On the way back from my grocery store, there is a stretch of road in a curve which has some worn out parts which make a lot of bumps. They are slight right of center in the left turning curve. The usual position people would drive in this curve would hit the bumps. If you drive through this curve slightly to the right (outside of the curve) you will miss the bumps. I remembered to do this after hitting those bumps maybe 10 to 20 times. Now I never hit the because I always drive slightly to the outside on this road. You cannot see this in the road until it is too late. You cannot seem them at all at night. That's why learning about them is the only way to avoid them. So can a computer learn them? Would it even know to avoid them on the 2nd pass?
What I do is make incremental backups to a set of 3 hard drives (which I just recently upgraded to USB 3.0 and 2TB each). I rotate them to/from my work location (but you could do this with a friend's or family member's house). I take one to work, and bring the other one that was at work back with me at the end of the day, and run the backup to it that night or the next day or two. I rotate about twice a week since usually a few days of lost data due to, say, my house burning down and destroying the backup drive, too, would be the least of my worries. So there is always at least one at home and at least one at work. If you are more paranoid, get 5 drives and do it more often. Or maybe use 2 sites away from home. If you work for the NSA... uh... nevermind.
As long as your provider keeps offering it you can keep your existing coverage. And the law does not require the provider to drop it. If your provider drops you, it is entirely THEIR fault.
The site did investigate. Twitter did investigate. They came to different conclusions. If the site brings it to court (they should, IMHO), then in court Twitter defends themselves with information they SHOULD have provided in the first place (or provided to settle the case) and the court throws it out because the site now knows what they wanted to know. Or Twitter fails to defend and loses. The lawsuit is to get the information.
It can be part of the solution. But it also means the meters have to be changed, and people will get less money for the electricity they push into the network, or have to pay the distribution cost based on how much they push. And yes, generation cost and distribution cost is near 50/50. The old analog meters cannot do it, but most will just run backwards when power is pushed out (negative current/voltage ratio).
On a small scale, the solar feedback is not much of a deal because the power pushed out by one home would be used by the home across the street. But on a large scale in places like Arizona, entire neighborhoods could become sources of power, and that can have technical impacts on the core electric distribution network. For example many 3-phase transformers are the "delta-wye" type under the assumption of power going in one direction. Reversing the power through such a transformer creates many new complications. They would have to replace these with "wye-wye" transformers (which would require some other changes as well, adding cost).
Yes, this would be similar to the electric competition many cities have. One entity (private or government) running physical infrastructure under regulation. Then the people buy service from the provider of their choice with price (and other) competition aspects. For internet, it would be a fiber run (or multiple) to each home that can be used by the network stack provider (even Comcast) to connect each of their customers. Less regulation of the providers will be needed when there is competition.
This is not to put Comcast out of business. It's to make Comcast compete better and provide a better service at a reasonable price, instead of gouging consumers and making massive profits. Things like this need to happen because there is no competitive market for internet access. If we did have a competitive market, then we would not need these government based efforts.
Have a look at the competitive electricity markets a few places have set up. This is how we need to do the internet. One company would operate the physical infrastructure (the dark fiber). Multiple companies would lease it out between them and their customers. Comcast can be one of those companies, and would be able to reduce costs by not having to maintain the physical infrastructure. But they would prefer to have no competition so they can jack up the prices to ten times as much, and be a gateway for nation networks to get them to pay, too.
I do. The can't make a profit when buying power at the same rate as selling it. AND they can't maintain the electrical distribution network without any difference in those rates. Sure, it's a big corporation that wants a monopoly and control of the prices. But the "buy customer's solar production" concept needs to involve selling power to the utility at a rate that allows for distribution and maintenance costs to be covered with at least a reasonable profit from that.
I'm all for using solar power. BUT... This needs to be done in a sane way. The electrical distribution network is NOT designed for taking power from customers that were expected to buy it, at a volume greater than some small percentage, measured separately in various branches of the distribution. This is especially so for small single phase branches. And it needs to accommodate paying for the maintenance of the distribution network with at least some profit for the company running it. The latter problem can be corrected with smart meters that calculate incoming vs. outgoing power separately so the outgoing (to the electrical network) can be paid at reduced rate (though not as low paid to the grid since on a small scale it is only using the local network to deliver power to others).
And, the utility is forced to buy the power from it's customers at the same rate they sell power to them... which means they cannot recover distribution costs or make at least some profit. Electric distribution utilities need to be able to buy the power at a lower price than they sell it.
It's more about Twitter not being willing to explain what is wrong. It might be a bad ad network being used on the paper site. Twitter needs to, at the very least, explain to that site which ad network, and how that ad network is doing things wrong (it might be one bad advertiser). Without this info from Twitter, everyone is not served well. People end up having to work around Twitter, defeating the advantage.
Yes, Twitter most certainly is. They are saying the site is unsafe... AND not allowing the site to correct this problem by detailing exactly what the problem is (presumably a bad advertiser at some ad site). If Twitter's system found it, they may well have a better system. But it's still a terrible attitude by Twitter (their executives, probably) to act in a way that does not allow such things to be corrected. So I'm all for Twitter being sued for this because such a lawsuit has the potential to benefit us all. There may be a chance the newspaper may be able to discover what the problem is through the legal process (discovery).
But that is NOT what Twitter is saying. Twitter needs to come clean on this and explain what they found. These kinds of problems will NOT be solved by Twitter's coy attitude of not providing appropriate details (a link from the alert to a page that explains what their system found).
Then why not say specifically what is wrong "This site is potentially unsafe because ads on the site may link to malware, or to pages that load malware, specifically with domains like... (and list the domains involved)"?
Slashdot Mirror
On the way back from my grocery store, there is a stretch of road in a curve which has some worn out parts which make a lot of bumps. They are slight right of center in the left turning curve. The usual position people would drive in this curve would hit the bumps. If you drive through this curve slightly to the right (outside of the curve) you will miss the bumps. I remembered to do this after hitting those bumps maybe 10 to 20 times. Now I never hit the because I always drive slightly to the outside on this road. You cannot see this in the road until it is too late. You cannot seem them at all at night. That's why learning about them is the only way to avoid them. So can a computer learn them? Would it even know to avoid them on the 2nd pass?
... should be required to justify their national interest.
When was encryption instead of hashing ever best or right practice? Did someone at Adobe just not understand and everyone else at Adobe accepted that?
I doubt Anonymous Coward has a job. He posts here several times an hour, every hours, 24 by 7. Unless his job is spamming out these ripoff web sites.
What I do is make incremental backups to a set of 3 hard drives (which I just recently upgraded to USB 3.0 and 2TB each). I rotate them to/from my work location (but you could do this with a friend's or family member's house). I take one to work, and bring the other one that was at work back with me at the end of the day, and run the backup to it that night or the next day or two. I rotate about twice a week since usually a few days of lost data due to, say, my house burning down and destroying the backup drive, too, would be the least of my worries. So there is always at least one at home and at least one at work. If you are more paranoid, get 5 drives and do it more often. Or maybe use 2 sites away from home. If you work for the NSA ... uh ... nevermind.
I use a black one, a red one, and a blue one. I did not get the titanium one.
That's why people should make a backup of their online cloud storage.
Encrypt your own data yourself before handing it over to some online/cloud storage provider.
As long as your provider keeps offering it you can keep your existing coverage. And the law does not require the provider to drop it. If your provider drops you, it is entirely THEIR fault.
I'm sure a few people have noticed. But to be sure, I'll run a simulation.
It's defamation if you cannot defend your position. Twitter is not defending their position.
Another way is to sue them and get it in the discovery process.
If they didn't determine the exact reason, they didn't do it right. They should not be blocking sites based on a bad process. Fix it.
The site did investigate. Twitter did investigate. They came to different conclusions. If the site brings it to court (they should, IMHO), then in court Twitter defends themselves with information they SHOULD have provided in the first place (or provided to settle the case) and the court throws it out because the site now knows what they wanted to know. Or Twitter fails to defend and loses. The lawsuit is to get the information.
Then just ask "what is 6 minus 5". Why make the question ridiculous?
It can be part of the solution. But it also means the meters have to be changed, and people will get less money for the electricity they push into the network, or have to pay the distribution cost based on how much they push. And yes, generation cost and distribution cost is near 50/50. The old analog meters cannot do it, but most will just run backwards when power is pushed out (negative current/voltage ratio).
On a small scale, the solar feedback is not much of a deal because the power pushed out by one home would be used by the home across the street. But on a large scale in places like Arizona, entire neighborhoods could become sources of power, and that can have technical impacts on the core electric distribution network. For example many 3-phase transformers are the "delta-wye" type under the assumption of power going in one direction. Reversing the power through such a transformer creates many new complications. They would have to replace these with "wye-wye" transformers (which would require some other changes as well, adding cost).
Yes, this would be similar to the electric competition many cities have. One entity (private or government) running physical infrastructure under regulation. Then the people buy service from the provider of their choice with price (and other) competition aspects. For internet, it would be a fiber run (or multiple) to each home that can be used by the network stack provider (even Comcast) to connect each of their customers. Less regulation of the providers will be needed when there is competition.
This is not to put Comcast out of business. It's to make Comcast compete better and provide a better service at a reasonable price, instead of gouging consumers and making massive profits. Things like this need to happen because there is no competitive market for internet access. If we did have a competitive market, then we would not need these government based efforts.
Have a look at the competitive electricity markets a few places have set up. This is how we need to do the internet. One company would operate the physical infrastructure (the dark fiber). Multiple companies would lease it out between them and their customers. Comcast can be one of those companies, and would be able to reduce costs by not having to maintain the physical infrastructure. But they would prefer to have no competition so they can jack up the prices to ten times as much, and be a gateway for nation networks to get them to pay, too.
I do. The can't make a profit when buying power at the same rate as selling it. AND they can't maintain the electrical distribution network without any difference in those rates. Sure, it's a big corporation that wants a monopoly and control of the prices. But the "buy customer's solar production" concept needs to involve selling power to the utility at a rate that allows for distribution and maintenance costs to be covered with at least a reasonable profit from that.
I'm all for using solar power. BUT ... This needs to be done in a sane way. The electrical distribution network is NOT designed for taking power from customers that were expected to buy it, at a volume greater than some small percentage, measured separately in various branches of the distribution. This is especially so for small single phase branches. And it needs to accommodate paying for the maintenance of the distribution network with at least some profit for the company running it. The latter problem can be corrected with smart meters that calculate incoming vs. outgoing power separately so the outgoing (to the electrical network) can be paid at reduced rate (though not as low paid to the grid since on a small scale it is only using the local network to deliver power to others).
And, the utility is forced to buy the power from it's customers at the same rate they sell power to them ... which means they cannot recover distribution costs or make at least some profit. Electric distribution utilities need to be able to buy the power at a lower price than they sell it.
It's more about Twitter not being willing to explain what is wrong. It might be a bad ad network being used on the paper site. Twitter needs to, at the very least, explain to that site which ad network, and how that ad network is doing things wrong (it might be one bad advertiser). Without this info from Twitter, everyone is not served well. People end up having to work around Twitter, defeating the advantage.
Yes, Twitter most certainly is. They are saying the site is unsafe ... AND not allowing the site to correct this problem by detailing exactly what the problem is (presumably a bad advertiser at some ad site). If Twitter's system found it, they may well have a better system. But it's still a terrible attitude by Twitter (their executives, probably) to act in a way that does not allow such things to be corrected. So I'm all for Twitter being sued for this because such a lawsuit has the potential to benefit us all. There may be a chance the newspaper may be able to discover what the problem is through the legal process (discovery).
But that is NOT what Twitter is saying. Twitter needs to come clean on this and explain what they found. These kinds of problems will NOT be solved by Twitter's coy attitude of not providing appropriate details (a link from the alert to a page that explains what their system found).
Then why not say specifically what is wrong "This site is potentially unsafe because ads on the site may link to malware, or to pages that load malware, specifically with domains like ... (and list the domains involved)"?
No open source, either.