Not sure if troll. We need to see something to back this up as OP gives stats that show the opposite - black web pages cost less to visit and are more efficient in energy usage than white ones.
Nobody wants employees any more, that's why the western governments sold everything they could in the 80s to corporations, and now the corporations are offloading to thrid-world subsidiaries. It used to be that doing a job well would earn you a salary, some healthcare when you were sick, school for your kids, and a pension when you are too old to work anymore. Our ancestors had to fight the rich tooth and nail for this minimum human dignity, mostly by forming strong unions with each other. The rich realised that if they could make the unions look unpopular enough, they would be able to destroy them, so that's what they did, with the help of their friends who owned the newspapers. This will only get worse until it is resisted in the strongest terms, in the only language that the rich understand.
Once online its contents will be so valuable, I predict they will be sold to many corporations. For this it will need to be remotely accessible so will be routinely compromised. Soon we will all be watching!
We know that everything is compromised by unauthorised intrusions, and finally there will be a nice convenient central backup of everything ever. Information will be free at last.
A couple of limiting factors seem to be bandwidth (do you really want to pay to download the whole world's interpersonal communications all the time?), and processing power (do you really want to pay for a computer to decrypt all said traffic all the time?).
In the old days ISTR there was a company which proposed broadcasting all of usenet as a satellite feed. Maybe broadcast might be a way to go - the bandwidth is only paid for once (by the transmitter), and you might imagine a dedicated hardware stack to catch the feed, and try the decryption so your computing device only gets to see the stuff that's for you.
Another downside with 'download everything' solutions is that they might be difficult to defend against DDOS.
You are right, the numbers were not stolen, and noone had anything stolen from them, except anyone who ends up paying for any fraudulent transactions. I'm pretty sure we don't own 'our own' credit card numbers, the numbers belong to the banks is my guess, or to a number issuing authority which leases them to the banks. The numbers were not stolen from the banks, they were copied from a third party, who disclosed them, possibly by mishandling or bad security practices, to another third party. The banks chose to discontinue their use of those particular numbers, to mitigate against the risk of fraud, but I think the original owner still owns them. Their value does not change in the long run.
Apart from the increased consumption of CPU cycles, RAM, file handles etc on the server, the increased latency of DB queries slowing down page returns, the increased testing and debugging load pointed out by others, the false sense of security and the increased cost of infrastructure, the main downside might just be that this could become an interesting new attack vector - how scaleable is this thing? Can it be easily overwhelmed, since it is acting as a bottleneck between database and site? Is it vulnerable to slow loris style attacks? Can it be used for privilege escalation? Until it has survived its first few exploits in the wild we won't really know.
Tell that to the clueless companies that got hacked by LulzSec using SQL injection. There are plenty of companies out there who want a website but don't want the headache of employing people who know how to build one. They can't be bothered to patch their servers, and they think a good 'web designer' is someone with some kind of qualification in graphic design. Once they have an insecure half-baked 'solution', that looks nice, they like to think they can buy in database firewall software to really harden their 'platform' against 'threats'. They don't understand that a website is a machine, and machines should be designed by engineers to stop them breaking all the time. I can see a huge market for this stuff.
I think that, as concerned citizens, we should not wait for the intermidable ruminations of parliament to bring forward this important security measure. Surely, it would be better to comply forthwith. I would be perfectly happy to forward all of my emails, by bcc, to any minister or agency responsible for this. Does anyone have the relevant email addresses?
This may be true, but the extent to which we are responsible and can do something about it is pretty much the extent to which we kill bees with pesticides, along with the overworking and transport of colonies.
The car drivers talking on their phones, drunk at the wheel, going too fast, or just not really thinking about what they are doing are the bad guys. Without the bad guys the boy scout's actions are not good, and maybe even a little creepy.
It may not even be bribes. It may be that a corrupt news organisation, with a history of illegal bribes to police, illegal hacking, and other typical racketeering activities, had dug up enough dirt on all the politicians to get them to pass any law they wanted.
My hypothesis is that humans may have learnt how to find a path to parsimony. We have evolved to use resources efficiently, so finding stepwise approaches that use resources most parsimoniously would have been important. MSA seems like mostly a parsimony problem - what arrangement of bases most parsimoniously explains the likely evolutionary relationships. Typical computational approaches to this involve MCMC and various more or less random moves to try to find the most parsimonious solution. Humans are clearly using many less moves than computers to solve this, so are much better than computers at seeing where the best hill is, and climbing that hill directly, rather than randomly exploring the likelihood landscape. We should find a way of classifying the moves people are making to discover whether they can see the big picture, or whether they are just very efficient at exploring the landscape.
Is there another aspect to this, other than simply hardness? We can talk about exact solutions, and approximate solutions, but both are dependent on having some scoring metric that 'knows' what the correct solution is. In real alignment, we do not actually know what the answer is (assuming that the purpose of the alignment is to find the most likely evolutionary relationship between the bases in the sequences). When bases have been inserted/deleted and mutated, it is not necessarily possible to tell what happened, and in what order, so the best scoring method for alignments is in itself not necessarily known/knowable. In the end we are left trying to score alignments on the basis of parsimony. Maybe it makes sense that humans have evolved an ability to rapidly find moves likely to lead to parsimony (we have learnt how to optimally use resources), whereas automated solutions these days tend to focus on hill climbing and a variety of MC approaches?
So, given that the Stratfor hack was an FBI operation, is it now clear that the FBI deliberately sought to harm a number of charities through this mechanism? That doesn't sound like good use of public money.
Slashdot Mirror
Can you back this up? OP measured it and shows stats that show a significant difference.
Not sure if troll. We need to see something to back this up as OP gives stats that show the opposite - black web pages cost less to visit and are more efficient in energy usage than white ones.
Nobody wants employees any more, that's why the western governments sold everything they could in the 80s to corporations, and now the corporations are offloading to thrid-world subsidiaries. It used to be that doing a job well would earn you a salary, some healthcare when you were sick, school for your kids, and a pension when you are too old to work anymore. Our ancestors had to fight the rich tooth and nail for this minimum human dignity, mostly by forming strong unions with each other. The rich realised that if they could make the unions look unpopular enough, they would be able to destroy them, so that's what they did, with the help of their friends who owned the newspapers. This will only get worse until it is resisted in the strongest terms, in the only language that the rich understand.
Yes, yes and yes
Once online its contents will be so valuable, I predict they will be sold to many corporations. For this it will need to be remotely accessible so will be routinely compromised. Soon we will all be watching!
We know that everything is compromised by unauthorised intrusions, and finally there will be a nice convenient central backup of everything ever. Information will be free at last.
In the old days ISTR there was a company which proposed broadcasting all of usenet as a satellite feed. Maybe broadcast might be a way to go - the bandwidth is only paid for once (by the transmitter), and you might imagine a dedicated hardware stack to catch the feed, and try the decryption so your computing device only gets to see the stuff that's for you. Another downside with 'download everything' solutions is that they might be difficult to defend against DDOS.
You are right, the numbers were not stolen, and noone had anything stolen from them, except anyone who ends up paying for any fraudulent transactions. I'm pretty sure we don't own 'our own' credit card numbers, the numbers belong to the banks is my guess, or to a number issuing authority which leases them to the banks. The numbers were not stolen from the banks, they were copied from a third party, who disclosed them, possibly by mishandling or bad security practices, to another third party. The banks chose to discontinue their use of those particular numbers, to mitigate against the risk of fraud, but I think the original owner still owns them. Their value does not change in the long run.
Apart from the increased consumption of CPU cycles, RAM, file handles etc on the server, the increased latency of DB queries slowing down page returns, the increased testing and debugging load pointed out by others, the false sense of security and the increased cost of infrastructure, the main downside might just be that this could become an interesting new attack vector - how scaleable is this thing? Can it be easily overwhelmed, since it is acting as a bottleneck between database and site? Is it vulnerable to slow loris style attacks? Can it be used for privilege escalation? Until it has survived its first few exploits in the wild we won't really know.
Tell that to the clueless companies that got hacked by LulzSec using SQL injection. There are plenty of companies out there who want a website but don't want the headache of employing people who know how to build one. They can't be bothered to patch their servers, and they think a good 'web designer' is someone with some kind of qualification in graphic design. Once they have an insecure half-baked 'solution', that looks nice, they like to think they can buy in database firewall software to really harden their 'platform' against 'threats'. They don't understand that a website is a machine, and machines should be designed by engineers to stop them breaking all the time. I can see a huge market for this stuff.
Who is the Oracle consultant? Perhaps he would like all our emails sent to him direct, to cut out all this nonesense about legislation and databases?
I think that, as concerned citizens, we should not wait for the intermidable ruminations of parliament to bring forward this important security measure. Surely, it would be better to comply forthwith. I would be perfectly happy to forward all of my emails, by bcc, to any minister or agency responsible for this. Does anyone have the relevant email addresses?
This may be true, but the extent to which we are responsible and can do something about it is pretty much the extent to which we kill bees with pesticides, along with the overworking and transport of colonies.
P is Perl. PHP and Python were later alternatives.
If it's low risk, low return, you don't really need angels and they won't be interested in you. Try your bank manager.
You may not have noticed companies like the $100Bn Tata.
The car drivers talking on their phones, drunk at the wheel, going too fast, or just not really thinking about what they are doing are the bad guys. Without the bad guys the boy scout's actions are not good, and maybe even a little creepy.
If it was illegal, then surely he would have been charged with a criminal offence.
It may not even be bribes. It may be that a corrupt news organisation, with a history of illegal bribes to police, illegal hacking, and other typical racketeering activities, had dug up enough dirt on all the politicians to get them to pass any law they wanted.
What he was doing isn't even illegal in the UK. He has been charged with no crimes.
Except coke is actually harmful to people, and illegal. This guy did nothing illegal in the UK.
Score:5 shows its true inadequacy.
My hypothesis is that humans may have learnt how to find a path to parsimony. We have evolved to use resources efficiently, so finding stepwise approaches that use resources most parsimoniously would have been important. MSA seems like mostly a parsimony problem - what arrangement of bases most parsimoniously explains the likely evolutionary relationships. Typical computational approaches to this involve MCMC and various more or less random moves to try to find the most parsimonious solution. Humans are clearly using many less moves than computers to solve this, so are much better than computers at seeing where the best hill is, and climbing that hill directly, rather than randomly exploring the likelihood landscape. We should find a way of classifying the moves people are making to discover whether they can see the big picture, or whether they are just very efficient at exploring the landscape.
Is there another aspect to this, other than simply hardness? We can talk about exact solutions, and approximate solutions, but both are dependent on having some scoring metric that 'knows' what the correct solution is. In real alignment, we do not actually know what the answer is (assuming that the purpose of the alignment is to find the most likely evolutionary relationship between the bases in the sequences). When bases have been inserted/deleted and mutated, it is not necessarily possible to tell what happened, and in what order, so the best scoring method for alignments is in itself not necessarily known/knowable. In the end we are left trying to score alignments on the basis of parsimony. Maybe it makes sense that humans have evolved an ability to rapidly find moves likely to lead to parsimony (we have learnt how to optimally use resources), whereas automated solutions these days tend to focus on hill climbing and a variety of MC approaches?
So, given that the Stratfor hack was an FBI operation, is it now clear that the FBI deliberately sought to harm a number of charities through this mechanism? That doesn't sound like good use of public money.