There's also this thing called a "trailer" that can be used to move a fuel inefficient vehicle (or two) around far more efficiently, and probably with less chance of them being involved in a traffic accident in the hands of an inexperienced driver as well - the Maclaren is even shown on the back of one at the top of the story. Other than a few VIP joyrides which will no doubt result in a sizeable contribution to the cause, I doubt these cars will be doing a lot of miles, fuel efficient or not, and will almost certainly bring in more donations than the outlays from fuel costs and moving them from fundraiser to fundraiser.
The Internet Storm Centre (part of SANS) posts one of these fairly shortly after MS releases the patches. Here's their post for the August patch batch to give you an idea - they don't cover the optional updates at all though.
Way 3: Make it an "event series"; a single series run with maybe a dozen episodes that serves as an extended sequel to the original with precisely how many episodes would depend on precisely how many parody scenes the writers can come up with before they start to repeat too much. I think they could probably get to a dozen or so quite easily if they draw on more series than just Trek: the BSG remake is ripe for parody, but you could also draw on Babylon 5, Doctor Who, Stargate, and several other series that hardcore SciFi fans would recognise the scene immediately yet still be obvious enough to be funny to those who haven't seen the show.
Until then, practice safe browsing, use ad block......even if you like to support websites by looking at their ads, it's not worth the risk right now.
Good advice, but I think the flaw (if you can call it that) in the proposal will be convincing people to stop using ad blockers when (ha!) it's safe to do so after they've seenthe difference an ad-free Internet makes to the experience and got used to it. Still, that's going to be a problem for the advertising companies and content providers to solve, and since the longer they wait before fixing the problem with malvertising the harder it will be to fix the effects of that foot dragging it's a classic case of reaping what you sow, so screw 'em. If they want to try and destroy their entire industry, I certainly don't have a problem with that.
Is that *definitely* the case? The details are all rather vague, but I get the impression the Met Office didn't make the BBC's preferred shortlist, not that they are completely out of the running already. e.g. it's a statement along the lines of "these are the front runners after the first stage, the rest of you need to either pull your socks up or stop wasting everyone's time and pull out."
If it's the open tender they claim it will be, then there shouldn't be any reason why not - and they might even win it if they can bring their costs down to something the BBC can accept. The real story appears to be that the Met Office's effectively automatic contract renewal has been terminated because they were asking for too much money and it will be replaced by a competitive fixed-term tender (I'm actually surprised this isn't already the case), not that the tender itself is already done and dusted as the article implies. The consistent use of phrases like "the new provider" with an implication that it excludes the Met Office in stories about this is worrying though; demonstrating that kind of bias in a tender is usually grounds for legal challenges if there's any possibility that it might imply that a bidder was ruled out of the running outside of the published process.
This approach (it's officially known as BCP 38) is meant to be applied at the *edge* of the network, where it will do the most good - in other words at the first capable hop from the CPE or co-lo server, which is usually the modem bank, DSLAM or some other form of edge switch/router so the filtering load can be split across more hardware devices and the subnets involved are far simpler to understand. Aside from a few issues with dual-homed hosts with their own AS implementation at that stage is generally trivial even on most home routers let alone ISP edge equipment, so there are not really all that many excuses for not doing so.
If a customer facing ISP allows spoofed traffic to get to their core before filtering, let alone any where near somewhere doing BGP peering, then they will be dealing with aggregated traffic from multiple subnets making the task much harder and will have missed the chance to protect their own customers from attacking each other. In an ideal world where everyone does BCP 38 at the edge (which will never happen due to lack of clue, apathy, etc.), the transit and backbone parts of the Internet shouldn't even need to bother with BCP 38 since the traffic will already be clean of spoofed traffic before it gets onto that part of the network.
I've no idea about Danish legislation on this so can't comment, but if there is then presumably it would apply to your Silk Road example too, but maybe there just aren't any such sites hosted in Denmark and/or by Danes that have come to the attention of the authorities there yet. On the plus side, with a good lawyer, they might just be able to get off and establish a line in the sand on this kind of thing that would then apply to sites doing similar things for Torrent index sites and similar scenarios that only link to the data, but not actually provide it. As I understand it though, there are very few (if any) applications of Popcorn Time that don't involve copyright infringment, whereas with Torrent sites there are usually at least a few undeniably legitimate usage cases to muddy the waters a little.
Yeah, this is what is often referred to as "afterglow" and can persist for quite some time after you shut down a BitTorrent client, even without the IP change. I've found that you can minimise it a bit by stopping all your active torrents (or better yet removing them altogether) and leaving the client itself running for a while before actually shutting it down. Gaming the protocol so that it thinks a victim's IP is a 100% complete seed for a number of popular torrents with a low number of seeds seems like a viable way of generating a lot of inbound traffic, but the attacker would need to continually keep adding new torrents as existing ones gained more and more seeds and reduced the likilihood a client would target the victim's IP. The article is light on details of how effective this is (or might be) in practice, but my gut feeling is that this is probably more effort than it's worth compared to other UDP based amplification attack techniques out there that require much less interaction.
That's still an over simplification since it makes no allowance for the distances each side would need to cover, use of refueling tankers between take off point and combat zone, and so on. Where I think they are probably coming from though is that the aggressors (the F-35s in this scenario) have had to fly some way to their target whereas the defenders (the F16s & F18s) would presumably be operating on some kind of rotating CAP or scrambling from a local airbase followed by a rapid burn of fuel at supersonic speeds to get where they needed to go, so on average both sides could well be roughly at 50% fuel load for the actual encounter.
This definition is used with the F-35 to indicate that it will sneak up to enemy aircraft and launch missiles before the enemy aircraft know that it is there - the F-35 doesn't have the dog fighting capabilities of the F-22 or that of other fighters.
And there-in lies the flaw in the justification for its existence - what happens *after* the missiles have been fired? It's a stealth aircraft so any ordnance needs to be internal to minimise the radar cross-section and that instantly limits the number of missiles is can carry compared to non-stealth aircraft with external hardpoints. Even assuming the stealth works and the F-35 gets to fire its missiles without being seen, the very act of firing its missiles is going to negate the stealth, only now it has no missiles so any additional/surviving hostile aircraft entering the combat area are going to be engaging it when it's down to guns and running. If it can't fight or run, and at some point the stealth is almost certainly going to be negated just as the previous generations of stealth have been as well (if not already), then what's the point? Well, other than the pork, of course.
Or see if the Chinese will sell their Shenyang J-31 stealth fighter since they seem to be lining it up for potential export sales. Depending on who you listen to early indications are that the Chinese have not only managed to successfully rip off the F-35 (yay for industrial espionage!) but have also fixed some of the more glaring design flaws in the F-35, like dumping the much maligned VTOL capability and the compromises it entails in order to add in a second engine and a central bomb bay.
Seriously though, who prints stuff outside of work anyway?
Photographers. Specifically those that like to hang their work on the wall and/or enter their work into photo club competitions. Given how many people tend to be milling around the printer stands at photography trade shows, I suspect there's more of them still around than you might think, and presumably Epson thinks so too since this could easily be a huge cost saver for the right print volume.
They have control over the Bot*Net*, but the actual bots are continuing to operate on autopilot searching for and attempting to infect other hosts. Short of sending a "shutdown" command - assuming Conficker has one - and potentially assuming liability for any PCs that might be in life-safety applications (common sense says there shouldn't be any, however reality says otherwise) there's not a lot else they can do but wait for their owners to replace them. Given how long PCs tend to stay in use outside the Home/Office environments (I can personally cite an example of over 20 years for a SparcStation in a manufacturing environment), that might take quite some time...
Thanks for the clarification - I'm actually in Europe, but read something about it on a mailing list and seeing OP mention Verizon jogged my memory. Makes sense if OP is in one of the areas impacted by the pending deal that they'd be trying to upsell their wireless biz and downplay their hopefully soon to be unloaded fixed line assets though. No point signing up new customers only to hand them off to Frontier if you can convince them that they'd be better off with the wireless service and hopefully keep them around to be milked
Depending on which state you are in there might be a reason for that, and it's nothing to do with being on the cutting edge of broadband delivery; Verizon is apparently selling their landline business to Frontier Communications in 14 states. From the linked article:
The deal includes Verizon's wireline assets in Arizona, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, South Carolina, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin as well as some assets in California.
Or the kinds of accounts that are seeing the falls in spam. If those users responsible for the bulk have the spam passing through the monitoring systems have either abandonned email for social media alternatives like Facebook and Twitter, or just become more aware that providing their email address to every site that asks for it isn't a good idea, then you probably would see a huge reduction in spam *overall*. For the rest of us that have been more careful all along, then the change is probably far less significant, and may actually have gone up as our compromised email addresses continue to get shared around various spammers.
Interesting as a data point, but without knowing the trends that led to it it's essentially just a meaningless statistic.
Probably because iPhone users needing constant power top-ups has become something of a standing joke; every time you hear of someone doing something crazy, desperate and/or illegal to do this it's almost always for an iPhone, so it entertains the majority of reader/viewers who will not own an iPhone (Apple's market share is "Hah! Another iPhone user caught short of power! LOL!" There's probably a grain of truth to it too; it's not the kind of story I actively seek out and I'm sure there are instances of another brand of phone being involved in incidents like this, but off the top of my head I don't recall ever coming across any and it's always the iPhone users that seem to be going around the office asking if anyone has a charger they can borrow.
True, but that's the big flaw in the plan that they just don't seem to grasp. WhatsApp and the makers of other tools *can't* voluntarily had over the communications without a major redesign of their software, which they are most probably not going to do because it would also compromise all their other users that are not afflicted by clueless politicians who refuse to accept the advice of people who do have a clue. There's also the issue of the sheer number of tools that let people DIY their own P2P communications that are in widespread use: SSH, private HTTPS servers, plus countless open source tools and less well known alternatives to the big players like WhatsApp. It's enough to make the game of whack-a-mole the media studios engaged in with torrent sites seem like child's play.
The best tack for WhatsApp, et al to take would probably be to do nothing, keep the encryption in place, and let the UK government choose it's poison. The government can either backdown and admit the legislation is as unenforceable as we all know it to be, or they can try and ban such products from the UK - which, given the number of alternative download sites, already installed instances of the software, alternative products, and so on, would be like nailing fog to the wall. In that case, they won't have to admit that the legislation is as unenforceable but instead they'll get *shown* that's it's unenforceable, that they didn't have a clue when they wrote it, and probably manage to alienate a bunch of voters in the process.
Slashdot Mirror
There's also this thing called a "trailer" that can be used to move a fuel inefficient vehicle (or two) around far more efficiently, and probably with less chance of them being involved in a traffic accident in the hands of an inexperienced driver as well - the Maclaren is even shown on the back of one at the top of the story. Other than a few VIP joyrides which will no doubt result in a sizeable contribution to the cause, I doubt these cars will be doing a lot of miles, fuel efficient or not, and will almost certainly bring in more donations than the outlays from fuel costs and moving them from fundraiser to fundraiser.
The Internet Storm Centre (part of SANS) posts one of these fairly shortly after MS releases the patches. Here's their post for the August patch batch to give you an idea - they don't cover the optional updates at all though.
Way 3: Make it an "event series"; a single series run with maybe a dozen episodes that serves as an extended sequel to the original with precisely how many episodes would depend on precisely how many parody scenes the writers can come up with before they start to repeat too much. I think they could probably get to a dozen or so quite easily if they draw on more series than just Trek: the BSG remake is ripe for parody, but you could also draw on Babylon 5, Doctor Who, Stargate, and several other series that hardcore SciFi fans would recognise the scene immediately yet still be obvious enough to be funny to those who haven't seen the show.
Good advice, but I think the flaw (if you can call it that) in the proposal will be convincing people to stop using ad blockers when (ha!) it's safe to do so after they've seenthe difference an ad-free Internet makes to the experience and got used to it. Still, that's going to be a problem for the advertising companies and content providers to solve, and since the longer they wait before fixing the problem with malvertising the harder it will be to fix the effects of that foot dragging it's a classic case of reaping what you sow, so screw 'em. If they want to try and destroy their entire industry, I certainly don't have a problem with that.
Nope. Looks like it's bunk, which is the result I would have been hoping for given how sketchy some of the work in the paper is.
I wonder if it applies to forum comments as well... Let's find out!
Is that *definitely* the case? The details are all rather vague, but I get the impression the Met Office didn't make the BBC's preferred shortlist, not that they are completely out of the running already. e.g. it's a statement along the lines of "these are the front runners after the first stage, the rest of you need to either pull your socks up or stop wasting everyone's time and pull out."
If it's the open tender they claim it will be, then there shouldn't be any reason why not - and they might even win it if they can bring their costs down to something the BBC can accept. The real story appears to be that the Met Office's effectively automatic contract renewal has been terminated because they were asking for too much money and it will be replaced by a competitive fixed-term tender (I'm actually surprised this isn't already the case), not that the tender itself is already done and dusted as the article implies. The consistent use of phrases like "the new provider" with an implication that it excludes the Met Office in stories about this is worrying though; demonstrating that kind of bias in a tender is usually grounds for legal challenges if there's any possibility that it might imply that a bidder was ruled out of the running outside of the published process.
This approach (it's officially known as BCP 38) is meant to be applied at the *edge* of the network, where it will do the most good - in other words at the first capable hop from the CPE or co-lo server, which is usually the modem bank, DSLAM or some other form of edge switch/router so the filtering load can be split across more hardware devices and the subnets involved are far simpler to understand. Aside from a few issues with dual-homed hosts with their own AS implementation at that stage is generally trivial even on most home routers let alone ISP edge equipment, so there are not really all that many excuses for not doing so.
If a customer facing ISP allows spoofed traffic to get to their core before filtering, let alone any where near somewhere doing BGP peering, then they will be dealing with aggregated traffic from multiple subnets making the task much harder and will have missed the chance to protect their own customers from attacking each other. In an ideal world where everyone does BCP 38 at the edge (which will never happen due to lack of clue, apathy, etc.), the transit and backbone parts of the Internet shouldn't even need to bother with BCP 38 since the traffic will already be clean of spoofed traffic before it gets onto that part of the network.
I've no idea about Danish legislation on this so can't comment, but if there is then presumably it would apply to your Silk Road example too, but maybe there just aren't any such sites hosted in Denmark and/or by Danes that have come to the attention of the authorities there yet. On the plus side, with a good lawyer, they might just be able to get off and establish a line in the sand on this kind of thing that would then apply to sites doing similar things for Torrent index sites and similar scenarios that only link to the data, but not actually provide it. As I understand it though, there are very few (if any) applications of Popcorn Time that don't involve copyright infringment, whereas with Torrent sites there are usually at least a few undeniably legitimate usage cases to muddy the waters a little.
Yeah, this is what is often referred to as "afterglow" and can persist for quite some time after you shut down a BitTorrent client, even without the IP change. I've found that you can minimise it a bit by stopping all your active torrents (or better yet removing them altogether) and leaving the client itself running for a while before actually shutting it down. Gaming the protocol so that it thinks a victim's IP is a 100% complete seed for a number of popular torrents with a low number of seeds seems like a viable way of generating a lot of inbound traffic, but the attacker would need to continually keep adding new torrents as existing ones gained more and more seeds and reduced the likilihood a client would target the victim's IP. The article is light on details of how effective this is (or might be) in practice, but my gut feeling is that this is probably more effort than it's worth compared to other UDP based amplification attack techniques out there that require much less interaction.
Yes, yes. 6G. That's right. Now, about those 5G not-spots near the nuclear silos...
That's still an over simplification since it makes no allowance for the distances each side would need to cover, use of refueling tankers between take off point and combat zone, and so on. Where I think they are probably coming from though is that the aggressors (the F-35s in this scenario) have had to fly some way to their target whereas the defenders (the F16s & F18s) would presumably be operating on some kind of rotating CAP or scrambling from a local airbase followed by a rapid burn of fuel at supersonic speeds to get where they needed to go, so on average both sides could well be roughly at 50% fuel load for the actual encounter.
And there-in lies the flaw in the justification for its existence - what happens *after* the missiles have been fired? It's a stealth aircraft so any ordnance needs to be internal to minimise the radar cross-section and that instantly limits the number of missiles is can carry compared to non-stealth aircraft with external hardpoints. Even assuming the stealth works and the F-35 gets to fire its missiles without being seen, the very act of firing its missiles is going to negate the stealth, only now it has no missiles so any additional/surviving hostile aircraft entering the combat area are going to be engaging it when it's down to guns and running. If it can't fight or run, and at some point the stealth is almost certainly going to be negated just as the previous generations of stealth have been as well (if not already), then what's the point? Well, other than the pork, of course.
Or see if the Chinese will sell their Shenyang J-31 stealth fighter since they seem to be lining it up for potential export sales. Depending on who you listen to early indications are that the Chinese have not only managed to successfully rip off the F-35 (yay for industrial espionage!) but have also fixed some of the more glaring design flaws in the F-35, like dumping the much maligned VTOL capability and the compromises it entails in order to add in a second engine and a central bomb bay.
Betteridge says "No", but we can always hope that this one will be the exception that proves the rule. :)
Photographers. Specifically those that like to hang their work on the wall and/or enter their work into photo club competitions. Given how many people tend to be milling around the printer stands at photography trade shows, I suspect there's more of them still around than you might think, and presumably Epson thinks so too since this could easily be a huge cost saver for the right print volume.
They have control over the Bot*Net*, but the actual bots are continuing to operate on autopilot searching for and attempting to infect other hosts. Short of sending a "shutdown" command - assuming Conficker has one - and potentially assuming liability for any PCs that might be in life-safety applications (common sense says there shouldn't be any, however reality says otherwise) there's not a lot else they can do but wait for their owners to replace them. Given how long PCs tend to stay in use outside the Home/Office environments (I can personally cite an example of over 20 years for a SparcStation in a manufacturing environment), that might take quite some time...
Thanks for the clarification - I'm actually in Europe, but read something about it on a mailing list and seeing OP mention Verizon jogged my memory. Makes sense if OP is in one of the areas impacted by the pending deal that they'd be trying to upsell their wireless biz and downplay their hopefully soon to be unloaded fixed line assets though. No point signing up new customers only to hand them off to Frontier if you can convince them that they'd be better off with the wireless service and hopefully keep them around to be milked
No link to the song United Breaks Guitars? For shame! :)
It's looking increasingly likely. Apparently a Chinese water bottle and some Indonesian cleaning products have now washed up on Reunion as well.
Or the kinds of accounts that are seeing the falls in spam. If those users responsible for the bulk have the spam passing through the monitoring systems have either abandonned email for social media alternatives like Facebook and Twitter, or just become more aware that providing their email address to every site that asks for it isn't a good idea, then you probably would see a huge reduction in spam *overall*. For the rest of us that have been more careful all along, then the change is probably far less significant, and may actually have gone up as our compromised email addresses continue to get shared around various spammers.
Interesting as a data point, but without knowing the trends that led to it it's essentially just a meaningless statistic.
Probably because iPhone users needing constant power top-ups has become something of a standing joke; every time you hear of someone doing something crazy, desperate and/or illegal to do this it's almost always for an iPhone, so it entertains the majority of reader/viewers who will not own an iPhone (Apple's market share is "Hah! Another iPhone user caught short of power! LOL!" There's probably a grain of truth to it too; it's not the kind of story I actively seek out and I'm sure there are instances of another brand of phone being involved in incidents like this, but off the top of my head I don't recall ever coming across any and it's always the iPhone users that seem to be going around the office asking if anyone has a charger they can borrow.
True, but that's the big flaw in the plan that they just don't seem to grasp. WhatsApp and the makers of other tools *can't* voluntarily had over the communications without a major redesign of their software, which they are most probably not going to do because it would also compromise all their other users that are not afflicted by clueless politicians who refuse to accept the advice of people who do have a clue. There's also the issue of the sheer number of tools that let people DIY their own P2P communications that are in widespread use: SSH, private HTTPS servers, plus countless open source tools and less well known alternatives to the big players like WhatsApp. It's enough to make the game of whack-a-mole the media studios engaged in with torrent sites seem like child's play.
The best tack for WhatsApp, et al to take would probably be to do nothing, keep the encryption in place, and let the UK government choose it's poison. The government can either backdown and admit the legislation is as unenforceable as we all know it to be, or they can try and ban such products from the UK - which, given the number of alternative download sites, already installed instances of the software, alternative products, and so on, would be like nailing fog to the wall. In that case, they won't have to admit that the legislation is as unenforceable but instead they'll get *shown* that's it's unenforceable, that they didn't have a clue when they wrote it, and probably manage to alienate a bunch of voters in the process.