Leave the front door open with a sign saying "help yourself"? Yes.
Sorry, the NSA and DoD published rules on how to secure computers. It's called the Rainbow Series, augmented by FIPS. These are not optional, they are mandatory. Placing classified computers onto an unclassified network is, under US law, a felony bordering on treason. Tell me, how many were prosecuted on your side?
The British have this system called "fair trial". America might want to give it a go, some day.
There was a guy who broke into British government computers and Prince Philip's e-mail. Now, let's see, how much prison time did he get? Oh, yes. NONE.
If the computers meet the Rainbow Book standards, then they're close enough to unhackable. If they don't, then it's their own bloody fault if they're hacked.
British computers have always been open season to the Americans. it's called Operation Moonpenny.
You're a good deal politer about it than I am, but yes you're right. The US has no pretense of having any interest in justice in this or any other case and those Americans involved in American "justice" or are calling for his deportation are revenge-obsessed hate-filled spew-spawn. They've no interest in law, or a fair trial. They're judge, jury and wannabe executioners.
It's true, the US system isn't the worst. It's the fourth worst. Even Russia and Iran have better prisons, and that's scraping the bottom of the barrel.
Who cares where the servers are, the US Government wants the Microsoft data despite the servers being in Ireland. Does it give a flying f--- where the servers are? No, of course not!
Besides, this was an overtly political act and the US and UK don't extradite for political acts. Since the US doesn't deport for such things, it has no right of expectation.
But it gets worse. Defendants who are poor have two choices - borrow heavily with zero possibility of return and zero possibility of paying back because the media has blackened their name, or get a drunk, sleep-deprived public defender who may or may not turn up. A situation the States and the Feds deliberately contrive by hiring too few of them and working them too hard.
The US has a kangaroo court system that is a mockery of justice, and the prison system is notorious for murders and rapes, often with the active assistance of the guards.
And this particular case was a political crime, which means the prohibition on extradition is not only lawful but required by British and American law. Correct?
Not only did the US harbour murderers and terrorists, it financed them. The US government, during Reagan's time, actively sent money and arms to terrorist groups in Ireland to murder British civilians.
The Americans aren't interested in justice, they're interested in revenge. That's why the prison system has one of the highest murder and rape rates in the world. Far as I know, only Australia, China and North Korea are worse. That's not justice, that's sickness. You need treatment.
He's also only accused and has a right to a fair trial. One where justice is not only done, it is seen to be done. That is impossible in the US. Nobody gets a fair trial in the US, we all know that. Fix the system and maybe people will believe you.
Someone needs to have a US justice system that (a) works and (b) doesn't inflict cruel and unusual punishment. If you want to try people, it always helps to have a working system.
And one that you bloody well obey. Starting with placing prisoners in Gitmo on trial in the US courts as per SCOTUS rulings, and handing back the Black Hills of Dakota (also as per SCOTUS rulings).
If you trace it back, you find that the NIH is not a wholly-owned subsiduary of someone with a book. Sorry, whilst the replication study may have flaws, you haven't shown one in the NIH study, which is the peer-reviewed one.
That showed that piece of paper, and it appeared in several books. The original article is therefore false on the ability to verify the bet took place.
Did Hawking pay up? I know Hawking said he did and I'm fairly sure Thorne has confirmed that.
Let's say that there's a genetic contribution to the issue of game violence affecting people. Let's say 1 in 100 are affected. A study of 90 people has an excellent chance of only looking at those who wouldn't be affected.
Let's say it takes 8 hours gaming a day - fairly typical for serious gamers. Half an hour will show nothing.
No, you start by finding those who purport to be affected, then look to see what makes them abnormal, neurologically and genetically. You then create a hypothesis that some permutation of these factors is relevant.
You then conduct a study to determine rarity, then a third study of sufficient size to guarantee a statistically significant number of interesting people are present.
In this study, you measure traits, then assign each person a UUID. It has to be double blind. They don't know what you're measuring, the observer doesn't know who had what traits.
Your hypothesis is that those who are vulnerable will show neurological changes as predicted. You do not rely on self-reporting other than to get the initial candidates, nor do you ever rely on psychology.
This is how you tell who is affected, how and why.
It's expensive, but you do this once and not once every few weeks. This strategy of producing the illusion of work actually costs more in the long run and answers nothing.
Try the article in the Observer/Guardian, you know, the only article that actually invokves the source. It is stated very clearly that malware is used, I trust you can read.
Facebook has a European presence. That means they can be fined. Cambridge Analytics is in the UK and will be ripped a new one iff (if and only if) May doesn't try and exonerate it.
The report in the Observer by the person who actually discussed the software by one of its authors and saw the internal documents. You know, the FA that you're always supposed to go to, the source. Use the source, Luke.
He was not, and is not, a Russian agent. That was investigated and thrown out. Your pukeworthy bullshit has no business here or in any civilized society. Go back under your rock.
A totally evidence-free piece of bullshit and you know it. You are fabricating claims you know to be false, relying on Slashdot never censoring and the first amendment to cover you for blatantly false accusations and a rabid hatred of anyone different from you. See Godwin for details.
1. Use pchar to establish the bandwidth and packet loss ICMP sees between endpoints.
2. Craft packets that contain magic numbers or magic strings, I'm pretty sure that's hping, and see if there are behaviours that only occur with given sequences regardless of endpoints.
3. Traverse the same segment of net using an encrypted tunnel, as encryption is slow. If this causes a massive acceleration, then it cannot be explained by a change in path, only by a change in visibility.
4. Use a proxy that is on the other side, so you traverse the same path but alter the visible destination endpoint. This will detect the most common form of hostile traffic shaping.
If you detect an obvious, reproducible, pattern then you have shown hostile traffic shaping and the form it has taken.
If malware is used to download FB's internal profile of you using your credentials, it's not access as intended by the user.
This is an EU company, EU laws hold. Including the computer misuse act and the data protection act. As does the right to be forgotten, along with various pieces of human rights legislation.
This is a criminal enterprise and Cambridge University should be shut down until its role is established.
No, multiple European laws were violated, malware was used, and the military's psychological warfare division attempted to rig an election (aka a military coup).
No, that is not what they did. RTFA. They used malware to gain access to the entire user profile, including every Facebook link clicked on. Everything Facebook stores on you. Including in the closed and secret groups. Every click, time spent viewing something, everything.
By going through the UK, it wouldn't matter, malware is covered by the computer misuse act, personally identifying information (even if public) is covered by the data protection act.
It's no wonder such lunacy happens, if nobody bothers to understand simple things like laws and regulation. Time was, if you worked in computer science, you were expected to know. Ignorance is no excuse.
Slashdot Mirror
Lock? No.
Leave the front door open with a sign saying "help yourself"? Yes.
Sorry, the NSA and DoD published rules on how to secure computers. It's called the Rainbow Series, augmented by FIPS. These are not optional, they are mandatory. Placing classified computers onto an unclassified network is, under US law, a felony bordering on treason. Tell me, how many were prosecuted on your side?
The British have this system called "fair trial". America might want to give it a go, some day.
There was a guy who broke into British government computers and Prince Philip's e-mail. Now, let's see, how much prison time did he get? Oh, yes. NONE.
I wonder what Kenny Everett would have recommended. (It would have been in the best possible taste, I'm sure.)
Sociopaths should be relieved of their US and/or UK citizenship and deported to Somalia, where they'll be cherished.
If the computers meet the Rainbow Book standards, then they're close enough to unhackable. If they don't, then it's their own bloody fault if they're hacked.
British computers have always been open season to the Americans. it's called Operation Moonpenny.
You're a good deal politer about it than I am, but yes you're right. The US has no pretense of having any interest in justice in this or any other case and those Americans involved in American "justice" or are calling for his deportation are revenge-obsessed hate-filled spew-spawn. They've no interest in law, or a fair trial. They're judge, jury and wannabe executioners.
It's true, the US system isn't the worst. It's the fourth worst. Even Russia and Iran have better prisons, and that's scraping the bottom of the barrel.
Who cares where the servers are, the US Government wants the Microsoft data despite the servers being in Ireland. Does it give a flying f--- where the servers are? No, of course not!
Besides, this was an overtly political act and the US and UK don't extradite for political acts. Since the US doesn't deport for such things, it has no right of expectation.
Unfortunately, you are correct.
But it gets worse. Defendants who are poor have two choices - borrow heavily with zero possibility of return and zero possibility of paying back because the media has blackened their name, or get a drunk, sleep-deprived public defender who may or may not turn up. A situation the States and the Feds deliberately contrive by hiring too few of them and working them too hard.
The US has a kangaroo court system that is a mockery of justice, and the prison system is notorious for murders and rapes, often with the active assistance of the guards.
And this particular case was a political crime, which means the prohibition on extradition is not only lawful but required by British and American law. Correct?
Not only did the US harbour murderers and terrorists, it financed them. The US government, during Reagan's time, actively sent money and arms to terrorist groups in Ireland to murder British civilians.
The Americans aren't interested in justice, they're interested in revenge. That's why the prison system has one of the highest murder and rape rates in the world. Far as I know, only Australia, China and North Korea are worse. That's not justice, that's sickness. You need treatment.
He's also only accused and has a right to a fair trial. One where justice is not only done, it is seen to be done. That is impossible in the US. Nobody gets a fair trial in the US, we all know that. Fix the system and maybe people will believe you.
Someone needs to have a US justice system that (a) works and (b) doesn't inflict cruel and unusual punishment. If you want to try people, it always helps to have a working system.
And one that you bloody well obey. Starting with placing prisoners in Gitmo on trial in the US courts as per SCOTUS rulings, and handing back the Black Hills of Dakota (also as per SCOTUS rulings).
Sorry, British don't do naff.
If you trace it back, you find that the NIH is not a wholly-owned subsiduary of someone with a book. Sorry, whilst the replication study may have flaws, you haven't shown one in the NIH study, which is the peer-reviewed one.
Since this isn't about cell phones, but cell towers, I assume you know your question is irrelevant and rather boring.
Hawking's bets were premised on the idea that it would make verification or falsification headline news and guarantee the limelight be shared.
Since the bets were always that one of his theories was wrong, he also guaranteed a win either way.
That showed that piece of paper, and it appeared in several books. The original article is therefore false on the ability to verify the bet took place.
Did Hawking pay up? I know Hawking said he did and I'm fairly sure Thorne has confirmed that.
Let's say that there's a genetic contribution to the issue of game violence affecting people. Let's say 1 in 100 are affected. A study of 90 people has an excellent chance of only looking at those who wouldn't be affected.
Let's say it takes 8 hours gaming a day - fairly typical for serious gamers. Half an hour will show nothing.
No, you start by finding those who purport to be affected, then look to see what makes them abnormal, neurologically and genetically. You then create a hypothesis that some permutation of these factors is relevant.
You then conduct a study to determine rarity, then a third study of sufficient size to guarantee a statistically significant number of interesting people are present.
In this study, you measure traits, then assign each person a UUID. It has to be double blind. They don't know what you're measuring, the observer doesn't know who had what traits.
Your hypothesis is that those who are vulnerable will show neurological changes as predicted. You do not rely on self-reporting other than to get the initial candidates, nor do you ever rely on psychology.
This is how you tell who is affected, how and why.
It's expensive, but you do this once and not once every few weeks. This strategy of producing the illusion of work actually costs more in the long run and answers nothing.
Try the article in the Observer/Guardian, you know, the only article that actually invokves the source. It is stated very clearly that malware is used, I trust you can read.
Facebook has a European presence. That means they can be fined. Cambridge Analytics is in the UK and will be ripped a new one iff (if and only if) May doesn't try and exonerate it.
The report in the Observer by the person who actually discussed the software by one of its authors and saw the internal documents. You know, the FA that you're always supposed to go to, the source. Use the source, Luke.
He was not, and is not, a Russian agent. That was investigated and thrown out. Your pukeworthy bullshit has no business here or in any civilized society. Go back under your rock.
A totally evidence-free piece of bullshit and you know it. You are fabricating claims you know to be false, relying on Slashdot never censoring and the first amendment to cover you for blatantly false accusations and a rabid hatred of anyone different from you. See Godwin for details.
1. Use pchar to establish the bandwidth and packet loss ICMP sees between endpoints.
2. Craft packets that contain magic numbers or magic strings, I'm pretty sure that's hping, and see if there are behaviours that only occur with given sequences regardless of endpoints.
3. Traverse the same segment of net using an encrypted tunnel, as encryption is slow. If this causes a massive acceleration, then it cannot be explained by a change in path, only by a change in visibility.
4. Use a proxy that is on the other side, so you traverse the same path but alter the visible destination endpoint. This will detect the most common form of hostile traffic shaping.
If you detect an obvious, reproducible, pattern then you have shown hostile traffic shaping and the form it has taken.
If malware is used to download FB's internal profile of you using your credentials, it's not access as intended by the user.
This is an EU company, EU laws hold. Including the computer misuse act and the data protection act. As does the right to be forgotten, along with various pieces of human rights legislation.
This is a criminal enterprise and Cambridge University should be shut down until its role is established.
No, multiple European laws were violated, malware was used, and the military's psychological warfare division attempted to rig an election (aka a military coup).
No, that is not what they did. RTFA. They used malware to gain access to the entire user profile, including every Facebook link clicked on. Everything Facebook stores on you. Including in the closed and secret groups. Every click, time spent viewing something, everything.
By going through the UK, it wouldn't matter, malware is covered by the computer misuse act, personally identifying information (even if public) is covered by the data protection act.
It's no wonder such lunacy happens, if nobody bothers to understand simple things like laws and regulation. Time was, if you worked in computer science, you were expected to know. Ignorance is no excuse.