You have two rambling replies about the authors not being sophisticated enough, I'm not sure those guys understand what a rootkit is, or that lots of windows malware installs stuff as services, or stuff that completely subverts a browser, or whatever.
Anyway, I'm pretty sure it isn't new, the malware author probably used the technique because it was easy, maybe because they thought it would be less obvious in the telecom's proxy logs or whatever.
I wouldn't say it is all that innovative, the phone companies can just block access to the blog to shut off control of the subverted phones.
I have Cookie Monster installed, so I would have to mess around to test the default configuration of Firefox, but if I use developer tools to inspect the requests such and such a page is making, I can see that some of the requests to other domains have cookies associated with them, cookies that are not from such and such a page's domain.
My understanding of the cookie features in Firefox are that the options only control what cookies can be set, they don't have any impact on what cookies are sent. The name of the option, 'Accept third party cookies', at least suggests this is correct.
Visit facebook.com, Log out, Facebook sets cookie at log out. Visit other page, other page includes link to resource on facebook.com, browser sends that cookie with the request to facebook.com.
It isn't news that it is happening, but apparently there are a bunch of people that had no idea at all about how browsers function. I guess that is a little bit snide, but the tone of some of the articles about it has been pretty funny, like it was some sort of big bust to catch them doing it (the last time it was a kerfuffle was when Amazon was serving personalized advertizing images).
I used to do that at some point. I much prefer a searching launcher, where typing something like "ff" is enough for it to guess that I want to launch Firefox.
Probably the biggest reason I wouldn't go back is that I remember program names better than categories.
How do you make scientific judgements about things like welfare and bigotry?
Saying that less bigotry is a good thing is a value judgement, not a scientific judgement. Even if you go all Spock on it, you still have to have some starting principle(s).
Also, feel free to track down this account 10 years from now.
I absolutely promise to apologize for laughing in your face if it becomes clear that I was wrong about there not being any substantial link between real estate prices in Tokyo and the incident at Fukushima (of course there is some link, some people are acting irrationally).
I have no explanation for it. I don't study Japan's economy.
But I'm not claiming there is a direct link between mostly localized radiation contamination and real estate prices hundreds of kilometers away, I'm claiming that the price trends aren't evidence of anything by themselves, there needs to be some sort of coherent reason to link them to the radiation. Especially in the face of the Japanese government continuing to allow millions of people to occupy Tokyo.
I guess the other another to say it is if things in Tokyo are that bad, why haven't the prices gone to zero?
The Company primarily invests in office buildings, commercial buildings, logistics facilities and housings, among others. It aims to achieve stable earnings and asset growth from mid- to long-term perspectives through investment in properties, which are chiefly located in the Tokyo metropolitan area and other domestic major cities.
What thesis do you use to separate the broader economic consequences of the earthquake and tsunami from the nuclear risk you are apparently insinuating exists in Tokyo?
I bet it is something like "hurfa durfa hurf urf durf".
Do you mean they organize resistance, or do you mean they claim power over life and death of others?
If it's the latter, exercising such claimed power is widely considered criminal behavior, so the fact that they do it does nothing to bolster your argument that it deserves a military response.
I think you are making an awful big assumption when you say that nobody will want to organize resistance against a nation that claims to have power over the life and death of any person they deem to be a sufficient threat.
If they have truly given up the powers, there can't be a way for them to demonstrate that they have not given them up. So in that scenario, it would take something like a civil war to take the powers away from the executive.
(arguing that congress has not demonstrated any interest in exercising those powers would at least be coherent)
You'll have to explain what you mean. A declaration of war would be done by congress, just like the authorization for use of military force against terrorists was done by congress.
I know you guys like to think all info should be open and free but the REAL world doesn't work like that. Countries have secrets.
That's pretty binary. The U.S. government seems to have an awful lot of unnecessary secrets, giving those trumpeting transparency plenty to spout about.
You are just the other side of the coin I am talking about. You see no need to discuss the targeted killing of an individual living in a country with no declared hostilities with the U.S. simply because you are willing to classify the act as legal warfare.
I'm not complaining about due process. I'm complaining about arguing the legal semantics rather than directly objecting to the fact that the government thinks it has these powers.
I do not believe that the incremental safety gained by actions like this is worth any of the costs (material, political, personnel). But that's probably because I tend to think that the incremental safety gained is largely notional, not something particularly real.
It's fascinating how many people are worried that the U.S. government assassinated a U.S. citizen, rather than worrying that the U.S. government is assassinating people.
And yes, I understand that there is a legally declared war and that there is a very strong case that this guy was involved with the enemy in that war.
Market cap isn't terribly instructive to how much a company is prospering.
For instance, the market is putting Microsoft at about the same value as IBM, but Microsoft has about 70% of the revenues of IBM, and about 150% of the income of IBM.
If Microsoft were not growing, that comparison wouldn't mean very much, but the problem investors have with Microsoft is that it isn't growing fast enough, not that it isn't growing.
Slashdot Mirror
You have two rambling replies about the authors not being sophisticated enough, I'm not sure those guys understand what a rootkit is, or that lots of windows malware installs stuff as services, or stuff that completely subverts a browser, or whatever.
Anyway, I'm pretty sure it isn't new, the malware author probably used the technique because it was easy, maybe because they thought it would be less obvious in the telecom's proxy logs or whatever.
I wouldn't say it is all that innovative, the phone companies can just block access to the blog to shut off control of the subverted phones.
I think you are mistaken.
I have Cookie Monster installed, so I would have to mess around to test the default configuration of Firefox, but if I use developer tools to inspect the requests such and such a page is making, I can see that some of the requests to other domains have cookies associated with them, cookies that are not from such and such a page's domain.
My understanding of the cookie features in Firefox are that the options only control what cookies can be set, they don't have any impact on what cookies are sent. The name of the option, 'Accept third party cookies', at least suggests this is correct.
No.
Visit facebook.com, Log out, Facebook sets cookie at log out. Visit other page, other page includes link to resource on facebook.com, browser sends that cookie with the request to facebook.com.
It isn't news that it is happening, but apparently there are a bunch of people that had no idea at all about how browsers function. I guess that is a little bit snide, but the tone of some of the articles about it has been pretty funny, like it was some sort of big bust to catch them doing it (the last time it was a kerfuffle was when Amazon was serving personalized advertizing images).
Shorten the term and jack up the fees for older patents?
Change part of the term from exclusive rights to licensing revenues rights, with a requirement to take all comers?
(compulsory licensing isn't the right term, the exclusive rights are a grant, there is nothing compulsory about making that grant less generous)
The article never equates user exposures with infections.
(so it isn't clear if that other 70% actually result in infections...)
You don't need fossil fuels to make ammonia, you can just get some hydrogen out of some water.
Methane is a cheap convenient source for hydrogen, so it is a popular feedstock.
So the problem is still just energy, fossil fuels aren't particularly crucial.
I used to do that at some point. I much prefer a searching launcher, where typing something like "ff" is enough for it to guess that I want to launch Firefox.
Probably the biggest reason I wouldn't go back is that I remember program names better than categories.
For which cap and trade proposal?
How do you make scientific judgements about things like welfare and bigotry?
Saying that less bigotry is a good thing is a value judgement, not a scientific judgement. Even if you go all Spock on it, you still have to have some starting principle(s).
The politicization of cap and trade isn't over whether it would have impact, it is over how the caps get set.
Also, feel free to track down this account 10 years from now.
I absolutely promise to apologize for laughing in your face if it becomes clear that I was wrong about there not being any substantial link between real estate prices in Tokyo and the incident at Fukushima (of course there is some link, some people are acting irrationally).
When did you try to have a serious conversation?
I have no explanation for it. I don't study Japan's economy.
But I'm not claiming there is a direct link between mostly localized radiation contamination and real estate prices hundreds of kilometers away, I'm claiming that the price trends aren't evidence of anything by themselves, there needs to be some sort of coherent reason to link them to the radiation. Especially in the face of the Japanese government continuing to allow millions of people to occupy Tokyo.
I guess the other another to say it is if things in Tokyo are that bad, why haven't the prices gone to zero?
The Company primarily invests in office buildings, commercial buildings, logistics facilities and housings, among others. It aims to achieve stable earnings and asset growth from mid- to long-term perspectives through investment in properties, which are chiefly located in the Tokyo metropolitan area and other domestic major cities.
What thesis do you use to separate the broader economic consequences of the earthquake and tsunami from the nuclear risk you are apparently insinuating exists in Tokyo?
I bet it is something like "hurfa durfa hurf urf durf".
Do you mean they organize resistance, or do you mean they claim power over life and death of others?
If it's the latter, exercising such claimed power is widely considered criminal behavior, so the fact that they do it does nothing to bolster your argument that it deserves a military response.
I think you are making an awful big assumption when you say that nobody will want to organize resistance against a nation that claims to have power over the life and death of any person they deem to be a sufficient threat.
If they have truly given up the powers, there can't be a way for them to demonstrate that they have not given them up. So in that scenario, it would take something like a civil war to take the powers away from the executive.
(arguing that congress has not demonstrated any interest in exercising those powers would at least be coherent)
You'll have to explain what you mean. A declaration of war would be done by congress, just like the authorization for use of military force against terrorists was done by congress.
And congress could, acting alone, end either one.
I know you guys like to think all info should be open and free but the REAL world doesn't work like that. Countries have secrets.
That's pretty binary. The U.S. government seems to have an awful lot of unnecessary secrets, giving those trumpeting transparency plenty to spout about.
(But you are correct, it is authorized military action, not a declared war)
You are just the other side of the coin I am talking about. You see no need to discuss the targeted killing of an individual living in a country with no declared hostilities with the U.S. simply because you are willing to classify the act as legal warfare.
I'm not complaining about due process. I'm complaining about arguing the legal semantics rather than directly objecting to the fact that the government thinks it has these powers.
I do not believe that the incremental safety gained by actions like this is worth any of the costs (material, political, personnel). But that's probably because I tend to think that the incremental safety gained is largely notional, not something particularly real.
I do not find it to be an interesting distinction. "With the permission of congress".
It's fascinating how many people are worried that the U.S. government assassinated a U.S. citizen, rather than worrying that the U.S. government is assassinating people.
And yes, I understand that there is a legally declared war and that there is a very strong case that this guy was involved with the enemy in that war.
Market cap isn't terribly instructive to how much a company is prospering.
For instance, the market is putting Microsoft at about the same value as IBM, but Microsoft has about 70% of the revenues of IBM, and about 150% of the income of IBM.
If Microsoft were not growing, that comparison wouldn't mean very much, but the problem investors have with Microsoft is that it isn't growing fast enough, not that it isn't growing.