On one hand, the concept of the "bronies" seems good enough, based on good and decent qualities and a form of compassion that is all too rare. But, on the other hand, the concept of guys who are into living life according to the principles put forth by "My Little Pony" makes me want to scream "FAGGOTS FAGGOTS FAGGOTS" at a deafening pitch for hours on end. Especially when you consider that the whole thing was nothing more than a vehicle to advertise a bunch of toys.
I would like to have a single device that is a lightweight tablet with a tablet interface, but when I drop it into a dock with a real keyboard, mouse, and screen, it switches UI modes to the right UI for that. A "single experience" would be a flawed approach IMO.
Even better if it would switch "experience" at need to also be my HTPC and gaming console when I have my TV connected and want to switch over to using a remote, or game controllers. The tablet hardware isn't there yet (for 3D gaming), but I expect it will be within 5 years or so.
There's no technical bar here - it just seems to be a mindset thing. Tablet / PC / console / HTPC - why not have the tablet be the core of all of that, and just switch UI "experience" depending on what input devices and display I'm using at the moment? Let the software developers choose to support whichever of those "experiences" they care about for their products.
The reason why you can't do this...at least yet...is that the core processing (CPU and video) functions at work here are fundamentally different in each of the experiences you describe. The same processor that gives you low heat and long battery life in a tablet is woefully underpowered for a gaming console or PC. The same graphics processor in a gaming console would require venting and a fan in a tablet. Other things are more pliable (although I don't know if you could hotplug RAM on the fly, I'm sure that's not quite as impossible to solve in the consumer market, as some servers have this ability) but the processors at those two core functions are all different across these device types, and for good reason.
Being called a terrorist or avoiding that label all comes down to who and what you are. It is, and always has been, about that -- not what you say. Look at the boston bomber -- muslim. Terrorist. But the Aurora shooting? Not a terrorist. Those people that blew up a shiite church in Wisconsin? Not terrorists. In fact, as long as you aren't black, or a muslim, you can probably avoid the "terrorist" label.
Um...this guy isn't even CLOSE to being black or muslim. "Cameron D’Ambrosio," and he looks too white for even that name. I mean, he's from Boston, too. Imagine a dorky white kid with a voice like the Ted (from the movie), but with a higher pitch to his voice.
This was at least partially explained by the Cylon's disappearance for decades. How do you build systems to fight and defend against an enemy you haven't seen in 40 years, but who have also infiltrated your society and military? They know your weaknesses while you can only guess at theirs, with zero time to adapt due to the surprise assaults.
An excellent question, and I'm glad you asked it. Simply...the way the Cylons did with humans. You aren't at war with them, but that doesn't mean you go totally off the grid as far as the other is concerned. This, too, is an inaccuracy of what an armistice looks like. North and South Korea skirmish, raid, and spy. NATO and Warsaw Pact...same thing. In this case, it'd be easier for the humans, because again, CNE is incredibly effective against an opponent that is entirely electronic in nature and 100% networked, down to every last entity. If you're barely at peace with someone that you just fought a horrifyingly intense war with, the last thing you want to do is STOP WATCHING THEM.
Exactly. If they took down our networks we would... not care and keep working?
People have no idea how little actual military stuff is actually networked.
This is less and less true every year. Without networking, forget about using Predator or Reaper drones, for one thing. Forget about chain of command as well, forget about intelligence...moving in either direction. Most importantly, forget about logistics too.
What's strange about the whole concept of Battlestar Galactica and the nature of the attack by the Cylons is how one-sided it was. The humans seemed to have an awareness of what cyber warfare is (they reference firewalls and viruses in the series), yet they never seemed to develop any more than a rudimentary defensive capability (CND, in military parlance) and no intelligence or attack capabilities (CNE and CNA) whatsoever. This, despite the fact that their adversary was entirely cybernetic in nature. Um...yeah, no, I don't buy it. Makes for a good story device, yes (and I loved the series), but I don't buy it as actually realistic. Think about the long-distance communication needed for resurrection, for example...WOW. Get access via that, and think of the incredible damage you could do to Cylons...heck, just a denial of service attack would drastically alter the priorities of an attacking Cylon force, since their losses would be magnified in significance.
Well now, the result of last week's competition when we asked you to find a derogatory term for the Belgians. Well, the response was enormous and we took quite a long time sorting out the winners. There were some very clever entries.
Mrs Hatred of Leicester Said 'let's not call them anything, let's just ignore them'......and a Mr St John of Huntingdon said he couldn't think of anything more derogatory than Belgians.
But in the end we settled on three choices: Number three... the Sprouts (placard 'The Sprouts'), sent in by Mrs Vicious of Hastings... very nice. Number two..... the Phlegms (placard)... from Mrs Childmolester of Worthing. But the winner was undoubtedly from Mrs No-Supper-For-You from Norwood in Lancashire... Miserable Fat Belgian Bastards!
Everyone here is talking about DRM in the context of a product, or some form of art that is meant to be distributed. Yes, I mean things like music, games, movies and books. And I agree with the majority view here, that for things like that DRM is harmful because of how it distorts the market. DRM is futile, because if one person out there can break it (out of the millions or more who get access to the protected file) then it's out in the open and spreads as fast and as far as anyone's interest in it.
But there is a valid use for DRM, and one where it can actually work fairly well. It's in corporations and other organizations that need to control documents and their distribution. In this kind of environment, a small audience has any access to the DRM-protected materials at all, This is the realm of companies where their IP is really their own, and corporate espionage is a major factor...pharmaceutical companies are a good example of this. At the NIST Cybersecurity Framework workshop earlier this month, a senior executive from Merck described how DRM in conjunction with identity management has been very helpful in protecting data in this way. DRM used this way has several differences from DRM used to protect, say, a motion picture being shared via Netflix. One, it's about attribution of ownership as much as about restriction of unauthorized use; if a file from a Kindle gets into the wild, that doesn't really get Amazon to pay attention to anything. But if a file from X person from a company shows up where it should not be, then that raises alarms. Two, it's not exposed to the same form of threat; even if a document leaks, the effort to decode it does not become a free-for-all. And yes, the threat may be fairly sophisticated, but detection doesn't have to be perfect. If you're facing a determined attacker and they pull 100 documents, even a 1% detection rate is enough to catch that something is wrong. That, in turn, provides an enormous deterrent to employees who may be considering doing something on the side for a payout or revenge because they are disgruntled. In this world, DRM doesn't need to be perfect and doesn't incur the same distorting effects as it does when applied to creative media. It's not a use that is broadcast nearly as widely to the world, for a few obvious reasons, but it's a fairly large one all the same. Oh, and the specific nature (as far as how it works) of the DRM solutions tend to differ as well, given the different aims in this context.
I don't follow how an increased population with the same amount of gold equals deflation. Or, to put it more accurately, I'll just point to reality; while the dollar was on the gold standard, inflation occurred...not deflation. This isn't theory; it's what happened. I find it remarkable that I got modded down for pointing out something that is not only wrong in theory, but in historical fact as well.
Not quite. When the money supply increases at a faster rate than the value of the economy, (or decreases at a slower rate than the decline in the economy) then you get inflation.
That's only true if the currency is tied to GDP. If it's tied to gold, then this does not apply, and that's the situation I was describing above.
gold be definition is deflationary there is a set amount of gold on earth. as the population increases there is less gold per person available. hence as population increases you will have deflation because there will be less and less money available per person.
Um...you have it backwards. When total value of a monetary supply remains static but the monetary supply itself increases, that's inflation, not deflation. And even then, you have it wrong because even though the total amount of gold on earth is static, the amount used to back money (as opposed to undiscovered/unmined/located in the grills of hip-hop artists) can change, as can the value of a single ounce of gold.
The raw part cost of a smartphone SoC is a tiny portion of the bill of materials (BOM), maybe 10-15%. CPU is maybe $30 at the very high end? So for a box like the OUYA where the CPU is probably the biggest cost and they don't have to worry about a display, camera, battery, cellular radios, or massive amounts of storage, they probably could have sprung for a Snapdragon 600 or Tegra 4. Only thing is it would have delayed the product by 6 months since those chips are in high demand from smartphone OEMs.
Yes, but what you're forgetting about is the opportunity cost. If you can make a $100 device that competes equally with a $300 device simply by lowering your profit margin, that's not the whole picture. To design and start producing that device, you need funding. That capital typically comes from people who want a return on their investment, and lower risk. The smaller your profit margin, the closer you are to not being profitable at all if you miscalculated, incorrectly estimated, or failed to account for something. And even if you hit exactly your intended margin, you still end up providing a lower return on investment than if you had charged more...or, in this case, if you lower the hardware costs. Also, keep in mind that a $5 hardware cost difference matters less, profit-wise, on a $300 device than it does on a $100 device.
Hardware isn't designed and built in a vacuum; these things happen in the context of a business, as well as in the context of an entire industry.
The aviation industry is slow to make changes to anything. Their radios still use amplitude modulation and people expect them all of a sudden to switch to encrypted digital protocols?
This is only half of the problem, and not the bigger half. The problem is that systems like ACARS and ADS have availability as their highest priority. If you build something akin to the OSI model that instead focuses on discrete components rather than functions, you end up with a stack that is taller when you add encryption on top of it; that extra layer on the top is one more thing that can fail, and which frequently does fail. Yes, authentication (much more important than encryption...an attacker spoofing the location of a plane is more dangerous than an attacker learning where the plane is) is important, but the risk of losing availability is serious. If there were encryption or authentication in place and a plane were misconfigured, it would become invisible both to the ground tower and to other planes...obviously, this is a HUGE problem. So it's not exactly fair to look upon this as the authorities simply being asleep at the wheel...there's actually been thought put into this, and to date the tradeoff hasn't been there. This attack requires either an SDR (which didn't exist a decade ago and is still somewhat exotic) or dedicated avionics equipment (not man portable). Back when these systems were developed, the attack wasn't even possible, much less feasible, and they did succeed in reducing the number of mid-air near misses with these protocols and their concurrent systems.
And I'm with you...it's amazing to me how people think that the industry can change things rapidly. It takes *forever* to test new systems to assure that they will be as reliable as needed...and they never pass the first test. But the reasons why they have things like AM-based radio communications isn't slowness to respond, it's reliability. They've been rapid to adopt new things in the name of safety, such as the ability to detect microbursts (which caused some crashes and a lot of close calls, once upon a time). As soon as the meteorological world learned what kind of event was causing these issues, it only took a few years for deployment of a way to detect and respond to them.
I hear everyone arguing about what a scientist could produce, and how, and how bad it could/would be...but that isn't the issue at all here. If you're going to talk about nuclear technology vs. pathogen technology, then you need to talk about proliferation. The treaties at stake, the classification of information, export controls...none of these are about *doing* research, they're about the control of knowledge needed to do research. The controls on nuclear research and engineering are about proliferation, about containment of what is known rather than direct prohibition of learning more or experimenting by people who are not in the trusted circle.
Here's the problem: what's needed in terms of expertise to make effective (more on that word in a moment) nuclear weapons is only known to a relatively small and contained population of scientists. But what's needed to do the kind of research which is feared here on the pathogen side of things is, quite simply, not. You could make all kinds of arguments about why this is, but the fact of the matter is that the horse has left the barn (or whatever the rural metaphor is) with regard to the issue of proliferation on the biological side of this. Maybe it's because of organizations like Biopreparat and what happened when it disbanded, maybe it's because dangerous pathogens have always existed naturally (unlike nuclear weapons or, for that matter, any of the key materials used to build them). Maybe it's because there's a genuine value to the public good for many people to study how pathogens work...and ironically, the nastier the pathogen, the more the public good is studied by intensive and widespread study.
But however you slice it, you can't restrict sharing knowledge nor the research methods around pathogen-focused microbiology now. And even if you could, restrictions on either sharing knowledge or generating new knowledge through research would inevitably cause unintended consequences because you would also hamstring benevolent research that seeks to do things like develop vaccines and decipher previously unknown pathogens like SARS.
Gmail and Google Reader are two different beasts. Gmail is used as the primary authentication of many, many Google services and provides its parent company with much more detailed profile of users than what feed you read... Just saying.
Actually, the authentication system used by Gmail is the primary authentication of many, many Google services. That's a whole different animal from Gmail itself, and it's very easy to cut loose a massive email system but keep the authentication infrastructure, especially when you developed both of them to begin with. You have a point about the detailed profile of users...but that's a double-edged sword. Google has been, I feel, under a level of scrutiny that I think is out of proportion with how they actually treat private data. All that it would take is a scandal (either at Google or at some similar service) and all of a sudden that one value they get out of Gmail could be taken away from them. Then what?
Yeah, maybe Esteban just had a really lucrative paper route...
It's really none of his business unless he explicitly knew he sold drugs for money, some people just have lots of money, that's not a crime in and of itself. And a reasonable person would probably want to safeguard $800,000 in cash, regardless of source.
Ah, no. Actually not at all true. For one, he had suspicions; that alone is the legal boundary. For another...really? Why would a reasonable person keep $800,000 in cash, in their car? What's reasonable about that? It's nuts to keep that much cash as cash, for one thing; it will lose value daily due to inflation, instead of gain a tiny bit due to interest. It can be stolen. Keep it in your house, and it can burn up as well. Keep it in your car...and the car can be stolen, broken into, damaged/destroyed in a car accident (which are very, very commonplace), or carjacked.
I would point out that for any cash transaction involving more than $10K, you may be called upon to prove that the money was earned legitimately...and if you can't, it can be seized from you. This amount was 80 times that. Most people don't achieve that level of net worth, including all assets (house, car, etc.) in their lifetime; to have that much cash with you, all at the same time, is very much an indication of illegal activity, and that has been borne out in a large number of legal cases by now.
And also, it's not that Anaya was asked to change the oil in the truck; he was asked to build yet another (What, Esteban has another $800,000 to hide? Damn, I gotta get me a paper route!) compartment for the express purpose of concealment, for an individual who was clearly engaged in something suspicious, and who Anaya already believed to be involved in something shady. It really does pass the litmus test for a conspiracy charge and conviction.
...you'll see that not only did he have suspicions, but that those suspicions were validated when he had to repair the mechanism to open the secret compartment, only to find it loaded with cash. And not a little bit of cash; according to the article, the reason the compartment jammed was that it was over-filled with $800,000 in cash. Anaya's reaction, from the article:
Anaya stumbled back from the truck’s cab, livid. “Get it out of here,” he growled at Esteban. “I don’t want to know about this. I don’t want any problems.”
If you participate in something you know to be illegal, that's conspiracy. He's not charged because he built a compartment; any activity that he would have participated in which would contribute...knowingly...to an illegal enterprise would fit the bill here. He's charged because he knew something wrong was going on, it involved him, and he said nothing to the police. If the criminals had somehow needed a hot fudge sundae to commit a criminal act, and he'd provided the ice cream knowing what would happen, the name of this article would be "Make a sundae, go to jail." I don't see the problem here. Furthermore, Anaya had serious concerns about his customer before he even did the work in the first place..."Anaya was unsettled by this request, for he had suspicions about the nature of Esteban’s work."
But guess what? None of that is the REAL thing he's caught for. After all of that...what happens? Esteban...the guy with almost a million dollars in cash hidden in his truck...is asked by Esteban to install a similar compartment in ANOTHER truck. I mean, come on...
A grateful Maldanado then asked Anaya if he could install a trap in the Ridgeline too. The Honda truck already had one, but it was the work of a rank amateur—just a crude hole sawed into the base of the trunk. Maldanado wanted an electronic trap like the F-150’s, and he offered to leave a cash deposit so Anaya could buy the necessary hydraulics.
Anaya, who was deeply in debt to numerous creditors, decided to accept the job. He hadn’t totally forgiven Maldanado for failing to warn him about the money jammed in the trap, but he figured that he was still adhering to the letter of the law. The fact was that he hadn’t seen any drugs, and there had been no discussion of how Maldanado had earned his small fortune.
Yeah, maybe Esteban just had a really lucrative paper route...
Given those circumstances, Anaya assumed that he was immune from legal trouble in connection with his meticulous creations. He was, after all, just an installer.
Right. They want your services so bad because it's not all that important to them. You're not helping with the narcotics trade...nooooo...
ya, the police here are like totally knuckleheads them moonites are da bomb and they should have totally left them up instead of harrazing regular kids like us
oh heay do yaz have teh address for tonights house concert my bff isnt answering her mobile phone and i cant read the address she faxed me kthanxbai i appreciate the 411 loveya oxoxoxox
-
Why, sure, dude...here it is! Just come on over...party starts at 4 PM on Friday.
OK, I can see why cops go undercover to prevent murders and bank robberies and such, but to head off noise complaints? Is there some reason why simply to responding to noise complaints isn't enough? Are there no longer any murders, rapes, and robberies in Boston to investigate or prevent? What a waste.
gizmodo and "evidence" are an oxymoron aren't they? Anything under Gawker is suspect, and giz has always been gutter level.
If I hadn't just posted twice, I would mod this up in agreement. Gizmodo is a blog that posts gadget-related rumors and the like...and even then they suck up the snake oil like Robert Evans snorts cocaine.
The problem is that people can spoof source addresses (because ISPs arent stopping it). Fix this issue, and youll still have to worry about any of a million other scenarios where a small request gets a lot of data back.
All you have to do is make sure source addresses are filtered when they hit the ISP, and the huge majority of these issues (as well as being able to cloak where an attack came from) go away.
Actually, they are. The feature being leveraged here is that the servers are performing recursive lookups for domains that they do not control for the open Internet; BIND turns this off, by default, starting with version 9.4. The problem is that a lot of 9.3.X and older DNS servers are still out there, as well as a lot of bad network architecture jobs. The servers should only handle recursion for IP addresses that are on the inside. And as for the spoofing? Well, ingress filtering is trivial to do at the border. And these two things in concert shut this problem down entirely.
Trust me...it's not that simple. For one, there usually isn't an email to send to...there may be one listed somewhere, but it may not be real or nobody may read it. But on top of that, who is this "they" you are referring to...Spamhaus? So, Spamhaus should do a lookup on every single DNS server that is hammering them during the largest DDoS in history, find the abuse email address for each of them, and send them an email? All while getting hit with the biggest DDoS ever?
To get a sense of why abuse email accounts get ignored in a lot of organizations, Google 'site:sans.edu abuse' and read the first 5 or six articles.
Oh, please, stop the whining already. Big cities like DC have always been dumps. It's what happens when you put a lot of people into a small space. If you don't like it, move out; I did.
There's no problem with infrastructure around here (a mid-size town). It's paid out of local taxes, it's reasonably up-to-date, and it has nothing to do with wars-on-anything or "corporate entities". Getting electricity, heat, water, and Internet to homes is neither rocket science nor particularly expensive.
You might want to actually come to DC sometime soon. It's actually (depending on whose figures) the cleanest or second-cleanest city in the nation, and patently gorgeous. And I honestly don't know what's up with this whole article; the "exploding manhole" problem hasn't been a problem for a while now, at least several years. They got a handle on it quite some time ago...along with a lot of other things that started getting fixed once Marion Barry got taken off the playing field.
And if you don't think that getting electricity to homes is a challenge, I invite you to actually learn something about transmission and distribution. (We'll leave generation out of it for now...) It's actually incredibly challenging. The power grid grew into what it is now, with nobody ever having predicted how crucial it would be...and it's not like you can do a rip-and-replace upgrade.
Your idea of moving into more dispersed areas is actually counterproductive to that effect as well; just ask Allegheny Energy (which just got bought out by FirstEnergy, because they had so much trouble keeping profitable while serving a rural-only market, given the high costs of power delivery in that terrain). Look at it this way...what's more likely to get taken down in a snowstorm...one mile of subterranean power line in a city that connects a home to a substation, or ten miles that are all above ground in the woods? If it takes ten miles on average to feed each household instead of one, how is that cheaper?
Slashdot Mirror
On one hand, the concept of the "bronies" seems good enough, based on good and decent qualities and a form of compassion that is all too rare. But, on the other hand, the concept of guys who are into living life according to the principles put forth by "My Little Pony" makes me want to scream "FAGGOTS FAGGOTS FAGGOTS" at a deafening pitch for hours on end. Especially when you consider that the whole thing was nothing more than a vehicle to advertise a bunch of toys.
I would like to have a single device that is a lightweight tablet with a tablet interface, but when I drop it into a dock with a real keyboard, mouse, and screen, it switches UI modes to the right UI for that. A "single experience" would be a flawed approach IMO.
Even better if it would switch "experience" at need to also be my HTPC and gaming console when I have my TV connected and want to switch over to using a remote, or game controllers. The tablet hardware isn't there yet (for 3D gaming), but I expect it will be within 5 years or so.
There's no technical bar here - it just seems to be a mindset thing. Tablet / PC / console / HTPC - why not have the tablet be the core of all of that, and just switch UI "experience" depending on what input devices and display I'm using at the moment? Let the software developers choose to support whichever of those "experiences" they care about for their products.
The reason why you can't do this...at least yet...is that the core processing (CPU and video) functions at work here are fundamentally different in each of the experiences you describe. The same processor that gives you low heat and long battery life in a tablet is woefully underpowered for a gaming console or PC. The same graphics processor in a gaming console would require venting and a fan in a tablet. Other things are more pliable (although I don't know if you could hotplug RAM on the fly, I'm sure that's not quite as impossible to solve in the consumer market, as some servers have this ability) but the processors at those two core functions are all different across these device types, and for good reason.
Yeah but mechanical bluetooth keyboards are hard to find. At lest for now.
Plus I hate to think of dragging my RK-9000 with me to use with my GNote 10.1.
OTOH if I really needed to type a lot it would be worth it, and the Surface Pros don't come with real keyboards either. Just that rubberdome garbage.
Mechanical Bluetooth keyboards are hard to find for the iPad? Really? Really? Are you sure about that?
Being called a terrorist or avoiding that label all comes down to who and what you are. It is, and always has been, about that -- not what you say. Look at the boston bomber -- muslim. Terrorist. But the Aurora shooting? Not a terrorist. Those people that blew up a shiite church in Wisconsin? Not terrorists. In fact, as long as you aren't black, or a muslim, you can probably avoid the "terrorist" label.
Um...this guy isn't even CLOSE to being black or muslim. "Cameron D’Ambrosio," and he looks too white for even that name. I mean, he's from Boston, too. Imagine a dorky white kid with a voice like the Ted (from the movie), but with a higher pitch to his voice.
This was at least partially explained by the Cylon's disappearance for decades. How do you build systems to fight and defend against an enemy you haven't seen in 40 years, but who have also infiltrated your society and military? They know your weaknesses while you can only guess at theirs, with zero time to adapt due to the surprise assaults.
An excellent question, and I'm glad you asked it. Simply...the way the Cylons did with humans. You aren't at war with them, but that doesn't mean you go totally off the grid as far as the other is concerned. This, too, is an inaccuracy of what an armistice looks like. North and South Korea skirmish, raid, and spy. NATO and Warsaw Pact...same thing. In this case, it'd be easier for the humans, because again, CNE is incredibly effective against an opponent that is entirely electronic in nature and 100% networked, down to every last entity. If you're barely at peace with someone that you just fought a horrifyingly intense war with, the last thing you want to do is STOP WATCHING THEM.
Exactly. If they took down our networks we would... not care and keep working?
People have no idea how little actual military stuff is actually networked.
This is less and less true every year. Without networking, forget about using Predator or Reaper drones, for one thing. Forget about chain of command as well, forget about intelligence...moving in either direction. Most importantly, forget about logistics too.
What's strange about the whole concept of Battlestar Galactica and the nature of the attack by the Cylons is how one-sided it was. The humans seemed to have an awareness of what cyber warfare is (they reference firewalls and viruses in the series), yet they never seemed to develop any more than a rudimentary defensive capability (CND, in military parlance) and no intelligence or attack capabilities (CNE and CNA) whatsoever. This, despite the fact that their adversary was entirely cybernetic in nature. Um...yeah, no, I don't buy it. Makes for a good story device, yes (and I loved the series), but I don't buy it as actually realistic. Think about the long-distance communication needed for resurrection, for example...WOW. Get access via that, and think of the incredible damage you could do to Cylons...heck, just a denial of service attack would drastically alter the priorities of an attacking Cylon force, since their losses would be magnified in significance.
Everyone here is talking about DRM in the context of a product, or some form of art that is meant to be distributed. Yes, I mean things like music, games, movies and books. And I agree with the majority view here, that for things like that DRM is harmful because of how it distorts the market. DRM is futile, because if one person out there can break it (out of the millions or more who get access to the protected file) then it's out in the open and spreads as fast and as far as anyone's interest in it.
But there is a valid use for DRM, and one where it can actually work fairly well. It's in corporations and other organizations that need to control documents and their distribution. In this kind of environment, a small audience has any access to the DRM-protected materials at all, This is the realm of companies where their IP is really their own, and corporate espionage is a major factor...pharmaceutical companies are a good example of this. At the NIST Cybersecurity Framework workshop earlier this month, a senior executive from Merck described how DRM in conjunction with identity management has been very helpful in protecting data in this way. DRM used this way has several differences from DRM used to protect, say, a motion picture being shared via Netflix. One, it's about attribution of ownership as much as about restriction of unauthorized use; if a file from a Kindle gets into the wild, that doesn't really get Amazon to pay attention to anything. But if a file from X person from a company shows up where it should not be, then that raises alarms. Two, it's not exposed to the same form of threat; even if a document leaks, the effort to decode it does not become a free-for-all. And yes, the threat may be fairly sophisticated, but detection doesn't have to be perfect. If you're facing a determined attacker and they pull 100 documents, even a 1% detection rate is enough to catch that something is wrong. That, in turn, provides an enormous deterrent to employees who may be considering doing something on the side for a payout or revenge because they are disgruntled. In this world, DRM doesn't need to be perfect and doesn't incur the same distorting effects as it does when applied to creative media. It's not a use that is broadcast nearly as widely to the world, for a few obvious reasons, but it's a fairly large one all the same. Oh, and the specific nature (as far as how it works) of the DRM solutions tend to differ as well, given the different aims in this context.
I don't follow how an increased population with the same amount of gold equals deflation. Or, to put it more accurately, I'll just point to reality; while the dollar was on the gold standard, inflation occurred...not deflation. This isn't theory; it's what happened. I find it remarkable that I got modded down for pointing out something that is not only wrong in theory, but in historical fact as well.
Not quite. When the money supply increases at a faster rate than the value of the economy, (or decreases at a slower rate than the decline in the economy) then you get inflation.
That's only true if the currency is tied to GDP. If it's tied to gold, then this does not apply, and that's the situation I was describing above.
gold be definition is deflationary
there is a set amount of gold on earth. as the population increases there is less gold per person available. hence as population increases you will have deflation because there will be less and less money available per person.
Um...you have it backwards. When total value of a monetary supply remains static but the monetary supply itself increases, that's inflation, not deflation. And even then, you have it wrong because even though the total amount of gold on earth is static, the amount used to back money (as opposed to undiscovered/unmined/located in the grills of hip-hop artists) can change, as can the value of a single ounce of gold.
The raw part cost of a smartphone SoC is a tiny portion of the bill of materials (BOM), maybe 10-15%. CPU is maybe $30 at the very high end? So for a box like the OUYA where the CPU is probably the biggest cost and they don't have to worry about a display, camera, battery, cellular radios, or massive amounts of storage, they probably could have sprung for a Snapdragon 600 or Tegra 4. Only thing is it would have delayed the product by 6 months since those chips are in high demand from smartphone OEMs.
Take a look at this cost breakdown analysis of the GS4: http://www.isuppli.com/Teardowns/News/Pages/Samsung-Galaxy-S4-Carries-236-Bill-of-Materials-IHS-iSuppli-Virtual-Teardown-Reveals.aspx $236 worth of parts selling for $699 just shows you how things are roughly priced (granted, MSRP - BOM != profit, but Samsung is in a pretty good position). Also you'll learn the biggest conspiracy of smartphones ever: it does NOT cost $100 to go from 16GB NAND to 32GB, or 32->64, or 64->128.
Yes, but what you're forgetting about is the opportunity cost. If you can make a $100 device that competes equally with a $300 device simply by lowering your profit margin, that's not the whole picture. To design and start producing that device, you need funding. That capital typically comes from people who want a return on their investment, and lower risk. The smaller your profit margin, the closer you are to not being profitable at all if you miscalculated, incorrectly estimated, or failed to account for something. And even if you hit exactly your intended margin, you still end up providing a lower return on investment than if you had charged more...or, in this case, if you lower the hardware costs. Also, keep in mind that a $5 hardware cost difference matters less, profit-wise, on a $300 device than it does on a $100 device.
Hardware isn't designed and built in a vacuum; these things happen in the context of a business, as well as in the context of an entire industry.
The aviation industry is slow to make changes to anything. Their radios still use amplitude modulation and people expect them all of a sudden to switch to encrypted digital protocols?
This is only half of the problem, and not the bigger half. The problem is that systems like ACARS and ADS have availability as their highest priority. If you build something akin to the OSI model that instead focuses on discrete components rather than functions, you end up with a stack that is taller when you add encryption on top of it; that extra layer on the top is one more thing that can fail, and which frequently does fail. Yes, authentication (much more important than encryption...an attacker spoofing the location of a plane is more dangerous than an attacker learning where the plane is) is important, but the risk of losing availability is serious. If there were encryption or authentication in place and a plane were misconfigured, it would become invisible both to the ground tower and to other planes...obviously, this is a HUGE problem. So it's not exactly fair to look upon this as the authorities simply being asleep at the wheel...there's actually been thought put into this, and to date the tradeoff hasn't been there. This attack requires either an SDR (which didn't exist a decade ago and is still somewhat exotic) or dedicated avionics equipment (not man portable). Back when these systems were developed, the attack wasn't even possible, much less feasible, and they did succeed in reducing the number of mid-air near misses with these protocols and their concurrent systems.
And I'm with you...it's amazing to me how people think that the industry can change things rapidly. It takes *forever* to test new systems to assure that they will be as reliable as needed...and they never pass the first test. But the reasons why they have things like AM-based radio communications isn't slowness to respond, it's reliability. They've been rapid to adopt new things in the name of safety, such as the ability to detect microbursts (which caused some crashes and a lot of close calls, once upon a time). As soon as the meteorological world learned what kind of event was causing these issues, it only took a few years for deployment of a way to detect and respond to them.
I hear everyone arguing about what a scientist could produce, and how, and how bad it could/would be...but that isn't the issue at all here. If you're going to talk about nuclear technology vs. pathogen technology, then you need to talk about proliferation. The treaties at stake, the classification of information, export controls...none of these are about *doing* research, they're about the control of knowledge needed to do research. The controls on nuclear research and engineering are about proliferation, about containment of what is known rather than direct prohibition of learning more or experimenting by people who are not in the trusted circle.
Here's the problem: what's needed in terms of expertise to make effective (more on that word in a moment) nuclear weapons is only known to a relatively small and contained population of scientists. But what's needed to do the kind of research which is feared here on the pathogen side of things is, quite simply, not. You could make all kinds of arguments about why this is, but the fact of the matter is that the horse has left the barn (or whatever the rural metaphor is) with regard to the issue of proliferation on the biological side of this. Maybe it's because of organizations like Biopreparat and what happened when it disbanded, maybe it's because dangerous pathogens have always existed naturally (unlike nuclear weapons or, for that matter, any of the key materials used to build them). Maybe it's because there's a genuine value to the public good for many people to study how pathogens work...and ironically, the nastier the pathogen, the more the public good is studied by intensive and widespread study.
But however you slice it, you can't restrict sharing knowledge nor the research methods around pathogen-focused microbiology now. And even if you could, restrictions on either sharing knowledge or generating new knowledge through research would inevitably cause unintended consequences because you would also hamstring benevolent research that seeks to do things like develop vaccines and decipher previously unknown pathogens like SARS.
Gmail and Google Reader are two different beasts. Gmail is used as the primary authentication of many, many Google services and provides its parent company with much more detailed profile of users than what feed you read... Just saying.
Actually, the authentication system used by Gmail is the primary authentication of many, many Google services. That's a whole different animal from Gmail itself, and it's very easy to cut loose a massive email system but keep the authentication infrastructure, especially when you developed both of them to begin with. You have a point about the detailed profile of users...but that's a double-edged sword. Google has been, I feel, under a level of scrutiny that I think is out of proportion with how they actually treat private data. All that it would take is a scandal (either at Google or at some similar service) and all of a sudden that one value they get out of Gmail could be taken away from them. Then what?
Anyone here remember Juno? Just saying.
Yeah, maybe Esteban just had a really lucrative paper route...
It's really none of his business unless he explicitly knew he sold drugs for money, some people just have lots of money, that's not a crime in and of itself.
And a reasonable person would probably want to safeguard $800,000 in cash, regardless of source.
Ah, no. Actually not at all true. For one, he had suspicions; that alone is the legal boundary. For another...really? Why would a reasonable person keep $800,000 in cash, in their car? What's reasonable about that? It's nuts to keep that much cash as cash, for one thing; it will lose value daily due to inflation, instead of gain a tiny bit due to interest. It can be stolen. Keep it in your house, and it can burn up as well. Keep it in your car...and the car can be stolen, broken into, damaged/destroyed in a car accident (which are very, very commonplace), or carjacked.
I would point out that for any cash transaction involving more than $10K, you may be called upon to prove that the money was earned legitimately...and if you can't, it can be seized from you. This amount was 80 times that. Most people don't achieve that level of net worth, including all assets (house, car, etc.) in their lifetime; to have that much cash with you, all at the same time, is very much an indication of illegal activity, and that has been borne out in a large number of legal cases by now.
And also, it's not that Anaya was asked to change the oil in the truck; he was asked to build yet another (What, Esteban has another $800,000 to hide? Damn, I gotta get me a paper route!) compartment for the express purpose of concealment, for an individual who was clearly engaged in something suspicious, and who Anaya already believed to be involved in something shady. It really does pass the litmus test for a conspiracy charge and conviction.
...you'll see that not only did he have suspicions, but that those suspicions were validated when he had to repair the mechanism to open the secret compartment, only to find it loaded with cash. And not a little bit of cash; according to the article, the reason the compartment jammed was that it was over-filled with $800,000 in cash. Anaya's reaction, from the article:
If you participate in something you know to be illegal, that's conspiracy. He's not charged because he built a compartment; any activity that he would have participated in which would contribute...knowingly...to an illegal enterprise would fit the bill here. He's charged because he knew something wrong was going on, it involved him, and he said nothing to the police. If the criminals had somehow needed a hot fudge sundae to commit a criminal act, and he'd provided the ice cream knowing what would happen, the name of this article would be "Make a sundae, go to jail." I don't see the problem here. Furthermore, Anaya had serious concerns about his customer before he even did the work in the first place..."Anaya was unsettled by this request, for he had suspicions about the nature of Esteban’s work."
But guess what? None of that is the REAL thing he's caught for. After all of that...what happens? Esteban...the guy with almost a million dollars in cash hidden in his truck...is asked by Esteban to install a similar compartment in ANOTHER truck. I mean, come on...
Yeah, maybe Esteban just had a really lucrative paper route...
Right. They want your services so bad because it's not all that important to them. You're not helping with the narcotics trade...nooooo...
FUCK.
Them.
If there are so many people who are so hate-filled towards them, you'd think those assholes would take that as a hint.
ya, the police here are like totally knuckleheads them moonites are da bomb and they should have totally left them up instead of harrazing regular kids like us
oh heay do yaz have teh address for tonights house concert my bff isnt answering her mobile phone and i cant read the address she faxed me kthanxbai i appreciate the 411 loveya oxoxoxox
-
Why, sure, dude...here it is! Just come on over...party starts at 4 PM on Friday.
OK, I can see why cops go undercover to prevent murders and bank robberies and such, but to head off noise complaints? Is there some reason why simply to responding to noise complaints isn't enough? Are there no longer any murders, rapes, and robberies in Boston to investigate or prevent? What a waste.
These are the chuckleheads who found lite-brites with pictures of Mooninites (from Aqua Teen Hunger Force) around the city, and treated them like some kind of nuclear bomb with a ticking clock.
gizmodo and "evidence" are an oxymoron aren't they? Anything under Gawker is suspect, and giz has always been gutter level.
If I hadn't just posted twice, I would mod this up in agreement. Gizmodo is a blog that posts gadget-related rumors and the like...and even then they suck up the snake oil like Robert Evans snorts cocaine.
Because the DNS servers are doing nothing wrong.
The problem is that people can spoof source addresses (because ISPs arent stopping it). Fix this issue, and youll still have to worry about any of a million other scenarios where a small request gets a lot of data back.
All you have to do is make sure source addresses are filtered when they hit the ISP, and the huge majority of these issues (as well as being able to cloak where an attack came from) go away.
Actually, they are. The feature being leveraged here is that the servers are performing recursive lookups for domains that they do not control for the open Internet; BIND turns this off, by default, starting with version 9.4. The problem is that a lot of 9.3.X and older DNS servers are still out there, as well as a lot of bad network architecture jobs. The servers should only handle recursion for IP addresses that are on the inside. And as for the spoofing? Well, ingress filtering is trivial to do at the border. And these two things in concert shut this problem down entirely.
Trust me...it's not that simple. For one, there usually isn't an email to send to...there may be one listed somewhere, but it may not be real or nobody may read it. But on top of that, who is this "they" you are referring to...Spamhaus? So, Spamhaus should do a lookup on every single DNS server that is hammering them during the largest DDoS in history, find the abuse email address for each of them, and send them an email? All while getting hit with the biggest DDoS ever?
To get a sense of why abuse email accounts get ignored in a lot of organizations, Google 'site:sans.edu abuse' and read the first 5 or six articles.
Oh, please, stop the whining already. Big cities like DC have always been dumps. It's what happens when you put a lot of people into a small space. If you don't like it, move out; I did.
There's no problem with infrastructure around here (a mid-size town). It's paid out of local taxes, it's reasonably up-to-date, and it has nothing to do with wars-on-anything or "corporate entities". Getting electricity, heat, water, and Internet to homes is neither rocket science nor particularly expensive.
You might want to actually come to DC sometime soon. It's actually (depending on whose figures) the cleanest or second-cleanest city in the nation, and patently gorgeous. And I honestly don't know what's up with this whole article; the "exploding manhole" problem hasn't been a problem for a while now, at least several years. They got a handle on it quite some time ago...along with a lot of other things that started getting fixed once Marion Barry got taken off the playing field.
And if you don't think that getting electricity to homes is a challenge, I invite you to actually learn something about transmission and distribution. (We'll leave generation out of it for now...) It's actually incredibly challenging. The power grid grew into what it is now, with nobody ever having predicted how crucial it would be...and it's not like you can do a rip-and-replace upgrade.
Your idea of moving into more dispersed areas is actually counterproductive to that effect as well; just ask Allegheny Energy (which just got bought out by FirstEnergy, because they had so much trouble keeping profitable while serving a rural-only market, given the high costs of power delivery in that terrain). Look at it this way...what's more likely to get taken down in a snowstorm...one mile of subterranean power line in a city that connects a home to a substation, or ten miles that are all above ground in the woods? If it takes ten miles on average to feed each household instead of one, how is that cheaper?