Out of curiosity, how long did it take to crack the password? Mcgrew said, "in seconds." I have used a few that overwrite the password to open someone's PC in a pinch, and they do indeed take a couple of seconds. I would expect that cracking the password, even with a rainbow table, would take a few minutes.
Those tools don't crack the password, they overwrite the password. It gets you into the machine, but it also removes access to encrypted data if the account is using Microsoft's built in file encryption.
n.b. I also happen to work for the company that designed and built the fingerprint sensor.
So is that fingerprint scanner optical only, or is it really fancy and measure fingerprint depth? 'Cause if it's just optical, well, you leave your fingerprints all over the place. Lifting a print and defeating most scanners isn't all that difficult. I treat most biometrics as being about as secure as a username.
Of course, if I were a totalitarian government and you really had data I wanted, I'd have someone mug you and cut your fucking finger off.
Regardless of whether the dad acted illegally or not, the evidence will be admissible. The two crimes are not explicitly related. If I break into someone's house and discover a murder in progress, I can still testify as a witness to the murder.
And a flashlight - there will always be that pesky hard to read text somewhere on a device that you can't read without the right light.
I've taken to using my cell phone for this. No more holding the flashlight in my teeth why holding onto something sturdy with one hand and a pen and paper with the other while craning my neck and straining something. Now I just take a quick snapshot of serial numbers and read them off my phone.
By the way, Jenny McCarthy's son is not and never was Autistic. He was misdiagnosed. The kid had a different childhood neurological disorder and is now, essentially, all better.
My Dad came down with Guillain-Barré a couple of years ago, so I've done a little research on it. Guillain-Barré is a auto-immune disorder where the immune system attacks the peripheral nervous system causing progressive numbness and paralysis. It starts in the extremities and can progress to the lungs, causing asphyxiation. Fortunately, treatments do exist and are effective. Most people make a full recovery. Relapses can happen. My dad has not had any relapses but he has lost a little strength in his hands and I think he has lost a little mobility. His affliction with the disorder was not physically painful.
Guillain-Barré usually follows a minor intestinal tract infection, but can probably be triggered by any infection. Vaccinations, by design, look like an infection to the body. That's how they trick the immune system into producing antibodies. It makes sense that a vaccination could trigger the disorder.
According to the CDC, between 3000 and 6000 Americans develop Guillain-Barré every year. With a population of about 315 million people, that means the background rate for Guillain-Barré is roughly between 1 in 50,000 and 1 in 100,000 in the US. For an under 60 person, an additional 1 in 300,000 chance for developing the disease after a flu shot is pretty insignificant. For a person over 60, they have to weigh increasing their odds for Guillain-Barré by 50% to 100% against the flu, which, contrary to your implication, for an older person with an already potentially compromised immune system is no "lollipop". For persons over 65, the flu is a contributory agent in the neighborhood of 15,000 to 40,000 deaths every year.
In regards to yellow fever, there are about 200,000 new cases every year worldwide, and it kills about 15% of those who catch it. There is no treatment for it beyond treating the symptoms. Fortunately, this is not a disease endemic to the US and Americans are not typically immunized against it. The Yellow-Fever vaccine can trigger a host of neurological disorders, including Guillain-Barré, in about 1 in a million vaccine recipients. Most make a full recovery.
So, I don't know about you, but I'll take the vaccines.
No matter what the crime or conviction, if new exonerating evidence comes to light, a person's conviction can be overturned. If that person has been convicted to life without parole they at least are alive and can be released. Execution, obviously, can not be overturned.
Bullet to the head. Yeah it's ugly and barbaric and messy, but it is also reliable, fast, and cheap, and you can always throw in an extra couple of bullets to make sure the job is done.
I don't support the death penalty, mainly because of the high rates of false positives, but also because I don't really see it as "punishment". Life in prison is a punishment. But if we are going to execute prisoners, why should we pretend to be humane about how we do it?
You know who I am talking about, the family who have an overly-grown fur on them through several generations. Is that just a chance mutation relating to hair? Or something deeper?
Chance mutation. Possibly not even a mutation, just part of the random gene mixing that happens in everyone. Vestigial traits are suppressed and then are repressed in individuals basically at random. If a trait has little affect on a person's survival or reproduction it may tag along in a for an indefinite length of time in a gene pool.
For example, I can't grow a beard and I shave my face about every 3 or 4 days. When I was 18 I shaved once a week because after about 7 days I had 5 0-clock shadow. It's a trait that generally runs on my dad's side of the family, but it skipped him. My father can grow a beard normally. Somehow, whatever gene combination that suppresses facial hair growth is suppressed in him but expressed in me.
If you had RTFA you would know that the gene in question influences language and decision making centers of the brain. As I'm sure you are aware, language and decision making skills are seriously fucking lacking in people of all races. Miscommunication and bad decision making is probably the most commonly held trait in the human species. For example, you just made a poor decision by jumping to the conclusion that war4peace is an American racist, rather than giving him the benefit of the doubt by assuming that he had poorly communicated his opinion.
The trouble is that the English language is vague. If I say something increased by 100% I clearly mean that it doubled. So, if 1 plus 100% equals 2, then 1 plus 600% is 7.
However, 2 is 200% of 1, just as 7 is 700% of 1.
To be more specific, the summary should read "boosting the throughput of busy WiFi networks by up to 7 times", or "boosting the throughput of busy WiFi networks by up to 700% of previous throughput"
No, the MIT scheme is a formal protocol which requires both the access point and the client devices to work together. The client is able to "fill in" missing data, because the data itself is expressed in a computational manner that allows the client to perform calculations and solve for missing data.
I have not read the article on the MIT protocol, but it doesn't sound like it will work in the real world any time soon. There is no way I can expect the first generation iPads, Android 1.x phones, Kindles, Nooks, netbooks, etc. that people bring to my network to support a new protocol, even if the devices do have enough processing horsepower to do the calculations.
What the NC group has done is simply made access points more assertive and "take control" of a channel by ignoring the fact that other devices are transmitting and talking over top of them.
When two transmitters talk simultaneously it causes a collision. Normally when a collision is detected the transmitting parties back off and stay silent for a random amount of time before retransmitting. The access points could be programmed to cheat and simply retransmit immediately, but that would violate the 802.11a/b/g protocols. An access point could just keep broadcasting and hope the receiver can sort out the signal. It might work if the interfering radio source is on the opposite side of the access point, but that can not be guaranteed.
That scheme is applied when a backlog of data occurs, and assuming that most clients are consumers of data, it makes sense to push out cached data instead of wasting time listening to clients make additional data requests.
A burst mode makes sense to prioritize clients that are waiting for larger amounts of data. But the higher tier wireless vendors have elected to use what they call "air time fairness" to give each client more democratic access to the available bandwidth. It might mean that every client gets 1 to 2 Mb, but a little bit of bandwidth to everybody is better that letting one or two clients hog the spectrum and force the remainder to disconnect.
Part of the reason this would work is that access points are optimally located in a given coverage area, they use higher gain antennas, and don't worry about reducing power to conserve batteries and the like, which allows them to "talk over" your typical client data consuming device.
There are two reasons I am skeptical on this.
Firstly, the 2.4GHz and 5GHz spectrums are unlicensed and there is a hard cap on transmitter power. That power level is easily attained by laptops. Access points do have better antennas than mobile devices, and higher quality access points will use some interesting beam-forming techniques or directional antennas to boost transmission in a desired direction. However, if the interference source is 2 feet away from the intended signal recipient, the access point will not be able to "talk over" the noise. That is actually more the norm in a business or educational setting. The access points are on the ceiling tens of feet away, and the client devices are surrounded by other client devices competing with them for bandwidth. Also, with the way TCP works, if a packet is corrupted early in a data stream, all the data after it may have to be retransmitted.
Secondly, reasonably designed wireless networks operate at as low a power as possible to keep the wireless collision domains as small as is practical. You don't want access points blasting out signal. I was chatting with a friend recently, a wireless engineer with 30+ years in the business, who related the story of a hospital where the wireless network was simply unusable. He spotted the problem within 10 minutes. The original installer had set every access point to max transmission power, so on the first floor he could see access points on the 5th floor. A couple days work of turning town the transmitter power and relocating a fe
If I were a terrorist intent on disrupting the network, I'd place directional antennas on rooftops and pointed them at the cell towers. They wouldn't have to jam every cell phone, just the cell towers' reception. That should take a lot longer to trace. It would come down to how leaky the jammers' antennae are and how sensitive the detection equipment is.
Even so, the jamming does not have to last long to cause big problems. Just half an hour coordinated with a major event would make it tough on the first responders.
You are probably on to something with the state AGs. They seem to like making a name for themselves by going after big targets. I agree with you about the WIFI equipped utility meters because they still measure stuff that is traditionally under their regulation. To my knowledge, no bureau or weights and measures has ever been involved with data measurements. Bureaucrats, like IT folk, are over worked and underpaid and don't like to take on new duties when they can be passed off onto others, and this case sounds like it is much more in line with the FCC.
It's worth a try, but I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that the state agencies will say it's not in their jurisdiction. I think this one will eventually come to a class action suit.
I'm in the Cleveland area and I have the same kind of trouble with mac repairs at work. With Apple I have to go or send someone to the apple store or to a certified repair shop. The whole affair takes up more more of my time and the machines are out of commission for a few days at least.
Mostly I buy Dell. Yeah, I've heard that they treat home users like dirt, but they treat me very well. Generally, when I have an issue all it takes is a 20 minute phone-call with a native English speaker and they send someone out the next day with the part in tow.
Presuming that someone scales up ARM to a high-performance desktop/server chip, and presuming that they establish a lucrative market for said processors, Intel will simply license ARM and use their world leading fabrication processes to take over the ARM server/desktop processor market, crushing all competitors, just like they did in the x86 processor market.
If Apple goes it alone, producing their own ARM desktop CPUs for their own computers, they will never be able to compete with Intel's fabs. No matter how advanced Apple's ARM architecture is, Intel can simply build smaller, more efficient transistors than Apple can manage.
I don't want pot to be illegal, but it needs to be regulated like alcohol. If you go to the store drunk as hell it is as rude as going there completely baked, and you have a major problem if you do that.
I don't know how it works in your state, but in most places public intoxication laws apply, no matter if a person is drunk on alcohol or high on any other drug. If they are high enough in public to get stares, they can probably get nailed for public intoxication.
Slashdot Mirror
Out of curiosity, how long did it take to crack the password? Mcgrew said, "in seconds." I have used a few that overwrite the password to open someone's PC in a pinch, and they do indeed take a couple of seconds. I would expect that cracking the password, even with a rainbow table, would take a few minutes.
Those tools don't crack the password, they overwrite the password. It gets you into the machine, but it also removes access to encrypted data if the account is using Microsoft's built in file encryption.
n.b. I also happen to work for the company that designed and built the fingerprint sensor.
So is that fingerprint scanner optical only, or is it really fancy and measure fingerprint depth? 'Cause if it's just optical, well, you leave your fingerprints all over the place. Lifting a print and defeating most scanners isn't all that difficult. I treat most biometrics as being about as secure as a username.
Of course, if I were a totalitarian government and you really had data I wanted, I'd have someone mug you and cut your fucking finger off.
Drinking non-pasteurized milk is an exercise in stupidity and risks fellow humans' lives. It is arguably worse than not vaccinating.
[citation needed]
Regardless of whether the dad acted illegally or not, the evidence will be admissible. The two crimes are not explicitly related. If I break into someone's house and discover a murder in progress, I can still testify as a witness to the murder.
And a flashlight - there will always be that pesky hard to read text somewhere on a device that you can't read without the right light.
I've taken to using my cell phone for this. No more holding the flashlight in my teeth why holding onto something sturdy with one hand and a pen and paper with the other while craning my neck and straining something. Now I just take a quick snapshot of serial numbers and read them off my phone.
By the way, Jenny McCarthy's son is not and never was Autistic. He was misdiagnosed. The kid had a different childhood neurological disorder and is now, essentially, all better.
http://www.mdjunction.com/forums/autism-discussions/general-support/1286285-jenny-mccarthys-son-not-autistic
My Dad came down with Guillain-Barré a couple of years ago, so I've done a little research on it. Guillain-Barré is a auto-immune disorder where the immune system attacks the peripheral nervous system causing progressive numbness and paralysis. It starts in the extremities and can progress to the lungs, causing asphyxiation. Fortunately, treatments do exist and are effective. Most people make a full recovery. Relapses can happen. My dad has not had any relapses but he has lost a little strength in his hands and I think he has lost a little mobility. His affliction with the disorder was not physically painful.
Guillain-Barré usually follows a minor intestinal tract infection, but can probably be triggered by any infection. Vaccinations, by design, look like an infection to the body. That's how they trick the immune system into producing antibodies. It makes sense that a vaccination could trigger the disorder.
According to the CDC, between 3000 and 6000 Americans develop Guillain-Barré every year. With a population of about 315 million people, that means the background rate for Guillain-Barré is roughly between 1 in 50,000 and 1 in 100,000 in the US. For an under 60 person, an additional 1 in 300,000 chance for developing the disease after a flu shot is pretty insignificant. For a person over 60, they have to weigh increasing their odds for Guillain-Barré by 50% to 100% against the flu, which, contrary to your implication, for an older person with an already potentially compromised immune system is no "lollipop". For persons over 65, the flu is a contributory agent in the neighborhood of 15,000 to 40,000 deaths every year.
In regards to yellow fever, there are about 200,000 new cases every year worldwide, and it kills about 15% of those who catch it. There is no treatment for it beyond treating the symptoms. Fortunately, this is not a disease endemic to the US and Americans are not typically immunized against it. The Yellow-Fever vaccine can trigger a host of neurological disorders, including Guillain-Barré, in about 1 in a million vaccine recipients. Most make a full recovery.
So, I don't know about you, but I'll take the vaccines.
Here's where I found my numbers.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5933a1.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/disease/us_flu-related_deaths.htm
http://www.patient.co.uk/doctor/Yellow-Fever-Vaccination.htm
Here is Wikipedia's list of people exonerated from death row. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_exonerated_death_row_inmates#United_States
This is the National Registry of Exonerations http://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/about.aspx
No matter what the crime or conviction, if new exonerating evidence comes to light, a person's conviction can be overturned. If that person has been convicted to life without parole they at least are alive and can be released. Execution, obviously, can not be overturned.
Bullet to the head. Yeah it's ugly and barbaric and messy, but it is also reliable, fast, and cheap, and you can always throw in an extra couple of bullets to make sure the job is done.
I don't support the death penalty, mainly because of the high rates of false positives, but also because I don't really see it as "punishment". Life in prison is a punishment. But if we are going to execute prisoners, why should we pretend to be humane about how we do it?
Or, it is an example of Poe's Law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law
Or your post is...
I'm not sure about anything anymore...
You know who I am talking about, the family who have an overly-grown fur on them through several generations.
Is that just a chance mutation relating to hair? Or something deeper?
Chance mutation. Possibly not even a mutation, just part of the random gene mixing that happens in everyone. Vestigial traits are suppressed and then are repressed in individuals basically at random. If a trait has little affect on a person's survival or reproduction it may tag along in a for an indefinite length of time in a gene pool.
For example, I can't grow a beard and I shave my face about every 3 or 4 days. When I was 18 I shaved once a week because after about 7 days I had 5 0-clock shadow. It's a trait that generally runs on my dad's side of the family, but it skipped him. My father can grow a beard normally. Somehow, whatever gene combination that suppresses facial hair growth is suppressed in him but expressed in me.
Another fun item is to see if you have a Palmaris Longus tendon. http://voices.yahoo.com/palmaris-longus-tendon-yours-single-double-absent-7878310.html I have one in my left wrist but none in my right. For years I wondered if there was something wrong with one of my wrists in that my tendon structure didn't match.
If you had RTFA you would know that the gene in question influences language and decision making centers of the brain. As I'm sure you are aware, language and decision making skills are seriously fucking lacking in people of all races. Miscommunication and bad decision making is probably the most commonly held trait in the human species. For example, you just made a poor decision by jumping to the conclusion that war4peace is an American racist, rather than giving him the benefit of the doubt by assuming that he had poorly communicated his opinion.
The trouble is that the English language is vague. If I say something increased by 100% I clearly mean that it doubled. So, if 1 plus 100% equals 2, then 1 plus 600% is 7.
However, 2 is 200% of 1, just as 7 is 700% of 1.
To be more specific, the summary should read "boosting the throughput of busy WiFi networks by up to 7 times", or "boosting the throughput of busy WiFi networks by up to 700% of previous throughput"
No, the MIT scheme is a formal protocol which requires both the access point and the client devices to work together. The client is able to "fill in" missing data, because the data itself is expressed in a computational manner that allows the client to perform calculations and solve for missing data.
I have not read the article on the MIT protocol, but it doesn't sound like it will work in the real world any time soon. There is no way I can expect the first generation iPads, Android 1.x phones, Kindles, Nooks, netbooks, etc. that people bring to my network to support a new protocol, even if the devices do have enough processing horsepower to do the calculations.
What the NC group has done is simply made access points more assertive and "take control" of a channel by ignoring the fact that other devices are transmitting and talking over top of them.
When two transmitters talk simultaneously it causes a collision. Normally when a collision is detected the transmitting parties back off and stay silent for a random amount of time before retransmitting. The access points could be programmed to cheat and simply retransmit immediately, but that would violate the 802.11a/b/g protocols. An access point could just keep broadcasting and hope the receiver can sort out the signal. It might work if the interfering radio source is on the opposite side of the access point, but that can not be guaranteed.
That scheme is applied when a backlog of data occurs, and assuming that most clients are consumers of data, it makes sense to push out cached data instead of wasting time listening to clients make additional data requests.
A burst mode makes sense to prioritize clients that are waiting for larger amounts of data. But the higher tier wireless vendors have elected to use what they call "air time fairness" to give each client more democratic access to the available bandwidth. It might mean that every client gets 1 to 2 Mb, but a little bit of bandwidth to everybody is better that letting one or two clients hog the spectrum and force the remainder to disconnect.
Part of the reason this would work is that access points are optimally located in a given coverage area, they use higher gain antennas, and don't worry about reducing power to conserve batteries and the like, which allows them to "talk over" your typical client data consuming device.
There are two reasons I am skeptical on this.
Firstly, the 2.4GHz and 5GHz spectrums are unlicensed and there is a hard cap on transmitter power. That power level is easily attained by laptops. Access points do have better antennas than mobile devices, and higher quality access points will use some interesting beam-forming techniques or directional antennas to boost transmission in a desired direction. However, if the interference source is 2 feet away from the intended signal recipient, the access point will not be able to "talk over" the noise. That is actually more the norm in a business or educational setting. The access points are on the ceiling tens of feet away, and the client devices are surrounded by other client devices competing with them for bandwidth. Also, with the way TCP works, if a packet is corrupted early in a data stream, all the data after it may have to be retransmitted.
Secondly, reasonably designed wireless networks operate at as low a power as possible to keep the wireless collision domains as small as is practical. You don't want access points blasting out signal. I was chatting with a friend recently, a wireless engineer with 30+ years in the business, who related the story of a hospital where the wireless network was simply unusable. He spotted the problem within 10 minutes. The original installer had set every access point to max transmission power, so on the first floor he could see access points on the 5th floor. A couple days work of turning town the transmitter power and relocating a fe
Just one. http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Laws_of_Time#First_Law_of_Time
The level of illegality of MAC spoofing for would, I presume, vary by jurisdiction.
If it is a network where you were supposed to pay for access, then this would probably full under "unauthorized access".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_piggybacking
If I were a terrorist intent on disrupting the network, I'd place directional antennas on rooftops and pointed them at the cell towers. They wouldn't have to jam every cell phone, just the cell towers' reception. That should take a lot longer to trace. It would come down to how leaky the jammers' antennae are and how sensitive the detection equipment is.
Even so, the jamming does not have to last long to cause big problems. Just half an hour coordinated with a major event would make it tough on the first responders.
You are probably on to something with the state AGs. They seem to like making a name for themselves by going after big targets. I agree with you about the WIFI equipped utility meters because they still measure stuff that is traditionally under their regulation. To my knowledge, no bureau or weights and measures has ever been involved with data measurements. Bureaucrats, like IT folk, are over worked and underpaid and don't like to take on new duties when they can be passed off onto others, and this case sounds like it is much more in line with the FCC.
It's worth a try, but I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that the state agencies will say it's not in their jurisdiction. I think this one will eventually come to a class action suit.
Or insert pro-union agitators into China.
I'm in the Cleveland area and I have the same kind of trouble with mac repairs at work. With Apple I have to go or send someone to the apple store or to a certified repair shop. The whole affair takes up more more of my time and the machines are out of commission for a few days at least.
Mostly I buy Dell. Yeah, I've heard that they treat home users like dirt, but they treat me very well. Generally, when I have an issue all it takes is a 20 minute phone-call with a native English speaker and they send someone out the next day with the part in tow.
Presuming that someone scales up ARM to a high-performance desktop/server chip, and presuming that they establish a lucrative market for said processors, Intel will simply license ARM and use their world leading fabrication processes to take over the ARM server/desktop processor market, crushing all competitors, just like they did in the x86 processor market.
If Apple goes it alone, producing their own ARM desktop CPUs for their own computers, they will never be able to compete with Intel's fabs. No matter how advanced Apple's ARM architecture is, Intel can simply build smaller, more efficient transistors than Apple can manage.
The Yasutomo Gel Stylist. It only goes down to .5mm, so it might be too big for your needs. I found it to be extremely smooth writing and resistant to globs. I doubt you will be able to find it in a store unless you have a good art supply shop nearby. http://yasutomo.shptron.com/products/category/Gel+Stylist+Pens+0.5mm/407.0.1.1.14716.14746.0.0.0
The Uniball Signo 207 Micro is also very good and much easier to find.
I don't want pot to be illegal, but it needs to be regulated like alcohol. If you go to the store drunk as hell it is as rude as going there completely baked, and you have a major problem if you do that.
I don't know how it works in your state, but in most places public intoxication laws apply, no matter if a person is drunk on alcohol or high on any other drug. If they are high enough in public to get stares, they can probably get nailed for public intoxication.