There is a distinction - durable defines an ability to resist damage, resilient defines an ability to recover quickly from damage. Freenet posesses both.
TOR just anonymises transport. What goes over that transport is not part of the TOR system, it's just blind bytes being carried by it. So the attack, targetting the browser at the endpoint, didn't actually involve TOR - it just circumvented the need to break TOR by attacking another component instead.
Freenet uses a very different model - it's basically a very elaborate distributed key-value store. It's good for dissemination and publication, but by design it can't be used for real-time communication - there's a delay of minutes to days for a message to become available to all nodes. It's all compromise: The same design that prevents real-time communication also makes Freenet a lot more resilient.
It did, yes - and the transponder was shut off manually. What wasn't shut off was the sat link handshake, which could only by done by physically cutting the power - something that even most pilots wouldn't be aware of.
There's no doubt that someone in the cockpit wanted the plane to disappear for a while. Without finding the wreckage (And the cockpit voice recorder) it's not possible to say who. It might have been a hijacking, or it might have been a pilot 'Taking you all with me' suicide, or might be part of some more elaborate scheme.
Tesla had a long-range high-power transmission system up and running. It just wasn't commercially viable - the transmission losses were so huge, you'd have to pump in orders of magnitude more energy than you get out at the other end. There are some impressive photos of him standing by light bulbs in a field, powered by a transmitter many miles away - but not shown is the sizeable power station he had hooked up to run the thing.
Further than that. The Great Seal bug - widely considered one of the most audaciously planted listening devices of all - operated on the same idea. It used vibration - ie, sound - to mechanically modulate a reflected radio signal. No electronic components required at all.
I've seen this used in one of the Die Hard films. The attackers took over a news channel and transmitted fake video of the white house being blown up - easier than actually blowing it up, and just as effective at creating panic.
I would guess 'not at all' based on the loss of MH370: Part of the reason it's not been found is that the plane didn't maintain any form of continuous communications.
Wouldn't matter, anyway. Even if there was a hash collision, one glance at the flagged file would be enough to determine it isn't what the hash suggested.
Because there is no sexual area of the brain. It's a distributed function. You'd have to cut out so much brain they'd end up comatose or dead.
You can try to surpress sex drive hormonally, or even by castration. It's still not reliable. There's too much of a psychological element involved: Even if you remove the hormones, that doesn't mean they won't still want to look.
More accurately might be to say 'You're not going to jail just for recieving e-mail, unless you do something to attract police attention.' It's terrible form for them to let a suspect off once charged or to lose a case, so it's really standard practice to do a bit of fishing: Even if the original charge wouldn't stand up in court, they can find something else to use instead. The office of prosecutor in the US is a political one: They have political pressure, and that pressure says it's important to never be seen to be wrong.
Kind of like Australia's decision to ban explicit artwork of children. The surest way to make sure courts would approve was to make sure that the first to be charged for possession of such images (Specifically, it was some rule 34 art of Lisa Simpson) was a previously convicted child molester. Juries loathe someone like that so much, of course they'd find guilty, and so so most judges. Then the precident is set, and can be cited in future cases.
If the subject is a previously convicted child abuser, you can charge him with regicide if you want and the jury will still come up with a way to find him guilty.
But humans are pretty dumb, which implies something else. If you believe the media and occasional self-serving police press release, there's supposed to be a huge conspiracy trading in child porn, worth hundreds of millions of dollars a year, numbering in the hundreds of thousands. Yet only one of them was dumb enough to use gmail? Could it be that someone has been vastly overstating the scale of the problem, and the real scale of child pornography production and distribution is actually quite small? After all, how do they find each other? You can't just advertise your child porn trading site openly.
"What distinguishes a mensch from a barbarian is the ability to have sympathy for even those you despise the most."
True. But for saying that openly, you will be branded as a supporter of child molesters. You may aspire to high ideals, but most of the world does not, and realistically you need to live alongside them - which means sometimes the best approach is to ignore your princibles and join in the two minute's hate along with everyone else.
Easily worked out. The list has been around for a long time, so it may well be using an obsolete hash like MD5 rather than a newer SHA. So let's assume it's a 128-bit hash. That's 2^128 possibilities. I don't know how many files go through google, but let's go for something huge - say, a trillion per year. That's a massive overestimate, i expect, but that's fine.
Which comes up to... no idea. I've tried three different ways to work it out. The math itsself isn't really hard, it's evaluating that's the problem: I keep hitting a need to raise something to the power of a trillion, and even dc chokes on that one. Pretty slim though.
You'd be the only one. Child pornography is one of the most widely loathed of all crimes. It gets a strong, emotionally-driven response from most people to the point that they wouldn't even need very strong evidence to convict. If you can show the suspect was distributing child pornography, the jury would convict them of the JFK assasination given half the chance just to add more time to their sentence.
It's also hard to assess with Google because many of their projects aren't intended to turn a profit directly, but rather to boost the success of other areas of the business. Gmail, for example - how do they make their money? They don't. Gmail exists as a source of very accurate data on users to greatly suppliment the targetting of their search and advertising business, which allows them to they argue to advertising customers that thanks to their superior behavioral modeling a dollar spent on google ads brings a higher rate of return than a dollar on, say, Bing ads.
Slashdot Mirror
So how'd they decide a crime committed in Nottingham was any of their business?
I'm sure they have some flimsy justification.
There is a distinction - durable defines an ability to resist damage, resilient defines an ability to recover quickly from damage. Freenet posesses both.
I think the majority who know of it want it passed - it's just not an issue that many people have heard of.
Even the great Tesla couldn't break the laws of physics - though if any man could, it would have to be him.
TOR just anonymises transport. What goes over that transport is not part of the TOR system, it's just blind bytes being carried by it. So the attack, targetting the browser at the endpoint, didn't actually involve TOR - it just circumvented the need to break TOR by attacking another component instead.
Freenet uses a very different model - it's basically a very elaborate distributed key-value store. It's good for dissemination and publication, but by design it can't be used for real-time communication - there's a delay of minutes to days for a message to become available to all nodes. It's all compromise: The same design that prevents real-time communication also makes Freenet a lot more resilient.
It did, yes - and the transponder was shut off manually. What wasn't shut off was the sat link handshake, which could only by done by physically cutting the power - something that even most pilots wouldn't be aware of.
There's no doubt that someone in the cockpit wanted the plane to disappear for a while. Without finding the wreckage (And the cockpit voice recorder) it's not possible to say who. It might have been a hijacking, or it might have been a pilot 'Taking you all with me' suicide, or might be part of some more elaborate scheme.
When did 'server full of hard drives' turn into 'cloud storage?'
The useful thing about the cloud is that no-one knows what it actually is, so any company is free to call their product cloud-based without contest.
Tesla had a long-range high-power transmission system up and running. It just wasn't commercially viable - the transmission losses were so huge, you'd have to pump in orders of magnitude more energy than you get out at the other end. There are some impressive photos of him standing by light bulbs in a field, powered by a transmitter many miles away - but not shown is the sizeable power station he had hooked up to run the thing.
Further than that. The Great Seal bug - widely considered one of the most audaciously planted listening devices of all - operated on the same idea. It used vibration - ie, sound - to mechanically modulate a reflected radio signal. No electronic components required at all.
I've seen this used in one of the Die Hard films. The attackers took over a news channel and transmitted fake video of the white house being blown up - easier than actually blowing it up, and just as effective at creating panic.
I would guess 'not at all' based on the loss of MH370: Part of the reason it's not been found is that the plane didn't maintain any form of continuous communications.
Looks like the wikipedia calculation ran into the same problem of ridiculously huge numbers, and solved it by using an approximation.
Wouldn't matter, anyway. Even if there was a hash collision, one glance at the flagged file would be enough to determine it isn't what the hash suggested.
Because there is no sexual area of the brain. It's a distributed function. You'd have to cut out so much brain they'd end up comatose or dead.
You can try to surpress sex drive hormonally, or even by castration. It's still not reliable. There's too much of a psychological element involved: Even if you remove the hormones, that doesn't mean they won't still want to look.
Now they've admitted then do this, how long before the RIAA sues to demand a list of known infringing MP3 files be added to the list?
More accurately might be to say 'You're not going to jail just for recieving e-mail, unless you do something to attract police attention.' It's terrible form for them to let a suspect off once charged or to lose a case, so it's really standard practice to do a bit of fishing: Even if the original charge wouldn't stand up in court, they can find something else to use instead. The office of prosecutor in the US is a political one: They have political pressure, and that pressure says it's important to never be seen to be wrong.
Kind of like Australia's decision to ban explicit artwork of children. The surest way to make sure courts would approve was to make sure that the first to be charged for possession of such images (Specifically, it was some rule 34 art of Lisa Simpson) was a previously convicted child molester. Juries loathe someone like that so much, of course they'd find guilty, and so so most judges. Then the precident is set, and can be cited in future cases.
If the subject is a previously convicted child abuser, you can charge him with regicide if you want and the jury will still come up with a way to find him guilty.
But humans are pretty dumb, which implies something else. If you believe the media and occasional self-serving police press release, there's supposed to be a huge conspiracy trading in child porn, worth hundreds of millions of dollars a year, numbering in the hundreds of thousands. Yet only one of them was dumb enough to use gmail? Could it be that someone has been vastly overstating the scale of the problem, and the real scale of child pornography production and distribution is actually quite small? After all, how do they find each other? You can't just advertise your child porn trading site openly.
I agree... but give it up. The meaning of words changes over time, and trying to stop this particular one from changing is a lost cause.
"What distinguishes a mensch from a barbarian is the ability to have sympathy for even those you despise the most."
True. But for saying that openly, you will be branded as a supporter of child molesters. You may aspire to high ideals, but most of the world does not, and realistically you need to live alongside them - which means sometimes the best approach is to ignore your princibles and join in the two minute's hate along with everyone else.
Easily worked out. The list has been around for a long time, so it may well be using an obsolete hash like MD5 rather than a newer SHA. So let's assume it's a 128-bit hash. That's 2^128 possibilities. I don't know how many files go through google, but let's go for something huge - say, a trillion per year. That's a massive overestimate, i expect, but that's fine.
Which comes up to... no idea. I've tried three different ways to work it out. The math itsself isn't really hard, it's evaluating that's the problem: I keep hitting a need to raise something to the power of a trillion, and even dc chokes on that one. Pretty slim though.
You'd be the only one. Child pornography is one of the most widely loathed of all crimes. It gets a strong, emotionally-driven response from most people to the point that they wouldn't even need very strong evidence to convict. If you can show the suspect was distributing child pornography, the jury would convict them of the JFK assasination given half the chance just to add more time to their sentence.
It's also hard to assess with Google because many of their projects aren't intended to turn a profit directly, but rather to boost the success of other areas of the business. Gmail, for example - how do they make their money? They don't. Gmail exists as a source of very accurate data on users to greatly suppliment the targetting of their search and advertising business, which allows them to they argue to advertising customers that thanks to their superior behavioral modeling a dollar spent on google ads brings a higher rate of return than a dollar on, say, Bing ads.