Well, I am not so sure an honest person would necessarily give it to the bartender. But an honest person would not be attempting to profit from someone else's loss or profit from their finding the item, by exchanging it for cash, to someone who has little serious motive to rapidly return it to the owner, and serious motive to potentially do something damaging or destructive to the item, Oh, like what?
Like Dissecting it.
One of the more destructive things a dishonest or cruel person would do to someone else's property.
First of all, it is not legal to sell a piece of property you do not own. It means that in effect the 'sale' never happened, and no transfer of ownership actually occured.
To tell the recipient you will sell them this item for $X would therefore be criminal sale of stolen property, and fraud, due to the misrepresentation.
Gizmodo knew or should have known that the item was an Apple prototype, and Apple did not legally confer ownership of the item, or authorize anyone to sell it.
Disassembling the item is not required to return it to its rightful owner.
Disassembling causes damage to the item.
Disassembling does not assist in returning the item.
Disassembling is profitable and serves the self-interests of a news org that came into possession of the item.
Therefore, I am left with the conclusion that Gizmodo possesed the item for their own benefit, and returning the item without damaging it was not their priority.
This, by the way, makes Gizmodo dishonest.
I think there is a good chance also that Gizmodo's actions may have been unlawful.
I would hope that they would get some leniency, as I consider Gizmodo to sometimes publish some useful content.
However, they deserve a slap on the wrist, all the same.
The rights of journalists to say anything and not disclose sources of information are not a blank cheque
In this case, physical goods changed hands.
Stolen physical items are not speech.
An iPhone is not information.
It is not like a source sending a journalist a thumb drive of information leaked from Apple.
(Well, assuming the sender owned the physical thumb drive)
Physical items are governed by separate laws.
Bank robbers cannot crash at a journalist's house or hand $$$ to a journalist for safe keeping.
Journalists won't be immune to the search warrants that ensue as a result.
The Gizmodo situation seems very similar to that, except the 'bank robber' in this case was an iPhone robber.
He clearly didn't hand it over to police as lost property.
And it is doubtful that he mailed them a letter, written notice, or published the 'found missing iphone' in the newspaper, with his contact info.
IOW, it is doubtful that he met all obligations of someone having found lost property.
It has been a successful method for centuries. Send to messengers one with an encoded message, one with a key to that message. They go different routes and both need to be captured.
But again, it does not necessarily improve security.
You are assuming that a security attack consists of capturing messengers in transit.
That is one possibility, but not necessarily the attack that actually occurs.
Unless the enemy is actually making attempts to capture messengers, there is not an improvement in security by avoiding capture of all messengers.
It may be adequate to prevent compromise of the message while traveling over a long distance.
But a message can be compromised just as easily at its source or its destination: before it has been divided, or after it has been put back together.
This is easily done by an insider (spy).
The security attack could instead consist of
trailing or tracking a messenger to discover the precise location of the enemy.
Bribing messenger 1 to deliver a different message, and sending a completely fake 2nd messenger to deliver a fake key.
Or even tricking a detachment of the enemy into sending incorrect messages.
There is a good chance that a thorough analysis of said hard drive will eventually cause the key material to be revealed, if the adversary is determined.
Or the adversary can just keep a copy of the hard drive for 10 or 15 years, and progress in computing power and the field of cryptography will have rendered that once 'strong encryption' worthless.
In other words, it's an obscurity measure.
You might as well use a less expensive technique such as a hard drive password, and the ATA Security function.
If you are a bank or institution where attackers may have extreme interest in your data, chances are good you already have media destruction policies in place.
Media destruction when drives are decomissioned is more thorough and provides a better security assurance than encryption alone.
Physical lock and key, plus armed guard, also provides some better assurances against theft of hard drive contents, than encryption alone.
since you have shrouded your internal DB with an added layer of obscurity
That's right. Encryption of an internal database itself is an improvement in obscurity, not security.
Security is an overall process, of which encryption can be one element.
Complexity such as that actually reduces security.
Since managers and developers believe the 'compartmentalization' will save them, they are less concerned about writing secure code, due to risk compensation, they wind up with something less secure than if they had not encrypted DB data.
Compartmentalization of that nature is just one of those things that sounds cool but has not been shown to actually tangibly improve security in reality.
Increased complexity and poorer review of DB schema and database contents, that results from the additional complexity, can lead to poorer app performance, and more DB-related security issues slipping through the cracks.
In other words compartmentalization has a chance of improving security slightly in some cases, but in many cases it is very likely to have a negative impact on overall security, resulting in a less secure situation (although you will definitely feel more secure, even though you aren't, since you have shrouded your internal DB with an added layer of security --- which by the way, will make it hard even for the company themselves to analyze their own database and detect certain types of attack attempts).
It would help if you got your facts straight.
2002:A.B.C.D::/48 is not a syntactically valid IP address notation under [RFC4291].
Because "D.D.D.D" text notation is only valid in the low-order 8-bit pieces of an IP.
Teredo is a tunnelling technology.
6to4 is also a Tunnelling+Translation technology.
They are relatively unproven transitional technologies that might be useful in some circumstances -- which have yet to see much real-world use, but
Neither of them means you can simply embed an IPv4 address in an IPv6 packet, and expect it to get to the destination.
Neither of them makes 'IPv6 already has the IPv4 address space blocked off and reserved for IPv4 addresses' accurate.
Sending an IPv6 packet to 2001:0:A.B.C.D::/64 via your V6 default gateway, does not magically mean that A.B.C.D will receive it.
All they have to do is provide a transparent proxy for IPv4 HTTP and a transparent tunnelling for HTTPS, POP3, SMTP, ImAP, and 90% of the customers will never notice.
The ones that do will be Enterprises, who are sparse enough and pay enough (probably) to justify the cost of the IPs.
And gamers... but that just provides an upsell opportunity. $10/extra per month for IP NAT service and GamingForwardService to enable online gameplay with any of the ISP media partners' games.
$30/extra per month for a GlobalStaticIP usable with any online game (even games that won't work behind NAT).
What are you talking about?
There's no portion of the IPv6 address space that corresponds to IPv4 addresses.
There used to be an informal notation for using a dotted form in the textual notation of an IPv6 address, but that was deprecated and removed from the standards a long time ago.
Not an option. Those address blocks were assigned to them in a manner such that only the DoD can revoke them, and: these organizations have significant lobbying power and control of regulatory agencies' actions.
it's not artificial, because the choice to upgrade is not cost-free for the ISP.
There is nothing artificial about the costs of V6, implementing is very expensive and difficult to justify, when there are no major content providers using IPv6 address space -- so providing IPv6 connectivity gives basically no gain and no immediate competitive advantage.
There would be large hardware costs in terms of network equipment.
And large software licensing costs for updates.
And large administrative costs in the form of evaluating all services for IPv6 compatibility and rebuilding systems that are not, using V6 compatible software (e.g. re-doing DNS systems using V6-compatible DNS server software, which may increase hardware requirements).
Implementing end-to-end IPv6 is expensive, so is the re-training of all network operations.
But they need to be more realistic now.
They are realistic enough for browsers to consider them phishers (which they probably are, technically), so they need to act just a little more like real phishers.
They need to do what all phishers do and get hundreds more domains and IP addresses.
And put sneaky Ad listings in sponsored search results with various search engines.
An integer approximation of a fraction is not equivalent to the fraction.
If you want to verify X is a 2/3 majority, of 206, the right way to do this is:
You start with the question, is a majority of at least 2/3 of 206 satisfied by X voters?
To answer, you express the underlying mathematical question, which is:
Is it true that X > (2/3) * 206 ?
Now, you could write this as
X > 206*2/3 or X > 412/3
Then you have a problem, since 412 is not divisible by 3, you cannot express this as an integer.
Instead you arrive at the final question, using standard arithmetic operations...
Your question is translated into 3 * X > 412 ?
Now you can affirmatively answer the question.
for X = 136 voters, that many is enough to pass the motion, if and only if 3 times that number is greater than 412.
3 * 136 is 408.
So no. 136 voters is not sufficient to pass the bill.
We don't care exactly how many are required. We cannot determine that precisely in decimal notation, only give an approximation.
But we can very easily test if an integer number of voters satisfies the 2/3 requirement, by utilizing the above derivation.
Most likely, the $500 price will go down in the future, also.
However, until you can insert your existing DVDs into an iPad and play them or Apple provides an alternative, the iPads are likely not a huge threat against DVD player systems.
A parody of Hitler reacting to finding out Youtube deleted his video upload?
Or possibly of Hitler finding out people have been posting parodies about him and outraged, demanding his 2nd in command, Mr. Eric Schmidt do something about that.
I'm sure we could think of some way of mocking Google about this, they kind of deserve it, due to their evil, unjustified, indiscriminate takedowns of user content.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I am not so sure an honest person would necessarily give it to the bartender. But an honest person would not be attempting to profit from someone else's loss or profit from their finding the item, by exchanging it for cash, to someone who has little serious motive to rapidly return it to the owner, and serious motive to potentially do something damaging or destructive to the item, Oh, like what?
Like Dissecting it. One of the more destructive things a dishonest or cruel person would do to someone else's property.
First of all, it is not legal to sell a piece of property you do not own. It means that in effect the 'sale' never happened, and no transfer of ownership actually occured. To tell the recipient you will sell them this item for $X would therefore be criminal sale of stolen property, and fraud, due to the misrepresentation.
Gizmodo knew or should have known that the item was an Apple prototype, and Apple did not legally confer ownership of the item, or authorize anyone to sell it.
Disassembling the item is not required to return it to its rightful owner.
Disassembling causes damage to the item.
Disassembling does not assist in returning the item.
Disassembling is profitable and serves the self-interests of a news org that came into possession of the item.
Therefore, I am left with the conclusion that Gizmodo possesed the item for their own benefit, and returning the item without damaging it was not their priority.
This, by the way, makes Gizmodo dishonest.
I think there is a good chance also that Gizmodo's actions may have been unlawful.
I would hope that they would get some leniency, as I consider Gizmodo to sometimes publish some useful content.
However, they deserve a slap on the wrist, all the same.
The rights of journalists to say anything and not disclose sources of information are not a blank cheque
In this case, physical goods changed hands.
Stolen physical items are not speech.
An iPhone is not information. It is not like a source sending a journalist a thumb drive of information leaked from Apple.
(Well, assuming the sender owned the physical thumb drive)
Physical items are governed by separate laws.
Bank robbers cannot crash at a journalist's house or hand $$$ to a journalist for safe keeping. Journalists won't be immune to the search warrants that ensue as a result.
The Gizmodo situation seems very similar to that, except the 'bank robber' in this case was an iPhone robber.
Are you sure he tried hard enough?
He clearly didn't hand it over to police as lost property.
And it is doubtful that he mailed them a letter, written notice, or published the 'found missing iphone' in the newspaper, with his contact info. IOW, it is doubtful that he met all obligations of someone having found lost property.
It has been a successful method for centuries. Send to messengers one with an encoded message, one with a key to that message. They go different routes and both need to be captured.
But again, it does not necessarily improve security. You are assuming that a security attack consists of capturing messengers in transit. That is one possibility, but not necessarily the attack that actually occurs.
Unless the enemy is actually making attempts to capture messengers, there is not an improvement in security by avoiding capture of all messengers.
It may be adequate to prevent compromise of the message while traveling over a long distance. But a message can be compromised just as easily at its source or its destination: before it has been divided, or after it has been put back together.
This is easily done by an insider (spy).
The security attack could instead consist of trailing or tracking a messenger to discover the precise location of the enemy.
Bribing messenger 1 to deliver a different message, and sending a completely fake 2nd messenger to deliver a fake key.
Or even tricking a detachment of the enemy into sending incorrect messages.
There is a good chance that a thorough analysis of said hard drive will eventually cause the key material to be revealed, if the adversary is determined.
Or the adversary can just keep a copy of the hard drive for 10 or 15 years, and progress in computing power and the field of cryptography will have rendered that once 'strong encryption' worthless.
In other words, it's an obscurity measure. You might as well use a less expensive technique such as a hard drive password, and the ATA Security function.
If you are a bank or institution where attackers may have extreme interest in your data, chances are good you already have media destruction policies in place.
Media destruction when drives are decomissioned is more thorough and provides a better security assurance than encryption alone.
Physical lock and key, plus armed guard, also provides some better assurances against theft of hard drive contents, than encryption alone.
since you have shrouded your internal DB with an added layer of obscurity
That's right. Encryption of an internal database itself is an improvement in obscurity, not security. Security is an overall process, of which encryption can be one element.
But Encryption does not always improve security.
Complexity such as that actually reduces security. Since managers and developers believe the 'compartmentalization' will save them, they are less concerned about writing secure code, due to risk compensation, they wind up with something less secure than if they had not encrypted DB data.
Compartmentalization of that nature is just one of those things that sounds cool but has not been shown to actually tangibly improve security in reality.
Increased complexity and poorer review of DB schema and database contents, that results from the additional complexity, can lead to poorer app performance, and more DB-related security issues slipping through the cracks.
In other words compartmentalization has a chance of improving security slightly in some cases, but in many cases it is very likely to have a negative impact on overall security, resulting in a less secure situation (although you will definitely feel more secure, even though you aren't, since you have shrouded your internal DB with an added layer of security --- which by the way, will make it hard even for the company themselves to analyze their own database and detect certain types of attack attempts).
It would help if you got your facts straight. 2002:A.B.C.D::/48 is not a syntactically valid IP address notation under [RFC4291]. Because "D.D.D.D" text notation is only valid in the low-order 8-bit pieces of an IP.
Teredo is a tunnelling technology.
6to4 is also a Tunnelling+Translation technology.
They are relatively unproven transitional technologies that might be useful in some circumstances -- which have yet to see much real-world use, but Neither of them means you can simply embed an IPv4 address in an IPv6 packet, and expect it to get to the destination.
Neither of them makes 'IPv6 already has the IPv4 address space blocked off and reserved for IPv4 addresses' accurate.
Sending an IPv6 packet to 2001:0:A.B.C.D::/64 via your V6 default gateway, does not magically mean that A.B.C.D will receive it.
All they have to do is provide a transparent proxy for IPv4 HTTP and a transparent tunnelling for HTTPS, POP3, SMTP, ImAP, and 90% of the customers will never notice.
The ones that do will be Enterprises, who are sparse enough and pay enough (probably) to justify the cost of the IPs.
And gamers... but that just provides an upsell opportunity. $10/extra per month for IP NAT service and GamingForwardService to enable online gameplay with any of the ISP media partners' games.
$30/extra per month for a GlobalStaticIP usable with any online game (even games that won't work behind NAT).
What are you talking about? There's no portion of the IPv6 address space that corresponds to IPv4 addresses.
There used to be an informal notation for using a dotted form in the textual notation of an IPv6 address, but that was deprecated and removed from the standards a long time ago.
Not an option. Those address blocks were assigned to them in a manner such that only the DoD can revoke them, and: these organizations have significant lobbying power and control of regulatory agencies' actions.
Translation: not going to happen.
it's not artificial, because the choice to upgrade is not cost-free for the ISP.
There is nothing artificial about the costs of V6, implementing is very expensive and difficult to justify, when there are no major content providers using IPv6 address space -- so providing IPv6 connectivity gives basically no gain and no immediate competitive advantage.
There would be large hardware costs in terms of network equipment.
And large software licensing costs for updates.
And large administrative costs in the form of evaluating all services for IPv6 compatibility and rebuilding systems that are not, using V6 compatible software (e.g. re-doing DNS systems using V6-compatible DNS server software, which may increase hardware requirements).
Implementing end-to-end IPv6 is expensive, so is the re-training of all network operations.
But they need to be more realistic now. They are realistic enough for browsers to consider them phishers (which they probably are, technically), so they need to act just a little more like real phishers.
They need to do what all phishers do and get hundreds more domains and IP addresses.
And put sneaky Ad listings in sponsored search results with various search engines.
An old saying that suddenly starts to seem a lot more important.
Unforunately now, you can't look both ways at a 4-way stop anymore, because you'll wind up turning.
They need to be on the front of the car and be automatically triggered just by a pedestrian looking at them.
Also, they need to not shut down all systems, only acceleration systems -- braking needs to still work.
Looks like someone's started it :)
"2/3 majority" does not mean 0.666666666666666666666666667 of the voters.
It means that 3 times the number of supporters must be at least twice the total number of voters.
An integer approximation of a fraction is not equivalent to the fraction.
If you want to verify X is a 2/3 majority, of 206, the right way to do this is:
You start with the question, is a majority of at least 2/3 of 206 satisfied by X voters?
To answer, you express the underlying mathematical question, which is:
Is it true that X > (2/3) * 206 ?
Now, you could write this as X > 206*2/3 or X > 412/3
Then you have a problem, since 412 is not divisible by 3, you cannot express this as an integer.
Instead you arrive at the final question, using standard arithmetic operations... Your question is translated into 3 * X > 412 ?
Now you can affirmatively answer the question. for X = 136 voters, that many is enough to pass the motion, if and only if 3 times that number is greater than 412.
3 * 136 is 408.
So no. 136 voters is not sufficient to pass the bill.
We don't care exactly how many are required. We cannot determine that precisely in decimal notation, only give an approximation.
But we can very easily test if an integer number of voters satisfies the 2/3 requirement, by utilizing the above derivation.
And also requires VT or AMD-V. At least for 64-bit guests.
The Opteron 270 is ancient. Go send that server to the scrapyard with your other 6+ year old hardware.
And get a shiny new quad core proc. Just about any AMD server CPU released in the past 5 years has AMD-V support.
The Disney vault is entirely in Disney's control.
I doubt they would pass up the opportunity to sell their content all over again on a new medium, however (e.g. the iPad).
And then put it back in their metaphorical vault.
It seems you could buy 4 iPads.
That allows you 3 spares in case they do break.
Most likely, the $500 price will go down in the future, also.
However, until you can insert your existing DVDs into an iPad and play them or Apple provides an alternative, the iPads are likely not a huge threat against DVD player systems.
I will grant they are not news at this point. But "nor are they stuff that matters" is not true.
Of course they matter. They are the latest product of one of the largest, well-known computer manufacturers.
It doesn't matter, as sometime in the future they will probably be able to re-buy their Disney DVDs for the iPad.
Subject to DRM, preventing them from taking the content anywhere other than their iPad (without buying again), of course.
A parody of Hitler reacting to finding out Youtube deleted his video upload?
Or possibly of Hitler finding out people have been posting parodies about him and outraged, demanding his 2nd in command, Mr. Eric Schmidt do something about that.
I'm sure we could think of some way of mocking Google about this, they kind of deserve it, due to their evil, unjustified, indiscriminate takedowns of user content.
I bet the result would not be very fun...