bullies in amounts that equate direct bankruptcy and do not even resemble fair compensation in way way.
Smart legal people see a low cost moneymaking machine in these cases. Sue crap-ton of people on dubious proof, get a contact to go with that IP, that does NOT represent an individual in any way, shape or form and then extort settlements from as many as possible. Legal extortion. Retarded.
On ubuntu, Ive never seen sudo prompt unless I do something first, that warrants such request like trying to install something. Never have I seen it in casual use. This is not the case with UAC because the whole security model specially on the file system level is a mess. You need admin privileges for things that shouldn't need them.
You are right about the low hanging fruit. There's a catch tho. A *nix system is never going to be a low hanging fruit, even if the admin is a dumb user. Why? Because it's not a monoculture. For the same reason its so hard to provide a Linux binary that will work for every version it also hard to devise an attack that would compromise a significant number of Linux machines because each of them is in some way different. Even if one install is old and unmaintained, there is no critical mass of systems like it.
People are dumb enough to install Latest Awesome Bling MSN smileypack + FREE TROJANS, they are dumb enough to fall for this.
Banks around here do recommend opening an NEW browser window for banking and closing it after done tho as a dumb user safeguard. But they also implement proper 2 factor(what you know + what you have, a smart card with pin needed to use certificates) authentication system. Legacy 1.5 factor system is severely limited(sum you can move is ridiculously small) already and will be phased out completely soon. This or better is what the world of banking should do everywhere.
So Ill forward any particularly difficult MS document I get to my hotmail account and wait until Im behind a windows computer with silverlight available.
Or not.
That windows computer (my work laptop, parents computer, whatever) has most likely some version of Office installed. So Ill just use that.
They are several years late. Again. And Google gives me a lot more formats, all of the OO ones for example and an online PDF reader, best thing since sliced bread. And it does this without the need for closed clumsiy plugins like MS-s silverlight.
You would need to lock up half the population on this planet and put the rest as guards.
Yes, it really is that bad. Only a small percentage however actually ever commit a crime against a real child, and even that means more molested kids you ever imagine.
And its the people you least expect to commit this crime. Priests, people in trust of the family, your brother, youth workers etc... Bathtub photos have nothing to do with it. 99% of actual child abuse results in 0 photos and a handful of confused memories for the kid. People who harm children are the only ones that should be hunted down. The rest should be really mindful about what is sensible and what not to investigate further, to see if somebody has been harmed.
Oh really? Some people can beat it off to grandmothers dance rehearsals and girls in tight jeans on the street. Lets declare that illegal too.
This sort of insanity does not protect anyone.
IMHO, what should be a focus of such laws is the amount of pictures in ones possession. 2-3 bathtub pictures of 1 or two kids you have some natural connection to is quite normal. 100+ pictures of strange nude kids on the beach is not.
Heck, even 100+ pictures of fully clothed kids going to school warrant an investigation at least, but not pictures some parent has of their kid in a tub.
Slashdot Mirror
The broken points will be routed around. New peering points will appear etc. Its just as effective as blowing up major highways to stop people from moving around. It doesn't work. Traffic reroutes to minor roads.
Wasn't Obama who asked for it, so not really his. And that's pretending such kill switch is not plain impossible.
IT's not up to BP to use this. Its up to us to make it god damn sure that no matter how big you are skirting around laws and safety procedures is not possible.
Damn... A trip down memory lane... Terminal services at uni, finger on friends what they are up to, making funny plan files and scripts to grep out friends last online time out of who and making it part of your bash profile--- Where has the time gone... all 6 years of it. VT220 terminals FTW.
Indeed...
Sensible safety is never bloaty, its sleek, functional and manageable. Built in safety for every imaginable risk is bloat and risk in itself because your imagination is the limit of your protection and a management nightmare because people keep on thinking up new ways things can go wrong, while the amount of right things stays the same. Data validation is one of the most basic things you can do. But doing it the blacklist way is a slippery slope. Oh, and just for a little mind-bending, imagine a car seat that has safety for every imaginable thing that can go wrong in a car with just the driver from you spilling hot coffee to having a heart attack and compare what you imagine to what you get in an average car. Bloat point should become obvious.
More excuses for hiring developers who can produce bad code by metric ton without understanding what it actually is what they are doing. And that they don't even need to understand. Sigh... It waould be better to ban your developers off SQL and into an abstraction layer that puts the queries together behind the scenes and hire a competent developer to develop that.
I agree with you on most of what you said. However, people who are just learning have no business writing business critical code for high risk environments, much less without strong supervision.
Also, writing checks for every case imaginable bloats your code and then there are all the cases you didn't imagine but a clever hacker does. the solution is to write checks for everything valid and have a standard procedure for everything invalid.
He looks cute older.
From your lips to $DEITY's ears. We don't need the infection.
They are. in droves. But all you need is 12 stooges who won't and the next thing you know RIAA is awarded 1.5 trillion payout.
The sad thing is... the US courts may agree because they are buying into the whole 1 copy = 1 lost sale, at market value and the insane numbers this pseudo evaluation gives. If this spreads outside US with treaties I will indeed lose hope in humanity.
Did the tests for the first cults except apple,I only eat apples not compute on them. Linux 16, Programming 14, and ho surprise, windows 17, I was so certain I was gonna suck on that... I guess some scars from windows admining just don't heal.
Takedown warning is fine. Even a suit against a single persistent copy-blogger is fine. Suing a crap-ton unnamed individuals is not.
You try to make it sound like its a fair game. Its not. Guilty or not, a lot of small people people cant afford to fight these attacks and why would they when everybody that has tried has gotten statutory damages awarded to the bullies in amounts that equate direct bankruptcy and do not even resemble fair compensation in way way. Smart legal people see a low cost moneymaking machine in these cases. Sue crap-ton of people on dubious proof, get a contact to go with that IP, that does NOT represent an individual in any way, shape or form and then extort settlements from as many as possible. Legal extortion. Retarded.
On ubuntu, Ive never seen sudo prompt unless I do something first, that warrants such request like trying to install something. Never have I seen it in casual use. This is not the case with UAC because the whole security model specially on the file system level is a mess. You need admin privileges for things that shouldn't need them.
You are right about the low hanging fruit. There's a catch tho. A *nix system is never going to be a low hanging fruit, even if the admin is a dumb user. Why? Because it's not a monoculture. For the same reason its so hard to provide a Linux binary that will work for every version it also hard to devise an attack that would compromise a significant number of Linux machines because each of them is in some way different. Even if one install is old and unmaintained, there is no critical mass of systems like it.
People are dumb enough to install Latest Awesome Bling MSN smileypack + FREE TROJANS, they are dumb enough to fall for this. Banks around here do recommend opening an NEW browser window for banking and closing it after done tho as a dumb user safeguard. But they also implement proper 2 factor(what you know + what you have, a smart card with pin needed to use certificates) authentication system. Legacy 1.5 factor system is severely limited(sum you can move is ridiculously small) already and will be phased out completely soon. This or better is what the world of banking should do everywhere.
Nice, yes. But not enough to cause mass move over from Google.
So Ill forward any particularly difficult MS document I get to my hotmail account and wait until Im behind a windows computer with silverlight available.
Or not.
That windows computer (my work laptop, parents computer, whatever) has most likely some version of Office installed. So Ill just use that.
They are several years late. Again. And Google gives me a lot more formats, all of the OO ones for example and an online PDF reader, best thing since sliced bread. And it does this without the need for closed clumsiy plugins like MS-s silverlight.
Not personally, me be being straight female and all... but I have visited 4chan.
You would need to lock up half the population on this planet and put the rest as guards.
Yes, it really is that bad. Only a small percentage however actually ever commit a crime against a real child, and even that means more molested kids you ever imagine.
And its the people you least expect to commit this crime. Priests, people in trust of the family, your brother, youth workers etc... Bathtub photos have nothing to do with it. 99% of actual child abuse results in 0 photos and a handful of confused memories for the kid. People who harm children are the only ones that should be hunted down. The rest should be really mindful about what is sensible and what not to investigate further, to see if somebody has been harmed.
Oh really? Some people can beat it off to grandmothers dance rehearsals and girls in tight jeans on the street. Lets declare that illegal too.
This sort of insanity does not protect anyone.
IMHO, what should be a focus of such laws is the amount of pictures in ones possession. 2-3 bathtub pictures of 1 or two kids you have some natural connection to is quite normal. 100+ pictures of strange nude kids on the beach is not. Heck, even 100+ pictures of fully clothed kids going to school warrant an investigation at least, but not pictures some parent has of their kid in a tub.
- naughty pictures teens a have taken of themselves to send to their bf/gf
Criminalizing kids for this is retarded IMHO.