I should know better than to feed the trolls....but I just don't get this "Happy Monday from The Golden Girls" thing.
I've seen it a few times on various articles (maybe not always "Happy Monday"). I guess I could Google it, but that seems like a lot of work for something as unimportant as this.
*shrug*
I like my privacy.
In many ways, I would like to say "shoot the damn thing!" but depending on local laws that could get ugly. This camp was private property and closed to the public, right?
Still, there must be some way to deter such drones. Capture, and release after disabling the camera? If the drone gets damaged during the capture...well...C'est la vie!
Of course, if it's not private property, my level of sympathy would decrease greatly.
I thought the point wasn't that some bits should/shouldn't be prioritized, but rather that SOURCES shouldn't be prioritized. I'm fine with VoIP traffic being prioritized.
I would take issue with, say, my ISP's VoIP application working fine while delays are introduced to Skype traffic. Prioritizing certain types of traffic make sense and can be provider-agnostic; prioritizing specific companies/sources, however, is chock-full of problems.
Then figure out another way. Don't give into fear!
you can't have 100% security and 100% liberty yet that is what the American public expects.
I don't. I mean, I really don't expect the security. Of course, maybe I'll turn into a clingy, half-crazed lunatic begging for Big Brother to protect me when trouble actually strikes.
Right now, though, all I see is liberty/freedom/privacy draining away for what would *seem* to be marginal (or at least unproven) gains in security.
Hell, what do I know. I kinda like where I live, in the good ol' U.S. of A. Everything's great viewed from the sofa or my desk!
Move around much, though, and the place starts to feel like a cage...
And, yes, I realize that LAPD claims they will only be for "narrow and prescribed uses".
Ha! Funny how such things change over time; I don't believe a word of it.
Great! Just what the law enforcement groups needed, really.
If they can find a jurisdiction that will tolerate or embrace this activity, they can hold it up as an example in other places to justify the adoption.
Once the movement reaches a critical threshold, it will be easy to force the "upgrade" even on comparatively hostile populations.
I live in the 6 range, not too far from Portland, Oregon. Some of my fondest memories involve dark skies; I'll never forget the first time I was able to see the Milky Way stretching across the sky, along with the countless other visible stars that I could never have seen at home.
It's not something I often think of (life is busy, right?), but it was neat loading up this layer into Google Earth and tracking down approximately where I've been when I've seen those night skies.
I can make it to a Class 3 in 1h20m, Class 2 in 2h20m, and Class 1 in 3h40m. I'd never really thought about it like that before; that's really not so hard to do!:)
If your parent or grandparent abused the system, I'm sorry but it's time for you to pay up.
I've never been a big fan of the "sins of the fathers" approach to punishment.
I have enough to do dealing with things I'm actually personally responsible for...I don't need to catch flak for shit I ain't done.
I had totally missed that. In my defense, I only have an (original) XBox, and a PS3; I own neither a PS4 nor an XBone and have paid only passing attention to either.
But yeah, that's terrible. This isn't why the console market is brutal, but these shenanigans don't help.
Also, Microsoft's shooting-self-in-foot technique presents such a fragmented approach to putting out a serious product.
Just....words.....you know what I mean?
A good point! Time and Money have an equivalence, the amount just varies by person.
400 hours for me would be much harder (as a workaholic) than 400 hours for a seventeen-year-old lounging around gaming during a break from school.
I have an easier time respecting the results of putting time into it. Really, it might make more sense to work for 3 hours, make $30-$90 depending on the job, and pay that into the game instead of grinding for 20 hours...except, I usually play the game (and even grind!) because I enjoy playing the game; that has value to me, both as something I chose to do outside of "work", and possibly as a form of relaxation.
Interesting. I haven't run into that, but most likely due to a lack of participation in such games, in general. That hadn't occurred to me, but I can see it happening. Definitely a downer.
No, no I don't think I do. I've heard free-to-play broken down into three categories:
* Free-to-Play: The entire game is free to play and experience; you may be able to purchase some benefits in-game, but they do not skew the balance. They either provide minimal perks, or are purely aesthetic or to support to developer. * Freemium: The entire game is technically available, but it will take you much longer to go through it without paying some meaningful amount. Available purchases include benefits that can't be earned any other way or require a lot of time/work to accumulate in-game. Balance is skewed to favor those who pay, but you can still compete at a disadvantage. * Pay-to-Win: The game is there, and you can play it, but a number of important features or content are locked behind pay-walls. Benefits possible cannot be meaningfully earned by any other method. If you aren't paying, you can't hope to compete with those who do.
I scorn and deride Pay-to-Win (I feel, appropriately). I'll regard Freemium games with suspicion, but may play depending on the game itself and how exactly the "store" component is structured. I'll embrace Free-to-Play conceptually; play and support it if I like it.
I've...played Freemium and Pay-to-win. I'm not interested in paying as much as I would for a full game to enjoy said benefits for one or two months. I also hate how it feels not being able to compete because I'm unwilling to pay a bunch of money. If I find the story or mechanics engaging, I'll check it out...but I leave my wallet at home.
I dunno. I realize things around here have somewhat changed; hell, I'm pretty new here, anyway. I would rather not be the "is this really news for nerds?" guy. Actually I haven't noticed that slogan printed on this site since certain changes were implemented.
But while this is newsworthy, hoping that the discourse will evolve into a meritorious discussion of the technologies in use during such flights, the tech and techniques intended to prevent this specific kind of situation, and/or interesting details about the methods/tech used to aid in the resulting search seems a bit optimistic.
As far as the article goes, there's a lot to be suspicious of...it's certainly not normal to have this happen with everything that goes into making, controlling, and tracking those planes. Still, mistakes and failures occur. I am interested to know what they eventually find.
Settlements do not set a precedent. Or not of the legal variety, so far as I understand it.
But actually having them agree to *admit* that his use qualified as Fair Use is pretty significant. Usually civil settlements avoid admitting anything about the validity of whatever claim was settled. Such an admission could serve as a basis for additional pressure on them from others who use music in any related circumstance.
Of course, I'm not a lawyer and assert that anything I say on the matter is merely half-assed guessing based on what little common sense I've accrued over the years.
You are correct that the routers don't "talk" to each other by default. Some routers do offer a "wireless bridge" feature or similar that lets it connect to another access point for the purpose of sharing a network.
However, this is purely a software contrivance. The only difference between a router that can connect to another router's WiFi and one that can't, is that one of them has been programmed to be able to behave like a client.
Since the infection we're discussing is built on the idea of modifying a rouer's firmware (operating system), there's no reason it couldn't add that function.
When I first considered it, such an attack seemed like nonsense; seriously? Relying on vendor back-doors to gain root access? Exploit vulnerable services offered by various routers? Build the majority of the infected network by relying on default username/password combinations (although, that part I actually already could accept)?
Seemed far-fetched.
However, it's not that this infection needs to contain a crazy amount of code for pulling this off...it could probably rely on the assistance of remote C&C servers from which it could retrieve pre-patched compatible firmware that matched the router it was taking control of. It would allow it to download updated password lists and possibly collaborate in brute-force attacks on problematic vendor equipment. Heck, these access points could be the new zombie apocalypse! Now, it's not your computer that's spamming internet servers in DDoS attacks...IT'S YOUR WHOLE GODDAMN NETWORK. LOL.
Slashdot Mirror
I should know better than to feed the trolls....but I just don't get this "Happy Monday from The Golden Girls" thing.
I've seen it a few times on various articles (maybe not always "Happy Monday"). I guess I could Google it, but that seems like a lot of work for something as unimportant as this.
*shrug*
BitCoins will be declared as NOT known to the state of California to cause cancer!
In many ways, I would like to say "shoot the damn thing!" but depending on local laws that could get ugly. This camp was private property and closed to the public, right?
Still, there must be some way to deter such drones. Capture, and release after disabling the camera? If the drone gets damaged during the capture...well...C'est la vie!
Of course, if it's not private property, my level of sympathy would decrease greatly.
I thought the point wasn't that some bits should/shouldn't be prioritized, but rather that SOURCES shouldn't be prioritized. I'm fine with VoIP traffic being prioritized.
I would take issue with, say, my ISP's VoIP application working fine while delays are introduced to Skype traffic. Prioritizing certain types of traffic make sense and can be provider-agnostic; prioritizing specific companies/sources, however, is chock-full of problems.
you can't have 100% security and 100% liberty yet that is what the American public expects.
I don't. I mean, I really don't expect the security. Of course, maybe I'll turn into a clingy, half-crazed lunatic begging for Big Brother to protect me when trouble actually strikes.
Right now, though, all I see is liberty/freedom/privacy draining away for what would *seem* to be marginal (or at least unproven) gains in security.
Hell, what do I know. I kinda like where I live, in the good ol' U.S. of A. Everything's great viewed from the sofa or my desk!
Move around much, though, and the place starts to feel like a cage...
And, yes, I realize that LAPD claims they will only be for "narrow and prescribed uses".
Ha! Funny how such things change over time; I don't believe a word of it.
Great! Just what the law enforcement groups needed, really.
If they can find a jurisdiction that will tolerate or embrace this activity, they can hold it up as an example in other places to justify the adoption.
Once the movement reaches a critical threshold, it will be easy to force the "upgrade" even on comparatively hostile populations.
Our freedoms fall like dominoes.
No, 2016 will change something.
It could easily be for the worse, and most likely won't be any better, but it will change.
It's not something I often think of (life is busy, right?), but it was neat loading up this layer into Google Earth and tracking down approximately where I've been when I've seen those night skies.
I can make it to a Class 3 in 1h20m, Class 2 in 2h20m, and Class 1 in 3h40m. I'd never really thought about it like that before; that's really not so hard to do! :)
The problem is, as in some of the cases above, NO ONE KNEW OF THE DEBT. Except maybe the government; and then, only when they looked hard enough.
If your parent or grandparent abused the system, I'm sorry but it's time for you to pay up.
I've never been a big fan of the "sins of the fathers" approach to punishment.
I have enough to do dealing with things I'm actually personally responsible for...I don't need to catch flak for shit I ain't done.
I had totally missed that. In my defense, I only have an (original) XBox, and a PS3; I own neither a PS4 nor an XBone and have paid only passing attention to either.
But yeah, that's terrible. This isn't why the console market is brutal, but these shenanigans don't help.
Also, Microsoft's shooting-self-in-foot technique presents such a fragmented approach to putting out a serious product.
Just....words.....you know what I mean?
I have to agree with you. Did they not playtest it in anything resembling a "real" situation?
Good grief.
400 hours for me would be much harder (as a workaholic) than 400 hours for a seventeen-year-old lounging around gaming during a break from school.
I have an easier time respecting the results of putting time into it. Really, it might make more sense to work for 3 hours, make $30-$90 depending on the job, and pay that into the game instead of grinding for 20 hours...except, I usually play the game (and even grind!) because I enjoy playing the game; that has value to me, both as something I chose to do outside of "work", and possibly as a form of relaxation.
YMMV.
Interesting. I haven't run into that, but most likely due to a lack of participation in such games, in general. That hadn't occurred to me, but I can see it happening. Definitely a downer.
They should be using Bluetooth!
* Free-to-Play: The entire game is free to play and experience; you may be able to purchase some benefits in-game, but they do not skew the balance. They either provide minimal perks, or are purely aesthetic or to support to developer.
* Freemium: The entire game is technically available, but it will take you much longer to go through it without paying some meaningful amount. Available purchases include benefits that can't be earned any other way or require a lot of time/work to accumulate in-game. Balance is skewed to favor those who pay, but you can still compete at a disadvantage.
* Pay-to-Win: The game is there, and you can play it, but a number of important features or content are locked behind pay-walls. Benefits possible cannot be meaningfully earned by any other method. If you aren't paying, you can't hope to compete with those who do.
I scorn and deride Pay-to-Win (I feel, appropriately). I'll regard Freemium games with suspicion, but may play depending on the game itself and how exactly the "store" component is structured. I'll embrace Free-to-Play conceptually; play and support it if I like it.
I've...played Freemium and Pay-to-win. I'm not interested in paying as much as I would for a full game to enjoy said benefits for one or two months. I also hate how it feels not being able to compete because I'm unwilling to pay a bunch of money. If I find the story or mechanics engaging, I'll check it out...but I leave my wallet at home.
You beat me to it. /bow
But while this is newsworthy, hoping that the discourse will evolve into a meritorious discussion of the technologies in use during such flights, the tech and techniques intended to prevent this specific kind of situation, and/or interesting details about the methods/tech used to aid in the resulting search seems a bit optimistic.
As far as the article goes, there's a lot to be suspicious of...it's certainly not normal to have this happen with everything that goes into making, controlling, and tracking those planes. Still, mistakes and failures occur. I am interested to know what they eventually find.
Now, if only my data was safe from Google's eyes...
Settlements do not set a precedent. Or not of the legal variety, so far as I understand it. But actually having them agree to *admit* that his use qualified as Fair Use is pretty significant. Usually civil settlements avoid admitting anything about the validity of whatever claim was settled. Such an admission could serve as a basis for additional pressure on them from others who use music in any related circumstance. Of course, I'm not a lawyer and assert that anything I say on the matter is merely half-assed guessing based on what little common sense I've accrued over the years.
However, this is purely a software contrivance. The only difference between a router that can connect to another router's WiFi and one that can't, is that one of them has been programmed to be able to behave like a client.
Since the infection we're discussing is built on the idea of modifying a rouer's firmware (operating system), there's no reason it couldn't add that function.
When I first considered it, such an attack seemed like nonsense; seriously? Relying on vendor back-doors to gain root access? Exploit vulnerable services offered by various routers? Build the majority of the infected network by relying on default username/password combinations (although, that part I actually already could accept)?
Seemed far-fetched.
However, it's not that this infection needs to contain a crazy amount of code for pulling this off...it could probably rely on the assistance of remote C&C servers from which it could retrieve pre-patched compatible firmware that matched the router it was taking control of. It would allow it to download updated password lists and possibly collaborate in brute-force attacks on problematic vendor equipment. Heck, these access points could be the new zombie apocalypse! Now, it's not your computer that's spamming internet servers in DDoS attacks...IT'S YOUR WHOLE GODDAMN NETWORK. LOL.
And yet, somehow, they were.
*tsk* Forgot I wasn't signed in.
Well said.