Dark Web has always been the 'secret' side of the 'net. It just used to be more interesting,
Not really; we just used to be younger and more impressionable.
Well "back in the day" as it were, a Dark Net used to require you to basically set up a whole separate network infrastructure inside the World Wide Web, which I think is kinda cooler than the "everybody join in"-way of TOR.
Those old school darknets also used to be *way* more exclusive.
I rather enjoyed kongbucks and simoleans (actually the fictional stories that they were featured in), the real life embodiment in bitcoins... not so much
Kongbucks were actual money, the official currency of Mr. Lee's Greater Hong Kong.
And as far as a universe with no beginning or end is concerned, what's the problem?
In a word: entropy.
As I understand it, this new equitation only deals with the nature of the universe, not any of the stuff in the universe. So, yeah entropy will always increase inside the universe and the universe will eventually become uniform and the same temperature and density in all directions. But, the universe itself is infinite and will stay so.
You know, what I've often asked myself is, "What was there before the Big Bang?"
The question does not make any sense, I mean from a purely linguistic point of view it does, but the question itself does not make sense to ask. Anything we know, have known and are able to know takes place after the big bang, thus asking what came before it is a question we cannot really answer.
Laser are line of sight only, they can't do indirect fire. A ship would also need rail guns to launch projectiles. Its an improvement, but there will still be ammunition limits.
Lasers probably wont be used for Ship-to-ship or even ship-to-shore engagements, they're much more suited as CIWS or Anti-air roles.
And how do you propose to launch this EMP attack? EMP isn't a magical thing you can just conjure up and cast at someone like a wizard. Pretty much anything you could do to a hit a ship with an EMP would be no less difficult than just blowing up the ship with something explosive. EMP is only preferable if you then intend to send soldiers on bored the ship to seize it and retrieve if for yourself, but good fucking luck with that. I imagine the crew would scuttle it before you had chance.
I suppose you could hit them with a nuclear bomb. Those things produce pretty powerful EMP.
No LAN support means "local multiplayer available without the matchmaking service" I was in a place where we had no internet access but we wanted to play Company of Heroes. Old Version allowed this, new Steam version does not,.
The only New Steam Version game I own is Company of Heroes... which repairs the multiplayer services that were lost due to server shutdowns. In other words, they're restoring the engine of my car, for free, that the original supporting company allowed to die.
Scheduling an emergency patch and reboot with terminal servers among all employees is a huge PITA! "Awww, do we have too. I've got all this work to...*BEEP*." Sorry guys, finger slipped when it asked me to reboot or not. OTOH, server secure:)
Scheduling an emergency patch and reboot with terminal servers among all employees is a huge PITA! "Awww, do we have too. I've got all this work to...*BEEP*." Sorry guys, finger slipped when it asked me to reboot or not. OTOH, server secure:)
Import-module activedirectory $ComputerNames = Get-ADcomputer -searchbase (DN of you server/workstation OU here) -filter * | Select-object -expandproperty name
ForEach($ComputerName in $ComputerNames) {
Restart-computer -force $ComputerName }
Have the nightshift guy run that from a machine that the workstations/servers will accept WMI calls from and then have him feel like a wizard as every computer under the OU magically reboots.
I agree here. This is the actions of a police state. Its quite disturbing to see complete forfeiture of assets without a trial taking place. I know normally tycoons and other scum like Madhoff and Ken Lay deserve to be tarred and feathered and pilloried for their crimes against society and shareholders, but who exactly was DAMAGED by Silk Road? Did all of the buyers receive their goods? If so, what is the DAMAGE?
How does the government have standing to claim silk road DAMAGED all those buyers?
Why doesnt the government go after Jack Ma and Alibaba? (As in they block those transactions and forbid buying off that fraud-racket-exchange)? Alibaba sells stolen fraudulent broken junk that is masqueraded as legitimate (its basically a crime mall) but we let that go and shut down silk road and seize all assets? Doesnt make sense. Criminal rackets operate eyes wide shut but it seems the Fedzilla is only angry that they couldnt collect tax off these transactions in which case he should be sued for that money.
Total forfeiture seems out of the bounds of due process.
ere is what I see Mr. Ulbricht thinking: "Alright so I'm sitting on 20 million worth of BTC, based on what the prosecution has stated, those 20 million dollars are MI NE and do not actually belong to other people. If I let the the feds auction off those BTC and turn them into real money, then if I beat the case I will not have to go through the hassle of finding an exchange willing to handle this much money."
Basically, if Ullbrict can manage to beat the rap against him, then he's just used the US gov't as a bitcoin exchange.
I wonder if they couldn't get Rosetta near Philae, and use the reaction jets on Rosetta to move it (i.e., by blowing on it). Philae only weighs about as much as ping-pong ball; it wouldn't take much to move it away from where it is.
Pretty sure having working landing gear would have solved the problem
These are all Monday morning quarterbacking, but truth is that all of us should learn from the unfortunate design mistakes that ESA has made
I don't really see how saying "If the thing that did not work, had worked, everything would have been fine" constitutes "Monday morning quarterbacking". I mean, it's stating the obvious for sure, a completely useless statement for sure, but I don't think it's a hindsight/20/20 thing.
Isn't the whole problem that they assumed a softer (ice) surface?
Look, unless you're a friggin' rocket scientist, or believe they had additional information they didn't use... summarizing anything as "the whole problem" is kind of childish.
Based on your vast experience of landing on comets after a 10 year journey, do you think you have a better sense of what the assumptions about the hardness of the ice should have been? Maybe you should have shared that with them.
Lots of smart people worked on this, took all they knew and could surmise, and made choices with the best available information, and using the technology and money available to them.
I'm sure as heck not going to say "well, if only they'd done this it would have worked". I know I'm not qualified to do that, and I'm quite certain most of us on Slashdot aren't either. In fact, I'm betting the people who are qualified are all thinking this was a monumentally difficult task. NASA isn't sitting around going "Ha ha!"
To me, even what they did is some pretty mind-boggling engineering. But in interviews I heard over the last few weeks, they still knew there were risks and uncertainties.
It sucks, but unless you're more qualified than the entire team who did this, you have to realize this is still an incredible feat.
I won't even claim this to be an accurate analogy: But this is kind of like hitting a target in China from New York, using a home made gun, in the dark, and while both you and the target are moving.
Me, I'll applaud the ESA and everyone involved. Success for this kind of engineering includes all of the stuff that got you there. Getting far enough to have a failed landing is still a huge undertaking.
Well, I think the whole problem was that they did not have a wizard on staff to solve every problem with magic. Also, far as I know, their graviton phasor array had decohered somewhere along the journey.
Oh, wait, you don't have a probe and wouldn't know how to make one, right?
Take a Rasberry Pi, a big ass Lithium Ion battery and some solar panels, attach that stuff to each other, then attach rockets to the bundle, point it at space and ignite.
...I kind of doubt that anybody would physically survive 10 years in zero-G, even assuming they've survived the long-shot odds of no fatal spacecraft malfunctions in 10 years.
Oh, I think they'd survive just fine (appart from the numerous radiation induced cancers, natch), it'd be the whole 'returning to Earth' that'd cause problems.
While I haven't read the paper, the article seems to have a reasonably big "correlation for non-victim" bar. If this means false positives, it makes this technique at least a lot less useful than the "81%" deanonymization rate that they claim. It might make it useless for anything really.
Honestly, this all seems like more headline and less news. But I do still have to read the paper.
I read it as meaning "This type of attack can deanonymize a single TOR user 81% of the time" and not "This type of attack can deanonymize 81% of ALL TOR users at the same time"
Are you kidding me? Name one 'service' on TOR that has been up for long enough to get attention and not been busted?
Based on what came out about both the SR takedowns indicate that those were not taken down by sophisticated cyberattacks using high-grade NSA traffic analysis techniques. They were taken down because the people behind those sites were bad at being criminals and operating out of the US. I'm almost sure there's several alternatives to SR that are being run out of SE Asia or the former USSR that are not being taken down because the people running them are either good at being criminals or otherwise out of the reach of their local LEA.
All right, maybe they aren't Russian, I don't know. But why not try to find these uber-coders that you always hear about to do some pen testing of the Tor code? It's in their best interest to make sure Tor is as secure as possible.
Fairly certain the russian and the international hacker community in general is already doing this.
Of course a true pro would not be using a publicly accessible darknet, they'd run their own.
Slashdot Mirror
private networks aren't exactly the same thing as dark nets as such.. or is ibm running a "dark net"? by most definitions no.
Granted, the 'dark' specifier implies a certain degree of secrecy and exclusivity.
Not really; we just used to be younger and more impressionable.
Well "back in the day" as it were, a Dark Net used to require you to basically set up a whole separate network infrastructure inside the World Wide Web, which I think is kinda cooler than the "everybody join in"-way of TOR.
Those old school darknets also used to be *way* more exclusive.
I rather enjoyed kongbucks and simoleans (actually the fictional stories that they were featured in), the real life embodiment in bitcoins... not so much
Kongbucks were actual money, the official currency of Mr. Lee's Greater Hong Kong.
No, you are thinking of the 'deep web'.
Dark Web has always been the 'secret' side of the 'net. It just used to be more interesting,
If there's no beginning, and the universe has been here infinitely long, why aren't we already at this steady-state condition?
I'm not sure the equations imply that there is no beginning, just that there is no end.
Otherwise...I don't have a good answer for you.
And as far as a universe with no beginning or end is concerned, what's the problem?
In a word: entropy.
As I understand it, this new equitation only deals with the nature of the universe, not any of the stuff in the universe. So, yeah entropy will always increase inside the universe and the universe will eventually become uniform and the same temperature and density in all directions.
But, the universe itself is infinite and will stay so.
You know, what I've often asked myself is, "What was there before the Big Bang?"
The question does not make any sense, I mean from a purely linguistic point of view it does, but the question itself does not make sense to ask.
Anything we know, have known and are able to know takes place after the big bang, thus asking what came before it is a question we cannot really answer.
Laser are line of sight only, they can't do indirect fire. A ship would also need rail guns to launch projectiles. Its an improvement, but there will still be ammunition limits.
Lasers probably wont be used for Ship-to-ship or even ship-to-shore engagements, they're much more suited as CIWS or Anti-air roles.
And how do you propose to launch this EMP attack? EMP isn't a magical thing you can just conjure up and cast at someone like a wizard. Pretty much anything you could do to a hit a ship with an EMP would be no less difficult than just blowing up the ship with something explosive. EMP is only preferable if you then intend to send soldiers on bored the ship to seize it and retrieve if for yourself, but good fucking luck with that. I imagine the crew would scuttle it before you had chance.
I suppose you could hit them with a nuclear bomb. Those things produce pretty powerful EMP.
Erm? Care to explain how a railgun would cause an EMP?
Because there is a huge electromagnetic discharge?
It's kinda how railguns work.
No LAN support means "local multiplayer available without the matchmaking service"
I was in a place where we had no internet access but we wanted to play Company of Heroes. Old Version allowed this, new Steam version does not,.
The only New Steam Version game I own is Company of Heroes... which repairs the multiplayer services that were lost due to server shutdowns. In other words, they're restoring the engine of my car, for free, that the original supporting company allowed to die.
Also took out lan support.
Which games specifically become terrible after they change to "New Steam Version"?
Company of Heroes took out LAN game support.
Is why you have backups. You need to apply the rule Total Backups = Total Backups -1
so if you have 1 you have 0.
So...apparently I have -1 backups, does this mean I owe the universe a backup?
Scheduling an emergency patch and reboot with terminal servers among all employees is a huge PITA! "Awww, do we have too. I've got all this work to...*BEEP*." Sorry guys, finger slipped when it asked me to reboot or not. OTOH, server secure :)
Scheduling an emergency patch and reboot with terminal servers among all employees is a huge PITA! "Awww, do we have too. I've got all this work to...*BEEP*." Sorry guys, finger slipped when it asked me to reboot or not. OTOH, server secure :)
Import-module activedirectory
$ComputerNames = Get-ADcomputer -searchbase (DN of you server/workstation OU here) -filter * | Select-object -expandproperty name
ForEach($ComputerName in $ComputerNames)
{
Restart-computer -force $ComputerName
}
Have the nightshift guy run that from a machine that the workstations/servers will accept WMI calls from and then have him feel like a wizard as every computer under the OU magically reboots.
I agree here. This is the actions of a police state. Its quite disturbing to see complete forfeiture of assets without a trial taking place. I know normally tycoons and other scum like Madhoff and Ken Lay deserve to be tarred and feathered and pilloried for their crimes against society and shareholders, but who exactly was DAMAGED by Silk Road? Did all of the buyers receive their goods? If so, what is the DAMAGE?
How does the government have standing to claim silk road DAMAGED all those buyers?
Why doesnt the government go after Jack Ma and Alibaba? (As in they block those transactions and forbid buying off that fraud-racket-exchange)? Alibaba sells stolen fraudulent broken junk that is masqueraded as legitimate (its basically a crime mall) but we let that go and shut down silk road and seize all assets? Doesnt make sense. Criminal rackets operate eyes wide shut but it seems the Fedzilla is only angry that they couldnt collect tax off these transactions in which case he should be sued for that money.
Total forfeiture seems out of the bounds of due process.
ere is what I see Mr. Ulbricht thinking: "Alright so I'm sitting on 20 million worth of BTC, based on what the prosecution has stated, those 20 million dollars are MI NE and do not actually belong to other people. If I let the the feds auction off those BTC and turn them into real money, then if I beat the case I will not have to go through the hassle of finding an exchange willing to handle this much money."
Basically, if Ullbrict can manage to beat the rap against him, then he's just used the US gov't as a bitcoin exchange.
I wonder if they couldn't get Rosetta near Philae, and use the reaction jets on Rosetta to move it (i.e., by blowing on it). Philae only weighs about as much as ping-pong ball; it wouldn't take much to move it away from where it is.
That's a Kerbal solution if I ever read one.
Pretty sure having working landing gear would have solved the problem
These are all Monday morning quarterbacking, but truth is that all of us should learn from the unfortunate design mistakes that ESA has made
I don't really see how saying "If the thing that did not work, had worked, everything would have been fine" constitutes "Monday morning quarterbacking". I mean, it's stating the obvious for sure, a completely useless statement for sure, but I don't think it's a hindsight/20/20 thing.
Look, unless you're a friggin' rocket scientist, or believe they had additional information they didn't use ... summarizing anything as "the whole problem" is kind of childish.
Based on your vast experience of landing on comets after a 10 year journey, do you think you have a better sense of what the assumptions about the hardness of the ice should have been? Maybe you should have shared that with them.
Lots of smart people worked on this, took all they knew and could surmise, and made choices with the best available information, and using the technology and money available to them.
I'm sure as heck not going to say "well, if only they'd done this it would have worked". I know I'm not qualified to do that, and I'm quite certain most of us on Slashdot aren't either. In fact, I'm betting the people who are qualified are all thinking this was a monumentally difficult task. NASA isn't sitting around going "Ha ha!"
To me, even what they did is some pretty mind-boggling engineering. But in interviews I heard over the last few weeks, they still knew there were risks and uncertainties.
It sucks, but unless you're more qualified than the entire team who did this, you have to realize this is still an incredible feat.
I won't even claim this to be an accurate analogy: But this is kind of like hitting a target in China from New York, using a home made gun, in the dark, and while both you and the target are moving.
Me, I'll applaud the ESA and everyone involved. Success for this kind of engineering includes all of the stuff that got you there. Getting far enough to have a failed landing is still a huge undertaking.
Well, I think the whole problem was that they did not have a wizard on staff to solve every problem with magic.
Also, far as I know, their graviton phasor array had decohered somewhere along the journey.
Oh, wait, you don't have a probe and wouldn't know how to make one, right?
Take a Rasberry Pi, a big ass Lithium Ion battery and some solar panels, attach that stuff to each other, then attach rockets to the bundle, point it at space and ignite.
I'm the best at space.
...I kind of doubt that anybody would physically survive 10 years in zero-G, even assuming they've survived the long-shot odds of no fatal spacecraft malfunctions in 10 years.
Oh, I think they'd survive just fine (appart from the numerous radiation induced cancers, natch), it'd be the whole 'returning to Earth' that'd cause problems.
While I haven't read the paper, the article seems to have a reasonably big "correlation for non-victim" bar. If this means false positives, it makes this technique at least a lot less useful than the "81%" deanonymization rate that they claim. It might make it useless for anything really.
Honestly, this all seems like more headline and less news. But I do still have to read the paper.
I read it as meaning "This type of attack can deanonymize a single TOR user 81% of the time" and not "This type of attack can deanonymize 81% of ALL TOR users at the same time"
Are you kidding me? Name one 'service' on TOR that has been up for long enough to get attention and not been busted?
Based on what came out about both the SR takedowns indicate that those were not taken down by sophisticated cyberattacks using high-grade NSA traffic analysis techniques.
They were taken down because the people behind those sites were bad at being criminals and operating out of the US. I'm almost sure there's several alternatives to SR that are being run out of SE Asia or the former USSR that are not being taken down because the people running them are either good at being criminals or otherwise out of the reach of their local LEA.
All right, maybe they aren't Russian, I don't know. But why not try to find these uber-coders that you always hear about to do some pen testing of the Tor code? It's in their best interest to make sure Tor is as secure as possible.
Fairly certain the russian and the international hacker community in general is already doing this.
Of course a true pro would not be using a publicly accessible darknet, they'd run their own.
Denmark's wind comes from Norse hydropower?
Norwegian...whatever...