There's highly functional and poorly functional people all over the world. Some of them probably have atypically nuerological wiring and others dont.
It fascinates me that these are considered disorders when there are so many famous, successful and exceptionally brilliant people that apparently have 'a problem' yet are also on top of the pack... I've always felt that ASD, Bi-polar and other such 'dissorders' are merely reflective of a different state of being.
Never mind that though... you can just imagine what things could have been like if we had this screening ability in schools years ago
Teacher/Nurse: "Well Master Gates, Master Einstein we're sorry to advise that you have ASD. Clearly this places you in a position of disadvantage so you'll never be able to get anywhere or do anything in life, but we CAN give you some lollies!"
Gates/Einstein [Priority Override. New objective]: "Nom nom nom nom"
Network based firewalls do comparitively little real Layer 4 to 7 inspection, and it can only ever be generic. Whilst an inbuilt 'hardware' firewall is novel approach that is worth exploring, a DoS attack typically affects access to bandwidth more the primary threat vector for hosts is obviously applications.
To tie down these applications you need something that both controls that IP based access and behavioral control of each application (API, DLL, etc access). This is a role that can only be fulfilled by a desktop firewall.
This never would have been a topic. Whilst the mechanism for capture works exactly as posted, the argument and defence of Google in this situation is ridiculous. The possibilities are obvious to anyone with an iota of techincal intelligence namely that
1. The vast majority of access points scanned would NOT be public and consequentially,
2. Confidential information would be captured by Google staff without end user knowledge and/or consent
It would have been well within Googles capabilities to create a sniffing application that automatically scrubbed the payload data - packet header sizes and types are not random.
At the very least, I expect anyone can acknowledge that as one of the largest technological leaders, Google have completely failed to demonstrate care for the 'masses' along with any form of due diligence. Personally, I hope they get fined 30% of their revenue for the year for gross negligence.
How the results of the scans (ie: not the payload data) are actually used is another potential explosion if you care to think about it.
Slashdot Mirror
There's highly functional and poorly functional people all over the world. Some of them probably have atypically nuerological wiring and others dont.
It fascinates me that these are considered disorders when there are so many famous, successful and exceptionally brilliant people that apparently have 'a problem' yet are also on top of the pack... I've always felt that ASD, Bi-polar and other such 'dissorders' are merely reflective of a different state of being.
Never mind that though... you can just imagine what things could have been like if we had this screening ability in schools years ago
Teacher/Nurse: "Well Master Gates, Master Einstein we're sorry to advise that you have ASD. Clearly this places you in a position of disadvantage so you'll never be able to get anywhere or do anything in life, but we CAN give you some lollies!"
Gates/Einstein [Priority Override. New objective]: "Nom nom nom nom"
It's forwards thinking like this that makes the human race so legendary!
Network based firewalls do comparitively little real Layer 4 to 7 inspection, and it can only ever be generic. Whilst an inbuilt 'hardware' firewall is novel approach that is worth exploring, a DoS attack typically affects access to bandwidth more the primary threat vector for hosts is obviously applications.
To tie down these applications you need something that both controls that IP based access and behavioral control of each application (API, DLL, etc access). This is a role that can only be fulfilled by a desktop firewall.
This never would have been a topic. Whilst the mechanism for capture works exactly as posted, the argument and defence of Google in this situation is ridiculous. The possibilities are obvious to anyone with an iota of techincal intelligence namely that 1. The vast majority of access points scanned would NOT be public and consequentially, 2. Confidential information would be captured by Google staff without end user knowledge and/or consent It would have been well within Googles capabilities to create a sniffing application that automatically scrubbed the payload data - packet header sizes and types are not random. At the very least, I expect anyone can acknowledge that as one of the largest technological leaders, Google have completely failed to demonstrate care for the 'masses' along with any form of due diligence. Personally, I hope they get fined 30% of their revenue for the year for gross negligence. How the results of the scans (ie: not the payload data) are actually used is another potential explosion if you care to think about it.