I like the quote: "...Starz, in a statement, called its decision "a result of our strategy to protect the premium nature of our brand by preserving the appropriate pricing and packaging" of its content...". Translation: We think we can gouge Netflix now that they are big enough and if we pull our content, then people with just buy it elsewhere. Piracy doesn't exist.
I can't help but wonder if this is just hard-ball negotiating tactics and as Feb 28 approaches, some deal will reached.
Then who did you vote for last election? Did you vote independent or third party? Did you vote at all? Because it should be apparent to everyone here that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are going to help anyone but themselves and the rich.
I can say proudly that I have voted in every General Election since I've been old enough, and I've been voting against both the Dems and Reps all this time. I keep wondering just how bad Congress has to get before enough other voters wake up and join me.
Sure, with the hashes you can break the passwords quickly, but that requires you first have the hashes. Now think about attacking over the web and brute forcing it. Let's assume their brain dead and allow you to try all day long. How fast can you try passwords? Remember, you have to consider not only your connection speed, but their speed and the rate their server can answer.
I recently tested hydra on a full duplex 100Mbit network with just two computers on it, one being an ssh server and the other the attacker. The best speed I could sustain was around 220 tries/min. Assuming a 6 character password, lowercase only (English), if an attacker tried for 30 days non-stop and knew the character set, and knew it was 6 characters long, their chance of guessing the password would be (6^26/220/60/24)*30/(6^26) = 0.01%
Keep in mind, out of some 30 odd real life attacks against an ssh server I've got data on, the fastest attack I've seen is about 150 tries/min and that attack lasted less than 4 minutes. Obviously, if you use a dictionary attack and a dictionary password, the chance of brute forcing it jumps dramatically. But the actual data I have shows most usernames are tried only 1-3 times (depending on the attack) before the attacker moves on to the next account.
But the fact remains, it's not web brute force attacks that need to be feared. It's a server compromise where the hashes are compromised that is to be feared. And with Amazon's GPU clusters available for rent, the best hash can be brute forced quickly and cheaply.
Hotmail's changes are like the TSA. Lots of noise, inconvenience, and expense, but little to no real security improvement.
Absolutely nothing. Artistic talent and IQ are not the same thing. I've seen pictures drawn by a mentally retarded boy, and they were good. Better than a great many pictures I've drawn by people of normal intelligence. Likewise, artistic talent and mental disease are also not connected. Van Gogh suffered from depression, and even produced some his works while in an asylum (see the irises for example).
There is the big difference. You didn't have to do or say anything. Same for say a blood sample or DNA sample. You don't have do (or say) anything to provide it. They do all work. But in forcing you to decrypt, they are forcing you to take action against yourself. That's self incrimination, and that's a violation of the fifth amendment.
Not that it will help much when most judges think they are above the law. Case in point.
I think the "spontaneous co-operation and yielding to others" varies a lot with location. I live in Texas, and once you get out of the city, it's quite common. On small roads, the people will even move over to the shoulder to let you pass. In the city (well Houston at least), it's not as common, but it still happens. I generally try to do this out of enlightened self-interest. Better to avoid an accident than be in one. Especially with 18 wheelers, where, right or wrong, if I get in an accident with them, I lose bigtime. I'd rather the lane change be controlled than become a pancake.
But when I recently drove to California (Long Beach in particular), I noticed such actions were unknown. When I stopped to let a guy out of a parking lot (it was a red light anyway), he looked at me like I was some kind of weirdo. The whole time I was there, I never saw any sort of cooperation. But I did have to play chicken almost daily. Made me appreciate Texas drivers.
Having worked as an election clerk in more than one election, I can tell you that we are supposed to verify the ID (at least in Texas), but the voter registration card (no picture) is enough. Many do use their driver's license though. Personally, based on what I've seen, the weakness isn't the ID, it's the registration process. I've had people I honestly didn't believe were US citizens, one even admitted it to me, but as they were on the poll records, legally I had to let them vote. I've also seen voters that would fail the "You must be smarter than a rock" IQ test.
...Find people sending tons of email, contact them and find out what's up, and if they don't have a really good answer, shut down their connection until they clean up their PC.
Working for an ISP, I can tell you it's suspend first, ask questions later. Wait too long, and you're on every blacklist in existence. It takes as little as one message in some cases to get your server blacklisted. And some blacklists don't care how fast you shut it down, you're still on until they decide to lift it, and it takes a LONG time to get off. Hotmail/MSN are really bad about this.
...This just gives the ID theft protection company a way to collect potential customer--resulting in no real protection, just a client info exchange between Sony and the ID theft protection company--worthless and expensive is what comes to mind.
Seconded. I got the opportunity for "free credit monitoring" after a breach at a different company. However, the online form to submit your info was unencrypted. I checked the page's source. No https anywhere. And they were asking for things that an ID thief would need to steal me identity. I wound up walking away. Unfortunately, it wasn't a company I could boycott, because I was no longer doing business with them for unrelated reasons (a former bank).
Disclaimer: I feel a lot more detective work should have been done before raiding his place.I also feel the phrase "child porn" has become synonymous with "witch hunt".
Some people have guns and will use them. Taking them by surprise reduces the chances of someone getting shot. Secondly, anyone dealing with child porn and half a brain should have a copy of Darik's Boot And Nuke (or something similar) standing by ready to go on a moment's notice.
There are also a number of different ways of determining the outcome of the vote, but just changing the balloting process would undermine the lock that the two-party system has in the U.S.
Which is why it won't happen. The one thing democrats and republicans will work together on is to stop anything that would enable the rise of a third (or more) party. They will use every legal trick, and probably more than few illegal ones, to stop this.
The only way this is going to change is for the american voters to wake up and start voting in mass for third party and independent candidates, especially the ones with little campaign funding. That campaign funding comes with some serious strings attached...
The problem isn't competition per se, but the costs of running cable the last mile. HALNET, which I mentioned above, uses ATT to get the last mile connection. Once the signal reaches HALNET, ATT is no longer providing the connection. The second part is easy and relatively cheap to setup. It's the first part that is a huge barrier to entry.
Now the solution would be to require those companies to open their lines, but "those companies" would fight such a law tooth and claw (or more accurately: lobbyist, campaign contribution, and lawsuit).
Sometimes you can find smaller ISP's that don't have caps. In Houston, the main providers, other than wireless (which all have caps IIRC), are ATT and Comcast. But HALNET is another wired Internet provider, although much smaller, and they don't have any caps.
Yes, but the standard has been in flux for a while, and may still be in flux. Example: Initially, the private address space for 6 started with fec0:: but the current standard is now fc00::.
I've been trying to learn IPv6 with my home network and it's been a struggle. XPs IPv6 support is a joke (even at SP3). It's so incomplete, my advice is don't bother trying.
Ubuntu 10.10 is much better, but even a release that recent doesn't ship with an IPv6 compatible DHCP server (need 11.04 to get it). At least IPv6 DNS is supported, and while the forward zones are a breeze to write, and you can even combine them with IPv4 zones in the same zone file, the reverse IPv6 zones kicked my butt. Eventually I got them working, but I truly think it was more luck than skill.
I can say there needs to be a lot better tutorials than the ones I've found out there for 6 to really take off. So far, the two best I've found are Ubuntu's IPv6 and the Linux IPv6 HOWTO.
It's not as good as it sounds. I have an idiot brother-in-law that's done federal time, and some of it in a low security prison. He claims the low security is actually more dangerous than the high security he also spent time in initially. The prisoners have more freedom in the low security, and some of them use it poorly.
Mind you, he also said the private prison they put him in was the worst, a sentiment the judge sentencing him echoed.
In fact, why sell fiction books? It's all blasphemy anyway. We should devote our lives to studying the state-propaganda. If that's good enough for the state, it is good enough for us.
But what if the state-propaganda is a work of fiction?
Depends on the judge, but mostly no. I was a juror on case where that did happen. This was a civil case BTW. The rules were each juror could only ask one question per witness. The questions had to be written, then the judge looked them over. He would throw out any he didn't like. He then showed the remaining questions to both sides, and if either objected to a question, it was thrown out. Any remaining questions the judge asked the witness, then both sides had a chance to cross-examine.
The judge asked those that would stuck around after the trial was over if we think it helped us reach a decision. All of us said yes. The judge did mention he had tried this with a criminal trial and the verdict got thrown out because of it, so he could only do it for civil trials. I wish more judges would do this.
The investigation has already been done by the prosecution and defense.
In theory. I've heard of cases where neither side did a very good job. One such case I remember something about was a woman was accused of poisoning her infant son. She had a 10 minute unsupervised visit, during which she allegedly feed him ethylene glycol (AKA anti-freeze). The child was tested several days later by a hospital and found to have (IIRC) two teaspoons of it still in his system. She was convicted of attempted murder.
She finally got a good defense lawyer, who pointed out that the half-life of ethylene glycol in the human body is 4 hours (IIRC). He back calculated from the hospital's report and found that she would have had to feed him AT LEAST 40 gallons in those 10 minutes. She was quickly released. Turns out he had a rare genetic disorder which causes the body to produce ethylene glycol. Neither the prosecutor nor the initial defense attorney brought up this fact.
Second example: I was on patent infringement jury. The plaintiff claimed he showed information to another company under a non-disclosure agreement (NDA), which the other company violated, and caused the plaintiff's company to go bankrupt. I was one of two jurors that didn't buy it. Thankfully we were given copies of the NDA and the bankruptcy papers. We (the jury) argued over this point for more than 30 minutes before the two of us realized that the others didn't look at the documents (our mistake). The date of the NDA was AFTER the bankruptcy filing. The defense never pointed this out. Once my fellow juror and I pointed this out to the rest of the jurors, the plaintiff's case collapsed.
God forbid a juror actually be familiar with the law...
Correct. Judges and, to a lesser extent, prosecutors like that. Makes it easier to bully a jury into delivering the verdict they want. Look up jury nullification if you doubt me.
...In the US, and just about every other country, the court's business is more important than yours...
Depends on your point of view. Almost everybody thinks (most of the time), that their business is more important than someone else's. The difference here is the judge has a great deal of power, and little oversight on their (mis)use of it, and you don't.
The standard explanation is the layout has the most common keys on the home row, and the next most common on the top row, with the least used on the bottom. This means you don't have to curl so much (reaching the bottom) and you don't have reach slightly less. The curling is what does a number on the wrists. It's not natural to do this often. Supposedly...All I know is that I can type without pain and don't need surgery or braces.
Slashdot Mirror
I like the quote: "...Starz, in a statement, called its decision "a result of our strategy to protect the premium nature of our brand by preserving the appropriate pricing and packaging" of its content...". Translation: We think we can gouge Netflix now that they are big enough and if we pull our content, then people with just buy it elsewhere. Piracy doesn't exist.
I can't help but wonder if this is just hard-ball negotiating tactics and as Feb 28 approaches, some deal will reached.
More like they think they are above the law, and to a large degree, they are correct. :(
I applaud your windmill tilting skills.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.- E. Debs
Then who did you vote for last election? Did you vote independent or third party? Did you vote at all? Because it should be apparent to everyone here that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are going to help anyone but themselves and the rich.
I can say proudly that I have voted in every General Election since I've been old enough, and I've been voting against both the Dems and Reps all this time. I keep wondering just how bad Congress has to get before enough other voters wake up and join me.
Sure, with the hashes you can break the passwords quickly, but that requires you first have the hashes. Now think about attacking over the web and brute forcing it. Let's assume their brain dead and allow you to try all day long. How fast can you try passwords? Remember, you have to consider not only your connection speed, but their speed and the rate their server can answer.
I recently tested hydra on a full duplex 100Mbit network with just two computers on it, one being an ssh server and the other the attacker. The best speed I could sustain was around 220 tries/min. Assuming a 6 character password, lowercase only (English), if an attacker tried for 30 days non-stop and knew the character set, and knew it was 6 characters long, their chance of guessing the password would be (6^26/220/60/24)*30/(6^26) = 0.01%
Keep in mind, out of some 30 odd real life attacks against an ssh server I've got data on, the fastest attack I've seen is about 150 tries/min and that attack lasted less than 4 minutes. Obviously, if you use a dictionary attack and a dictionary password, the chance of brute forcing it jumps dramatically. But the actual data I have shows most usernames are tried only 1-3 times (depending on the attack) before the attacker moves on to the next account.
But the fact remains, it's not web brute force attacks that need to be feared. It's a server compromise where the hashes are compromised that is to be feared. And with Amazon's GPU clusters available for rent, the best hash can be brute forced quickly and cheaply.
Hotmail's changes are like the TSA. Lots of noise, inconvenience, and expense, but little to no real security improvement.
Absolutely nothing. Artistic talent and IQ are not the same thing. I've seen pictures drawn by a mentally retarded boy, and they were good. Better than a great many pictures I've drawn by people of normal intelligence. Likewise, artistic talent and mental disease are also not connected. Van Gogh suffered from depression, and even produced some his works while in an asylum (see the irises for example).
There is the big difference. You didn't have to do or say anything. Same for say a blood sample or DNA sample. You don't have do (or say) anything to provide it. They do all work. But in forcing you to decrypt, they are forcing you to take action against yourself. That's self incrimination, and that's a violation of the fifth amendment.
Not that it will help much when most judges think they are above the law. Case in point.
I think the "spontaneous co-operation and yielding to others" varies a lot with location. I live in Texas, and once you get out of the city, it's quite common. On small roads, the people will even move over to the shoulder to let you pass. In the city (well Houston at least), it's not as common, but it still happens. I generally try to do this out of enlightened self-interest. Better to avoid an accident than be in one. Especially with 18 wheelers, where, right or wrong, if I get in an accident with them, I lose bigtime. I'd rather the lane change be controlled than become a pancake.
But when I recently drove to California (Long Beach in particular), I noticed such actions were unknown. When I stopped to let a guy out of a parking lot (it was a red light anyway), he looked at me like I was some kind of weirdo. The whole time I was there, I never saw any sort of cooperation. But I did have to play chicken almost daily. Made me appreciate Texas drivers.
Having worked as an election clerk in more than one election, I can tell you that we are supposed to verify the ID (at least in Texas), but the voter registration card (no picture) is enough. Many do use their driver's license though. Personally, based on what I've seen, the weakness isn't the ID, it's the registration process. I've had people I honestly didn't believe were US citizens, one even admitted it to me, but as they were on the poll records, legally I had to let them vote. I've also seen voters that would fail the "You must be smarter than a rock" IQ test.
I'm seeing spambots use stolen authentication and even encrypted connections. Authentication won't fully protect you.
Working for an ISP, I can tell you it's suspend first, ask questions later. Wait too long, and you're on every blacklist in existence. It takes as little as one message in some cases to get your server blacklisted. And some blacklists don't care how fast you shut it down, you're still on until they decide to lift it, and it takes a LONG time to get off. Hotmail/MSN are really bad about this.
Seconded. I got the opportunity for "free credit monitoring" after a breach at a different company. However, the online form to submit your info was unencrypted. I checked the page's source. No https anywhere. And they were asking for things that an ID thief would need to steal me identity. I wound up walking away. Unfortunately, it wasn't a company I could boycott, because I was no longer doing business with them for unrelated reasons (a former bank).
Disclaimer: I feel a lot more detective work should have been done before raiding his place.I also feel the phrase "child porn" has become synonymous with "witch hunt".
Some people have guns and will use them. Taking them by surprise reduces the chances of someone getting shot. Secondly, anyone dealing with child porn and half a brain should have a copy of Darik's Boot And Nuke (or something similar) standing by ready to go on a moment's notice.
There are also a number of different ways of determining the outcome of the vote, but just changing the balloting process would undermine the lock that the two-party system has in the U.S.
Which is why it won't happen. The one thing democrats and republicans will work together on is to stop anything that would enable the rise of a third (or more) party. They will use every legal trick, and probably more than few illegal ones, to stop this.
The only way this is going to change is for the american voters to wake up and start voting in mass for third party and independent candidates, especially the ones with little campaign funding. That campaign funding comes with some serious strings attached...
The problem isn't competition per se, but the costs of running cable the last mile. HALNET, which I mentioned above, uses ATT to get the last mile connection. Once the signal reaches HALNET, ATT is no longer providing the connection. The second part is easy and relatively cheap to setup. It's the first part that is a huge barrier to entry.
Now the solution would be to require those companies to open their lines, but "those companies" would fight such a law tooth and claw (or more accurately: lobbyist, campaign contribution, and lawsuit).
Sometimes you can find smaller ISP's that don't have caps. In Houston, the main providers, other than wireless (which all have caps IIRC), are ATT and Comcast. But HALNET is another wired Internet provider, although much smaller, and they don't have any caps.
Yes, but the standard has been in flux for a while, and may still be in flux. Example: Initially, the private address space for 6 started with fec0:: but the current standard is now fc00:: .
I've been trying to learn IPv6 with my home network and it's been a struggle. XPs IPv6 support is a joke (even at SP3). It's so incomplete, my advice is don't bother trying.
Ubuntu 10.10 is much better, but even a release that recent doesn't ship with an IPv6 compatible DHCP server (need 11.04 to get it). At least IPv6 DNS is supported, and while the forward zones are a breeze to write, and you can even combine them with IPv4 zones in the same zone file, the reverse IPv6 zones kicked my butt. Eventually I got them working, but I truly think it was more luck than skill.
I can say there needs to be a lot better tutorials than the ones I've found out there for 6 to really take off. So far, the two best I've found are Ubuntu's IPv6 and the Linux IPv6 HOWTO.
Citizens can sue. It's just so expensive only Corp$ has the money to sue with much hope of success.
I'm amazed that he got a low security prison...
It's not as good as it sounds. I have an idiot brother-in-law that's done federal time, and some of it in a low security prison. He claims the low security is actually more dangerous than the high security he also spent time in initially. The prisoners have more freedom in the low security, and some of them use it poorly.
Mind you, he also said the private prison they put him in was the worst, a sentiment the judge sentencing him echoed.
In fact, why sell fiction books? It's all blasphemy anyway. We should devote our lives to studying the state-propaganda. If that's good enough for the state, it is good enough for us.
But what if the state-propaganda is a work of fiction?
Depends on the judge, but mostly no. I was a juror on case where that did happen. This was a civil case BTW. The rules were each juror could only ask one question per witness. The questions had to be written, then the judge looked them over. He would throw out any he didn't like. He then showed the remaining questions to both sides, and if either objected to a question, it was thrown out. Any remaining questions the judge asked the witness, then both sides had a chance to cross-examine.
The judge asked those that would stuck around after the trial was over if we think it helped us reach a decision. All of us said yes. The judge did mention he had tried this with a criminal trial and the verdict got thrown out because of it, so he could only do it for civil trials. I wish more judges would do this.
The investigation has already been done by the prosecution and defense.
In theory. I've heard of cases where neither side did a very good job. One such case I remember something about was a woman was accused of poisoning her infant son. She had a 10 minute unsupervised visit, during which she allegedly feed him ethylene glycol (AKA anti-freeze). The child was tested several days later by a hospital and found to have (IIRC) two teaspoons of it still in his system. She was convicted of attempted murder.
She finally got a good defense lawyer, who pointed out that the half-life of ethylene glycol in the human body is 4 hours (IIRC). He back calculated from the hospital's report and found that she would have had to feed him AT LEAST 40 gallons in those 10 minutes. She was quickly released. Turns out he had a rare genetic disorder which causes the body to produce ethylene glycol. Neither the prosecutor nor the initial defense attorney brought up this fact.
Second example: I was on patent infringement jury. The plaintiff claimed he showed information to another company under a non-disclosure agreement (NDA), which the other company violated, and caused the plaintiff's company to go bankrupt. I was one of two jurors that didn't buy it. Thankfully we were given copies of the NDA and the bankruptcy papers. We (the jury) argued over this point for more than 30 minutes before the two of us realized that the others didn't look at the documents (our mistake). The date of the NDA was AFTER the bankruptcy filing. The defense never pointed this out. Once my fellow juror and I pointed this out to the rest of the jurors, the plaintiff's case collapsed.
God forbid a juror actually be familiar with the law...
Correct. Judges and, to a lesser extent, prosecutors like that. Makes it easier to bully a jury into delivering the verdict they want. Look up jury nullification if you doubt me.
Depends on your point of view. Almost everybody thinks (most of the time), that their business is more important than someone else's. The difference here is the judge has a great deal of power, and little oversight on their (mis)use of it, and you don't.
The standard explanation is the layout has the most common keys on the home row, and the next most common on the top row, with the least used on the bottom. This means you don't have to curl so much (reaching the bottom) and you don't have reach slightly less. The curling is what does a number on the wrists. It's not natural to do this often. Supposedly...All I know is that I can type without pain and don't need surgery or braces.