Um, have you read anything at all about this case? No one has asked Apple to insert a backdoor. The FBI has asked Apple to write a program that:
1. Remains in memory
2. Only Apple has access to
3. Allows the FBI to use unlimited guesses on the PIN
4. Allows the FBI to use a custom pin entry through the Thunderbolt port
Nowhere in there is a request for a backdoor on every phone, nor does the FBI want a generic backdoor they can use whenever they want. In fact, the first item is because the FBI doesn't want anyone to claim they can reverse engineer the backdoor from the firmware.
You are a moron, or a liar, or both.
Unlimited access to the pin IS a backdoor. There is no functional equivalent between one iPhone 5c with one serial number and another. The claim that the software can't be used on a different iPhone 5c is an unmitigated lie.
Maybe, just maybe it has something to do with our (USA) penchant for starting fights with the entire fucking planet
Are you implying the US is going to start a fight with Japan?
It's more likely that the Japanese realize that after 8 years of jug-eared pussification the US is unwilling to help them if the chinese or norks start to mess with them and that they are likely going to have to do it themselves.
I look forward to the Neo Japanese Robotic Warlords.
Also describing it as a "global cooling scare" is far overstating the case. The paper merely notes the cooling of the time as a datapoint of interest. Perhaps you're confusing it with sensationalist media reports?
The paper was not the "global cooling" scare.
Media, popularized "science" articles, etc. made it into a "scare." Went on for a year or so... long enough for film strips in grade schools to cover the subject.
That event is one of the reasons people have such a hard time believing the same type of distortion by "science" articles and media now. Regardless of the actual science being done now days.
Bring them -- in roughly $100 batches -- to various CoinStar machines in your and the surrounding counties. Sure, you'll lose 11%, but that's 11% of free money.
Coinstar use would easily get him caught.
First, there are cameras IN them and pointed at them. Also, to get cash you get a voucher and go to the service desk where there is a camera (and probably showing of an ID.) So now you have lots of points of contact and an easy cross-reference.
The gift cards you could probably use (they print out a receipt with a code) but you can't sell those because to be verified, you give out the number and that's as good as the card. Plus, you have to ship stuff to your house for Amazon or whatever.
You DO need a front of some kind to make this work, or and obsession of some kind (like gambling in bars, a casino, or a coin op business like an "honor box").
Come to think of it, gambling machines in bars give out about 50% but that won't matter if what you put in is stolen.
Presumably casinos (never been to one) will give people bills in return for stacks of quarters, for when people win a reasonable amount of money?
You could go to a casino with a backpack full of quarters, spend a couple of hours then, there cash out with the money in your pack. Would obviously take a very long time to convert all the quarters into bills that way, though, and the casino's would get pretty suspicious pretty quickly.
Or, you could just feed your gambling habit with stolen quarters.
The summary seems to imply there was something fundamentally wrong with Google+, and that's why it didn't take off as Google had hoped. But is that really the case, or was Google+'s main obstacle just that Facebook already existed and was spectacularly successful?
The part that is fundamentally wrong, is the whole real name thing.
There must have been a whole crowd of people who told them it was a stupid, moronic, and retarded idea and they did it anyway.
I don't really care if Google knows my real name or not, but I'll be fucking goddamned if they are going to re-broadcast it without my permission or a way to opt out. FUCK THAT. And FUCK THEM.
North Korea is prepared for that. They have heavily fortified bunkers, hidden locations, and mobile artillery, so we don't actually know where they all are. In the first few minutes of bombardment, millions would die.
Will threaten for food.
I don't think there is an endgame, just the status quo with a small number of ultra-rich aristocrats very happy with the situation and a very large number of starving peasants unable to change it.
The Chinese are in a pretty bad position. They don't want democracy right at their door. They don't want to screw with the gravy train from the US and South Korea. Their strategic asset is fucking with their economic asset so they are going for a balance, but might have to choose which they lose.
China will bribe their way out of it like usual, and send food to the Norks.
Hell, get on Google Earth or Google Maps and review all the places they say there will be attacks from.
You'll find a few holes and tunnel entrances.
What you won't find, is fast deploy-able anti aircraft weapons. You won't find ports or ships to carry attackers. You won't find rail lines that can't be cut fast, and you won't find shit for infrastructure to support a war or a movement of troops. You won't find airfields of any merit. You won't find planes on any of the ones that are there that have moved in years. To attack, they'll have to WALK. Over MOUNTAINS.
Cluster bombs, dropped mines, and other simple stuff will stop them. Hell, drop FOOD behind the lines with a leaflet that says "we dropped all the food behind you." That's what they want anyway, that's the reason for all the threats.
Nothing will come of any of this. China will ship them some more food and they'll quiet down until the crops fail next year.
The idea has definitely been discussed. It would seem very irresponsible to travel unarmed in pirate-infested waters such as near Somalia. However, it's not clear where this attack took place. It should be relatively safe to ship through the north Pacific or north Atlantic. I'd also expect the Southern Ocean is pretty safe because there isn't too much down there.
There's an article from the Christian Science Monitor that does a really good job of explaining the issues with protecting ships. It says that if crews are armed, pirates may retaliate if fired upon, injuring the crew or damaging the ship. Similarly, they believe that having specific armed security on ships will result in pirates getting more powerful weapons and firing from a distance. In short, they don't want to create an arms race with the pirates. There are other measures to protect ships, though they're somewhat expensive. I'd guess that shipping companies don't want to spend the money to protect ships traveling in areas where pirates aren't common.
Well then follow up with a drone strike of the base camps they use and a torpedo for the mother ship.
If that doesn't work, I am sure a B1-B or two can carry a payload to fix the problem. Just one of those can carry enough land mines and sea mines to fuck up their areas of deployment real well.
Sounds like "we don't actually want to solve the problem, just whine about it" to me. Typical pussy generation. Maybe try handing out trophies to all the pirates or something. I am sure that would work.
The deciding factor in all of this is the insurance companies. Eventually they won't insure anymore, or they will charge too high a price.
On the other hand, they could SELL tickets to guys that would love to sit around on a ship and imagine being attacked by pirates only to fend them off. 40 fat dudes with their own ammo stashes and weapons could probably hold off a lot of pirates. The ship company would just need to feed, house, and entertain them a little.
How about instead just use the robots to build the buildings out of concrete and rebar, so you are not having to deal with fires and fire alarms all the time, and for smaller houses build them from prefab panels or real actual stone and brick? I grew up in a country with concrete buildings and fire was the only disaster nobody was afraid of, as it practically never happened. You could have a localized fire in a room, or in a trash can, but that's about it, and all you need it is to kick it or throw a blanket over it. Concrete just doesn't burn.
Did you not ever put anything in those concrete buildings?
The contents of just my office alone; two computers, desk, hutch, personal items, carpet files... when burned, will give off enough gas and smoke to kill everybody in the building.
Maybe you just let everybody die, cleaned up the concrete, and re-leased the building or something... but in a concrete building fires are just as likely to cause death. What they don't cause is collapse most of the time. And worse, you aren't bashing your way through a wall in a concrete building whereas with drywall and wood, you can kick through if the way is blocked by fire.
Every young generation thinks they are going to change things, and thinks they are going to do this new cool thing like have lots of them vote. Listen up, kiddo, you aren't special just because you got a trophy.
Handgun ballistics are generally pretty crappy, and not very effective for reliably stopping an unarmored human target.
Hollow point expanding bullets do significantly decrease the "don't have to shoot him 20 times to get him to stop" factor.
Even then, something like 1 in 10 or 2 in 10 of handgun gunshot wounds are lethal over the next week, and less than that are a "he stopped because unable to continue despite motivation"
The Venn diagram of "stopped the guy fast" and "won't go through him" is two separated circles.
It's not an exploding bullet. Exploding bullets are nothing new - they've been around for at least 100 years. In small arms calibers they're less effective than lead if your goal is to make someone dead, or everybody would be using them already. Until Reagan was shot with exploding bullets (which should give you some idea of how effective they are - he survived being shot near the heart) you used to be able to buy them mail order from ads in gun magazines. They're basically gimmick rounds, particularly in 5.56 NATO.
The pistol involved was a.22lr short barrel revolver. Which, isn't "effective" at anything but putting little holes in paper and certainly doesn't have the speed nor the mass in the bullets to "expand." The "exploding" bullets used in the attempt on Reagan were one of those gimmicks that people sell to noobs. Not effective most of the time.
The one that hit Reagan didn't "go off", only the one that hit Brady in the head did.
You do need to use a larger caliber to get effective with exploding bullets. (.30 or larger rifle calibers) But they WERE used to great effect in WWII in German Vs Soviet sniper hunts. There's a youtube video by a couple of guys that do some meat and jell experiments with them and they are extremely devastating when they hit a human torso.
LOTS of modern military arms use the exploding part. The automatic defense guns (coax armed R2-D2) designed for land based defense against mortars uses a fuse and explosive to break up the round after a certain distance.
The subject says it all really. If you are using an ad blocker it is because someone is giving you something for free IN EXCHANGE for serving you ads, instead of you having to pay money for it. You are ruining that by blocking all ads.
1) Stop pretending this is a one sided thing of the big mean companies being unreasonable. (They are in some ways, but the/. comments to this point are myopic as fuck.)
2) Don't say companies are "crying" about the receivers of their free content leeching it.
3) Remember that if you weren't sucking on the teat of their free content, you wouldn't have needed to install an ad blocker in the first place, you outrageous, over-entitled twits!
You are going to need about another 900 shills to help you out today, idiot.
Here's a crazy idea... put some buttons on each advert, to allow folks to reject the advert, and charge the ones getting the most down-votes more money for any interaction going forward.
You're right, it's a crazy idea. No remotely-computer-savvy users, or even half-sane users, are going to click on ad-related buttons to vote them up or down. Buttons on ads have caused too much bad mojo for people over the years due to the "You computer is infected! Click here to fix it!" style drive-by downloads disguised as ads.
The horrible, downright deceitful, track record of internet advertisers is finally catching up to them and biting them on their collective arses. I say good riddance to them.
And, advertisers would write scripts to auto-click on their rivals ads about 15 minutes after that "plan" got deployed, and to get enough of them, make it part of the payload of the next couple rounds of malware.
The bottom line is, the sites that want ad revenue for their little shithole sites (looking at you CNN.com) are going to have to figure out how to hold back the advertisers.
Placing the burden on content providers will just push smaller content providers out. I can see no benefit to this.
Furthermore, centralized ad content distributors can do a lot more to combat malware than can smaller content providers.
Bullshit.
What will happen is large hosting facilities like GoDaddy will have a plug-in that lets the small site interface with small advertisers. Which will either happen on a local level "Joe's Bait Shop" or will let sites pick and choose the ad content for their plug in.
Similar tools will be available for PHP, WP, and IIS hosted type sites.
Sites not paying attention to anything about ads except for the check is part of the problem.
They do... I was invited to watch a video on one of the kid's laptops and the damned thing had ads. It's not my kid but I still fixed it right away. That was unacceptable.
"But that's the browser my teacher told me to us!"
"No, kid... You tell your teacher that she's a crack-head. Nobody uses Safari."
Well, they're not my kids. I just spoil 'em and live vicariously through their exploits.
Safari in Windows is abandonware and probably has severe security holes in it now. They stopped patching or developing for Windows last year.
I never bothered to use an ad-blocker on YouTube, admittedly. How do they get around those unskippable 20-second preroll ads?
I don't see Youtube ads unless they are part of the actual video.
No sidebar ads, and none of the injected before video ads.
The only adblocking method I use is a relatively up-to-date manually installed HOSTS file ad blocker. (Not the spammer guy, the "hobbiest" guy's one.)
My plan for the future is to install a router-based DNS server that has authoritative zones in it for all the stuff I want to block, using those lists as a guide. Won't get around that by using new sub level hostnames.
They'll have to continually buy new domain names (which will never be seen again by me once I block them) or feed ads from the actual domain of the place I am visiting.
Um, nothing in the article said anything about cancer becoming airborne. I didn't think it was fear mongering at all. Instead, it suggested that cancer spreading from one host to another is within the realm of possibility and not that it's likely to occur in humans.
There are diseases that are transmissible in humans that can cause cancer. HPV is an example. The article makes it pretty clear that in just about every case there are enough defenses to make it impossible. For it to occur, it must be easy for cancer cells to pass from one person to another. Accidentally injecting oneself with cancer is a way for it to happen. The other example involved a person whose immune system was compromised and the source of the cancer was a parasite. Because conditions like this are rarely met, it's virtually impossible for cancer to be transmitted from one person to another.
It seems like there has to be an easy pathway for many cancer cells to move from one person to another. This is extremely rare. It also seems like compromising or fooling the immune system makes it far more likely to occur. This is far more likely to occur among animals than among humans. I think the article makes it clear that what's possible isn't likely nor is it a threat right now.
I don't get your criticism of the article.
Aside from HPV, I expect they will find that within the variety of cancers, a good portion of them are triggered by viruses that don't have any visible effects like HPV, and are never therefore noticed. Not all viruses that might infect a host do much to the host, in fact, it's better for the virus if they DONT.
Either the research isn't technically feasible yet, or researchers just aren't interested in the question.
Also note, there are documented cases of Wombats getting nose-cancer and spreading it through the entire den of animals. In that case, an affected animal has saliva and mucus coming out of the nose, and contacting other animals with thin skin and membranes in their own noses.
When the breakthroughs happen, there is going to be a great sadness when thinking of the obviousness of the issues despite the losses that occurred while looking at other solutions.
So would not be a good time to tell you to look on your C:\ partition for a folder called Windows~BT that has a full download of Windows 10 in it that you can't get rid of because it will come right back by being re-downloaded?
It can be removed, but you gotta jump through a bunch of hoops to do it.
Slashdot Mirror
Um, have you read anything at all about this case? No one has asked Apple to insert a backdoor. The FBI has asked Apple to write a program that:
1. Remains in memory 2. Only Apple has access to 3. Allows the FBI to use unlimited guesses on the PIN 4. Allows the FBI to use a custom pin entry through the Thunderbolt port
Nowhere in there is a request for a backdoor on every phone, nor does the FBI want a generic backdoor they can use whenever they want. In fact, the first item is because the FBI doesn't want anyone to claim they can reverse engineer the backdoor from the firmware.
You are a moron, or a liar, or both.
Unlimited access to the pin IS a backdoor. There is no functional equivalent between one iPhone 5c with one serial number and another. The claim that the software can't be used on a different iPhone 5c is an unmitigated lie.
Maybe, just maybe it has something to do with our (USA) penchant for starting fights with the entire fucking planet
Are you implying the US is going to start a fight with Japan?
It's more likely that the Japanese realize that after 8 years of jug-eared pussification the US is unwilling to help them if the chinese or norks start to mess with them and that they are likely going to have to do it themselves.
I look forward to the Neo Japanese Robotic Warlords.
Also describing it as a "global cooling scare" is far overstating the case. The paper merely notes the cooling of the time as a datapoint of interest. Perhaps you're confusing it with sensationalist media reports?
The paper was not the "global cooling" scare.
Media, popularized "science" articles, etc. made it into a "scare." Went on for a year or so... long enough for film strips in grade schools to cover the subject.
That event is one of the reasons people have such a hard time believing the same type of distortion by "science" articles and media now. Regardless of the actual science being done now days.
Bring them -- in roughly $100 batches -- to various CoinStar machines in your and the surrounding counties. Sure, you'll lose 11%, but that's 11% of free money.
Coinstar use would easily get him caught.
First, there are cameras IN them and pointed at them. Also, to get cash you get a voucher and go to the service desk where there is a camera (and probably showing of an ID.) So now you have lots of points of contact and an easy cross-reference.
The gift cards you could probably use (they print out a receipt with a code) but you can't sell those because to be verified, you give out the number and that's as good as the card. Plus, you have to ship stuff to your house for Amazon or whatever.
You DO need a front of some kind to make this work, or and obsession of some kind (like gambling in bars, a casino, or a coin op business like an "honor box").
Come to think of it, gambling machines in bars give out about 50% but that won't matter if what you put in is stolen.
Presumably casinos (never been to one) will give people bills in return for stacks of quarters, for when people win a reasonable amount of money?
You could go to a casino with a backpack full of quarters, spend a couple of hours then, there cash out with the money in your pack. Would obviously take a very long time to convert all the quarters into bills that way, though, and the casino's would get pretty suspicious pretty quickly.
Or, you could just feed your gambling habit with stolen quarters.
The summary seems to imply there was something fundamentally wrong with Google+, and that's why it didn't take off as Google had hoped. But is that really the case, or was Google+'s main obstacle just that Facebook already existed and was spectacularly successful?
The part that is fundamentally wrong, is the whole real name thing.
There must have been a whole crowd of people who told them it was a stupid, moronic, and retarded idea and they did it anyway.
I don't really care if Google knows my real name or not, but I'll be fucking goddamned if they are going to re-broadcast it without my permission or a way to opt out. FUCK THAT. And FUCK THEM.
North Korea is prepared for that. They have heavily fortified bunkers, hidden locations, and mobile artillery, so we don't actually know where they all are. In the first few minutes of bombardment, millions would die.
It's likely they don't exist.
Will threaten for food. I don't think there is an endgame, just the status quo with a small number of ultra-rich aristocrats very happy with the situation and a very large number of starving peasants unable to change it.
You forgot to add "feel the Bern!" after that.
South Korea does a lot of trade with China. LOTS.
The Chinese are in a pretty bad position. They don't want democracy right at their door. They don't want to screw with the gravy train from the US and South Korea. Their strategic asset is fucking with their economic asset so they are going for a balance, but might have to choose which they lose.
China will bribe their way out of it like usual, and send food to the Norks.
This stuff is easy to look up yourself.
Hell, get on Google Earth or Google Maps and review all the places they say there will be attacks from.
You'll find a few holes and tunnel entrances.
What you won't find, is fast deploy-able anti aircraft weapons. You won't find ports or ships to carry attackers. You won't find rail lines that can't be cut fast, and you won't find shit for infrastructure to support a war or a movement of troops. You won't find airfields of any merit. You won't find planes on any of the ones that are there that have moved in years. To attack, they'll have to WALK. Over MOUNTAINS.
Cluster bombs, dropped mines, and other simple stuff will stop them. Hell, drop FOOD behind the lines with a leaflet that says "we dropped all the food behind you." That's what they want anyway, that's the reason for all the threats.
Nothing will come of any of this. China will ship them some more food and they'll quiet down until the crops fail next year.
Clinton is not a technical person and probably didn't have any idea that this setup was not secure.
Try again.
She's a lawyer, and she knew full well that she was breaking the law.
-jcr
IT was not against the law at the time to use a personal email server. She knows the law better than you do.
Liar.
The idea has definitely been discussed. It would seem very irresponsible to travel unarmed in pirate-infested waters such as near Somalia. However, it's not clear where this attack took place. It should be relatively safe to ship through the north Pacific or north Atlantic. I'd also expect the Southern Ocean is pretty safe because there isn't too much down there.
There's an article from the Christian Science Monitor that does a really good job of explaining the issues with protecting ships. It says that if crews are armed, pirates may retaliate if fired upon, injuring the crew or damaging the ship. Similarly, they believe that having specific armed security on ships will result in pirates getting more powerful weapons and firing from a distance. In short, they don't want to create an arms race with the pirates. There are other measures to protect ships, though they're somewhat expensive. I'd guess that shipping companies don't want to spend the money to protect ships traveling in areas where pirates aren't common.
Well then follow up with a drone strike of the base camps they use and a torpedo for the mother ship.
If that doesn't work, I am sure a B1-B or two can carry a payload to fix the problem. Just one of those can carry enough land mines and sea mines to fuck up their areas of deployment real well.
Sounds like "we don't actually want to solve the problem, just whine about it" to me. Typical pussy generation. Maybe try handing out trophies to all the pirates or something. I am sure that would work.
The deciding factor in all of this is the insurance companies. Eventually they won't insure anymore, or they will charge too high a price.
On the other hand, they could SELL tickets to guys that would love to sit around on a ship and imagine being attacked by pirates only to fend them off. 40 fat dudes with their own ammo stashes and weapons could probably hold off a lot of pirates. The ship company would just need to feed, house, and entertain them a little.
How about instead just use the robots to build the buildings out of concrete and rebar, so you are not having to deal with fires and fire alarms all the time, and for smaller houses build them from prefab panels or real actual stone and brick? I grew up in a country with concrete buildings and fire was the only disaster nobody was afraid of, as it practically never happened. You could have a localized fire in a room, or in a trash can, but that's about it, and all you need it is to kick it or throw a blanket over it. Concrete just doesn't burn.
Did you not ever put anything in those concrete buildings?
The contents of just my office alone; two computers, desk, hutch, personal items, carpet files... when burned, will give off enough gas and smoke to kill everybody in the building.
Maybe you just let everybody die, cleaned up the concrete, and re-leased the building or something... but in a concrete building fires are just as likely to cause death. What they don't cause is collapse most of the time. And worse, you aren't bashing your way through a wall in a concrete building whereas with drywall and wood, you can kick through if the way is blocked by fire.
lol
60's anybody?
Every young generation thinks they are going to change things, and thinks they are going to do this new cool thing like have lots of them vote. Listen up, kiddo, you aren't special just because you got a trophy.
Handgun ballistics are generally pretty crappy, and not very effective for reliably stopping an unarmored human target.
Hollow point expanding bullets do significantly decrease the "don't have to shoot him 20 times to get him to stop" factor.
Even then, something like 1 in 10 or 2 in 10 of handgun gunshot wounds are lethal over the next week, and less than that are a "he stopped because unable to continue despite motivation"
The Venn diagram of "stopped the guy fast" and "won't go through him" is two separated circles.
It's not an exploding bullet. Exploding bullets are nothing new - they've been around for at least 100 years. In small arms calibers they're less effective than lead if your goal is to make someone dead, or everybody would be using them already. Until Reagan was shot with exploding bullets (which should give you some idea of how effective they are - he survived being shot near the heart) you used to be able to buy them mail order from ads in gun magazines. They're basically gimmick rounds, particularly in 5.56 NATO.
The pistol involved was a .22lr short barrel revolver. Which, isn't "effective" at anything but putting little holes in paper and certainly doesn't have the speed nor the mass in the bullets to "expand." The "exploding" bullets used in the attempt on Reagan were one of those gimmicks that people sell to noobs. Not effective most of the time.
The one that hit Reagan didn't "go off", only the one that hit Brady in the head did.
You do need to use a larger caliber to get effective with exploding bullets. (.30 or larger rifle calibers) But they WERE used to great effect in WWII in German Vs Soviet sniper hunts. There's a youtube video by a couple of guys that do some meat and jell experiments with them and they are extremely devastating when they hit a human torso.
LOTS of modern military arms use the exploding part. The automatic defense guns (coax armed R2-D2) designed for land based defense against mortars uses a fuse and explosive to break up the round after a certain distance.
The subject says it all really. If you are using an ad blocker it is because someone is giving you something for free IN EXCHANGE for serving you ads, instead of you having to pay money for it. You are ruining that by blocking all ads. 1) Stop pretending this is a one sided thing of the big mean companies being unreasonable. (They are in some ways, but the /. comments to this point are myopic as fuck.)
2) Don't say companies are "crying" about the receivers of their free content leeching it.
3) Remember that if you weren't sucking on the teat of their free content, you wouldn't have needed to install an ad blocker in the first place, you outrageous, over-entitled twits!
You are going to need about another 900 shills to help you out today, idiot.
You're right, it's a crazy idea. No remotely-computer-savvy users, or even half-sane users, are going to click on ad-related buttons to vote them up or down. Buttons on ads have caused too much bad mojo for people over the years due to the "You computer is infected! Click here to fix it!" style drive-by downloads disguised as ads.
The horrible, downright deceitful, track record of internet advertisers is finally catching up to them and biting them on their collective arses. I say good riddance to them.
And, advertisers would write scripts to auto-click on their rivals ads about 15 minutes after that "plan" got deployed, and to get enough of them, make it part of the payload of the next couple rounds of malware.
The bottom line is, the sites that want ad revenue for their little shithole sites (looking at you CNN.com) are going to have to figure out how to hold back the advertisers.
Placing the burden on content providers will just push smaller content providers out. I can see no benefit to this.
Furthermore, centralized ad content distributors can do a lot more to combat malware than can smaller content providers.
Bullshit.
What will happen is large hosting facilities like GoDaddy will have a plug-in that lets the small site interface with small advertisers. Which will either happen on a local level "Joe's Bait Shop" or will let sites pick and choose the ad content for their plug in.
Similar tools will be available for PHP, WP, and IIS hosted type sites.
Sites not paying attention to anything about ads except for the check is part of the problem.
They do... I was invited to watch a video on one of the kid's laptops and the damned thing had ads. It's not my kid but I still fixed it right away. That was unacceptable.
"But that's the browser my teacher told me to us!" "No, kid... You tell your teacher that she's a crack-head. Nobody uses Safari."
Well, they're not my kids. I just spoil 'em and live vicariously through their exploits.
Safari in Windows is abandonware and probably has severe security holes in it now. They stopped patching or developing for Windows last year.
I never bothered to use an ad-blocker on YouTube, admittedly. How do they get around those unskippable 20-second preroll ads?
I don't see Youtube ads unless they are part of the actual video.
No sidebar ads, and none of the injected before video ads.
The only adblocking method I use is a relatively up-to-date manually installed HOSTS file ad blocker. (Not the spammer guy, the "hobbiest" guy's one.)
My plan for the future is to install a router-based DNS server that has authoritative zones in it for all the stuff I want to block, using those lists as a guide. Won't get around that by using new sub level hostnames.
They'll have to continually buy new domain names (which will never be seen again by me once I block them) or feed ads from the actual domain of the place I am visiting.
These were all on the site when we acquired it. We are in the process of cleaning up all requests and scripts like this.
I hope you guys are taking notes on this process and can share what you aren't prohibited by terms of sale to share.
The changes, plus the results of the changes showed to the world might knock some of the blockheaded site owners elsewhere to clean up their act.
If you've got that, just use a keylogger and wait for common bank names to be visited before activating it.
No need to mess with certs and risk getting spotted if you have control of the box already.
Um, nothing in the article said anything about cancer becoming airborne. I didn't think it was fear mongering at all. Instead, it suggested that cancer spreading from one host to another is within the realm of possibility and not that it's likely to occur in humans.
There are diseases that are transmissible in humans that can cause cancer. HPV is an example. The article makes it pretty clear that in just about every case there are enough defenses to make it impossible. For it to occur, it must be easy for cancer cells to pass from one person to another. Accidentally injecting oneself with cancer is a way for it to happen. The other example involved a person whose immune system was compromised and the source of the cancer was a parasite. Because conditions like this are rarely met, it's virtually impossible for cancer to be transmitted from one person to another.
It seems like there has to be an easy pathway for many cancer cells to move from one person to another. This is extremely rare. It also seems like compromising or fooling the immune system makes it far more likely to occur. This is far more likely to occur among animals than among humans. I think the article makes it clear that what's possible isn't likely nor is it a threat right now.
I don't get your criticism of the article.
Aside from HPV, I expect they will find that within the variety of cancers, a good portion of them are triggered by viruses that don't have any visible effects like HPV, and are never therefore noticed. Not all viruses that might infect a host do much to the host, in fact, it's better for the virus if they DONT.
Either the research isn't technically feasible yet, or researchers just aren't interested in the question.
Also note, there are documented cases of Wombats getting nose-cancer and spreading it through the entire den of animals. In that case, an affected animal has saliva and mucus coming out of the nose, and contacting other animals with thin skin and membranes in their own noses.
When the breakthroughs happen, there is going to be a great sadness when thinking of the obviousness of the issues despite the losses that occurred while looking at other solutions.
So would not be a good time to tell you to look on your C:\ partition for a folder called Windows~BT that has a full download of Windows 10 in it that you can't get rid of because it will come right back by being re-downloaded?
It can be removed, but you gotta jump through a bunch of hoops to do it.