First, there is no point in protecting privacy after they have already got hacked. Second, these are not private mails, but related to a publicly funded scientific work, which should have been transparent from the beginning. Third, privacy is not protected when there is proof of wrongdoing. After details of data forgary have leaked, the honest thing to do would have been to call a public investigation. But I can even understand if they don't want to publish it, what pisses me off is that they shout "malicious timing" and "taken out of context" when hackers took their time to select and publish only the mails relevant to the research. They are free to provide the context whenever they want.
The University claimed in the statement that: "This appears to be a carefully-timed attempt to reignite controversy over the science behind climate change."
I'm going to just rush right over and download a 173 MB zip file from some random Russian server.
What's the problem? Even if you are on the opposite side of Earth than the server 173MBs shouldn't take that long.
If they are so infuriated about the timing they could publish the emails themselves in less sensible times, thus evading some of the shitstorm and gaining back a bit of reliability.
This is why the belief that anonymous posting causes trolling is stupid. Facebook commentwalls clearly proved that people can be dumb jerks with their full names as well. The cause is more likely that you don't see the other person face to face, it's much more impersonal. It's easier to hurt someone you never met.
No software can protect against stupidity. If the user gives sensitive permissions to a malware that's not the OS's fault. The real question is if a malware can get permissions without the user, or circumvent the system somehow.
Security should not be handled by a third-party program, and equipping Windows with a builtin AV is a step in the right direction. Banning it because of antitrust claims would be ridiculous, but only a minor annoyance, those who want could still get it.
The test measured the effects of a collision, so I assumed that we are talking about safety when a collision has already happened. Yes, it is easier to evade accidents in a lighter car.
The right to Internet access is not right to free Internet access. You would still have to pay for the connection and the device, but it would be ensured that the infrestructure is present everywhere, and that everyone who wants to buy access can. Also, my country we have public Internet terminals in the poorer regions, it's not such an extreme thing. It's the same with food, if buying food becomes impossible in a region, a government is bound to hand out emergency rations.
Then, there is the small fact that no one could be sentenced to not having internet access, regardless of the crime. And, being an "inalienable right", internet access would have to be available, on demand, to ever single prisoner in the United States, including email and instant messaging. Gangsters could use texts, email, and facebook to run their crews and order hits on witnesses. On-line grifters could run their scams from prison. Rapists could email and text their victims. Pedophile predators could stalk and groom new victims. And, being inalienable, the prisons would be unable to prevent them.
First of all, inalienable right is not above everything. AFAIK America has death penalty, while life is pretty much an inalienable right. Second, Internet access can be a powerful tool for rehabilitation. Knowing the state of the world instead of having to figure out what happened in the past x years, being connected to friends and family members, the ability to learn new skills, maybe even work from prison, these can be very useful. But I aggree that prisoners who abuse this right should have their access taken away.
child molesters, child pornographers, and even generic criminals.
I like how you have your priorities.
And, finally, need the internet to have free speech? First world problems.
But because you live in the first world, it is a necessity. Try opening a bank account or taking a job without an email address.
This is how in was in the past, but in the last few years the EP has managed to grab most of the power. Now the Commission is elected by them, making them the most powerful.
It seems to me that you have problems with the official software and not the hardware itself. And the official software was optimised for gaming, not for nerds at home hacking the device.
I don't know that much about it either but from my experiences with photography digital cameras could provide a good alibi. If you use a high iso speed with a digital camera, the picture will capture static noise, that is mostly random. So you could just grab a picture, hide your data in it, which will make it a little noisy but you can blame it on the static.
True, but wouldn't it be possible to alter some other parts of the document to compress better, thus negating the effect? Of course, if they have a version of the original you are likely to be screwed anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
First, there is no point in protecting privacy after they have already got hacked. Second, these are not private mails, but related to a publicly funded scientific work, which should have been transparent from the beginning. Third, privacy is not protected when there is proof of wrongdoing. After details of data forgary have leaked, the honest thing to do would have been to call a public investigation. But I can even understand if they don't want to publish it, what pisses me off is that they shout "malicious timing" and "taken out of context" when hackers took their time to select and publish only the mails relevant to the research. They are free to provide the context whenever they want.
Which is a good thing. The public being sceptical about what they hear unless shown proof is a huge step forward.
Just because transparent research has found the same we shouldn't give credit to data forgers. They caused more harm in the public view.
The University claimed in the statement that: "This appears to be a carefully-timed attempt to reignite controversy over the science behind climate change."
I'm going to just rush right over and download a 173 MB zip file from some random Russian server.
What's the problem? Even if you are on the opposite side of Earth than the server 173MBs shouldn't take that long.
If they are so infuriated about the timing they could publish the emails themselves in less sensible times, thus evading some of the shitstorm and gaining back a bit of reliability.
I've heard they have a national intranet but I don't think it's connected to the global network.
Well of course the don't have Internet in North Korea.
This is why the belief that anonymous posting causes trolling is stupid. Facebook commentwalls clearly proved that people can be dumb jerks with their full names as well. The cause is more likely that you don't see the other person face to face, it's much more impersonal. It's easier to hurt someone you never met.
The difference is that you can encrypt your internet connections, encrypting phone calls however is against the law.
No software can protect against stupidity. If the user gives sensitive permissions to a malware that's not the OS's fault. The real question is if a malware can get permissions without the user, or circumvent the system somehow.
think about where your browsing
Or just use a secure browser.
The most recent one or the ones actually (sometimes imperfectly) implemented?
If the biggest problem with this technology is who to sue, then I'm not worried about it.
Security should not be handled by a third-party program, and equipping Windows with a builtin AV is a step in the right direction. Banning it because of antitrust claims would be ridiculous, but only a minor annoyance, those who want could still get it.
The test measured the effects of a collision, so I assumed that we are talking about safety when a collision has already happened. Yes, it is easier to evade accidents in a lighter car.
The right to Internet access is not right to free Internet access. You would still have to pay for the connection and the device, but it would be ensured that the infrestructure is present everywhere, and that everyone who wants to buy access can. Also, my country we have public Internet terminals in the poorer regions, it's not such an extreme thing. It's the same with food, if buying food becomes impossible in a region, a government is bound to hand out emergency rations.
Then, there is the small fact that no one could be sentenced to not having internet access, regardless of the crime. And, being an "inalienable right", internet access would have to be available, on demand, to ever single prisoner in the United States, including email and instant messaging. Gangsters could use texts, email, and facebook to run their crews and order hits on witnesses. On-line grifters could run their scams from prison. Rapists could email and text their victims. Pedophile predators could stalk and groom new victims. And, being inalienable, the prisons would be unable to prevent them.
First of all, inalienable right is not above everything. AFAIK America has death penalty, while life is pretty much an inalienable right. Second, Internet access can be a powerful tool for rehabilitation. Knowing the state of the world instead of having to figure out what happened in the past x years, being connected to friends and family members, the ability to learn new skills, maybe even work from prison, these can be very useful. But I aggree that prisoners who abuse this right should have their access taken away.
child molesters, child pornographers, and even generic criminals.
I like how you have your priorities.
And, finally, need the internet to have free speech? First world problems.
But because you live in the first world, it is a necessity. Try opening a bank account or taking a job without an email address.
This is how in was in the past, but in the last few years the EP has managed to grab most of the power. Now the Commission is elected by them, making them the most powerful.
It seems to me that you have problems with the official software and not the hardware itself. And the official software was optimised for gaming, not for nerds at home hacking the device.
I don't know that much about it either but from my experiences with photography digital cameras could provide a good alibi. If you use a high iso speed with a digital camera, the picture will capture static noise, that is mostly random. So you could just grab a picture, hide your data in it, which will make it a little noisy but you can blame it on the static.
True, but wouldn't it be possible to alter some other parts of the document to compress better, thus negating the effect? Of course, if they have a version of the original you are likely to be screwed anyway.
There is also 'cock fight' and 'cocktail'. I guess they just copied every word from a dictionary starting with 'cock'.
How well documents compress has quite a big random factor in it.
"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?"
There are already many algorithms for similar problems.
They did, all bycicles in my country are required to have a bell.