Except freenet is extreme-high-latency, unless you like to wait 2 minutes to view a simple text file, extremely resource-intensive, unsuitable for large file transfers.
It can take a lot of work, at least if you're the first person trying to do it, but ultimately trying to establish two-way communications over the Internet and yet remain completely anonymous is just as futile as trying to lock up content that you're also showing to someone.
This is mostly because encrypted channels and point-to-point VPNs stick out like a sore thumb, if anyone has monitoring capabilities over a large number of hosts.
This works because VPN hosts can be attacked/compromised, and there are not that many people using them.
If every ordinary person uses a VPN frequently, then they don't stick out so much, and any individual's activities are even harder to distinguish in all the surrounding noise.
It's to their users... no doubt their idea of "piracy" includes fair use content as well... observe how they list Youtube as separate from "authorized"....
They list mere counts of average number of times a site appeared that had 10,000 or more removal requests, or 1,000 or more remove requests.
Out of millions of remove requests received by Google; 10,000 pages at issue on a large site do not necessarily qualify as "a large number of requests".
RIAA's arguments are non-constructive, and they have offered no evidence that Google has not taken successful action to demote piracy results.
Certain graphing calculators are allowed on the ACT, such as the TI83.
The TI92 is banned on the ACT and the SAT.
The TI89 is I believe currently banned on the ACT, but not the SAT.
All calculators with computer algebra system (CAS) functionality are now banned on the ACT.
But graphing capabilities are allowed.
The calculators have memory capabilities, but I believe, it is against the rules of the ACT, for you
to bring in and utilize notes, formulas, or pre-made programs that you stored on it outside the test room
during the testing time.
I guess my daughter's math classes (AP math and AP statistics) are outliers then. They're all required to use a TI-84/85.
Your experience might differ from mine, but I was generally allowed to use graphing calculators, on any test where using a calculator would have been reasonable (obviously, no graphing calculator to take a history exam, or biology test, where there is no math work).
In the vast majority of cases where I couldn't use one, non-graphing calculators were similarly restricted.
And they were still useful as a visual aid, even if a simpler calculator had to be used on the test; it was convenient to be allowed
to use a graphing calculator, however, and if you actually needed the CAS or graphing functionality as a crutch, and couldn't otherwise
work the problem, it would be likely that you run out of time, or lose most points by failing to show the complete derivation for the right answer
(can't just punch Factor(), Solve(), Integrate(), or Simplify() into a CAS, and then write the answer on your test, because you get basically no credit, as a result of failing to show how you arrived at that -- the steps, and correct interpretation of the problem were very often held to be just as important or more than winding up with the most perfect formulation of an answer).
I used a TI-83 throughout grade school starting with Algebra I, and half of high school, then a TI-92 from Junior year of high school after finishing Algebra II (in other words, through Trig and High school calculus), and then through college...
And I took many tests with these, and their advanced functionality was meaningfully useful in some cases.
I was not hindered by restrictions on graphing calculators, with the following exceptions
1. Standardized tests, And NON-Math classes that required math.
That's right.... no issues using a graphing calculator in any math class throughought my schooling, it was always allowed
to have any TI graphing calculator, and normally for any particular class -- the policy would be the same for all tests (Eg; whether calc allowed or not for a class would not vary from test to test), with the sole exception of 1 term of grade school Algebra, where calculators were restricted to 4-function or banned completely on certain tests ---- all kinds of calculators were always allowed to bring into class and to do homework with, it was only TEST events that were standardized by a testing organization, or certain non-Math classes that I ever found to be restricted:
* I was a computer science scientific computing; for the most part, calculators of any kind were not allowed in any college computer science class tests, even when there were questions involving number crunching. (graphics calcs on equal footing)
* In several electrical engineering classes, there was also some big time number crunching, and no kind of calculator at all was allowed. (graphics calcs on equal footing)
* In college Physics II, only a basic scientific calculator was allowed, no graphing calculators.
* On the ACT/SAT tests; the TI-92 was allowed. The problem was not that it was a graphing calculator, however, the TI-83
was allowed. Apparently the test administrators are concerned about a calculator having a qwerty keyboard, so I could use my old TI83.
The TI89 has similar functionality, and would likely not have been an issue (the TI92 just stands out).
* In high school chemistry; at first, at first only a 4-function calculator was allowed on the test -- this was not per-se a school policy,
but an individual teacher's personal decision to disallow.
Later during the term, use of the TI-83 or TI-92 were allowed, as long as we could demonstrate to the teacher,
that we had completely erased the calculator's memory, so that we could not have stored formulas or notes..
Of course, many of us were well familiar with calculator TIbasic programming, and hesitant to do that, then, and lose all the custom programs we had
written...
2. Implement WPA2... with AES (no TKIP) and: very important: do not use WPA-PSK, unless you have a cryptographically strong key, and your
AP exposes multiple SSIDs with different pre-shared keys, where you have spread the keys about, so few devices use any one key.
3. Better yet switch all authentication to EAP-TLS with certificate-based authentication of clients, and passing of user credentials over TLS; in other words, use the only form of WPA that has no security defeat.
4. The police might be able to help, if you can provide sufficient corroboration -- such as hiring a specialist to assist, and providing the report.
If you can figure out where it's coming from, however, their parents may be able to help you even more.
The more people involved; the greater the cost of making the decision.
Branding is mostly a marketing thing, so they probably involved the marketing department, but not engineering.
What legitimate reason would there be to go ask Engineers to approve a marketing decision, wasting their time and energy?
The CEO probably didn't think of one, so he didn't ask... it probably would have been fine, if the proper research had been done -- you don't need an engineer to identify Python as a bad name, you need maybe 15 minutes with Google:)
Um, this is 100% a waste of money. A monitored security alarm gets rid of nobody but the dumbest B&E'ers. Even if the alarm company is listening, and verifies that a person is physically inside the premises
Same argument that a Firewall or an Antivirus program is a waste of money, because only the dumbest attacks are stopped by it.
That may be all you need. Remember, the objective isn't to make it impenetrable -- it's to make it less attractive than other potential targets; thus reducing the incentive to break-in: increase the risk to break in, increase the cost and energy to break in (stronger physical barriers), make the intrusion require more time (more physical barriers that all have to be defeated; parking lot bollards; fences; gates locked up at night; window bars, high-security shutters, window and door coverings), increase the risk of detection (security lighting; cameras both visible and hidden -- both inside and outside -- both color and night-vision, be sure to get pictures of front and rear of any vehicle coming in or out, alarms, sirens, strobes, proximity sensors).
A 30 minute police response, plus some video evidence; showing pictures of the potential offender will likely give them some pause.
And if the issue is occuring frequently, you can contract a private guard, or private police responder; to monitor the alarm, and seek to provide a more timely response.
It would be even better to be friends with some of the local police officers patrolling that area, and also ask them for some suggestions...
They run an extremely lean lifestyle and profit margin, so the solution needs to be almost free.
Doing nothing has a cost too... possibly more break-ins = more lost profit.
There is a potentially high risk cost of doing nothing; depending on what it is, they might be able to budget
a lot of money, and the net cost could be zero: assuming the break ins are actually causing damage and hurting their business revenue.
The idea that you run a business, and you are not willing to spend any money on security is absolutely ridiculous.
You should be willing to spend an appropriate amount of money to manage the risk.
The most important mitigation is probably to have insurance, but again... the premium may increase, the more breakins.
This may be a matter that a security consulting firm should be hired to look at.
Hidden cameras with a DVR may be useful to help catch the perps.... however, there is a problem:
this is only useful, if responders become aware of the breakin and get there, before the thief can locate the DVR associated with the cameras and destroy it.
Visible cameras, may be used as a deterrent; however, they are subject to vandalism.
One of the best deterrents which should not be overlooked is a professionally Monitored security alarm system with External sounders, Internal motion detectors, Door sensors, Glass break detectors, perimeter coverage, and an alarm loop and cellular backup to a central monitoring station, that will dispatch authorities in the event of an alarm.
It's actually quite hard to spoof anything now. No domestic connection will forward packets that don't from from the designated IP address.
This is simply not true. Most providers do not implement BCP38. Some ISPs do, some ISPs don't. It's trivial to spoof a single TCP packet. You don't need to spoof the actual connection to use that iptables rule to create a DoS condition.
It doesn't matter though... it's trivial to create exceptions to that iptables rule, by inserting ACCEPT statements before it.
Had that been the case, them including the service of consulting, repairing, recommending, or selling Apple (Cupertino) branded products or accessories, that probably would have given Apple (Cupertino) the necessary ammunition to sue them to change their name
They didn't need to do that... they just needed to get a call center to screen their calls and funnel any 'business opportunities' to a marketing partner, in exchange for a referral fee.
Well, thankfully the prosecutor has to share convincing evidence that you are guilty
Although this case is occuring in France, where the system of criminal law is dominated by a de-facto presumption of guilt; the prosecutor has to share some evidence convincing of a possibility of guilt (not necessarily proof), which they probably already have -- once they have done so, the defendants will be guilty unless they can prove their innocence....
But how many % of your cells will carry those mutations? And how likely is it that those mutations will be present both in the samples of DNA left at the crime scene and in the samples taken by the police?
Those are among the questions that the answer to requires the 500,000+ additional pounds.
A much larger number of biological DNA samples of different types of cells and different parts of the body from both brothers.
And a much more extensive detailed computer-based analysis - much more complicated than the routine comparison.
And the result might indeed be inconclusive -- that is, there is no evidence available to identify of the brothers, or, they might get a heuristic result, but cannot reach a 99% confidence level.
My understanding is that identical twins -- arising from the same zygote -- are genetically identical. Not just "pretty much identical" as the article states.
They were most likely identical or near-identical at the time of birth.
Depending on the age... over years, there are changes that are certain to occur to individualize your genetic material, including mutations, viral infections you had over your lifetime, that may have integrated their patterns into your DNA....
The differences are minute, but even genetic twins are not expected to remain perfectly identical for very long.
If the police actually have a lesser crime they can charge them both with and offer them a plea bargain then we are exactly in the prisoner's dilemma.
The average person could not escape charges of criminal wrongdoing if the police want to lay charges.
They may charge both with lesser crimes or acting as an accessory related to impeding their investigation, by failing to provide sufficient information to identify which of them is the perpetrator.
It's the first thing they check, turn car off then on, if they can't do that cycle you fail inspection. Thanks to my Saturn ION 2007 for that...stupid ignition cylinder breaks and doesn't let you turn the car off.
That only verifies that the key turns the car off under normal circumstances, like you would expect.
It doesn't verify that turning off the key will kill the car, while moving, after a software bug has caused the drive-by-wire computer to lock up.
The inspection is just a routine check, not a design review.
So, why does France issue Driver's Licenses to people subject to epileptic seizures?
If that were their policy, there would be no driver's licenses issued, because everyone is subject
to the possibility of an epileptic seizure; this can occur as a one time unexpected event, provoked, or unprovoked.
It would make sense to deny licenses to people who have a condition where they experience recurrent seizures.
That falls under medical conditions that may pose a danger on the road.
I imagine that they would be happy to provide the sale via some other mechanism.
Yeah, but someone might offer a twitter-only special, to incentivize that method -- just because of a theory that tweeting it serves to to influence followers...
EG. "Using the twitter method of purchasing adds value,"
because not only do you buy the item, you are essentially advertising it to your friends.
So that factor, might lead some marketers to strategically offer certain discounts just for twitter users
Yeah... but if you wanted to keep it private, wouldn't you skip Twitter? I suppose retailer X could offer a 20% discount on certain products, but it would be the exception to the rule.
Are you telling me that Packard-Bell is back in business?
I think there should be a large number of things waiting at your doorstep in a few days, if you tweet #uselessjunk
one.
You don't get just a Packard Bell... you also get yourself an Apple Newton, an Apple Lisa, a Sony Betamax, a Zune, a copy of Microsoft Windows ME, a copy of Microsoft Bob, a copy of Windows Vista, a copy of Windows 8, a Microsoft Surface, a Laserdisc Player, an Apple Lisa, an IBM PC JR, a pile of 8-track tapes, a Minidisc player, a Web TV; a Blackberry playbook,
a Virtualboy,.....
Slashdot Mirror
Except freenet is extreme-high-latency, unless you like to wait 2 minutes to view a simple text file, extremely resource-intensive, unsuitable for large file transfers.
It can take a lot of work, at least if you're the first person trying to do it, but ultimately trying to establish two-way communications over the Internet and yet remain completely anonymous is just as futile as trying to lock up content that you're also showing to someone.
This is mostly because encrypted channels and point-to-point VPNs stick out like a sore thumb, if anyone has monitoring capabilities over a large number of hosts.
This works because VPN hosts can be attacked/compromised, and there are not that many people using them.
If every ordinary person uses a VPN frequently, then they don't stick out so much, and any individual's activities are even harder to distinguish in all the surrounding noise.
"We don't care. No peer-to-peer."
This is unacceptable and unprofessional, can I please speak with your supervisor?
It's to their users... no doubt their idea of "piracy" includes fair use content as well... observe how they list Youtube as separate from "authorized"....
They list mere counts of average number of times a site appeared that had 10,000 or more removal requests, or 1,000 or more remove requests.
Out of millions of remove requests received by Google; 10,000 pages at issue on a large site do not necessarily qualify as "a large number of requests".
RIAA's arguments are non-constructive, and they have offered no evidence that Google has not taken successful action to demote piracy results.
The laptop thing should be fairly obvious as well - after all, who can argue with someone wanting ot use their laptop as a graphing calculator?
My laptop has a Dvorak layout keyboard... do you think I should bring that in to the ACT? :)
Certain graphing calculators are allowed on the ACT, such as the TI83. The TI92 is banned on the ACT and the SAT. The TI89 is I believe currently banned on the ACT, but not the SAT.
All calculators with computer algebra system (CAS) functionality are now banned on the ACT.
But graphing capabilities are allowed.
The calculators have memory capabilities, but I believe, it is against the rules of the ACT, for you to bring in and utilize notes, formulas, or pre-made programs that you stored on it outside the test room during the testing time.
I guess my daughter's math classes (AP math and AP statistics) are outliers then. They're all required to use a TI-84/85.
Your experience might differ from mine, but I was generally allowed to use graphing calculators, on any test where using a calculator would have been reasonable (obviously, no graphing calculator to take a history exam, or biology test, where there is no math work). In the vast majority of cases where I couldn't use one, non-graphing calculators were similarly restricted.
And they were still useful as a visual aid, even if a simpler calculator had to be used on the test; it was convenient to be allowed to use a graphing calculator, however, and if you actually needed the CAS or graphing functionality as a crutch, and couldn't otherwise work the problem, it would be likely that you run out of time, or lose most points by failing to show the complete derivation for the right answer (can't just punch Factor(), Solve(), Integrate(), or Simplify() into a CAS, and then write the answer on your test, because you get basically no credit, as a result of failing to show how you arrived at that -- the steps, and correct interpretation of the problem were very often held to be just as important or more than winding up with the most perfect formulation of an answer).
I used a TI-83 throughout grade school starting with Algebra I, and half of high school, then a TI-92 from Junior year of high school after finishing Algebra II (in other words, through Trig and High school calculus), and then through college...
And I took many tests with these, and their advanced functionality was meaningfully useful in some cases.
I was not hindered by restrictions on graphing calculators, with the following exceptions 1. Standardized tests, And NON-Math classes that required math.
That's right.... no issues using a graphing calculator in any math class throughought my schooling, it was always allowed to have any TI graphing calculator, and normally for any particular class -- the policy would be the same for all tests (Eg; whether calc allowed or not for a class would not vary from test to test), with the sole exception of 1 term of grade school Algebra, where calculators were restricted to 4-function or banned completely on certain tests ---- all kinds of calculators were always allowed to bring into class and to do homework with, it was only TEST events that were standardized by a testing organization, or certain non-Math classes that I ever found to be restricted:
* I was a computer science scientific computing; for the most part, calculators of any kind were not allowed in any college computer science class tests, even when there were questions involving number crunching. (graphics calcs on equal footing)
* In several electrical engineering classes, there was also some big time number crunching, and no kind of calculator at all was allowed. (graphics calcs on equal footing)
* In college Physics II, only a basic scientific calculator was allowed, no graphing calculators.
* On the ACT/SAT tests; the TI-92 was allowed. The problem was not that it was a graphing calculator, however, the TI-83 was allowed. Apparently the test administrators are concerned about a calculator having a qwerty keyboard, so I could use my old TI83. The TI89 has similar functionality, and would likely not have been an issue (the TI92 just stands out).
* In high school chemistry; at first, at first only a 4-function calculator was allowed on the test -- this was not per-se a school policy, but an individual teacher's personal decision to disallow.
Later during the term, use of the TI-83 or TI-92 were allowed, as long as we could demonstrate to the teacher, that we had completely erased the calculator's memory, so that we could not have stored formulas or notes..
Of course, many of us were well familiar with calculator TIbasic programming, and hesitant to do that, then, and lose all the custom programs we had written...
1. Shut down any of your WEP access points.
2. Implement WPA2... with AES (no TKIP) and: very important: do not use WPA-PSK, unless you have a cryptographically strong key, and your AP exposes multiple SSIDs with different pre-shared keys, where you have spread the keys about, so few devices use any one key.
3. Better yet switch all authentication to EAP-TLS with certificate-based authentication of clients, and passing of user credentials over TLS; in other words, use the only form of WPA that has no security defeat.
4. The police might be able to help, if you can provide sufficient corroboration -- such as hiring a specialist to assist, and providing the report.
If you can figure out where it's coming from, however, their parents may be able to help you even more.
The more people involved; the greater the cost of making the decision. Branding is mostly a marketing thing, so they probably involved the marketing department, but not engineering.
What legitimate reason would there be to go ask Engineers to approve a marketing decision, wasting their time and energy? The CEO probably didn't think of one, so he didn't ask... it probably would have been fine, if the proper research had been done -- you don't need an engineer to identify Python as a bad name, you need maybe 15 minutes with Google:)
Renaming his company to some unique name that others couldn't possibly have thought of, like oh... Apache, or Turbo Gears
Um, this is 100% a waste of money. A monitored security alarm gets rid of nobody but the dumbest B&E'ers. Even if the alarm company is listening, and verifies that a person is physically inside the premises
Same argument that a Firewall or an Antivirus program is a waste of money, because only the dumbest attacks are stopped by it.
That may be all you need. Remember, the objective isn't to make it impenetrable -- it's to make it less attractive than other potential targets; thus reducing the incentive to break-in: increase the risk to break in, increase the cost and energy to break in (stronger physical barriers), make the intrusion require more time (more physical barriers that all have to be defeated; parking lot bollards; fences; gates locked up at night; window bars, high-security shutters, window and door coverings), increase the risk of detection (security lighting; cameras both visible and hidden -- both inside and outside -- both color and night-vision, be sure to get pictures of front and rear of any vehicle coming in or out, alarms, sirens, strobes, proximity sensors).
A 30 minute police response, plus some video evidence; showing pictures of the potential offender will likely give them some pause.
And if the issue is occuring frequently, you can contract a private guard, or private police responder; to monitor the alarm, and seek to provide a more timely response.
It would be even better to be friends with some of the local police officers patrolling that area, and also ask them for some suggestions...
They run an extremely lean lifestyle and profit margin, so the solution needs to be almost free.
Doing nothing has a cost too... possibly more break-ins = more lost profit. There is a potentially high risk cost of doing nothing; depending on what it is, they might be able to budget a lot of money, and the net cost could be zero: assuming the break ins are actually causing damage and hurting their business revenue.
The idea that you run a business, and you are not willing to spend any money on security is absolutely ridiculous. You should be willing to spend an appropriate amount of money to manage the risk.
The most important mitigation is probably to have insurance, but again... the premium may increase, the more breakins.
This may be a matter that a security consulting firm should be hired to look at.
Hidden cameras with a DVR may be useful to help catch the perps.... however, there is a problem: this is only useful, if responders become aware of the breakin and get there, before the thief can locate the DVR associated with the cameras and destroy it.
Visible cameras, may be used as a deterrent; however, they are subject to vandalism.
One of the best deterrents which should not be overlooked is a professionally Monitored security alarm system with External sounders, Internal motion detectors, Door sensors, Glass break detectors, perimeter coverage, and an alarm loop and cellular backup to a central monitoring station, that will dispatch authorities in the event of an alarm.
It's actually quite hard to spoof anything now. No domestic connection will forward packets that don't from from the designated IP address.
This is simply not true. Most providers do not implement BCP38. Some ISPs do, some ISPs don't. It's trivial to spoof a single TCP packet. You don't need to spoof the actual connection to use that iptables rule to create a DoS condition.
It doesn't matter though... it's trivial to create exceptions to that iptables rule, by inserting ACCEPT statements before it.
Had that been the case, them including the service of consulting, repairing, recommending, or selling Apple (Cupertino) branded products or accessories, that probably would have given Apple (Cupertino) the necessary ammunition to sue them to change their name
They didn't need to do that... they just needed to get a call center to screen their calls and funnel any 'business opportunities' to a marketing partner, in exchange for a referral fee.
Well, thankfully the prosecutor has to share convincing evidence that you are guilty
Although this case is occuring in France, where the system of criminal law is dominated by a de-facto presumption of guilt; the prosecutor has to share some evidence convincing of a possibility of guilt (not necessarily proof), which they probably already have -- once they have done so, the defendants will be guilty unless they can prove their innocence....
But how many % of your cells will carry those mutations? And how likely is it that those mutations will be present both in the samples of DNA left at the crime scene and in the samples taken by the police?
Those are among the questions that the answer to requires the 500,000+ additional pounds.
A much larger number of biological DNA samples of different types of cells and different parts of the body from both brothers.
And a much more extensive detailed computer-based analysis - much more complicated than the routine comparison.
And the result might indeed be inconclusive -- that is, there is no evidence available to identify of the brothers, or, they might get a heuristic result, but cannot reach a 99% confidence level.
My understanding is that identical twins -- arising from the same zygote -- are genetically identical. Not just "pretty much identical" as the article states.
They were most likely identical or near-identical at the time of birth.
Depending on the age... over years, there are changes that are certain to occur to individualize your genetic material, including mutations, viral infections you had over your lifetime, that may have integrated their patterns into your DNA....
The differences are minute, but even genetic twins are not expected to remain perfectly identical for very long.
If the police actually have a lesser crime they can charge them both with and offer them a plea bargain then we are exactly in the prisoner's dilemma.
The average person could not escape charges of criminal wrongdoing if the police want to lay charges.
They may charge both with lesser crimes or acting as an accessory related to impeding their investigation, by failing to provide sufficient information to identify which of them is the perpetrator.
It's the first thing they check, turn car off then on, if they can't do that cycle you fail inspection. Thanks to my Saturn ION 2007 for that...stupid ignition cylinder breaks and doesn't let you turn the car off.
That only verifies that the key turns the car off under normal circumstances, like you would expect. It doesn't verify that turning off the key will kill the car, while moving, after a software bug has caused the drive-by-wire computer to lock up.
The inspection is just a routine check, not a design review.
RTFA "Then each time he tried to brake, the car accelerated, eventually reaching 125mph and sticking there."
Perhaps he should have hit the accelerator then, and attempt to take the engine sufficiently out of tolerance, to cause it to break and stop....
So, why does France issue Driver's Licenses to people subject to epileptic seizures?
If that were their policy, there would be no driver's licenses issued, because everyone is subject to the possibility of an epileptic seizure; this can occur as a one time unexpected event, provoked, or unprovoked.
It would make sense to deny licenses to people who have a condition where they experience recurrent seizures. That falls under medical conditions that may pose a danger on the road.
I imagine that they would be happy to provide the sale via some other mechanism.
Yeah, but someone might offer a twitter-only special, to incentivize that method -- just because of a theory that tweeting it serves to to influence followers...
EG. "Using the twitter method of purchasing adds value," because not only do you buy the item, you are essentially advertising it to your friends.
So that factor, might lead some marketers to strategically offer certain discounts just for twitter users
Yeah... but if you wanted to keep it private, wouldn't you skip Twitter? I suppose retailer X could offer a 20% discount on certain products, but it would be the exception to the rule.
Ah, but Amazon's patent covers clicking; it doesn't cover typing a hashtag in... Or well technically that's a click for each letter in the hash tag.
Are you telling me that Packard-Bell is back in business?
I think there should be a large number of things waiting at your doorstep in a few days, if you tweet #uselessjunk one.
You don't get just a Packard Bell... you also get yourself an Apple Newton, an Apple Lisa, a Sony Betamax, a Zune, a copy of Microsoft Windows ME, a copy of Microsoft Bob, a copy of Windows Vista, a copy of Windows 8, a Microsoft Surface, a Laserdisc Player, an Apple Lisa, an IBM PC JR, a pile of 8-track tapes, a Minidisc player, a Web TV; a Blackberry playbook, a Virtualboy, .....