While I absolutely agree that there's value to students being able to use/learn about drones...and I absolutely support this ruling...this raises an interesting question. Is the FAA now saying that drones are dangerous and need to be restricted for broad areas, except in cases where there's a school nearby? Are they saying that the school makes the drones somehow safer, even though they're being controlled by people who haven't had to register them?
The FAA's logic around drones and safety has been getting more and more twisted around, and this is just the latest example of why their restrictions are WAY too tight and need a bit of common sense inserted.
The dirty little secret of the laptop industry is that the big-name laptop brands - Dell, HP, Apple, Toshiba, etc. - do not actually make laptops. They're made by Taiwanese companies called ODMs - Original Design Manufacturers. They're like OEMs, except they also design the product. The brand name just slaps it in one of their boxes before re-shipping it to you. About the only thing the brand name tells you is what type of warranty service to expect. The entire industry is very secretive about this, and makes it nearly impossible to tell which ODM actually made each particular model laptop (most brands use multiple ODMs).
The Macbooks are made by Quanta (they're the only ODM Apple is currently using for their laptops; the old plastic Macbooks were made by Asus/Pegatron). Quanta also happens to make most of HP's laptops. This is why all those "laptop reliability reports" which break it down by brand name are bunk.
True...and not true.
The implication of your post is that an HP is not really an HP, but something entirely designed, sourced, and built by another company but with HP's name on it. This is not the case. HP buys components from other companies, and other companies often do the manufacturing...but the design of the laptop, its specifications, and essentially everything that determines how good it is are entirely HP's doing. The same is (clearly) true of Apple. The fact that the manufacturing is outsourced isn't really germane; you'll never have an Apple and HP computer that, side-by-side, are entirely interchangeable.
Disclaimer: I used to work for HP. Please don't hold it against me...
Meh, not had your experience. HP's hardware is cheap, but my PC, my wife's PC, and wife's laptop (all HP) have turned out to be huge improvements on their various predecessors from Gateway, Acer, Lenovo, et al.
I just wish virtually all manufacturers, with the possible exception of Apple, who existed 20 years ago and had a reputation then for quality, weren't so much worse today (that's not a compliment aimed at Apple BTW, their hardware 15 years ago was pretty awful.)
What's the current percentage detected by a human or machine? Article and summary suggest this is a 3x improvement over... benchmarks of some sort.
If we are detecting 85,000 out of 100,000 instead of 23,000 out of 100,000, then yes I'd say champagne is called for.
How many breaches go undetected now? I know the number is greater than zero (Though over time it approaches zero as most breaches are found out eventually) if the AI can prevent my credit card number from being hijacked I'll support that.
You asked the magic question. While the post you were replying to seems to think that anything that isn't perfect (or really close to it) is a waste, you're asking the real question which is: "Is it better that current state of the art, and if so, by how much?"
The problem from the article is that they don't define what comprises an "attack." If you go very granular, each packet from a portscanner that's fired off against your public-facing architecture qualifies as an attack..though this definition has a signal-to-noise ratio so bad that it's useless. If you take a broad view, then a sustained APT-like campaign by a single actor against you...with all of the various probing and striking activities that are involved...comprises a single attack. I suspect that this solution lands somewhere in between, but much closer to the former than the latter. If so, then it may detect a lot more, but with a huge "so what?" factor since the attacks themselves will lack a lot of context.
Realistically, a vast amount of successful attack activity isn't detected anywhere close to the time it takes place. A recent study showed that over 90% of recent breaches resulted from exploitation of a handful of vulnerabilities, many of which are very old (and none of which were zero-day). This is a huge improvement over what's currently available, by a multiple factor that could range from single digits to orders of magnitude...again, based on the definition of "attack."
"Members of the British scientific community cast their votes on what to call members of the general population. The winning choice by a long margin was 'Retard McFatFucks'."
I sure hope none of that is news to anyone, because it's what "classified" has meant for at least the last 70 years and probably a lot longer.
Anyone who thinks that "classified" means something like super duper secret is either uninformed or an idiot.
Well put.
Another thing that many people are failing to mention is that the classified information that was in the emails wasn't classified at the time the emails were written and sent. This means two things: one, that Clinton is pretty much in the clear with regard to any potential prosecution, and two, that even if she'd not used a personal email server, in all likelihood the information still would have ended up on a system that was not accredited to hold classified information. This happens all the time; it's an unavoidable side effect of the way things work, since information is often classified long after it's been discussed in some way.
You know how many recalls companies like Honda or GM deal with in a year?? A b0rked third-row seat 'aint nuthin.
Also, this was probably not a design flaw. Given the specifics of the recall, I'm guessing it's a situation where the manufacturing tolerances slipped, or needed to be changed.
As others are pointing out, this kind of thing happens all the time, to every car manufacturer. If a proactive recall against a subset of the Model 3 population would prove disastrous for Tesla, then they need to get out of the car industry...because it's going to happen.
"Further analysis, which might require a warrant, could be necessary to determine whether such usage was via hands-free dashboard technology and to confirm the original finding."
So you'd potentially be declared guilty of driving whilst distracted until a warrant was obtained to determine that you were using hands-free?
One would think that since they're already in the device that such a thing could easily be determined.
You wouldn't be declared anything; the process is like a series of sieves.
First check: was the driver using the phone at all?
If "yes," then file for a warrant and proceed to second check; if "no," then the driver has been cleared of driving while distracted (by phone)
Second check: was the driver using a hands-free feature, or using the phone in a manner that would require the phone to be held and/or manipulated at the time of the crash?
If "hands free = yes" then the driver has been cleared. If "hands free = no" then you have evidence of guilt.
The reason why the whole "already in the device" idea doesn't quite cut it is that the Cellebrite solution doesn't actually show the content in question. The second step of the test is partially tied to the content on the device in a way that *probably* falls within Fourth Amendment protections and concerns. So Cellebrite is taking the high road and playing it safe. Good for them.
When asked if the hack would work on the newest versions of iPhones, which use a feature called "secure enclave," Comey shook his head "no," and his wooden nose swept everything off of his desk and onto the floor.
If he was not under oath, he could lie easily. If he was, however, then he probably was telling the truth — lawmen tend to take that sort of thing seriously.
But he was quite explicit about continuing to search for other methods... The man is doing his job, I would not be jeering the way you do.
Half true. I heard of lawyers who were disbarred for lying under oath, and as a result lawyers take it seriously.
However, prosecutors do lie all the time, and get away with it. It's a rare judge who calls them to account for it.
http://www.slate.com/articles/... For Shame The criminal justice system encourages prosecutors to get guilty verdicts by any means necessary—and to stand by even the most questionable convictions. Can one crusading court stop the lying and cheating? By Lara Bazelon Slate April 7 2016
Cops, on the other hand, lie routinely, and almost always get away with it, even when they get caught on video. It happens in New York City all the time.
There was a demonstration against the Iraq war, where among their many violations of the Bill of Rights, the pigsxxxcops indiscriminately arrested people who were on the steps of the New York Public Library, demonstrators and uninvolved bystanders alike, and charged them with assaulting an officer.
Assaulting an officer is a felony, and if they insisted on defending themselves in court, they would have to pay thousands of dollars in legal fees, and would have been likely to get a felony conviction and a jail term, since juries usually believe pigsxxxxcops over defendants. So the prosecutor forces them to plead guilty to a misdemeanor that they never committed.
This time, there were videos, including the pigs' own videos, as well as the videos taken by bystanders, which clearly showed that the defendants weren't assaulting an officer, but instead were assaulted by the pigs without justification. I think they may have sued the city for false arrest. But I know that none of the pigs were charged with perjury. I once heard a city official on the radio explaining why they didn't. He said cops sign affadavits under oath all the time that they had seen a crime when they really didn't. In other words, the "everybody does it" defense. They basically admitted that cops routinely lie. One good thing that came out of it is that those cops can never appear on the witness stand themselves, because the dense lawyer can always bring up their false statements under oath in the past.
I think you're getting something mixed up. When trying a case, lawyers are not under oath; in fact, they're never under oath in that capacity. They aren't testifying...in fact, except in very rare circumstances (and even then, against standard advice and professional guidance) they aren't even parties to the criminal or civil matter being discussed and thus they *couldn't* testify because they have no direct knowledge of the case. Everything they know is what was told to them by someone who is a direct party.
I'm not a fan of the way the criminal justice system tries every dirty trick in the book to go after people. But let's focus on the problems that actually do exist, rather than making up ones that don't.
El Cheapo Cables Inc. would just call themselves Sir Cheap Cables Inc. and signup again.
Exactly. They'd be a moving target with a series of company names and you'd never know if they were legit or not.
Yes, but this is not trivial in terms of either cost or time. For them to have to re-apply to be a vendor on Amazon just to sell cheap cables is probably not worth it.
There are ways to overcome every possible obstacle that Amazon could throw in their path. The point isn't to produce one that cannot be overcome, but to produce one that is hard enough to keep it from being worthwhile to keep trying.
Well I hope someone puts up a torrent of the damn thing. The only way I'd even remotely think about ever using Windows 10 is if I had the same copy DoD considers secure enough to use.
Because a pirated copy of software you downloaded via Bittorrent couldn't possibly be trojaned, and must be safer than what's been implemented by hundreds of millions of people (and tested/RE'd by thousands, if not tens of thousands)?
It's not that everybody must, it's that most should.
A lot of people are really unfathomably stupid. And they could increase their intelligence by probably an order of magnitude if they internalized a few important additional mental patterns. One of those is if-then statements.
If A then B. If C then not D. Just the idea of reacting intelligently, of planning ahead a little bit and choosing an action based on what happens, rather than intuiting your way through life.
Of course almost nobody is going to do that all the time, and that's good because habits and ignorance save a lot of time and can make life much more practical. But people should have the chance to learn.
Whether you say "must" or "should" doesn't matter. Most either "must not" or "should not."
The problem, as I see it, is that people who are themselves not enormously computer-literate are imagining what would make them so, and then foisting it upon others. There's a lot of things that should be taught about computer science: basic communications, architecture from a high level (database, application server, web server, browser), and the parts of a computer. This is analogous to how in driver's ed we learned about the parts of a car. But teaching to code is like that driver's ed class teaching metallurgy or weight engineering; just as neither of those skills are necessary for a driver, learning to code has no real benefit to the average computer user.
So if Apple pays the hackers $10,000 then the hackers won't go to the FBI when the FBI offers them $100,000?
What if Spectre pays the hackers one millyun dollars? Would you then write an article about how it's Apple's fault they wrote those bugs in the first place allowing crime and not paying enough a bounty so that good and noble heroic autobot white hat hackers could get paid for their awesome work?
You're onto part of the real point here...but only part of it. Cellebrite already makes their living doing this kind of thing; they're the primary producer of forensic tools for mobile devices. They used to do iPhones, back before it got so hard to hack them that it wasn't worth their time any longer. When troops in the field capture cellular devices and they want to know what is in them? They plug them into a Cellebrite device.
So, 1, Cellebrite isn't 'hackers,' it's a company with a business model that focuses on pulling data out of devices when you don't have the PIN to unlock them. And 2, a bug bounty program isn't meant to deter companies from producing forensic tools.
GPOs generally do nothing more than apply local polices which generally do nothing more than force certain registry entries.
If a GPO exists, it's because a registry entry that it can tweak exists. Generally, it takes no more than a Google or a dig through an admx file to find out the registry entry that they correspond to.
Slashdot comment system will munge it but open any ADMX and you see this:
There's an important distinction here, though...it has to do with who applies the local policy that generally does nothing more than force certain registry entries. Those parts of the registry can be locked down such that nothing that runs in the context of the human user at the system can change them, even though the machine account that enforces GPOs can. You can even take this so far as to preserve most administrator-level rights so that the end-user can still run shitty software or install the latest version of the WebEx client when they need to join that conference call, without their (or any malware they open) having edit access to those registry values.
Microsoft needs to take this one step farther. It would be extremely easy to create a macro that would write a file locally (for example, in JavaScript) that would, in turn, retrieve data from the Internet. So simply to keep the macro from accessing the Internet is not quite enough.
Broadcasting on the shortwaves is rapidly dying, and everything that can be heard there is available on internet with much better quality. Ham radio chit-chat on shortwaves is just plain boring, and the remaining stuff isn't intended to be listened (i.e. it is strongly encrypted). I really wonder why they are so eager to crowdfund this project.
Okay...but this isn't shortwave. Actually, 30Mhz and below is very, very longwave, as long as it gets.
Slashdot Mirror
At least there'll be something at Wendy's that's now one step closer to passing a Turing test.
While I absolutely agree that there's value to students being able to use/learn about drones...and I absolutely support this ruling...this raises an interesting question. Is the FAA now saying that drones are dangerous and need to be restricted for broad areas, except in cases where there's a school nearby? Are they saying that the school makes the drones somehow safer, even though they're being controlled by people who haven't had to register them?
The FAA's logic around drones and safety has been getting more and more twisted around, and this is just the latest example of why their restrictions are WAY too tight and need a bit of common sense inserted.
The dirty little secret of the laptop industry is that the big-name laptop brands - Dell, HP, Apple, Toshiba, etc. - do not actually make laptops. They're made by Taiwanese companies called ODMs - Original Design Manufacturers. They're like OEMs, except they also design the product. The brand name just slaps it in one of their boxes before re-shipping it to you. About the only thing the brand name tells you is what type of warranty service to expect. The entire industry is very secretive about this, and makes it nearly impossible to tell which ODM actually made each particular model laptop (most brands use multiple ODMs).
The Macbooks are made by Quanta (they're the only ODM Apple is currently using for their laptops; the old plastic Macbooks were made by Asus/Pegatron). Quanta also happens to make most of HP's laptops. This is why all those "laptop reliability reports" which break it down by brand name are bunk.
True...and not true.
The implication of your post is that an HP is not really an HP, but something entirely designed, sourced, and built by another company but with HP's name on it. This is not the case. HP buys components from other companies, and other companies often do the manufacturing...but the design of the laptop, its specifications, and essentially everything that determines how good it is are entirely HP's doing. The same is (clearly) true of Apple. The fact that the manufacturing is outsourced isn't really germane; you'll never have an Apple and HP computer that, side-by-side, are entirely interchangeable.
Disclaimer: I used to work for HP. Please don't hold it against me...
Meh, not had your experience. HP's hardware is cheap, but my PC, my wife's PC, and wife's laptop (all HP) have turned out to be huge improvements on their various predecessors from Gateway, Acer, Lenovo, et al.
I just wish virtually all manufacturers, with the possible exception of Apple, who existed 20 years ago and had a reputation then for quality, weren't so much worse today (that's not a compliment aimed at Apple BTW, their hardware 15 years ago was pretty awful.)
Wow...there's a marketing slogan for you:
"Better than an old Gateway."
Yeah, you'll raise the roof with that one!
Meanwhile, terrorists are smart enough not to label a money transfer as ISIS BOMB FUNDING.
Actually, not all of them are. Just the ones that are around long enough to be noticed by anyone besides the people that hunt them.
Remember, terrorists are not super-human. Just like everyone else, 50% of them have a double-digit IQ.
What's the current percentage detected by a human or machine? ... benchmarks of some sort.
Article and summary suggest this is a 3x improvement over
If we are detecting 85,000 out of 100,000 instead of 23,000 out of 100,000, then yes I'd say champagne is called for.
How many breaches go undetected now? I know the number is greater than zero (Though over time it approaches zero as most breaches are found out eventually) if the AI can prevent my credit card number from being hijacked I'll support that.
You asked the magic question. While the post you were replying to seems to think that anything that isn't perfect (or really close to it) is a waste, you're asking the real question which is: "Is it better that current state of the art, and if so, by how much?"
The problem from the article is that they don't define what comprises an "attack." If you go very granular, each packet from a portscanner that's fired off against your public-facing architecture qualifies as an attack..though this definition has a signal-to-noise ratio so bad that it's useless. If you take a broad view, then a sustained APT-like campaign by a single actor against you...with all of the various probing and striking activities that are involved...comprises a single attack. I suspect that this solution lands somewhere in between, but much closer to the former than the latter. If so, then it may detect a lot more, but with a huge "so what?" factor since the attacks themselves will lack a lot of context.
Realistically, a vast amount of successful attack activity isn't detected anywhere close to the time it takes place. A recent study showed that over 90% of recent breaches resulted from exploitation of a handful of vulnerabilities, many of which are very old (and none of which were zero-day). This is a huge improvement over what's currently available, by a multiple factor that could range from single digits to orders of magnitude...again, based on the definition of "attack."
Apparently the announcement only sounds like a good idea if you wear 3D glasses while reading it.
"Members of the British scientific community cast their votes on what to call members of the general population. The winning choice by a long margin was 'Retard McFatFucks'."
I sure hope none of that is news to anyone, because it's what "classified" has meant for at least the last 70 years and probably a lot longer.
Anyone who thinks that "classified" means something like super duper secret is either uninformed or an idiot.
Well put.
Another thing that many people are failing to mention is that the classified information that was in the emails wasn't classified at the time the emails were written and sent. This means two things: one, that Clinton is pretty much in the clear with regard to any potential prosecution, and two, that even if she'd not used a personal email server, in all likelihood the information still would have ended up on a system that was not accredited to hold classified information. This happens all the time; it's an unavoidable side effect of the way things work, since information is often classified long after it's been discussed in some way.
You know how many recalls companies like Honda or GM deal with in a year?? A b0rked third-row seat 'aint nuthin.
Also, this was probably not a design flaw. Given the specifics of the recall, I'm guessing it's a situation where the manufacturing tolerances slipped, or needed to be changed.
As others are pointing out, this kind of thing happens all the time, to every car manufacturer. If a proactive recall against a subset of the Model 3 population would prove disastrous for Tesla, then they need to get out of the car industry...because it's going to happen.
Or, I could RTFA.
"Further analysis, which might require a warrant, could be necessary to determine whether such usage was via hands-free dashboard technology and to confirm the original finding."
So you'd potentially be declared guilty of driving whilst distracted until a warrant was obtained to determine that you were using hands-free?
One would think that since they're already in the device that such a thing could easily be determined.
You wouldn't be declared anything; the process is like a series of sieves.
First check: was the driver using the phone at all?
If "yes," then file for a warrant and proceed to second check; if "no," then the driver has been cleared of driving while distracted (by phone)
Second check: was the driver using a hands-free feature, or using the phone in a manner that would require the phone to be held and/or manipulated at the time of the crash?
If "hands free = yes" then the driver has been cleared. If "hands free = no" then you have evidence of guilt.
The reason why the whole "already in the device" idea doesn't quite cut it is that the Cellebrite solution doesn't actually show the content in question. The second step of the test is partially tied to the content on the device in a way that *probably* falls within Fourth Amendment protections and concerns. So Cellebrite is taking the high road and playing it safe. Good for them.
Oh, I'm not so sure. I believe that this will be the scourge of unicorns everywhere...especially ones named "Charlie."
Putin is thought to be the richest man in the world. I suspect the rackets in the Panama Papers were too low-tier for him, not even worth his effort.
I thought the Chinese Premier was there? Who's there that China is aggressively censoring any mention of Panama fright now?
You should read more about what was in those papers. Putin's holdings are about $2 billion. That's not low-tier.
When asked if the hack would work on the newest versions of iPhones, which use a feature called "secure enclave," Comey shook his head "no," and his wooden nose swept everything off of his desk and onto the floor.
If he was not under oath, he could lie easily. If he was, however, then he probably was telling the truth — lawmen tend to take that sort of thing seriously.
But he was quite explicit about continuing to search for other methods... The man is doing his job, I would not be jeering the way you do.
Half true. I heard of lawyers who were disbarred for lying under oath, and as a result lawyers take it seriously.
However, prosecutors do lie all the time, and get away with it. It's a rare judge who calls them to account for it.
http://www.slate.com/articles/...
For Shame
The criminal justice system encourages prosecutors to get guilty verdicts by any means necessary—and to stand by even the most questionable convictions. Can one crusading court stop the lying and cheating?
By Lara Bazelon
Slate
April 7 2016
Cops, on the other hand, lie routinely, and almost always get away with it, even when they get caught on video. It happens in New York City all the time.
There was a demonstration against the Iraq war, where among their many violations of the Bill of Rights, the pigsxxxcops indiscriminately arrested people who were on the steps of the New York Public Library, demonstrators and uninvolved bystanders alike, and charged them with assaulting an officer.
Assaulting an officer is a felony, and if they insisted on defending themselves in court, they would have to pay thousands of dollars in legal fees, and would have been likely to get a felony conviction and a jail term, since juries usually believe pigsxxxxcops over defendants. So the prosecutor forces them to plead guilty to a misdemeanor that they never committed.
This time, there were videos, including the pigs' own videos, as well as the videos taken by bystanders, which clearly showed that the defendants weren't assaulting an officer, but instead were assaulted by the pigs without justification. I think they may have sued the city for false arrest. But I know that none of the pigs were charged with perjury. I once heard a city official on the radio explaining why they didn't. He said cops sign affadavits under oath all the time that they had seen a crime when they really didn't. In other words, the "everybody does it" defense. They basically admitted that cops routinely lie. One good thing that came out of it is that those cops can never appear on the witness stand themselves, because the dense lawyer can always bring up their false statements under oath in the past.
I think you're getting something mixed up. When trying a case, lawyers are not under oath; in fact, they're never under oath in that capacity. They aren't testifying...in fact, except in very rare circumstances (and even then, against standard advice and professional guidance) they aren't even parties to the criminal or civil matter being discussed and thus they *couldn't* testify because they have no direct knowledge of the case. Everything they know is what was told to them by someone who is a direct party.
I'm not a fan of the way the criminal justice system tries every dirty trick in the book to go after people. But let's focus on the problems that actually do exist, rather than making up ones that don't.
El Cheapo Cables Inc. would just call themselves Sir Cheap Cables Inc. and signup again.
Exactly. They'd be a moving target with a series of company names and you'd never know if they were legit or not.
Yes, but this is not trivial in terms of either cost or time. For them to have to re-apply to be a vendor on Amazon just to sell cheap cables is probably not worth it.
There are ways to overcome every possible obstacle that Amazon could throw in their path. The point isn't to produce one that cannot be overcome, but to produce one that is hard enough to keep it from being worthwhile to keep trying.
Well I hope someone puts up a torrent of the damn thing. The only way I'd even remotely think about ever using Windows 10 is if I had the same copy DoD considers secure enough to use.
Because a pirated copy of software you downloaded via Bittorrent couldn't possibly be trojaned, and must be safer than what's been implemented by hundreds of millions of people (and tested/RE'd by thousands, if not tens of thousands)?
Yeah, that's good thinkin'.
Stop This Everybody Must...stuff
It's not that everybody must, it's that most should.
A lot of people are really unfathomably stupid. And they could increase their intelligence by probably an order of magnitude if they internalized a few important additional mental patterns. One of those is if-then statements.
If A then B. If C then not D. Just the idea of reacting intelligently, of planning ahead a little bit and choosing an action based on what happens, rather than intuiting your way through life.
Of course almost nobody is going to do that all the time, and that's good because habits and ignorance save a lot of time and can make life much more practical. But people should have the chance to learn.
Whether you say "must" or "should" doesn't matter. Most either "must not" or "should not."
The problem, as I see it, is that people who are themselves not enormously computer-literate are imagining what would make them so, and then foisting it upon others. There's a lot of things that should be taught about computer science: basic communications, architecture from a high level (database, application server, web server, browser), and the parts of a computer. This is analogous to how in driver's ed we learned about the parts of a car. But teaching to code is like that driver's ed class teaching metallurgy or weight engineering; just as neither of those skills are necessary for a driver, learning to code has no real benefit to the average computer user.
So if Apple pays the hackers $10,000 then the hackers won't go to the FBI when the FBI offers them $100,000?
What if Spectre pays the hackers one millyun dollars? Would you then write an article about how it's Apple's fault they wrote those bugs in the first place allowing crime and not paying enough a bounty so that good and noble heroic autobot white hat hackers could get paid for their awesome work?
You're onto part of the real point here...but only part of it. Cellebrite already makes their living doing this kind of thing; they're the primary producer of forensic tools for mobile devices. They used to do iPhones, back before it got so hard to hack them that it wasn't worth their time any longer. When troops in the field capture cellular devices and they want to know what is in them? They plug them into a Cellebrite device.
So, 1, Cellebrite isn't 'hackers,' it's a company with a business model that focuses on pulling data out of devices when you don't have the PIN to unlock them. And 2, a bug bounty program isn't meant to deter companies from producing forensic tools.
This makes me think of one of the funnier things that a friend of mine once said:
"Watching porn in HDTV was a baaaaaad idea..."
at an Office Depot, threatening to throw himself into a paper shredder. He's taking the news very badly.
And standing in front of him was a long-time Office user, getting his revenge:
"I see you're trying to kill yourself. Would you like help with that?"
GPOs generally do nothing more than apply local polices which generally do nothing more than force certain registry entries.
If a GPO exists, it's because a registry entry that it can tweak exists. Generally, it takes no more than a Google or a dig through an admx file to find out the registry entry that they correspond to.
Slashdot comment system will munge it but open any ADMX and you see this:
ANGLE BRACKET policy name="L_Underlinehyperlinks" class="User" displayName="$(string.L_Underlinehyperlinks)" explainText="$(string.L_UnderlinehyperlinksExplain)" key="Software\Policies\Microsoft\Office\12.0\Access\Internet" valueName="DoNotUnderlineHyperlinks" ANGLE BRACKET
There's an important distinction here, though...it has to do with who applies the local policy that generally does nothing more than force certain registry entries. Those parts of the registry can be locked down such that nothing that runs in the context of the human user at the system can change them, even though the machine account that enforces GPOs can. You can even take this so far as to preserve most administrator-level rights so that the end-user can still run shitty software or install the latest version of the WebEx client when they need to join that conference call, without their (or any malware they open) having edit access to those registry values.
Microsoft needs to take this one step farther. It would be extremely easy to create a macro that would write a file locally (for example, in JavaScript) that would, in turn, retrieve data from the Internet. So simply to keep the macro from accessing the Internet is not quite enough.
Broadcasting on the shortwaves is rapidly dying, and everything that can be heard there is available on internet with much better quality. Ham radio chit-chat on shortwaves is just plain boring, and the remaining stuff isn't intended to be listened (i.e. it is strongly encrypted). I really wonder why they are so eager to crowdfund this project.
Okay...but this isn't shortwave. Actually, 30Mhz and below is very, very longwave, as long as it gets.
North Korean ICBM launch codes have been known to be transmitted in the clear betweeen 15-50 MHz.
Yeah, but everyone already knows what they both are, now.