So Vodafone owes the compensation to the people spied on, particular the Europeans where we have the right to privacy and this is illegal. You can't legally be paid to break laws.
They can just pass new laws retroactively making the practice legal in the instances where it involved national security, so the corporations that cooperated will no longer be on the hook. Worked for the USA.
Explosions don't kill people, lack of oxygen to the brain kills people.
It doesn't help though if an explosion/bomb/sudden stop/fall makes all your blood fall out and not reach your brain.
So 2 years out of date and irrelevant to the discussion.
All of google is now blocked, even Chinese companies trying to advertise overseas with Google are having trouble.
Everyone can still use a VPN to get around it though, but it's just one more hoop to jump through.
Even assuming everything goes according to Chinas plan and the entire US is turned into a radioactive wasteland with absolutely zero survivors and not a thing left standing.
US subs will still completely destroy China in retaliation, just like I already mentioned.
It's pointless.
You could have all the comms and spy satellites that you like and still be vulnerable to a first strike from beneath the sea, so they aren't really gaining anything here anyway. (Well they are gaining things in other areas, but not for a nuke first strike)
divide 2013 up into 1st half and 2nd half if you want to compare totals and make that claim regarding totals.
I believe I already did. 130 divided by 2 is 65.
The amount for the first 6 months of 2014 is a 100% or more increase on the amount in the second half of 2013.
Or , The amount for 6 months of 2014 is a 100% or more increase on the corresponding period in 2013
Take your pick. I'm not sure why you think a 1 year time frame is somehow magical when counting amounts.
The first 6 months of 2014 has seen a 100% increase in vulnerabilities compared to the previous 6 months.
They already mentioned that the timeframe of interest in the first line of the summary was 6 months.
The amount 133 is ~twice as big as 65.
The amount has increased by more than 100%.
Even after looking at the full report, I see no actual numbers for how many vulnerabilities there were.
How this was modded insightful I'll never know.
Someone must be exploiting a vulnerability in your pdf viewer/browser that is causing it to not work properly (IE maybe), because mine clearly shown in the appendix at the bottom.
Internet explorer:
2013 130 vulnerabilities
H1-2014 133 vulnerabilities
So how can you compare any numbers like this if you don't relate them to a timeframe? Are you trying to say that the graph gives no information whatsoever about the change in number of vulnerabilities? As that seems like nonsense to me.
Comparing this 6 months to the previous 6 months is a clear doubling, unless you have data to show vulnerabilities only ever occur in the first half of any given year. The graph is a summary of the data, clearly the researchers who have access to the raw data would have told us about such weird distribution, and it would be fraudulent of them not to.
Are they intentionally misleading us, or are people here simply slightly confused comparing 1 year of results to 6 months?
Staying the same numerical value is a '100% increase' if the time-frame you are discussing is 1/2 as long as before.
Don't worry, you're not the only person to fail at reading comprehension while trying to display you mathematical prowess.
No they really have already increased 100%.
The trend may continue in the future or it may not, but as of right now the amount of vulnerabilities per unit time is twice as much,or 100% more, than in the past.
Eye-balling from the graph, last year averaged ~10 per month, this year is averaging ~20 per month. A 100% increase.
Slashdot Mirror
Who said the Egyptians were going to build it and not sell the designs to the Chinese/Russians?
So Vodafone owes the compensation to the people spied on, particular the Europeans where we have the right to privacy and this is illegal. You can't legally be paid to break laws.
They can just pass new laws retroactively making the practice legal in the instances where it involved national security, so the corporations that cooperated will no longer be on the hook. Worked for the USA.
Why would the Germans do this?
It's much more sporting to have your NSA or equivalent do it.
Wow, 8 releases and they are still playing catch up.
They must have some pretty shitty developers then.
Explosions don't kill people, lack of oxygen to the brain kills people.
It doesn't help though if an explosion/bomb/sudden stop/fall makes all your blood fall out and not reach your brain.
So 2 years out of date and irrelevant to the discussion. All of google is now blocked, even Chinese companies trying to advertise overseas with Google are having trouble. Everyone can still use a VPN to get around it though, but it's just one more hoop to jump through.
National security protects the Chinese from the WTO just as successfully as it protects the US.
The only person blinded by anything here is you coldie. Too many fairies in your eye, or is it angels I can never remember?
every branch of every science was founded by theists.
And all adults were once babies, what is your point?
Eventually it's time to grow up.
Just because they don't want the riff raff learning things, doesn't mean the people they want to know stuff won't know this stuff.
Right click on slashdot's little picture in your browser shortcuts and choose delete. bye bye.
Are you trying to say Atheists or Spock have no heart?
Rubbish either way, You don't need to be subservient to fairy-tales to have a heart.
Of course your 'allowed to' say them, how else will they build up a big database of who to target in the future?
This is Slashdot. A false and misleading article is as good as the truth.
As good as, HUH it's better.
more clicks.
On February 21, 2008, USA destroyed a malfunctioning U.S. spy satellite USA-193 using a RIM-161 Standard Missile 3.
Even assuming everything goes according to Chinas plan and the entire US is turned into a radioactive wasteland with absolutely zero survivors and not a thing left standing.
US subs will still completely destroy China in retaliation, just like I already mentioned.
It's pointless.
You could have all the comms and spy satellites that you like and still be vulnerable to a first strike from beneath the sea, so they aren't really gaining anything here anyway. (Well they are gaining things in other areas, but not for a nuke first strike)
I didn't realise how backwards American healthcare was. The rest of us had those things last century.
outcome would be both countries being completely destroyed. It's just simple deterrence, same as everyone else.
Close, but no cigar. last year was 65 per six months, this year its 133 per six months.
divide 2013 up into 1st half and 2nd half if you want to compare totals and make that claim regarding totals.
I believe I already did. 130 divided by 2 is 65.
The amount for the first 6 months of 2014 is a 100% or more increase on the amount in the second half of 2013.
Or , The amount for 6 months of 2014 is a 100% or more increase on the corresponding period in 2013
Take your pick. I'm not sure why you think a 1 year time frame is somehow magical when counting amounts.
The first 6 months of 2014 has seen a 100% increase in vulnerabilities compared to the previous 6 months.
They already mentioned that the timeframe of interest in the first line of the summary was 6 months.
The amount 133 is ~twice as big as 65.
The amount has increased by more than 100%.
Even after looking at the full report, I see no actual numbers for how many vulnerabilities there were.
How this was modded insightful I'll never know.
Someone must be exploiting a vulnerability in your pdf viewer/browser that is causing it to not work properly (IE maybe), because mine clearly shown in the appendix at the bottom.
Internet explorer:
2013 130 vulnerabilities
H1-2014 133 vulnerabilities
So how can you compare any numbers like this if you don't relate them to a timeframe? Are you trying to say that the graph gives no information whatsoever about the change in number of vulnerabilities? As that seems like nonsense to me.
Comparing this 6 months to the previous 6 months is a clear doubling, unless you have data to show vulnerabilities only ever occur in the first half of any given year. The graph is a summary of the data, clearly the researchers who have access to the raw data would have told us about such weird distribution, and it would be fraudulent of them not to.
Are they intentionally misleading us, or are people here simply slightly confused comparing 1 year of results to 6 months?
Staying the same numerical value is a '100% increase' if the time-frame you are discussing is 1/2 as long as before.
Don't worry, you're not the only person to fail at reading comprehension while trying to display you mathematical prowess.
No they really have already increased 100%.
The trend may continue in the future or it may not, but as of right now the amount of vulnerabilities per unit time is twice as much,or 100% more, than in the past.
Eye-balling from the graph, last year averaged ~10 per month, this year is averaging ~20 per month. A 100% increase.