A respectable showing? The steam client may be the greatest thing ever but there isn't even a single current AAA title available. Not one. The biggest game they've got is half-life 1. It was released in 1998. 15 years ago. That's something we should be getting from gog.com. This looks to me like a token effort in order to get some cheap advertising on Linux friendly sites such as Slashdot. News flash, that game's so old it probably plays perfectly in wine anyway. When steam for Linux starts getting AAA titles within a few weeks of the windows release then they will have something worth talking about.
You can buy a link to a digital copy of this 21 minute movie from the film's website for about $3 via Paypal/credit card/whatever. Please consider dropping a few bucks their way if you watch this film. This is an independent short film, not a piece of shit from the corrupt Hollywood machine, and its creators deserve monetary recognition from those in society who appreciate the film.
By all means continue to pirate Hollywood movies, however.
I bought a copy a few minutes ago! I hope they make a pile of cash just because they're selling and distributing it in what I call "the right way".
3) they might not do MITM attacks on http requests, but instead DNS requests. So you look up *anything*, and it gives you the address of their server that gives these notices. That will break *everything* until you click on it, not just http requests. (Thought it would work if you didn't rely on DNS requests going out for whatever reason.)
This is important to me. I don't use my ISP's DNS because I have kids and use openDNS for content filtering. On my unfiltered machine, I use google because it's faster than my ISP's server. My other device is on VPN 24x7 and uses the corporate DNS. Given that I've got kids I'd really like to ensure I get a notice in a timely manner so I could do something about it before getting into more trouble. I've told them a hundred times, don't download copyrighted stuff here. Kids will be kids, though.... Throttling the heck out of my connection would mean I have to drive to the office.
Just a side note, I'm not on the side of copyright - I just don't think civil disobedience is going to get me anything but trouble here.
It wasn't that long ago that dial-up companies were dismissing ISDN/ADSL/Cable in the same manner. Is it a good idea to dismiss a far superior product? I think it's a good way for your product to become obsolete. The only reason Time Warner might get away with it are that these sort of things are controlled by local license agreements with governments in most areas. Google may not have the desire to fight that battle.
I'm pretty sure I've never read about our president flat out saying we were developing a nuclear weapons specifically to attack NK. We HAVE nuclear weapons and the capability to deliver them there, but that's not the same thing at all. If my neighbor owns a handgun it's not the same thing as him telling me he's headed to the gun shop so he can get one for the purpose of blowing my brains out. Big difference.
Thanks for throwing that insult in at the end, mighty gentlemanly of you.
Of course, left unsaid in all of this is... would Iran ever use a nuke?
Iran wants nukes for the same reason that the North Korea wants them, to keep the U.S. from ever invading their legs of the "Axis of Evil" (like they did with Iraq). And if you're a smaller country about the only way to ensure that the U.S. can't and won't invade is to have nukes.
So it's very unlikely that Iran would ever use its nukes. Merely having them would achieve their objective (stopping any invasion).
That's one presumption. Some people are under the impression the leaders of those particular countries are insane. I'm not saying I'm one of them, rather that the reason is something that can only be speculated about by outsiders. We know what NK has stated that their goal is to develop nuclear warheads and rockets capable of targeting the US.
As a US citizen, my opinion is if they can't be stopped by peaceful measures (sanctions etc) before they have that capability, then we should pursue an invasion. I guess I'm a horrible person but NK seems bent on pursuing a course of action that firmly makes it an "us or them" scenario. Given the choice, I'd rather it be them.
There's a big difference between NK, and Iran in the eyes of this American. Namely, NK already has nukes, and have specifically said they have them for use against the US. Iran might have nukes soon (or already) and to my knowledge has not made any specific threats. Based one what I think I know about both situations, I'd support an attack on NK tomorrow - but not Iran. Not that it matters what a citizen thinks in the US when it comes time to consider war...
Your argument is that his actions opened their systems wider, than if he hadn't done anything? Is there any evidence of that being the case here?
If that's not the case, then he still did them a favor by pointing out a hole in their security. Sure there may be others, but now they know about this one. The responsible action would be to close the hole (and thank him), but they could always ignore it and do nothing; they'd be no worse off.
No, my point is that a system that is not perfectly secure is not an invitation for anyone who wants to access the system. Just as you will go to jail if I leave my front door closed but unlocked and you walk in and rifle through my wife's underwear drawer. Maybe you take a photo of it, while you're there but leave the actual items. Unlocked (or insecure in computers) does not equate to do whatever you want. If the company had no security other than a telnet uid/pwd, he still isn't allowed to crack that and access the server. This guy broke into a computer system and should be punished for it. If he wanted to do some white hat hacking, he should have obtained consent before he accessed the systems. Really, I don't think there's even any gray area here. He accessed systems without first obtaining permission. The security of those systems is not relevant.
...was in part mimicking the Nazis. Extermination.... Supreme race..... and the Daleks look a bit like panzer tanks. I can imagine that 50 years ago, with WWII not such a distant memory, the Daleks would have been personally terrifying to a lot of Brits.
I watched Dr. Who as a kid with me dad. Daleks were certainly frightening for me, but I was only about 5 at the time. I doubt I even knew what a panzer tank was at the time.
Your front door lock is broken, but you didn't realise it. A passer-by tells you that is broken. Do you blame him for the "damage" to your wallet that comes from fixing it?
Or how about this: You're understandably unhappy that he pushed your door open and poked his head in. He claims he didn't take anything (and given how he volunteered the information about your door, there's no reason to disbelieve him), but are you angry at him that you now feel the need to double-check everything you own, just in case he (or someone else) took something?
If the lock was "broken" because he was able to devise a method to pick it necessitating that I replace the lock then YES. Imperfect security is reality everywhere all the time. If you think your systems are completely secure all it means is that you are mistaken.
What double standard? Good technicians are encouraged to explore the network.
Or do we just want to let the Chinese develop good security knowledge?
He didn't destroy anything, that's the point.
What is wrong with you?
Good technicians who are employed to explore a network are encouraged to do it. That's about as far as it goes in reality.
Did you notice the guy shooting the video was 2 seats away from where the tire landed and he DID NOT SPILL HIS BEER. I'm not joking, check it out. That's some good redneck skills right there, man.
Not just for HTC phones. I'd be tempted to flash CyanogenMod on any supported phone if it's not a Nexus device (and even then there are advantages with CM, especially with older Nexus devices that were deemed not powerful enough for 4.x).
In my experience, cyanogen is the best android distro there is. If you can get an official build or an unofficial port of it for your device, you should be running it.
I recently replaced my SDHC cards for my now aged Nikon D90 with Sandisk ultra 90MB/sec cards. The camera can't take advantage of them at all and I knew that going into it. I did it because it improves processing. Moving photos from a shoot went from a 20+ minute chore to something that is done in a minute or two on the PC. That makes it worthwhile to me. Fast cards really aren't all that expensive. Even though I shoot everything in RAW+JPEG fine, I have never filled a 16GB card in a single shoot.
Anyone doing any serious video work isn't going to be recording with compression. 1920x1080, 24-bit colour video at 30FPS is going to need 186MB per second, 11GB per minute or 670GB per hour.
Anyone doing serious video work isn't going to be using a dslr that only shoots 1080p.
Of course they can. That isn't a video game so it's perfectly acceptable.
Come on, don't you know it's *only* video games that could possibly affect children's minds?
You're exactly right. What we need are isolation tanks for every child to keep them from learning about the world until they're adults! We will have to develop a way to feed them and extract the waste without letting them out, though.
I doubt it. The article, and the summary in particular is spreading quote a bit of fud. Specifically, the FCC does not say you have to turn anything off. Most of the questions people are posting about research is answered on the document linked right on the homepage of fcc.gov. Here, since most seem to lazy: https://www.fcc.gov/ or specifically: https://www.fcc.gov/document/use-and-design-signal-boosters-report-and-order
Here's an important excerpt:
In order to use a Consumer Signal Booster, a consumer must:
Have some form of consent from his/her wireless provider to operate the Consumer
Signal Booster. We note that Verizon Wireless, T-Mobile, Sprint, AT&T, and the RTG
member companies have made voluntary commitments to consent to all Consumer Signal
Boosters that meet the Network Protection Standard.42 Therefore, we expect that
subscribers of these companies will not need to specifically seek consent from these
providers, or other providers who make similar “blanket” consent commitments, for
Consumer Signal Boosters that meet the Network Protection Standard.
So, consent is needed, and most providers have already given blanket consent.
Maybe the boys over at ARS didn't bother to read anything other than the limited FAQ, either? Or more likely they did like any "news" organization and selectively picked out the pieces that would get them the most hits on their website regardless of how they were bending the truth.
Slashdot Mirror
7! isn't bad, that's just over five-thousand.
But power consumption is Over 9000
A respectable showing? The steam client may be the greatest thing ever but there isn't even a single current AAA title available. Not one. The biggest game they've got is half-life 1. It was released in 1998. 15 years ago. That's something we should be getting from gog.com. This looks to me like a token effort in order to get some cheap advertising on Linux friendly sites such as Slashdot.
News flash, that game's so old it probably plays perfectly in wine anyway. When steam for Linux starts getting AAA titles within a few weeks of the windows release then they will have something worth talking about.
just look at Slashdot's leading edge high quality clean design.
Ha ha. Good one!
zealot + Grammar Nazi = zelot
You can buy a link to a digital copy of this 21 minute movie from the film's website for about $3 via Paypal/credit card/whatever. Please consider dropping a few bucks their way if you watch this film. This is an independent short film, not a piece of shit from the corrupt Hollywood machine, and its creators deserve monetary recognition from those in society who appreciate the film.
By all means continue to pirate Hollywood movies, however.
I bought a copy a few minutes ago! I hope they make a pile of cash just because they're selling and distributing it in what I call "the right way".
3) they might not do MITM attacks on http requests, but instead DNS requests. So you look up *anything*, and it gives you the address of their server that gives these notices. That will break *everything* until you click on it, not just http requests. (Thought it would work if you didn't rely on DNS requests going out for whatever reason.)
This is important to me. I don't use my ISP's DNS because I have kids and use openDNS for content filtering. On my unfiltered machine, I use google because it's faster than my ISP's server. My other device is on VPN 24x7 and uses the corporate DNS. Given that I've got kids I'd really like to ensure I get a notice in a timely manner so I could do something about it before getting into more trouble. I've told them a hundred times, don't download copyrighted stuff here. Kids will be kids, though.... Throttling the heck out of my connection would mean I have to drive to the office.
Just a side note, I'm not on the side of copyright - I just don't think civil disobedience is going to get me anything but trouble here.
It wasn't that long ago that dial-up companies were dismissing ISDN/ADSL/Cable in the same manner. Is it a good idea to dismiss a far superior product? I think it's a good way for your product to become obsolete. The only reason Time Warner might get away with it are that these sort of things are controlled by local license agreements with governments in most areas. Google may not have the desire to fight that battle.
I'm pretty sure I've never read about our president flat out saying we were developing a nuclear weapons specifically to attack NK. We HAVE nuclear weapons and the capability to deliver them there, but that's not the same thing at all. If my neighbor owns a handgun it's not the same thing as him telling me he's headed to the gun shop so he can get one for the purpose of blowing my brains out. Big difference.
Thanks for throwing that insult in at the end, mighty gentlemanly of you.
Next up....
Well, I got nothing.
Just like TFA. I say you submit it!
Of course, left unsaid in all of this is... would Iran ever use a nuke?
Iran wants nukes for the same reason that the North Korea wants them, to keep the U.S. from ever invading their legs of the "Axis of Evil" (like they did with Iraq). And if you're a smaller country about the only way to ensure that the U.S. can't and won't invade is to have nukes.
So it's very unlikely that Iran would ever use its nukes. Merely having them would achieve their objective (stopping any invasion).
That's one presumption. Some people are under the impression the leaders of those particular countries are insane. I'm not saying I'm one of them, rather that the reason is something that can only be speculated about by outsiders. We know what NK has stated that their goal is to develop nuclear warheads and rockets capable of targeting the US.
As a US citizen, my opinion is if they can't be stopped by peaceful measures (sanctions etc) before they have that capability, then we should pursue an invasion. I guess I'm a horrible person but NK seems bent on pursuing a course of action that firmly makes it an "us or them" scenario. Given the choice, I'd rather it be them.
There's a big difference between NK, and Iran in the eyes of this American. Namely, NK already has nukes, and have specifically said they have them for use against the US. Iran might have nukes soon (or already) and to my knowledge has not made any specific threats. Based one what I think I know about both situations, I'd support an attack on NK tomorrow - but not Iran. Not that it matters what a citizen thinks in the US when it comes time to consider war...
Sorry, but if you haven't been paying attention the "European union" is a Laurette. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/15/un-backed-troops-accused-rape-congo or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_peacekeeping#Reception or just take the UN's word for it here: https://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/fatalities/documents/stats_1.pdf . The UN claims to only whack a under 200 a year.
Your argument is that his actions opened their systems wider, than if he hadn't done anything? Is there any evidence of that being the case here?
If that's not the case, then he still did them a favor by pointing out a hole in their security. Sure there may be others, but now they know about this one. The responsible action would be to close the hole (and thank him), but they could always ignore it and do nothing; they'd be no worse off.
No, my point is that a system that is not perfectly secure is not an invitation for anyone who wants to access the system. Just as you will go to jail if I leave my front door closed but unlocked and you walk in and rifle through my wife's underwear drawer. Maybe you take a photo of it, while you're there but leave the actual items. Unlocked (or insecure in computers) does not equate to do whatever you want. If the company had no security other than a telnet uid/pwd, he still isn't allowed to crack that and access the server. This guy broke into a computer system and should be punished for it. If he wanted to do some white hat hacking, he should have obtained consent before he accessed the systems. Really, I don't think there's even any gray area here. He accessed systems without first obtaining permission. The security of those systems is not relevant.
...was in part mimicking the Nazis. Extermination .... Supreme race..... and the Daleks look a bit like panzer tanks. I can imagine that 50 years ago, with WWII not such a distant memory, the Daleks would have been personally terrifying to a lot of Brits.
I watched Dr. Who as a kid with me dad. Daleks were certainly frightening for me, but I was only about 5 at the time. I doubt I even knew what a panzer tank was at the time.
Your front door lock is broken, but you didn't realise it. A passer-by tells you that is broken. Do you blame him for the "damage" to your wallet that comes from fixing it?
Or how about this: You're understandably unhappy that he pushed your door open and poked his head in. He claims he didn't take anything (and given how he volunteered the information about your door, there's no reason to disbelieve him), but are you angry at him that you now feel the need to double-check everything you own, just in case he (or someone else) took something?
If the lock was "broken" because he was able to devise a method to pick it necessitating that I replace the lock then YES. Imperfect security is reality everywhere all the time. If you think your systems are completely secure all it means is that you are mistaken.
What double standard? Good technicians are encouraged to explore the network. Or do we just want to let the Chinese develop good security knowledge? He didn't destroy anything, that's the point. What is wrong with you?
Good technicians who are employed to explore a network are encouraged to do it. That's about as far as it goes in reality.
Did you notice the guy shooting the video was 2 seats away from where the tire landed and he DID NOT SPILL HIS BEER. I'm not joking, check it out. That's some good redneck skills right there, man.
If my car was moving at 125mph I don't think I'd want to get out. Being trapped within would not really be a pertinent part of the equation.
Not just for HTC phones. I'd be tempted to flash CyanogenMod on any supported phone if it's not a Nexus device (and even then there are advantages with CM, especially with older Nexus devices that were deemed not powerful enough for 4.x).
In my experience, cyanogen is the best android distro there is. If you can get an official build or an unofficial port of it for your device, you should be running it.
I recently replaced my SDHC cards for my now aged Nikon D90 with Sandisk ultra 90MB/sec cards. The camera can't take advantage of them at all and I knew that going into it. I did it because it improves processing. Moving photos from a shoot went from a 20+ minute chore to something that is done in a minute or two on the PC. That makes it worthwhile to me. Fast cards really aren't all that expensive. Even though I shoot everything in RAW+JPEG fine, I have never filled a 16GB card in a single shoot.
Anyone doing any serious video work isn't going to be recording with compression. 1920x1080, 24-bit colour video at 30FPS is going to need 186MB per second, 11GB per minute or 670GB per hour.
Anyone doing serious video work isn't going to be using a dslr that only shoots 1080p.
What happens when you decide to visit the Great Lakes? You break out the SCUBA gear?
Absolutely! http://www.greatlakesdivecenter.com/
So Sprint users are supposed to go back to smoke signals and semaphore flags?
Since Sprint has already issued blanket consent for boosters, Sprint users are supposed to keep using their boosters.
So, consent is needed, and most providers have already given blanket consent.
Citation needed.
Are you trolling? I did post the citation. Here it is again: https://www.fcc.gov/document/use-and-design-signal-boosters-report-and-order
Of course they can. That isn't a video game so it's perfectly acceptable. Come on, don't you know it's *only* video games that could possibly affect children's minds?
You're exactly right. What we need are isolation tanks for every child to keep them from learning about the world until they're adults! We will have to develop a way to feed them and extract the waste without letting them out, though.
In order to use a Consumer Signal Booster, a consumer must:
Have some form of consent from his/her wireless provider to operate the Consumer
Signal Booster. We note that Verizon Wireless, T-Mobile, Sprint, AT&T, and the RTG
member companies have made voluntary commitments to consent to all Consumer Signal
Boosters that meet the Network Protection Standard.42 Therefore, we expect that
subscribers of these companies will not need to specifically seek consent from these
providers, or other providers who make similar “blanket” consent commitments, for
Consumer Signal Boosters that meet the Network Protection Standard.
So, consent is needed, and most providers have already given blanket consent.
Maybe the boys over at ARS didn't bother to read anything other than the limited FAQ, either? Or more likely they did like any "news" organization and selectively picked out the pieces that would get them the most hits on their website regardless of how they were bending the truth.