The average number of years of cellphone use among participants is only 3 years.
The study covers analog phones, not the newer digital models, which may produce different effects.
It looks only at people who are already diagnosed with brain tumors, and not those who may be potentially developing them or whose tumors go undiagnosed.
The news is good for those of us who are using cellphones regardless of their possible consequences, but it's disappointing that better studies aren't being conducted. We need a study that looks at longer-term use (say 6 years) and which keeps up to date with the latest devices the same way the general population is doing. Unfortunately, such proper studies are years off.
What's a troll? That doesn't sound like something I want to be, so I'm hoping I'm not. How can I tell if I am? I thought cultural deengineering was about stealing others' information, not inventing your own. If people are giving out their own information, then they're just asking for trouble.
I hope you're joking about the kitchen utensils. If they don't have their kitchen utensils, then they can't do any baking. Instead of being Jimmy the Snake, you'd be Jimmy the Baker. That sounds like a stupid name.
So you get to dress up like an anime character, right? Isn't that a big departure from the historical cultural purpose of anime: the appreciation of innovative graphic arts? If you're wearing that helmet then doesn't it make it harder to read the comics?
I'm staring at the pictures, and I can't get the impression out of my head that anime has devolved into Power Rangers. The storyline may be more sophisticated and the drawings might be cleaner, but if you take it off the page and dress a grown man in it, then it ends up looking like Power Rangers. That can't be good for the artform.
But how do you do that? You have to know personal information about people, and they don't like to give it out. You could try guessing, but it's not like everyone in the world is named James or something really common like that. And how do you call them on the phone when they're using their phone for dialing their ISPs? It sounds counterproductive.
I sit with these folks on IRC a lot (they tend to invade the rooms where I discuss serious matters like gardening). They're upfront about who they are, because it's all part of their persona. They crave attention. If you don't already know who they are, then they'll come out and tell you to your face. Why would they hide behind anonymity? What would they have to hide? And what good would come of it? Anonymous hacking gets you even fewer babes than regular hacking.
If you're suffering from credit-card fraud, then you should call up the company and tell them you're angry. They don't want to lose a customer and will almost always handle it right over the phone. Consumer Reports is a good place to look for a local agency if they're unresponsive. I don't see your point.
He's not a black hat, because he says he's not. Black hats are entirely too proud of their blackhat status and will flaunt it at every opportunity -- calling themselves a white hat would be counter to their mission in life of instilling fear. Besides, if you can't trust people on the net where stuff doesn't really matter, then where can you trust them?
How are they supposed to learn how to avoid something unless you first expose them to it? It's like all the kids who are developing asthma these days because their parents didn't let them get exposed to germs as toddlers -- their immune systems haven't developed the proper resistances.
If you don't expose them to filtering at home, then they'll have to learn about it in schools or libraries or otherwise "on the street". You won't be able to control the process like a proper parent would. If you don't teach them about it at home, then they might get the wrong idea elsewhere.
I found your subject funny -- it reminds me of a variation on the "T'was the night before Christmas" poem:
'Twas the night before Christmas, and all through the house
Not a computer was stirring, not even a mouse.
The hard drives were left on in each computer case
With a database for Santa, punched up in dBase...
There are two types of honeypots -- the passive kind and the reactive kind. The former merely sits there and alerts you when someone enters your system. The latter actually responds to the attack by reconfiguring your system to deny access to the intruder. The latter is a far better implementation.
The way reactive honey pots work is to tell the firewall to block access from the intruder's address, temporarily or even permanently. Linux really shines here, since the firewall code in the kernel is particularly well suited to this sort of solution, though you can accomplish the same effect with most any operating system. And for those who are even more adventuresome, reactive honey pots can be configured to flood the intruder's IP, denying access not only to your own machine but to all potential victims.
Passive honeypots are good as an information-gathering tool for measuring your visibility on the net and the current state of script-kiddy activity, but reactive honeypots are definitely the way to go. They're the proactive solution to a chronic problem.
The purpose of the criminal law is to punish crimes against the legal order, not to vindicate personal vendettas. The people you seem to want to punish are not roving bands of hooligans but more like door-to-door missionaries, who may be misguided but who certainly shouldn't be criminalized. They want to share their insight and help you, even if you can't see it that way.
The binding principle on statutory interpretation is the will of the legislature, Congress; not the constrained wording of the bill itself. Congress intends for such software to exist, and whether it does in reality is unfortunately irrelevant to whether the law may claim what it does.
At least as far as the funding is concerned, it's constitutional. The Federal government might not have any constitutional basis for telling local governments and states what to do, but it does have plenary power to raise whatever funding it wants and spend it generally.
Just look at highway funding: under 23 U.S.C. 158, a state which fails to comply and raise its minimum drinking age to twenty-one has 5% of its federal highway funds withheld during the first year of non-compliance and 10% of such funds withheld in each succeeding year. This is entirely constitutional, because the state always reserves the option of not caring and not receiving the funds it wouldn't have raised anyway.
The first-amendment issues are important and interesting. But unfortunately, they're the only constitutional issues relevant here.
Slashdot Mirror
The average number of years of cellphone use among participants is only 3 years.
The study covers analog phones, not the newer digital models, which may produce different effects.
It looks only at people who are already diagnosed with brain tumors, and not those who may be potentially developing them or whose tumors go undiagnosed.
The news is good for those of us who are using cellphones regardless of their possible consequences, but it's disappointing that better studies aren't being conducted. We need a study that looks at longer-term use (say 6 years) and which keeps up to date with the latest devices the same way the general population is doing. Unfortunately, such proper studies are years off.
What's a troll? That doesn't sound like something I want to be, so I'm hoping I'm not. How can I tell if I am? I thought cultural deengineering was about stealing others' information, not inventing your own. If people are giving out their own information, then they're just asking for trouble.
I hope you're joking about the kitchen utensils. If they don't have their kitchen utensils, then they can't do any baking. Instead of being Jimmy the Snake, you'd be Jimmy the Baker. That sounds like a stupid name.
So you get to dress up like an anime character, right? Isn't that a big departure from the historical cultural purpose of anime: the appreciation of innovative graphic arts? If you're wearing that helmet then doesn't it make it harder to read the comics?
I'm staring at the pictures, and I can't get the impression out of my head that anime has devolved into Power Rangers. The storyline may be more sophisticated and the drawings might be cleaner, but if you take it off the page and dress a grown man in it, then it ends up looking like Power Rangers. That can't be good for the artform.
But how do you do that? You have to know personal information about people, and they don't like to give it out. You could try guessing, but it's not like everyone in the world is named James or something really common like that. And how do you call them on the phone when they're using their phone for dialing their ISPs? It sounds counterproductive.
I sit with these folks on IRC a lot (they tend to invade the rooms where I discuss serious matters like gardening). They're upfront about who they are, because it's all part of their persona. They crave attention. If you don't already know who they are, then they'll come out and tell you to your face. Why would they hide behind anonymity? What would they have to hide? And what good would come of it? Anonymous hacking gets you even fewer babes than regular hacking.
If you're suffering from credit-card fraud, then you should call up the company and tell them you're angry. They don't want to lose a customer and will almost always handle it right over the phone. Consumer Reports is a good place to look for a local agency if they're unresponsive. I don't see your point.
He's not a black hat, because he says he's not. Black hats are entirely too proud of their blackhat status and will flaunt it at every opportunity -- calling themselves a white hat would be counter to their mission in life of instilling fear. Besides, if you can't trust people on the net where stuff doesn't really matter, then where can you trust them?
How are they supposed to learn how to avoid something unless you first expose them to it? It's like all the kids who are developing asthma these days because their parents didn't let them get exposed to germs as toddlers -- their immune systems haven't developed the proper resistances.
If you don't expose them to filtering at home, then they'll have to learn about it in schools or libraries or otherwise "on the street". You won't be able to control the process like a proper parent would. If you don't teach them about it at home, then they might get the wrong idea elsewhere.
I found your subject funny -- it reminds me of a variation on the "T'was the night before Christmas" poem:
'Twas the night before Christmas, and all through the house
Not a computer was stirring, not even a mouse.
The hard drives were left on in each computer case
With a database for Santa, punched up in dBase...
There are two types of honeypots -- the passive kind and the reactive kind. The former merely sits there and alerts you when someone enters your system. The latter actually responds to the attack by reconfiguring your system to deny access to the intruder. The latter is a far better implementation.
The way reactive honey pots work is to tell the firewall to block access from the intruder's address, temporarily or even permanently. Linux really shines here, since the firewall code in the kernel is particularly well suited to this sort of solution, though you can accomplish the same effect with most any operating system. And for those who are even more adventuresome, reactive honey pots can be configured to flood the intruder's IP, denying access not only to your own machine but to all potential victims.
Passive honeypots are good as an information-gathering tool for measuring your visibility on the net and the current state of script-kiddy activity, but reactive honeypots are definitely the way to go. They're the proactive solution to a chronic problem.
The purpose of the criminal law is to punish crimes against the legal order, not to vindicate personal vendettas. The people you seem to want to punish are not roving bands of hooligans but more like door-to-door missionaries, who may be misguided but who certainly shouldn't be criminalized. They want to share their insight and help you, even if you can't see it that way.
The binding principle on statutory interpretation is the will of the legislature, Congress; not the constrained wording of the bill itself. Congress intends for such software to exist, and whether it does in reality is unfortunately irrelevant to whether the law may claim what it does.
At least as far as the funding is concerned, it's constitutional. The Federal government might not have any constitutional basis for telling local governments and states what to do, but it does have plenary power to raise whatever funding it wants and spend it generally.
Just look at highway funding: under 23 U.S.C. 158, a state which fails to comply and raise its minimum drinking age to twenty-one has 5% of its federal highway funds withheld during the first year of non-compliance and 10% of such funds withheld in each succeeding year. This is entirely constitutional, because the state always reserves the option of not caring and not receiving the funds it wouldn't have raised anyway.
The first-amendment issues are important and interesting. But unfortunately, they're the only constitutional issues relevant here.