The fact that vulnerabilities are happening so fast that we can't even catalog them speaks pretty poorly for our industry. There is new code being written today that will have exploitable buffer overflows. Even though this problem has been well documented since probably the seventies. We have things like ASLR that put a band aid on it, but the reality is that the systems we develop are a few more orders of magnitude more complicated that what was built back then. But our tools and techniques haven't advanced much. Sometimes I'm surprised that any non-trivial software even works.
If they bought their house for $10k 40 years ago and its with $100million now but they can't afford those taxes, so they have to take their $100 million and go live in a mansion in the second-best part of town, yes I'm okay with that.
Yes there is. We can provide everybody with a basic income; enough to live in a not-so-populated area, but not enough to live in highly populated areas. This would make it easier for people go get up and leave.
Since writing the original message, I actually RTFA. I know shocking. He clearly wasn't trying to avoid getting caught. He did this regularly. On multiple occasions people had seen him with the device even circulating his picture. It's been pointed out in another post that you could find this with directional equipment. If the police are actively looking for you, a five second burst every thirty seconds would be enough. This might work in combination with other mechanisms of being covert. It would also work if you were smart enough to realize that the game is up and stop doing it once they are passing your picture around!
I agree with you but it's harder to move up the corporate ladder if you are remote. If you really think you have a shot at being a C level in the company, it makes sense to give it a shot. Us grunts need cheap housing.
That's why I don't live there. What I don't understand is why more people don't make that decision. Obviously they see some value in living there, but I question if it is an emotional decision rather than a financial one.
Yes they all happen. Tax increases happen due to the fact that your property just became worth a fortune. I have a tough time garnering much sympathy for these people for the same reason I don't feel bad for traders who have to pay capital gains tax on their investments. Special assessments are a function of an HOA as far as I know. Usually affects condominiums but not related to gentrification. Emnient domain you get fair market value and *should * be able to purchase something compaable.
I forgot about California Prop 13. It doesn't exist other places. However, even in those cities, you don't get gentrified out due to tax increases unless the property value goes *way* up in which case you just had a huge financial gain. Most people would take this deal. I can tell you that if somebody offered me 3x the current market value of my house to move, I'd take it and retire!
If you own your home, you have the huge advantage that you don't get gentrified out and won't be forced to move. The down side is that you may never be able to move. If you rent your house, you run the risk of getting gentrified out and might have to move. Unfortunately it's not an easy problem and most of the proposed solutions seem to do more harm than good.
Yes, but my point is that, under normal circumstances, there isn't an undercover police officer walking around with a directional receiver looking for somebody jamming cell phone signals. AFAIK they don't issue these to every cop. In order to get caught he had to be either extremely unlucky or a habitual offender. My guess is the latter. Probably somebody in network operation for the phone company noticed something strange on a regular basis and this lead to an investigation.
Since he had already been arrested before, he was well aware of the consequences of getting caught. So why take out the device. Keep it hidden somewhere while using it. (Although now that he has a record, he would be a suspect) The probably of their just happening to be undercover police on that train and them knowing what is going on is pretty low. He must have done this enough to arouse a level of suspicion where undercover police were put on the train.
This is more like, habitual offender continues to commit crime in the most public way possible until police feel compelled to arrest him. File this in news of the stupid.
Why are people using their phones on the commute? To make it more tolerable. I'd certainly find talking to somebody I already know and like preferable to hanging out with this guy!
This is true for later model phones using the A7 processor. It's not true for *this* phone. This has been pointed out before, but I can always use an extra +5.
The process of laundering money via casino gambling is well understood. So much so that law enforcement actively looks for it. The basic technique is that you can lose as much as you want anonymously but you can't win large sums anonymously. You find the machines with the right size jackpot above 10k. You put in a few hundred bucks. If you lose, move onto the next machine. If you win, you fill out the paperwork to record the winnings. In the end you have a paper trail of large winnings. Nobody knows how many times you lost a few hundred bucks to win that jackpot so the money is now 'clean.' Of course you can only do this a few times before somebody becomes suspicious. The CTRs will tip off investigators. And so will your tax returns. If trying to launder a lot of money you need multiple people. There are more advanced techniques.
Which is exactly what you want. You walk up to a table or machine anonymously and play. If you lose, you don't tell anybody. If you win, you cash out the profit as clean money that you won gambling. Normally a gambler would want to offset winnings with losses for tax purposes. But if you're goal is laundering, you want to show a win and pay the taxes on it. As I mentioned in a previous post, you get 80c clean per 100c dirty and then pay the tax. But that's the cost of laundering. You *want* the reports of the winnings it's how you make the money clean.
One of the costs of criminal enterprises is that of laundering the money. If you can get 80 cents clean money for each dollar of dirty money, you are doing pretty well.
It may be the most deployed OS, but it's not the most-deployed end-user OS. If you are going to target Linux, using social engineering to install Malware may be very difficult. If you succeed, the person you targeted will most likely end up installing it on a Windows desktop even if they are the Linux admin. To attack infrastructure you use much different techniques.
Perhaps. And this might be the smart thing for them to do. However, what would be smart for this one company to do is not the same as what laws we should have. We should IMHO *want* to protect small creators from those who are bigger and have more resources in order to promote proliferation of culture. As small creators have no profit to speak of, if we require proof of damages, we essentially take away their ability to seek redress when their creations are misappropriated. Although it may be a good idea for them to hire this guy, that doesn't mean it should be the law. For the same reason there shouldn't be a law against jailbreaking your phone. I tried an analogy to wasting beer but at least in the case of wasting beer we could argue that it damages the environment. They own those rights and can choose to forego a profit if they want to. Maybe they are doing that in order to ensure the artistic purity of the brand. Artists do stuff like that.
I don't know about the self-cleaning toilets in Paris, only the ones in Switzerland. For a land-based self-cleaning toilet, it's okay to use a lot of water to rinse away the urine and feces that end up outside the bowl. On a plane you just can't carry as much so you have to be very water efficient. Hence an evacuation system rather than flushing. Nobody has talked about this. And as much as irradiating the germs sounds nice, it doesn't eliminate the gross toilet paper on the floor soaked with urine or the droplets that may be from sloppy hand washing but might be the result of poor aim. I'm thankful every time I take a plane that I have male tooling.
China isn't every going to beat us and that seems to be a boogeyman. Even if we have a few bad regulations, we have free flow of information. If the ministry of information puts out that X kg of some rare earth was mined last year and I build a business around it only to find out it's not true, I go bankrupt. You can't have a competitive economy while information is stifled. The Chinese companies are forced to work with fabricated government information while US companies have access to real information. (Hint: CEOs in the US don't get their news from Fox) That's more valuable than cheap labor and a manipulated currency combined.
The problem with having to prove damages is that it's almost impossible. That's why we often have statutory penalties. If it were necessary to prove an actual loss, a big corporate could run roughshod over a small creator and simply argue that the small business wouldn't have made a lot of money anyway. We assign certain rights to creators. It may be that the pendulum has swung too far in one direction in terms of how long we grant those rights. But requiring proof of damages would do nothing to solve the length of copyright issues and would tilt the playing field further in favor of large companies. I don't think your proposal is the right solution even if it is well intended. For a good example of why not, see what used to happen in the 50s/60s when a black band put out a great song.
With a warrant they can also locate you. And once they're interested in you, they'll go get one. The goal of this measure is to avoid this data being captured for privacy-invasion reasons, not to get away with criminal activity. The two require much different sets of measures. The former is something we should all take an interest in, the later is going to require much more than/. advice.
I can't speak for most ABP users, but I wonder what percentage of/. users disable advertising. I'm eligible to disable it but never have. I might see something interesting. There are clearly times when we *want* ads. I want to know about new, exciting things that might benefit me. Heck the ads on a Google search result are often very useful. I really think the issue is just that so many ads are bad. Heck people used to buy the newspaper for the coupons!
Slashdot Mirror
The fact that vulnerabilities are happening so fast that we can't even catalog them speaks pretty poorly for our industry. There is new code being written today that will have exploitable buffer overflows. Even though this problem has been well documented since probably the seventies. We have things like ASLR that put a band aid on it, but the reality is that the systems we develop are a few more orders of magnitude more complicated that what was built back then. But our tools and techniques haven't advanced much. Sometimes I'm surprised that any non-trivial software even works.
Maybe we find a way to not have so many vulnerabilities. Just a thought.
If they bought their house for $10k 40 years ago and its with $100million now but they can't afford those taxes, so they have to take their $100 million and go live in a mansion in the second-best part of town, yes I'm okay with that.
Yes there is. We can provide everybody with a basic income; enough to live in a not-so-populated area, but not enough to live in highly populated areas. This would make it easier for people go get up and leave.
There's a limit to how much better you can get paid without moving up the ladder. At least the way corporate America works.
Since writing the original message, I actually RTFA. I know shocking. He clearly wasn't trying to avoid getting caught. He did this regularly. On multiple occasions people had seen him with the device even circulating his picture. It's been pointed out in another post that you could find this with directional equipment. If the police are actively looking for you, a five second burst every thirty seconds would be enough. This might work in combination with other mechanisms of being covert. It would also work if you were smart enough to realize that the game is up and stop doing it once they are passing your picture around!
I agree with you but it's harder to move up the corporate ladder if you are remote. If you really think you have a shot at being a C level in the company, it makes sense to give it a shot. Us grunts need cheap housing.
That's why I don't live there. What I don't understand is why more people don't make that decision. Obviously they see some value in living there, but I question if it is an emotional decision rather than a financial one.
Yes they all happen. Tax increases happen due to the fact that your property just became worth a fortune. I have a tough time garnering much sympathy for these people for the same reason I don't feel bad for traders who have to pay capital gains tax on their investments. Special assessments are a function of an HOA as far as I know. Usually affects condominiums but not related to gentrification. Emnient domain you get fair market value and *should * be able to purchase something compaable.
I forgot about California Prop 13. It doesn't exist other places. However, even in those cities, you don't get gentrified out due to tax increases unless the property value goes *way* up in which case you just had a huge financial gain. Most people would take this deal. I can tell you that if somebody offered me 3x the current market value of my house to move, I'd take it and retire!
If you own your home, you have the huge advantage that you don't get gentrified out and won't be forced to move. The down side is that you may never be able to move. If you rent your house, you run the risk of getting gentrified out and might have to move. Unfortunately it's not an easy problem and most of the proposed solutions seem to do more harm than good.
Yes, but my point is that, under normal circumstances, there isn't an undercover police officer walking around with a directional receiver looking for somebody jamming cell phone signals. AFAIK they don't issue these to every cop. In order to get caught he had to be either extremely unlucky or a habitual offender. My guess is the latter. Probably somebody in network operation for the phone company noticed something strange on a regular basis and this lead to an investigation.
Since he had already been arrested before, he was well aware of the consequences of getting caught. So why take out the device. Keep it hidden somewhere while using it. (Although now that he has a record, he would be a suspect) The probably of their just happening to be undercover police on that train and them knowing what is going on is pretty low. He must have done this enough to arouse a level of suspicion where undercover police were put on the train. This is more like, habitual offender continues to commit crime in the most public way possible until police feel compelled to arrest him. File this in news of the stupid. Why are people using their phones on the commute? To make it more tolerable. I'd certainly find talking to somebody I already know and like preferable to hanging out with this guy!
I wish I had a supply of mod points.
This is true for later model phones using the A7 processor. It's not true for *this* phone. This has been pointed out before, but I can always use an extra +5.
The process of laundering money via casino gambling is well understood. So much so that law enforcement actively looks for it. The basic technique is that you can lose as much as you want anonymously but you can't win large sums anonymously. You find the machines with the right size jackpot above 10k. You put in a few hundred bucks. If you lose, move onto the next machine. If you win, you fill out the paperwork to record the winnings. In the end you have a paper trail of large winnings. Nobody knows how many times you lost a few hundred bucks to win that jackpot so the money is now 'clean.' Of course you can only do this a few times before somebody becomes suspicious. The CTRs will tip off investigators. And so will your tax returns. If trying to launder a lot of money you need multiple people. There are more advanced techniques.
Which is exactly what you want. You walk up to a table or machine anonymously and play. If you lose, you don't tell anybody. If you win, you cash out the profit as clean money that you won gambling. Normally a gambler would want to offset winnings with losses for tax purposes. But if you're goal is laundering, you want to show a win and pay the taxes on it. As I mentioned in a previous post, you get 80c clean per 100c dirty and then pay the tax. But that's the cost of laundering. You *want* the reports of the winnings it's how you make the money clean.
One of the costs of criminal enterprises is that of laundering the money. If you can get 80 cents clean money for each dollar of dirty money, you are doing pretty well.
It may be the most deployed OS, but it's not the most-deployed end-user OS. If you are going to target Linux, using social engineering to install Malware may be very difficult. If you succeed, the person you targeted will most likely end up installing it on a Windows desktop even if they are the Linux admin. To attack infrastructure you use much different techniques.
Perhaps. And this might be the smart thing for them to do. However, what would be smart for this one company to do is not the same as what laws we should have. We should IMHO *want* to protect small creators from those who are bigger and have more resources in order to promote proliferation of culture. As small creators have no profit to speak of, if we require proof of damages, we essentially take away their ability to seek redress when their creations are misappropriated. Although it may be a good idea for them to hire this guy, that doesn't mean it should be the law. For the same reason there shouldn't be a law against jailbreaking your phone. I tried an analogy to wasting beer but at least in the case of wasting beer we could argue that it damages the environment. They own those rights and can choose to forego a profit if they want to. Maybe they are doing that in order to ensure the artistic purity of the brand. Artists do stuff like that.
I don't know about the self-cleaning toilets in Paris, only the ones in Switzerland. For a land-based self-cleaning toilet, it's okay to use a lot of water to rinse away the urine and feces that end up outside the bowl. On a plane you just can't carry as much so you have to be very water efficient. Hence an evacuation system rather than flushing. Nobody has talked about this. And as much as irradiating the germs sounds nice, it doesn't eliminate the gross toilet paper on the floor soaked with urine or the droplets that may be from sloppy hand washing but might be the result of poor aim. I'm thankful every time I take a plane that I have male tooling.
China isn't every going to beat us and that seems to be a boogeyman. Even if we have a few bad regulations, we have free flow of information. If the ministry of information puts out that X kg of some rare earth was mined last year and I build a business around it only to find out it's not true, I go bankrupt. You can't have a competitive economy while information is stifled. The Chinese companies are forced to work with fabricated government information while US companies have access to real information. (Hint: CEOs in the US don't get their news from Fox) That's more valuable than cheap labor and a manipulated currency combined.
The problem with having to prove damages is that it's almost impossible. That's why we often have statutory penalties. If it were necessary to prove an actual loss, a big corporate could run roughshod over a small creator and simply argue that the small business wouldn't have made a lot of money anyway. We assign certain rights to creators. It may be that the pendulum has swung too far in one direction in terms of how long we grant those rights. But requiring proof of damages would do nothing to solve the length of copyright issues and would tilt the playing field further in favor of large companies. I don't think your proposal is the right solution even if it is well intended. For a good example of why not, see what used to happen in the 50s/60s when a black band put out a great song.
With a warrant they can also locate you. And once they're interested in you, they'll go get one. The goal of this measure is to avoid this data being captured for privacy-invasion reasons, not to get away with criminal activity. The two require much different sets of measures. The former is something we should all take an interest in, the later is going to require much more than /. advice.
I can't speak for most ABP users, but I wonder what percentage of /. users disable advertising. I'm eligible to disable it but never have. I might see something interesting. There are clearly times when we *want* ads. I want to know about new, exciting things that might benefit me. Heck the ads on a Google search result are often very useful. I really think the issue is just that so many ads are bad. Heck people used to buy the newspaper for the coupons!