Your sentence is missing a word or two, or has a word or two replaced, so it's not entirely clear what you're saying. I -think- you're saying that you think of laser fiber connections as working like FM radio, where the data signal modulates the carrier. The actual frequency would then be the carrier frequency plus or minus the signal. Is that what you're saying?
What makes lasers special is that all of the light is at the same wavelength, so it doesn't disperse. The wavelength or frequency can't be readily modulated. Instead, the laser is pulsed, either directly by turning power on and off, or through a device that blocks the light similar to an LCD screen, called a electro-absorption modulator.
You're right, the words baseband and broadband actually do have definitions, they MEAN something. 10BASE-T, 100BASE-T are so named because they are10 and 100 meg BASEband transmission over telephone cable. Baseband means there is a signal frequency used, the data rate is the signaling rate.
BROADband means multiple channels are used. A cable modem may use four different (tv) channels at 2.5 Mbps signaling rate each to provide 10Mbps of data rate. A T1 is 24 channels of 64kbps each, so it's broadband, as is a 128kbps isdn connection (using two 64kbps channels).
Basic fiber optic connections use a single laser or led clocked at the data rate, so these fiber are baseband, not broadband.
You make a compelling argument, but you happen to be mistaken. See sections 113 and 114 in this FAA advisory. State and local governments can regulate helipads, via zoning or otherwise.
The FCC is more like what you imagine the FAA to be. Specifically, as noted in that FAA advisory, the FAA is legally charged with the SAFETY of air travel only. This is in contrast to the FCC, which has wide authority over anything related to radio spectrum. The ATF is somewhat the opposite- you have to certify your explosives storage complies with local and state law BEFORE they'll start the federal process.
My post was missing a word. The doctor prescribed birth control for the 15 year old. Because there was no criminal intent on his part, he was not an accessory.
I am now reminding you that child porn is a serious felony. Are you saying I'm an accessory to your possession of child porn?
The USC accessory statute requires three things for a person to be an accessory: Knowledge of the criminal conduct. Encouraging or assisting the conduct. Mens rea (guilty intent)
I don't have knowledge that you've done anything illegal. The Lupe case I cited reminds us that I still wouldn't know if I had seen you in possession of -questionable- material.
Reminding someone that it is a serious felony is DISCOURAGING the conduct, precisely the opposite of what defines am accessory.
Mens rea is perhaps best illustrated by an example. It was unlawful in a certain state to have sex with a teenager under a certain age (16, I think) - even if both parties were the same age. A doctor prescribed birth to a fifteen year old. Ruling: although the doctor knew that his action would facilitate unlawful activity, his intent was to protect the patient from unwanted pregnancy. No guilty intent, therefore he was not an accessory. Although some criminal acts don't require mens rea, accessory always does.
My first gut reaction was to agree with you. But then I realized that means anyone can build an airport (or after-hours nightclub) in the middle of any subdivision, there would be no zoning laws allowed. I'm not sure if that's a great idea or not.
I kind of like the current situation in Texas - cities have zoning, counties pretty much don't. So outside the city limits you can do what you want, within the city you have to be more mindful of how your actions effect neighbors next door. That lets you choose - do you want (enforced) peace and quiet, or do you want to be able to target practice in your back yard? You can either.
To assist both Edward and ladies who are interested in him, a special email address has been set up specifically to find Snowden's next girlfriend. After weeding out the fatties and the geriatrics, finalists will be reviewed by Snowden, for when he gets tired of his current GF.
Ladies, please send your nerd creds and nudes to gfsearch@raymorris.org .
> Those who use such a law as a tool for revenge or false incrimination or gaining the upper hand on political rivals or discrediting whistleblowers should be prosecuted 10X more severely than the holders (but not producers) of the "pornography" whether actual or perceived.
A FALSE accusation is obviously wrong. Heck, "thou shalt not bear false witness" is one of THE ten rules.
Further, I find that when I think I'm doing the right thing, it is often helpful to check my motives. On the other hand, you say reporting it to "gain the upper hand on political rivals" is ten times as bad as doing it. So if the Clinton campaign found out that Bernie Sanders is big into buying child porn, and they didn't sweep it under the rug, Clinton would be more guilty for reporting it than Sanders is for buying child porn? I'm not so sure.
If a person finds a collection of child porn, they should of course do the right thing. Having said that, I would think about a couple of things before calling the cops.
I would think about the guy who spent a couple of months in jail amd nearly spent years in prison over a DVD with 19-year old Lupe Fuentes. Lupe was a popular porn star ten years ago, with a wikipedia page about her, etc. A doctor and a police investigator both testified that the model in the video was "definitely" under age, when a five-second Google search would have told them she was 19 when that video was made.
The model, flew out to Puerto Rico to show her driver's license amd passport to the court, yet the defendant still was not released right away. I would not want to initiate a situation like that. Remember the doctor thought she was definitely underage, so I could make the same mistake.
I might also respond differently to finding a large, organized collection pf 8-10 year olds than I would to one picture that appeared to be about fifteen or sixteen. I imagine there might be some situation in which I would simply remind the person that child porn is felony carrying a hefty prison sentence, so they shouldn't go anywhere near it, or anything that might look like possible child porn.
> if this knocked out phone links also (and, if not, why they use separate links)?
A lot of cables have been laid over decades. Phone cables first, of course, sized to provide 64kbps or less per active phone conversation. The latest cables might be sized for 20,000kbps per user. So an old cable could provide for either A) 300,000 active international phone calls (30 million subscribers can have service available) or B) 1,000 people watching Netflix
If I'm running things, I'd use that last bit of bandwidth to continue phone service to 30 million people rather than let a thousand people watch Netflix.
Lenovo's root kit wasn't bad because of some obscure bug in Windows. Lenovo's root kit was bad because it was a root kit.
Once you assume that the manufacturer is going to purposely ruin the security the security of the device, unrelated bugs don't have much effect on that.
In other words, if the manufacturer puts a tautology on your device, your device will have a tautology on it.
Yes, if an OEM disabled the security model, that would be a security problem. Tautology much? That hasn't happened on any relevant device.
Oh I know, if the manufacturer installed a botnet malware and gave access to spammers, that would be a problem too! Oh my, a manufacturer could mess up the device the manufacturer!
> I'd personally like to see Apple very publicly give the finger to the CA legislature and make it extremely clear in very blunt terms that iPhones not being for sale there is the direct and exclusive result of the residents of the state electing retards and shills to make their laws. Losing CA for a year or two won't hurt them much, and will pay off big in the long run for future sales in CA as the voters stomp to the polls to vote with their iphones.
You say a year or two, I'm thinking it would take a week or two for Californians to get awfully pissed as they're told "sorry, it's illegal in California to sell you a smartphone. The only people who can change that are your state reps; here are there phone numbers."
Github provides a very nice UI running on free, publicly accessible servers, along with related things like issue trackers.
You CAN retrieve web pages via telnet, the HTTP protocol is plain text. Most people prefer a browser such as Firefox or Chrome. Git is the same - a nice UI on top of the open protocol makes things more pleasant.
Also, just as some (most?) people don't even know that it's possible to do "telnet slashdot.org 80" or "lynx http://slashdot.org/", many people don't know how git works either - they've AWLAYS used Github. If you want your project to be accessible to those people, you need to use Github or perhaps a similar site such as gitlab.
To clear up a common misconception, what the banks are doing is neither Bitcoin nor any new crypto-currency. It's just a way to keep track of US dollar transactions.
Right now, when you use your Bank of America card at a store and that store banks with Wells Fargo, BOA sends the money to Wells Fargo. At the same time, across the street, a Wells Fargo customer pays at a store which banks with BOA, so money flows the opposite direction. Millions of transactions moving in circles.
The idea is that it might be more efficient to use a block chain to keep track of how many dollars BOA owes Wells Fargo at the end of the day, rather than the databases they use now.
Customers won't see this. You still use your debit or credit card, issued by Bank A, to make purchases in USD as always. Later, it'll show up in the store's bank account at Bank B, just as it always has. What may change is how the dollars get from Bank A to Bank B, a process that's invisible to the customer.
A little door inside that back door? I suppose that would be a dog door.
But seriously, yes they do and that's the big concern. I've seen backdoors where the password was protected by unsalted MD5 hashing, which may have been reasonably secure when the code was written in 1996. Now, that can be cracked in less than 10 seconds, so I can access those backdoors. You could say the bad guys do indeed have a back door into the backdoor.
I don't pay any attention to fanless, but refurb Cisco and other high-end gear can often be had for a song. Liquid-8 Technology has some deals. http://stores.ebay.com/Liquid-...
Ads are how we've decided that web-based services are paid for, given the lack of convenient and efficient micro-payments. However, you don't need scripts to have ads. Static images or even text work just fine. Hell, ads printed in ink on paper have paid for newspapers for a hundred years or more. So to whatever extent ads are needed to pay for "free" web sites, that does NOT imply that third-party scripts are required.
In this case, the dispute is between the Anne Frank Foundation, which gives all proceeds to charity, and someone who wants to publish it online at no charge. I guess if you call giving money away to UNICEF "greed"...
Last month, a court ruled on this case. Under Dutch copyright law, a work first published posthumously before 1995 remains protected for 50 years after the initial publication. It was first published in 1986, so protection ends 50 years later, in 2036.
As may know, most small security applications have not been reviewed by someone truly qualified. Issues like what we see here with Last Pass are commonplace. It is very likely, almost certain, that you missed -something- when you developed your software. In fact, according to the little bit of text on your web site, you've made a grave mistake. Whoever wrote the text on the web site doesn't understand some basics of security, so if the same person who wrote the web site copy also designed the code, you have a problem.
If you haven't already, or maybe even if you have, I strongly suggest spending a few hundred dollars to have another set of experienced eyes review your code and design. If your application is relatively simple, it probably wouldn't take more than a few hours for someone to review it and point out any points of concern.
As may know, most small security applications have not been reviewed by someone truly qualified. Issues like what we see here with Last Pass are commonplace. It is very likely, almost certain, that you missed -something- when you developed your software.
If you haven't already, or maybe even if you have, I strongly suggest spending a couple hundred dollars to have another set of experienced eyes review your code. If your application is relatively simple, it probably wouldn't take more than a couple of hours for someone to review it and point out any points of concern.
Slashdot requests a password in the browser, but it's not affected the same way. First, Lastpass throws up a password prompt ON OTHER WEB SITES. You wouldn't enter your banking password on Slashdot.org. However, if Lastpass stores your bank Slashdot password, Lastpass will pop a dialog on Slashdot. You'll then enter your master password into "Lastpass" while you're on Slashdot. With any web-based service, you'd enter your password only on the legitimate site. Lastpass users enter their master password on arbitrary sites.
Secondly , getting the user to enter their ONE Lastpass master password allows the attacker to retrieve ALL of the passwords, for all other sites. So if you use Lastpass, an XSS attack against Slashdot would reveal your banking password.
Slashdot Mirror
Your sentence is missing a word or two, or has a word or two replaced, so it's not entirely clear what you're saying. I -think- you're saying that you think of laser fiber connections as working like FM radio, where the data signal modulates the carrier. The actual frequency would then be the carrier frequency plus or minus the signal. Is that what you're saying?
What makes lasers special is that all of the light is at the same wavelength, so it doesn't disperse. The wavelength or frequency can't be readily modulated. Instead, the laser is pulsed, either directly by turning power on and off, or through a device that blocks the light similar to an LCD screen, called a electro-absorption modulator.
So it's one single frequency, turned on and off.
You're right, the words baseband and broadband actually do have definitions, they MEAN something. 10BASE-T, 100BASE-T are so named because they are10 and 100 meg BASEband transmission over telephone cable. Baseband means there is a signal frequency used, the data rate is the signaling rate.
BROADband means multiple channels are used. A cable modem may use four different (tv) channels at 2.5 Mbps signaling rate each to provide 10Mbps of data rate. A T1 is 24 channels of 64kbps each, so it's broadband, as is a 128kbps isdn connection (using two 64kbps channels).
Basic fiber optic connections use a single laser or led clocked at the data rate, so these fiber are baseband, not broadband.
You make a compelling argument, but you happen to be mistaken. See sections 113 and 114 in this FAA advisory. State and local governments can regulate helipads, via zoning or otherwise.
http://www.faa.gov/documentlib...
The FCC is more like what you imagine the FAA to be. Specifically, as noted in that FAA advisory, the FAA is legally charged with the SAFETY of air travel only. This is in contrast to the FCC, which has wide authority over anything related to radio spectrum. The ATF is somewhat the opposite- you have to certify your explosives storage complies with local and state law BEFORE they'll start the federal process.
My post was missing a word. The doctor prescribed birth control for the 15 year old. Because there was no criminal intent on his part, he was not an accessory.
I am now reminding you that child porn is a serious felony.
Are you saying I'm an accessory to your possession of child porn?
The USC accessory statute requires three things for a person to be an accessory:
Knowledge of the criminal conduct.
Encouraging or assisting the conduct.
Mens rea (guilty intent)
I don't have knowledge that you've done anything illegal. The Lupe case I cited reminds us that I still wouldn't know if I had seen you in possession of -questionable- material.
Reminding someone that it is a serious felony is DISCOURAGING the conduct, precisely the opposite of what defines am accessory.
Mens rea is perhaps best illustrated by an example. It was unlawful in a certain state to have sex with a teenager under a certain age (16, I think) - even if both parties were the same age. A doctor prescribed birth to a fifteen year old. Ruling: although the doctor knew that his action would facilitate unlawful activity, his intent was to protect the patient from unwanted pregnancy. No guilty intent, therefore he was not an accessory. Although some criminal acts don't require mens rea, accessory always does.
My first gut reaction was to agree with you. But then I realized that means anyone can build an airport (or after-hours nightclub) in the middle of any subdivision, there would be no zoning laws allowed. I'm not sure if that's a great idea or not.
I kind of like the current situation in Texas - cities have zoning, counties pretty much don't. So outside the city limits you can do what you want, within the city you have to be more mindful of how your actions effect neighbors next door. That lets you choose - do you want (enforced) peace and quiet, or do you want to be able to target practice in your back yard? You can either.
To assist both Edward and ladies who are interested in him, a special email address has been set up specifically to find Snowden's next girlfriend. After weeding out the fatties and the geriatrics, finalists will be reviewed by Snowden, for when he gets tired of his current GF.
Ladies, please send your nerd creds and nudes to gfsearch@raymorris.org .
> Those who use such a law as a tool for revenge or false incrimination or gaining the upper hand on political rivals or discrediting whistleblowers should be prosecuted 10X more severely than the holders (but not producers) of the "pornography" whether actual or perceived.
A FALSE accusation is obviously wrong. Heck, "thou shalt not bear false witness" is one of THE ten rules.
Further, I find that when I think I'm doing the right thing, it is often helpful to check my motives. On the other hand, you say reporting it to "gain the upper hand on political rivals" is ten times as bad as doing it. So if the Clinton campaign found out that Bernie Sanders is big into buying child porn, and they didn't sweep it under the rug, Clinton would be more guilty for reporting it than Sanders is for buying child porn? I'm not so sure.
If a person finds a collection of child porn, they should of course do the right thing. Having said that, I would think about a couple of things before calling the cops.
I would think about the guy who spent a couple of months in jail amd nearly spent years in prison over a DVD with 19-year old Lupe Fuentes. Lupe was a popular porn star ten years ago, with a wikipedia page about her, etc. A doctor and a police investigator both testified that the model in the video was "definitely" under age, when a five-second Google search would have told them she was 19 when that video was made.
The model, flew out to Puerto Rico to show her driver's license amd passport to the court, yet the defendant still was not released right away. I would not want to initiate a situation like that. Remember the doctor thought she was definitely underage, so I could make the same mistake.
I might also respond differently to finding a large, organized collection pf 8-10 year olds than I would to one picture that appeared to be about fifteen or sixteen. I imagine there might be some situation in which I would simply remind the person that child porn is felony carrying a hefty prison sentence, so they shouldn't go anywhere near it, or anything that might look like possible child porn.
Thank you for that. So Guillain-Barre and microcephaly (abnormally small small heads), not to be confused with bureaucracy (abnormally small brains).
> if this knocked out phone links also (and, if not, why they use separate links)?
A lot of cables have been laid over decades. Phone cables first, of course, sized to provide 64kbps or less per active phone conversation. The latest cables might be sized for 20,000kbps per user. So an old cable could provide for either
A) 300,000 active international phone calls (30 million subscribers can have service available)
or
B) 1,000 people watching Netflix
If I'm running things, I'd use that last bit of bandwidth to continue phone service to 30 million people rather than let a thousand people watch Netflix.
Lenovo's root kit wasn't bad because of some obscure bug in Windows. Lenovo's root kit was bad because it was a root kit.
Once you assume that the manufacturer is going to purposely ruin the security the security of the device, unrelated bugs don't have much effect on that.
In other words, if the manufacturer puts a tautology on your device, your device will have a tautology on it.
> Bank A owed Bank B $10mil, and Bank B owed Bank A $9.5mil, so they wrote a cheque for $50k and all went to the pub for drinks.
If Bank B was happy with that $50k, I think the drinks came BEFORE the math. :)
> what if the manufacturers have disabled SELinux
Yes, if an OEM disabled the security model, that would be a security problem. Tautology much? That hasn't happened on any relevant device.
Oh I know, if the manufacturer installed a botnet malware and gave access to spammers, that would be a problem too! Oh my, a manufacturer could mess up the device the manufacturer!
> I'd personally like to see Apple very publicly give the finger to the CA legislature and make it extremely clear in very blunt terms that iPhones not being for sale there is the direct and exclusive result of the residents of the state electing retards and shills to make their laws. Losing CA for a year or two won't hurt them much, and will pay off big in the long run for future sales in CA as the voters stomp to the polls to vote with their iphones.
You say a year or two, I'm thinking it would take a week or two for Californians to get awfully pissed as they're told "sorry, it's illegal in California to sell you a smartphone. The only people who can change that are your state reps; here are there phone numbers."
Github provides a very nice UI running on free, publicly accessible servers, along with related things like issue trackers.
You CAN retrieve web pages via telnet, the HTTP protocol is plain text. Most people prefer a browser such as Firefox or Chrome. Git is the same - a nice UI on top of the open protocol makes things more pleasant.
Also, just as some (most?) people don't even know that it's possible to do "telnet slashdot.org 80" or "lynx http://slashdot.org/", many people don't know how git works either - they've AWLAYS used Github. If you want your project to be accessible to those people, you need to use Github or perhaps a similar site such as gitlab.
To clear up a common misconception, what the banks are doing is neither Bitcoin nor any new crypto-currency. It's just a way to keep track of US dollar transactions.
Right now, when you use your Bank of America card at a store and that store banks with Wells Fargo, BOA sends the money to Wells Fargo. At the same time, across the street, a Wells Fargo customer pays at a store which banks with BOA, so money flows the opposite direction. Millions of transactions moving in circles.
The idea is that it might be more efficient to use a block chain to keep track of how many dollars BOA owes Wells Fargo at the end of the day, rather than the databases they use now.
Customers won't see this. You still use your debit or credit card, issued by Bank A, to make purchases in USD as always. Later, it'll show up in the store's bank account at Bank B, just as it always has. What may change is how the dollars get from Bank A to Bank B, a process that's invisible to the customer.
> Do the backdoors have little backdoors in them?
A little door inside that back door? I suppose that would be a dog door.
But seriously, yes they do and that's the big concern. I've seen backdoors where the password was protected by unsalted MD5 hashing, which may have been reasonably secure when the code was written in 1996. Now, that can be cracked in less than 10 seconds, so I can access those backdoors. You could say the bad guys do indeed have a back door into the backdoor.
I don't pay any attention to fanless, but refurb Cisco and other high-end gear can often be had for a song.
Liquid-8 Technology has some deals. http://stores.ebay.com/Liquid-...
Ads are how we've decided that web-based services are paid for, given the lack of convenient and efficient micro-payments. However, you don't need scripts to have ads. Static images or even text work just fine. Hell, ads printed in ink on paper have paid for newspapers for a hundred years or more. So to whatever extent ads are needed to pay for "free" web sites, that does NOT imply that third-party scripts are required.
This fix will make it harder to get my hot ex-gf's nudie pics.
> greed destroys history
In this case, the dispute is between the Anne Frank Foundation, which gives all proceeds to charity, and someone who wants to publish it online at no charge. I guess if you call giving money away to UNICEF "greed" ...
Last month, a court ruled on this case. Under Dutch copyright law, a work first published posthumously before 1995 remains protected for 50 years after the initial publication. It was first published in 1986, so protection ends 50 years later, in 2036.
As may know, most small security applications have not been reviewed by someone truly qualified. Issues like what we see here with Last Pass are commonplace. It is very likely, almost certain, that you missed -something- when you developed your software. In fact, according to the little bit of text on your web site, you've made a grave mistake. Whoever wrote the text on the web site doesn't understand some basics of security, so if the same person who wrote the web site copy also designed the code, you have a problem.
If you haven't already, or maybe even if you have, I strongly suggest spending a few hundred dollars to have another set of experienced eyes review your code and design. If your application is relatively simple, it probably wouldn't take more than a few hours for someone to review it and point out any points of concern.
As may know, most small security applications have not been reviewed by someone truly qualified. Issues like what we see here with Last Pass are commonplace. It is very likely, almost certain, that you missed -something- when you developed your software.
If you haven't already, or maybe even if you have, I strongly suggest spending a couple hundred dollars to have another set of experienced eyes review your code. If your application is relatively simple, it probably wouldn't take more than a couple of hours for someone to review it and point out any points of concern.
Slashdot requests a password in the browser, but it's not affected the same way. First, Lastpass throws up a password prompt ON OTHER WEB SITES. You wouldn't enter your banking password on Slashdot.org. However, if Lastpass stores your bank Slashdot password, Lastpass will pop a dialog on Slashdot. You'll then enter your master password into "Lastpass" while you're on Slashdot. With any web-based service, you'd enter your password only on the legitimate site. Lastpass users enter their master password on arbitrary sites.
Secondly , getting the user to enter their ONE Lastpass master password allows the attacker to retrieve ALL of the passwords, for all other sites. So if you use Lastpass, an XSS attack against Slashdot would reveal your banking password.