why would you imagine they'll throw out perfectly good data once they have it?
I realize that asking people to read the article they're commenting on is a stretch, but they say "without tracking other information about the traveler to minimize the impact to the person’s privacy", hence the question about logging..
If they only need the MAC addresses for the time that the device is traversing the system, then there's no reason to log the data for long term. TFA doesn't say how long they keep the data. Were the journalists too stupid to ask that obvious question, or did the government say "We'll get back to you"?
The US has no standard definition which discriminates between stillbirth and live birth. Since the prevalence is close to 1% of all pregnancies, this could account for a noticeable change in mortality data.
This site claims its a 4-core 3GHz Power7 CPU with x4 hyperthreading, plus AMD GPU. I'm having a hard time figuring out how that's a "horrible, slow" CPU unless they have a lot of code that is optimized for x86.
Yes, people are bad at security. But one thing that means is that they trust email far more than they should. Maybe some security is better than no security.
Not easily. The commercial botnets typically use a command-and-control structure with various proxies or zombied hosts in between the attacker and the victim. Tracing or cracking one's way back through the botnet can often cause more damange to the intermediate hosts than the botnet is causing.
BS. What "damage" will it cause?
Chances are it's just another victim's computer. Since they're being used as a node, it would only be common sense for their to be a script that forcibly removes it from the internet so that you can't follow it to the next level. So by gaining access, you might trigger something that bricks another victim's computer. Why this is done? So that you can't get the IP that is controlling the node, and so that you can't appropriate the other computers that are being controlled by the node.
They might also have wired a remote-controlled bomb under your car. If you don't hack into the node and shut it off it will kill you. That's just as plausible.
If the guy was in the act of murdering your family I'd say it would work out pretty well. Don't forget that the purpose of the reverse hacking is to stop a crime in progress.
"...No ethically-trained software engineer would ever consent to write a DestroyBaghdad procedure. Basic professional ethics would instead require him to write a DestroyCity procedure, to which Baghdad could be given as a parameter." -- Nathaniel Borenstein
Not easily. The commercial botnets typically use a command-and-control structure with various proxies or zombied hosts in between the attacker and the victim. Tracing or cracking one's way back through the botnet can often cause more damange to the intermediate hosts than the botnet is causing.
This article appears to be bitching and moaning about the fact that hate speech has been universally recognized as out of the scope of free speech. Ann Coulter is generally regarded amongst the cognoscenti as a purveyor of hate speech, not free speech. I fail to see how denying her an audience of like-minded listeners could possibly be bad in any way.
"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war."
Anyone who supports this Islamophobic nutbag is a like-minded nutbag who is not welcome on any university campus. Her ideas practically beg to be suppressed, so why should she be surprised when it happens? Good riddance to bad rubbish.
If she is wrong, let her speak and then rebut her remarks. Any suppression of free speech is a mistake. Her "like-minded listeners" will hear her anyway. I don't object to letting her speak. What I object to is "journalists" who report her garbage as though it is coming from a respectable source.
As for for the original poster's question on law, I doubt there is any requirement, though if you challenge them in court, it would have to be revealed, or they have no evidence.
If they promise you 10 GB/month (or whatever) and you only get 7, I think you have a pretty good case for fraud. Should be able to take it to small claims court.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a completely new phenomenon with smart phones. At least I'll always have my 8-track player.
why would you imagine they'll throw out perfectly good data once they have it?
I realize that asking people to read the article they're commenting on is a stretch, but they say "without tracking other information about the traveler to minimize the impact to the person’s privacy", hence the question about logging..
If they only need the MAC addresses for the time that the device is traversing the system, then there's no reason to log the data for long term. TFA doesn't say how long they keep the data. Were the journalists too stupid to ask that obvious question, or did the government say "We'll get back to you"?
I'm not totally impressed by waiting times or quality in the US, either.
The US has no standard definition which discriminates between stillbirth and live birth. Since the prevalence is close to 1% of all pregnancies, this could account for a noticeable change in mortality data.
There is no such AI around YET.
Just as there's no such rogue biotech yet or nuclear war yet.
Then I wonder why DOD is publishing directives about them?
They aren't called AI, they're called "autonomous weapons" and the Pentagon has been funding projects since the 50's.
IBM does not have a Power 7 design with less than 4 cores.
This site claims its a 4-core 3GHz Power7 CPU with x4 hyperthreading, plus AMD GPU. I'm having a hard time figuring out how that's a "horrible, slow" CPU unless they have a lot of code that is optimized for x86.
The purpose of having another candidate is to remind you what the first one did wrong.
Yes, people are bad at security. But one thing that means is that they trust email far more than they should. Maybe some security is better than no security.
Is there any reason that encryption is not the default in email these days?
Not easily. The commercial botnets typically use a command-and-control structure with various proxies or zombied hosts in between the attacker and the victim. Tracing or cracking one's way back through the botnet can often cause more damange to the intermediate hosts than the botnet is causing.
BS. What "damage" will it cause?
Chances are it's just another victim's computer. Since they're being used as a node, it would only be common sense for their to be a script that forcibly removes it from the internet so that you can't follow it to the next level. So by gaining access, you might trigger something that bricks another victim's computer. Why this is done? So that you can't get the IP that is controlling the node, and so that you can't appropriate the other computers that are being controlled by the node.
They might also have wired a remote-controlled bomb under your car. If you don't hack into the node and shut it off it will kill you. That's just as plausible.
"We administered these particles to animals who have a disease very similar to relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis and stopped it in its tracks"
The article does not claim that this works for MS, just diseases similar to MS.
If the guy was in the act of murdering your family I'd say it would work out pretty well. Don't forget that the purpose of the reverse hacking is to stop a crime in progress.
"...No ethically-trained software engineer would ever consent to write a DestroyBaghdad procedure. Basic professional ethics would instead require him to write a DestroyCity procedure, to which Baghdad could be given as a parameter." -- Nathaniel Borenstein
Not easily. The commercial botnets typically use a command-and-control structure with various proxies or zombied hosts in between the attacker and the victim. Tracing or cracking one's way back through the botnet can often cause more damange to the intermediate hosts than the botnet is causing.
BS. What "damage" will it cause?
This article appears to be bitching and moaning about the fact that hate speech has been universally recognized as out of the scope of free speech. Ann Coulter is generally regarded amongst the cognoscenti as a purveyor of hate speech, not free speech. I fail to see how denying her an audience of like-minded listeners could possibly be bad in any way.
"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war."
Anyone who supports this Islamophobic nutbag is a like-minded nutbag who is not welcome on any university campus. Her ideas practically beg to be suppressed, so why should she be surprised when it happens? Good riddance to bad rubbish.
If she is wrong, let her speak and then rebut her remarks. Any suppression of free speech is a mistake. Her "like-minded listeners" will hear her anyway. I don't object to letting her speak. What I object to is "journalists" who report her garbage as though it is coming from a respectable source.
A few household chemicals in the proper proportions.
Of course they're a tad high. Some of the best shit in the world comes from India. Oh. You mean ... never mind..
You don't have to guess. Just buy one of the stolen iPads from eFence.
As for for the original poster's question on law, I doubt there is any requirement, though if you challenge them in court, it would have to be revealed, or they have no evidence.
If they promise you 10 GB/month (or whatever) and you only get 7, I think you have a pretty good case for fraud. Should be able to take it to small claims court.
ad nauseum is what caused me to buy a DVR
We do seem to be going out of our way to preserve people who may not deserve to survive.
Don't forget this is the same god that sends plagues, famines and droughts and traded Adrian Gonzalez to the Dodgers.
Useful speech is the kind of stuff we see on the floor of Congress
Ha ha ha ha, whew.
"The U.S. Senate is a special place. I love all of you and especially your wives." -- Strom Thurmond
The point of free speech is that its free, not useful.