How is that painstaking? That's like calling writing a telegram painstaking.
Or, no more complicated than the tradecraft of cold-war era spies.
This sounds like nothing more than well-established stuff that likely goes back to WWII if not before, and that you can read about in any Tom Clancy novel.
Who knew... the easiest way to avoid getting detected by a massive, international signals intelligence network, is to not use methods that give them anything to listen to.
I'm completely shocked... next thing they'll tell us about one-time-pads.
Perhaps most worrisome of all, Protect IP adds a provision that allows copyright and trademark holders to sue the owner/operator of a domain directly. Again, the provision applies only to nondomestically-registered domains, but it allows the private party, like the government, to sue the domain name itself if the registrant does not have a US address. That's important because in all cases, once a suit is initiated, the plaintiff can ask the court to issue an injunction or restraining order effectively shutting the site down.
So, the US has more or less decided to pass an extra-territorial law?
If a domain is registered in another country, and not with a US owned TLD, what gives the US standing for this? Because they say so? WTF does it mean to sue a domain name?
And what will happen when someone in Iran decides to sue a US based organization for some form of defamation or violating their beliefs/hurting their feelings? Lawmakers need to realize they can't just go around passing laws that reach outside of their borders and jurisdiction... otherwise, everyone will be guilty of breaking laws in every other country.
This is quite sad, and demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of either the technical or jurisdictional issues of the internet.
As I'm sure you noticed from R'ingTFA, this programme basically involves some extra annotation on a system Mastercard's been running since 2002 allowing corporate clients to analyse spending on their cards. So yes, if you're working for Al Gore and spending his money on your company card, he will (shock horror) be entitled to data-mine your transactions for anything he damn well pleases. Get over it: you don't have any expectation of privacy when you're spending company money on company business.
Are you seriously under the impression that they'll only provide this information to the owners of the corporate cards?
Once they've identified this as data that people are interested in, and willing to pay for... they will likely do what every other company with your private data does... sell it to third parties to make even more profit.
In fact, my money is on them already having done so.
'Google Inc. is close to settling a US criminal investigation into allegations it made hundreds of millions of dollars by accepting ads from online pharmacies that break US laws.' Google's acceptance of ads from unlicensed 'online pharmacies' is considered profiting from illegal activity.
In the last week I've seen ads for "xforex.com" which are basically foreign exchange scams promising a 500% ROI.
I've definitely seen ads for 'online pharmacies', and possibly even for 'replica watches'... I don't think Google cares about who they sell ads to, as long as they sell them.
As I understand it, most ISPs don't have (and for various reasons) don't want common carrier status as it already stands.
I stand corrected... ISPs don't have Common Carrier status, but some people think they should to prevent them from being able to pull stuff like this.
Right now they get the protections of saying "we're not responsible for what goes over the network" while at the same time saying "it's our network, and we'll filter it as we choose".
Kind of like how Pay Pal isn't a 'bank', merely someone people entrust their money to but can't expect the same legal protections as a bank when they decide to keep your money.
And so the building of the Comcast/NBC walled garden begins.
Well, then hopefully they lose any status as a common carrier... if they're going to selectively decide you're not allowed to visit a site, they should be responsible for ensuring that nobody can ever reach kiddie porn or whatnot.
Of course, now that the FCC person who approved the merger is their lobbyist, I'm sure they'll be able to do whatever they want to, as they have a direct line on who to bribe to get their way. I mean, if you rule in their favor, they'll offer you a a much larger salary in a few months time for your troubles.
Revolving door. Enough said. Honestly, I'm tired of caring about it. Action will only happen when people begin to truly feel the effects. Logic is lost on the masses.
Here in Canada, they actually passed a law saying you can't be a lobbyist for a couple of years after leaving government service.
I think it's hard to trust the decisions of someone who approved a merger, and then a few months later goes on to be a lobbyist for that entity. It's hard not to believe that there aren't ethical (if not legal) issues which arise from this.
I'm actually surprised that this is still legal -- it definitely makes one seriously distrust the lobbyist economy -- it's way too stacked in favor of the companies who can throw money at getting whatever outcomes they want. So much for democracy.
For the welfare of everyone else, anyone who uses the words "branding strategy" on a regular basis should be forcibly relocated to some sort of leper island.
In this case, I'd say take them to a place where they will be applying actual brands would be more appropriate. You know, the hot metal kind.
That'll teach them about a 'branding' strategy.;-)
There is a glut of power now. OPG(ontaro power generation) applied for and got a 5-10% increase based on less consumer demand to offset less usage.
Now, that is depressing -- everyone pays more because they asked us to use less, and now they need to offset that.
That, and the fact that in Ontario only a small part of your bill is related to consumption... you've got your debt retirement fees, your service fees, your executive-hooker-and-bonus fees, the because-we-said-so fees.
I remember the good old days when we tunneled IPX/SPX over TCP/IP in order to play multiplayer games. TCP/IP support in games was very late imho with most games supporting IPX/SPX, Null Modem or *shudder* DirectPlay support.
That's because TCP/IP support was late coming to Windows, and you had to add it in with 3rd party stuff.
Seems to me it wasn't until '95 when Windows actually shipped with built-in network support.
I'm betting IPX/SPX wouldn't have been needed had Windows supported TCP/IP earlier.
Of the above, choose rhymes with lose, so I can certainly appreciate why people think choose rhymes with loose.
Sadly, English doesn't work that way. Words variously come from Latin, French, German -- possibly a couple more.
There's a lot of cases where trying to give someone hard, fast rules just won't work. There's certain kinds of mistakes I hear made by people whose first language isn't English... and when you really think about the syntax, and ponder the syntax of their starting language, sometimes it's pretty easy to look at the mistake and conclude it's a perfectly logical thing to do... but, it's still wrong because English has a lot of really strange rules. At which point, I just ignore it.
I think trying to reconcile the things that "sound" alike but are spelled differently is probably futile. The number of homonyms in the English language is probably quite large.
Which is why this stuff is covered so much in grade school -- I suspect if you didn't internalize all of these by the time you're out of high school, it's too late and you'll never get them right.
So, the obvious question is how much is this going to affect the cost of a phone?
The manufacturers won't absorb it, the carriers won't absorb it, which means the consumers will be paying for this.
I suspect this will add to the cost of a new phone. And, as a Canadian, I fear that since our phones are largely imported from the US, we'll end up paying for a feature which we won't even be using.
iPods and ebooks would allow you dump bulky CDs and books.
I'm not sure that short of buying them again, that I could replace my entire bookshelves with digital versions.
Even if I could buy them in digital format (and I'm betting more than half I couldn't), the cost would likely be prohibitive to replace all of the books that I've accumulated through a lifetime that I refuse to live without. They'd want to charge me full retail for them damned things again.
I've got some old editions of books (nothing rare or expensive), and some which I'm pretty sure are out of print. I've also got literally dozens of cookbooks which I wouldn't be able to replace.
There's just no practical way I can get digital versions of all of these. My text books from university, for instance, are not something I can easily replace for a digital version.
You'd have to be obsessive compulsive to live in one of these places.
Leave you car keys anywhere but the designated spot.. whole system probably jams. Ok, maybe not that bad, but I suspect you'd have to be very tidy to keep this functional.
That's probably true of anybody occupying 344 square feet -- people who live in lofts and other tiny spaces come up with some pretty amazing ways of actually utilizing the space.
People who are completely disorganized would probably never be able to occupy a space like this. Me, for instance. I can't fathom living in that small of a space, let along being that organized with it.
However, if you do it right, you can make a small space seem far more usable/big than it would appear. I'm betting for an architect in Hong Kong, there's likely a lot of demand from others in very small spaces -- I suspect square footage is at a premium. So, if he's got a working space he lives in, it's probably a good reference to say "oh, sure, I can help with that problem".
Drill a hole into the casing, fill the damn thing with butyric acid and seal it again. Should provide for some fun once those goons try to find out what's wrong with their toy.
Well, not only would they get you for mucking about with government property (that you couldn't have known was actually there)... but, I suspect if you laid such a trap, you might find yourself running afoul of several other laws.
I suspect you might get yourself a couple of felony charges out of the deal.
Throw it away, stick it to another car... sure, it's a foreign object attached to your car with nothing to indicate it has any official status. But, really, I think if you leave something with acid in it to be "discovered" by these guys you will have likely entered into territory you might live to regret.
I'm not sure there's that much child porn out there
I'm sure you'd be horribly wrong.
When you see some of these news stories about some of these people having hundreds of thousands of images, if not millions, it really must be on a rather large scale.
About a 15+ years or so ago, back when we all used the alt.binaries.pictures* tree in usenet I stumbled on some. This was before people were largely aware of it, so it was less known and publicized. I reported it, and then felt the need to rinse my brain out with bleach... I really wish I could get that fully out of my head. It's not something you can 'unsee'. It skeeves me out to think of it, really. If one or two images are seared into my head forever, then I can only pity the poor bastards who have to do this as part of law enforcement. I shudder at having to look through vast quantities of it to try to identify victims or perpetrators.
I agree that 41% of all of the FBI work done for "cyber" crime for child porn is a huge percentage. But, I don't think I'd want to downplay the scope of it or the damage it does. I guess if people want it to be pursued in that proportion, fine. But, I guess it's like breast cancer vs the other cancers -- everybody focuses on breast cancer, and it proportionally gets a lot more funding.
In a recently released paper entitled 'That's What She Said: Double Entendre Identification,' the researchers describe what they've found and introduce their new approach to the problem: 'Double Entendre via Noun Transfer' or DEviaNT for short."
I mean... that's just bizarre!!
And, really, until it can master all of the places where you can use "said the actress|bishop to the bishop|actress", it will always be incomplete. =)
Now, if you can make a computer program that can follow innuendo, as well as process the use of profanity in the English language... you'll be onto something.
I mean, the fucking use of the word fuck is in and of itself a fucking difficult thing for the fuckers to fucking figure out -- until then, they're pretty much fucked. Try hard enough, and you can make fuck into every single fucking part of speech, except maybe for those fucked up articles.
And, of course, one of the best uses of it ever... fuck you, you fucking fuck. =)
I thought everyone knew about Tulip Mania. I'm sure it's in Wikipedia, look it up. It's probably the first known "bubble" in recorded history. Tulip bulbs were being bought, sold, and speculated on at insane prices. Sometimes a bulb was worth many many times what a skilled craftsman would make in a year.
You know, somehow I missed that one. I've literally never heard of it... thanks for the info.
And, in case anybody thinks they're kidding, this and this are what I tracked down.
So, in 10 or 15 years, when everyone has grown up being kept away from anything remotely dangerous, not allowed outside, and being pandered to to be sure we don't hurt their feelings as we try to teach them to spell... why do I foresee an entire generation of children who are too stupid and sheltered to do anything, and too spoiled and coddled to understand why they're not magically having the world care for them and give them everything they want?
I mean, OK, sure... when we were kids, you could get cut, or break something, or maybe even really poke someone's eye out. Surprisingly few people actually did, though. Only the really psychotic kids, or the ones who really did need the helmet and the short bus were ever actually kept away from this kind of thing.
We already know that kids don't really understand basic science well enough to go into university and not be completely wrong about how things work. Chemical free chemistry sets? Wow... let's wait for the generation that is raised entirely with safety scissors, glitter, and nothing but comforting reassurance that it's OK to spell words any way you please, and who cares what 2+2 is?
"Doomed as a species" comes to mind. At the very least... the places that aren't intentionally educating their children to be simpletons will have an advantage.
How much of this is fear of litigation, and how much is fear of children becoming terrorists as they learn how to make pipe bombs?
Slashdot Mirror
Or, no more complicated than the tradecraft of cold-war era spies.
This sounds like nothing more than well-established stuff that likely goes back to WWII if not before, and that you can read about in any Tom Clancy novel.
Who knew ... the easiest way to avoid getting detected by a massive, international signals intelligence network, is to not use methods that give them anything to listen to.
I'm completely shocked ... next thing they'll tell us about one-time-pads.
Oh, the irony of being called dumb by someone who is illiterate.
So, the US has more or less decided to pass an extra-territorial law?
If a domain is registered in another country, and not with a US owned TLD, what gives the US standing for this? Because they say so? WTF does it mean to sue a domain name?
And what will happen when someone in Iran decides to sue a US based organization for some form of defamation or violating their beliefs/hurting their feelings? Lawmakers need to realize they can't just go around passing laws that reach outside of their borders and jurisdiction ... otherwise, everyone will be guilty of breaking laws in every other country.
This is quite sad, and demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of either the technical or jurisdictional issues of the internet.
Are you seriously under the impression that they'll only provide this information to the owners of the corporate cards?
Once they've identified this as data that people are interested in, and willing to pay for ... they will likely do what every other company with your private data does ... sell it to third parties to make even more profit.
In fact, my money is on them already having done so.
In the last week I've seen ads for "xforex.com" which are basically foreign exchange scams promising a 500% ROI.
I've definitely seen ads for 'online pharmacies', and possibly even for 'replica watches' ... I don't think Google cares about who they sell ads to, as long as they sell them.
I stand corrected ... ISPs don't have Common Carrier status, but some people think they should to prevent them from being able to pull stuff like this.
Right now they get the protections of saying "we're not responsible for what goes over the network" while at the same time saying "it's our network, and we'll filter it as we choose".
Kind of like how Pay Pal isn't a 'bank', merely someone people entrust their money to but can't expect the same legal protections as a bank when they decide to keep your money.
Well, then hopefully they lose any status as a common carrier ... if they're going to selectively decide you're not allowed to visit a site, they should be responsible for ensuring that nobody can ever reach kiddie porn or whatnot.
Of course, now that the FCC person who approved the merger is their lobbyist, I'm sure they'll be able to do whatever they want to, as they have a direct line on who to bribe to get their way. I mean, if you rule in their favor, they'll offer you a a much larger salary in a few months time for your troubles.
Here in Canada, they actually passed a law saying you can't be a lobbyist for a couple of years after leaving government service.
I think it's hard to trust the decisions of someone who approved a merger, and then a few months later goes on to be a lobbyist for that entity. It's hard not to believe that there aren't ethical (if not legal) issues which arise from this.
I'm actually surprised that this is still legal -- it definitely makes one seriously distrust the lobbyist economy -- it's way too stacked in favor of the companies who can throw money at getting whatever outcomes they want. So much for democracy.
In this case, I'd say take them to a place where they will be applying actual brands would be more appropriate. You know, the hot metal kind.
That'll teach them about a 'branding' strategy. ;-)
Now, that is depressing -- everyone pays more because they asked us to use less, and now they need to offset that.
That, and the fact that in Ontario only a small part of your bill is related to consumption ... you've got your debt retirement fees, your service fees, your executive-hooker-and-bonus fees, the because-we-said-so fees.
Same goes for natural gas.
Leaving ordinary people unable to afford to flush their toilets, and rich people with lush, green lawns.
The market doesn't solve problems like this very well, contrary to what people seem to believe.
That's because TCP/IP support was late coming to Windows, and you had to add it in with 3rd party stuff.
Seems to me it wasn't until '95 when Windows actually shipped with built-in network support.
I'm betting IPX/SPX wouldn't have been needed had Windows supported TCP/IP earlier.
Well, I'm glad to see there's no longer just two personality types. :-P
And ... the vacuous, shallow socializing of school children don't always equate to valuable life skills. Who would have thunk it?
Though, from the sounds of it, they come in handy if you're a teacher. :-P
I wonder if there are other occupations which still carry forward the high-school level of mentality for this kind of thing.
WTF is a "class-c" geek? Is there some designation hierarchy I'm unaware of?
I've been a geek for almost my entire life, and I have no idea what you're talking about.
Sadly, English doesn't work that way. Words variously come from Latin, French, German -- possibly a couple more.
There's a lot of cases where trying to give someone hard, fast rules just won't work. There's certain kinds of mistakes I hear made by people whose first language isn't English ... and when you really think about the syntax, and ponder the syntax of their starting language, sometimes it's pretty easy to look at the mistake and conclude it's a perfectly logical thing to do ... but, it's still wrong because English has a lot of really strange rules. At which point, I just ignore it.
I think trying to reconcile the things that "sound" alike but are spelled differently is probably futile. The number of homonyms in the English language is probably quite large.
Which is why this stuff is covered so much in grade school -- I suspect if you didn't internalize all of these by the time you're out of high school, it's too late and you'll never get them right.
So, the obvious question is how much is this going to affect the cost of a phone?
The manufacturers won't absorb it, the carriers won't absorb it, which means the consumers will be paying for this.
I suspect this will add to the cost of a new phone. And, as a Canadian, I fear that since our phones are largely imported from the US, we'll end up paying for a feature which we won't even be using.
I'm not sure that short of buying them again, that I could replace my entire bookshelves with digital versions.
Even if I could buy them in digital format (and I'm betting more than half I couldn't), the cost would likely be prohibitive to replace all of the books that I've accumulated through a lifetime that I refuse to live without. They'd want to charge me full retail for them damned things again.
I've got some old editions of books (nothing rare or expensive), and some which I'm pretty sure are out of print. I've also got literally dozens of cookbooks which I wouldn't be able to replace.
There's just no practical way I can get digital versions of all of these. My text books from university, for instance, are not something I can easily replace for a digital version.
That's probably true of anybody occupying 344 square feet -- people who live in lofts and other tiny spaces come up with some pretty amazing ways of actually utilizing the space.
People who are completely disorganized would probably never be able to occupy a space like this. Me, for instance. I can't fathom living in that small of a space, let along being that organized with it.
However, if you do it right, you can make a small space seem far more usable/big than it would appear. I'm betting for an architect in Hong Kong, there's likely a lot of demand from others in very small spaces -- I suspect square footage is at a premium. So, if he's got a working space he lives in, it's probably a good reference to say "oh, sure, I can help with that problem".
Well, that will let you make a statement without running the risk of inflicting bodily harm and having to pay the legal price for it.
Dogshit sounds like a nice "FU" without too much in possible ramifications.
Well, not only would they get you for mucking about with government property (that you couldn't have known was actually there) ... but, I suspect if you laid such a trap, you might find yourself running afoul of several other laws.
I suspect you might get yourself a couple of felony charges out of the deal.
Throw it away, stick it to another car ... sure, it's a foreign object attached to your car with nothing to indicate it has any official status. But, really, I think if you leave something with acid in it to be "discovered" by these guys you will have likely entered into territory you might live to regret.
I'm sure you'd be horribly wrong.
When you see some of these news stories about some of these people having hundreds of thousands of images, if not millions, it really must be on a rather large scale.
About a 15+ years or so ago, back when we all used the alt.binaries.pictures* tree in usenet I stumbled on some. This was before people were largely aware of it, so it was less known and publicized. I reported it, and then felt the need to rinse my brain out with bleach ... I really wish I could get that fully out of my head. It's not something you can 'unsee'. It skeeves me out to think of it, really. If one or two images are seared into my head forever, then I can only pity the poor bastards who have to do this as part of law enforcement. I shudder at having to look through vast quantities of it to try to identify victims or perpetrators.
I agree that 41% of all of the FBI work done for "cyber" crime for child porn is a huge percentage. But, I don't think I'd want to downplay the scope of it or the damage it does. I guess if people want it to be pursued in that proportion, fine. But, I guess it's like breast cancer vs the other cancers -- everybody focuses on breast cancer, and it proportionally gets a lot more funding.
Am I reading the Onion?
I mean ... that's just bizarre!!
And, really, until it can master all of the places where you can use "said the actress|bishop to the bishop|actress", it will always be incomplete. =)
Now, if you can make a computer program that can follow innuendo, as well as process the use of profanity in the English language ... you'll be onto something.
I mean, the fucking use of the word fuck is in and of itself a fucking difficult thing for the fuckers to fucking figure out -- until then, they're pretty much fucked. Try hard enough, and you can make fuck into every single fucking part of speech, except maybe for those fucked up articles.
And, of course, one of the best uses of it ever ... fuck you, you fucking fuck. =)
You know, somehow I missed that one. I've literally never heard of it ... thanks for the info.
And, in case anybody thinks they're kidding, this and this are what I tracked down.
That's just funny.
So, in 10 or 15 years, when everyone has grown up being kept away from anything remotely dangerous, not allowed outside, and being pandered to to be sure we don't hurt their feelings as we try to teach them to spell ... why do I foresee an entire generation of children who are too stupid and sheltered to do anything, and too spoiled and coddled to understand why they're not magically having the world care for them and give them everything they want?
I mean, OK, sure ... when we were kids, you could get cut, or break something, or maybe even really poke someone's eye out. Surprisingly few people actually did, though. Only the really psychotic kids, or the ones who really did need the helmet and the short bus were ever actually kept away from this kind of thing.
We already know that kids don't really understand basic science well enough to go into university and not be completely wrong about how things work. Chemical free chemistry sets? Wow ... let's wait for the generation that is raised entirely with safety scissors, glitter, and nothing but comforting reassurance that it's OK to spell words any way you please, and who cares what 2+2 is?
"Doomed as a species" comes to mind. At the very least ... the places that aren't intentionally educating their children to be simpletons will have an advantage.
How much of this is fear of litigation, and how much is fear of children becoming terrorists as they learn how to make pipe bombs?